Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Gatling gun on an ironclad?

Expand Messages
  • keeno2@aol.com
    In a message dated 1/10/2009 5:26:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, carlw4514@yahoo.com writes: I seem to be in a mood for this sort of thing this morning. When
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 10, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 1/10/2009 5:26:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, carlw4514@... writes:
      I seem to be in a mood for this sort of thing this morning.
      When the subject was first raised, my first thought was the snipers who fired on all Union ships from the banks of the Mississippi. A little strafing from a Gatlin could have been used to depress that sort of activity. But then, what's the use of the equivalent of an entire regiment loosing a volley against a puff of smoke? You keep his head down until you're out of range. Not exactly cost effective. Not a real deterrent so long as the sniper has a rock or a large tree to duck behind after his damage has been done.
       
      But it remains that very few were built (a dozen or so?), so their actual use was very limited.
       
      Ole



    • Dave Gorski
      The Gatling gun prior to 1865 had many problems. Among them, often the bores of the six barrels failed to align with the chambers. The U.S. Army purchased
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 10, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The Gatling gun prior to 1865 had many problems. Among
        them, often the bores of the six barrels failed to align with the
        chambers. The U.S. Army purchased NONE of Gatling's guns.
        This may have also been due to the falling out of favor of another
        rapid fire weapon, the " Coffee Mill Gun." This weapon was
        prone to breakdown, and was even dangerous to operate.
        A major problem with all rapid fire weapons was that the quality
        of powder used caused fouling after only a few minutes. This
        problem was not corrected until after the war.

        A purchase of 12 Gatling guns was made by Maj. General Ben
        Butler out of his own pocket, and it was these guns that were used
        at Petersburg, the only action Gatling guns saw during the Civil War.

        In January of 1865, after many improvements including going
        to a rim fire copper case cartridge, it was officially adopted by
        the U. S. in 1866.
        The Army misunderstood the potential of the Gatling Gun however,
        assigning it to artillery use, rather than as an infantry infantry weapon.

        Regards, Dave Gorski
      • bango1375
        ... War. ... weapon. ... Is it known of how many casualties the gatling gun inflicted at Petersburg?
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 10, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Dave Gorski <amhistoryguy@...>
          wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > The Gatling gun prior to 1865 had many problems. Among
          > them, often the bores of the six barrels failed to align with the
          > chambers. The U.S. Army purchased NONE of Gatling's guns.
          > This may have also been due to the falling out of favor of another
          > rapid fire weapon, the " Coffee Mill Gun." This weapon was
          > prone to breakdown, and was even dangerous to operate.
          > A major problem with all rapid fire weapons was that the quality
          > of powder used caused fouling after only a few minutes. This
          > problem was not corrected until after the war.
          >
          > A purchase of 12 Gatling guns was made by Maj. General Ben
          > Butler out of his own pocket, and it was these guns that were used
          > at Petersburg, the only action Gatling guns saw during the Civil
          War.
          >
          > In January of 1865, after many improvements including going
          > to a rim fire copper case cartridge, it was officially adopted by
          > the U. S. in 1866.
          > The Army misunderstood the potential of the Gatling Gun however,
          > assigning it to artillery use, rather than as an infantry infantry
          weapon.
          >
          > Regards, Dave Gorski
          >




          Is it known of how many casualties the gatling gun inflicted at
          Petersburg?
        • Sweetsstar@aol.com
          From what I have read none. **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 10, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            From what I have read none. 



          • hank9174
            ... who ... little strafing ... activity. But then, ... volley against ... Not ... has a rock or a ... similar to my thoughts, ole... Ironclads are not
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 12, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, keeno2@... wrote:
              >
              >
              > In a message dated 1/10/2009 5:26:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,
              > carlw4514@... writes:
              >
              > I seem to be in a mood for this sort of thing this morning.
              >
              >
              >
              > When the subject was first raised, my first thought was the snipers
              who
              > fired on all Union ships from the banks of the Mississippi. A
              little strafing
              > from a Gatlin could have been used to depress that sort of
              activity. But then,
              > what's the use of the equivalent of an entire regiment loosing a
              volley against
              > a puff of smoke? You keep his head down until you're out of range.
              Not
              > exactly cost effective. Not a real deterrent so long as the sniper
              has a rock or a
              > large tree to duck behind after his damage has been done.
              >

              similar to my thoughts, ole...

              Ironclads are not anti-personnel weapons. They are built to seek out
              and destroy enemy ships, hence they throw 60, 120 even 350 pound
              rounds. An enemy ship is a target; a lone enemy gunman is a waste of
              ammunition.

              That said, every ship carries rifle-toting Marines, or other men,
              providing close support for boarding and, perhaps, snipers...


              HankC
            • Carl Williams
              I wonder what Porter was going to do with one, if it s true he purchased one
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 12, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                I wonder what Porter was going to do with one, if it's true he
                purchased one

                > That said, every ship carries rifle-toting Marines, or other men,
                > providing close support for boarding and, perhaps, snipers...
                >
                >
                > HankC
                >
              • hank9174
                ... I often wonder that of many purchases of the latest and greatest ;) HankC
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 13, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Williams" <carlw4514@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > I wonder what Porter was going to do with one, if it's true he
                  > purchased one
                  >

                  I often wonder that of many purchases of the 'latest and greatest' ;)


                  HankC
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.