1860s: Advanced Civil War weapons

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,429
Likes
5,790
#1
Most of these weapons I have never seen before. And while I have known about the Gatling Machine Gun, some of the other ones appear to belong to a different time frame. They are not as advertised as our regular cannon balls. Yet the below killing machines do appear to pertain to the Civil War era. Somehow it reminded me of those Iranclad Warships which seemingly came from nowhere just in time for the North vs. South conflict.

civil_war_soldiers.jpeg

Civil War Weapons

Ager Machine Gun, Cal. .58, without Carriage
Ager Machine Gun_1.jpg
The maximum effective range, using the caliber .58 Minié-type bullet and a 750-grain powder charge, was 1,000 yards.

The gun was mounted on a light, two-wheeled carriage, with ammunition boxes at either end of the axle, very similar to that used by the mountain guns of the period. It also came equipped with a "manlet" to protect the operator from the fire of small arms.

The Ager gun was a very advanced weapon for the Civil War era. But there was no military demand for a machine gun. Contemporary authorities condemned it as requiring too much ammunition ever to be practical. Also, from the fact that it had only one barrel, they reasoned it could never reach sustained fire to the extent of being considered as an effective arm. Quite a few guns were bought, but they were relegated to covered bridge duty with the Requa battery, there being only a few isolated instances where they were actually used in battle.

The fact that an adequate machine gun mechanism capable of sustained fire existed during the Civil War period can best be verified by a report by a British officer, Major Fosbery, who witnessed a demonstration of the Ager weapon. In his opinion, any weapon consuming such quantities of ammunition was prohibitive from the standpoint of cost and supply. He scoffed at the idea of a single barrel being able to stand the unheard-of feat of discharging from 100 to 120 bullets a minute.

Major Fosbery, an inventor in his own right, felt he had expressed adequately the consensus of all military reasoning when he appended the following to his report: "The only thing forgotten seems to be that, when firing at the rate of 100 discharges a minute, the flame of 7,500 grains of exploded powder and nearly 7 pounds of lead would pass through a single barrel in that time. The effect during the trial proved that the barrel first grew red and nearly white hot, and large drops of fused metal poured from the muzzle, and the firing had to be discontinued from fear of worse consequences."

Further proof of the existence of a serviceable machine gun during the Civil War is unnecessary. It would be considered a severe test even now to fire a weapon either continuously or in short bursts of sufficient duration to heat thebarrel until molten metal ran from the muzzle end.

As early as 1861, the Ager gun was being considered for service. The gun's reliability, during test, had been proved, and the armed forces were at last interested, but the official records show that no one would request unreservedly its purchase.

President Lincoln, himself, made a direct inquiry about the feelers that were being put out by the Army concerning the possible use of the coffee mill guns, and asked whether the Army actually wanted them or not.

The following exchange of correspondence and memoranda among the President, a representative of the makers of the gun, and General McClellan illustrates clearly the reluctance of the armed service to demand boldly something new—even if the time was desperate and the weapon in question had been proved to be reliable enough for consideration.
Claxton Machine Gun, Cal. .69
Claxton Firing Mechanism_1.jpg
Of the other firing mechanisms that appeared soon after the stimulus of war, the most notable was the Claxton. This weapon consisted of two rifle barrels placed side by side on a framework in such a manner that the pair of the barrels were always in alignment with the two sliding breech mechanisms. This temporarily formed a double-barrel breech-loading rifle that operated by the manipulation of a pump handle located between the two breech actions.

The handle was worked by one man, while another fed the cartridges by hand into a short magazine feeder. Rapidity of fire was governed by the physical ability of the soldier to work the handle to and fro.

The gun could be mounted on a carriage somewhat like the Ager, and with the same kind of shield arrangement to protect the operator. This device was of ingenious construction in that it gave full protection to the gunner and still allowed freedom of action in operating and servicing the weapon.

The various officers and military representatives who attended the tests and demonstrations, conducted by the producers of the Claxton weapon, were not impressed by its performance. According to the general opinion, it was of too frail a construction. The manual feeding was far from positive and had a tendency towards an erratic rate of fire. The whole procedure was slowed until 80 rounds a minute was considered maximum.

The weapon was invented by F. S. Claxton, son of Alexander Claxton, a well-known American naval officer. After the weapon failed to receive the interest expected, young Claxton took his invention to France and introduced it to the French service. The same weakness in construction was noted in France. It was later taken to England and manufactured by the Guthrie & Lee Explosive Arms Co., and is sometimes erroneously known as the Guthrie and Lee. Records of its actual use are very limited. However, its mechanism was revised by a Scandinavian engineer and after much refinement was popularized two decades later as an original European design.
Vandenberg Volley Gun, Cal. .50. 85-Barrel Model Used by the Confederates
Vandenberg Volley Gun_1.jpg

Vandenberg Volley Gun_2.jpg

  • This gun had from 85 to 451 barrels
Caliber .45 using a 530-grain lead bullet, many authorities of that day considered it superior to the continental model. Depending on the size of the projectile for which it was designed, the gun had from 85 to 451 barrels. The breech was removable, and was positioned fore and aft by a screw; it was guided into place by a key-way, which, when fitted, brought the holes in the breech end in alignment with those in the stationary barrels.

In order to overcome the escape of gas and smoke at the point where the breech end joined the barrels, the forward end of each chamber was counterbored, and a short copper sleeve, cone-shaped, was placed ahead of the bullet. Upon forcing the breech in place by the screw leverage, the copper piece was crushed into position to form a gas-tight seal or gasket.

The method of ignition was unique in that the center charge was fired by percussion and ignited the whole volley simultaneously. However, by plugging off the vents, or ignition galleries, in advance, the discharge of the piece could be regulated to fire by sections of one-sixth, one-third, or one-half of the group. The other sections remained charged, ready to be fired by inserting a new percussion cap, and opening the formerly plugged orifices.

General Vandenberg also made a loading machine for facilitating the charging of the many chambers in the breech. The device, when placed on dowels, was in proper position over the holes in the chambers. By manipulating a lever, measured charges of powder were dropped simultaneously into every chamber. This mechanism could be removed quickly, to be replaced by another containing lead balls. When properly positioned, the latter dropped the bullets into place. A ramming device was then put on, and all charges were compressed at once by the action of a lever on the loading plungers.

It can readily be seen how by three operations all chambers could be loaded in a relatively short time.
Gorgas Machine Gun, Cal. 1.25
Gorgas Machine Gun, Cal. 1.25.jpg
Another machine gun, under construction by the Southern forces, was the invention of their Chief of Ordnance, Maj. Gen. Josiah Gorgas, C.S.A., (1818-83). It was a single-barrel, cast-iron, smooth-bore affair, caliber 1.25 inches.
The barrel is fastened by an eye and wedge key to a heavy cast-iron horizontal plate. This plate extends under part of the barrel, is circular in rear of the barrel and has an extension to the rear; the rear part contains gearing which is operated by a hand lever. This gearing rotates a horizontal ring contained in the circular portion of the horizontal plate. There are 18 copper-lined muzzle loading chambers on the outside circumference of the ring, and 18 corresponding percussion cap nipples on the inner circumference. Under these nipples and on the ring are the same number of cams; these cams act successively on a lever which withdraws a hammer and compresses a firing spring when the ring is rotated from left to right. The hammer is released as it reaches the end of the cam. The trunnion piece is pivoted underneath the front of the horizontal plate. A lever and loading piston, on the right of the barrel and attached to the horizontal plate, rams home the charges in succession as the ring is rotated and the chambers are seated behind the barrel. The gun is mounted on a pivot that allows it to be moved in azimuth.

General Gorgas was born in Dauphin County, Pa., was a West Point graduate, class of 1841, and an outstanding artilleryman during the Mexican War; he resigned his commission in 1861 and was made Chief of Ordnance of the Confederacy. His own version of a machine gun was not perfected in time to be tested in battle. However, his tactical use of the light and mobile smooth bore cannon, using canister or grapeshot, somewhat in the form of an oversized shotgun, was employed with deadly effect against personnel. It showed the lethal results of concentrated fire and the need for controlling dispersion. This, no doubt, made foreign observers take an interest in any weapon that might come in this category.
Farwell Machine Gun, Cal. .45 (Experimental Model).
Farwell Machine Gun, Cal. .45.jpg
A machine gun of novel design was originated by Mr. W. B. Farwell of New York City in 1870. This weapon, while quite odd from an operational standpoint, was similar in appearance to the many multibarrel guns that were introduced shortly after the Civil War. It was of very heavy metal construction and had four octagon-shaped barrels chambered for the black powder caliber .45-70 standard infantry rifle cartridge.

The operating mechanism consists primarily of an assembly of gear racks and heavy screw threads. It is actuated by the clockwise rotation of a handle located on the right side of the gun. Each barrel has its own individual bolt, having an upper and a lower rack attached to its rear end, through which the bolts are given a reciprocating motion by segmental pinions. At each revolution of the gear wheel the clutch causes the pin to engage temporarily the drive wheel to which is imparted a partial stoppage in the rotation movement. This pause takes place immediately after firing, thereby providing a time lag in case of a hangfire. The cartridges are led by means of a box located over and to the rear of the chambers. The ammunition container has four double-feed slots, or a set of two for each barrel. A peculiar arrangement called the shutter by the inventor is also incorporated in the feed system. Actuated by the bolt's retracting action, this device permits the dropping of a cartridge in the feed slot only when the bolt is far enough back to allow the positioning of the round for chambering.

When the feeder is loaded and latched on top of the gun, a double row of ammunition sits above the loading recess of each barrel. However, the rounds will not drop until the feeder is moved slightly to the right or left enough to create an opening greater than the over-all width of the case. When the weapon is firing, the shutter merely moves the feed box right and left as the empty loading recesses are opened by the rearward action of the bolt.

The operating mechanism is unusual in design, especially the locking and retraction methods. These novel features employ telescoping tubing both as bolt and breech lock. The inner
tube carries the firing pin assembly and also serves as the final support behind the base of the cartridge when fired. The outer tube has a rotary rather than a longitudinal movement. It is provided internally with a screw thread which when revolved imparts the reciprocating action to the inner tube. The forward advance of the lower tube chambers the round and fires it while its withdrawal rearward extracts and ejects the empty cartridge case. The rate of fire is probably unusually low, since the actuation of the parts is dependent upon the screw thread method for reciprocating motion.

The weapon could be assembled and disassembled readily with all working parts easily removable for inspection or cleaning. The inventor claimed that, while firing, each barrel could be moved so as to give converging or scattered fire. The mounting of the large flat ammunition box made it necessary to incorporate an offset sight. It was the first appearance of a feature that was used extensively in later years. Only one of the guns was ever made. Since there were so many better weapons already in existence, no one could be interested in financing its production.
Mitrailleuse Type Weapons
Mitrailleuse Type Weapons_1.jpg


The Chassepot Rifle Cartridge that Was Used in the Mitrailleuse.
Chassepot Rifle Cartridge that Was Used in the Mitrailleuse..jpg


De Reffye Mitrailleuse, a 25-Barreled Version as Modified by the French Ordnance Officer.
De Reffye Mitrailleuse, a 25-Barreled Version as Modified by the French Ordnance Officer.jpg
The successful employment by the Confederates of light cannon firing grapeshot caused a wave of inventions to correct the greatest weakness in this method of using artillery. The cannon were smooth bore, and, like fowling pieces, had limited accuracy. The gunner had little or no control over the placement of the individual grapeshot.

The inventors reasoned that if there were 50 balls in a charge or canister, and 30 were wasted in the scatter effect, a concentrated accurate fire, using an equal number of projectiles, would be even more deadly than the already revolutionary tactics of Generals Gorgas and Bragg.

Developmental approach was along two lines, representing separate and distinct schools of thought. One was the volley system, strongly favored by European armies, whereby a number of barrels were grouped in a plane, parallel or in stacks; and could be fired simultaneously and reloaded rapidly. The other viewpoint, strictly American, employed one or more barrels that did not fire simultaneously, but instead developed a high rate of fire from simplicity of action. In lieu of the volley, it fired in rapid succession a veritable stream of bullets.

To impress military authorities and advertise an improved means of delivering the universally used grapeshot, European inventors called their firing mechanisms "mitrailleuse," meaning "grapeshooter," or more literally "grapeshot shooter." By this name they hoped to imply that theirs was a system for controlling the dispersion of grapeshot.

The general principle was not new. It appears to have been invented originally by Captain Fafschamps of the Belgian Army in 1851. His rough prototype and finished mechanical drawings were offered to Joseph Montigny. This noted Belgian engineer and armorer had his factory at Fontaine l'Eveque, and a branch of his gun business at Brussels.

Later, Montigny constructed some guns of this kind for the defense of the Belgian fortifications. In 1867 he persuaded Emperor Napoleon III of France to introduce the improved Fafschamps gun (now bearing Montigny's name) to the military authorities. Napoleon III was so impressed with the gun that he ordered its manufacture under great secrecy by Commandant de Reffye at the arsenal at Meudon. Montigny had been aided by Louis Christophe, another Belgian ordnance engineer, who added some unique features.

The Montigny gun consists of 37 rifled barrels contained in a wrought iron tube. It is loaded by an iron plate bored with 37 matching holes corresponding in position and number to the barrels. A cartridge is inserted in each hole of the loading plate. The firing mechanism is operated by a hand crank, one turn of which in a clockwise direction fires all 37 rounds in less than a second. If the gunner prefers, each barrel may be fired alternately at any speed desired. The average rate of fire by a competent crew has been recorded as 12 bursts, or 444 shots a minute.

When the loading plate is dropped into position, the encased cartridges are alined with their chambers. Grooves formed on the face of the breechblock receive the plate which, upon being dropped into it, is guided by the advance or withdrawal of that piece.

With the cartridges in place, the gunner rotates the loading crank with his left hand. The breechblock advances, pushing the plate forward until the projectiles enter their appropriate barrels. The plate serves as firing chamber. By this act of locking the weapon, the spring-loaded firing pins are brought back to the seared position, ready for firing. As it cannot be cocked until the weapon is securely locked, accidental discharge is impossible. The neck of the cartridge case
extends into the barrel just enough to form a tight seal preventing gas leakage.

The gunner now quits the loading crank and takes his position by the firing crank at the right side of the gun. He can fire all of the barrels by one swift turn, or slowly space each shot as he sees fit. When the last barrel has been discharged, the operator backs off the loading crank, opening the breech. He then reverses the firing crank, returning the sear, and withdraws the empty cases from the barrels by means of the plate, which now performs the function of an extractor--or rather 37 extractors in one. The plate is then lifted from the positioning grooves carrying with it the empty cases, and is replaced by one filled with loaded cartridges ready for repeating the operation.

A clever device on the gun trail enables the ordnance man in charge of loading to clear and reload the plate very rapidly. It consists of a series of pins matched to the holes in the loading plate. The plate is placed over these holes, and by shoving down on a hand or foot lever the empty cases are jacked sufficiently to free them. Fresh cartridges are then put in the empty chambers, and the plate is ready to be returned to the gun. Use of several plates was recommended for each gun to eliminate any loading lag.

The weapon weighs in the neighborhood of 2 tons, with limber and 2,100 rounds of an especially designed Chassepot ammunition. This cartridge, used in the French version, is composed of a heavy paper case with a brass base, a powder charge, conical bullet and center-fire cap filled with mercury fulminate. The case features a cone-shaped collar that holds the bullet more securely in place. A light coating of tallow over the entire cartridge helps preserve the round. The over-all length of this ammunition is 4 11/16 inches. It carries a bullet weighing 776 grains and 185 grains of propellant, topped by a felt wad. The powder is formed into cylindrical pellets.

Commandant de Reffye made some corrections on the working drawings. For this reason the weapon has often been called the de Reffye mitrailleuse. The barrels were reduced in number from 37 to 25, the Medford type rifling was adopted, and the ammunition changed from an ill-designed cartridge to the Chassepot, at the suggestion of Major Fosbery of the British Army.

From the arsenal, where the weapon was being produced with much security, came fantastic stories of France's terrible secret weapon. Only the officers and men who worked on its production were ever allowed to see or handle it. When one was completed, it was moved from the factory to storage under tarpaulins and accompanied by armed guards. This air of mystery gave the French press a field day. Stories appeared regularly, intimating the weapon was capable of doing just about anything desired by the military.

The fantastic: publicity was intended to intimidate their victorious Prussian neighbors, whose surprising military success over Austria, in 1866, had been due in great measure to a new infantry weapon, the bolt-action needle gun, a product of the German inventor, Johann Nikolaus von Dreyse (1798-1868). All Europe suddenly became aware of this rifle, and muzzle-loaders were eliminated, either by substitution of new models or by conversion from muzzle- to breech-loading.

France had attempted to supply her infantry with the Chassepot rifle, her answer in the armament race, but had found it impossible to restock the army quickly enough to prepare for coming trouble. The political events of 1867 foreshadowed the Franco-Prussian conflict. Napoleon III sought desperately to overcome the
German arms supremacy. He felt the morale of the French army had been endangered by the achievements of the Prussians with their Zundnadelgewehr (needle gun), and required some strong stimulus to regain prestige. His attention had been called to the Gatling gun, but national pride rebelled at accepting a foreign weapon. However, when he saw the weapon on exhibit at the Paris World's Fair of 1867, he had it withdrawn to Versailles to be tested in his presence. Presumably this weapon embodied Gatling's 1865 improvements, but the French ammunition was of inferior design. The tests were unimpressive; and the Montigny mitrailleuse, already adopted, continued to be ordered as the standard French equipment, 190 being in service at the outbreak of hostilities 3 years later.

The Franco-Prussian War proved the downfall of the weapon. Too many separate operations needed to be done by hand, and in sequence, any one of which, if neglected, would prevent the gun from firing. The firing crank must be reversed after the loading crank has pulled back the breech, otherwise the gun would not sear. The loading crank must then close the breech after the replacement of the loading plate with discharged cases by one filled with complete rounds. Where the Gatling depended on steady rotation of a single crank, its French competitor required constantly changing operations: forward and reverse rotation of two separate cranks, and a pause while the loader removed and replaced the loading plate between each 25 shots. Contemporary foreign writers commented on this complexity and marveled that the French, who usually insisted on simplicity above all else in their guns, should have adopted such a weapon.
Source: Military Operated Machine Guns - link has more weapons including later ones.

Related: Ironclad ships - another example of Tartarian technology?

Special thanks: Goes to @anotherlayer who inadvertently via this post made me stumble into these weapons.

* * * * *
KD: I pretty much have the same question as always. Where is the learning curve which lead to the creation of these weapons? Where is any evidence of research and development which produced the above?

This manual hand cranking is so not fitting the visual appearence of these weapons that my natural though was about some automatic rotating mechanism which for some reason was not available to the Civil War operators. Yep, I do entertain a possibility that they simply located a cache or two of someone elses weapons.
 

sharonr

Active member
Messages
61
Likes
247
#2
I have a few thoughts on this subject, but am not really an artillery person. I'd much rather look at architecture any day, but my dad was an officer in the Marine Corps and I learned how to shoot young.

I did finally go through Volume 1 The photographic history of the Civil War : thousands of scenes photographed 1861-65, with text by many special authorities : Miller, Francis Trevelyan, 1877-1959 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive which is all about the artillaries of both the Federals and the Rebels. All the guns/cannons still look typical civil war steam punk in every picture and it takes you through to the siege of Richmond.

The article you posted does state that they were mostly prototypes, and I can't tell if they are all drawings. Sketchy photos anyway.

This article: Civil War Guns | HistoryNet mentions the Gorgas gun and the Vandenburg volley gun, and other funny accounts of other prototypes being ordered in several cases but not showing up in time, or ever ect...... There is more in the article but it ended with this:

Other Confederate rapid-fire designs like Josiah Gorgas’ revolving turret cannon and the Vandenburg volley gun were limited to prototype models with no recorded use in combat. One source asserts that Confederates used a large-bore version of the Requa at the siege of Charleston, however, and a list of captured ordnance following the January 15, 1865, capture of Fort Fisher has an intriguing reference to one “volley gun” described as “disabled,” which was either a captured Requa or Rebel version of that arm.

The tactical use of machine guns was never committed to the doctrine of either army, but, as with repeating rifles, officers developed local ad hoc methods of employment, most notably with the Requa gun, based on experience.

For the most part, although Requa and Coffee Mill guns were issued to infantry units, as were later machine guns, they were employed as artillery pieces, usually in roles better served by actual artillery. In the end, however, imperfect ammunition combined with a lack of tactical ingenuity assured that the machine gun would fulfill no more than a novelty role in the Civil War.

My thoughts:

1. The Photographic History books are still strange to me. Still looks like people walking around collecting these cannons and ammunitions POST something. People still look fake (I have to stick this here, another FAKE Rebel army):

1538520079682.png

2. I don't see evidence of anything modern. The pictures from your article look drawn, could be from anytime.

3. Does look like they are trying to invent something, using pictures and prototype stories to explain weapons that appear in the next wars. Your article mentions the next war the Franco-Prussian War which was the next faze of development. I guess they have to get to the WWI and WWII weapons somehow.

But I want to leave you with this. This is AMAZING! It weighs 50,000 lbs each. You have to read the description:

1538520505670.png
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
363
Likes
568
#3
I dunno, I have a hard time seeing the evidence of anything too odd with firearms. The concepts of the machinery are dead nuts simple, every gun maker would have crazy pet ideas on how to do any of these things, once 2 things were in common practice.
Those two things are, quality materials (good steel, good barrels, good quality tooling and machines) and standardized ammunition.

I'm still waiting for the gun that shows materials or ammunition that is ahead of its time. Maybe the previous civilization just did big buildings and boats, but no guns.
 

sharonr

Active member
Messages
61
Likes
247
#4
I dunno, I have a hard time seeing the evidence of anything too odd with firearms. The concepts of the machinery are dead nuts simple, every gun maker would have crazy pet ideas on how to do any of these things, once 2 things were in common practice.
Those two things are, quality materials (good steel, good barrels, good quality tooling and machines) and standardized ammunition.

I'm still waiting for the gun that shows materials or ammunition that is ahead of its time. Maybe the previous civilization just did big buildings and boats, but no guns.
To me the artillery in the pictures of the civil war seems fine. I still think the photos from the civil war show less war and more exploring. There was a war, and troops, I just don't think these photos are showing it. I think the photos are Post war.

As for the more modern weapons Korbin is showing, I don't think they were in the civil war era. I'm not sure where they came from, but certainly people can engineer guns.

I guess my point is convoluted with the time frames: I don't think the civil war happened when and how they state. I think the book A Photogrphic History of the Civil War is propaganda and something happened earlier and people are going around photographing it.

As far as the claims of more advanced weapons for the civil war, I just think it's trying to excuse how we engineered more modern weapons for other wars. And try to fit it into the accepted time frame.

Who knows, but these are thoughts I have.
 

CyborgNinja

Well-known member
Messages
175
Likes
544
#5
I was told this by a friend who reads this site so this isn't my point to make but I'll make it anyway,

There is quite a bit of confusion over the US armies failure to move from single shot rifles to more modern Henry repeating rifles during the 1870's.

Now that's not particularly significant but it is if you consider that given our suspicions of the true historical timeline, perhaps the reason the US army didn't adopt these newer rifles even up until the late 1800's or at all really was that these guns didn't exist at that time.

I don't doubt that the Henry repeating rifle came out in 1870 but I do doubt the civil war happened in 1861. I hope I did that explination justice.

Here's a good clip on the issue I'm outlining above:

 

sharonr

Active member
Messages
61
Likes
247
#6
I was told this by a friend who reads this site so this isn't my point to make but I'll make it anyway,

There is quite a bit of confusion over the US armies failure to move from single shot rifles to more modern Henry repeating rifles during the 1870's.

Now that's not particularly significant but it is if you consider that given our suspicions of the true historical timeline, perhaps the reason the US army didn't adopt these newer rifles even up until the late 1800's or at all really was that these guns didn't exist at that time.

I don't doubt that the Henry repeating rifle came out in 1870 but I do doubt the civil war happened in 1861. I hope I did that explination justice.

Here's a good clip on the issue I'm outlining above:


I don't know if you read the post I just posted a minute before yours, but I concur.
 

CyborgNinja

Well-known member
Messages
175
Likes
544
#7
Maybe the previous civilization just did big buildings and boats, but no guns.
Formenko says otherwise. Have you ever wanted to know what a "Roman" cannon might have looked like? (had they had the technology.)

Look no further than the: Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineers and Signal Corps...

ancient-cannons-in-st-petersburg.jpg

Apparently these cannon are from the Crimea war, that's fine but they are the culmination of a technological pedigree starting with the Battle of kulikovo.

Considering the dubious nature of the Crimea war and it's exact details these cannon might really be the beginnings of the "gun age" for ancients. Despite their high level of technology, they had no need for such violent devices. But once the infighting started then they were quick to develop the nessesary tools.

Seriously the whole museum needs it's own article. I'll put that on my to do list.
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,429
Likes
5,790
#8
I will respectfully disagree with normality of the above weapons. From the official history we know, that people were constantly fighting various wars. Yet for at least 300 years the design of the cannons stayed the same. Similar with rifles, only the firing mechanism changed like once or twice within like 350-400 years. Everything else stayed the same.

We are supposed to assume that there was no desire to improve the tools of the trade whatsoever. Below 1581 cannon is identical in nature to the 1841 one. 260 years apart with no difference that is. Actually we could tag additional 100 years to no principle and visual change to those older cannons. Let's go with 300. They were building automatons, but cannons stayed the same.

Then all over sudden this 300 year old stagnation miraculously stops. People wake up and start building advanced designs, different principle weapons. Advanced to the point where soldiers did not even recognize some of them as guns, and thought those were sausage machines.

Personally I am very suspicious to facts like this.

1581 Ottoman cannon
Ottoman_cannon_end_of_16th_century_length_385cm_cal_178mm_weight_2910_stone_projectile_founded...jpg

Ottoman Cannon

Note: As early as 1861, the Ager gun was being considered for service. The gun's reliability, during test, had been proved, and the armed forces were at last interested, but the official records show that no one would request unreservedly its purchase.

"...we have got 2 Union Guns that were presinted to the 28th. they are fired by turning a crank. the faster you turn it the more Rebels it will kill. it will throw a ball 4 miles. I cannot describe it but when the men saw it first they thought it was a sausage machine."

Ager Machine Gun_1.jpg
 

sharonr

Active member
Messages
61
Likes
247
#9
It's hard to tell with history what is what. There are nothing like this in the official "Photographic History" so what am I to say what Rebel soldiers or Federal soldiers thought really of those weapons? I think the civil war is a cover up. So I'm not sure how to answer this one.

These weapons may have existed 1,000 years ago for all I know, but they are not recorded in any photographic evidence and I can't trust written word. I have no idea where or when the actual photographed weapons of the civil war were in use. They could be 2,000 years old for all I know.

I am suspicious also, and I don't think they are facts.
 

sharonr

Active member
Messages
61
Likes
247
#11
Anyway, I am already formulating a new post about timelies. Oops, I mean timelines. (I swear it was a typo). But things are starting to come together in my head about time being completely altered and photographs may be earlier/later than recorded. Even reversed. When you are dealing with a time warp situation things get distorted beyond recognition.

Personally I think we went from more advancement to less advancement. The civil war weapons do look archaic, BUT I think they were littered around the south. Maybe southerners were using these weapons against high energy weapons 50 years before we are told. Why they lost. Maybe around "1816" like so many people are thinking the mudflood/dust bowl happened?

Dates don't make sense so it needs to be thought out.
 
Last edited:

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
256
Likes
870
#12
I was told this by a friend who reads this site so this isn't my point to make but I'll make it anyway,

There is quite a bit of confusion over the US armies failure to move from single shot rifles to more modern Henry repeating rifles during the 1870's.

Now that's not particularly significant but it is if you consider that given our suspicions of the true historical timeline, perhaps the reason the US army didn't adopt these newer rifles even up until the late 1800's or at all really was that these guns didn't exist at that time.

I don't doubt that the Henry repeating rifle came out in 1870 but I do doubt the civil war happened in 1861. I hope I did that explination justice.

Here's a good clip on the issue I'm outlining above:

My family owns one of these civil war muskets, and they look Napoleonic.

Colt had repeating firearms as early as 1838.
Colt_Paterson_Gewehr.jpg

We discussed this in history class, and it made no sense.
The Federals had superior mobilization using the railroads, but they were too frugal to supply the troops with superior firepower?

The Indians have lever and bolt action in 1880. Why the heavy edit with this photo?
Thankfully the reflection cuts off below the waist.
Days Past: Apache scouts in Arizona’s Indian wars

Days_Past2_06-05.jpg

Nice tee pee!

tumblr_o0qvlypCiL1rd3evlo1_1280.jpg

Famous "blackface tribe" or Boston tea party.

Ohio-Indians-wyandotte.jpg
 
Last edited:

gregory5564

Active member
Messages
37
Likes
125
#13
There is a bit of related knowledge which I wanted to share. According to consensual history, the American Civil War was the last major war fought using front-loading muskets. A mere five years after the end of the American Civil War, the Franco Prussian War broke out and both sides were observed to be armed with breech-loading muskets/rifles.

To clarify, back in those days when soldiers used front-loading muskets, they were forced to shoot once, then place powder into the barrel (from the front), then place a bullet into the barrel (from the front). A trained soldier under such circumstances could fire once every 20-30 seconds. With a breech-loading musket, the soldier fires once, then places a bullet into the back of the barrel (near the handle), then fires again. Additionally, there is no separate loading of gunpowder (except in old precursors of breech-loading muskets or rifles). A soldier could fire once every 5-10 seconds. For a famous battle depicting the use of breech-loading rifles, see this scene from the film Zulu Dawn (1979), depicting an 1879 battle:


During the American Civil War, officers and cavalrymen had revolvers which could shoot several shots without reloading. However, the rank-and-file still used front-loading muskets/rifles not dissimilar to those from the Napoleonic War or even before that, the Revolutionary War. The guns were more accurate by that time, due to the use of rifled barrels, but the pragmatics had not really changed. Why were the rank-and-file still using such old, outdated guns which took 20-30 seconds to fire? I haven't seen a good answer. Some have mentioned that breech-loading rifles must have cost more and been less durable. Even if that were the case, wouldn't a 4x increase in the rate of fire be a huge advantage?

And it is the same, in fact, with these machine guns being mentioned. One of these could have taken out an entire platoon of enemy soldiers within minutes, and yet strangely, the consensual history tell us that no one invested in them and consequently they never saw action.
 
Last edited:

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
363
Likes
568
#14
There is a bit of related knowledge which I wanted to share. According to consensual history, the American Civil War was the last major war fought using front-loading muskets. A mere five years after the end of the American Civil War, the Franco Prussian War broke out and both sides were observed to be armed with breech-loading muskets/rifles.

To clarify, back in those days when soldiers used front-loading muskets, they were forced to shoot once, then place powder into the barrel (from the front), then place a bullet into the barrel (from the front). A trained soldier under such circumstances could fire once every 20-30 seconds. With a breech-loading musket, the soldier fires once, then places a bullet into the back of the barrel (near the handle), then fires again. Additionally, there is no separate loading of gunpowder (except in old precursors of breech-loading muskets or rifles). A soldier could fire once every 5-10 seconds. For a famous battle depicting the use of breech-loading rifles, see this scene from the film Zulu Dawn (1979), depicting an 1879 battle:


During the American Civil War, officers and cavalrymen had revolvers which could shoot several shots without reloading. However, the rank-and-file still used front-loading muskets/rifles not dissimilar to those from the Napoleonic War or even before that, the Revolutionary War. The guns were more accurate by that time, due to the use of rifled barrels, but the pragmatics had not really changed. Why were the rank-and-file still using such old, outdated guns which took 20-30 seconds to fire? I haven't seen a good answer. Some have mentioned that breech-loading rifles must have cost more and been less durable. Even if that were the case, wouldn't a 4x increase in the rate of fire be a huge advantage?

And it is the same, in fact, with these machine guns being mentioned. One of these could have taken out an entire platoon of enemy soldiers within minutes, and yet strangely, the consensual history tell us that no one invested in them and consequently they never saw action.
Its all about the ammo. Even the 6 shot pistols of that time were loaded cylinder by cylinder. Only 1 of those machine guns from the op measured powder for each shot. All others used some form of cartridge. First were paper cartridges.

It seems American military in particular, were of the mind that they didn't need a gun that needed factory made (as opposed to made in the field) ammo, and could shoot more in 20 minutes than their entire platoon typically carried into battle.

I don't think the civil war happened at all in the way they say, but I still don't see anything anachronistic about these weapons. It all boils down to ammo and materials.
 
Top