AHC/WI: American Civil War with "vaguely" WW1 technology?

[pattontank12]

So how would it be possible for the American Civil War, starting "roughly" around the same time period to be fought with weaponry closer to that of OTL WW1? That would include both sides using bolt action rifles, with practical metal cartridges (but possibly with black powder), poison gas, breech loading artillery and machine guns (or more likely Gatling and Gardner guns). Along with the possible using mechanized war machines. (war trains, armored steam cars and airships)

Along with the long term ramifications both internal (from the sheer damage and bloodshed of this Alt. ACW) and international (effects on warfare and the response of various European powers from their observations)?

 

[FillyofDelphi]

So how would it be possible for the American Civil War, starting "roughly" around the same time period to be fought with weaponry closer to that of OTL WW1? That would include both sides using bolt action rifles, with practical metal cartridges (but possibly with black powder), poison gas, breech loading artillery and machine guns (or more likely Gatling and Gardner guns). Along with the possible using mechanized war machines. (war trains, armored steam cars and airships)

Along with the long term ramifications both internal (from the sheer damage and bloodshed of this Alt. ACW) and international (effects on warfare and the response of various European powers from their observations)?

I'd actually argue that this Alt. ACW would be less destructive than OTL's version, simply because the Rebels would get walloped that much quicker.

Consider this: the profusion of Gatling Guns and Bolt Action Rifles would make the Confederate charges MUCH bloodier affairs, while their lack of industrial potential means their artillery is going to be constantly short on shells if consumption approchs anything close to WW 1 levels. The situation is also a lot better suited to the general strategic vision of early Northern generals: McClellen has every reason NOT to attack and wait for "Southern Chivalry" to smash itself against his well-drilled troops (The man, if nothing else, knew how to train men: and a well-drilled formation of men armed with bolt-action rifles can pour out near continuous fire), and waiting to attack only when he had a heavy concentration of and well-stocked munition dump for his heavy artillery. I assume we're also looking at a greater profusion of Ironclads and other assorted naval assets: something the North's many shipyards are in a much better position to produce.

Using airships (Which the North would have more of... like they would of everything), reconnaissance would be much easier and allow Union armies to "Shadow" Rebel ones: econimizing movement and boxing the Army of Northern Virginia in. After all, if the Union KNOWS they're trying to disengage and that the route to Richmond (The home of your one major ironworks; which you NEED if you want to produce the modern weapons of this war) is open, then any rebel general knows he's shooting himself in the foot logistically if he tries to seize the initiative. However, staying in one place means his men are vulnerable to the bombardment of superior Union artillery. Attrition: either from abandoning the main rail and river lines or the sheer weight of Union explosives would chew through the inferior Confederate numbers rather quickly, especially their more experienced (And attack-happy) men earlier on in the war. Expect Southern morale and the skills gap between them and their Union counterparts to fall much earlier than in our timeline. There's also the problem of supplies: one can seize the produce of a farm easily enough, but you can't salvage complex industrial output out of a rural economy. You'd have to conscript people into factories specifically to produce the war material, which would just increase civilian resentment and give the Unionist guriellas in the backwaters a shot in the arm, as folks flee from forced labor.

 

[History Learner]

Basically, almost everything was there tech wise to fight a World War I style war.

Tanks? Vulcanized rubber was invented in 1848 and steam powered wagons were not exactly uncommon. Granted, given the available weapons these "Tanks" would function more like self propelled guns, but the similarities are there. Gas warfare? As was noted in a recent thread, the tech to do such was there and the idea was seriously considered. Small arms? Prussians had bolt action weapons since the 1830s and the French had invented the first effective metallic cartridge in the 1840s. Machine guns? First Mitrailleuse was invented in 1851, and the Gatling gun was likewise in 1861. Airplanes? George Cayley's research made such very possible.

As far as industry goes, @Jared once had a thread on the 1850s plan by Planters to turn Birmingham, Alabama into a manufacturing hub. Such would not completely make up the industry difference between the two sides, but it would prevent it from becoming a one sided affair. One big limiting factor for both sides will be the lack of the Haber-Bosch Process, which allowed for mass nitrate production during World War I.

With regards to tactics, I don't foresee the Confederacy doing large numbers of suicidal charges, as they didn't really do such IOTL and certainly would have added incentive not to ITTL.

 

[Saphroneth]

Thing is, the innovations required for most WW1 tech were sort of there, but the really important ones, the ones which changed the nature of warfare, hadn't been invented yet.

Those are:

1) Fully automatic machine guns. Volley guns like the miltrailleuse are not real machine guns, and the Gatling isn't really either - certainly it's not reliable enough.
2) Hydropneumatically recuperating artillery with precise time fuzes. This was what allowed the artillery to get as destructive as it was - without hydropneumatically recuperating artillery it's not possible to conduct indirect fire with any degree of accuracy, and the fuzing is what lets you deluge attackers in shrapnel.
3) Reliable magazine rifles. This was critical in reducing the number of defenders it took to hold a certain length of front while maintaining a high output of fire.
4) Smokeless powder for artillery shells (specifically, Lyddite) which produced more dangerous splinters - and which produced explosions large enough to produce a shell-torn "no man's land".

All of these things took decades of development to get properly working.

Enough of all of these and you enter the WW1 milieu, but without them the attack can still achieve primacy. But even then there's still a problem, which is that the WW1 stalemate was between quite well trained armies - that is, armies which had the basics down pat - that were big enough to absorb the initial losses. An alt-Bull Run with WW1 style weapons sees one side or the other being slaughtered in the open field because their opponents got things going properly first, then the victorious army rips through whatever forts the defeated army tries to retire behind (as WW1 style artillery, indeed rifled artillery, is very effective against forts not built of ferroconcrete) and wins the war pretty quickly.


You can't really advance military technology fifty years - fifty years of extensive OTL development and massive development programs by specialists - just because a few precursor technologies had been technically demonstrated. It's a bit like having the British win at the Somme by dropping Tallboy bombs, or possibly BLUE DANUBE...

 

[Maniakes]

On top of what Saphroneth said, there's also considerable difficulty getting any improved military tech into the hands of the soldiers early in the war. Remember that IOTL, the war started with both sides several decades behind then-current military tech in terms of actual deployed equipment: while both sides did have some modern rifled muskets and rifled artillery, there were nowhere near enough to go around, and many of the early battles were fought mostly with smoothbore muskets of Mexican War or older designs and Napoleonic style field guns. The Confederates even fielded some small units armed with pikes early in the war because they didn't have even enough smoothbores to go around and were still gearing up their manufacturing capacity.

 

[Saphroneth]

If the war had kicked off a decade later, it's possible there'd have been breechloaders lying around abroad to buy up. Specifically, Tabatiére muskets (superseded by the Chassepot) and the Snider (which was being replaced by the Martini-Henry in 1871), as well as plentiful Armstrong artillery guns as they'd all been given up as a bad job by the British. That doesn't lead to WW1 tech, though it does lead to close range firefights being several times more vicious.

Remember that IOTL, the war started with both sides several decades behind then-current military tech in terms of actual deployed equipment

Tricky. I'd say "one decade", though it was an eventful one as the 1850s saw one of the greatest transformations in military equipment in history. (Smoothbore percussion musket and smoothbore artillery to rifled musket and rifled artillery).
But if Napoleon had been on the battlefield in the Civil War, he'd probably have recognized it pretty well - many of the weapons involved had been used against him. British troops had rifles suitable for general issue in the Baker, Brits used Shrapnel shells against him, twelve pounders (Napoleons) were fairly common... rifled artillery was new, as were caplocks and revolvers, but that's about it until 1863-4 and breechloaders making a big appearance.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I'd say by the end of the war the Union at least wasn't that far off. They had repeating carbines. They had manual machine guns. They made extensive use of mechanical transport (steamboats and trains with the river boats being well armoured) They took the war into the air with balloons. There was trench warfare. I don't know if they used breach loaded artillery but as had already been said Britain had some that they could have bought. No tanks, no barbed wire, no gas and no powered flight. Primitive blimps could have been built with steam engines (rather them than me) They could have used armoured traction engines armed with gatlings. For that matter they could have used steam wagons and buses, a commercial steam bus service ran in London in the 1830's.

 

[Saphroneth]

They had repeating carbines. They had manual machine guns.

Neither of these was anything like developed enough for WW1 tech. Repeater carbines were too low powered, for example.

 

[Saphroneth]

They made extensive use of mechanical transport (steamboats and trains with the river boats being well armoured)

Neither of those is remotely close to powered transport on arbitrary routes like tanks/cars were.

They took the war into the air with balloons

Observation balloons are a long way from the WW1 air war.

There was trench warfare.

That's not a WW1-modern thing in the least, it was standard tactics for the levies of the early French republic.

I don't know if they used breach loaded artillery but as had already been said Britain had some that they could have bought.

Breech loading was not WW1, recuperator artillery with Lyddite shells was WW1.

Primitive blimps could have been built with steam engines (rather them than me)

The payload-range would have been pathetic, it wasn't until the 20th century they got operationally useful.

They could have used armoured traction engines armed with gatlings

Could they? I'm not at all sure. The Land Merrimack wasn't very useful, after all, and that had both rails to run on and a full (unarmoured) train engine to push it.

Let's posit a theoretical armoured traction engine. They had only a few horsepower in those days (6 nhp), so we'll use that, and we'll say it's got a single layer of boilerplate ~1/4 inch thick forming an armoured box about the size of the original tanks. (25x13x8 feet). This is proof against rifle fire but not even light field guns, and the armour is (25x13x0.25x2x1/12) + (13x8x0.25x2x1/12) = 13.5 + 4.5 = 18 cubic feet of armour, which is about four tons of iron, and a conservative estimate of the weight of the machine is six tons on top of that - and then you add the fighting capability and the tracks. Given that OTL early tanks weighed over 25 tons, you'll be lucky to get it below fifteen even compromising on everything.
Thing is, the OTL first tanks had about 105 horsepower. This has six.

It'll be lucky to move.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I'm not saying any of this would be as effective as later tech (though to be fair not much later) but the beginning was there to be seen. If the early civil war was the last hurrah for the Napoleonic style of warfare, the last year was the embryonic form of the twentieth century industrial style of warfare.

 

[Saphroneth]

I'm not saying any of this would be as effective as later tech (though to be fair not much later) but the beginning was there to be seen.

You really, really have to squint, though, especially to see the Civil War as the war. And when you say "not much later" you're basically treating prototypes as fully developed production versions.

If the early civil war was the last hurrah for the Napoleonic style of warfare, the last year was the embryonic form of the twentieth century industrial style of warfare.

I'd actually argue the Civil War strives to be Napoleonic but often doesn't get there. A lot of it is kind of Frederickan (linear tactics, heavy reliance on infantry to do things largely without close support of either other arm) and the cavalry doesn't get Napoleonic until 1864, and then it's only with Minty. The Fredericksburg campaign's just a siege, and not a very well handled one, and the North doesn't win because of a new type of breakthrough tactic or even because of superior industry, but because it's blockaded the enemy economy flat mostly by way of wooden vessels and has finally turned Lee out of Richmond.

The Overland Campaign is just very clumsy and frankly senseless, in that it expends vast numbers of troops to get to where a less politically motivated strategy could have ended up without a life lost in 1862... no, I don't think there's a solid argument that it's a precursor of the 20th century.

 

[James XI]

Anyone know about medical advances? Most of the deveoplments I know about were either earlier (Crimea) or really kickstarted by WWI itself. Anyone know much about deveoplments in the field between ACW and early WWI?

 

[M79]

Anyone know about medical advances? Most of the deveoplments I know about were either earlier (Crimea) or really kickstarted by WWI itself. Anyone know much about deveoplments in the field between ACW and early WWI?

Septic technique is huge - give this to the Confederacy with the Union arguing over it and I think the results would be profound (not enough by itself to win but still). Plastic surgery evolved quickly during WWI as did pharmaceutical development. Surgical techniques evolved alongside septic technique such that in a five year period depictions of surgeons went from street clothes to semi-modern with clean (looking) white coats and attire.

 

[James Ricker]

The Union would out produce the Confedracy it would degenerate into a seal clubbing rapidly.
The Confederate leadership would let their Armies get Massacred just so they could stay in power a little while longer , just like in OTL.
End result much heavier Confederate casualties, lighter Union casualties.
If the Union and Confedrate leadership stay in character I can see Lincoln making repeated public pleas for the Confedracy to surrender and those pleas being rejected.

 

[galveston bay]

The first patent for barbed wire was 1867

Not far away at all to make entrenchments even more formidable and something the Union would have been able to make in far greater quantities than the Confederacy. A mere 10 years and breech loading rifles are common enough to be the principal weapon in the Franco-Prussian War, not to mention magazine rifles like the Winchester. Again major advantages for the Union in terms of production capability.

So a few more years and any major attack on Union held positions is facing barbed wire, entrenchments, and magazine rifles and the slaughter would have been even more awful than the war in OTL.

Neither of course are available in 1861, but if the final breach and secession is held off even one more Presidential election, then those technologies begin showing up in a big way by mid war (assuming the same 4 year time frame needed for Union victory). The Gatling Gun is also more technologically mature as well, so there is your primitive machine gun.

 

[DominusNovus]

I just want to echo the general sentiment that it would turn into even more a curb stomp for the confederacy than OTL. Consider that the Union ultimately won through attrition (in multiple senses of the word). Any advances in technology towards WW1 levels just makes attritional warfare more effective as a strategy, and the Union, for obvious reasons, would be much better situated to take advantage of such strategies. The Confederacy would never be able to attempt any of its historical offensives in this version of the ACW without completely debilitating losses, and the Union would be able to outproduce the Confederacy to such a degree that they could deploy such advantages on every single front.

I think your ultimate result would be a war that was a year, maybe two, shorter, and Reconstruction a bit more palatable to Northern voters.

 

[pattontank12]

Anyway to turn the South slightly more industrialized? Their still outmatched by the North in that regard and still loose much like in OTL but it won't be a total curbstomp.

 

[M79]

The Union would out produce the Confedracy it would degenerate into a seal clubbing rapidly.
The Confederate leadership would let their Armies get Massacred just so they could stay in power a little while longer , just like in OTL.
End result much heavier Confederate casualties, lighter Union casualties.
If the Union and Confedrate leadership stay in character I can see Lincoln making repeated public pleas for the Confedracy to surrender and those pleas being rejected.

Not necessarily. Production will be higher in the Union but waste becomes an issue, especially when your quartermasget general is not Meigs but you retain a War Department secretary that decides Spencer rifles would cause men to waste bullets. Innovation could also be something to watch for especially if marching Union troops find their supply lines made vulnerable or troop formations attacked in geographically favorable positions.

Tactics might shift before the conflict somewhat if technology advances...

 

[M79]

Anyway to turn the South slightly more industrialized? Their still outmatched by the North in that regard and still loose much like in OTL but it won't be a total curbstomp.

Get iron production in Alabama high enough to promote putting steel mills there earlier and textile mills in the Carolinas. Consider developing milk-boats out of submarines for deliver to waiting cargo ships/blockade runners. Maybe have Texas develop its petrochemical resources enough to justify crude napalm or do a really nasty field prep for an army or two ("Hey Sarge, what's that odd smell coming from this greasy stuff? And why is it all over the ground here?)

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Anyway to turn the South slightly more industrialized? Their still outmatched by the North in that regard and still loose much like in OTL but it won't be a total curbstomp.

A more industrialized south produces FAR more butterflies to the point that the Civil War itself would have to take on a different form/motivation. For example, the tariff issue would be less regional and divisive, which was one of the Republican's key planks. Regionalism in general would be alot weaker, which reduces the likelihood of secessionist sentiments spreading throughout the general Southern population.