Military developments in the 19th century (spinoff from Prussians vs Confederates)

[Pompeius Minus]

The thread about Prussians vs Confederates attracted a lot of discussion. However it also shows that the understanding of how 19th century warfare compares to e.g. the Napoleonic era is a bit hazy. With this in mind, I figured I'd start a new thread about 19th century military technology and how it affected the wars of the era.

Here is a summary of the most important developments (the numbers in parenthesis are when they were first adopted for large scale military use):

- The Minie ball (c.1850) tripled the effective range of muskets from 100 to 300 meters. The higher enery of the Minie bullet also made muskets much more lethal.

- The breechloading rifle (Prussians c.1850, others c.1865) doubled the rate of fire and allowed soldiers to lie down while reloading.

- Rifled artillery (c.1850) increased the range, firepower, and accuracy of artillery.

- Improved artillery fuses (c.1850) meant that the distinction between howitzers and cannons disappeared. All artillery pieces now fired explosive shells.

- Breechloading artillery (c.1870) increased the rate of fire of artillery. Breechloading artillery was also a very important development for navies, since it's obviously much easier to reload a breechloader onboard a ship.

- The machine gun first appeared in the 1860s, but didn't get really effective until the 1870s and especially after water-cooled models (which allowed much higher rates of fire) appeared at the end of the century.

- Steam power allowed naval ships to move move faster and carry armour. In combination with rifled and breechloading artillery this totally transformed naval warfare.

Other improvements, like railroads and telegraphs, were of a strategic nature and had little or no impact on the tactical battlefield.

(At the end of the century four very important developments appeared: smokeless powder, magazine rifles, recoil-absorbing artillery carriages, and the water-cooled machine gun. However these appeared too late to have an impact on any of the major wars of the 1800s. Instead they would shape the world war one battlefield.)

So how did this technology influence the wars of the 19th century? Let's look at a few examples.

In the Crimean war (1854-56) the French and British had rifled muskets with the Minie ball, while the Russians still used smoothbores. This allowed the allies to shoot the Russian attack columns to pieces in the open. However Russian fortifications around Sevastopol meant that the war dragged on for two more years.

The 1859 Franco-Austrian war was the first major war where both sides used rifled muskets with the Minie ball. The French also had rifled artillery. The lessons from this war where a bit misleading, since the French were able to use light infantry shock tactics to close with the Austrians.

In the 1866 Austro-Prussian war the Prussians had a superior rifle (the breechloading Dreyse needlegun) while the Austrians had superior artillery (rifled guns). The Prussians won of course, but the Austrian artillery peformed superbly at Königgrätz.

In the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war the roles where reversed, with the French having a superior breechloading rifle (the Chassepot was much superior to the Dreyse and had twice the effective range) while the Prussians had introduced breechloading rifled guns with percussion fuses. The tactical battles were very hard fought and the French actually inflicted more casualties on the Prussians, but French operational mistakes meant that they lost the war.

By contrast, the only new technology that had a really big impact on the American civil war was the rifled musket and the Minie ball. There was some rifled artillery, a few breechloading carbines, and even one or two early machineguns. But none of them had a major impact, which helps explains why civil war tactics were fairly "Napoleonic" compared to European wars at the same time. Steam ships and railroads of course had a major impact on the civil war, but not on the tactical battlefield.

Anyway, this post is not the end-all on the subject and several of the points can of course be argued. But I figured it gives us a better basis to continue the discussion from.

[kirroyale]

For what its worth the British army introduced smokeless powder magazine rifles in 1888 (the Lee Metford, forerunner to the Lee Enfield that was still in use in WWII and Korea). No idea when other powers did the same?

One thing missed of the list is standardisation of parts - in the Napoleonic Wars each weapon was still hand made (cf Elting, Swords Around a Throne). any ideas on that?

[Pompeius Minus]

Re. standardisation of parts: the industrial revolution of course underlaid most of the developments above since they depended on improved materials and manufacturing techniques. Steel tubes for rifled artillery had not been possible 50 years before, and improved materials made rifle barrels much tighter which prevented gasses from escaping and greatly improved muzzle velocities. Compared to a Chassepot or Martini-Henry a Charleville or Brown Bess looks like it was manufactured in the stone age.

I haven't read Elting's book, but I thought they had some kind of standardized mass production even in the Napoleonic era? I guess standardization improved greatly with the use of machine tools, but I'm no expert on the industrial revolution. Anyone?

Magazine rifles: the Germans were first with an eight-round magazine for the Mauser in 1884, followed by the French Lebel in 1886 and the Italian Vetterli in 1887. I included magazine rifles and smokeless powder only in passing since the only 19th century conflict where they had major impact was the Boer war, but there they played a decisive role of course (British troops couldn't spot the concealed Boers when there was no telltale smoke, and the range of the new rifles allowed them to pick off the British gun crews).

[MaximiIian]

You forgot the Lever-Action Repeating Rifle, appearing in the late 1850s.

[kirroyale]

Re. standardisation of parts: the industrial revolution of course underlaid most of the developments above since they depended on improved materials and manufacturing techniques. Steel tubes for rifled artillery had not been possible 50 years before, and improved materials made rifle barrels much tighter which prevented gasses from escaping and greatly improved muzzle velocities. Compared to a Chassepot or Martini-Henry a Charleville or Brown Bess looks like it was manufactured in the stone age.

Magazine rifles: the Germans were first with an eight-round magazine for the Mauser in 1884, followed by the French Lebel in 1886 and the Italian Vetterli in 1887. I included magazine rifles and smokeless powder only in passing since the only 19th century conflict where they had major impact was the Boer war, but there they played a decisive role of course (British troops couldn't spot the concealed Boers when there was no telltale smoke, and the range of the new rifles allowed them to pick off the British gun crews).

Many thanks for the learned reply. I guess the Lee Metford may still qualify as the first in regular combat use (by regular rather than irregular military) since there were a lot of campaigns fought on the NW Frontier in the 1890s.

[Perkele]

For what its worth the British army introduced smokeless powder magazine rifles in 1888 (the Lee Metford, forerunner to the Lee Enfield that was still in use in WWII and Korea). No idea when other powers did the same?

One thing missed of the list is standardisation of parts - in the Napoleonic Wars each weapon was still hand made (cf Elting, Swords Around a Throne). any ideas on that?

By napoleonics most guns were mass produced, granted not by robots or anything, but they were hardly a show of craftmanship and skill, so to speak.

[MaximiIian]

Yes, but the standardization of parts didn't come until the 1850s, and Remington's main leap into the modern gunmaking industry..
At least, I think it was remy. Or was it colt?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I think it was colt with the revolver, but i can't be too sure.

[MaximiIian]

Yes...
But the Henry and Winchester Rifles were major bounds/leaps in technology. Better than the bolt-action rifles of the 1880s, if you ask me. Faster rate of fire, better reload time, of you ask me.
Winchester all t3h way.

[Gelatinous Cube]

Man, talk about a post that completely Ignores America. Our contributions to 19th century warfare include:

+Single Action Revolvers
+Cartidge-Revolvers, as opposed to Ball and Powder Revolvers
+Double Action Revolvers
+The first actual case of Ironclad fighting Ironclad
+One of the largest wars of the time period, with some of the largest casualties and some of the most interesting "features"--the American Civil War, which included the first use of many new technological innovations, including the introduction of the first metallic rifle and pistol cartridges, the first repeating rifles and carbines, ect. The ACW was a war of experimentation, and warfare was never quite the same again throughout the world.

By contrast, the only new technology that had a really big impact on the American civil war was the rifled musket and the Minie ball. There was some rifled artillery, a few breechloading carbines, and even one or two early machineguns. But none of them had a major impact, which helps explains why civil war tactics were fairly "Napoleonic" compared to European wars at the same time. Steam ships and railroads of course had a major impact on the civil war, but not on the tactical battlefield.

Those technologies had a humongous Impact. In nearly all the battles where advanced breachloading rifles were used in place of Muskets, it was a great success. Similarly, the fact that the north had access to Rifled Artillery and the South did not also made a very big difference. If I recall, it was Antietem where that disparity showed the most. Steam Ships did have a major tactical influence, actually--the CSS Merimack slaughtered a fleet of wooden ships before it's famous battle with the USS Monitor. And while the tactics were Napoleonic to begin with, the war was not something the world had ever seen before--everything from the terrain to the odd composition of new and old technology, to the people themselves were vastly different from any European battlefield. By the end of the war, the tactics had changed drastically from it's "Napoleonic" beginnings.

[MaximiIian]

Yes, very.

Also, some forget Austria-Hungary all too easily.
After all, they are the one that designed a better torpedo, a design that served as the basis for all torpedoes even to today.
A more accurate and longer-ranged torpedo.
develop in the 1890s.

[Gelatinous Cube]

Yup. The White-something torpedo. The principles of that design are still in use today, I believe.

[MaximiIian]

Interesting thing about the Repeating Rifle:
In my alternate hist fic, which i have posted here, the HRE develops repeating rifle in late-1797.
funding!

[Pompeius Minus]

Gelatinous Cube, thanks for your informative post. I started this thread precisely so we could discuss these kinds of issues.

Revolvers: the reson I didn't mention them is that I don't feel they had a major impact on warfare. For the same reason I left out some other innovations, like the percussion cap (c.1840) which didn't really have a major impact until it became part of the all-in-one paper cartridge used by early breechloaders like the Dreyse and Chassepot.

Repeater rifles: I must admit I have a fuzzy idea of where these fit into 19th century warfare. Magazine rifles first appeared in the 1880s, but repeaters seem to have appeared earlier. What confuses me is if why they weren't put into large-scale military use if they offered the same advantages as magazine rifles, which were adopted universally and very quickly. Anyone?

Torpedos: I only mentioned naval warfare in passing because I wanted to concentrate on land warfare. Naval warfare in the 19th century is an interesting subject in itself, and the torpedo is of course an extremely important invention as are ship mines, which were used extensively during the American civil war. (The torpedo started out as a self-propelled ship mine.)

Those technologies had a humongous impact [in the American civil war]. In nearly all the battles where advanced breachloading rifles were used in place of muskets, it was a great success. Similarly, the fact that the North had access to rifled artillery and the South did not also made a very big difference.

You are right, but I feel that this rather proves my point. If breechloading rifles had a big impact on the relatively few occasions when they were used in the American civil war, then their impact in the in the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars must have been enormous since they were used on a massive scale there. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of soldiers in the civil war still used muskets.

You are also right about the Union having a monopoly on rifled artillery guns, and that this hurt the Confederates badly (especially in counterbattery fire). But again, in the European wars rifled artillery was used on a massive scale by both sides. On many of the civil war battlefields the terrain also limited the use of artillery.

[Gelatinous Cube]

Well you kind of summed up my point. These technologies affected the Civil War more than in European battlefields because there was a disparity. If the Union hadn't had rifled artillery, or a few Sharpe rifles, ect. perhaps things might have been different.

As for revolvers, they played a big impact abroad, actually. During the Mexican War, original Ball and Powder Revolvers were the weapon of choice for many soldiers, and they played a major role in the Philipenes (although that was just after the 19th century) and the Spanish-American War (1898).

[ClanMcAllister]

Here are lots of maps, prints and postcards from the 19th Century that may help gamers visualize post-Napoleonic geopolitics, tactics, formations, weapons, etc.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

In the Crimean war (1854-56) the French and British had rifled muskets with the Minie ball, while the Russians still used smoothbores. This allowed the allies to shoot the Russian attack columns to pieces in the open. However Russian fortifications around Sevastopol meant that the war dragged on for two more years.

Myth.

In most battles where smoothbores were used vs. Minie-based rifles, the difference in accuracy was very small and the difference in rate of fire nil.

[conon394]

Repeater rifles: I must admit I have a fuzzy idea of where these fit into 19th century warfare. Magazine rifles first appeared in the 1880s, but repeaters seem to have appeared earlier. What confuses me is if why they weren't put into large-scale military use if they offered the same advantages as magazine rifles, which were adopted universally and very quickly. Anyone?

Well this got revived after years but...

Couple problems fears about fire discipline if you will (troops blowing through ammo) and worries that the logistics could not sustain the load. In the ACW context one should remember troops could claim ammo and ramrods and such from a defeated or routed enemy after a battle if they were using the ubiquitous and similar rifled muskets. Before smoke-less powder a a high rate of fire only aggravated the smoke effect. All the early repeating rifles involved a loss of range and stopping power. ON balance there is no real good reason that Union cavalry should not have benefited from reapeaters from day one but for Infantry the qestion is not quite as clear cut as it seems on first glance.

[Prince of Essling]

In 1863, scientists created the high explosive trinitrotoluene (TNT) which is a solid and far safer to handle than dynamite. Its potential as an explosive was not appreciated for several years mainly because it was so difficult to detonate and because it was less powerful than alternatives. The Germans adopted it in the early 1900s for their naval shells which would explode having penetrated the armour protection, the Brits followed suit some years later as their shells tended to explode against the armour plate.

[Ace_General]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seige_o...burg,_Virginia
Seem napoleonic much

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor


The civil war kinda signaled the end of large scale massed infantry tactics(crimean war notwithstanding)

Also, it was where the tactical use of trenches, earthworks, and artillery where used on the battle field to great extent(again, the crimean war did show this somewhat, but there was few battles and it was mostly a siege)

It is interesting to not that the prussians observed the union during the civil war and learned some of the lessons from the unions defeats and recongized the value of railroads and artillery