Apparently, slightly so. According to the chief of staff of VI Corps his literal last words were, “All right, my man; go to your place.” and Sedgwick did finish the elephant comment twice before that.
I’d agree that a single M-16 would have very little impact, and that it would take at least a crew served machine gun to have any kind of appreciable impact. It wouldn’t even need to be of a modern design, a Maxim Gun would have almost as much effect as an M-243. Its effect would be the ability to deliver sustained, fairly accurate fire at a distance, allowing it to break up massed rank attacks from further away than the cannon and rifles of the day. I doubt it could have changed to outcome of a battle on its own, but its effect would be noticed.
You guys should check out Harry Turtledove’s book “The Guns of the South” if you haven’t already. It’s kind of a dumb book, honestly, but it’s all about modern rifles being introduced to Civil War general, so you might find it interesting.
There was one thing brought up in the book that I was unsure of: Would a kevlar vest completely stop a minie ball fired at close range?
I’m no kevlar expert but from what I would guess is the minie ball would flatten out fairly quickly and fail to penatrate. Probably smash up your ribs pretty badly though.
Harry Turtledove covered such a topic in Guns of the South (I think that’s the title). Time travelling South Africans arm the Confederacy with AK-47s. I do not recall the timing of the new weapons, but it certainly changed the tide of the war. The Unions greater numbers were negated by the Rebels ablity to slaughter bunches of Union soldiers given the style of battle. It was an entertaining read, IMO.
Ummm, well, I think what we’re talking about here is the absolute minimum of future weaponry needed to garuntee (sp? I never can remember how to spell that word! :p) that the Rebs would have broken the Union line. Frankly, I think three or four WWI era machine guns (somebody’s already mentioned the Maxim) * might * have been enough to do the trick. However, to be absolutely sure, I’d go with three or four WWII era tanks. One tank by itself might get knocked out of action by a lucky cannon shot, and I think it would be necessary for at least one or two tanks to actually reach the Union lines.
Of course, if we’re limiting ourselves to a single weapon or weapons system, I think I’d go with a modern attack helicopter. A weapon like that could pretty much smash the Union line all by itself. A chopper could hit the Union line much more quickly than a tank, inflict as much or more damage in a shorter time, and minimize the danger of being disabled or destroyed by a lucky shot. Of course, I tend to be ultra-cautious about such things … you know, “gettin’ there fustest with the mostest,” that sort of thing … I’m assuming that all the necessary support for the weapon system would be available, fuel, ammunition, maintenance and repair crews and supplies, etc. …
I know it’s tempting to dismiss this whole thread on the grounds that the introduction of futuristic weapons is sheer fantasy: if we’re going to introduce an M-16, a Maxim or a Sherman tank, why not introduce a squadron of B-52’s while we’re at it? But I think the OP has stipulated a limit here, (i.e. what would be the * minimum * of futuristic weaponry needed to turn the tide in favor of the Rebs?) that makes the conversation interesting enough to pursue.
I guess the question here is, are we limiting ourselves to a single weapon, or are we limiting ourselves to the weaponry necessary to turn the tide in Lee’s favor? I suggest we limit it to a single weapon.
Of course an A-10 would have routed the entire Union army and decimated the navy as well (assuming unlimited ammo, fuel and maintenance). I don’t think the Union could have found anything to counter it—unless they got a few stinger missiles :D.
Of course he could. He could point the gun at General Lee’s head, and say, “If you order Pickett’s Charge, I’ll blow your brains out!”. Bam, the Confederates withdraw (a little bit) and find another route northward around the Union soldiers. Problem solved.
[ul]
[li]Hand-cranked machine guns were used in the Civil War. They weren’t Gatling guns, those came later. But the Union used a variety of such guns. Some were at Gettysburg.[/li][li]Civil War bullets were low velocity, & large calibre. At no time could they penetrate modern Kevlar armor.[/li][li]Balloons were used for reconissance in the Civil War. They were tethered, & had telegraph lines running up to the gondola, to relay info to the ground. These could be used for artillery spotting with your proposed modern howitzers.[/li][li]The range of a Civil War cannon was less than a modern infantry rifle. No lie. I’ve been to the Stone’s River Battlefield Museum, and watched park personnel & re-enactors fire cannon & lecture on the weapons. M-16 have better range.[/li][li]A modern infantry mortar would be a good choice, or even better, a autofire grenade launcher, like the US Marine Corps’ “Thumper”.[/li][/ul]
