[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor *
**[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.[/ul] **[/li][/QUOTE]
Very true, but the advantages of the Maxim and more modern machine guns over Gatling guns and such were tremendous. They didn’t require horses and caissons to be moved; they were light enough to be carried by infantry and could be quickly deployed. They had a far greater rate of fire, were more mechanically reliable, didn’t have a restricted field of traverse and could be reloaded much faster. They also presented a much lower profile and could easily be concealed. They changed the face of warfare to the point that, from here
If I may recommend another alternate history book that deals with introducing modern weaponry to the past.
Eric Flint’s 1632 and the sequel 1633, transports a modern American mining town (with their modern weapons) to the Thirty Year Wars. I recommend those fascinated by what if scenarios to get it and read it. It is downloadable for free from the publisher at www.baen.com.
Another good read is The Last Carrier. A Japanese carrier that was trapped for 40 years carries out its order to attack Pearl Harbor in 1982. Zeros vs. F-16s and modern helicopters, as well as the modern ships docked at Pearl Harbor.
(FYI, though I’m sure you all got it, the AK-47s was a reference to Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove. Well done.)
Ever try to do that? Are we postulating an M-16 in a non-standard infantry configuration – modified to carry a scope?
I’ve never been in combat, but I’ve done my fair share of M-16 shooting while I was in the Army, and I have to think a war time hit ratio of 90% of moving targets at 500 yards would be absolutely amazing.
I know, at 500 yards in 1862, I doubt much is shooting back at you, even (especially?) artillery which in those days was a direct fire weapon, not the indirect fire weapon it is nowadays.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall from my time in the Army that in order to qualify on the M-16, you had to hit 65% (26of40) pop-up, man-torso-sized targets (~5 seconds up) at ranges of 100, 200 and 300 yards (or was that meters?). This is with iron sites, not scopes, of course.
I can’t remember the figures, so I did an internet search (which guarantees the truth), and I saw the M-16 listed with “maximum effective ranges” of 300-600 yards. I’m not sure what “maximum effective range” is. The NATO definition is a wishy-washy “likely to achieve the desired effect” or something like that. I was told in the Army by an instructor that it meant greater than a 50% chance at hitting a target (or was that the maximum range?).
Anyway, in my personal experience, anything past 300 yards is darned hard to hit. I could knock down those 300 meter targets for M-16 qualification, but I’d guess it gets challenging beyond that distance, and I was one of the better rated shooters in my unit (I believe the classification was Marksman due to knocking down 36 of 40 pop-ups, or 90% of the targets). In later years, with an AR-15 (civilian version of M-16) I got 1 foot groups on paper targets at 200 yards with iron sights (no scope). I’d hate to think what those “groups” would look like at 500 yards.
Also Harry Harrison’s Rebel in Time, in which the meddler takes a Sten gun plus the necessary info to manufacture them in the 1860s. The theory was that this is a cheap, simple-to-make auto-fire weapon that could have been turned out by the barrow-load by the gunsmiths of the time.
This must be a popular theme with sf writers 
.
With an M1A1
…someone could run over your mouse finger.
Or, you could make the enemy roadkill until you ran out of gas. One tank with great armor would have won the whole war if used properly. So long as it is protected from swarms of infantry, only the largest heaviest mortars could have dented it. Those, of course, would have really dented it. It’s possible that even a tank could have been knocked out with the weapons of the period. Tank tracks are always pretty vulnerable. That never changes.
Some was indirect fire and huge. Not much.
Some of these mortars could reduce huge fortifications to rubble fairly quickly. Moving them: priceless.
I would think that a M1A1, or M2A2 flamethrowers might do a good job! I dont know that it could kill as many soldiers as say a modern machine gun, but Im sure the demorolizing effect of seeing a gout of flame shoot 50-100yards across a battlefield might make more than a few Union soliders turn and run. Considering most peoples natural fear of fire, this one weapon might make the difference.
The way to alter Gettysburg with an M16 is to show up on Day One, in just the right place, and either:
a. Shoot Burford, so the North doesn’t hold the high ground for the rest of the battle, or
b. shoot Lee and Jackson, et al, during the night-time conference.
Either would alter history significantly. But during the battle as an infantry weapon…no way.
How about using the M-16 to shoot Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln? That might’ve made a pretty big impact on the outcome of the War.
Would the USS Theodore Roosevelt count as “one weapon”? 
Couple of Harpoons and some SUBROCs to take out the flotilla (you know, I’d really like to see what a modern missile could do to a wooden frigate) then close to the beaches and begin projecting power.
A few fighter-bomber sorties to take out the army camps, a Tomahawk spread on the sturdier fortifications, a couple of well-placed NAPALM cannisters and a JDAM or two, then start airlifting the detachment of Marines.
Voila`, you’ve won the war.
Or, barring that, one MOAB.
Silenus—
IIRC Jackson was dead already. He died in May 1863 and Gettysburg was in July 1863. So to shoot a dead man wouldn’t change much.
Damn…and I KNOW that, too. This is what happens when I post on the run, between classes.
Amend to say “Lee, Longstreet, Hill, Ewell, et al.”
I hate looking more ignorant than I already am.
Perhaps not as much as you think. What triggers a modern missile? Is it possible the frigate would be so fragile the missile would just punch through without even bothering to detonate?
I don’t think any missile we have has been “impact fused” in decades.
As far as I know, most air-to-airs use a short-range radar, a proximity detector sort of thing: Is there a target within the triggering zone? If yes, blow up.
Tomahawks and Harpoons are, I’m sure, similar, or at least can be configured as such. The Tomahawk in land-attack mode, can also detonate by GPS, but I believe it has a high-resolution targetting radar that actually looks for an image of the target, rather than just a radar return over a certain value.
Which then opens the question, do we have software for the T-hawk that will recognize a three-masted schooner as a target?
I’m pretty sure an Atlas loaded up with LRMs, PPCs, and some lasers would do the trick. I’d throw in some extra heat sinks.
[sub]Mechwarrior games[/sub]
Does the M1A1 have a hull machine gun? If it does, then you can fire in 4 directions, actually. Coax MG, hull MG, loader’s MG (top mounted), and the commander’s 50. I’m not positive of the loader’s MG is standard issue, but I’ve seen them mounted above the loader’s hatch more often than not in news footage.
As for a single weapons platform, ammo not a problem, a simple 155mm howitzer crew with 2 maps and 2 radios is where I’d put my money for having the most dramatic effect.
If you shot Lee but not Longstreet, at least we wouldn’t’ve had Pickett’s Charge. (Of course, the loss of General Lee would’ve been awfully demoralizing to the Southern troops.)