Tech Advances During US Civil War

Did any particular technological advances/advantages by the North, munitions related, transportation related etc. have any SIGNIFICANT impact on the Civil War’s ultimate outcome? My recollect is that both sides were fairly evenly matched in this regard… at least until almost the very end.

Well, the big technological advantage held by the North was their greater manufacturing capability. They could out produce the South manufacturing wise. Coupled with greater population, it was decisive.

I’m probably wrong about this, but I think the North’s rifles were superior as well, and they adpoted the conical bullet shaped minni-ball first. There were lots of smaller things that COULD have been big advantages if the North had adopted them…like the Henry rifle and the gatling gun. I also think the Norths pistol technology was better (and copied poorly by the South) IIRC.

I’m sure one of the Civil war buffs on the board will be by to ripe my post…I’m going mostly from memory being too lazy to look all this up.

-XT

The same applies to logistics, especially railroads and the telegraph lines that ran along them. The North’s system was well-suited for bringing troops and supplies up to the front, while the South’s was skimpier and laid out more for carrying cotton to its ports (which were blockaded) than for military maneuvering. Also, the South had very limited capacity to build new rolling stock or lay new track, and it was harder for their raiders to destroy telegraph lines as effectively as the North’s could.

Did anyone else wonder if the OP was going to ask if the Union and the Confederacy were working on atomic bombs?

Seriously, there was a major technological advance that helped the US in the war but it was not a direct military one. During the war, there were advances in farm equipment that allowed one or two farmers to do work that had previously required a whole crew of laborers. This in turn allowed the government to draft many men into military service who previously would have had to be exempted to maintain the nation’s grain supplies.

WAG: All bombs are built out of molecules which consist of atoms. Hence during the not so recent unpleasantness between the states there were "atomic’ bombs! QED :dubious:

The north had repeating rifles such as the Spencer and the Sharps. The south couldn’t even use captured ones for lack of ammunition.

I admit that I found the book disappointing, but the OP might want to check out Sinews of War: How Technology, Industry and Transportation Won the Civil War, by BENJAMIN BACON just for some basic information that he could build on.

Ironclads.

It was only one battle, but it was psychologically significant:

The north came up with the Monitor to counter the threat of the Merrimac in record time.

The Spencer was a repeater, but wasn’t the Sharps a single shot? Nevertheless, they were breechloaders using brass cartridges, and even single shot breechloaders can sustain massively higher rates of fire than muzzleloading rifled muskets.

It seems to me I’ve heard of some units privately outfitting themselves with Henry repeaters, too.

You are right. It was the Henry I was thinking of.

Nitpick: Although referred to by generations of history books as the Merrimac, that was the name of the ship that was scuttled by the Union. Refloated and converted into an ironclad, it sailed for the CSA by the name Virginia.

I second that the Union’s victory was overwhelming due to it’s vastly superior industrial capacity. Oddly enough, the Confederacy dabbled in numerous projects that it hoped would give it an edge; sort of like Germany’s attempts to field various “secret weapons” during WW2. The Confederates introduced the first crude antipersonnel mine for example.

Wait a minute! Didn’t the South develop the fancy repeater rifle (also called an AK-47) during the war? I could have sworn I remembered reading something about that somewhere… :smiley:

Zev Steinhardt

No.

The gun was a gift.

:slight_smile:

Yes, the Sharps was a single shot rifle but AFAIK the metallic cartridge version didn’t come out until after the war. Paper cartridges were used before that with a breechblock that cut off the end of the cartridge as it was closed. Metallic cartridge Allin conversions of the Springfield weren’t done until after the war either.

The Henry and Spencer rifles could put out quite a volume of fire compared to muzzle loaders. The saying about the Henry was the rifle could be loaded on Sunday and shot all week. Unfortunately both used very low powered rimfire cartridges, .44 cal in the Henry and .56 in the Spencer. One of the most hilarious movie gaffes I have ever seen was Kevin Costner dropping bison with his Henry in Capers with Coyotes. I’m doubtful that a Henry could have caused a quickly fatal wound in a bison at 100 yards. More realistic is a scene in Lonesome Dove where Robert Duval shoots a baddie at range with his Henry. The bullet doesn’t make the man fly backwards but just appears to penetrate his abdominal wall with a reaction about the same as taking a moderate punch to the gut. Still, I wouldn’t want my enemy to have one of these if all I had was an Enfield musket.

Zev, y’all may be thinking of a different Georgia. :wink:

http://www.civilwar.si.edu/weapons_thumbnails.html

Actually, both the North and the South were planning and building their ironclads for many months, without detailed knowledge of what the other side was doing.

It was sheer blind massive coincidence that they both happened to show up at the front within a couple days of each other.

Another example of this was the Confederacy’s attempts at using submarines - the CSS Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy ship in battle. Of course, the Hunley went down too . . .

And IIRC it sunk several times before that killing its crews. Still, it DID manage to sink a ship with one of those spar torpedoes (I think). Didn’t they finally find it intact and raise it up btw?

Turtledove?

Yeah…that was the problem with all three rifles IIRC. They were never fully adopted by the US military (maybe the Sharp was…I’m not sure), as so were not widely distributed. If you were a wealthy man and you were outfitting your regiment with weapons yourself maybe you could aford to buy some crates of Henry rifles to give to the lads…but mainly the regular troops just used updated breachloaders right up to the end. And even if you did outfit your boys with Henry rifles, I’m sure the logistics of keeping those rifles in ammo was a bit of a nightmare…as you’d have to buy and transport all that on your own as well. Not like you could scavange the battle field or get supplies through regular logistics channels. The Union missed the boat on that and several other weapons that probably would have shortened the war quite a bit…and probably cost a hell of a lot less lives in the long run.

-XT

I am not sure that the sea-going Ironclads were anything *but * psychologically significant – if that. The Ironclad paddle boats of the Mississippi River system, however, were significant in several battles.

Designed to be an “inland Navy” specifically for the Union’s Western aim of capturing the Mississippi, they were paddle boats with most of their armor and heavy guns in the front, with thinner iron plating and smaller guns on the sides. At times they were extremely effective, notably at Fort Henry when 4 of them were able to force a surrender before the ground troops even arrived. But they were also significant the crossing at New Madrid and the capture of Memphis and were part of the equation in the in the surrender of Vicksburg.

Explicitly to the OP: Where the Ironclads were “significant” were in the use by the North in the Mississippi River system. This happened because the North had better quantity and quality of River Ironclad.

No time to get into this right now, but what about observation balloons?

The North had a marked advantage there, as the US Nany’s blockade prevented silk imports to the South.

The Union used early versions of C-rations, called dessicated vegetables.

Waterproofed canvas was used by the North, but I don’t recall the process.

The Union used pre-Gatling hand-cranked machine guns, of a variety of types. They attached them to artillery units. No standardized types were authorized. Several were used here in Murfreesboro, at the Battle Of Stones River.

The Union made use of small watercraft with bow ramps for horses & equipment, during the campaigns for the islands off Virginia & the Carolinas. Similar in intention to WW2 landing craft, but without motors, & much smaller.

Armed & armored trains were used to suppress attacks on rail supply lines.

The South used the first land mines in war.

The South also created explosives for terror attacks on Union merchant ships. Iron-shelled explosive charges, disguised as lumps of coal. Slipped into a ship’s coal bunker, it would be shoveled into the steam engine while it was out at sea, blowing up the dangerously unstable early steam engine.