Yeah on the civilian market because military procurement literally thought rapid fire guns were a meme that would waste ammo and that if soldiers didn't have to load one shot at a time they would waste ammo.
>Yeah on the civilian market
more than 100,000 Spencer rifles were procured by the military during the US civil war, and thousands of Spencer and Henry rifles sold on the "civilian market" were purchased by soldiers, especially cavalrymen, specifically for use in combat. The gatling gun was a novelty in comparison.
Military didnt want henrys because of the anemic ass ammo and because of how insanely expensive they were. More practical stuff that used existing parts like the spencer was actually adopted en masse.
Gatling guns were transitional technology so by the time they figured out how to use them, newer designs came along that did the same thing but better. That they were useful is demonstrated by the fact that they were seen as worth improving upon.
This. By the time armies really figured out how to properly employ them, the Maxim Gun was about to become the hot new thing.
Adding to these answers - Maxim intentionally designed his first machine guns to be better options than Gatling guns. He specifically exploited the weaknesses of Gatlings and the other few contemporary competitors. His goal was to make the Gatling look silly durung trials, and he exceeded that goal.
"The Gatlings at Santiago: The History of the Gatling Gun Detachment" by Lt. John H. Parker is a great book on how those things were used by a proper military unit for the first time, in the Spanish-American War. Downloadable for free on gutenberg.org
It was definitely the first step towards the modern machine gun design (such as the Maxim) though many armies struggled to use them to their potential the Navies used them effectively on gunboats
Until the early 1900s Gatling Guns were used in South America and Africa extensively
they were good on ships. Essentially made boarding impossible since one guy could just sweep the decks. Later scaled up versions (37mm and the like) were installed to use against torpedo boats
man intuitively i think yeah this thing sucked. i have done literally no research or critical thinking into this subject beyond the realization that literal machine guns were rolling around in the same period of history that we were still doing line warfare as a species? either these sucked massive cocks or we fucking suck at war, and it's probably a little column a, little column b - but I'm gonna go with these must have sucked.
alright people who actually know, did gatling guns actually suck?
It isn't tactically a heavy machine gun, it is field artillery. If you are a commander, how do you use this thing in such a manner that it is more effective than just bringing more guns? Keep in mind that cannons shot anti-personnel shells. If you had this thing at the right place and time it could be useful, but it isn't a Maxim.
TL;DR: Higher-ups didn't like them or understand them, not many people knew how to effectively employ them because nobody really used them because of the first bit, but when they were used effectively they were _very_ effective
>literal machine guns were rolling around in the same period of history that we were still doing line warfare as a species?
Sort of, it rolled out of the factory right about the same time as classic line vs. line warfare was already being proven obsolete just from the effectiveness of the latest small arms and artillery.
Any military that could field Gatling guns could also do a fair job of annihilating an overly dense formation of men with shrapnel and fusillades of accurate fire from similarly modern/expensive rifles and field guns.
Armies around the world continued thinking in terms of line warfare for a long time just out of inertia, but it wasn't Gatling guns alone they were ignoring, and not because Gatling guns didn't go daka daka exactly as advertised.
They had a very brief period where they were a useful piece of equipment, but were quickly made obsolete by the rapid pace of arms and technology development. Like Pic related,
in terms of my overall interest in warfare, the period of time that exists between the early ww2 era all the way until basically shot and pike, really fucking sucks and is incredibly boring to learn and read about. it is literally the worst period in history for our species. a single siege lasted forty fucking years? holy shit literally have a nice day why would you do this? all so i have to fucking read about this shit?
Sieges lasted that long in the pike and shot era though? Soldiers weren't so brainwashed back then and after it became obvious an attack wouldn't work would just refuse to commit suicide by officer, unlike the sheep in WW1.
you dont see very much industrious type figures with the ability to make something like this, and then go full retard. it deserves a place in the history books.
Good idea but limited by the technology of the time. If the manufacturing existed then it could have been shrunk down into. Proto-revolver, but the industry for it didn't exist at the time
Before vidya it was mostly remembered as an investment scam, the creator gathered a whole lot of money from the public, made a single bespoke piece and sold fucking nothing
Who said that? WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT?
Me
>is that you john wayne?
Haha yeah man a gun with a high volume of fire in the musket times was just a meme good one sport have a good one alright see ya
Only poorfags still had muskets when the gatling gun was first invented
did you just fly in from planet dumbass? the gatling gun was contemporaneous with lever-action rifles and rifled breech-loading cannons.
Yeah on the civilian market because military procurement literally thought rapid fire guns were a meme that would waste ammo and that if soldiers didn't have to load one shot at a time they would waste ammo.
>Yeah on the civilian market
more than 100,000 Spencer rifles were procured by the military during the US civil war, and thousands of Spencer and Henry rifles sold on the "civilian market" were purchased by soldiers, especially cavalrymen, specifically for use in combat. The gatling gun was a novelty in comparison.
Military didnt want henrys because of the anemic ass ammo and because of how insanely expensive they were. More practical stuff that used existing parts like the spencer was actually adopted en masse.
Calling this thing a "rifle" is an overglorification. It's an old timey PCC.
1800s fudd plsgo
Youre not wrong though
a rifle is any gun with a rifled barrel which is fired from the shoulder. PCCs are a type of rifle. Carbines are a type of rifle.
So if I fire it with my ass it's not a rifle anymore?
well, you're not supposed to fire it with your ass.
Don't tell me what to do government retard
Nope. It becomes an ASSault weapon.
I meant by firepower of the individual round.
Gatlings were employed several times against musket-armed armies like Korea and the Republic of Edo, where they were at their most useful.
Gatling guns were transitional technology so by the time they figured out how to use them, newer designs came along that did the same thing but better. That they were useful is demonstrated by the fact that they were seen as worth improving upon.
This. By the time armies really figured out how to properly employ them, the Maxim Gun was about to become the hot new thing.
Adding to these answers - Maxim intentionally designed his first machine guns to be better options than Gatling guns. He specifically exploited the weaknesses of Gatlings and the other few contemporary competitors. His goal was to make the Gatling look silly durung trials, and he exceeded that goal.
Then people added an engine to a Gatling.
>BBBRRTRTTRRRRRFRRRTTTT
Grapeshot was cheaper.
"The Gatlings at Santiago: The History of the Gatling Gun Detachment" by Lt. John H. Parker is a great book on how those things were used by a proper military unit for the first time, in the Spanish-American War. Downloadable for free on gutenberg.org
Is it true they saw action in ww1?
maybe in egypt or something. certainly not on the western front.
no.
It was definitely the first step towards the modern machine gun design (such as the Maxim) though many armies struggled to use them to their potential the Navies used them effectively on gunboats
Until the early 1900s Gatling Guns were used in South America and Africa extensively
they were good on ships. Essentially made boarding impossible since one guy could just sweep the decks. Later scaled up versions (37mm and the like) were installed to use against torpedo boats
this. IIRC, some USN commander bought some and used them during the US civil war
Yes, Armstrong Guns were better in Fall of the Samurai.
I miss the days when TW games were actually good.
Of all sad words of tongue or pen, saddest are these...
They made Hyenas and jacked up DLC prices instead
Medieval Total War 2 was 30 years ago.
cross battery with 2 armstrong guns and one gatling gun on each side is the way to go
One of the best episodes of Top Shot had an excellent competition with one.
man intuitively i think yeah this thing sucked. i have done literally no research or critical thinking into this subject beyond the realization that literal machine guns were rolling around in the same period of history that we were still doing line warfare as a species? either these sucked massive cocks or we fucking suck at war, and it's probably a little column a, little column b - but I'm gonna go with these must have sucked.
alright people who actually know, did gatling guns actually suck?
It isn't tactically a heavy machine gun, it is field artillery. If you are a commander, how do you use this thing in such a manner that it is more effective than just bringing more guns? Keep in mind that cannons shot anti-personnel shells. If you had this thing at the right place and time it could be useful, but it isn't a Maxim.
Read https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1120509.pdf
TL;DR: Higher-ups didn't like them or understand them, not many people knew how to effectively employ them because nobody really used them because of the first bit, but when they were used effectively they were _very_ effective
>literal machine guns were rolling around in the same period of history that we were still doing line warfare as a species?
Sort of, it rolled out of the factory right about the same time as classic line vs. line warfare was already being proven obsolete just from the effectiveness of the latest small arms and artillery.
Any military that could field Gatling guns could also do a fair job of annihilating an overly dense formation of men with shrapnel and fusillades of accurate fire from similarly modern/expensive rifles and field guns.
Armies around the world continued thinking in terms of line warfare for a long time just out of inertia, but it wasn't Gatling guns alone they were ignoring, and not because Gatling guns didn't go daka daka exactly as advertised.
They had a very brief period where they were a useful piece of equipment, but were quickly made obsolete by the rapid pace of arms and technology development. Like Pic related,
in terms of my overall interest in warfare, the period of time that exists between the early ww2 era all the way until basically shot and pike, really fucking sucks and is incredibly boring to learn and read about. it is literally the worst period in history for our species. a single siege lasted forty fucking years? holy shit literally have a nice day why would you do this? all so i have to fucking read about this shit?
Sieges lasted that long in the pike and shot era though? Soldiers weren't so brainwashed back then and after it became obvious an attack wouldn't work would just refuse to commit suicide by officer, unlike the sheep in WW1.
>i'm a Gatling gun pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow pow
What is /k/ opinion on the retarded ancestor of the Gatling, the Puckle Gun?
its retarded
>captcha: WHYGY
It was a meh naval gun. People act like its some ar15 predecessor in 2A arguments. Quite possibly the dumbest hill to die on
its retarded, but:
you dont see very much industrious type figures with the ability to make something like this, and then go full retard. it deserves a place in the history books.
Good idea but limited by the technology of the time. If the manufacturing existed then it could have been shrunk down into. Proto-revolver, but the industry for it didn't exist at the time
Before vidya it was mostly remembered as an investment scam, the creator gathered a whole lot of money from the public, made a single bespoke piece and sold fucking nothing
>square bullets for shooting at turks
>out of a round barrel
Puckle must have been a genuine retard