Let's assume you have a massive supply of ordnance and maintenance ability as well, and the year is 1861 and you and your weapons squads are attached to stonewall Jackson's army.
What is the minimum number of M2s you'd need to, say, force peace with the union by taking Washington in a bold gambit?
From a tactical standpoint, they would be invaluable alone-the enemy would not be able to approach without getting absolutely mauled, but the use of artillery would make a significant challenge from afar.
Do you think a handful of these could make a gross difference in the war? Considering the massed formation tactics, I believe it is possible.
Not a time traveler.
Just one in a battle could change the outcome, I would imagine 2 or 3 at Gettysburg bringing a Confederate victory.
>>30510073
Been reading Harry Turtledove?
>>30510113
Guns of the South? I think that's the title, I've never read it though.
They had gatling guns
unless the union had armored tanks, gatling guns were sufficient. (protip: the union didn't have armored tanks)
>>30509908
The M2 has a effective range of 1,800 meters and max of 6,800m.
The standard 12 lber used by Union/Confed Troops by contrast had an effective range of 1480 meters.
While their rapid fire on advancing troops would be devastating, they would be even more deadly used in long range role against Union Artillery positions.
>>30510174
Only 2 Gatlings were employed by the Union during Petersburg, when the war was already won and the only question was how long it would take for Lee's troops to starve/desert their way into nothingness. Plus, they were really picky and finicky because of timing, alignment, and cartridge issues.
They were also used more as fixed artillery and were seen as replacements to grape and canister shot, instead of being organic to infantry like machine guns were.
>>30509908
>assault Washington
>massive, MASSIVE artillery barrages wipe out the human waves of squishy meat sacks
>the guns are destroyed or, even worse, they are seized by the US, and turned on you
There is no number of wunderwaffens (within reason) that could've won the war.
As soon as the North seized one, they would make hundreds or thousands.
I dunno, give the South 100,000 and endless parts and ammo, and I guess they win.
I don't like these hypotheticals though.
>>30510174
gattling guns were useless compared to the effectiveness of an M2
>range
>stopping power
>fire rate
no comparison
>>30510315
>1860's standards being able to reproduce an M2 to the same tolerances as modern times
nah
>>30510656
>>1860's standards being able to reproduce an M2 to the same tolerances as modern times
the m2 was designed in 1918 only 55 years after Gettysburg, so yeah they could have
p.s. this thread is autism at it finest.
How many M777s would they need?
>>30509908
give them 5 M240s and 10 000 rounds and they win. Probably don't even lose a man.
>>30510219
>Fucking This.
.50 cal. Artillery barrage on DC.
With enough M2s and a range spotter you could just rain high angle fire onto enemy encampments and positions.
>>30510972
You are talking about a region that didn't have standardized railway gauges and no industry to speak of. Plus 55 years is a fucking longass time. So no, they couldn't have in their wildest dreams.
>>30510972
>55 years
we went from kitty hawk to the fucking moon in that time, are you sure 55 years isn't a long ass fucking time?
>>30510597
>>30510299
This, there is a reason a hundred years later we still use the same basic weapon system.
>>30512645
>thicc
same thing with the 1911, well engineered gun that has meme status, but for a good reason.
>>30510972
You do realize that massive advancements in metallurgy occurred within that timeframe right?
Nobody on the planet would have the kind of steel you would need to produce an M2 that didn't explode.
>>30510972
>>30513032
And on top of metallurgy, it would be another 20 years before smokeless powder was developed, so an 1861 M2, even if we assume they could have figured out centerfire, would grind to a halt after firing 10 or 15 rounds of black powder .50BMG.
>>30510597
>range
1200 yards vs 1800 yards
you're not going to win a war on those 600 yards.
>a gun needs stopping power vs. cotton uniforms
>fire rate
400 rounds per minute in the gatling vs 600 rounds per minute in the M2. Not a game changer unless you absolutely have to kill at least 405 guys in the next minute to live.
Yes, the M2 is far better than the gatling gun. There's no question about it, but saying "Just one M2 would have changed the face of the civil war" when "The gatling gun barely made a difference" is also argued...
>>30513173
>400 rounds
Gatling guns, in an ideal circumstance, in ideal conditions, with the best ammo and massive fucking drum magazines. Gatling guns never once approached 400 rpm once, that was all theory
>stopping power
One .50 bullet and you're done by today's standards, back then you're even more done with their shit medicine.
>won't change the war.
One M2 could have taken the hill. Take the hill you take the battle. Take Gettysburg with an M2, the war could have shifted. Bought time for lee. Not hard to extrapolate an ideal scenario.
1 M2 could have made a massive tactical difference at 2000 plus yards range, effective range =/= total range. Plus, neatly formed troops in little lines. Easy to hit at extreme ranges.
Can't compare the gatling gun to the m2, two similar type guns with extreme differences.
Plus, could be more than one. Could be 10 M2's.
>>30510139
Yep, it's pretty good. If you want something less Sci-fi of his, try the Southern Victory series. South wins without time travel, then it follows the consequences all the way into the 1940's.
>>30513270
>.30 cal doesn't have stopping power for unarmored 1860s infantry
When will this 1850s memery end?
>1 M2 would have a massive tactical difference
until they pound it with a single cannonball
or they hit it with a night raid
or dig under it and blow it up with a "land mine"
Otherwise, you're just ignoring the way they did war in the 1860s.
>>30513324
>single cannonball
m2 can effectively engage from further away than the standard cannon, to a much more accurate extent
>night raid
I'll give you that
>dig under it
By the time you dig 1000 plus yards to the damn thing the battle's more than over, enemy forces have fled.
Let's mix it up and make it more interesting.
The South gets 20 Ma Deuces-
The North gets 100 M14s and 2 M224 mortars-
Who's better off?
>>30515452
The north
Ignore the mortars, they're useless. But the m14's?
Fucking incredible range and accuracy compared to the run of the mill rifle. Snipers would have a field day with those, making them 100x more effective, and constantly taking out confederate leaders, demoralizing and loosening the enemy. Mortars are useful don't get me wrong, but only 2? They'd have to be deployed against the M2's, stretching their use thin. Same with the M14's for the most part, a majority of them would have to counter the M2.
It's like a japanese cartoon having the big mechs fight each other instead of going for constant infastructure damage.
Put M2 on horse carriage, enjoy your tachanka.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk2hKouTW8Y
