"Gatlings and Mitrailleuse in RF&F" Topic

I'm gearing up to invade Mexico with post-ACW Union troops in 1866, to assist the Juaristas in throwing out Maximilian and his French thugs.

The French didn't bring any Mitrailleuses to Mexico, and I can't tell if US troops would have brought any Gatling guns, but since this is an implausible war I'm gaming just for fun anyway, I feel like it would stupid not to take the opportunity to play some games with early MGs. I mean, seriously, who hasn't wanted to?

I'm going to try Regimental Fire & Fury first, but it has no rules for Gatling guns. It's tough to think of rules mechanisms that make them seem any different than light, weak artillery. Has anyone tried adding either to the RF&F rules?

- Ix

these were totally defensive weapons. In my FPW games i prohibit fire in any offense fire phase. Only allow in a defense fire phase. that takes care of tactical doctrine. I'd use as you suggest for fire effect save i would TRIPLE morale effect. Remember these had VERY narrow fields of fire BUT if they connected on massed troops: ZAP

Since the mitrailleuse enjoyed "secret weapon" status, it is unreasonable that any would be sent overseas.

Since the mitrailleuse enjoyed "secret weapon" status, it is unreasonable that any would be sent overseas.

Probably, but null point. I have a billion and half FPW French now, so I may want to use RF&F to play FPW games later.

- Ix

these were totally defensive weapons. In my FPW games i prohibit fire in any offense fire phase. Only allow in a defense fire phase. that takes care of tactical doctrine. I'd use as you suggest for fire effect save i would TRIPLE morale effect. Remember these had VERY narrow fields of fire BUT if they connected on massed troops: ZAP

Very nice, some good points. Thanks!

- Ix

Also remember that the French tactical doctrine in 1870 was to keep the mitrailleuse in the rear with the artillery.

I know, it doesn't make sense.

In one of Turtledove's alternate American history books, the British (under General Gordon) invade the US from Canada. Custer was angry that the gatling guns were placed in the front line instead of in the rear as per the tactical doctrine of the time. However, there wasn't time to send them to the rear.

The British were wiped out.

I would limit the number of such guns in the game.

I probably shouldn't mention that the French did not adopt the mitrailleuse until 1866.

"I probably shouldn't mention that the French did not adopt the mitrailleuse until 1866."

There is that -- Slipped right by me.

But here is one in action:
coub.com/view/6j15h

It does make sense to keep the mirtrailleuse with the artillery as it was part of the artillery and manned by artillerymen. In fact each Mirtrailleuse battery replaced an artillery battery per Division.

Mirtrailleuses were never intended to supplement the fire of a battalion in the WW1 sense. They were never intended to go into action with the infantry and were not part of the infantry arm. They were not sufficiently mobile for that purpose. Close support machine guns were more than a generation in the future.

Mirtrailleuses were designed to protect the artillery batteries from close range enemy infantry fire much like canister did beforehand. Rifled barrels were not as suitable for canister as smooth bore barrels although Prussian batteries did carry a very few rounds of canister (13 I think).They were also used to bring long range fire on distant targets. Bear in mind that the gun fired a 13mm 'high velocity'(for that time) bullet with great penetrative power up to 2000m.

Nashville – that is very cool.

Interestingly a guy I game with is putting together a similar campaign. We hadn't discussed having Gatling guns or mirtrailleuses, but now I am intrigued.

Interestingly a guy I game with is putting together a similar campaign.

Who? I should get in touch. :-)

- Ix

Also remember that the French tactical doctrine in 1870 was to keep the mitrailleuse in the rear with the artillery.
[…]
I probably shouldn't mention that the French did not adopt the mitrailleuse until 1866.

Neither of those are terribly important. This is a fictional war in 1866 to play with "what ifs", including new weapons. It's plausible to assume the French mitrailleuse would be available and could be used in the right circumstances. Mitrailleueses in Mexico in late 1866 is a very small stretch compared to some of the hitoriographical engineering I have to do to start the war in the first place…

The French may have had a flawed tactical doctrine at first, but they weren't stupid, and at Gravelotte in 1871 they were already trying out new tactical uses for the weapon. I expect that French commanders who suffered setbacks from innovative enemies mowing down their troops with crank-fired MGs would see the light and try to return the favor if they had their own mitrailleuses available.

In any case, the US did have Gatling guns, and Maximilian had strong ties to Belgium and might have been able to purchase his own Montigny mitrailleuses if he put his mind to it. I have lots of possible situations where these early MGs could come into the game. French mitrailleuses or no, I still want to figure out how to use them in RF&F.

Nashville makes an excellent point that the characteristics of the weapon type are essentially defensive – it's as heavy and unwieldy as (light) artillery, fires rifle-caliber ammo, and has a limited firing cycle . I'll probably class them as artillery with a medium "cannister range" fire factor, a low fire factor at longer range, and a +1 (or even +2?) for firing at infantry and cavalry. French mitrailleuses at least should have a very long maximum range, because they did. Not sure about the others.

- Ix

because they were rare weapons and were defensive weapons"in the rear" i would not put them on the table. they should be a "surprise" for the attacker who comes "near" an artillery battery. A 1 or a 2 and a MG battery appears and blasts away.

That mitrailleuse video is great. I have never seen one in action before. Where does the ammo come from? I see no clip or drum. On a gun carriage not much traversing but a few in a line could do a number on a charging unit.

The best mechanical description of the Mitrailleuse can be found here youtu.be/jO3haWrRtrY. Note that the model used by the French in 1870 was the "Reffye" model (misspelled in the description to the video) and not the original Belgian "Montigny" model.

Don't be misled by the commonly expressed view that the use of the Mitrialleuse as artillery and not as an infantry weapon was a flawed doctrine. In 1870 the weapon was used as it was designed, as a supplement to the artillery.

The French military was acutely aware of the fact that they had inadequate artillery support at divisional level (the Prussians had 24 guns to the division compared to the French 12). But the legislature was unwilling to fund both the up-gauging of the artillery and the re-equipping of the infantry with the Chassepôt. For this reason the Emperor, who mistakenly assumed that the Mitrialleuse might go some way to rectifying the artillery imbalance, funded the Mitrailleuse project from a private source.

The key reason the weapon could not have been used as an infantry support weapon is that it was a great hulking thing. The mechanism, its barrels and housing weighed 750 lbs which meant that the only practical means of transportation was to mount it on wheeled a carriage, that took the total weight of the piece up to more than 1300 lbs. Once on the wheeled carriage it needed six crew, limbers and all of the paraphernalia of the artillery to move it around and operate it.

With our 21st century hindsight it is easy to see that it was a flawed concept, but at the time, when many a new technology was seen as a military game changer, it would have appeared very different.

Please read the OP again. What the French did with the mitrailleuse in the FPW is only partially relevant. The real question is how to represent a mitrailleuse or Gatling gun in RF&F.

As a wargamer playing a "what if" war, I'm inclined to set the gaming parameters of the weapons (Reffye, Montigny, Gatling, etc.) and let the players figure out how to use them. I might consider enforcing a doctrine rule or two for the introduction of a weapon, but I'd want to lift it at some point, as I think part of the fun of "what if" wargames is to let players explore the options their historical counterparts didn't. And suffer any consequences…

- Ix

Howdy,

The Coffee Grinder guns at Gaines Mill in 1862 don't seem to have made a big impression.

A data point for what ifs.

Ponder on,

JAS

Even as late as the early 1900s there was considerable debate about where machine guns should fit into army organizations. Since the weapons were still very heavy they were usually seen as a sort of super-light artillery which could be used in spots regular artillery couldn't go. In the US Army there was heated debate about whether machine guns should be part of the artillery, part of the infantry, or should have a new branch of the service created specially for them.

Yellow Admiral,

Going back to your original question, did the French take the mitrailleuse to Mexico, the answer is no. While work on the weapon commenced in 1864 and 80-90 weapons were supposed to be delivered in March 1865, only 25 were delivered by the end of 1866. Field trials did not commence until 1868 and it was not distributed to the line until 1870.

As for the parameters of the weapon, it had a very high muzzle velocity for the time which gave it tremendous hitting power out as far as 2500 meters and a relatively flat trajectory to nearly 1000 meters (at just over 2 degrees elevation). Its effectiveness increased with range: at 500 m the field of fire was 3.75m wide and 99.5m deep; at 1000 meters it was 8.25m and 115m; at 1500 meters it was 11.25m and 143m; at 2000 meters it was 15m and 185m.

Going back to your original question, did the French take the mitrailleuse to Mexico, the answer is no.

That wasn't my original question, but the information is much appreciated anyway. Thanks for that nice synopsis.

- Ix

Seems tactically in a game it should become quite easy for the player to see how they were used. They are big enough that they must use a horse team to move about. So, just like real artillery they will be limited by their need to protect horse flesh, least they become immobile and eventually left behind. So, nobody will use them in a close support role. They will use them in a defensible fixed position or as an adjunct to the artillery. It seems it greatest advantage would be to make it that much harder to overrun the attached, deployed artillery battery. Cavalry that might try a hail of canister will not dare one of these early machine guns.

As far a period combat use, look closely at the operations at Battery Wagner after the failed assault. A number of 25 barrel Requa batteries were used for good effect during the siege operations. Basically, a single weapon could easily do the work of an entire company of men to keep enemy sharp shooters, trench raiders and snipers pinned. This freed the infantry company for digging and improving the trench system. link

The Gatling gun saw very little service during the Civil War; only two batteries were deployed. Both were privately funded by Gen. Benjamin Butler and used in the Bermuda Hundred. It wasn't until 1866 that the army reappraised the weapon for use against the First Nations.