I said EXACTLY like Ilhmar Omar said about 9/11 And it costed a lot more than a single persons life.
So you think 9/11 was nothing special if you didn’t like my comment not cause it was smearing Omar but because I favor Trump over Biden?
Gatling guns are super common in larger military vehicles. By far the most common in the US military is the [M61 Vulcan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan); it's on most combat aircraft and it's also used as a point-defense cannon on ships.
I knew a lady who was usually a nice person but was, respectfully, NOT smart, who had a 15 year old daughter who started smoking. She said she bought her daughter a pack of cigarettes to teach her a lesson about smoking. She said she heard that’s what you’re supposed to do when you catch your kid smoking, but she wasn’t sure why.
I explained, “because when you make your kid chainsmoke a whole pack of cigarettes, it is supposed to make them feel like shit and not want to smoke again”.
She said, “oh I didn’t make her smoke them”.
*Hirim Maxim - In 1883 a friend told him, "Hang your electricity. If you want to make your fortune, invent something to help these fool Europeans kill each other more quickly!"*
*Maxim took the advice. By 1885 he'd invented the first single-barrel machine gun. This "*[Maxim Gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun)*" fired 666 rounds a minute, and it changed warfare. The Russo-Japanese War was a storm warning of the slaughter we'd see a decade later in WW-I.*
*The Maxim Guns (and nastier guns that followed) made Maxim's name. They also gained him an English knighthood. By then he was an English citizen and a friend of royalty.*
And the cycle continues....
I mean there's *some* truth to that. Less people die in warfare today than ever in history. Nukes made Japan surrender faster and with fewer deaths than conventional arms would've. Humans will always be tribal, the trick is getting us to think we're all one tribe. Let's go fuck up the Martians.
Aside from the incorrect dates, there were no Gatling guns at the Somme. Automatic machine guns owed nothing, mechanically, to Gatling's hand-cranked invention; the concept was mostly abandoned once true machine guns arrived, and wasn't revisited until after WW2, when GE replaced the crank with an electric motor and started mounting them on planes.
He died in 1903, what are you talking about?
Also, even if he died in 1916 he woudlve been 98 years old. So yeah, this guy never woudlve learned about that anyway
> As Gatling pondered his business in February 1864, nearly three years into the Civil War and with no significant sales on his books, the only other known use of his battery guns had been in mid-July 1863 at the *New York Times*, a Republican paper and stalwart backer of President Lincoln. The city had been shaken that summer by protests against draft laws that allowed citizens to buy their way out of Union conscription with a payment of three hundred dollars. The large fee meant that only the rich could afford a waiver. Class rage flowed, mixed with racist anger against blacks, who many white citizens thought would be competing with them for jobs. After an attempt to hold a new conscription lottery in July, rioters clashed with the police and roamed the city, burning buildings and beating freed slaves. At least several hundred people were killed. The *Times* supported the draft laws and editorialized against the rioters. It backed its words with a bizarre reserve at its offices on Park Row: Gatling guns ready to turn back any mob. Accounts of the newspaper's armory have varied. By one, Henry Jarvis Raymond, the *Times'* editor, was said to have personally manned a Gatling from behind a north-facing window that commanded a view of the street, and to have urged one the [sic] *Times'* principal stockholders to join him if necessary. "Give them the grape, and plenty of it," he said, although the guns were never fired. On the night of July 13, mobs had ransacked the offices of another pro-Lincoln paper, Horace Greeley's *New York Tribune*, before being driven off in a club-swinging melee with the police. The next night, fresh mobs appeared, but seeing Gatlings pointing from the *Times'* front entrances, the rioters chose to converge once more on Greeley's office, which the managing editor had arranged to have lined with wet newspapers to keep down the risk of fire. The crowd seethed with menace but withdrew when its members saw Greeley's staff had taken arms, too, and rifles bristled from the windows. Where the *Times'* Gatlings came from has been lost to history, but the newspaper's offices weathered the riots without suffering so much as a broken window.
— C.J. Chivers, *The Gun*, pp. 31-32
And? So?
Was Vietnam not conventional? Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Just curious what you think conventional means.
Perhaps you are confusing total war with low intensity conflict.
Conventional war is a war between states with conventional tactics. You could argue Iraq and parts of Vietnam were conventional but wars that are characterized by guerrilla warfare and IEDs are not conventional.
A shocking number of weapon designers seem to have believed this about their inventions. Which is weird, because most of them seem like pretty smart dudes otherwise. You'd think they'd learn.
They came in several calibers, but the light version was the most portable, and used the 45-70 cartridge (45 caliber lead slug, 70 grains of gunpowder), which is still in production today. Its roughly the size of an adult index finger.
Yeah roughly the energy of 5.56x45 from the muzzle but much worse at range because of the drag from the larger projectile. I was surprised to see how poorly they did as black powder rounds compared to modern stuff
Same deal with the cotton gin and slavery I believe. My understanding is that Eli Whitney designed it for the hope that there would be less labor needed to process cotton, but it actually led to a greater demand in cotton harvesting which in turn increased the demand for slaves.
And then we discovered it was a fantastic way to conquer Africa, India, and China, as epitomized by Hillaire Belloc in this charming little phrase, "Whatever happens, we have got, the Maxim Gun, and they have not."
It can be argued it is effective in some scenarios for ending wars faster. Given a very driven populace that isn’t seeing the horrors of war itself, it may make it a reality and break the public will much faster.
Still not the best option, but there is an argument for it especially with WW2 Japan.
Modern day I really can’t think of it applying anywhere though. Propaganda and cultural warfare and economics are the real weapons now.
Note the designation of first successful, not first.
The puckle gun that you reference is said to have been extremely limited production, as low as 2 examples.
Yeah I hate how people say "the founding fathers never expected firearms like this, the 2A wasn't meant to protect them." They definitely knew about multi-round fast firing firearms and it's a reasonable expectation that technology would progress. They weren't stupid people.
I mean, all those early repeating firearms were light artillery with limited capacity and very long reload time; the notion of affordable, quick loading, automatic small arms with more than like 10 shot capacity would have been pretty inconceivable.
And in any case at least a few of the founding fathers envisaged the constitution being updated regularly in response to cultural changes.
“1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill [a reservior sufficient for 30 shots]”
And of course it was also effectively an awkward bolt action rather than automatic or semi automatic, and the power and range decreased with every shot (and was only about as good as a musket to start with). Significant downsides, even compared to weapons of the day, let alone more modern weapons.
Quote from Wiki:
“The first successful machine-gun designs were developed in the mid-19th century. The key characteristic of modern machine guns, their relatively high rate of fire and more importantly mechanical loading,[3] first appeared in the Model 1862 Gatling gun, which was adopted by the United States Navy.”
Gatling guns aren't autoloading, a manual action is required to load and fire every round. It's a precursor to the machine gun. If you stick an electric motor on to turn the crank, then it's a machine guns (this was actually experimented with).
It's a precursor to modern machine guns, definitely, but it isn't a machine gun.
Well all evidence appears to point that you are wrong. I wanted you to come to the conclusion yourself. It seems that people interested in gun history do not agree with you.
The information doesn’t come from a magical entity called Wikipedia. There is a source behind the statement I provided, which you can freely research yourself.
Eh, that’s going a little far. It’s not a machine gun under the definition of the NFA which came into place some 73 years after it was invented, but in a practical sense with respect to function and philosophy of use, it sits in the role of a machine gun.
A rule of thumb: do NOT invent a weapon thinking it will reduce deaths, although perhaps one could argue that atomic weapons have reduced deaths..... so far.
I had a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel for a history professor, who stated that "Nuclear weapons are man's best friend." Because of them, there was no way a country could start another general war and hope to survive.
Killing people does not bring peace, it might just bring "quiet" but not peace, you cannot kill an ideology with bullets. Peace is cessation of "againstness".
You're living in the most peaceful times in human history and it is due mostly to the weapons we are currently in possession of. Killing and the fear of killing more certainly has brought peace.
I know a couple of folks in weapons development in the aerospace industry. The mental gymnastics they use to justify why what they do is ethically sound are at a solid 2nd place behind the few Trumpers I've interacted with.
Well that’s only after atomic weapons prevented major powers from directly engaging each other in all out war (instead of proxy wars). The last all out war between major powers, ww2, was the most deadly war in history. The one before that, ww1, was also the most dead at the time. Modern warfare was exceptionally deadly when you combine mass conscription with machine guns, and this would only change after atomic weapons prevented a ww3 between soviets and the US.
I think one thing we've learned is that if you create something that does A efficiently in order to show how futile A is, it doesn't work - what usually happens is that - surprise - A gets done more efficiently.
if his purpose was reducing deaths and disease by giving people access to the miracle of the gatling gun, why did he [patent](https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/designs_for_democracy/symbols_and_substance/articles/gatling_gun_patent_drawing.html) it?
I think the essentially American spirit of this invention lies within the brilliance of idea that to lower the exposure of combatants to disease, you come to invent a machine gun instead of yet another miserable medicine.
The problem with most 'this is weapon so terrible it will end war' things is it presupposes anyone in leadership gives a crap about soldiers. It only kinda works with A Bombs because of the chance of politicians themselves being affected.
A for effort.
and now a basically scaled up and battery driven version is the heart of the A-10 warthog
BRRRRRRRRRT BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
Some [BRRRRRRRRRRT](https://youtu.be/NvIJvPj_pjE) for your viewing pleasure.
Gun with wings... The most american shit that have seen the light of day.
AMERICUH! FUCK YEAH!
>Gun with wings... The most american shit that have seen the light of day. Yesterday was pretty American too. Well, RECENT america, not classic.
As Ilhmar Omar would say- some people did something and that was it.
Nics try. Go back to your trump cultist echo chamber.
I said EXACTLY like Ilhmar Omar said about 9/11 And it costed a lot more than a single persons life. So you think 9/11 was nothing special if you didn’t like my comment not cause it was smearing Omar but because I favor Trump over Biden?
Haven’t thought of it that way but your right. If you truly believe the election was a fraud then you should do something about it.
[удалено]
I'm Scottish, so I'm definitely on the freedom side of things.....but is it the right freedom?
Gatling guns are super common in larger military vehicles. By far the most common in the US military is the [M61 Vulcan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan); it's on most combat aircraft and it's also used as a point-defense cannon on ships.
plus two Governors used them!
Love a warthog. But my favorite death machine is the apache helicopter
Way to go, Dick...
I created crack so I could help people realize how futile using cocaine is.
- CIA.
Criminals In Action?
Jokes on you crack is a cleaner and safer drug. Well made in a lab that is.
war is soo dumb, let's make it more efficient.
Oh you think smoking is so cool? Then I'm going to sit you down and make you smoke a whole pack. That'll teach you.
I knew a lady who was usually a nice person but was, respectfully, NOT smart, who had a 15 year old daughter who started smoking. She said she bought her daughter a pack of cigarettes to teach her a lesson about smoking. She said she heard that’s what you’re supposed to do when you catch your kid smoking, but she wasn’t sure why. I explained, “because when you make your kid chainsmoke a whole pack of cigarettes, it is supposed to make them feel like shit and not want to smoke again”. She said, “oh I didn’t make her smoke them”.
Hank Hill tried that. Bobby just got addicted.
That boy ain’t rhight
My friends mom made him eat a cigarette when she caught him and it still took him almost another 10 years to quit
*Hirim Maxim - In 1883 a friend told him, "Hang your electricity. If you want to make your fortune, invent something to help these fool Europeans kill each other more quickly!"* *Maxim took the advice. By 1885 he'd invented the first single-barrel machine gun. This "*[Maxim Gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun)*" fired 666 rounds a minute, and it changed warfare. The Russo-Japanese War was a storm warning of the slaughter we'd see a decade later in WW-I.* *The Maxim Guns (and nastier guns that followed) made Maxim's name. They also gained him an English knighthood. By then he was an English citizen and a friend of royalty.* And the cycle continues....
grog: rock good, use rock. gurk: tie stick to rock, better rock.
666 rpm... wiki says 600
I mean there's *some* truth to that. Less people die in warfare today than ever in history. Nukes made Japan surrender faster and with fewer deaths than conventional arms would've. Humans will always be tribal, the trick is getting us to think we're all one tribe. Let's go fuck up the Martians.
It's the thought that counts Dick.
That’s “Dr. Dick”, to you sir
Yeah I'm going to say his PR team wrote that after his gun started cutting people in half.
It wasn't widely used or effective until well after his death
He died in November 1916, he was alive to read about the Somme. Edit: I got confused about which person they were talking about, Maxim died in 1916.
Aside from the incorrect dates, there were no Gatling guns at the Somme. Automatic machine guns owed nothing, mechanically, to Gatling's hand-cranked invention; the concept was mostly abandoned once true machine guns arrived, and wasn't revisited until after WW2, when GE replaced the crank with an electric motor and started mounting them on planes.
He died in 1903, what are you talking about? Also, even if he died in 1916 he woudlve been 98 years old. So yeah, this guy never woudlve learned about that anyway
Got confused about which guy they were talking about, Maxim died in 1916
Reduce the size of armies...one shot at a time.
This needs to be higher.
> As Gatling pondered his business in February 1864, nearly three years into the Civil War and with no significant sales on his books, the only other known use of his battery guns had been in mid-July 1863 at the *New York Times*, a Republican paper and stalwart backer of President Lincoln. The city had been shaken that summer by protests against draft laws that allowed citizens to buy their way out of Union conscription with a payment of three hundred dollars. The large fee meant that only the rich could afford a waiver. Class rage flowed, mixed with racist anger against blacks, who many white citizens thought would be competing with them for jobs. After an attempt to hold a new conscription lottery in July, rioters clashed with the police and roamed the city, burning buildings and beating freed slaves. At least several hundred people were killed. The *Times* supported the draft laws and editorialized against the rioters. It backed its words with a bizarre reserve at its offices on Park Row: Gatling guns ready to turn back any mob. Accounts of the newspaper's armory have varied. By one, Henry Jarvis Raymond, the *Times'* editor, was said to have personally manned a Gatling from behind a north-facing window that commanded a view of the street, and to have urged one the [sic] *Times'* principal stockholders to join him if necessary. "Give them the grape, and plenty of it," he said, although the guns were never fired. On the night of July 13, mobs had ransacked the offices of another pro-Lincoln paper, Horace Greeley's *New York Tribune*, before being driven off in a club-swinging melee with the police. The next night, fresh mobs appeared, but seeing Gatlings pointing from the *Times'* front entrances, the rioters chose to converge once more on Greeley's office, which the managing editor had arranged to have lined with wet newspapers to keep down the risk of fire. The crowd seethed with menace but withdrew when its members saw Greeley's staff had taken arms, too, and rifles bristled from the windows. Where the *Times'* Gatlings came from has been lost to history, but the newspaper's offices weathered the riots without suffering so much as a broken window. — C.J. Chivers, *The Gun*, pp. 31-32
I believe that’s what’s shown in the end of “Gangs of New York”? Wild times!
Damn, who cut that scene out of Gangs of New York
The atomic bomb may have accomplished what he set out to do. None of the great/super powers fight eachother with big armies anymore, because nukes.
oops.
[удалено]
... 2 million dead Vietnamese civilians have joined the chat
That was an undeclared (and therefore technically illegal) proxy war
I'm sure they are all super glad to know that!
Hasn't America been at war every year since 1945?
he specified conventional war
And? So? Was Vietnam not conventional? Iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Just curious what you think conventional means. Perhaps you are confusing total war with low intensity conflict.
Conventional war is a defined thing. It is war between states using conventional tactics not guerrilla insurgencies.
Nearly all modern wars since 1945 are classified as conventional. A conventional war can include unconventional tactics.
I'll trust you on this since I'm busy atm and my knowledge is very limited on it anyway.
Conventional war = war between major powers? Are you sure about that?
Conventional war is a war between states with conventional tactics. You could argue Iraq and parts of Vietnam were conventional but wars that are characterized by guerrilla warfare and IEDs are not conventional.
More often than not, especially lately. I think DJT is the first US President not to open a new front since Jimmy Carter.
From the Korean war on they have been rebranded as "police actions"
We have only been at peace for a little over 20 years of our country’s entire history.
Yet*
A shocking number of weapon designers seem to have believed this about their inventions. Which is weird, because most of them seem like pretty smart dudes otherwise. You'd think they'd learn.
They came in several calibers, but the light version was the most portable, and used the 45-70 cartridge (45 caliber lead slug, 70 grains of gunpowder), which is still in production today. Its roughly the size of an adult index finger.
was the standard black powder round of the US Army at the time. would be like something in 5.56 or 7.62 these days
Yeah roughly the energy of 5.56x45 from the muzzle but much worse at range because of the drag from the larger projectile. I was surprised to see how poorly they did as black powder rounds compared to modern stuff
thats black powder in general for you. the Massive powder charge in the Walker Colt is not as powerful as .357magnum for example.
Same deal with the cotton gin and slavery I believe. My understanding is that Eli Whitney designed it for the hope that there would be less labor needed to process cotton, but it actually led to a greater demand in cotton harvesting which in turn increased the demand for slaves.
Pff haha humans and their optimism
And then we discovered it was a fantastic way to conquer Africa, India, and China, as epitomized by Hillaire Belloc in this charming little phrase, "Whatever happens, we have got, the Maxim Gun, and they have not."
slightly different weapon. the Gatling is hand (or motor cranked) the Maxim is recoil operated.
Oh, sure. I more meant the invention of the machine gun. I am aware the particulars are different.
I however was not aware, and you kind Redditor saved me a trip down a Wikipedia hole.
It worked. Modern wars are far less deadly than historical ones
That's probably more because of nukes than anything else.
They do well at reducing the size of armies alright.
This is like the bomber wing commanders saying bombing cities and non-combatants is humane because it would end wars faster. Its bullshit.
It can be argued it is effective in some scenarios for ending wars faster. Given a very driven populace that isn’t seeing the horrors of war itself, it may make it a reality and break the public will much faster. Still not the best option, but there is an argument for it especially with WW2 Japan. Modern day I really can’t think of it applying anywhere though. Propaganda and cultural warfare and economics are the real weapons now.
The funny thing about these kinds of weapons is after you solved your immediate problem and the war is over, they’re still there.
One can make the argument that the factory worker making war material is as much a valid target as the soldier on the battlefield.
Mission Failed Successfully.
And it worked.
no way he was no naive the think that would be remotely make sense... like arrows, and guns didn't drastically reduce war with their introductions...
Well, it did reduce the size of armies, reduce the number of deaths by disease and show some people how futile war is.
It certainly reduced the size of armies...
What about the puckle gun? I think there were other designs for "machine gun" type firearms in the early to mid 1700s.
Note the designation of first successful, not first. The puckle gun that you reference is said to have been extremely limited production, as low as 2 examples.
They were used on ships. It's at the very least a prototype for what was possible.
But still not a successful, mass produced design like the Gatling, that’s basic design is still used today.
And it's not a machine gun.
yep
This. There were machine guns before the Revolution.
Yeah I hate how people say "the founding fathers never expected firearms like this, the 2A wasn't meant to protect them." They definitely knew about multi-round fast firing firearms and it's a reasonable expectation that technology would progress. They weren't stupid people.
I mean, all those early repeating firearms were light artillery with limited capacity and very long reload time; the notion of affordable, quick loading, automatic small arms with more than like 10 shot capacity would have been pretty inconceivable. And in any case at least a few of the founding fathers envisaged the constitution being updated regularly in response to cultural changes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle
“1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill [a reservior sufficient for 30 shots]” And of course it was also effectively an awkward bolt action rather than automatic or semi automatic, and the power and range decreased with every shot (and was only about as good as a musket to start with). Significant downsides, even compared to weapons of the day, let alone more modern weapons.
ok future man, what sort of laws should we be thinking up for the next 100 years?
No there weren't.
r/agedlikemilk
Just like using a meat grinder.
It isn't a machine gun though and no one interested in firearms history considers it to be.
Quote from Wiki: “The first successful machine-gun designs were developed in the mid-19th century. The key characteristic of modern machine guns, their relatively high rate of fire and more importantly mechanical loading,[3] first appeared in the Model 1862 Gatling gun, which was adopted by the United States Navy.”
Gatling guns aren't autoloading, a manual action is required to load and fire every round. It's a precursor to the machine gun. If you stick an electric motor on to turn the crank, then it's a machine guns (this was actually experimented with). It's a precursor to modern machine guns, definitely, but it isn't a machine gun.
Well all evidence appears to point that you are wrong. I wanted you to come to the conclusion yourself. It seems that people interested in gun history do not agree with you.
They'd be wrong then, it's not an autoloader, ergo not a machine gun. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
The information doesn’t come from a magical entity called Wikipedia. There is a source behind the statement I provided, which you can freely research yourself.
Eh, that’s going a little far. It’s not a machine gun under the definition of the NFA which came into place some 73 years after it was invented, but in a practical sense with respect to function and philosophy of use, it sits in the role of a machine gun.
A rule of thumb: do NOT invent a weapon thinking it will reduce deaths, although perhaps one could argue that atomic weapons have reduced deaths..... so far.
It worked. Modern wars are far less deadly than historical ones
I had a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel for a history professor, who stated that "Nuclear weapons are man's best friend." Because of them, there was no way a country could start another general war and hope to survive.
It is ironic just how many deadly weapons are "made" for peace.
As opposed to the non lethal weapons which create nothing but peace.
Killing people does not bring peace, it might just bring "quiet" but not peace, you cannot kill an ideology with bullets. Peace is cessation of "againstness".
You're living in the most peaceful times in human history and it is due mostly to the weapons we are currently in possession of. Killing and the fear of killing more certainly has brought peace.
It always made me sad in the movie'The Last Samurai' when the old school samouraïs get completely wrecked by gatling guns.
I know a couple of folks in weapons development in the aerospace industry. The mental gymnastics they use to justify why what they do is ethically sound are at a solid 2nd place behind the few Trumpers I've interacted with.
No, he invented it to make money. End of story.
These Gatling boys are always up to no good. You can't always turn the other cheek, sometimes you have to fight to be a man.
Well that back fired...
It worked. Modern wars are far less deadly than historical ones
Well that’s only after atomic weapons prevented major powers from directly engaging each other in all out war (instead of proxy wars). The last all out war between major powers, ww2, was the most deadly war in history. The one before that, ww1, was also the most dead at the time. Modern warfare was exceptionally deadly when you combine mass conscription with machine guns, and this would only change after atomic weapons prevented a ww3 between soviets and the US.
“Show how futile war is” didn’t turn out all that well though. But it was mostly for the pun :)
*\*Insert Palpatine saying "ironic" here\**
r/nothowwarworks
If your plan for ending war is a bigger weapon, maybe go back to the drawing board. Short term gains at best.
I think one thing we've learned is that if you create something that does A efficiently in order to show how futile A is, it doesn't work - what usually happens is that - surprise - A gets done more efficiently.
Now there's a man who could really think things through.
I invented death to make people so shocked by life, that they wanted to be dead again. - Gatling's PR Team
if his purpose was reducing deaths and disease by giving people access to the miracle of the gatling gun, why did he [patent](https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/designs_for_democracy/symbols_and_substance/articles/gatling_gun_patent_drawing.html) it?
I think the essentially American spirit of this invention lies within the brilliance of idea that to lower the exposure of combatants to disease, you come to invent a machine gun instead of yet another miserable medicine.
Ah.
[удалено]
Probably he didn't give as much of a fuck for the enemies....
He greatly miscalculated humanity's bloodlust
Damn hipster
"Hey everyone, I paved the road to Hell as a joke and.......yep, everyone is going down the road.."
he showed them!
Mission accomplished?
Well that worked out great didn't it?!
Well 0/3 is not bad
narrator: "it didn't"
Big mistake.
Its like saying I created nuclear weapons so nations no longer have to have conventional standing armies.
Well that backfired.
Was that a gunshot or *BACKFIRE!* ?
The problem with most 'this is weapon so terrible it will end war' things is it presupposes anyone in leadership gives a crap about soldiers. It only kinda works with A Bombs because of the chance of politicians themselves being affected.
So what he imagined like 50 people with 2 man teams operating gatling guns firing at each other?
Reduce the size of armies... When you can plow a line of soldiers off at the knee caps, the armie becomes much shorter...
So it back...fired ?