Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Confederacy Almost Developed a Helicopter in 1862
War is Boring ^ | April 21, 2014. | Michael Peck

Posted on 12/17/2019 12:40:01 AM PST by Swordmaker

But the technology wasn’t quite ready for Robert E. Lee’s air cavalry


It’s the third day of the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863 and Union forces on Cemetery Ridge await the final Confederate assault. But instead of witnessing serried ranks of rebels marching across a mile of open ground into the maws of Yankee cannons, the bluecoat regiments are shocked to hear the thud of rotor blades.

It is the the sound of Confederate general George Pickett’s 13,000-strong division landing behind Union lines.

Is this a neo-Confederate dream? The Red Badge of Courage meets Apocalypse Now?

No, it turns out that a Confederate engineer actually did design a helicopter back in 1862.

William C. Powers was an architectural engineer in Mobile, Alabama. Frustrated by the Union blockade of Mobile and other Southern ports, which prevented the Confederacy from exporting cotton and importing weapons, Powers resolved to devise a way to destroy Union ships.

(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: civilwar; couldnt; didnt; godsgravesglyphs; helicopters; patenttroll; technology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last
To: angmo
Apparently drawing a picture and building a toy model counts as “almost developed”.

Libs, like the AG of Pennsylvania consider the parts of a firearm the same as a fully functional one.

61 posted on 12/17/2019 1:05:01 PM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Gone but not forgiven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
All else being equal, sheer numbers win.

Lee and others gave them some advantages, defending their own territory also gave them some advantages, but these advantages cannot equal a 4 to 1 manpower over match.

62 posted on 12/17/2019 1:06:32 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The how was the Confederacy able to hold on for four years.
The North had that 4 to 1 advantage from the day Sumter was fire on. By your theory, all the Yankees had to do was line up, lock arms and march South. The whole affair should be over in a short while.


63 posted on 12/17/2019 1:11:16 PM PST by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
The North had that 4 to 1 advantage from the day Sumter was fire on. By your theory, all the Yankees had to do was line up, lock arms and march South. The whole affair should be over in a short while.

Well you have to get your supply lines set up, but yeah. :)

Actually, the politics wouldn't have worked. Nobody would have believed it was necessary to mobilize that kind of force to defeat the South, so they kept trying to do it on the cheap. Ended up costing even more blood and treasure.

Grant had the right idea. Just keep sending men into the meat grinder until you broke through.

64 posted on 12/17/2019 1:15:05 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Like I have said all along, leadership is more important than a manpower advantage. Knowing how to effectively use the manpower advantage is greater in importance than having one.


65 posted on 12/17/2019 1:31:49 PM PST by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: keat

“What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?”

Reminds me of some of the inane questions on Quora.


66 posted on 12/17/2019 2:37:24 PM PST by Tallguy (Facts be d@mned! The narrative must be protected at all costs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ozark Tom

“submarines are tricky in that way. It is a fine line between doing it on demand, or just because!“

Gotta keep that screen door on the submarine closed so it won’t sink. :D


67 posted on 12/17/2019 4:20:43 PM PST by Redcitizen (Tagline not secure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; conservatism_IS_compassion

“...highlights just how inventive the Wright brothers were when they came up with a fixed wing craft...” [exDemMom, post 6]

“...it didn’t take long for that Wright [propeller] advantage to be mooted by advances in engine design.” [conservatism_IS_compassion, post 42]

Wrong.

Wilbur and Orville Wright weren’t even close to being first: not in using fixed (non-rotating, non-flapping) wings. Not in getting aloft either.

In 1894, Hiram S Maxim (inventor of the self-powered machine gun) got off the ground in a flying machine of his own design, powered by a 360 hp steam engine turning two propellers - its main wingspan was 110 ft and it weighed about 7000 pounds. It generated so much lift it broke free of the restraints on the track he’d had made for the experiment. He throttled back, declared he had achieved his objectives, and went no further.

In France, Clement Ader flew 164 ft in a steam-powered craft he had designed and built. Or so he claimed: that was in 1890, supposedly. The French Army furnished some financial backing; during tests they observed in 1897, Ader couldn’t get off the ground. The Army lost interest.

The Wrights’ greatest insight: success would hinge on control. Other inventors had tried to build an inherently stable craft that would right itself and return to a safe, stable orientation without corrective input from a pilot. The Wrights devised the first machine that could be controlled in all three axes - roll, pitch, and yaw. In so doing they transformed the pilot from a passive passenger into an active participant, in monitoring the flight path of the machine and correcting misalignments to maintain safe flight.

Their success in designing a propeller was almost as noteworthy: the ones they installed on their Flyer were more efficient in converting applied power to thrust than any other designs then extant, by a huge margin. No other designs came close to theirs for many years.


68 posted on 12/17/2019 4:53:27 PM PST by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

Often a smaller, better organized force handled aggressively wins the day. Superior numbers at the point of the attack are important, however.


69 posted on 12/17/2019 5:13:57 PM PST by Tallguy (Facts be d@mned! The narrative must be protected at all costs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Actually, the politics wouldn’t have worked. Nobody would have believed it was necessary to mobilize that kind of force to defeat the South”

Lincoln initially only called 90,000 militia for short-term. More troops than had ever been mustered, but far short of what would be required.


70 posted on 12/17/2019 5:22:19 PM PST by Tallguy (Facts be d@mned! The narrative must be protected at all costs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

agree


71 posted on 12/17/2019 6:02:28 PM PST by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
Lincoln initially only called 90,000 militia for short-term. More troops than had ever been mustered, but far short of what would be required.

Exactly. They had no idea what they were in for. They had the theoretical necessary power to defeat the South, but they would never believe they would need to muster it until they suffered a sufficient number of defeats to convince them to get more serious about the effort.

They always had the manpower, they just didn't realize they were going to need it until later.

72 posted on 12/17/2019 6:54:45 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe; DiogenesLamp; rockrr; x; central_va; Pelham
DiogenesLamp: "Lee and others gave them some advantages, defending their own territory also gave them some advantages, but these advantages cannot equal a 4 to 1 manpower over match."

Not quite four to one.
The usual numbers are roughly one million Confederate soldiers vs. 2.5 million Union troops.
These from populations of roughly 9 million Confederates vs. 22.5 million Union citizens.
Both of those numbers are 2.5 to one, not 4 to one.

Yes, of course, the tricky part is, how do we count slaves?
Union slave-states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware) included about half a million slaves, total.
Confederate populations included 3.5 million slaves.
If, for sake of argument, we subtract those out, then we are left with 5.5 million white Confederates vs. 22 million white Union, and there it is, indeed, four to one.

But why subtract out slaves?
In fact about 100,000 Confederate ex-slaves plus another 100,000 Union freedmen served as Union colored troops.
And my guess is the total of slaves serving Confederate armies is likely at least that number, if not more -- consider, it's said Lee had 30,000 slaves with his army at Gettysburg alone.

Even without serving directly in combat, Confederate army slaves performed innumerable vital tasks that often Union soldiers to did for the North.
Think of building fortifications, repairing roads, driving supply wagons, etc.
Plus, away from the front lines, Confederate slaves quickly switched over from growing cash crops like cotton to growing food for Confederate armies.

Today pro-Confederates tell us that many Confederate slaves also served in combat, to which the response is: only those who could pass as white.
But regardless of how many bullets slaves fired at Union troops, the fact is they were integral to both Confederate armies and the wartime Confederate economy.

So, bottom line: when we count slaves in, then the ratio of Union to Confederate populations and armies is 2.5 to one, not 4 to 1.

Now consider: traditional military strategy & tactics teach that given the natural advantages of defense, attacking armies should have at least a three to one advantage in numbers over defenders.
The overall Union advantage was barely 2.5 to one, meaning barely adequate for the job.
Further, there were very few major battles (I can't think of one) where Union troops outnumbered Confederates even two to one.

So four to one is a myth.

73 posted on 12/18/2019 4:55:36 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

well stated.


74 posted on 12/18/2019 5:47:00 AM PST by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

And sank itself. Hardly a glowing record.


75 posted on 12/18/2019 7:20:31 AM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: LS

So the confederates invented the concept of kamikaze runs?

/s


76 posted on 12/18/2019 10:39:46 AM PST by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Gilmore


77 posted on 12/18/2019 10:53:32 AM PST by olesigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: olesigh

Looks like he could have been a vested member of E Clampus Vitus in good standing. LOL.

Yes, that’s the guy. I do recall seeing a contemporary Grass Valley Newspaper in a museum in the town recording the flight, but that was more than 50 years ago. My Dad showed it to me. . . He was a life-long aviation enthusiast.


78 posted on 12/18/2019 11:23:22 AM PST by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplophobe bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: LS
"And sank itself. Hardly a glowing record."

Beats sitting out the war in a dry dock. Moreover "Sank itself" isn't something that the researchers who have studied Hunley for years claim to know.

But back to the point, the Hunley actually sailed and fought, while the Invisible Whale that you were hailing as a superior submarine never even left its berth during the war.

What Sunk the Confederate Submarine, the Hunley? New Clue Emerges

79 posted on 12/18/2019 11:47:14 AM PST by Pelham (Obama. Seditious conspiracy. Misprision of treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?

It wouldn't have stayed in the air, due to the empennage.

That is, all of the undersides coated with bronze arrowheads. ;)

80 posted on 12/18/2019 4:39:11 PM PST by Does so (.Democrats only believe in democracy when they win the election...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson