Could the South have won the Civil War with 100 AK-47s?

Yes

Questions like this are why I come to the OT.

What about 100 30-06's with 12 power scopes, we could have picked the Yanks off from 250-300 yards.

I don't think so. Its still short range small arms. Its still ineffective against entrenced enemy. All the other caveats still apply like needing horses and supply lines and artillery and all that stuff. The gulf and the river are still blockaded. Zinging a million more rounds over the unions head wouldn't have mattered. The south lost an industrial war of attrition. A few modern small arms wouldn't have changed that.

Who gets the AKs? Cavalry or infantry?

The North probably would have just changed their battle tactics to something a little more un-gentlemanly than marching single file into some deserted field and lining up in tight column formations.

It was always going to be a war of attrition.

And this post reminded me of the opening scene from the classic Jean Claude Van Damme movie, Timecop.

The south lost the war due to infrastructure and logistics. The south likely would have won if England and France hadn't backed out of assisting the Confederacy in destroying the blockade and providing the south with supplies.

So no, 100 AKs likely wouldn't have helped.

quote:

---

Easily.

Formations would have been easy to put multiple soldiers down quickly

---

Line formation was largely abandoned by the end of the civil war. And that is just with the causalities from the Minié ball. if one side had AKs then the line formation would have been abandoned much sooner in the war.

Harry Turtledove is that you?

The answer is probably.

There’s no way the Union wins at Gettysburg (1863) if the south has AK47s and they could’ve broken the siege of Vicksburg with them by using mounted strikes to interdict the federal supply lines as well. If those two are southern victories the Union sues for peace and Lincoln isn’t re-elected.

1864 is harder. They definitely win at Chattanooga, but can they open up the Mississippi again? I’m not sure.

They would’ve won outright at the Wilderness so the overland campaign would’ve never happened so it’s a stalemate, but I’m not sure they could’ve invaded the North again given their supply situation. Likely it would’ve been mounted raids to destroy Union cities and I don’t think Grant could’ve forced Lee out of a fixed position so I’d argue you’re looking at a stalemate most likely.