Whats with all the Bayonet Charges?

[Hugh de Salle]

Shouldnt this be just limted to 1 charge ive never heard of a unit regrouping and charging again they were 1 trick ponys they worked or they didnt.

[mhenry_101381]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Originally posted by wmpryor:

Multiple assaults over the course of a battle were not uncommon. They were not "1 trick ponys" as you put it. Your comment suggests that you haven't read much American Civil War history. The AI in this game is a little charge-happy, but until a unit's morale and condition become degraded it can engage in melee effectively.

Actually i have read a lot of civil war history and Bayonet charges were very rare so rare that the 20th Maine charge at Little Roundtop was ruled an unnsual textbook maneuver , Also Hancocks order for the 1st Minnesota charge and a few other instances like the Bloody Angle and Fort Pillow...

Most Historians agree that Bayonet wounds only accounted for 0.4% to 1% of casualties in the entire war which is exceedingly low however in this game they charge on a whim somtimes without even firing a shot which i find very strange.

You need to keep reading, bayonet charges were quite often. However taking the position was the ultimate goal and you couldn't risk throwing away your men's lives on a random charge without a real chance of winning. Spotsylvania Court House/Cold Harbor had a few on division and Corps level, Gettysburg had plenty up Culp's Hill, Cemetary Ridge and Little Round Top. Antietam had some north of the Sunken Road in the cornfield. There were 10,000 engagements/battles in the Civil War. When troops clashed, bayonets were just one weapon, anything and everything was used to survive. They came with hunting knives, brass knuckles, pistols and anything else they could grab or swing. To say that bayonet charges were rare was completely false. Name a major battle that didn't involve a bayonet charge or several.

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by mhenry_101381:

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Actually i have read a lot of civil war history and Bayonet charges were very rare so rare that the 20th Maine charge at Little Roundtop was ruled an unnsual textbook maneuver , Also Hancocks order for the 1st Minnesota charge and a few other instances like the Bloody Angle and Fort Pillow...

Most Historians agree that Bayonet wounds only accounted for 0.4% to 1% of casualties in the entire war which is exceedingly low however in this game they charge on a whim somtimes without even firing a shot which i find very strange.

You need to keep reading, bayonet charges were quite often. However taking the position was the ultimate goal and you couldn't risk throwing away your men's lives on a random charge without a real chance of winning. Spotsylvania Court House/Cold Harbor had a few on division and Corps level, Gettysburg had plenty up Culp's Hill, Cemetary Ridge and Little Round Top. Antietam had some north of the Sunken Road in the cornfield. There were 10,000 engagements/battles in the Civil War. When troops clashed, bayonets were just one weapon, anything and everything was used to survive. They came with hunting knives, brass knuckles, pistols and anything else they could grab or swing. To say that bayonet charges were rare was completely false. Name a major battle that didn't involve a bayonet charge or several.

Gunshot: 1,565 (70.0 %)
Artillery: 624 (27.9 %)
Injury by a horse (thrown, fall, kick, runaway, etc.): 8 (0.4 %)
Sabre: 7 (0.3 %)
Bayonet: 5 (0.2 %)
Clubbed musket or butt of musket: 4 (less than 0.2 %)
Other: 24 (1.1 %)

Total: 2,237 .

These are the confirmed medical reports from part of the union army at Gettysburg Although it dosent state the Division it was taken from these are for named soldiers only.

As you can see only 16 casualties were caused by Melee combat out of 2,237 in the War as a whole Bayonet casualties amounted to 04% to as high as 1% even if melee casualties were 2% it would indicate that in the war as a whole hand to hand was rare unless you have magically proof that it wasnt , Simply stating certain indivdual actions at some battles dosent indicate anything.

[Didz]

Originally posted by hannibalbarca120002001:

You set out the methodology, I performed your maths for you, that you now don't like it is hardly a problem for me.

Actually what I've said repeatedly is that the incidence of hand-to -hand combat cannot be derived from the medical records, which as you quite correctly point out, do not list all the casualties.

The method of extropolating total casualties from the number of injured relies upon a seperate assessment of lethality for the weapon type. It can't be based upon recovery rates, and so it requires an element of assumption based upon external evidence. For example: One might base the lethality of a bayonet attack on the number of lethal knife attacks recorded in criminal records.

Bruce Quarrie came up with a set of figures for use in his wargame campaign rules which set the lethality of bayonet and sabres attacks as being the lowest and artillery as the most lethal. But I'm not sure how he came up with those figures, and as it was only for a set of wargame rules it may not have been very scientific.

The manual sets the pace for a charge, the reason is to minimise the duration of fire taken in movement, so not being picky, just pointing out what the manuals tell us, which your link does not do.

I'm grateful for the information.

My comment was actually intended to be more general and as noted above the 165 paces per minute specified in the American drill manual is unusually fast. The French pas de charge was a mere 120 paces per minute as was the British quick pace.

The fastest I've ever seen anyone march is 140 paces per minute and that looks really weird, so I'm curious to see what a close order unit looks like trying to march at 165 paces per minute. It must resemble something like the keystone cops, or a bunch of blokes in a walking race. It must also be extrememly tiring so I doubt it was kept up for long even assuming the ground was flat and unbroken.

Anyway I've been watching a lot of re-enectmentor training drill videos to see if anyone has actually video'd it but so far drawn a blank. I've also tried finding a US Army video of troops marching at the Double Quick Pace, but so far not found any, although it is still specified in the US Army drill manual. Most units just seem to break into to double time directly from the quick, which sort of makes sense.

[pfcjking]

Am I the only person who read the OP's title question in Jerry Sienfeld's voice?

[Didz]

Whose Jerry Sienfeld?

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by Didz:

Whose Jerry Sienfeld?

Hehe i have heard of him but as a fellow Brit i havent a clue what he looks like...

[Flharfh]

I think this all goes back to infantry moving too quickly. In game infantry can charge through rifle musket range (340 yds, or 310 meters) in the time it takes to reload (20-30 sec). For some perspective, the current world record in the 300m sprint is 30.8 seconds, so in game inf charge faster than modern Olympic sprinters run. And that's with no upgrades.

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by Flharfh:

I think this all goes back to infantry moving too quickly. In game infantry can charge through rifle musket range (340 yds, or 310 meters) in the time it takes to reload (20-30 sec). For some perspective, the current world record in the 300m sprint is 30.8 seconds, so in game inf charge faster than modern Olympic sprinters run.

Thats a good valid point im pretty sure a good soldier firing a rifled springfield could do 3 shots per min the average was around 2.5 per min in combat so 1 every 30 secs or so although i could be wrong.

However in defence of a soldiers fittness levels in the CW i have to say they were very fit indeed they were marching 15-20 miles a day there average weight was around 67kg or 10st 7lbs and considering they were carrying anything from 30-55 lbs in weight + there rifle which was around 10 lbs thats pretty impressive.

[mhenry_101381]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Originally posted by mhenry_101381:

You need to keep reading, bayonet charges were quite often. However taking the position was the ultimate goal and you couldn't risk throwing away your men's lives on a random charge without a real chance of winning. Spotsylvania Court House/Cold Harbor had a few on division and Corps level, Gettysburg had plenty up Culp's Hill, Cemetary Ridge and Little Round Top. Antietam had some north of the Sunken Road in the cornfield. There were 10,000 engagements/battles in the Civil War. When troops clashed, bayonets were just one weapon, anything and everything was used to survive. They came with hunting knives, brass knuckles, pistols and anything else they could grab or swing. To say that bayonet charges were rare was completely false. Name a major battle that didn't involve a bayonet charge or several.

Gunshot: 1,565 (70.0 %)
Artillery: 624 (27.9 %)
Injury by a horse (thrown, fall, kick, runaway, etc.): 8 (0.4 %)
Sabre: 7 (0.3 %)
Bayonet: 5 (0.2 %)
Clubbed musket or butt of musket: 4 (less than 0.2 %)
Other: 24 (1.1 %)

Total: 2,237 .

These are the confirmed medical reports from part of the union army at Gettysburg Although it dosent state the Division it was taken from these are for named soldiers only.

As you can see only 16 casualties were caused by Melee combat out of 2,237 in the War as a whole Bayonet casualties amounted to 04% to as high as 1% even if melee casualties were 2% it would indicate that in the war as a whole hand to hand was rare unless you have magically proof that it wasnt , Simply stating certain indivdual actions at some battles dosent indicate anything.

Research Spotsylvania Court House and the Mule Shoe. The CSA was using trench warfare and bayonet charges by the USA were made at brigade and Corps levels. Some of the most intense hand to hand fighting of the entire war was here.

[Didz]

Originally posted by Flharfh:

I think this all goes back to infantry moving too quickly. In game infantry can charge through rifle musket range (340 yds, or 310 meters) in the time it takes to reload (20-30 sec). For some perspective, the current world record in the 300m sprint is 30.8 seconds, so in game inf charge faster than modern Olympic sprinters run. And that's with no upgrades.

i agree that always seems to be the problem with historical stragetgy games. I think developers assume that the average joe gamer would find historical movement rates too boring.

Back on ETW Kaunitz tried to develop a mod to slow everything down to accurate speeds, but it did make everything seem like it was moving in slow motion as the figures are about four times larger than life.

Originally posted by mhenry_101381:

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Gunshot: 1,565 (70.0 %)
Artillery: 624 (27.9 %)
Injury by a horse (thrown, fall, kick, runaway, etc.): 8 (0.4 %)
Sabre: 7 (0.3 %)
Bayonet: 5 (0.2 %)
Clubbed musket or butt of musket: 4 (less than 0.2 %)
Other: 24 (1.1 %)

Total: 2,237 .

These are the confirmed medical reports from part of the union army at Gettysburg Although it dosent state the Division it was taken from these are for named soldiers only.

As you can see only 16 casualties were caused by Melee combat out of 2,237 in the War as a whole Bayonet casualties amounted to 04% to as high as 1% even if melee casualties were 2% it would indicate that in the war as a whole hand to hand was rare unless you have magically proof that it wasnt , Simply stating certain indivdual actions at some battles dosent indicate anything.

Research Spotsylvania Court House and the Mule Shoe. The CSA was using trench warfare and bayonet charges by the USA were made at brigade and Corps levels. Some of the most intense hand to hand fighting of the entire war was here.

I've read several primary accounts of hand to hand fighting at the Muleshoe, after this was mentioned earlier. However, whilst this proves that it did happen it does really prove that it was commonplace, or that it happened often. It also has to be remembered that the fighting at the muleshoe, as with many other famous incidents in the ACW was more of an assault on a defensive work than an open field fight, and even in the Napoleonic Wars hand to hand fighting was more common during seiges and assaults on field works.

What's more interesting for me above is the final confirmation of where the 0.2% figure for bayonet wounds at Gettysberg came from, as I've been trying to clarify that for days.

The impression originally given was that this figure was the total percentage of casualties inflicted by bayonets in the entire battle. which would have been an awesome source if it had been the case.

Unfortunately, medical records typically only contain an analysis of men treated by surgeons, and as Hugh say's it's not even for the entire battle only one unnamed Union Division, so basically it doesn't tell us much at all, and is actually less useful than the 1888 analysis of the medical records for the entire war.

The only impression I get from reading all the primary evidence is that hand to hand combat was more frequent in the ACW, than it was in the Napoleonic Wars. Which is interesting in itself given the increase in firepower in the intervening fifty years.

But I certainly don't think it was common, and most men still seemed to prefer to shoot their enemies from a distance even to the point of not fixing their bayonets in order to ease reloading and then having to use their muskets as a club when unable to escape.

[HB]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Originally posted by mhenry_101381:

You need to keep reading, bayonet charges were quite often. However taking the position was the ultimate goal and you couldn't risk throwing away your men's lives on a random charge without a real chance of winning. Spotsylvania Court House/Cold Harbor had a few on division and Corps level, Gettysburg had plenty up Culp's Hill, Cemetary Ridge and Little Round Top. Antietam had some north of the Sunken Road in the cornfield. There were 10,000 engagements/battles in the Civil War. When troops clashed, bayonets were just one weapon, anything and everything was used to survive. They came with hunting knives, brass knuckles, pistols and anything else they could grab or swing. To say that bayonet charges were rare was completely false. Name a major battle that didn't involve a bayonet charge or several.

Gunshot: 1,565 (70.0 %)
Artillery: 624 (27.9 %)
Injury by a horse (thrown, fall, kick, runaway, etc.): 8 (0.4 %)
Sabre: 7 (0.3 %)
Bayonet: 5 (0.2 %)
Clubbed musket or butt of musket: 4 (less than 0.2 %)
Other: 24 (1.1 %)

Total: 2,237 .

These are the confirmed medical reports from part of the union army at Gettysburg Although it dosent state the Division it was taken from these are for named soldiers only.

As you can see only 16 casualties were caused by Melee combat out of 2,237 in the War as a whole Bayonet casualties amounted to 04% to as high as 1% even if melee casualties were 2% it would indicate that in the war as a whole hand to hand was rare unless you have magically proof that it wasnt , Simply stating certain indivdual actions at some battles dosent indicate anything.

No they are not, they are just some numbers posted on civilwar talk. Actual Medical records i ndicate 9% of all wia were shot by a pistol, gunshots were not 70% of the total either,Custers Brigade charging 5 times each time its in action, 20th Main charging twice within hours, etc, indicate your uninformed.

[wrenchman.rk]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Originally posted by wmpryor:

Multiple assaults over the course of a battle were not uncommon. They were not "1 trick ponys" as you put it. Your comment suggests that you haven't read much American Civil War history. The AI in this game is a little charge-happy, but until a unit's morale and condition become degraded it can engage in melee effectively.

Actually i have read a lot of civil war history and Bayonet charges were very rare so rare that the 20th Maine charge at Little Roundtop was ruled an unnsual textbook maneuver , Also Hancocks order for the 1st Minnesota charge and a few other instances like the Bloody Angle and Fort Pillow...

Most Historians agree that Bayonet wounds only accounted for 0.4% to 1% of casualties in the entire war which is exceedingly low however in this game they charge on a whim somtimes without even firing a shot which i find very strange.

Would love to know what magical history books you read.

[mhenry_101381]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Originally posted by Flharfh:

I think this all goes back to infantry moving too quickly. In game infantry can charge through rifle musket range (340 yds, or 310 meters) in the time it takes to reload (20-30 sec). For some perspective, the current world record in the 300m sprint is 30.8 seconds, so in game inf charge faster than modern Olympic sprinters run.

Thats a good valid point im pretty sure a good soldier firing a rifled springfield could do 3 shots per min the average was around 2.5 per min in combat so 1 every 30 secs or so although i could be wrong.

However in defence of a soldiers fittness levels in the CW i have to say they were very fit indeed they were marching 15-20 miles a day there average weight was around 67kg or 10st 7lbs and considering they were carrying anything from 30-55 lbs in weight + there rifle which was around 10 lbs thats pretty impressive.

Given that is standard distances to march. Research Jackson's "Foot Calvary". Some units were marching closer to 25/day. I think someone set a record close to 40 miles/day during the civil war. Also reserach Longstreet's Corps at the Battle of the Wilderness and their forced march to make the 2nd day of the battle. Read "Bloody Spring: 40 days that sealed the Confederacy's fate". It's the 40 days from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor in 1864. It will shatter are your arguments.

[HB]

Originally posted by wrenchman.rk:

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Actually i have read a lot of civil war history and Bayonet charges were very rare so rare that the 20th Maine charge at Little Roundtop was ruled an unnsual textbook maneuver , Also Hancocks order for the 1st Minnesota charge and a few other instances like the Bloody Angle and Fort Pillow...

Most Historians agree that Bayonet wounds only accounted for 0.4% to 1% of casualties in the entire war which is exceedingly low however in this game they charge on a whim somtimes without even firing a shot which i find very strange.

Would love to know what magical history books you read.

hugh does not read books, he just re post anything he finds on the net, which explains his utter failure to understand history.

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by hannibalbarca120002001:

Originally posted by wrenchman.rk:

Would love to know what magical history books you read.

hugh does not read books, he just re post anything he finds on the net, which explains his utter failure to understand history.

Not really i read Shelby Footes epic civil war volumes and if i find some intresting facts come up on the net of course ill repost them .

Shelby Foote is a noted civil war historian who has indicated on many occasions that hand to hand combat in the civil war was rare but you chose to ignore this and keep spouting crap about indvidual engagements , You also chose to ignore medical records from the period which proves bayonet and melee wounds only account for a tiny % of wounds in the war.

Nobody is not saying Hand to Hand didnt happen we know it did normally when troops face no other choice or in defence of attack on earthworks but its not somthing that troops on ethier side were not very enthusiatic about and it certainly did not happen as frequently as some posters make out on here and more importanly not as often as happens in the game.



This is a quote from Civil War Net.

The Civil War Bayonet was a sharpened piece of steel with a ring on the end that slid over the barrel of a rifle, it was then turned and locked into place.

This is called a ring bayonet, bayonets today are essentially the same as they were during the Civil War, just with different blade designs.

Soldiers in combat seldom ever used their bayonets in fighting.

They were usually only used in dire situations when they had no other options.

The effectiveness of the Civil War bayonet was more psychological then physical. Seeing hundreds of soldiers coming at you with large knives on the end of their rifles had a pretty frighting effect.


You can believe this or not but as ex soldier myself that last thing you really wanted to happen to you was being in a situation where your face to face with your enemy it starts to get very personal unlike shooting your gun from 600 yrds where you dont care cos hes just a blip in your sights.