Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually having a bayonet clash at the end of the charge was not that common - either attacker or defender would give.
I guess there would be no point in standing your ground a fighting melee if you can see that the attackers out number your own by the time they reach you. Or if you are the attacker, and by the time you reach your enemies at the end of the charge, you see that they were able to get off enough rounds, and hit enough of your own guys so that they outnumber your own men, you may as well just give up, drop your bayonet, and put up your hands.
But what I dont get is, if you are able to motivate men to charge, then why wouldnt you be able to get your men to stand and face a charge? That is, if it is true that the army being charged on is usually the one that flees.
Why did the Colonial Era, Early firearms era Generals and Field Marshals not dig trenches for their troops to hide in? From what I understand the basic tactic for infantry was to just line up like a shield wall with no shield and just fire at each other while completely exposed.
What was the reasoning behind this? When did they start digging trenches and fox holes for troops to hid in for cover? Is it because the range and mobility of the earlier muskets armies did not allow time for the infantry to dig these types of structures before they engaged in an open field? I know that during sieges they had built trenches.
rate, first rifle, was slow.
Therefore, if you and hid in a trench, the enemy cavalry would have cut you.
Do you not have a machine gun? : : EEK::
Therefore, the trenches were besmyslenno? Who dug the trenches? Slaves? ))
Why did the Colonial Era, Early firearms era Generals and Field Marshals not dig trenches for their troops to hide in?
If they were staying in one place for any length of time, they would dig trenches and build breastworks.
Quote:
From what I understand the basic tactic for infantry was to just line up like a shield wall with no shield and just fire at each other while completely exposed.
That was a common tactic for armies on the move who wanted to outmaneuver each other, but not when defending a specific location or fighting in any terrain not an open field. Also, any cover that was present would be used.
Quote:
What was the reasoning behind this?
When fighting without cover, mobility was generally the reason.
Quote:
When did they start digging trenches and fox holes for troops to hid in for cover?
When siege warfare was invented. So, a very long time. Medieval armies besieging a town would always dig themselves trenches, and the Romans used them heavily whenever they needed to fortify something.
Quote:
Is it because the range and mobility of the earlier muskets armies did not allow time for the infantry to dig these types of structures before they engaged in an open field?
More that moving to defeat the enemy army was sometimes the goal, rather than defending a specific piece of land.
Quote:
I know that during sieges they had built trenches.
Also, the manly way to fight was to stand there on the front line and fire away. Hiding in a trench was as bad as hiding behind a tree or wall. There was still a lot of hand to hand fighting with swords and lances. Can't do that sort of thing well while you stay in a trench.
Actually, colonial era soldiers hit behind trees and walls all the time. It may not have been a touted ideal, but the ideals touted by the high ranking officers and the behavior of the enlisted and lower ranking officers who are being shot at very often don't match up.
Then were fatalities from battle even common in those wars, or did most of the soldiers die from malnutrition and disease? Whether many soldiers did die, what was the cause?
Up until the World Wars broke out, disease was the biggest killer of soldiers, not combat. During the Colonial Era, you are in fact more likely to take ill and die than to die from gunfire, artillery, or bayonet.
Up until the World Wars broke out, disease was the biggest killer of soldiers, not combat. During the Colonial Era, you are in fact more likely to take ill and die than to die from gunfire, artillery, or bayonet.
Did any army or nation ever try to use this little tidbit of misfortune to their advantage? I know the Golden Horde would lob dead cows infested with ticks that carried the Bubonic plague over the walls of a Genoese Colony along the Black sea to kill off the defenders. Did anyone else then try to use germ warfare?
Also, how much of breech loading/early firearms/muskets tactics and strategies come from the crossbow/archery tactics and strategies of the middle/dark/ancient times?
And how much are modern day/cartridge/semi auto/automatic firearms tactics descended from the early days of firearms, and therefore how much of that comes from the ancient archery?
The basic tactic for formally trained infantry in the Colonial era was the bayonet charge, that was what settled the issue on most battlefields, not the exchange of fire.
The effective range of a non rifled musket was around 60 to 75 yards. Because of the weapons inaccuracy, regiments fired what amounted to a huge shotgun blast at a massed enemy approaching, not individually aimed shots.
Large ordnance pieces existed aboard ships and in forts, but field artillery was still relatively small, six pounders being the most typical. They could do serious damage when discharging canister shots at close range, again that shotgun effect, but at long distances they fired solid shot which of course would do horrible damage to anyone hit directly, and might bounce around and take out a row of soldiers lined up one behind the other, but generally was not a large scale killer and could even be avoided if it is seen coming by moving out of its path.
So, Colonial armies did not have the capacity to do much damage to an enemy from distances beyond a 100 yards or so. The way an attack would unfold would be for the side doing the assault to march shoulder to shoulder to a point within musket range, discharge one volley, then press home the bayonet attack. The defenders could get off one or two volleys at most before the sides came together.
The decisive factor was the ability of the defenders to remain where they were and not take off running as the wall of steel bayonets arrived. They run, they lose formation and cohesion and the attackers can kill at will during the pursuit. The majority of the time, the defenders ran.
In that a trench was not really needed for protection before the enemy closed within musket range, and that the trench would not protect you from a bayonet charge, trenches did not have that much utility in an open field fight.
Further, it was doctrine within most armies of the day that if you placed a man in a protective trench, it would then be very difficult to get him to leave that protective cover to advance into danger. They also felt that if an attacking force knew that they had a trench line to which to retreat, that would make them all that more disposed to retreat when things got rough.
Trenches were used where they made sense, mostly in sieges where the attacking force was subject to the fire of larger ordnance pieces in fortifications, and needed cover. The Americans and French built an elaborate system of siege and approach trenches outside of Yorktown for that final showdown.
A very fine assessment!
In addition, European wars were fought with musketry on both sides equally.
This universal use created a large series of strategies which all were created to tip the outcome of either assault or defense. Each European nation developed it's own particular strategies, and many depended on the individual nation's propensity for going to war or not.
The French legions under Bonaparte became feared largely from their infantry tactics. The French deployed in long lines that were 4 abreast; when the first rank fired, they dropped to their knees while the following 2nd and 3rd ranks fired fired in rapid succession.
As the first ranks all died, they were instantly replaced by their long line. That line could be broken up at any time a wide frontal attack was needed, but most often, the tactic was used to cut a hole in the opponent's line that was used to break up the remainders through the French army's speed of attack and incredible discipline in the ranks.
The French got into bayonet range very quickly, and as Grandstander mentioned, the bayonet always finished the fight.
The French cavalry, using long lances, swords and fast horses, did much to cut down an opposing wide rank from the sides. The French learned their cavalry tactics from the Poles, Bosnians and the Czechs, who had the finest cavalry in Europe for ages. Both nations provided cavalry mercenaries to other nations, and they developed lances that could kill several men who were afoot at one time without the cavalryman losing his lance or his horse.
There were divisions of French heavy cavalry and light cavalry, and different tactics were developed for each. Breaking the other sides' nerve was the key element. Once in rout, the battle was always lost.
The British eventually defeated Napoleon through their highly developed training to never yield as much as anything else in their tactics. A battle was always a great test of nerves on both sides, and terror was a very potent part of victory or defeat. Artillery at range may not have killed a lot of soldiers, but the terror it cause among the ranks was a very viable weapon that was greater than the deaths alone. The terror only increased with each step forward and each stand that resisted.
That's why soldiers on both sides of a battle in the Civil War were screaming by the time they met in close quarters. A human under such pressure has to let out the fear and tension in some way.
In the end, the only real protection any soldier had was sticking with the herd. When it came to bayonets, the numbers really counted.
Our modern neckties were originally worn by Bosnians, who also wore wooden wings into battle. They were immensely feared by all who opposed them, and other nations adopted their neckwear as both a tribute and a sign of fearsome manhood.
The Czech and Polish cavalry had been so successful for so long, both nations felt secure in their abilities throughout WWI. When Hitler used the tank blitzkrieg, this long success was what got those nation's cavalries slaughtered in such great numbers. No lance can kill a tank.
Did any army or nation ever try to use this little tidbit of misfortune to their advantage? I know the Golden Horde would lob dead cows infested with ticks that carried the Bubonic plague over the walls of a Genoese Colony along the Black sea to kill off the defenders. Did anyone else then try to use germ warfare?
According to a History Channel documentary, Mongolians staging a siege on Europe back roughly during the middle ages noticed their own men were dying of disease. As a last ditch effort, they put their corpses on catapults, and launched them over the wall. One of the earlier cases of germ warfare. Can't recall, but this may have contributed to the Black Death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
