Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 207

Thread: Swords VS Bayonets?

  1. #121

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    The only thoughts I have one this without doing much more research is:

    1. An 18" bayonet on the end of a musket has a much greater reach then a sword, hence a pretty good comfort factor for the bearer against a swordsman, he can keep the swordsman well out of strike range if he's quick enough.
    2. The sword is almost certainly faster to weild, and so has the ability to parry faster, so a skilled swordsman would probably be able to parry a bayonet thrust and step inside the thrust to strike before his opponent could recover.

    Not really an answer to the question but my first take on the pro's and cons. I'm sure someone like Mike Loades or Alan Larsen would be able to give us a much more reasoned analysis.

    On a practical note, very few units stopped to switch from musket to sword before attacking from from the later 18th to 20th century suggesting that by then the sword was no longer considered a superior option, if you had a ranged weapon in your hand.

  2. #122

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    One trained Swordsman against one guy wielding a pointy stick (spear or musket with bayonet) would get a 70:30 chance to win IMHO. I did some vikingish re-enactment two decades ago, and though a spear gives better reach, it's not that easy to handle and a trained fighter will get a chance to grab it, then close into sword-stabbing range..

    The problem is, in Line Battles it's not 1 vs. 1 but many guys with short range swords against a massive wall of sticky things pointing at them.. one might evade the first thrust, but there's more coming your way..

  3. #123

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    The other point worth noting is that in close order the guys with the bayonets can simply thrust forward to keep the enemy at bay, whilst the guys with the sword need room to swing without killing each other, and even then only the front rank can fight. So, 100 men in two ranks armed with bayonets, end up facing at most 25 men armed with swords and enough space to use them. In fact, having depth in a formation of sword armed soldiers is counter productive, as being pushed or jostled from behind whilst trying to swing a sword is not helpful, and likely to end up pushing you into the very bayonets you were hoping to deftly sidestep.

    Incidently, this is also why the Roman formations armed with pilum and gladius held such an advantage over other races with their longer swinging blade. The ability to keep a close formation and make short thrusts between locked shields usually beat a loose formation of warriors armed with long sword or axes that needed space to use effectively.
    Last edited by Didz; March 29, 2013 at 06:22 AM.

  4. #124
    trance's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,581

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    The cutting motion creates large wounds which causes much bleeding, but it won't cause quick failure of vital organs. Also, rather thin clothing can disrupt the damage a cut will do. Don't get me wrong, a sharp knife or sword will still cause catastrophic wounds, but in a combat situation, piercing wounds are more lethal. Don't forget that you can still use the rest of your body as a weapon while carrying a bayonet, and use the bayonet armed rifle as a blunt weapon as well. It's very versatile.

    Can anyone seriously question the bayonet's superiority? It's effective, basically you create a spear with limited cutting capability out of your rifle. Allow for less weight, don't forget how much difference even a few kilograms will do for your ability to march and remain in relatively good fighting condition. The bayonet meant that you could now equip every infantry soldier with rifles and still maintain the ability to both march long and hold ground in melee combat.

  5. #125

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    cutting was not that deadly as many think.. Cutting will cause flesh wounds, but it lacks lethality to damage vital organs, cuts were very common in cavalry combat, but they were considered inferior to thrusting attacks. This is exactly why heavy cavalry used straight swords which were much better for thrusting. With thrust you don't need that much force to cause lethal damage to human body, which is exactly opposite with cuts where you need a lot of strength to cause lethal damage.

  6. #126

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    bayonets of course.
    just google Alexander Anderson

  7. #127

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    During the Great Northern War the Swedish army still preferred to use the sword over the bayonet, against infantry that is (even though every Swedish musketeer were equipped with bayonets after 1704), this would give you some hint as the Swedish army was mainly melee focused and maybe the one using the method the most in western type armies. However, later they went for the bayonet again so they could perform an even closer Gå-På shock. The sword was later taken away because the high costs of producing swords to an army. One of the reasons, I believe, was that the bayonet musket was much easier to grab for an opponent, whereof the sword almost impossible without cutting yourself badly. And for the record, the bayonet musket didn't have much longer reach than a 1 meter thrusting sword, only more power to it when stabbing.

  8. #128

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    From correspondence from a swedish infantryman/officer in GNW:
    "but when the trusty swedish infantry reached them with the sword, there was only death for them"
    Last edited by poa; May 06, 2014 at 06:50 PM.
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

  9. #129

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    One has to be very careful when reading primary reports and accounts of battles from officers of the period. I've found that a great many officers write for their audience and for their own promotion and propaganda. It's not that they lie, it's more that they write what they believe is expected of them, both by their audience and their brother officers. For exmaple you will never read a British Officer mention that a British regiment broke or fled the field, they always become 'disordered' or 'confused'. If possible I try to coroborate such evidence with letters from the rank and file, who tend to be a bit more blunt in their assessments, or with letters from the other party to the incident.

    Another classic example of this sort of thing is The Battle of Maida, where according to various officers present the British and Sepoy infantry saw the enemy off with a massive bayonet charge that killed over 200 Frenchmen. When asked about this a Sergeant in one of the British regiments at the centre of the action wrote a rather dismissive reply stating that 'Whilst he would not wish to dispute what his Colonel had written, he was some distance from the action whilst he was in the front rank, and all he could say is that he never saw a single bayonet crossed in the entire action. Though we did chase them for a bit once they started to run.'
    Last edited by Didz; May 07, 2014 at 07:13 AM.

  10. #130

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    It was a letter to his wife IIRC
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

  11. #131

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    Quote Originally Posted by poa View Post
    It was a letter to his wife IIRC
    Possibly, though why his wife would be asking him about the official battle report.

    Comparing letters and journals from different sources reveals all sort of interesting information. Like the letters from Vivian and Vandeleur about the cavalry actions in the 1815 campaign. They obviously hated each others guts, and take every opportunity to call each other liars and accuse each other of cowardice and incompetence. Poor Uxbridge even had to intervene at one point to try and pour some oil on the argument.
    Last edited by Didz; May 07, 2014 at 12:47 PM.

  12. #132

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    This was not an official report, unfortunately it is now 20 years since i read the book and i got rid of my entire library when i relocated,
    he was talking about the campaign as he saw it, and his life, and advice her how to use the money.
    beats me why i only remember that sentence in detail
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

  13. #133

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandelion View Post
    One trained Swordsman against one guy wielding a pointy stick (spear or musket with bayonet) would get a 70:30 chance to win IMHO. I did some vikingish re-enactment two decades ago, and though a spear gives better reach, it's not that easy to handle and a trained fighter will get a chance to grab it, then close into sword-stabbing range..

    The problem is, in Line Battles it's not 1 vs. 1 but many guys with short range swords against a massive wall of sticky things pointing at them.. one might evade the first thrust, but there's more coming your way..
    I have a theory that the swedes used 1/3 pikemen in order to break rank/open up for close-in H2H where they were superior,
    in addition they fired their 2nd volley ( their 1st rank first volley) when they were already in bayonet range
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

  14. #134

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    Quote Originally Posted by poa View Post
    I have a theory that the swedes used 1/3 pikemen in order to break rank/open up for close-in H2H where they were superior,
    in addition they fired their 2nd volley ( their 1st rank first volley) when they were already in bayonet range
    What period are you talking about here, and based on what evidence?

    There are diagrams of Swedish mixed pike and infantry formations on the internet, but they date from the time of Gustavus Adolphus e.g. 16th-17th Century. The use of the pike had largely been superseded by the musket and bayonet by the start of the 18th Century.
    Last edited by Didz; May 08, 2014 at 06:37 AM.

  15. #135

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    GNW: "War Theory and historical explanation II. Carolean and European battle tactics 1700-1712"
    http://www.perlundberg.com/karolinsk.htm

    Till skillnad från jämförbart europeiskt infanteri, behöll svenskarna värjan som närstridsvapen för alla kategorier fotfolk, samt att man beväpnade 1/3 av bataljonerna med pikar - pikenerare som till egenskap var uttalat anfalls- och närstridsbenägna. Detta sammantaget gjorde det svenska infanteriet ovanligt offensivt rustat, och sökte nästan uteslutande att avgöra slag genom anfall med blanka vapen efter ett kort, men våldsamt eldöppnande från hela linjen.
    English
    Unlike comparable European infantry, the Swedes kept rapier as melee weapons for all categories footmen, and armed 1/3 of the battalions with pikes - pikemen as the property was outspoken attack and melee inclined. Altogether, this made ​​the Swedish infantry unusually aggressively poised, and looked almost exclusively to determine battles through charge with cold steel after a brief but fierce volley from the line.

    Förutom en intressant analys, ger de många citaten färg åt framställningen. Som tillexempel ur Karl XI:s infanterireglemente anno 1694, känt som Det nya Manéret: "... så snart dee hafwa skutit draga dee utt Wärjorna, och bryta så in medh Fienden." 1700-talssvenskan kan vara nog så spännande, inte minst med dess ljudhärmande stavning. Reglementet föreskrev således huru en bataljon skulle träffa fienden: man sökte nästan alltid strid med hjälp av anfall, och dessa kulminerade med att man gick på med blanka vapen - närstriden var det som skulle avgöra slaget och det förberedes i två snabba moment. Bataljonen var normalt fyra man djup, och vid sjuttio stegs avstånd levererade de två bakre leden sin första och enda salva, för att sedan dra värjan och fortsätta framryckningen med bataljonen; de två främre leden fick inte ge eld med sina musköter förrän de kunde nå fiendeleden med sina bajonetter!
    English
    In addition to an interesting analysis, they many citations color the petition. Like for example from Karl XI's infantry regulations of 1694, known as The New Doctrine: "... as soon as they have fired they draw their rapier, and break so into with enemy." 1700s Swedish language can be very exciting, especially with its onomatopoeic spelling. The regulations prescribed therefore how a battalion would meet the enemy: they sought almost always battle through attack, and these culminated with the charge with cold steel - close combat was what would determine the battle and it is prepared in two quick steps. The battalion was usually four men deep, and at seventy paces the two rear ranks delivered their first and only volley, and then draw his rapier and continue the advance of the battalion; the two front rows were not allowed to fire their muskets until they could reach the enemy ranks with their bayonets!

    ( On cavalry, what made the swedish cavalry superior was that they were grouped knee behind knee,
    as oppose to the looser knee next to knee, and even the failed caracole, the former gave a closer formation)
    In this period, the swedish cavalry charged with the rapier as a thrusting weapon, as oppose to cutting
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails karolinerryttare1.jpg   m1685.jpg   m1701.jpg  
    Last edited by poa; May 08, 2014 at 10:41 PM.
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

  16. #136
    Col. Tartleton's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cape Ann
    Posts
    13,053

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    One has to be very careful when reading primary reports and accounts of battles from officers of the period. I've found that a great many officers write for their audience and for their own promotion and propaganda. It's not that they lie, it's more that they write what they believe is expected of them, both by their audience and their brother officers. For exmaple you will never read a British Officer mention that a British regiment broke or fled the field, they always become 'disordered' or 'confused'. If possible I try to coroborate such evidence with letters from the rank and file, who tend to be a bit more blunt in their assessments, or with letters from the other party to the incident.

    Another classic example of this sort of thing is The Battle of Maida, where according to various officers present the British and Sepoy infantry saw the enemy off with a massive bayonet charge that killed over 200 Frenchmen. When asked about this a Sergeant in one of the British regiments at the centre of the action wrote a rather dismissive reply stating that 'Whilst he would not wish to dispute what his Colonel had written, he was some distance from the action whilst he was in the front rank, and all he could say is that he never saw a single bayonet crossed in the entire action. Though we did chase them for a bit once they started to run.'
    Similarly there's a thing about a battalion (so presumably 1000 muskets or some percentage thereof) of British infantry unloading a point blank volley into a squadron of charging French cuirassiers. One of the British involved reported the entire squadron (no idea what proportion of strength it was at, but at most 160 men) was annihilated in the volley. Another British officer gives the French casualties as something like 8 killed. The volley did break their morale and they routed though. Of course with all the smoke and chaos going on in these larger battles I'm not sure if the first guy was exaggerating or that drastically mistaken.
    Last edited by Col. Tartleton; May 08, 2014 at 02:30 PM.
    The Earth is inhabited by billions of idiots.
    The search for intelligent life continues...

  17. #137

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    Quote Originally Posted by poa View Post
    GNW: "War Theory and historical explanation II. Carolean and European battle tactics 1700-1712"
    http://www.perlundberg.com/karolinsk.htm

    Till skillnad från jämförbart europeiskt infanteri, behöll svenskarna värjan som närstridsvapen för alla kategorier fotfolk, samt att man beväpnade 1/3 av bataljonerna med pikar - pikenerare som till egenskap var uttalat anfalls- och närstridsbenägna. Detta sammantaget gjorde det svenska infanteriet ovanligt offensivt rustat, och sökte nästan uteslutande att avgöra slag genom anfall med blanka vapen efter ett kort, men våldsamt eldöppnande från hela linjen.
    English
    Unlike comparable European infantry, the Swedes kept rapier as melee weapons for all categories footmen, and armed 1/3 of the battalions with pikes - pikemen as the property was outspoken attack and melee inclined. Altogether, this made ​​the Swedish infantry unusually aggressively poised, and looked almost exclusively to determine battles through charge with cold steel after a brief but fierce volley from the line.

    Förutom en intressant analys, ger de många citaten färg åt framställningen. Som tillexempel ur Karl XI:s infanterireglemente anno 1694, känt som Det nya Manéret: "... så snart dee hafwa skutit draga dee utt Wärjorna, och bryta så in medh Fienden." 1700-talssvenskan kan vara nog så spännande, inte minst med dess ljudhärmande stavning. Reglementet föreskrev således huru en bataljon skulle träffa fienden: man sökte nästan alltid strid med hjälp av anfall, och dessa kulminerade med att man gick på med blanka vapen - närstriden var det som skulle avgöra slaget och det förberedes i två snabba moment. Bataljonen var normalt fyra man djup, och vid sjuttio stegs avstånd levererade de två bakre leden sin första och enda salva, för att sedan dra värjan och fortsätta framryckningen med bataljonen; de två främre leden fick inte ge eld med sina musköter förrän de kunde nå fiendeleden med sina bajonetter!
    English
    In addition to an interesting analysis, they many citations color the petition. Like for example from Karl XI's infantry regulations of 1694, known as The New Doctrine: "... as soon as they have fired they draw their rapier, and break so into with enemy." 1700s Swedish language can be very exciting, especially with its onomatopoeic spelling. The regulations prescribed therefore how a battalion would meet the enemy: they sought almost always battle through attack, and these culminated with the charge with cold steel - close combat was what would determine the battle and it is prepared in two quick steps. The battalion was usually four men deep, and at seventy paces the two rear ranks delivered their first and only volley, and then draw his rapier and continue the advance of the battalion; the two front rows were not allowed to fire their muskets until they could reach the enemy ranks with their bayonets!

    ( On cavalry, what made the swedish cavalry superior was that they were grouped knee behind knee,
    as oppose to the looser knee next to knee, and even the failed caracole, the former gave a closer formation)
    In this period, the swedish cavalry charged with the rapier as a thrusting weapon, as oppose to cutting
    That's really interesting. I never realised that the Swedes were still using pikes in 1712. I've always imagined them as one of the pace setters for military tactic's.

  18. #138

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    Quote Originally Posted by Col. Tartleton View Post
    Similarly there's a thing about a battalion (so presumably 1000 muskets or some percentage thereof) of British infantry unloading a point blank volley into a squadron of charging French cuirassiers. One of the British involved reported the entire squadron (no idea what proportion of strength it was at, but at most 160 men) was annihilated in the volley. Another British officer gives the French casualties as something like 8 killed. The volley did break their morale and they routed though. Of course with all the smoke and chaos going on in these larger battles I'm not sure if the first guy was exaggerating or that drastically mistaken.
    The size of a British battalion could vary on campaign from just over 200 men to over 1,000 depending on it's popularity and it's recent history. At Waterloo the 52nd were well over establishment, being a popular regiment with the militia volunteers, whereas the 28th were barely a battalion after being given a rough time at Quatre Bras.

    The idea that one volley would fell a squadron is pretty implausible, not because 400-1000 musket balls fired at close range couldn't achieve that number of hits, but simply that most of those hits would be on the men and horses in the leading rank. Who would absorb all the damage and leave those behind unscathed. I also doubt from what I've read that a French cavalry commander would be stupid enough to advance on a full battalion of British infantry with loaded muskets anyway.

    What I have read is that at Waterloo a squadron of French Cuirassiers trying to reform after their first attack took a wrong turn and found themselves trapped in a sunken lane to the rear of Hougoumont that the Allies had blocked with an abbatti. Jammed into this narrow space and unable to turn around to go back they were set upon by British infantry who fired into them until not one remained alive. Perhaps not quite such an honorable or glorious version of the story.

    Incidentally, one thing that puzzled me about the story of the great French cavalry charges at Waterloo is that the French version doesn't match the English. The English version generally paints a picture of massed French horsemen flooding over the top of the ridge and breaking on the solid English squares. The French on the other hand refer to advancing up a valley and trying to break enemy infantry deployed on it's slopes. This had me puzzled until I walked the ground from the French positions at La Belle Alliance towards the ridge behind Hougoumont and realized that if (as you naturally would) you directed your advance along the line of the farm track from La Belle Alliance across the fields towards the British position you would indeed end up entering a valley, not charging up a slope.

    If you look at a topographical map of the field you will see that the prominent feature on the Allied right (other than Hougoumont) is a spur of high ground which juts out from the center of the Allied held ridge. This actually divided this area into two amphitheaters, the furthest north taking the forming a valley that rises gently towards the plateau on the far side of the Nivelles Road. The track that the French attack was aligning itself on actually passed along this valley, behind Hougoumont and joins the Nivelles Road as a small section of sunken lane (which is probably where the Cuirassiers came to grief)

    This explains another mystery I noticed which didn't make any sense in the British accounts. Which was why the reforming French squadrons from each attack seemed to be circumventing Hougoumont to get back to their own lines. British historians claim that this was because they were so closely packed they couldn't return the way they had come, but that is just a manufactured explanation which doesn't bear much scrutiny when compared to the French accounts. Cavalry lived and died by manouvre, and the idea that French cavalry commanders would allow their men to become jammed together like sardines without some sort of external pressure is a nonesense.

    I believe the true reason for this circumvention was that they were actually beyond Hougoumont close to the Nivelles road by the time their advance ended and so naturally followed that road back to their own lines clearing the path for the next wave of squadrons advancing up the valley.

    This then begs the question, where do all the stories about French cavalry lapping around squares come from?

    Well some French squadrons did try and climb the slope of the valley, they would have needed to in order to protect the flanks of the advance (take the high ground and all that) and Mercer mentions at least one squadron that demonstrated against his battery position which was on the ridge crest just North of the spur. But most of the lapping appears to have taken place in the valley between the ridge and Hougoumont. Furthermore, and contrary, to Wellingtons report, there were English troops in the valley, on the forward slope of the ridge (which was very un-British of them). Some of them were there to protect the communications between the ridge and the rear of Hougoumont, and others had been sent there by Wellington himself in a decision which, 'had it not been for the superb skill of the regimental officers and men on the ground', might have made some of the blunders attributed to 'Silly Billy' look positively inspired.

    Just before the massed French cavalry attack began Wellington exasperated with the constant sniping of French skirmishers who had crept round Hougoumont and were crouching along the crest of the allied ridge firing into the British battalions on the reverse slope ordered Adams Brigade to 'See those fellows off'. Initially the 52nd were advanced in line over the ridge crest and down into the valley beyond pushing the French skirmishers back simply by advancing en-masse with bayonets fixed. But as the French resistance intensified Adams called for support from the 95th and the rest of the brigade and they followed the 52nd over the crest and down the slope towards Hougoumonts garden orchard. The French fell back taking shelter in the enclosures at the rear of Hougoumont and began skirmishing with them.

    It was at this point that the first French cavalry turned up on the flank of Adams Brigade and the 52nd which appears to have formed the left of the line. The 52nd ,had to hastily form square and let them pass, they were then attacked with renewed vigor by the French infantry from Hougoumont and forced to form line again, then the next wave of cavalry forced them back into square, then the infantry forced them into line, and so on. Observers, mention that all this was done with superb precision despite the desperate situation the regiment was in. The 52nd in particular showing remarkable close order discipline and control despite being trained as skirmishers by forming line and square under fire and constant pressure from cavalry multiple times, and with the real danger that the slightest mistake or panic would have dashed the entire regiment to ruin.

    Mercer also mentions that at one point someone perhaps Wellington threw in a whole regiment of Allied light cavalry down this slope to try and reveal the pressure and give the brigade a chance to withdraw, but it seems that this didn't work because we later hear of the 52nd in more or less the same position attacking the flank of the French middle guard when it makes its final assault on the ridge.

    So, once again, interesting stuff. But not quite in line with the English version of what happened, and actually even more admirable, though slightly less creditable for Wellington.

    Meanwhile on the right of the spur in the other amphitheater we have stories of French cavalry flooding across the slope and avoiding the sunken lane by filtering round behind La Haye Sainte and up towards the crossroads, and then down the reverse slope into the rear of the Allied left flank, several batteries were overrun.

    The French immediately brought up horse artillery which began pounding the Allied squares into submission, whilst the French cavalry hovered around keeping the infantry pinned down. One English square being flensed by close range musketry from the skirmishers of D'Erlon's Corps attempted to perform a bayonet charge in square to drive them off and nearly came to grief, stumbling back down the slope in some disorder. Another had one had an entire face of it's square blown away by close range canister from a French 6 pdr and had to hastily improvise a triangle to fend of the waiting French cavalry.

    Uxbridge meanwhile ranted and raved at the petrified cavalry he had remaining to him and managed to organize a couple of half-hearted counter charges. However, the Dutch cavalry, who had never been told to take orders from him anyway, (another amazing Wellington cock-up) decided that the battle was clearly lost and withdrew from the field.

    Picton was already dead, so it was the Prince of Orange who managed to hold things together by plugging holes in the center with Dutch battalions from his reserve, but they merely went into the meat grinder and joined the suffering of those already in position. interestingly the British record has 'Silly Billy' shot early and so he isn't around to steal any glory from Wellington.

    This should have been the moment of French victory, and it was at this point that Ney sent an urgent message to Napoleon asking him to rush more infantry forward to exploit the situation and drive in the enemy center. And Napoleon blew it, by now he was obsessed with the Prussians and didn't want to release his reserves. Instead, D'Erlons Corps, were urged to make even more super-human sacrifices to try and do what really needed fresh troops to achieve. But they had been in action all day and were mentally and physically knackered, and more importantly they were running out of ammunition. Blucher watching things from a distance couldn't see what was happening around Hougoumont, but he could see the French in possession of the Allied center and he believed the battle was probably lost. Bulow's Corps was still waiting for it's artillery to be dragged through the mud and was not really ready for action but he instructed Bulow to do what he could to save Wellington's army, and it was the arrival of Bulow's troops on the Allied left that finally drove off the French and saved the Allied army.
    Last edited by Didz; May 29, 2014 at 06:38 AM. Reason: correction of typo's

  19. #139
    Quintus Hortensius Hortalus's Avatar Lex duodecim tabularum
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Electorate of Hannover
    Posts
    2,530

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    The idea that one volley would fell a squadron is pretty implausible, not because 400-1000 musket balls fired at close range couldn't achieve that number of hits, but simply that most of those hits would be on the men and horses in the leading rank. Who would absorb all the damage and leave those behind unscathed. I also doubt from what I've read that a French cavalry commander would be stupid enough to advance on a full battalion of British infantry with loaded muskets anyway.
    Well the Frensh did exact this at the battle of Minden with the result that 2 lines of cavalry fled in panic. Furthermore you need only to kill the first rank of the cavalry. The horses behind would have real problems of continue the charge with a wall of horses going wild in front of them.

    Under the patronage of wangrin my workshop

  20. #140

    Default Re: Swords VS Bayonets?

    Yes, clearly the caroleans were knife-fighters, with rifle as a secondary weapon as an opening and situational weapon.
    So why 1/3 pike then, when it means 1/3 less bullets in that single volley ?
    part is anti cavalry, but the rest of europe used bayonets/bullets for that,
    i can understand some pikes were welcome as cavalry defense when they were destined to attack tho,
    but part i suspect is the longer reach of the pike giving an advantage over a wall of opposing bayonets in the critical 1st second clash
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •