Quote Originally Posted by Ulstan
This is simply not true. Read the accounts of the officers actually at the battles. Probably the most used phrase is "they fired a volley and then charged with the bayonet". Often times regiments will simply charge and not even bother to fire a volley.

Even if this was true, it would merely confirm my statement that the musketry fire was aimed at disrupting the opponent and the bayonet charge was used to force the issue and finish them off/drive them from the field.

If musketry was 'better' than bayonet charges, you wouldn't bayonet charge when your opponent was starting to show signs of breaking, you'd keep doing your musketry thing as there'd be no point to switching to a less lethal and less effective form of combat.

Charges to melee by infantry were extremely common and arguably the *most common* form of attack to seize ground. The idea that they were never used is rather implausible, especially considering that dozens of such charges might be launched back and forth to secure key areas like villages.

As for the casualties issue, I doubt very much the reliability of those figures, given the well known inaccuracy of the musket. Are they ignoring artillery entirely? At any rate, if soldiers didn't die to bayonet charges as much because they fled as soon as such a charge came their way, that simply reinforces my point.
I don't want to argue numbers and facts since they speak for themselves. If you don't mind my suggestion, I think you should do some more reading and here's a good start:

Warfare in the Eighteenth Century by Jeremy Black