Screenies

[Furious Mental]

"
It is a formation wider than it is deep. Therefore, a line rather than a column. "

No it isn't. By definition a line was thin enough for all ranks to bring their muskets to bear on the enemy. The formations depicted are not that thin. The proportion of depth to width is that of an assault column. It may conflict with the usage of the word 'column' in ordinary English, but the fact that is that an assault column was wider than it was deep. You can go to any resource on the subject and have this repeated to you ad nauseum.

[O'ETAIPOS]

As late as 1866 (Battle at Sadova) Austria army used almost exclusively bayonet charge as a mean of winning* battles. This was suplemented by artillery that was supposed to cause disruption. At that time Austrian had 2 balls per year for training. That tells something.

Now to casualties: melee fighting and shooting has completely different mechanic, and it is difficult to compare deaths/wounds.
It is obvious that majority of casualties were caused by shooting, as in melee losses almost never go above 10% of fighters. In fact it is usually much less, especially on the winner side. Even the loosers take no more than 20-30% losses, even in crushing defeat (with exception when they are surrounded). If both armies were able to keep fomation then losses in battle could be as small as 1-2% for both sides.

On the other hand shooting cause losses in all ranks, especially if units are in massed formation, when balls just have to hit somebody.

Not to mention that it is usually much easier to heal wounds from blades of various kinds than from bullets that commonly caused gangrene.

So, while losses from shooting may in fact be commonest it do not show that this way of fighting was dominant.

*Loosing, actually

[pevergreen]

Debating is all good, but remember: Attack the points, not the person.

No one has yet, but its come close.

(I have no knowledge of this time period, I am merely reading)

[BeeSting]

You are right. I think I went a little too far. Apologies to Ulstan...

Debating is all good, but remember: Attack the points, not the person.

No one has yet, but its come close.

(I have no knowledge of this time period, I am merely reading)

[Digby Tatham Warter]

As late as 1866 (Battle at Sadova) Austria army used almost exclusively bayonet charge as a mean of winning* battles. This was suplemented by artillery that was supposed to cause disruption. At that time Austrian had 2 balls per year for training. That tells something.

I'm reading some rather jolly book about the Franco/Prussian war, which includes the background of both armies.

It cites the Austrian use of artill as the main reason Prussia developed such a deadly artillary arm, ready for the war with France, because the Austrains in massing artill and keeping it near enough the front, were doing a great deal more than just disrupt. Some Prussian units suffered 50% loses in minutes under concentrated fire.

[CBR]

As late as 1866 (Battle at Sadova) Austria army used almost exclusively bayonet charge as a mean of winning* battles. This was suplemented by artillery that was supposed to cause disruption. At that time Austrian had 2 balls per year for training. That tells something.

Austrian economy was horrible so they could not afford proper training for their soldiers plus their badly trained soldiers made it easy for the French to charge home in the 1859 war. That just strengthened the Austrian belief that bayonet attacks in massed columns was the best approach.

Some officers changed their mind after the Second Schleswig War of 1864, but it was too late and too little to change anything as the combo of economics and simplicity of the bayonet charge was too alluring.

How economy and time could wash away the tactical lessons learned from earlier wars is incredible really.


CBR

[Matt_Lane]

Not to mention that it is usually much easier to heal wounds from blades of various kinds than from bullets that commonly caused gangrene.

I'm not sure about this. Bayonet drill generally calls for the blade to be driven into the opponents belly. The bayonets triangular profile leaves a gaping wound tract that doesn't close easily so the recipient would more as likely perish from blood loss on the field.

Musket strikes are generally random but with a higher proportion to the upper body. This meant that a smaller proportion are going to hit vital areas so the recipient has a greater chance at making it to a field hospital and thus effecting the causality statistics. If the ball hasn't shattered a bone or struck a vital organ then the main challenge for the surgeon is to remove the remains of the ball and clean the wound. Those that could afford it wore silk shirts so that the silk would contain the ball fragments, reducing the chance of infection.

[Furious Mental]

The triangular profile of the blade is simply to make it stronger. Any doctor can sew up a jagged wound. The actual evidence from contemporaries is that most wounds from bayonets were nasty because the victim was stuck with them not in the belly, but in the back, when they turned tail and ran away.

[Ulstan]

"
It is a formation wider than it is deep. Therefore, a line rather than a column. "

No it isn't. By definition a line was thin enough for all ranks to bring their muskets to bear on the enemy. The formations depicted are not that thin. The proportion of depth to width is that of an assault column. It may conflict with the usage of the word 'column' in ordinary English, but the fact that is that an assault column was wider than it was deep. You can go to any resource on the subject and have this repeated to you ad nauseum.

Actually, the assault columns were deeper than they were wide. That's why they were called 'columns' in the first place, rather than lines or squares.

An individual company or battalion within the column was usually deployed wider than it was deep, but the companies or battalions (depending on the size of the column) were stacked up behind each other while the frontage of the column would usually be only a single or at most two columns or battalions. There are many diagrams from the times available detailing this.

As far as the muskets vs bayonets issue goes, I remain unconvinced lists of patients admitted to hospitals are representative of overall battlefield fatalities. But more importantly, even if the musket ball caused more deaths than the bayonet, that doesn't mean bayonet charges should be excluded from the game.

Charges to melee were a frequent and important tactic commonly used by infantry throughout the Napoleonic period. It doesn't matter if the enemy stood to receive them or not - such charges were launched and the player should be able to launch similar charges. The enemy often fleeing from such an attack merely speaks to its perceived efficacy.

I don't see any justification for suggesting, as some have, that melee deserves no part in the game. That is as absurd as suggesting that musketry have no part in the game. Both were vitally important and I am glad that CA will be including both, making for a richer and more historically accurate game.