Screenies

[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