how to use advance and fire?

[Didz]

While i can see how the Napoleonic Era had less bayonet fighting due to increase in effectiveness in musketry and disciplined formations, how about earlier eras (say 1550-1700) during the height of the Musket and Pike? Were there times where there were tactical ramifications of plugging your musket with a bayonet and before receiving or attempting a charge? Was close in fighting more prevalent due to firearms being not all that refined yet? Were there many if any instances of situations where bayonet wielding troops got caught up in a pike push?

Exactly, there must have been some sort of progression from ancient and medieval warfare which was very much close up and personal, to the horse and musket era' of massed musketry. Certainly, in he mid-17th century one still got the 'push of pike', but perhaps it was the decline of the pikeman that triggerred the change in doctrine. When everyone has something to use that kills from a distance it begins to get less appealing to stand too close.

I've never actually seen anyone cover this transition in a methodical way, most books concentrate on weapons and ignore soldiers attitudes.

[nafod]

Exactly, there must have been some sort of progression from ancient and medieval warfare which was very much close up and personal, to the horse and musket era' of massed musketry. Certainly, in he mid-17th century one still got the 'push of pike', but perhaps it was the decline of the pikeman that triggerred the change in doctrine. When everyone has something to use that kills from a distance it begins to get less appealing to stand too close.

I've never actually seen anyone cover this transition in a methodical way, most books concentrate on weapons and ignore soldiers attitudes.

I intend to keep this argument civil and in no way insult anyone.

If we are talking about the Napoleaonic wars I would have to agree with those that discredit the use of the bayonet as a viable tactic, as it remained a predominate part of US military doctrine and was used extensively in the early battles of the US Civil War and generally met with disastrous results. As the doctrine failed to realize the advancements in firearms that had occured between then and the war of 1812.

As far as the 18th century covered by this game I'd have to disagree.

Simply put a line advancing in the American Revolutionary war wasn't in real danger from musket fire until closing to within 50 yards, and nothing significant until around 30. By the 1860's these ranges had increased to 100 and 50 yards respectively.

Also consider that most firearms of the 18th century did not have sights (by most I'm implying the arms provided in mass to a nations army). Not even a pip at the end of the barrel like a modern day shotgun.

Volleys were not necessary to score hits, but rather project a wall of lead in unison, in an instant in a hope of causing a route. A bayonet charge functioned the same way. Of course if the defender stayed it would be a bloodbath. It always is with an enemy that simply will not give up ground.

I'd wager the bayonet charge faded into military history romantically the same way the calvary charge did. As infantry men gained the ability to accurately place fire further and further away it became a much more difficult task to get ever closer without taking on immense casualties. As there was no longer a need to "wait until the last second." This largely did not occur until the early 19th century however.

I'd also comment that soldiers attitudes matter little. Either they followed orders or they routed. Obviously any fighting man would prefer entrenchment on good ground but ultimately if a unit will not follow orders, be they advance or otherwise, it is no longer an effective fighting unit.

[Didz]

As far as the 18th century covered by this game I'd have to disagree.

Thats fair enough...I mean none of us actually know what happened so everything we are discussing is personal opinion and conjecture.

However, what I'm trying to explore is what people who were there actually said happened, rather than what drill manuals, drunken generals and boastful old vets said ought to have happened.

I mean there is the 'They don't like it up 'em, Mister Manering.' attitude towards the use of cold steel that still persists in some military attitudes today, and there is the actual attitude of the troops in the battle on the day and how they reacted.

To be honest I'm interested in both, but I like to keep a clear distinction better 'What was supposed to happen, what people said happened afterwards, and what actually happened.' Thats really what we are discussing here.

I'd also comment that soldiers attitudes matter little. Either they followed orders or they routed. Obviously any fighting man would prefer entrenchment on good ground but ultimately if a unit will not follow orders, be they advance or otherwise, it is no longer an effective fighting unit.

I have to disagree with this simply because it contradicts itself. As has been commented on numerous occassions 'In battle the Morale is to the Physical as 10 is to 1'. In other words it is what the solider is thinking and what he beleives to be true which matters much more than any orders being shouted at him.

The battle being fought on the drill squares and in military training camps around the world is to try and turn soldiers into unthinking machines that will indeed follow orders without thinking and repeat their drills instinctively even when they no longer make any sense. However, personal accounts of show that this is a lost battle before it even starts. The sights and sounds of battle are so alien to humanity that men who are exposed to them do think, and so its what THEY think that matters, not what orders are being shouted at them. History tends to gloss over the facts when trying to make sense of the results, it likes to report the orders and tries to explain how they were carried out, but it also tries to ignore when they patently weren't followed becuase it has no explanation in the official record of what happened instead or why.

You say, a fighting man either followed orders or they routed, but that in itself is far too simplistic. There is a process of transition from order to chaos and from cohesion to rout, and that process is driven by what it going on the heads of individual soldiers and the impact their behaviour has on those around them. Units do not suddenly go from being under command to routing, the process probably begins before the unit even comes under fire. A seed of doubt perhaps planted in the minds of the soldiers a perception of chaos and disorder on the part of their officers.

Tolstoy actually captures this perfectly in his description of the Battle of Austerlitz, where he describes the attitude of the Russian soldiers waiting to go into action. That is of course a fictional account but I have a few eyewitness accounts from the same period which suggest that the same sort of process was taking place in every soldiers mind.

This from a French Sergeant talking of the famous French column attack against a British line.

'The Britsh did not move, they just stood there with their arms at the recover and ignored us. We were getting closer and closer and still the British stood like a wall across our path, they did not move, the men began to get nervous. I was worried about how close we were getting, the effect of their fire when it did come would be terrible. The men began to shout 'Vive I'Empereur', 'En Avant' they were thinking the same as I. We could see the enemies faces, we could see the buttons on their uniforms, and still they did nothing. The men began to falter, to take shorter steps, they did not want to get closer. The officers began to shout 'keep moving, forward, forward' a musket was fired then another, men began to push each other. Then the British moved, in one sudden movement they raised their weapons to the shoulder. That movement alone stopped us and for a second there was total silence. Then the world exploded around me and everyone near me was flung backwards down the slope. There was a groan and I looked around to see nothing but chaos everywhere and as I turned back and looked up the slope the British were marching out of their own musket smoke their bayonets lowered and howling like wild animals. There was nothing to be done, they are not human.'

It's the 'what actually happened' aspect that I'm mainly discussing here, there must have been a point at which soldiers ceased to consider the use of cold steel to be feasible and that should be capable of being plotted by looking at actual events on the battlefield.

You mentioned the American War of Independence, are there examples of troops actually crossing bayonets in any of the battle of that war. My own memory is more familiar with stories of the long range fire and retire tactic's used by American irregulars which were a constant frustration to the British.

[dulsin]

No they were armed with the Martini-Henry Rifle. Which was notorious for jamming when it was fired too rapidly and became hot.

Whilst the writer of the following article dismisses this claim battlefield archeologists did find a significant number of discarded rifles on the battlefield of islandwana with cartridges jammed in their breechblocks.
http://www.martinihenry.com/zulu-wars.htm

The Martini-Henry rifle was a drop block design single shot design. Single shot rifles do not have feeding jams. At most the soft shell casing will expand against the chamber and not eject leaving you to dig it out with a knife. That is not a problem with the rifle design more a problem of the shells.

This can happen to revolvers also.

[Didz]

The Martini-Henry rifle was a drop block design single shot design. Single shot rifles do not have feeding jams. At most the soft shell casing will expand against the chamber and not eject leaving you to dig it out with a knife. That is not a problem with the rifle design more a problem of the shells.

This can happen to revolvers also.

Well whatever, it appears there was a problem with the rifles becoming jammed for whatever reason. The commonly held belief that the men had been overrun because of a shortage of ammunition proved to be false.