how to use advance and fire?

[Smellycat]

I find that charging my line infantry with bayonets bared followed by a quick cavalry charge to rear results in far less casualties than standing in nice neat lines and pew pewing away This chap would agree

[Tsavong]

Didn't Russian Genrell Alexander Suvorov advocate bayonet tactics in battle during this period?

[Fwapper]

The only positive evidence I have of troops being expected to use bayonets aggressively from this period was the story of the Battle of Culloden, where apparently soldiers were taught a special drill to deal with the highlanders.

It was more a defensive tactic really - the problem was that crazy Scottish people would charge screaming down a hill wielding eight foot swords and hack the redcoats to pieces... the rather counter-intuitive solution was for a soldier to completely ignore the crazy Scot running towards them and instead focus on the one running towards the man on his right. As the Scot lifted up the giant sword he would leave his right chest particuarly exposed to a well timed bayonet stab.

The English won

[MikeV]

Didn't Russian Genrell Alexander Suvorov advocate bayonet tactics in battle during this period?

Use of the bayonet charge (by the infantry, lance or saber for cavalry) was a means to an end: the push through the enemy, as a key to breaking the latter's morale and willingness to continue the fight.

He advocated, taught, trained, and led by example the same kind of initiative and aggressiveness that the British, German, (and later) American armies also encouraged and developed. Here's a good analysis: http://www.clausewitz.org/suvorov.html.

63-0 is an impressive record. The casualty stats, for that era, even more so.

[DisruptorX]

I think someone said before that the only reason this tech exists is so that we can recreate that scene in Zulu where the redcoats were advance and firing on the charging natives.

Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?

[nafod]

Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?

Probably not, as the first bolt action used by the british was the Lee Enfield (Unless one considers the Martini a bolt action). Nice gun if you can get your hands on one. Not sure when the Zulu wars occured, but I believe the Lee Enfield made it's first war appearance in the Boer Wars. It's a fine rifle, especially considering a British soldier carrying it into war in North Africa or Farnce in WWII was essentially fighting with the same rifle his father faught with in WWI and his grandfather in the Boer Wars.

Mine came from the Longbranch Arsenal in 1943.

[Prussian to the Iron]

what do you mean probably not? its either bolt-action or it isnt. is it that hard to tell if hey are shoving a stick in the muzzel or pulling a bolt?

i am no weapons expert, but i believe the winchester was the first boltaction. though since it has a different bolt-action than others (pulling down the handle rather than lifting, pulling, pushing, and lowering the bolt) i dont know if t would be clasified under bolt-action.

ok, wikipedia says it can go either way, but is usually clasified under pump-action or lever-action. the Martini-Henry rifle was very similar to a winchester, wth the lever-action design and similar sized cartridge.

for more info on the weapons of the Anglo-Zulu war's, go to the zulu (movie) page in wikipedia and go to historical innacuracies. then down to weapons.

[Didz]

Didn't Russian Genrell Alexander Suvorov advocate bayonet tactics in battle during this period?

As I said those who were never required to actually put theory into practice were very keen on it. The issue however, is whether it ever happened and actual evidence of troops crossing bayonets is pretty sparse, and become harder and harder to find as firearms become more numerous and reliable.

The confusion is increased like the myth of the 'cavalry charge', by writers and artists using romantic imagery to enhance mundane actions. Thus we read of French columns being driven off 'at point of bayonet' when in fact they were destroyed by close range musketry and already falling back in disarray when the regiment were ordered to 'fix bayonets and advance'.

The mentality of the common soldier to the use of the bayonet is easier to understand in books like Mark Urban's history of the rifle regiment where soldiers frequently mention the importance of always having a loaded rifle ready to fire and never discharging your piece until your buddy was reloaded.

The existence of a loaded musket or rifle ready to fire, effectively rendered any advance into close combat suicidal and provided it was managed properly prevented sword, lance or bayonet being used. Being caught without any loaded weapons was likely to result in immediate panic and a rapid advance to the rear if threatened with close quarter action of any kind.

Hence the comment 'men who could barely be persuaded to stand their ground and return fire, suddenly cannot be restrained from advancing with the bayonet as soon as they get sight of an enemy backpack before them.'

[pevergreen]

We'll look for some updates next week, then.

How are your LUA skills?

non existant?

[Didz]

Been a while since I last saw that one, didn't they have bolt actions?

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

[Tsavong]

As I said those who were never required to actually put theory into practice were very keen on it.

Alexander Suvorov had 63 victories and no losses he must have known alot about how to make war in this period, which is more than I do... ie nun at all.

[Smellycat]

"The bullet's an idiot, the bayonet's a fine chap." (Underlying principle of the Western Way of War: "Get in the enemy's face.") "Stab once and throw the Turk off the bayonet. Bayonet another, bayonet a third; a real warrior will bayonet half a dozen and more. Keep a bullet in the barrel. If three should run at you, bayonet the first, shoot the second and lay out the third with your bayonet. This isn't common but you haven't time to reload..."(Tsouras, 1992, 23)
Suvorov taught his soldiers the "through attack" (or "attack through") with the bayonet for infantry, and the equivalent with lance or sabre for cavalry. The attackers did not stop to trade blows (as is usually portrayed in the movies), but instead tried to rush through the enemy line whether or not they hit their opponents. It is easy to imagine the effect on the enemy's organization and morale.
The drills for this tactic sometimes caused serious injuries and even fatalities, although the soldiers turned their weapons away when they closed with the opposing drill line. The casualties resulted from collisions, especially between galloping cavalry. The drills also, however, removed the soldiers' (and horses') natural fear of massed bayonets so, in battle, they triumphed over opponents not so drilled.

[NimitsTexan]

Seconded....The myth of the bayonet charge was based upon a fantasy propagated by those who never actually saw the front line of battle, but thought they understood what it was about. Actual historical evidence suggests that opposing troops only every crossed bayonets on three occasions during the entire Napoleonic War and two of those were accidents. The only deliberate bayonet v bayonet action occured at Austerlitz when a column of Russian Infantry and a column of French infantry emerged from the mist opposite each other and just kept marching forward rather than trying to deploy. Another accidental bayonet fight occurred between oppositing light troops who were both rushing to secure the top of a ridge line and arrived at the same moment.

By comparison there are numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers just a few paces apart racing each other to relod their muskets rather than risk the lottery of trying to use their bayonets.

However, Nafod makes a valid point the Napoleonic Wars do not fall within the period covered by ETW. I'm not sure whether bayonets were used more aggressively in the 17th Century, as musketry was in a period of evolution throughout this period.

Exactly. This game does not cover the Napoelonic Wars (except maybe the very first couple of years). It is the period of the Wars of Succession, Seven Years War, American Revolution, and French Revolutionary Wars. Especially during the first half of the games period, melee was still considered very much more decisive than fire combat. Heck, a couple of nations were still using pikemen in their regiments! Frederick the Great, for example, much prefered the bayonet over musket fire to decide an engagement.

[Didz]

Frederick the Great, for example, much prefered the bayonet over musket fire to decide an engagement.

Actually the reason Frederick the Great army was so successful was that he introduced the iron ramrod which allowed his men to reload far faster than his opponents.

[DisruptorX]

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

Yeah, as the other posts mentioned. I had forgotten about it. Pre-bolt action similar to a Winchester, no?

All this talk about 19th century weapons is having me hoping for an expansion. So much good material. Napoleon, Mexican-American War, Crimean War, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War. Plus all the colonial conflicts and battles between the Russians and Turks.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Yeah, as the other posts mentioned. I had forgotten about it. Pre-bolt action similar to a Winchester, no?

yes, as i sad it was a lever-action very similar to a winchester. the british in the Anglo-Zulu wars also were mequipped with a single gatling gun.

[DisruptorX]

Now that I remember, the story I always heard was that the British were sure that they couldn't lose a battle due to their high tech guns and so performed very tactically poorly and were defeated.

Quick interwebs search seems to back that up. They were flanked and out maneuvered. Guns not performing as well as planned also played into it.

[Didz]

Now that I remember, the story I always heard was that the British were sure that they couldn't lose a battle due to their high tech guns and so performed very tactically poorly and were defeated.

Quick interwebs search seems to back that up. They were flanked and out maneuvered. Guns not performing as well as planned also played into it.

The battlefield archeology actually suggests that the official version of events was a fabrication. The dispersal of battlefield debris. spent cartidges, discarded weapons and a equipment etc. suggests that the British lost because they were complacent and over confident in their firepower superiority. The best assessment is that instead of forming a battle line close to their camp they advanced on the Zulu positions on the ridge in open skirmish order, without conductnig any scouting and were swamped by the huge number of warriors who suddenly emerged from behind it in much larger numbers than expected.

Panic then ensued, with jamming weapons and extended ranks not really helping. It seems from concentration of cartridges that some small rally squares were formed but the vast majority of the army simply ran for their lives discarding anything that might hamper their flight.

What they didn't consider was that the Zulu's always attack from three sides, and so in running away from one group the fugitives ran into another. Apparently, the final massacres took place in a waddi several miles from the camp where the Zulu's finally caught up with the last of the routers and finished them off. At this point those who still had weapons had fired most of their ready ammunition and the camp had been overrun so there were very few spent cartidges in this area just a lot of scattered equipment, left buried in the soil.

[DisruptorX]

My wording might have been a little bad, but yeah, that's what I meant. They were overconfident, and didn't bother with basic tactics at all. Not an uncommon source of defeat for a superior force.

[Khorak]

Wellington was born in 1769. Waterloo was fought in 1815. Age of Empires takes place from 1700-1799.

Might want to think about that.

A completely, totally and utterly irrelevant point considering Empire: Total War is polite enough to allow us to easily reach a Napoleonic level of combat many, many, many decades ahead of real history. In fact, it joyfully smears the whole time period together with wild abandon so we can have those iconic Napoleonic style battles at a point in history before the theatres of battle would have consisted of "French And British European Pissing Contest", "British India", and "Isolationist United States" with the various "British Trade Territories Already Utterly Dominated By The British Merchant Fleet And Royal Navy". Because that would have been great fun to play.

Might want to think about that.

[nafod]

what do you mean probably not? its either bolt-action or it isnt. is it that hard to tell if hey are shoving a stick in the muzzel or pulling a bolt?

i am no weapons expert, but i believe the winchester was the first boltaction. though since it has a different bolt-action than others (pulling down the handle rather than lifting, pulling, pushing, and lowering the bolt) i dont know if t would be clasified under bolt-action.

ok, wikipedia says it can go either way, but is usually clasified under pump-action or lever-action. the Martini-Henry rifle was very similar to a winchester, wth the lever-action design and similar sized cartridge.

for more info on the weapons of the Anglo-Zulu war's, go to the zulu (movie) page in wikipedia and go to historical innacuracies. then down to weapons.

Easy trigger. There are many more actions than muzzle load or bolt. For instance the Martini very well may have been a breech-loader. Also consider the Mannlicher Steyr )Used by the Austro-Hungarians) which was a straight pull bolt. Additionally the lever actions remain very different in nature.

My primary interest in firearms starts from the variants used in WWII and works backwards. The martini does not fall into my area of interest because the Biritish developed such a fine rifle at such an early time.

[nafod]

A completely, totally and utterly irrelevant point considering Empire: Total War is polite enough to allow us to easily reach a Napoleonic level of combat many, many, many decades ahead of real history. In fact, it joyfully smears the whole time period together with wild abandon so we can have those iconic Napoleonic style battles at a point in history before the theatres of battle would have consisted of "French And British European Pissing Contest", "British India", and "Isolationist United States" with the various "British Trade Territories Already Utterly Dominated By The British Merchant Fleet And Royal Navy". Because that would have been great fun to play.

Might want to think about that.

Fair enough Khorak. If you wish to state that Empire Total War is unhistoric in and of itself why bother throwing quotes from a different time period and using them to support your viewpoint?

[Smellycat]

A completely, totally and utterly irrelevant point considering Empire: Total War is polite enough to allow us to easily reach a Napoleonic level of combat many, many, many decades ahead of real history. In fact, it joyfully smears the whole time period together with wild abandon so we can have those iconic Napoleonic style battles at a point in history before the theatres of battle would have consisted of "French And British European Pissing Contest", "British India", and "Isolationist United States" with the various "British Trade Territories Already Utterly Dominated By The British Merchant Fleet And Royal Navy". Because that would have been great fun to play.

Might want to think about that.

Nice point but some of us don't finish the campaign in 20 years and then press end turn for 80 years instead preferring to follow a historical (or roleplaying) expansion and technology rate so being able to reach the Napoleonic warfare does not equate in doing it just like having 6 twinkies in the fridge does not equate eating them all at once

[Prussian to the Iron]

Fair enough Khorak. If you wish to state that Empire Total War is unhistoric in and of itself why bother throwing quotes from a different time period and using them to support your viewpoint?

that in fact is a very good point. i agree 100%

[al Roumi]

Actually the reason Frederick the Great army was so successful was that he introduced the iron ramrod which allowed his men to reload far faster than his opponents.

Don't mean to undermine you at all here Didz, but surely the introduction and adoption of iron ramrods wasn't the only reason why Frederick's army was so great and successful.

[Mystiqblackcat]

I am making my way through a book about warfare in the Napoleonic age and it cites that a common British tactic was to from up two ranks deep for increased fire power and fire off two volleys at close range followed immediately by a bayonet charge for shock value. Apparently it worked fairly well, I don't have the book with me otherwise I would quote soem specifics.

I tend to save bayonet charges until the enemy unit is about to break. If not I seem to take too many casualties in addition to having to worry about friendly fire.

[Marquis of Roland]

Before any sensible bayonet charge was mounted, the section of line to be attacked should have been weakened and/or disoriented by artillery and musket volleys. If you're charging into a solid line of muskets, of course you are going to lose.

[Didz]

Don't mean to undermine you at all here Didz, but surely the introduction and adoption of iron ramrods wasn't the only reason why Frederick's army was so great and successful.

Obviously, not. The Prussian Army at this period was at the peak of its efficiency as a fighting force. Frederick introduced a whole new drill system based upon a standard cadence that ensured perfect precision, discipline and speed of movement, he also introduced a new battlefield strategy based upon a rapid oblique march which allowed his army to place pressure on a single point of the enemy line whilst still pinning the rest of the enemy force in place. This coupled with the overwhelming firepower afforded by his iron ramrods mean't that his army could literally blast a hole through any point of the enemy line he choose to direct it against.

...the iron ramrod, increasing Prussian firepower, and the slow march, or goose-step. The new king trained and drilled the army relentlessly, focusing on the firing speed of their flintlock muskets and formation maneuverability. The changes gave the army flexibility, precision, and a rate of fire that was largely unequaled for the time period.[15] Through drilling and the iron ramrod, each soldier was expected to fire six times in a minute, three times as fast as most armies.

[Didz]

I am making my way through a book about warfare in the Napoleonic age and it cites that a common British tactic was to from up two ranks deep for increased fire power and fire off two volleys at close range followed immediately by a bayonet charge for shock value.

I would not say it was common, it became more prevalent as the Napoleonic Wars progressed. However, even in 1815 there were regiments formed four deep on the Waterloo ridge and bayonet charges were rare during that battle simply because the French were to well organised and supported. One Battalion of the Kings German Legion did attempt it near La Haye Sainte and were promptly cut to ribbons by supporting cavalry.

As I said earlier in the debate the romantic ideal of 'cold steel' appealled to everyone except the soldiers who were being asked to put it into practice. In 1794 Carnot ordered the French Army to seek 'action with the bayonet on every occassion', and Napoleon had a festish for the idea of cold steel. One French officer commented wryly to another that if asked 'one must be killed by a bayonet, as the Emperor has a fondness for those who die in this manner.' Official French Army doctrine, as expounded by the Ecole Polytechnique, claimed that only the first volley of musketry was effective, 'after which the bayonet and the sword may charge without sustaining great loss.'

Austrian and Prussian regulations also stressed the role of the bayonet in the attack, and Archdukle Chalres considered it the best weapon for use in close combat. In Russia the 'Precepts for Infantry Officers on the Day of Battle', issued in 1812, still advocated the bayonet charge delivered in deep column formation as the preferred tactic.

Yet, in practice very few soldiers actually fought each other with cold steel.

At Austerlitz the Russian Guards made a classic 300 yard bayonet charge, but were so exhausted after breaking through the first French line that they were easily driven off by musketry fire from the second. Generally, it was the threat of the bayonet, rather than its actual use that decided an issue. General Larry, of the Grand Army noted that in all his years of service with the French Army he had only ever seen five bayonet wounds, and concluded that the effect of the weapon was largely psychological.

Whilst Guthrie a senior medical officer in the British Army noted that 'troops charging with the bayonet never actually meet and struggle hand to hand and foot to foot; and this for the best possible reason, that one side turns and runs away as soon as the other comes close enough to do mischief.'

General Lejeune supports these views stating that in his expereince it is 'very rare, for as a rule one of the the corps is demoralised to begin with by the firing, and draws back before the enemy is close enough to cross muzzles.'

Jomini declares on the same subject 'I never saw such a thing on a regular field of battle.'

Extracts from 'The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon' by Rothenberg

The only occassion when bayonets were used in the Peninsula Campaign was at the battle of Roncesvalles on 25 July 1813 as described by Captain Tovey of the 2oth Foot.

'The division had been expecting an attack that morning and the twentieth were lying in column by their arms. It was daylight however, when a german Sergeant form the Brunswick Corps, who had been out in front, came in haste to tell us that the French had made the Spainish piquet prisoner without firing a shot. The left wing of the Twentieth were moved instantly to form on some strong ground in the direction they were coming, and while doing so the enemy light troops opened so galling a fire that Major Ross, who was on the spot called for a company to go in front and drive them off. Without waiting for further orders, I pushed out with mine, and in close order and double quick march cleared away the skirmishers from a sort of plateau to our front. They did not wait for us, and, on reaching the opposite side, we came so suddenly on the head of the enemy's infantry column, who had just gained a footing on the summit of the hill , that the men of my comany absolutely paused in astonishment, for we were face to face with them, and the French officers called on us 'to disarm; I repeated 'Bayonet Away!', and rushing headlong among them, we fairly turned them back into the descent of the hill; and such was the panic and confusion occassioned amongst them by our sudden onset that our small party, for such it was compared to the French had time to regain the regiment. The enemy had many killed and their leading officer fell at my feet with two others, all bayonetted. The company, with which I was the only officer present on this occasison, did not amount to more than seventy or eighty men, and we had eleven killed and fourteen wounded....a powerful man by the name of Budworth returned with only the blood-soiled socket of his bayonet on his piece; and he declared that he had killed away until his bayonet broke; I am confident, from the reckless and intrepid nature of the man, that he had done so.

Extract from 'Wellington's Army' by Glover.

[Warhammer3025]

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?