Musket Warfare (Napolean style)

[CBR]

They intentionally ignored and inhibited the development of technology and tactics that would have resolved the situation.

And that is actually a bit harsh. Tank technology was still new and a lot of them had mechanical breakdowns. It takes time to figure out what to do and then the find the best way of implementing them.

When they faced the horrors of trench warfare they did try new things trying to break through it. One way was to produce huge numbers of heavy artillery in a way to smash the enemy bunkers and machinegun positions before the big attack. At Somme 1916 the English were confident that the week long barrage (more than a million grenades fired IIRC) had done the job.

When the war started all armies had mainly medium artillery meant for the fast maneuver warfare that everyone expected it to be. It took time to produce the newer heavy types.

Germans used gas already in 1915 hoping that would be the thing.

Later on the Germans started using modern day infantry tactics but even that was no miracle as it still wasnt easy to get supplies forward after the first advance as railways were still the best way to do that.

The fact is that the tanks and trucks that was needed simply wasnt there and it took time to develop them as well as getting them in sufficient numbers and be reliable enough.

Sure you can always find some stupid general/poltician but overall they did try to new ways to win the war.


CBR

[econ21]

TinCow - I think I have seen some statistics that the number of bayonets wounds in Napoleonic Wars was less than 1% or so of all wounds through combat. I am not sure if that included melee causalties due to cavalry (sabre and lance), but that probably does not alter the conclusion much.

Shock combat was more common in the Napoleonic period than in the ACW but even then I suspect it was more a psychological contest over ground - a test of wills - rather than a means of killing. I suspect there is something like a "fight or flight" issue going on, and that when one determined side starts to get close enough to fight at hand to hand, the other side falls back or breaks. This is my reading of occaisions when French assaults broke the enemy and of other occaisions when they French assaults were repulsed by British counter-charges.

[Axeknight]

What I don't understand about Napoleonic warfare is why entrenchments were not more common on the battlefield.

Well, the Peninsular (in particular) was a war of movement. Wellesley knew his teeny British army hadn't a chance in hell of beating the massive French ones - although a large proportion of the French in Spain and Portugal were tied up guarding supply lines, messengers etc (note of interest: reports from the time suggest that a single mesenger required 40 dragoons escort) against the guerilleros. Wellesley had to maneuvre himself into positions where he could take advantage of his strengths (the British infantryman fired 4 rounds per minute, to the French 3, allowing them to deploy in 2 ranks to the French 3, and so have more firepower than the French, but the same rate of fire).

A great example of this is Busaco. Wellesley used his 'passive agression' tactic (advance, grab the high ground, and make the French counterrattack him over easily defensible terrain) to perfection here. His 50,000 British and Portuguese were then able to beat the 65,000 French under Marshal Massena very convincingly. Wellington then continued his retreat towards Lisbon, having done the French some serious harm.

Because Wellesley was constantly shifting his army around, and the sucession of Marshalls had to chase him, there simply wasn't much time for fortifying positions. The notable exception, of course, is the lines of Torres Vedras.

[English assassin]

In close range the accuracy increased and they changed ammonition to shotgun type (I'm not sure of the name in English).

In English, case, or caseshot. Often but inaccurately called grapeshot , which was a naval load only.

[Axeknight]

What's the difference between caseshot and canister? Or are they the same thing?

[Del Arroyo]

I agree with all here who say that the degree of fortification is dependent on the nature of the engagement, not the weapons involved. Even the ancient Akhaians threw up a wall by the beach to protect their ships, and dug a shallow moat, with spikes, in front of it.

DA

[Oaty]

As far as bullets versus armor. When guns first came about the armour would usually protect the wearer. But once guns became more advanced wearing the armour was deadlier than wearing none, mainly due to the fact that both the bullet and the area of the armour being hit would turn into shcrapnel. So this would more likely cause vital organs to get hit.