Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9361088" data-attributes="member: 4937">That's a widespread ahistorical myth.&nbsp; As early in fact as the 18th century, melee fighting was already no longer playing a major role in combat and only generating single digit percents of the casualties inflicted.&nbsp; The bayonet charge persisted largely despite its effectiveness rather than because of it.&nbsp; In fact, the biggest influence of the bayonet on combat was probably morale, with it both improving the morale of the unit with it and reducing the morale of the unit facing it.&nbsp; But it rarely actually came to physical blows despite popular media then or now highlighting the importance of it.&nbsp;&nbsp; What usually happened is that if the target was basically out of ammo then when charged they'd tend to either disperse or surrender, while if they were not basically out of ammo the charging force would be utterly destroyed.&nbsp; As early as the American Civil War it was becoming apparent that melee combat was becoming obsolete and that proper tactics involved basically trench warfare.&nbsp; Casualties inflicted by bayonets or sabers were less than 1% of total casualties, and casualties suffered by charging on average tended to be greater than those inflicted by such weapons.&nbsp; Successful charges were more often taking advantage of early repeating weapons that allowed shots to be fired while moving.The problem was that almost no one was tactically evolving to the new reality.&nbsp; Tactics were stuck in the past.&nbsp; The generals in WW1 were initially trying to fight the Napoleonic Wars.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9361088, member: 4937"] That's a widespread ahistorical myth. As early in fact as the 18th century, melee fighting was already no longer playing a major role in combat and only generating single digit percents of the casualties inflicted. The bayonet charge persisted largely despite its effectiveness rather than because of it. In fact, the biggest influence of the bayonet on combat was probably morale, with it both improving the morale of the unit with it and reducing the morale of the unit facing it. But it rarely actually came to physical blows despite popular media then or now highlighting the importance of it. What usually happened is that if the target was basically out of ammo then when charged they'd tend to either disperse or surrender, while if they were not basically out of ammo the charging force would be utterly destroyed. As early as the American Civil War it was becoming apparent that melee combat was becoming obsolete and that proper tactics involved basically trench warfare. Casualties inflicted by bayonets or sabers were less than 1% of total casualties, and casualties suffered by charging on average tended to be greater than those inflicted by such weapons. Successful charges were more often taking advantage of early repeating weapons that allowed shots to be fired while moving. The problem was that almost no one was tactically evolving to the new reality. Tactics were stuck in the past. The generals in WW1 were initially trying to fight the Napoleonic Wars. [/QUOTE]

Verification