Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="med stud" data-source="post: 1549997" data-attributes="member: 1211">On the Polish assault: The Polish cavalry regiments didnt charge tanks as often as it might seem. They had anti-tank guns, mines and often they dismounted before battle. As there is no chance in hell that they could take out a tank with a lance or a sabre I would say that they used the anti-tank gun (just as a fun fact: The .50 machine guns used by the modern US army could shoot out the German tanks from 1939 pretty easily; shows how much weapons and ammunition has evolved).On the swords: The last organized infantry armies that were issued with swords as a primary weapon that I know of were the Roman legions. But then there is one thing about melee weapons in the pre- repeater era that is important and rediscovered by army leaders from time to time in history; first thing is that rifles that arent rifled have a really bad accuracy and that most soldiers werent very much trained in their use anyway; at distances of over 50 meters they were pretty much useless. The other thing is that a melee in those times didnt last very long; one of the sides would break very soon. Another fact that goes for today but especially back then when formations were so important is that when you break the enemy's formation he is in deep trouble. When a formation breaks is largely a question of moral (as in battlefield moral not ethical moral) and the attacker has the moral advantage.This means that an organized and effective melee attack could break the enemies formation and when the enemies formation was broken the cavalry could ride in and mop up.The only case that I know much about is the Swedish army in late 17th/early 18th century. The Swedish army was a standing army of 40000 men, the largest standing army at the time and they had a lot of training for the era (about one day a week and one month added to that if Im not wrong).The focus of that army was the melee; the swords used were among the best mass produced swords in history and their bayonettes were really good as well. They had very little artillery (in one battle where the Russians brought 60 pieces of artillery the Swedes brought 4 light pieces). Most nations at that time fired 4-5 volleys with their muscets before closing in for melee; the Swedes fired one volley and they were trained to not fire until "they could see the whites in their enemies' eyes".They didnt kill much with all their melee weapons though; it was still muskets and especially artillery that caused the most casulties in their battles. Still the Swedish army was extremely successful due to the breaking of the enemy moral; it took the Russian winter to defeat them.This example shows that the sword was a useful weapon in the hands of infantry up until at least the very early 18th century. The swords were issued to Swedish soldiers until 1850 or something like that and soldiers were trained in their use but by then the Swedish army had become weak and inefficient so it doesnt really count.</blockquote>

Verification