Muskets and Bayonet Fighting

In the days of the musket, the bayonet charge was a way to get rid of an enemy occupying spot X that you want.

Many of the fights ended with either the charger or charge target running away after a scrape of a few minutes.

Well, let's say one unit doesn't do that. Let's say one army has some units that are just stubborn.

The stubborn guys fight for 20 minutes in a infantry vs infantry bayonet fight at the minimum. After 20 minutes, they will behave like normal soldiers if outnumbered such that the enemy has 3X +9 men or more, where X is the number of allies the stubborn unit has. If the enemy doesn't outnumber them that much, they just keep fighting. If they are outnumbered badly, they do whatever badly outnumbered soldiers do (sometimes run away, sometimes stay and fight, it depends on the actual battle).

Well, would the extra stubbornness help win battles? I think if 3000 guys (the stubborn ones) get charged by 4000 guys (after both sides get their shots off), the 3000 guys will lose even if they don't break. The side with more won't break because they have the charge momentum and the numbers, they will win a melee handily. The outnumbered stubborn guys may not break easily, but they aren't better at landing their bayonet on the enemy than normal veterans.
 
Everyone dies or is maimed in short order. No-one has armour, shields, serious melee training, or long polearms. Additionally, the shallow formations will mean that a high percentage of fighters will be engaged at any one moment.
Even a fight of a few minutes was very rare, unless the defenders were occupying defensive terrain of some sort. Normally, either the attackers would get blasted at point blank range by an enemy with good fire control, or the defenders would run when it became clear the enemy wasn't going to stop. Anyone who couldn't run fast enough would get skewered.
 
Everyone dies or is maimed in short order. No-one has armour, shields, serious melee training, or long polearms. Additionally, the shallow formations will mean that a high percentage of fighters will be engaged at any one moment.
Even a fight of a few minutes was very rare, unless the defenders were occupying defensive terrain of some sort. Normally, either the attackers would get blasted at point blank range by an enemy with good fire control, or the defenders would run when it became clear the enemy wasn't going to stop. Anyone who couldn't run fast enough would get skewered.

Eh, I know how it works in real life.

So would the stubborn unit just make its own side lose more battles since if they keep fighting when outnumbered they are getting skewered? Or would they win more since in the pre-gunpowder age most casualties came after the battle (and once you charge in, you don't have time to reload, so win or lose the tactics are probably the same for the chargers)

Although if no one has serious melee training, I bet a group of 100 in the stubborn unit that survives 3 battles in melee will be able to fend off a whole battalion incoming.
 
Eh, I know how it works in real life.

So would the stubborn unit just make its own side lose more battles since if they keep fighting when outnumbered they are getting skewered? Or would they win more since in the pre-gunpowder age most casualties came after the battle (and once you charge in, you don't have time to reload, so win or lose the tactics are probably the same for the chargers)

Although if no one has serious melee training, I bet a group of 100 in the stubborn unit that survives 3 battles in melee will be able to fend off a whole battalion incoming.
The stubborn unit would make it's own side virtually invincible on the attack if they just keep fighting regardless of casualties. Most battles were won by breaking the enemies morale, not killing everyone. And if one side if vulnerable to breaking and the other isn't... even if the non-stubborn side can win, it would be a hell of a pyric victory.
 

Redbeard

Banned
We have two armies A and B, each with 8000 men. A charge with 4000 men at a position which B holds with 3000 men, who prove to be very stubborn and hold their position. This means that B now has 5000 men to utilise initiative with, A only has 4000.

Defensive positions are excellent in pinning down much larger enemy forces, but if the defending part stays passive the defensive positions will sooner or later be defeated - by breaking or simply by being "grinded down". But if the defender can utilise that a large part of the attackers force is engaged vs. a defensive position he has a good chance to defeat the attacker in detail.

Some times just being stubborn is enough. Like if A has 5000 infantry and 3000 cavalry and B 8000 infantry and 2000 cavalry. The infantry forces meet in the centre but the stubborn A infantry keep the numerically superior B infantry engaged long enough for Bs cavalry to move into a flanking position and rout As army ("hammer and anvil" a la Zama). If Bs cavalry hadn't taken the initiative Bs infantry (and eventually his whole army) would have been defeated, but it stay in battle for just long enough for the "hammer" to strike.

So being stubborn is a great asset but it is all wasted if it isn't accompanied with initiative.
 
The stubborn unit would make it's own side virtually invincible on the attack if they just keep fighting regardless of casualties. Most battles were won by breaking the enemies morale, not killing everyone. And if one side if vulnerable to breaking and the other isn't... even if the non-stubborn side can win, it would be a hell of a pyric victory.

I know battles are won by breaking morale, but (normally) one side usually broke after it was losing.

Ok, so let's say there is a big battle in the tens of thousands. Side A takes 4,000 of their men and attack B's left flank held by 3,000 stubborn defenders. Neither side send reinforcements there for awhile. After 5 minutes or so, B probably lost over 1,000 men because the shallow formations means almost everyone is fighting at once. After the first few minutes, both sides are bled and side A doesn't break because side A is winning and side B doesn't break because they're stubborn. At this point, what started as many prime soldiers fighting becomes wounded and exhausted men fighting. Big hits become fewer and farther between, there's a lot more slow grappling and it just starts to look sloppy. The casualty rate goes down. After 20 minutes side A has 2250 effective fighting men left and side A has 1,000 effective fighting men left. Remember, A had the charge momentum and numbers, so they'll lose less since the stubborn 3,000 aren't actually better at dodging this and landing their pokes. Side A STILL has more men, their left flank (B's right) is still winning, and they still arn't going to break. The stubborn guys aren't breaking yet, but they're bleeding, huffing, and puffing. I don't think this makes side B invincible.

We have two armies A and B, each with 8000 men. A charge with 4000 men at a position which B holds with 3000 men, who prove to be very stubborn and hold their position. This means that B now has 5000 men to utilise initiative with, A only has 4000.

Defensive positions are excellent in pinning down much larger enemy forces, but if the defending part stays passive the defensive positions will sooner or later be defeated - by breaking or simply by being "grinded down". But if the defender can utilise that a large part of the attackers force is engaged vs. a defensive position he has a good chance to defeat the attacker in detail.

So being stubborn is a great asset but it is all wasted if it isn't accompanied with initiative.

I guess that example works out. The stubbornness helps, but you need to be creative to use it since the guys aren't better at actually fighting.

I bet if you took 30 stubborn guys who survived at least 3 battles with melee and put them with 70 stubborn guys fresh out of training, they could hold off an entire battalion's bayonet charge.
 
I know battles are won by breaking morale, but (normally) one side usually broke after it was losing.

Ok, so let's say there is a big battle in the tens of thousands. Side A takes 4,000 of their men and attack B's left flank held by 3,000 stubborn defenders. Neither side send reinforcements there for awhile. After 5 minutes or so, B probably lost over 1,000 men because the shallow formations means almost everyone is fighting at once. After the first few minutes, both sides are bled and side A doesn't break because side A is winning and side B doesn't break because they're stubborn. At this point, what started as many prime soldiers fighting becomes wounded and exhausted men fighting. Big hits become fewer and farther between, there's a lot more slow grappling and it just starts to look sloppy. The casualty rate goes down. After 20 minutes side A has 2250 effective fighting men left and side A has 1,000 effective fighting men left. Remember, A had the charge momentum and numbers, so they'll lose less since the stubborn 3,000 aren't actually better at dodging this and landing their pokes. Side A STILL has more men, their left flank (B's right) is still winning, and they still arn't going to break. The stubborn guys aren't breaking yet, but they're bleeding, huffing, and puffing. I don't think this makes side B invincible.

I guess that example works out. The stubbornness helps, but you need to be creative to use it since the guys aren't better at actually fighting.

I bet if you took 30 stubborn guys who survived at least 3 battles with melee and put them with 70 stubborn guys fresh out of training, they could hold off an entire battalion's bayonet charge.
"We just lost 2/3rds of our force and they still aren't budging" isn't "winning". It's "we're getting eaten alive and I have no intention of joining the pile of corpses. Bugger this, we're out of here"
Remember that morale isn't really based on a rational assessment of the tactical situation. Some units would keep fighting despite getting shredded. Others would run at the sound of their own volley.
 
"We just lost 2/3rds of our force and they still aren't budging" isn't "winning". It's "we're getting eaten alive and I have no intention of joining the pile of corpses. Bugger this, we're out of here"
Remember that morale isn't really based on a rational assessment of the tactical situation. Some units would keep fighting despite getting shredded. Others would run at the sound of their own volley.

Wait what? The stubborn unit have the same training as everyone else, which you said was no serious melee training. That means (until they win some battles) they aren't going to be actually better at dodging stabs. An enemy that outnumbered them on the charge is going to inflict more casualties than they can inflict. After several minutes, the fight is going to get really slow as both sides run out of stamina and guys without stab wounds. The chargers are clearly winning even if they aren't stubborn.

So does the stubborn unit help their commander win tactical battles by the virtue of their stubbornness, or would we have what Redbeard said and it would be an asset only if the commander knows how to use it and not much use by itself?
 
Wait what? The stubborn unit have the same training as everyone else, which you said was no serious melee training. That means (until they win some battles) they aren't going to be actually better at dodging stabs. An enemy that outnumbered them on the charge is going to inflict more casualties than they can inflict. After several minutes, the fight is going to get really slow as both sides run out of stamina and guys without stab wounds. The side that's winning can clearly see that they have plenty of allies standing and the standing allies look thicker than the friendlies in the corpse pile.

So does the stubborn unit help their commander win tactical battles by the virtue of their stubbornness, or would we have what Redbeard said and it would be an asset only if the commander knows how to use it and not much use by itself?
Every last man in the stubborn unit needs to die for the normal unit to win. The stubborn unit only needs to kill enough guys to convince the normal unit hat fighting them is too dangerous to continue.
Therefore, the stubborn unit needs to inflict far less casualties than the normal unit to defeat their opponent.
 
This scenario assumes that only one side is stubborn. There is no reason why both sides need not be stubborn; after all that it apparently the way to win. Eventually two stubborn units will encounter each other and tear each other to pieces.

Alternative just turn a few pieces of artillery on it and blow it away first with roundshot and then with canister. It is not going to fall back so makes a capital target.

Historically the Russian army was considered stubborn. That still did not stop it getting thrashed by superior firepower. Stubbornness is best applied in melees and not when the enemy has ranged weapons and that includes long bows as the English used on the Scottish spear formations.
 

Redbeard

Banned
This scenario assumes that only one side is stubborn. There is no reason why both sides need not be stubborn; after all that it apparently the way to win. Eventually two stubborn units will encounter each other and tear each other to pieces.

Alternative just turn a few pieces of artillery on it and blow it away first with roundshot and then with canister. It is not going to fall back so makes a capital target.

Historically the Russian army was considered stubborn. That still did not stop it getting thrashed by superior firepower. Stubbornness is best applied in melees and not when the enemy has ranged weapons and that includes long bows as the English used on the Scottish spear formations.
As stubborn as the Russian army was known to be as rarely did it excel in utilising tactical/operational opportunities. Being stubborn will only bring you casualties if you don't utilise the situation your stubborness brings about.
 
As stubborn as the Russian army was known to be as rarely did it excel in utilising tactical/operational opportunities. Being stubborn will only bring you casualties if you don't utilise the situation your stubborness brings about.
Roman legions were stubborn so you have a point. They were melee troops though. Going for bayonet fighting when the opposition uses firearms to win is a good way to take lots of casualties for no gain. And this is the PoD in question, one where both sides are melee troops.
 
I notice you ask a lot of questions as to what if............

You need to read John Keegan, also John Ellis (the sharp end of war) and earlier works such as Firepower by major-general BP Hughes. The latter comes up with the numbers theories - well err - sort of; he makes a good attempt but you need more than firepower theories to run a battle simulation.

Morale is All.

Training, weather, Generals etc all have their part, but if your morale is poorer than your oponants - one on one - you will stand a chance of loosing -five to four - you will loose.

You can postulate any scenario and discuss the potential outcome, but you really need to understand the beauty of the underlying maths to appreciate what makes an army (or the stock market) really "tick"
 
Roman legions were stubborn so you have a point. They were melee troops though. Going for bayonet fighting when the opposition uses firearms to win is a good way to take lots of casualties for no gain. And this is the PoD in question, one where both sides are melee troops.
Romans had armour, shields, and deep formations, though. All of those would make an extended melee actually viable.
 
Pre-gunpowder armies were trained to fight hand to hand with swords/spears/etc. Once you have widespread gunpowder weapons the training is all about how to use them effectively beginning with how to lad them in the middle of being shot at, formations to maximize firepower and so forth. Bayonet training was a relatively minor thing - a bayonet charge was simply running ahead with the pointy end facing the enemy. In most armies, even through modern times, bayonet training was more about instilling a "killer instinct" then actually how to use the bayonetted rifle most effectively. Even with good morale, if you are faced with a situation you are not trained for you are in a bad way. Remember that until repeating breech loading weapons soldier training was about how to perform in a mass, not individual action.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The thing is, this is not really functionally possible. Assessment by German officers held that an army's morale was effectively destroyed even if they were elite by 60% casualties, on average. That's not "out of the battle", that's "out of the war" until reconstituted with fresh troops or several weeks to recover (and in the latter case, they'll never really be the same).

The only time you're going to get a unit which fights to the last man is when it's trapped and has no hope of surrender - which is what's called "death ground" by Sun Tsu - and why a smart attacker who has his enemy trapped will offer surrender terms, since this means the men will arguably be more likely to kill their own commander so as to be allowed to surrender (since they know it's an option) rather than fight to the death.

Similarly, in the case of most musket-and-bayonet charges, either the attackers will give up (going to ground before actually reaching the enemy, such as the British at New Orleans or the Confederacy at Gettysburg or the Union at Fredericksburg) or the defenders will break once it looks like the attackers will not.



Make no mistake, an unusually brave unit absolutely can achieve amazing feats - like the Zulus charging into heavy fire at Isandlwhana. But the problem is that if a unit goes through this experience it will tend to take disproportionate casualties in those who are in the front ranks and facing fire, so repeating that is difficult - the unit is "used up" as it were, and indeed later battles in the Anglo-Zulu War saw the Impi unable to press home charges in the same way.
This is why Hoplite battles in the ancient world tended towards 2% casualties for the victor and 15% for the loser - the idea of the army fighting to the last man and the last round is extremely rare.


It's one reason why a formed regular unit trained by most European armies (able to endure greater casualties without breaking and to inflict casualties faster) would be able to rip a hole in most ACW armies, but it's not magic.



A useful resource for this kind of thing might be "Forward into Battle", which is a discussion on the role of arming men instead of manning equipment in war.
 
Last edited:
It might not be functionally possible, but it's physically possible, so I put the question into the air.

The problem for the stubborn unit is that not being afraid of infantry on infantry fights doesn't actually help them not get spiked by bayonets. And if they are outnumbered, the other side isn't going to break because the other side will be winning.

So do you think their stubbornness would help make tactical victories by itself or do you think the commander needs to use them smartly as Redbeard says?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
So do you think their stubbornness would help make tactical victories by itself or do you think the commander needs to use them smartly as Redbeard says?
A theoretical unit with no concept of morale defeat would be dangerous out of all proportion to their numbers on the battlefield. They would not win the battle by themselves if everything else was drastically against their side, but (especially if their special properties were known) they would compensate a lot for a disadvantage of numbers, position or generals skill.

So much of how armies fight is functionally tied to morale. If this unit was at Gettysburg and charged with Pickett's men, then it'd take a few percent casualties as it rolled up to the line, not stop like the rest of the CSA force did, break into the position, and then the whole of Pickett's Charge would also make it because they'd break the Union line and morale.
 
A theoretical unit with no concept of morale defeat would be dangerous out of all proportion to their numbers on the battlefield. They would not win the battle by themselves if everything else was drastically against their side, but (especially if their special properties were known) they would compensate a lot for a disadvantage of numbers, position or generals skill.

So much of how armies fight is functionally tied to morale. If this unit was at Gettysburg and charged with Pickett's men, then it'd take a few percent casualties as it rolled up to the line, not stop like the rest of the CSA force did, break into the position, and then the whole of Pickett's Charge would also make it because they'd break the Union line and morale.

Wait, that wouldn't work. If the stubborn unit that didn't run from infantry fight was Pickett's men, they would run up the hill getting shot at. Also, a minor cheat since the North had rifled muskets, but let's continue with this for the moment. They'd easily lose a good quarter just getting up there because they would be getting shot at. Let's also say only Pickett's men and Stuart's men (because... they weren't there) had this property to make it easier. Which means Lee can't bring up more Stubborn men.

OK, now they get up there. Well congratulations South, your men are on the hill outnumbered three to one because lots of you got shot. The bayonet melee starts. The North has several advantages, ANY of which would cause them to inflict more stabs than they would receive. One is that they are only moderately exerted while the enemy ran a long way, last 100 meters up a moderate incline and before that a minor one. Another is that they have the numbers. A third advantage is the enemy's cohesion would be broken up by some of the battlefield debris and broken trees. Normally after a few minutes after getting charged, defenders would withdraw in the face of an unbroken foe, but normally an unbroken foe after a bayonet charge would be winning. In this case, the North is tactically winning and there is no reason to hold back. Pickett's division can't cause the defending division to lose 25% by fighting when they are beaten in broth quantity and stamina.

So the South's morale isn't breaking for the first 20 minutes because it's a given based on the premise. The North is tactically winning and Pickett doesn't have enough survivors to get that critical threshold of North casualties. Since they are winning, they aren't breaking. A few percent casualties, well I'd think they'd lose a good quarter just getting up that hill. This kind of frontal assault needs numbers to win and the North outnumbered the South. If the North somehow got spooked by this charge even though everything has the odds in the North's favor even if the Pickett can't be broken, they can rally at Little Round Top and their numbers would allow them to hold out.

"
Some units would keep fighting despite getting shredded. Others would run at the sound of their own volley.

This is true, but most "normal" units don't run from a fight they are winning.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
They'd easily lose a good quarter just getting up there because they would be getting shot at.
Actually no, they'd take maybe one volley and would take only a few percent casualties. The open-fire range of the defenders at Gettysburg was maybe 100 yards, and the average hit rate was about 1 in 100.

OK, now they get up there. Well congratulations South, your men are on the hill outnumbered three to one because lots of you got shot.
See above.
The bayonet melee starts.
No, actually, on those occasions where the south did make it to the defensive line the North broke. It happens, it's why the bayonet charge was still a thing (and still successful) in the Falklands War, where it worked all six times it was launched. Uphill in many cases.

One is that they are only moderately exerted while the enemy ran a long way, last 100 meters up a moderate incline and before that a minor one.
No, actually, the approach march was conducted at a walk. To cover the last hundred yards in 30 seconds is not instantly exhausting.
 
Top