Muskets and Bayonet Fighting

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.

Ok, I agree that the South could overrun North lines and make them break, (happened many times before) but units of the Army of the Potomac usually only broke when either the North lost in the melee or they were outnumbered and (I guess you can imply if you're outnumbered) were going to lose in the melee if they didn't run before the south got there. In this case, the North should have a tactical win, losing less guys that the other side and having an edge in the resulting melee.

Of course, Goose Green shows the side that would win a melee sometimes breaks. But that's the exception, if a unit will win in the fight, they stay. Of course, they could lose by luck or missing that cavalry unit coming in while they are distracted, but if there is only one threat and no reason to believe there are other immediate threats, if a unit can win a fight they will usually stay.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Of course, Goose Green shows the side that would win a melee sometimes breaks. But that's the exception, if a unit will win in the fight, they stay.
This stuff about "unit that would win a melee" is basically irrelevant. It's the side whose morale breaks which breaks - and seeing an enemy coming on through what you know you could not often leads to that.
It's why the Heavy Brigade could charge uphill at 5:1 odds and win the subsequent melee - because in the very act of charging home they'd already half-won the fight.
 

longsword14

Banned
Bayonet charges happen in modern warfare only when a small unit gets surprised, or forgets to fire its weapons. Most likely those who charge with the bayonet get shot to pieces.
For some crucial insight read Battle Studies by du Picq. He has many interesting incidents, one especially funny one is set in the Crimean War where two opposing sides instead of shooting each other threw rocks and ran.
 
I still favour blowing away the stubborn unit with artillery. After all in modern warfare 50% of losses tend to be inflicted by artillery.

The beauty of blowing the crap out of the stubborn unit is that once the guns are on target, direct or indirect, you just pour in the shells/ball. No faffing around having to find the range on another target because the first one has run away. Moreover, if there are any other enemy units in sight they get a "unbenefit" of knowing that their compatriots are being blown to pieces and they could be next.

OK so the stubborn unit can be dug in so the "job" takes longer. They still going to be shellshocked little bunnies when the firing is over and done and infantry move in on them.
 
You just violated several premises. First off, I said that they were resistant from running away in an infantry vs infantry fight. Nothing makes them more shell vulnerable than normal, in that respect they would be like any other unit.

Also, commanders NORMALLY don't get their regular units get blown away by artillery, why should their commander sacrifice this unit for cannon fodder.

And in these days, explosive shells with a fuse that worked simply didn't exist. It's roundshot.
 
You just violated several premises. First off, I said that they were resistant from running away in an infantry vs infantry fight. Nothing makes them more shell vulnerable than normal, in that respect they would be like any other unit.

Also, commanders NORMALLY don't get their regular units get blown away by artillery, why should their commander sacrifice this unit for cannon fodder.

And in these days, explosive shells with a fuse that worked simply didn't exist. It's roundshot.
Shrapnel and mortar/howitzer bombs were a thing.
 
Also, commanders NORMALLY don't get their regular units get blown away by artillery, why should their commander sacrifice this unit for cannon fodder.
But your premise appears to be that the other side will sacrifice their units.

If making creating a stubborn unit is a tactical innovation then the other side can be expected to respond. Obviously one is to create stubborn units in reply. Another is to plan to break it before it can use its advantage.
 
Top