Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 129

Thread: been awhile since i studied the civil war regarding melee deaths

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    CSA Major


    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    The Proud South
    Posts
    166

    been awhile since i studied the civil war regarding melee deaths

    been doing alot of reading lately on the civil been yrs since i have been out of school and wondering whey in this game 3/4 of the deaths come from stabbie stabbie ie bayonet kills when in real life about 3-5% max were melee kills it seems all people want to do is charge and bayonet people
    i have seen people just run and not even shoot and straight at people and kill them that doesnt happen in real life and dont say they need to shoot i have seen first hand it always very hard to hit people moving either lag or what ever just wondering are the deve going tone down melee damage cause it really seems it is out of hand most rather use melee than fire the gun

    really would like thought of people playing the game alot instead of the forum warriors no offense but unless you played in the last month and 1/2 you dont know about the game just looking for some feed back and please dont say people need to learn to shoot cause i know a good group who can shoot and the melee still happens
    thanks

  2. #2
    Moderator

    CSA Major

    Leifr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,268
    Wounds caused by bayonets or other melee weapons were usually fatal and therefore counted among the statistics as a death, not a wound. There are countless first-hand accounts of men moving into melee through primary sources - letters, diaries and the such. That's not to say that it was a regular occurrence though and certainly would have never accounted for 75% of all deaths as you suggest is happening here. I dispute your suggestion and would defer to the developers and those who participate in the weekend events to make further comment. This is an Alpha and the game is subject to further improvement; melee is on the agenda to be revamped at a time deemed appropriate by CFG.

  3. #3
    Moderator

    USA Lieutenant General

    Kyle422's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Gettysburg, PA
    Posts
    739
    Quote Originally Posted by Leifr View Post
    Wounds caused by bayonets or other melee weapons were usually fatal and therefore counted among the statistics as a death, not a wound. There are countless first-hand accounts of men moving into melee through primary sources - letters, diaries and the such. That's not to say that it was a regular occurrence though and certainly would have never accounted for 75% of all deaths as you suggest is happening here. I dispute your suggestion and would defer to the developers and those who participate in the weekend events to make further comment. This is an Alpha and the game is subject to further improvement; melee is on the agenda to be revamped at a time deemed appropriate by CFG.
    Personally I think you shouldn't be able to fix bayonets unless an officer from "YOUR" company or regiment gives the command by in game "voice/action"

    - Kyle

  4. #4

    CSA Major General

    Dether's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle422 View Post
    Personally I think you shouldn't be able to fix bayonets unless an officer from "YOUR" company or regiment gives the command by in game "voice/action"

    - Kyle
    many times those officers are dead, I think the coding to go to next in line would be tremendous.. cause it could be a senior private... so I vote NO on your idea.
    All governments, everywhere derived its power by the consent of the people. The government you have is by your own consent. Not by those brave grey dead of one hundred and fifty plus years ago.

  5. #5

    CSA Lieutenant General

    dmurray6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Eldersburg, MD
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by Dether View Post
    many times those officers are dead, I think the coding to go to next in line would be tremendous.. cause it could be a senior private... so I vote NO on your idea.
    I understand where Kyle's coming from, but agree that the coding would probably be horrendous, and with death potentially causing various groups to gather their men together, it would be tough to know what the chain of command would be. Also, some accounts that I've read suggest that during the intensity of battle, that sometimes commands came from the person who was willing to give the command, like Dether mentions, sometimes a private. Whether it was to reload, fire, or even charge.
    Civil War Ancestors:

  6. #6

    CSA Major

    Profender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    216
    You see a massive amount of charging done on the skirmish map.

    Quote from the book: Military Memoirs of a Confederate

    "That indeed is the case in nearly all battles since long-range guns have come into use. It is rare that hostile lines get so near together, and are so exposed to each other's view, that men can select their targets. When this does occur, some decisive result is apt to be reached quickly. Fighting rarely consists now in marching directly upon one's enemy and shooting them down at close range. The idea is now a different one. It rather consists in making it rain projectiles all over the enemy's position. As far as possible, while so engaged, one seeks cover from the enemy's fire in return.

    But the party taking the offensive must necessarily make some advances. The best advance is around the enemy's flank. Where one meets less fire and becomes opposed by smaller numbers"

    By Edward Alexander Porter

  7. #7

    USA Major

    Lightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    167
    It is the nature of how the skirmish battles are set up and the fact it is a game. People charge who wouldn't really charge because it is almost certain death for most of the people charging. In a game like WoR you come back to life after a few minutes. Death is an inconvenience. Because of the time limits, ticket system, and weapon effectiveness a charge is the best method of achieving victory.

    But reality was that the bayonet was a "morale" weapon. If an attacking line actually got close enough to use it the defender usually considered the fight lost and promptly ran away. They considering the fact that the attacker was able to hold rank and cross under fire far enough to make contact sufficient proof they should win. First person accounts tend to be embellished and not to be overly trusted.

    Here are some solid statistics from Nosworthy's book:

    Cause of death reported by the AoP's surgeon McParlin for the Battle of the Wilderness:
    Shell: 231, Shot: 6, Bullet: 7,046, Bayonet: 4, Sword: 2

    Spotsylvania where you would expect much higher casualties due to the Mule Shoe:
    Shell: 712, Shot: 37, Bullet: 8,218, Bayonet: 14, Sword: 1.

    As you can see the Bayonet was rarely used to kill people with.

    As Nosworthy goes on to say:

    There is considerable difference between a bayonet fight (which is what we do) and a bayonet charge. "A bayonet charge, on the other had, is a formal, predefined tactic whereby infantryman "charge bayonets," that is, extend their muskets in front of them and rush in upon the enemy, threatening to "run in" whoever contemplates standing up to them."

    "If the goal was to overpower the enemy only after a ferocious and bloody bayonet fight, then repeat the bayonet indeed proved to be a useless appendage during the Civil War."

    "the purpose of any weapon system is to achieve the desired tactical objective, the discomfiture of the enemy, rather than simply to impose how the conflict will be resolved. In other words, if we measure the bayonet's role by what it actually achieved during combat, then we are forced to conclude that it indeed proved to be an invaluable tool during many Civil War engagements."
    Lightfoot

  8. #8

    USA Captain

    TheRegulator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightfoot View Post

    Here are some solid statistics from Nosworthy's book:

    Cause of death reported by the AoP's surgeon McParlin for the Battle of the Wilderness:
    Shell: 231, Shot: 6, Bullet: 7,046, Bayonet: 4, Sword: 2

    Spotsylvania where you would expect much higher casualties due to the Mule Shoe:
    Shell: 712, Shot: 37, Bullet: 8,218, Bayonet: 14, Sword: 1.

    As you can see the Bayonet was rarely used to kill people with.

    "
    How realiable are these numbers, did they Count all dead on the intire battelfield and exsamined them for the cause of death ?, or do these number only Refer to those brought into the field hospitals .
    There might have been hundred or many more killed by bayonets, who never got registeret in the field. The bayonet is still to this day a close combat weapon in the Inf. Hardly without reason.

  9. #9

    USA Major

    Lightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRegulator View Post
    How realiable are these numbers, did they Count all dead on the intire battelfield and exsamined them for the cause of death ?, or do these number only Refer to those brought into the field hospitals .
    There might have been hundred or many more killed by bayonets, who never got registeret in the field. The bayonet is still to this day a close combat weapon in the Inf. Hardly without reason.
    The Surgeon General of the AoP was ordered to survey the dead to establish the cause of death based on the type of wound received. Lists showing cause were published for most of the battles in the Overland Campaign. Since a bayonet wound is relatively obvious versus wounds caused by bullets and shot the numbers are probably accurate enough to establish that not very many soldiers were killed by the bayonet. The Sword numbers might be more questionable since I don't know how they would establish them as the cause. Some bayonet deaths might have been covered up by bodies being hit by artillery or stray shots. But the number is so low it probably doesn't matter for the conclusion reached.

    This doesn't mean they were useless. Nothing encouraged the defender to think twice about standing his ground as seeing a regimental line closing with fixed bayonets. However, they seldom waited to see if they could out duel them. Usually the act of charging and receiving fire so disrupted the charge that the defender could easily fall back a few hundred yards and reform without having to resort to hand to hand combat. The attack usually ended up stopping to also reform after taking the position without a hand to hand fight.

    As for todays army, there is little reason to carry a bayonet other than as a cooking utensil which is what most CW soldiers used it for anyway. To quote:

    the Wall Street Journal notes, “few Marines or soldiers ever use a bayonet and service members on patrol do not equip their rifles with bayonets.” According to the Washington Post, the U.S. Army discontinued bayonet instruction during basic training in 2010.
    Lightfoot

  10. #10

    USA Captain

    TheRegulator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightfoot View Post
    The Surgeon General of the AoP was ordered to survey the dead to establish the cause of death based on the type of wound received. Lists showing cause were published for most of the battles in the Overland Campaign. Since a bayonet wound is relatively obvious versus wounds caused by bullets and shot the numbers are probably accurate enough to establish that not very many soldiers were killed by the bayonet. The Sword numbers might be more questionable since I don't know how they would establish them as the cause. Some bayonet deaths might have been covered up by bodies being hit by artillery or stray shots. But the number is so low it probably doesn't matter for the conclusion reached.

    This doesn't mean they were useless. Nothing encouraged the defender to think twice about standing his ground as seeing a regimental line closing with fixed bayonets. However, they seldom waited to see if they could out duel them. Usually the act of charging and receiving fire so disrupted the charge that the defender could easily fall back a few hundred yards and reform without having to resort to hand to hand combat. The attack usually ended up stopping to also reform after taking the position without a hand to hand fight.

    As for todays army, there is little reason to carry a bayonet other than as a cooking utensil which is what most CW soldiers used it for anyway. To quote:

    the Wall Street Journal notes, “few Marines or soldiers ever use a bayonet and service members on patrol do not equip their rifles with bayonets.” According to the Washington Post, the U.S. Army discontinued bayonet instruction during basic training in 2010.

    So he did personally inspected all dead soldiers on the battelfield. Who gennerally where rotting, swollen and laying there for days . . . You also claim he was able to c if its a bullit wound or a bajonet stab, hardly the truth. Dont rely to much on such limited informations, from over a 150 years ago.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •