Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 129

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

  1. #21

    USA General of the Army

    A. P. Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    In Maryland State Near to both Antietam and Gettysburg, Harper's Ferry et al.
    Posts
    3,390
    I think if we can get the servers to higher more balanced numbers, and we can get the CSA to do as the USA in forming up and marching in rank and file instead of running helter skelter all over the place, then once we have solid lines of units, we should be able to devastate any charging for a bayonet run. But then, maybe I'm pissing up a rope too.

  2. #22

    USA Major


    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    240
    Will there be a "last man standing/1 life" mode sometime in the future? I think this will probably be the only way to completely get rid of rambo charges (best thing would be when it was with more players than 32 for each side). I would love to do such a battle, even if it meant that I would die in the first minute and had to watch the rest of the clash from pov of one of my fellow soldiers. It of course shouldn't be the only mode because a lot of people understandingly don't want to wait for 20 minutes to respawn. But it definitely would help the players appreciating their life a bit more

  3. #23

    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.

  4. #24

    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

  5. #25

    CSA Major


    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    The Proud South
    Posts
    166
    as i said before in this game bayonet kills are at least 50% seems like it is 75% but lets just go with 50% well as i have read the stats on numerous posts and documents that is about 49.95% to much this needs to be changed it just isnt fun with everyone playing stabbie stabbie in a game meant for guns just seems off

    i truly believe this game would be a lot better off with out no melee except maybe clubbing with the rifles that seems ok i hope dev do something about this cause it is about as far from reality as anything

  6. #26

    USA Captain

    TheRegulator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by sal_tuskin View Post
    i truly believe this game would be a lot better off with out no melee except maybe clubbing with the rifles that seems ok i hope dev do something about this cause it is about as far from reality as anything
    You gota be kiddn . . . . No mele. Seriously . . . . . It will ruin the game completly.

  7. #27

    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.

  8. #28

    USA Major

    Lightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRegulator View Post
    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.
    Have no idea but he listed over 7,000 so he had enough for a statistically accurate report. Also, he must have inspected all dead since that number is much larger than the number listed as killed in the battle.
    Lightfoot

  9. #29

    USA Captain

    TheRegulator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightfoot View Post
    Have no idea but he listed over 7,000 so he had enough for a statistically accurate report. Also, he must have inspected all dead since that number is much larger than the number listed as killed in the battle.
    Realistic . . . . . . Do you have any idea about how long that will take just one man or even 10, to Inspect 7000 dead soldiers, laying around a huge area rotting and decomposing . . . . Corpes laying in the open under the temparature, present on those battelfields, decomposed very quickly. This makes it exstreme difficult if not imposible at that time, to state the cause of death. Also information collected might have been polished a bit, ither to fit the genneral military opion or to serve the person's own carrer. Historical evidense, is often shown to be incorrect if you go deep into them, infact this is very common . . .

  10. #30

    USA Major

    Lightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRegulator View Post
    Realistic . . . . . . Do you have any idea about how long that will take just one man or even 10, to Inspect 7000 dead soldiers, laying around a huge area rotting and decomposing . . . . Corpes laying in the open under the temparature, present on those battelfields, decomposed very quickly. This makes it exstreme difficult if not imposible at that time, to state the cause of death. Also information collected might have been polished a bit, ither to fit the genneral military opion or to serve the person's own carrer. Historical evidense, is often shown to be incorrect if you go deep into them, infact this is very common . . .
    Here is one of his reports which seems to be pretty thorough

    http://www.beyondthecrater.com/resou...-med-dir-aotp/

    Check the "Consolidated Wounds ... August 1864" table toward the end of the report. There were only 3 wounds contributed to the bayonet.

    However, I suspect Nosworthy in his book "The Bloody Crucible of Courage" did his home work and made the correct conclusion about bayonet wounds.

    Also, the following are interesting since casualties for battles usually are reported after the battle. I wonder if the much higher number is ever given for battles taking into account wounded who died later.

    Died on the field: 2589
    Died in Field Hospitals: 1347
    Died in Northern Hospitals: 6743
    For total of: 10,679
    Lightfoot

Posting Permissions

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