Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 129

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

  1. #111

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    74
    I'm willing to bet, though impossible to verify I guess, that most bayonet wounds went unreported. To come back to my earlier point:

    It's pretty easy to avoid getting stabbed as opposed to avoid getting shot when the bullet is already flying. If a bullet is going to go through you and you haven't ducked already you're most likely going to get hit. But if someone is stabbing towards you then most of the times you can avoid getting stabbed; by defending yourself or recoiling and retreating.

    We know from modern medicine that single stabbings very rarely lead to death, especially if the person getting stabbed can get away (e.g. run) or fight back (defend from being stabbed again since they have a weapon too). It is easy to imagine that if you get stabbed in a fight, it would be relatively easy to just run away. We also know from modern medicine that a person being stabbed rarely goes down immediately or is immobilized. Concluding from this I can only conclude that deaths from melee would be very rare as a single stab would rarely be fatal or even immobilize an opponent and someone who is wounded like that would likely flee immediately. Of course any pursuit would be out of the question since that would generally be suicide.

    We also know from history that a bayonet charge was in most cases not a medieval affair of prolonged spear fighting. With no armor and a weapon that isn't actually truly a spear and the sheer number of bayonets making it likely everyone would get wounded the prevailing outcomes were;

    a) the charging side sees the defenders off relatively quickly after making contact (e.g. not a protracted melee until one side broke).
    b) the charging side notices that the defenders do not intend to retreat and the charge is halted.

    We can see this echoed in the American's peculiar tendency to not charge but instead close in on each other and exchanging volleys as noted by European observers who were of the opinion that a charge can see a defender off quickly since just the threat of a melee is enough to make them yield ground.

    From this I must conclude that melee was more intimidation than actual fighting. No one, by that time, actually wanted to get into the business of cold steel fighting. They knew the other side thought of it the same way so they used the threat of it to try and scare each other off the field. This, in my mind, perfectly explains why historically deaths from bayonets are very low compared to other types of injuries while still great emphasis is given to the bayonet charge in military tactics. And it wouldn't make it unfeasible that even a lengthy melee would result in very few deaths; all things considering.

    This isn't the movies after all, where actors will stand still and get impaled by a bayonet through the chest in a dramatic death.
    Last edited by JohnDewitt; 11-08-2017 at 04:12 PM.

  2. #112

    CSA Lieutenant General

    dmurray6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Eldersburg, MD
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDewitt View Post
    I'm willing to bet, though impossible to verify I guess, that most bayonet wounds went unreported. To come back to my earlier point:

    It's pretty easy to avoid getting stabbed as opposed to avoid getting shot when the bullet is already flying. If a bullet is going to go through you and you haven't ducked already you're most likely going to get hit. But if someone is stabbing towards you then most of the times you can avoid getting stabbed; by defending yourself or recoiling and retreating.

    We know from modern medicine that single stabbings very rarely lead to death, especially if the person getting stabbed can get away (e.g. run) or fight back (defend from being stabbed again since they have a weapon too). It is easy to imagine that if you get stabbed in a fight, it would be relatively easy to just run away. We also know from modern medicine that a person being stabbed rarely goes down immediately or is immobilized. Concluding from this I can only conclude that deaths from melee would be very rare as a single stab would rarely be fatal or even immobilize an opponent and someone who is wounded like that would likely flee immediately. Of course any pursuit would be out of the question since that would generally be suicide.

    We also know from history that a bayonet charge was in most cases not a medieval affair of prolonged spear fighting. With no armor and a weapon that isn't actually truly a spear and the sheer number of bayonets making it likely everyone would get wounded the prevailing outcomes were;

    a) the charging side sees the defenders off relatively quickly after making contact (e.g. not a protracted melee until one side broke).
    b) the charging side notices that the defenders do not intend to retreat and the charge is halted.

    We can see this echoed in the American's peculiar tendency to not charge but instead close in on each other and exchanging volleys as noted by European observers who were of the opinion that a charge can see a defender off quickly since just the threat of a melee is enough to make them yield ground.

    From this I must conclude that melee was more intimidation than actual fighting. No one, by that time, actually wanted to get into the business of cold steel fighting. They knew the other side thought of it the same way so they used the threat of it to try and scare each other off the field. This, in my mind, perfectly explains why historically deaths from bayonets are very low compared to other types of injuries while still great emphasis is given to the bayonet charge in military tactics. And it wouldn't make it unfeasible that even a lengthy melee would result in very few deaths; all things considering.

    This isn't the movies after all, where actors will stand still and get impaled by a bayonet through the chest in a dramatic death.
    With this all said, has anyone considered researching historically well-known bayonet charges compared to the number of prisoners taken for that particular battle, to see if bayonet charges results more commonly in a metric-shit-ton (that's a technical term) of PoW's versus deaths? This would also support the idea that it was more rare than commonly thought, to die at the tip of the bayonet. Just a thought. I have no research or knowledge to back this up, yet.

    *EDIT*
    OK, so the very first bit of simple and quick research as brought the following to light. The assault of General Lee's forces nearing 7pm on June 27, 1862, at the Battle of Gaines Mill seems to be documented as the single largest "assault" of the Civil War. Here are the numbers:

    (oh well, I tried to get the table right)




























    Battle of Gaines Mill
    Union
    Confederate
    Strength
    34,214
    57,018
    Killed
    894
    1,483
    Wounded
    3,107
    6,402
    Missing/Captured
    2,836
    108



    A quick look at the numbers should be pretty obvious, that the Union took more missing/captured, I'll go with the assumption that these missing/captured numbers was a result of the charge.

    Quote from Gaines Mill:
    “Tell them this affair must hang in suspense no longer........Sweep the field with the bayonet!” --Stonewall Jackson

    Interesting description of the moment Hood broke through Porter's Union line:
    Porter’s numbers there were at least equal to those of the attackers. With even the best infantryman able to get off no more than three rounds a minute, the exhausted defenders could not fire fast enough to halt the swift advance. The Federals in the first line panicked, turned, and fled, and in their rush to the rear blocked the fire of the troops in the second line, carrying those defenders along with them. As the blue tide surged toward the crest of Turkey Hill, Confederate infantrymen stopped to fire at last.

    “One volley was poured into their backs, and it seemed as if every ball found a victim, so great was the slaughter,” wrote a Texan. With a breach finally accomplished in the Federal center, Porter’s left and right flanks crumbled as Longstreet and Jackson widened the rupture in both directions. On Jackson’s left, Ewell and D.H. Hill outflanked Sykes’ Regulars, forcing them to fall back.


    If time permits, I may try to find stats from other well known charges to see if similar numbers result in larger than usual missing/captured. If this becomes a trend, I feel confident that we can assume more people fleed, retreated, were routed, and surrendered, instead of standing around to get stabbed in their face holes.
    Last edited by dmurray6; 11-09-2017 at 06:20 PM.
    Civil War Ancestors:

  3. #113

    CSA Captain

    Goad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    49
    1: You see a high number in this game because the game cannot realistically make use of historical firepower range. For instance the last time I tested it ( true, a while ago, but still willing to say very very close ) the max visible range to see anyone was 280 yards. For the non-hunters out there, this really isnt alot. Opening fire-fights usually started from 250-500 yards in open ground. 250 yards in this game is HUGE. And for some ungodly reason, the devs have chosen to make these rifles super un-stable ( they say for fear reasons, which they assume everyone is messing their pants which is odd. My mentality is different. ) and I'm willing to bet, neither have ever held or shot one. My 1842 smooth-bore is super-super stable and not heavy to hold for any length of time and its the heaviest gun of all involved. Also, this is one reason why they lowered the accuracy of Rifles to offset the limitations of range. So in a nutshell, instead of making the most effective use of firepower as IRL, the game promotes the use of melee, maybe unwillingly but its what we have.

    A little off-topic here but here I go, AGAIN! ... whoever is in charge of the historical "order of battle" should be fired. I argued time and again that at the original Hookers Push that the wrong Confederate Units were there. There were only GEORGIA UNITS THERE. But you kept the 2ndMS and 9thLA with the 1842 muskets in an open field, hmmm. The Georgia units gave the Union a shellacking there with what they had, and took a little bit of their own but, the way it is now, its stupidly stupid with the situation now. To make matters worse, you took the 2ndMS out ( now replaced with a GA unit???? ) of the Cornfield which were a major part of, they were aligned adjacent to the right of the 1stTX. And for you TX boys, did better than the 1stTX. 2ndMS actually crossed the fence on the other side and wreaked havoc while 1stTX didnt have the sense to lie down in the face of Canister before the 2ndMS ( which took Canister fire from same battery ) could take out the battery, thought you would appreciate that and I dont in any kind of way expect for you TEXXXXAAAANNNNS to believe that, arrogance deafens. After this past YEAR+ without any corrections exacerbates the problem with this scenario only leads to make one to believe the devs cater to the Yankees, matter of fact, I'm quite convinced. You devs are only shooting yourself in the foot, no one wants to play that scenario and if one does, its most of the time to hurry up and lose it to go on to next one. Sounds like a solution right? uh no, it gives new people a bad taste in their mouth!... But whatever






    .

  4. #114

    CSA Captain

    Bivoj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    171
    It is not (only) about accuracy and range of firepower. There were no higher melee casualties from infantry hand-to-hand combat with bayonets in 18c when smoothbore musket ranga was as short as 150 meters (yards).

    The effect of formation morale, causing weaker/shaken unit to retreat/Rout when charged (or failure of charging home caused by the same reason) is missing.

  5. #115
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Goad View Post
    1: You see a high number in this game because the game cannot realistically make use of historical firepower range. For instance the last time I tested it ( true, a while ago, but still willing to say very very close ) the max visible range to see anyone was 280 yards. For the non-hunters out there, this really isnt alot. Opening fire-fights usually started from 250-500 yards in open ground. 250 yards in this game is HUGE. And for some ungodly reason, the devs have chosen to make these rifles super un-stable ( they say for fear reasons, which they assume everyone is messing their pants which is odd. My mentality is different. ) and I'm willing to bet, neither have ever held or shot one. My 1842 smooth-bore is super-super stable and not heavy to hold for any length of time and its the heaviest gun of all involved. Also, this is one reason why they lowered the accuracy of Rifles to offset the limitations of range. So in a nutshell, instead of making the most effective use of firepower as IRL, the game promotes the use of melee, maybe unwillingly but its what we have.

    A little off-topic here but here I go, AGAIN! ... whoever is in charge of the historical "order of battle" should be fired. I argued time and again that at the original Hookers Push that the wrong Confederate Units were there. There were only GEORGIA UNITS THERE. But you kept the 2ndMS and 9thLA with the 1842 muskets in an open field, hmmm. The Georgia units gave the Union a shellacking there with what they had, and took a little bit of their own but, the way it is now, its stupidly stupid with the situation now. To make matters worse, you took the 2ndMS out ( now replaced with a GA unit???? ) of the Cornfield which were a major part of, they were aligned adjacent to the right of the 1stTX. And for you TX boys, did better than the 1stTX. 2ndMS actually crossed the fence on the other side and wreaked havoc while 1stTX didnt have the sense to lie down in the face of Canister before the 2ndMS ( which took Canister fire from same battery ) could take out the battery, thought you would appreciate that and I dont in any kind of way expect for you TEXXXXAAAANNNNS to believe that, arrogance deafens. After this past YEAR+ without any corrections exacerbates the problem with this scenario only leads to make one to believe the devs cater to the Yankees, matter of fact, I'm quite convinced. You devs are only shooting yourself in the foot, no one wants to play that scenario and if one does, its most of the time to hurry up and lose it to go on to next one. Sounds like a solution right? uh no, it gives new people a bad taste in their mouth!... But whatever






    .
    Hello Goad.

    While I appreciate your feedback, I’d like to suggest you perhaps giving it in the future in a less hostile manner. Stating some of our team members ought to be fired because you don’t agree with specific things is not the way forward if you want your feedback to be heard.

    It would be like me refusing to listen to you “because you are not a game dev” which is equally as silly.

    - Trusty

  6. #116

    USA Major

    Lightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    167
    You have to be careful applying what can be done today with a replica weapon and what a CW soldier could do with one. Todays black powder and bullets are made to exacting standards. CW black powder was a mixed bag of chemicals packed in non water proof boxes and shipped by wagon. With highly inconsistent weapons fired by men with little individual training you are not going to see the accuracies a weapon can produce on a firing range.

    To quote from Nosworthy's book, The Bloody Crucible of Courage, which went into considerable detail studying these weapons and how they were used.

    At the Battle of Gaines's Mills "Here the expenditure of about 100,000 cartridges inflicted a little more than 1000 Confederate casualties, approximately 1 hit per 100 Shots.

    Using that as a standard the average soldier in WoR shouldn't kill a single person during a skirmish. There were a lot of reason for this. A battlefield resembles pandemonium made up of smoke, noise, bullets, etc.

    Right now WoR probably is producing a much higher kill rate than ever observed in the CW. For example: "On average, therefore, a 500 man regiment would have inflicted somewhere between 3.4 and 7.5 casualties per volley. I think our 50-70 man lines do quite better already.

    Probably the least realistic part of Wor is its melee. Practically no one died from a bayonet wound in the CW. The Union army recorded only 4 deaths from bayonets during the Wilderness which was probably a battle involving more melees than typical.
    Lightfoot

  7. #117

    CSA Major General

    Redleader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Kingdom of Belgium
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Hello Goad.

    While I appreciate your feedback, I’d like to suggest you perhaps giving it in the future in a less hostile manner. Stating some of our team members ought to be fired because you don’t agree with specific things is not the way forward if you want your feedback to be heard.

    It would be like me refusing to listen to you “because you are not a game dev” which is equally as silly.

    - Trusty
    War of Rights has a reputation that it's highly valuates 'historical accuracy' , on multiple occasions concerns has been raised about units/uniforms … battle tactics.
    My idea would get a 'sticky' going about what 'members/devs/…' believe should be addressed concerning this topic. -> in this way the original poster can keep up what is done and what can still be done/not done.

    I've overheard people complain about having the wrong buttons on their 'german' uniform in some games … so Yes, some people take such things real serious

    Maybe the community & devs are feeling they are not listened to -> which can lead to a bit of frustration … which is kind of sad since we all should be on the same page (that doesn't mean we can't have different opinions) since we have the same goal in the end. (this is why a good communication is important)

    Trusty, while the new maps and 'updates' are great and makes us feel that the devs are committed to keep investing time & energy in the project, the community is partially divided on what should be addressed next and since there is no roadmap (except for some discussions and patch notes) it's weighs on some.

    The field reports where great stuff to know what's up the pipeline.

    On a sidenote : Goad's message has a valid point and it got interpreted as 'coming on strong', however if the devs don't come up with color changing unicorn cavalry … yeah they should be fired ! … oh and rainbows ! (and snow you can eat during Christmas time… just not the yellow kind)

  8. #118

    CSA Major General

    Redleader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Kingdom of Belgium
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightfoot View Post
    Right now WoR probably is producing a much higher kill rate than ever observed in the CW. For example: "On average, therefore, a 500 man regiment would have inflicted somewhere between 3.4 and 7.5 casualties per volley. I think our 50-70 man lines do quite better already.
    Like you pointed out, our scale is pretty different … imho the current casualty rate seems to work out now atm. (1 hit on a 100 shots would make me think I got the worst musket in history )
    It's hard to implement stress and chaos, the smoke and the suppression (some dislike it) helps.

  9. #119

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    399
    Well not to derail too much......The 2nd Mississippi (Engaged elements of the Iron Brigade) & the 9th Louisiana (Engaged elements of the Iron Bridage also) were both involved in repelling Hookers attacks. There most certainly were not 'only Georgians there'.

    The problem with a bayonet charge in a game is simple: players will not run away. An extensive study (the name of which escapes me just now) of America soldiers at war did show that they were exremely adverse to using the bayonet, preffering instead to 'club' with their weapons. While there were, without question, bayonet charges in the Civil War, most of said charges were not followed through, one side normally ran away. Extreme care has to be taken with mechanics such as morale & supression, because it would be easy to send WoR down the road of 'simulation', and I doubt that would be a good thing.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

  10. #120
    Meelee is a real challenge to do well and needs a lot of work obviously. It just wasn't that common in the Civil War. It needs to be slowed down very badly and players need to be deterred from closing in so eagerly. Rambo charges should be a rookie mistake not commonplace and standing even a small chance of anything resembling success. That's where something like autosurrender or a comprehensive buffing requiring massed players and making stupid last-man stands hopeless to encourage fleeing. There needs to be more than one way to meelee. Not just 'lunge full on with bayonet.'

    The more I study the Civil War the more I feel that the use of the bayonet or any real hand-to-hand really stood out to the combatants but many references are to small occurrences. You just don't go vaulting into the enemy, wall of bayonets or not. http://www.historynet.com/crossroads-war-scrum.htm Notice the primary account of 'jabbing.' Probably not lunging full on with all of your might to skewer someone. I genuinely have to wonder how many times that happened in the Civil War (actual cases).

    It takes a special kind of emotion to do that - particularly with the clear invitation of retaliation, as is the 'fight for the colors.' Nobody with a sane mind would run hodge-podge full stride and try to skewer someone in an enemy formation. That's literal suicide and they would know that the barbarity of their attack would be reciprocated out of anger. Perhaps a player should not be able to do a full meelee attack when in that situation. I'll contemplate some stuff up.

    I don't want to eliminate meelee, I just want to make it truly special. Effectively tactics end where the bayonet begins and that's just lame and it will only get more common place as more players enter the fray. In order to effectively meelee you should obsessively worry about your numbers and cohesion vs the other team and only initiate or allow it to happen when you know you can fight it off. The crazy loose formation charges should be severely hampered in execution

    Quote Originally Posted by Goad View Post
    And for some ungodly reason, the devs have chosen to make these rifles super un-stable ( they say for fear reasons, which they assume everyone is messing their pants which is odd. My mentality is different. ) and I'm willing to bet, neither have ever held or shot one. My 1842 smooth-bore is super-super stable and not heavy to hold for any length of time and its the heaviest gun of all involved.
    It's a totally different experience firing on a range and firing in combat after marching endless miles on dusty roads sleeping on the ground stretching your rations out. Though I believe that hits near objects (such as trees and fences) still have a long way to go aside from lag. It has the side-effect of encouraging meelee as firing through fences is so unreliable. Shooting through two fences? Throwing rocks would be more reliable. You should be able to help steady your rifle on a fence or wall but the hit detection for fences and objects should be cleaned up as it can be (I know it already 'is' ). I feel like Mel Gibson carrying a Tomahawk sometimes when I'm closing in to the enemy because it's so easy when fences are in the way of their shots.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 08-28-2018 at 08:24 PM.
    Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n

Posting Permissions

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