Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
When you're that surrounded, every round fired will find a target.
Surely as an Ork player you've seen that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/07 16:41:19
Therion wrote:
6th edition lands on June 23rd!
Good news. This is the best time in the hobby. Full of promise. GW lets us down each time and we know it but secretly we're hoping that this is the edition that GW gives us a balanced game that can also be played competitively at tournaments. I'm loving it.
loota boy wrote:^Well, too be fair, they were outnumbered eleven-to-one, and a good musket man can only fire about 3 shots each minute, and they can't all fire at the same time, and the guns were terribly innaccurate at the time, and, well, yeah. Sucks to be them. As Joseph Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."
Lever-action rifles in this case, not muskets. Looking at about 12 shots a minute, with good accuracy.
Although to be fair, the Zulu's had huge amounts of stolen rifles/muskets. The vast majority of British casulties were from gun shots, not spears. Older equipment but as you say Quantity over Quality.
loota boy wrote:^Well, too be fair, they were outnumbered eleven-to-one, and a good musket man can only fire about 3 shots each minute, and they can't all fire at the same time, and the guns were terribly innaccurate at the time, and, well, yeah. Sucks to be them. As Joseph Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own."
Breech loaded rifles, not muskets. A trained British soldier could fire around 10 to 12 shots a minute. Plus using the British tactic of forming into two ranks with the front firing a volley, then the rear firing a volley whilst the front is reloading they could maintain an impressive and sustained rate of fire until they run out of ammunition (which they eventually did).
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
GreatGunz wrote:It's funny that someone is getting tactical advice from people who were fighting with swords and spears in the 18th century. They had first class muskets in the 16th and early 17th centuries, but the tokugawa outlawed them after they got in control of the country. It was "unaristocratic" to have a bunch of peasants mowing down knights and lords with firearms. When they were reintroduced in the 19th century the Samurai refused to adopt the new technology, and were completely destroyed. Tactically, it was less than brilliant.
So there's actually two levels of silliness here. The first is what the Samurai did. The second is what you do when you read them and think they're going to tell you how to play 40k.
Yep. That's right. No one in 40k uses swords. Or spears. In fact, rightfully so in the grim darkness of the far future (where there is only WAR) there aren't even RULES for Close combat, because no one even... wait. What?
This is so unbelievably silly that I'm not even going to try to explain it to you. Actual melee doesn't have anything to do with 40k.
Also, Cavalrymen and infantrymen were still using swords and spears into the 20th century. In fact there were still SPEAR WIELDING CAVALRY CHARGES in WWI. There were still units of them existing into WWII, but I don't think an actual charge was ever made, as I'm pretty sure the Germans cut them to ribbons with MG fire before they ever got close.
Right. Exactly. So what the hell are you talking about?
It was more tradition to carry swords, sure, but ask Marines at Pelelieu or Iwo Jima if the Japanese soldiers just shot at them. Bayonet charges still happened into Vietnam, and though you may argue that it's just a knife stuck onto the end of a gun and not REALLY melee combat (that's what happens in 40k for many units anyway) the fighting style is more akin to bladed staff or spear fighting.
And again, they were cut to pieces. So again, what the hell are you talking about?
However, discussing spear ane melee tactics is less helpful as certain stances and manuvers are abstracted by the melee system.
Something I'm sure you know nothing about.
The real ideas that will help you are how to get your opponant into a disadvantaged situation so that you can win.
Which the author of Hagakure knew nothing about, because he was never in a battle in his entire life.
Look I'm getting tired of going round and round with you. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so go ahead and get in the last word and let's be done with this. It's my fault for encouraging you to think critically in the first place.
azazel the cat wrote:(And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)
No they were carrying swords because it was tradition. They were fighting with muskets, rifles, and cannon. When traditionally-armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology in the late 1860s, the former were completely destroyed. Which is OT but true nonetheless.
Try telling that to the British who fought at the Battle of Isandlwana. 20,000 Zulus armed mostly with spears and shields destroyed a force of 1,800 British soldiers who were equipped with the vastly superior weaponry including rifles, cannons and rocket batteries.
Uhhhhh.... what's your point? That modern armies occasionally resorted to fighting hand to hand out of desperation? That poorly equipped armies can occasionally win against better equipped foes, when they outnumber them ten to one? Yes those things are true. You're very clever. But was there something you wanted to contribute?
azazel the cat wrote:(And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)
No they were carrying swords because it was tradition. They were fighting with muskets, rifles, and cannon. When traditionally-armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology in the late 1860s, the former were completely destroyed. Which is OT but true nonetheless.
Try telling that to the British who fought at the Battle of Isandlwana. 20,000 Zulus armed mostly with spears and shields destroyed a force of 1,800 British soldiers who were equipped with the vastly superior weaponry including rifles, cannons and rocket batteries.
Uhhhhh.... what's your point? That modern armies occasionally resorted to fighting hand to hand out of desperation? That poorly equipped armies can occasionally win against better equipped foes, when they outnumber them ten to one? Yes those things are true. You're very clever. But was there something you wanted to contribute?
azazel the cat wrote:(And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)
No they were carrying swords because it was tradition. They were fighting with muskets, rifles, and cannon. When traditionally-armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology in the late 1860s, the former were completely destroyed. Which is OT but true nonetheless.
Try telling that to the British who fought at the Battle of Isandlwana. 20,000 Zulus armed mostly with spears and shields destroyed a force of 1,800 British soldiers who were equipped with the vastly superior weaponry including rifles, cannons and rocket batteries.
Uhhhhh.... what's your point? That modern armies occasionally resorted to fighting hand to hand out of desperation? That poorly equipped armies can occasionally win against better equipped foes, when they outnumber them ten to one? Yes those things are true. You're very clever. But was there something you wanted to contribute?
I was just pointing out that your claim that when "traditionally armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology, the former were completely destroyed" was false. No need to get all aggressive about it
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/04/08 02:04:56
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Jihallah wrote:Oh you are a special little bronyimeanboy
Hey. No brony insults. Counts as ad hominem, you don't wanna lose an argument you had in the bag over something as minor as that, do you?
grendel083 wrote:"Dis is Oddboy to BigBird, come in over."
"BigBird 'ere, go ahead, over."
"WAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHH!!!! over"
"Copy 'dat, WAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!! DAKKADAKKA!!... over"
I see as much point in arguing with him as I do with a brick wall.
"I never enlighten anyone who has not been driven to distraction by trying to understand a difficulty or who has not got into a frenzy trying to put his ideas into words. When I have pointed out one corner of a square to anyone and he does not come back with the other three, I will not point it out to him a second time" -The analects (Confucius)
And I thought the "special" was the bit people would take exception to, not "brony" lol
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/08 02:22:17
azazel the cat wrote:(And the British & USA were also fighting with swords in the 18th century. And the 19th.)
No they were carrying swords because it was tradition. They were fighting with muskets, rifles, and cannon. When traditionally-armed forces went up against forces with the latest European technology in the late 1860s, the former were completely destroyed. Which is OT but true nonetheless.
I think you should read about Italy's adventures in Ethiopia.
Also, I think you should brush up on your history. Your own War For Independence, and your Civil War, for example. My understanding is that the sabre and bayonet factored quite heavily there. And those were the 18th & 19th centuries, respectively.
GreatGunz, either start Loving and Tolerating, or you can just get a new Avatar right now.
It's fine to argue about a point, but you're starting to attack the person making the comments instead of limiting your replies to the comment itself.
Some people find that it helps them play strategy games if they read and ponder on the wisdom of ancient (and not so ancient) strategists, and some people don't. It's all good.
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation. Consider it a social experiment.
If yer an Ork, why dont ya WAAAGH!!
M.A.V.- if you liked ChromeHounds, drop by the site and give it a go. Or check out my M.A.V. Oneshots videos on YouTube!
azazel the cat wrote:I think you should read about Italy's adventures in Ethiopia.
the Ethiopians lost that war. You're the one who needs to do some reading.
Also, I think you should brush up on your history. Your own War For Independence, and your Civil War, for example. My understanding is that the sabre and bayonet factored quite heavily there.
Words fail me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/08 10:27:23
GreatGunz wrote:It's funny that someone is getting tactical advice from people who were fighting with swords and spears in the 18th century. They had first class muskets in the 16th and early 17th centuries, but the tokugawa outlawed them after they got in control of the country. It was "unaristocratic" to have a bunch of peasants mowing down knights and lords with firearms. When they were reintroduced in the 19th century the Samurai refused to adopt the new technology, and were completely destroyed. Tactically, it was less than brilliant.
So there's actually two levels of silliness here. The first is what the Samurai did. The second is what you do when you read them and think they're going to tell you how to play 40k.
Yep. That's right. No one in 40k uses swords. Or spears. In fact, rightfully so in the grim darkness of the far future (where there is only WAR) there aren't even RULES for Close combat, because no one even... wait. What?
This is so unbelievably silly that I'm not even going to try to explain it to you. Actual melee doesn't have anything to do with 40k.
I'm being facetious. You are talking about sword type tactical advice being irrelevant because range weaponry were in use. Yet ranged weapons and melee weapons still being in use at the same time is supported in history. And it happens in 40k. So your assertion that tactical and strategic doctrines for supporting melee has no use in other eras (See especially 40k) is utterly rediculous. Melee factors VERY heavily in 40k, oft times more so than ranged attacks. Therefore, understanding melee tactics (for manuver and support) from multiple eras is still germaine.
Also, Cavalrymen and infantrymen were still using swords and spears into the 20th century. In fact there were still SPEAR WIELDING CAVALRY CHARGES in WWI. There were still units of them existing into WWII, but I don't think an actual charge was ever made, as I'm pretty sure the Germans cut them to ribbons with MG fire before they ever got close.
Right. Exactly. So what the hell are you talking about?
You implied that the mixture of melee and ranged weaponry in war was a thing of the (distant) past. I have provided evidence to the contrary.
It was more tradition to carry swords, sure, but ask Marines at Pelelieu or Iwo Jima if the Japanese soldiers just shot at them. Bayonet charges still happened into Vietnam, and though you may argue that it's just a knife stuck onto the end of a gun and not REALLY melee combat (that's what happens in 40k for many units anyway) the fighting style is more akin to bladed staff or spear fighting.
And again, they were cut to pieces. So again, what the hell are you talking about?
Who was cut to pieces? Everyone involved? Because that is the correct answer. That's what happens during a bayonet charge.
However, discussing spear ane melee tactics is less helpful as certain stances and manuvers are abstracted by the melee system.
Something I'm sure you know nothing about.
There is an old saying about assuming. But since you seem to think the words of an older age have no bearing on the present, that's "something I'm sure you know nothing about."
The real ideas that will help you are how to get your opponant into a disadvantaged situation so that you can win.
Which the author of Hagakure knew nothing about, because he was never in a battle in his entire life.
Look I'm getting tired of going round and round with you. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, so go ahead and get in the last word and let's be done with this. It's my fault for encouraging you to think critically in the first place.
You don't need to ever be in a battle to know that some things are clearly suicidal and others will work very well. Some tactics you know instinctively, others are obvious once pointed out to you. You are making it sound as though I think theory makes you an expert. It doesn't. But it can give you a very good guidline. But then, that's what I've been trying to explain to you this entire time (IE regurgitation of ideas is worthless, application is all that matters), and it's clear that you are just trolling.
Jihallah wrote:trollol.
Although Nagashek was a bit
Nagashek was being intentionally facetious. Hopefully I made that a little more obvious. Sorry, sometimes I respond in a non-linear, stream of consciousness sort of fashion as my brain works a little faster than I can type. My foot does something similar when it jumps into my mouth...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/04/08 16:43:20
Therion wrote:
6th edition lands on June 23rd!
Good news. This is the best time in the hobby. Full of promise. GW lets us down each time and we know it but secretly we're hoping that this is the edition that GW gives us a balanced game that can also be played competitively at tournaments. I'm loving it.
azazel the cat wrote:I think you should read about Italy's adventures in Ethiopia.
the Ethiopians lost that war. You're the one who needs to do some reading.
Also, I think you should brush up on your history. Your own War For Independence, and your Civil War, for example. My understanding is that the sabre and bayonet factored quite heavily there.
Words fail me.
No, it would seem that your ability to research has failed you.
Here, let me help you. I think you'll find that Italy, with their modern rifles, managed to lose to peasants in a feudal system.
I really hate to use wikipedia examples, but I don't know if you have access to academic journals or not. Anyway, it really wasn't until after the Indian Wars that the US abandoned the use of swords. Hence, my point that swords were in use even by the end of the 19th century. As for Europe, the same holds true, and as was the case of Ethiopia during the age of colonialism the modern rifles did not always win the day. So if you want to try and retort with a series of emoticons, that's perfectly fine. I'm always happy to educate people about world history.
Personally I like The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates:
Spoiler:
1. Pillage, then burn.
2. A Sergeant in motion outranks a Lieutenant who doesn't know what's going on.
3. An ordnance technician at a dead run outranks everybody.
4. Close air support covereth a multitude of sins.
5. Close air support and friendly fire should be easier to tell apart.
6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
7. If the food is good enough the grunts will stop complaining about the incoming fire.
8. Mockery and derision have their place. Usually, it's on the far side of the airlock.
9. Never turn your back on an enemy.
10. Sometimes the only way out is through. . . through the hull.
11. Everything is air-droppable at least once.
12. A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.
13. Do unto others.
14. "Mad Science" means never stopping to ask "what's the worst thing that could happen?"
15. Only you can prevent friendly fire.
16. Your name is in the mouth of others: be sure it has teeth.
17. The longer everything goes according to plan, the bigger the impending disaster.
18. If the officers are leading from in front, watch out for an attack from the rear.
20. If you're not willing to shell your own position, you're not willing to win.
21. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow.
24. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a big gun.
27. Don't be afraid to be the first to resort to violence.
28. If the price of collateral damage is high enough, you might be able to get paid to bring ammunition home with you.
29. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.
30. A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.
31. Only cheaters prosper.
34. If you’re leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun.
35. That which does not kill you has made a tactical error.
36. When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support.
37. There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'reload.'
38. Just because it's easy for you doesn't mean it can't be hard on your clients.
Specifically - 'Pillage, then burn.' and 'There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'reload.'' but I find several are often relevant
azazel the cat wrote:
I really hate to use wikipedia examples, but I don't know if you have access to academic journals or not. Anyway, it really wasn't until after the Indian Wars that the US abandoned the use of swords. Hence, my point that swords were in use even by the end of the 19th century. As for Europe, the same holds true, and as was the case of Ethiopia during the age of colonialism the modern rifles did not always win the day. So if you want to try and retort with a series of emoticons, that's perfectly fine. I'm always happy to educate people about world history.
Just wanted to call you out on this.
You mention both the AWI and the ACW. In the AWI, bayonet and swords wounds were exceedingly rare, oddly enough, but here's why - most engagements would feature two sides advancing towards each other, stopping at times to discharge their weapons. When one side or the other finally 'fixed bayonet's and charged - usually the British, since such a thing needed the discipline of a trained army - the other would break and run. Sensible, since the thing to do when you've got a wall of pointy bits coming towards you usually isn't to run right at it.
As for the ACW, well, you'll find that actual sword and bayonet use was essentially, well, useless. With the minie ball and easily available rifled muskets, and less-so breach loading rifles, and repeating rifles, any sort of charge was near-suicidal. 'Cavalry' in the traditional sense of men on horseback swinging sabers and yelling 'Tally-ho!' was only really found in the Union, and only in the beginning of the war. Charging at a line of infantry that can put out blistering amounts of lead isn't, again, a sensible thing to do, and remarkably some commanders actually managed to figure that out before the war ended. Cavalry was more often used as either the eyes of the army in a reconnaissance role, or simply as mounted infantry.
You'll read accounts of commanders leading a charge with their sword held high (often with their hat on top). And you'll also probably notice that these men were generally killed pretty quickly when peppered with lead.
I won't argue the Ethiopian bit, since history has shown time and time again that a technologically inferior force is perfectly capable of defeating a technologically superior opponent, especially if the enemy is overconfident and you have numbers on your side.
infinite_array wrote:As for the ACW, well, you'll find that actual sword and bayonet use was essentially, well, useless. With the minie ball and easily available rifled muskets, and less-so breach loading rifles, and repeating rifles, any sort of charge was near-suicidal. 'Cavalry' in the traditional sense of men on horseback swinging sabers and yelling 'Tally-ho!' was only really found in the Union, and only in the beginning of the war. Charging at a line of infantry that can put out blistering amounts of lead isn't, again, a sensible thing to do, and remarkably some commanders actually managed to figure that out before the war ended. Cavalry was more often used as either the eyes of the army in a reconnaissance role, or simply as mounted infantry.
You'll read accounts of commanders leading a charge with their sword held high (often with their hat on top). And you'll also probably notice that these men were generally killed pretty quickly when peppered with lead.
azazel the cat wrote:
I really hate to use wikipedia examples, but I don't know if you have access to academic journals or not. Anyway, it really wasn't until after the Indian Wars that the US abandoned the use of swords. Hence, my point that swords were in use even by the end of the 19th century. As for Europe, the same holds true, and as was the case of Ethiopia during the age of colonialism the modern rifles did not always win the day. So if you want to try and retort with a series of emoticons, that's perfectly fine. I'm always happy to educate people about world history.
Just wanted to call you out on this.
You mention both the AWI and the ACW. In the AWI, bayonet and swords wounds were exceedingly rare, oddly enough, but here's why - most engagements would feature two sides advancing towards each other, stopping at times to discharge their weapons. When one side or the other finally 'fixed bayonet's and charged - usually the British, since such a thing needed the discipline of a trained army - the other would break and run. Sensible, since the thing to do when you've got a wall of pointy bits coming towards you usually isn't to run right at it.
As for the ACW, well, you'll find that actual sword and bayonet use was essentially, well, useless. With the minie ball and easily available rifled muskets, and less-so breach loading rifles, and repeating rifles, any sort of charge was near-suicidal. 'Cavalry' in the traditional sense of men on horseback swinging sabers and yelling 'Tally-ho!' was only really found in the Union, and only in the beginning of the war. Charging at a line of infantry that can put out blistering amounts of lead isn't, again, a sensible thing to do, and remarkably some commanders actually managed to figure that out before the war ended. Cavalry was more often used as either the eyes of the army in a reconnaissance role, or simply as mounted infantry.
You'll read accounts of commanders leading a charge with their sword held high (often with their hat on top). And you'll also probably notice that these men were generally killed pretty quickly when peppered with lead.
I won't argue the Ethiopian bit, since history has shown time and time again that a technologically inferior force is perfectly capable of defeating a technologically superior opponent, especially if the enemy is overconfident and you have numbers on your side.
I don't really consider this 'calling me' on anything. I didn't claim that it was a cutting-edge tactic (punny!); I merely pointed out that it happened on several occasions, even at that late date in history. And cited examples, in the form of the Dragoons and the two battls that I posted links to.
However, you are correct that the emergence of the repeating rifle was generally the end of the sword as a go-to weapon. And I think this is quite amazing that this has all come from my one comment of "I'll take a Yumi bow over a smooth-bore matchlock any day" (specifically meant to refer to the matchlock's lack of accuracy, exceptionally slow rate of fire, and the fact that it was the world's first gun to feature the "gets hot!" USR)
I can't even tell what is being argued here, at least in relation to 40K or tactical advice - That melee does not belong in 40k? That tactics coined by ancient warriors no longer apply in battle? That the 40K universe is somehow like a civil war battlefield and thus melee units can be disregarded? That one should not base their army around rough riders?
What does the use, or lack of use, of cavalry charges in the civil war have to do with either playing 40K or applying tactical advice to 40K? Plenty no doubt, but without a premise to build the debate around, all we are doing is reading differing anecdotes about warfare in Colonial times being bandied about.
Hollowman wrote:I can't even tell what is being argued here, at least in relation to 40K or tactical advice - That melee does not belong in 40k? That tactics coined by ancient warriors no longer apply in battle? That the 40K universe is somehow like a civil war battlefield and thus melee units can be disregarded? That one should not base their army around rough riders?
What does the use, or lack of use, of cavalry charges in the civil war have to do with either playing 40K or applying tactical advice to 40K? Plenty no doubt, but without a premise to build the debate around, all we are doing is reading differing anecdotes about warfare in Colonial times being bandied about.
No, I think you've generally got a grasp on it so far.
That's a lot of completely different questions loaded in there, each of which deserves a focused essay. For instance - Does melee belong in 40K?
Probably. Historically, missile weapons predominate when armor is weak, and when new advances in armor arrive melee weapons rise up again. Ancient armies started out with maces, axes and short swords, then bows basically took over, allowing killing from range and dominating the period of ancient Egypt and Assyria. When better armor developed bows and slings were relegated to skirmishing and harassing while swords and axes predominated. Then longbows and advanced crossbows appear, begin to dominate, and then again drop out of central use as heavy armor appears and heavy two handed melee weapons capable of penetrating them come into wider use. Heavy armor and melee weapons coexisted for a much longer period of time than usually realized before guns became powerful enough to make melee obsolete for the moment.
We have sort of dropped out of this loop today, in that nobody really uses armor at all. This is not the case in the 40K universe - power armor, terminator armor and artificer armor shrug off nearly all missile weapons but the most powerful and expensive, while power swords, eviscerators and the like can easily penetrate the heaviest armor. Battles are fought at close range. Melee weapons have a role again, the same role they have always had - penetrating armor that massed missile weapons have a difficult time opening up. A Space marine against eldar guardians is a unit of dismounted knights against shortbowmen - they can reliably wade in and take their position without getting seriously wounded. Back up shortbowmen with halberds and you have a far more effective fighting force, even if a halberd has all the range of a extra long stick (put your eldar assault unit of choice in place of halberds).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/04/09 10:45:20
azazel the cat wrote:No, it would seem that your ability to research has failed you.
Indeed?
Here, let me help you. I think you'll find that Italy, with their modern rifles, managed to lose to peasants in a feudal system.
Here, let me help you I think you'll find that Italy, with their modern rifles, annexed the whole country.
Sabres! Dragoons! Sabres in action! More sabres in action! I really hate to use wikipedia examples, but I don't know if you have access to academic journals or not. Anyway, it really wasn't until after the Indian Wars that the US abandoned the use of swords. Hence, my point that swords were in use even by the end of the 19th century. As for Europe, the same holds true, and as was the case of Ethiopia during the age of colonialism the modern rifles did not always win the day. So if you want to try and retort with a series of emoticons, that's perfectly fine. I'm always happy to educate people about world history.
Fortunately for you, I too enjoy educating people about history.
http://http://www.historynet.com/weaponry-the-rifle-musket-and-the-mini-ball.htm "The days of successful frontal assaults by infantry and cavalry were over; defenders armed with the new rifle-musket could fire from a safe place and knock down attacker after attacker before they got close enough to do damage."
"The combination of the rifle-musket and minié bullet also made the bayonet nearly obsolete."
"In fact, very few Civil War surgeons reported bayonet wounds. During Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant's bloody campaign against Confederate General Robert E. Lee in the summer of 1864, for example, Union medical directors recorded only 37 bayonet wounds. Of the several hundred thousand wounded men treated in Union hospitals over the course of the war, surgeons noted only 922 bayonet wounds!"
http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/means/cold_steele.htm It is a truism that by the time of the Civil War, the bayonet had outlived its usefulness in combat. Yet like many truisms, it tells only part of the story. Certainly the bayonet was not used in the 1860s as it had been before then. Up through the war with Mexico, the last conflict fought with smoothbore muskets, the bayonet's value was as a "shock tactic" to disorganize the defenders and take the ground, but not necessarily to win by killing. Men would often break and run from an attack of gleaming bayonets. Most, if not all, of the casualties would be caused by rifle fire, but in a sense the victory belonged to the bayonets.
The Civil War started out with just that tactic in mind, but the superior range and accuracy of the rifled musket, developed between the wars, changed everything. The charging line would be stopped in its tracks before it was close enough to use bayonets. It was only at times of desperation, when a unit under heavy attack ran out of ammunition and the options were to turn and run or make a desperate charge with cold steel, as did the 20th Maine at Gettysburg, that a bayonet charge would be ordered.
http://www.19thalabama.org/cwfacts.html Most infantry rifles were equipped with bayonets, but very few men wounded by bayonet showed up at hospitals. The conclusion was that the bayonet was not a lethal weapon. The explanation probably lay in the fact that opposing soldiers did not often actually come to grips and, when they did, were prone to use their rifles as clubs.
Since we're all so gung-ho about Isalwandha, I thought I'd remind you all of Rorke's Drift, Ulundi, Omdurman, Woosung, Whampoa, Tseekee, Ningpo, Gujarat, Sobraon, Fallen Timbers, Wounded Knee, Tipecanoo, Bad Axe, Wisconsin Heights... well, you get the idea. Or maybe you don't, so let's keep going - Neches, Little Robe Creek, North Fork of the Red River, Chusan, Chuenpee, Prome, Danubyu, Minhla, Tamai..... whew! That's alot of dead guys with spears and swords!
But if that doesn't convince you, look at the numbers involved in the engagements. At Isalanwandha, the Zulus outnumbered the British ten to one, and took more casualties than the British did in the course of the fighting. At Ulundi the British were outnumbered two to one, and inflicted TEN TIMES the number of casualties that they suffered. Obviously a battle like Ulundi mattered more for the outcome of the war than a battle like Isalawandha. And the final results of the wars were never in doubt. The Mahdists were crushed in North Africa, the Zulu in South Africa, the Mughals, Sikhs, and Maratha in India, the Qing and the Boxers in China, the American Plains Indians in the United States, the Tokugawa in Japan, and on and on and on it went. Do you think it was some kind of accident that European armies conquered the world in the 18th and 19th centuries? Or is it possible, just maybe, that rifles and cannons are better weapons than swords and spears?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollowman wrote:I can't even tell what is being argued here, at least in relation to 40K or tactical advice - That melee does not belong in 40k? That tactics coined by ancient warriors no longer apply in battle? That the 40K universe is somehow like a civil war battlefield and thus melee units can be disregarded? That one should not base their army around rough riders?
What does the use, or lack of use, of cavalry charges in the civil war have to do with either playing 40K or applying tactical advice to 40K? Plenty no doubt, but without a premise to build the debate around, all we are doing is reading differing anecdotes about warfare in Colonial times being bandied about.
I agree we've strayed a bit. My original point was that Art of War, On War, and Hagakure are manuals of strategy and tactics that were written for particular moments in history. While they do have some generalized applicability to games of strategy and to war in other epochs, it's basically silly to try to learn about 40k by reading them, for alot of reasons. IIRC I pointed out that melees have been obsolete in modern combat for about 300 years, and a couple of people who don't know anything about history cried foul. I agree that the whole conversation is basically silly at this point, and frankly I'm about done with it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/04/09 17:37:02
@GreatGunz: Thank you for proving my point. (my point being that the sword was still in use even during the 18th & 19th centuries. I never once said that swords defined the age, merely that they were still around)
And you really should read that wikipedia article you posted. I referenced the Frist Italo-Ethiopian War to illustrate the point that swords and spears will sometimes win out over rifles, contrary to your sweeping generalization. And given that example, my point still stands. I have no idea why you keep referencing the Second Italo-Ethiopean War, as it was fought 40 years later when both sides were operating exclusively with modern firearms. (however, by that pattern, Ethiopia has a better track record of fighting with swords against guns than they do of fighting with guns against guns)
So, I'm happy to keep proving you wrong, but it's starting to get boring for me as I keep having to remind you of the point. If you really want to continue, please try to keep up.
EDIT:
GreatGunz wrote:
Mordiggian wrote:Applying a text, such as Sun Tsu, to a situation for which it was not specifically written, such as a wargame, is called interpretation.
It's called a pretentious waste of time. 40k is a game. Just enjoy it for what it is. If you want a game of deep strategy, play chess. 40k ain't it.
However, I do agree with you 100% here. Also, people need to stop quoting the Hagakure. It is not a system of tactics, it is a book of philosophy and a guide to proper social behaviour. I think it's being mistaken for the Go Rin No Sho.
GreatGunz wrote:I pointed out that melees have been obsolete in modern combat for about 300 years, and a couple of people who don't know anything about history cried foul. I agree that the whole conversation is basically silly at this point, and frankly I'm about done with it.
And I merely (although successfully) pointed out that it's not really 300 years; but rather more like 100-150 years. It really wasn't until the percussion cap came about that melee combat became pointless. And I'm sorry to hear that I don't know anything about history. I must have just found my history degree while walking home one day.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/04/09 18:35:11
a million billion points
prepare to be purged
%@!&
