As to fatalities, it is hard to see how a bayonet wound could be more fatal that a musket ball.
Jim-NC wrote:I would think that it became more common in the later war (with the rise of trenches and trench warfare). I will say that it captures the imagination, and is in a lot of paintings/drawings.
Calvin809 wrote:What side of the argument do you fall on?
I think I am somewhere in the middle. I think there was quite a bit of hand-to-hand combat but even so it was still a small part of most battles when you think of the size of an entire battle (it also depends on what battle you are looking at).
Given such an order, I'd have waited until the sergeant wasn't looking and loaded my musket.
Leaving aside Chamberlain's well-known penchant for self-aggrandization
We would think that, but it happened all the time. Why? Because there was even less of a point in assaulting troops protected by field works. Later in the war, Union veterans under orders to assault would advance a short distance, usually to a relatively safe area with cover, fire, and then move no further. More than one veteran left the impression this was done intentionally, at a subconscious level, to avoid being massacred. Read the Rhea books on the Overland Campaign and see what I mean.
Calvin809 wrote:So the accepted wisdom about combat during the Civil War is that there was not much up close hand-to-hand fighting with bayonets, clubbed muskets, and swords because of the advancement of technology especially the rifled musket. There also seems to be a camp that believes there was quite a bit of hand-to-hand combat during the war. The one side uses Union hospital records for wounds treated during the war and only 1000 (it think it is) were treated for bayonet wounds during the entire war. The other side uses the writings of the soldiers that fought the war as evidence that there was quite a bit of hand-to-hand combat since it is mentioned a lot. They also say that treated wounds are not a good indicator of hand-to-hand combat because a bayonet wound or sword wound would be fatal and no studies were done of the dead to see how they died.
What side of the argument do you fall on?
I think I am somewhere in the middle. I think there was quite a bit of hand-to-hand combat but even so it was still a small part of most battles when you think of the size of an entire battle (it also depends on what battle you are looking at).
aariediger wrote:I've started my way through Rhea's series, and the impression I had was a little different. Early in the war, an attack would be at a quick pace, but light enough so that the men wouldn't be too tired to fight when they got there, and if they ran into a hail storm of bullets, they would retreat and reform, to try it again. Later in the war, attacks are being delivered at the run, and when the fire gets too hot, instead of fleeing to the rear, the men drop down and begin to return fire from a prone position.
pgr wrote:I for one think relying on statistics of mortality by bayonet (or even wounds) to evaluate the frequency of hand to hand combat is misleading. A lot of folks will say the bayonet charge was obsolete at the time based on the numbers, but the reality is that the tactic was used.
Now of course, we should define "Hand-to-hand" combat. In a large sense, every assault is theoretically about closing on the enemy position and driving him off the spot. In that sense, the attacker has every interest to close the distance to hand to hand combat as quickly as possible in order to achieve surprise and minimize losses to defensive fire. This is even more true siege operations, where attackers dig siege approaches to get as close to the enemy works as possible and then launch an attack to close to hand to hand as quickly as possible.
The thing with hand to hand combat, it doesn't last very long. If the two forces close to contact, one would usually break quickly (or better yet, surrender). Take Chamberlain's charge down the round top. The hand to hand combat lasted as long as it took them to run down the hill. It could have been bloody if the Alabama troops had stood and fought every inch, but they were caught off guard by the momentum of the thing and there wasn't much real fighting.
And of course, a big body of troops rushing in with bayonets fixed at the right time could make defenders break before contact was even made. So I would suggest that hand to hand combat... or at least the threat of it, remained significant.
GraniteStater wrote:Maps and Mapmakers of the Civil War has a captioned commentary on one map that states (paraphrase): "Bayonet wounds were rare and hand-to-hand fighting was uncommon." Page 183, somewhere around that point.
GraniteStater wrote:Peritonitis, I believe. Before the 1930s and 'sulfa drugs', if you were gutshot or had a perforated intestine in any way, you were dead within 72 hours. No effective treatment before then, afaik.
of course it's the best numbers we have, since it only contains those recieving treatment, since close combat casualties who survive and are taken pow we don't have them, or those that don't survive. No one really knows if it's 5 or 13%, it's just the best we can do from the data that exists. Surgeon general reports, 3 vols is available online and breaks down wounds by calibrate and location with survival rate, unsurprising a 69 calibrate wound to the torso is 69% fatal, higher than lower calibres. one that amazes me is the photo of the serving cs soldier of Minnie ball to forehead!.)There are models that predict post combat mortality rates based on nations historical data, in fact wbts medical services and roman were almost a wash in survival rates post battle as its infection that's doing the killing, some engagements have good enough data as well, 7 days for instance over half the ccsa win survive and return inside weeks to service. Try a search for medical and surgical history of the war of the rebellion and get the Us data on wounds etc from that free downloadkhbynum wrote:Those are interesting numbers, hanny1. I would have expected the percentage of such wounds to be more like 5%. I wonder if the relative lethality of different kinds of wounds might not be a factor. If wounds from edged weapons were less immediately lethal, the victims would show up at field hospitals in relatively greater numbers. I know of no data on the cause of death of soldiers killed on the field, as opposed to died of wounds. You posted that 30% of soldiers with such wounds died. Are there data on what percentage of soldiers wounded by gunfire or artillery died of their wounds?
Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests