Wounds in Napoleonic Battles (Notice Bayonet Wounds)

[[N]Clinch]

Comparison of wounds
caused by bayonets and other weapons.
"It is not my intention to expend any powder this evening.
We'll do this business with the cold iron." - General Picton
and the 88th Regiment of Foot at Cuidad Rodrigo 1812.

"As it turnes out, firearms and not bayonets caused the greatest amount of wounds on the battlefield. At Malplaquet, for example, the best evidence indicates that 2/3 of the wounds received by French troops came from the enemy's fusils, with only about 2 % were inflicted by bayonets. Of the men wounded by gunfire, 60 % had been struck in the left side, the side facing the enemy as a soldier stood in line to fire himself.
- 66 % from fusils
- 32 % from swords and artillery
- 2 % from bayonet
Looking at a larger sample of veterans admitted to the Invalides in 1715,
Corvisier arrived at the following breakdown of wounds:
- 71.4 % from firearms
- 15.8 % from swords
- 10.0 % from artillery
- 2.8 % from the bayonet
Perhaps the figures for bayonet wounds are so small because bayonets may either have killed more effectively, and thus allowed less soldiers to survive to be admitted, or produced wounds that were more survivable without permanent maiming. It is also possible that bayonet charges proved their worth by driving defenders from their positions before the troops actually colided." (Lynn - "Giant of the Grand Siecle" p 489)

According to another sample taken (in 1762) in Invalides;
- 69 % of the wounded were wounded by musket balls
- 14 % by sabers
- 13 % by artillery
- 2 % by bayonets

In 1807 during the war between France and Russia and Prussia, chirurg Dominique Jean Larrey studied wounded on one battlefield and found most were caused by artillery and muskets. Only 2 % of all wounds were caused by bayonets.
- 98 % other wounds
- 2 % wounds from bayonets
The damage inflicted during "bayonet assault" was most often executed by bullets. Larrey studied one particularly vicious close combat between the Russians and the French and found:
- 119 (or 96 %) wounds from musketballs
- 5 (or 4 %) wounds from bayonets

[[N]Von Clausewitz]

Well this is probably due to the fact that most charges did not end up in close combat action.
Charges either broke due to a volley from the defender or the defender routed prior to impact. So not surprising that not much bayonet won were found. Close combat action outside of villages and locations that were crucial to hold almost never happened.

I will look into it more.
Thank you for the information.

VC

[[N]Fullin]

I have seen melees of infantry in defiles and in villages,
where the heads of columns came in actual collision
and thrust each other with the bayonet;
but I never saw such a thing on a regular field of battle."
- General Jomini

[[N]Avon Ulysses]

I think you are ALL right.
As VC & Fullin say it was the threat of the bayonet that won most charges.
As for the low number credited to cannons, not too many people survive a hit, so not many wounds.
I recently read an analysis of casualty information that claimed that, at the most, 25% of losses were directly from artillery.
This does not consider the very considerable moral effect of cannon fire.
The sabre would be over represented as you are more likely to survive this form of attack.

[[N]Pints of Guinness]

Very very interesting. I think though that their "effectiveness" belies the shock value and actual use. As you guys have pointed out already, although they may not have killed many they were terrifying to the enemy being charged who either broke them with musket fire or retreated. So, though the numbers may tell a different tale bayonnet charges charges had their place on the battle field and so were still useful. Massed columns of infantry were particularly frightening, however as stated they usually just scared the enemy off. Smaller melees did occur though between companies in the Peninsula where smaller groups of men might fins eachother. In terms of game play I tihnk we jsut need to agree upon what scale we see the battle as and from there we can deicide the impact and scope of historical accounts.

[[N]Clinch]

My point here is that I still think firepoower is poorly represented in the mod. Case in point is the most recent NTW3 game I played where my opponent (Liberalis) almost defeated my entire line with melee. I had a slight height advantage as he approached, fired one volley and charged my men. Almost half of me men routed from this charge and my units were all at full or near full strength. If firepower was accurately represented, Liberalis' men would have been shot to pieces with my second volley. For some reason most people think firepower is ok as it is but I completely dissagree. I honestly think it needs to be somewhere in between the mod and vanilla.

[[N]Pints of Guinness]

Hmm well Lib does love his slime columns but I think firepower is fine as it is because it keeps the pace, lets position your men, attempt charges, ect. However, I think close range volleys need to be more deadly becuase at present they don't seem all that more effective than long range ones. What should be tinkered with is moral and the effects of a charge. I've seen charges go both ways in the beta. Infact, my tired Russians charged some of your weakened Prussian line who managed to hold out for some time despite being vastly out numbered.

I think charges in NTW2 were near perfect if timed poorly they could be disastrous and if done well they could win the game. We jsut need to find that balance and I think a large part of that is moral.

[[N]Clinch]

I would find it hard to believe any unit would have charged another unit unless it was ready to shatter. When a units morale is low a charge should easily break them. I think its utter bs that they would charge full units and win. The charging unit would fire and then run (charge) the enemy thus giving the enemy one more chance to reload. That last volley would probably have occured at point blank range and had a devastating effect on the charging unit. This is not depicted in the mod as no more musket exchanges occur in melee. This gives charging units a distinct advantage. I agree with Pints about the close range firepower. This needs to be increased if possible.

[[N]Fullin]

I fought a battle against Lib wehre he came with french and we waited with prussians.... I dont remember who was on my side , but we defeated them easily. Volley at short range and a timed cav charge and off they went running.

Avoid vanilla long range infinite fire exchange. Tactics should be adapted and corrected for this game.

Use lights as I have explained in the Military school (only 6 people read my post). Well then dont complain afterwards.
Knowing you Clinch ,Iam sure you are one of the few that read it.

We dont have to change the mod to adapt to our gameplay, we are the one that have to adapt.
I will post some tactics for defeating charges.
Hopefully I will get more than 6 hits this time.

Yours Fullin

PS: I will sign my military lectures as VC so people will read them.

[[N]Sloop]

Fire seems adequate at long range but I have noticed there is little more effect at closer ranges. Point blank volleys should be murderous. I think the best counter to the charge and melee question is, as said before, to increase close range firepower. This would also add to the game a decision to hold fire until close ranges. While holding fire the enemy may just sit and shoot you or you may destroy his charge. This would add to the game’s decision making and reward those who would micromanage such tactics. It would also be more historically accurate.

The charge factor is not too effective overall. I've had a few games vs Lib and many more vs Russians. The melee factions are at great disadvantage and with maneuver and withdrawal tactics the enemy can be weakened to the point that the charge will fail and then what will the Russians do, shoot? If they get too close then sacrifice a few units to slow them. I'm not saying it is easy and if you are too slow then cold steel will be your lunch. The easiest maneuver on the field is the charge; the most difficult is the fighting withdrawal. When performed competently and matched one against the other the charge is doomed to failure.

This brings me to a point that Fullin had brought up. Although perhaps historically accurate, if there is too great a difference between the fire effect of different factions then the weaker factions become much less desirable and the melee factions are forced to charge as soon as possible. Fullin's thought was that there should only be a slight change in firepower differences. Other opinions and ideas are unit size and cost adjustments. It is difficult to have the weaker factions be represented without them fielding an unhistorical army of guard units. For example, historically, would not the average Ottoman army, man for man, be quite ineffective vs most European armies? This seems to be a perplexing problem between history and game play.