Transition from swords to guns

[TheRomanRuler]

It's an isolated incident (and one occurring in special circumstances), hardly indicative of the state of things.

I never said it is standard tactic, but with 21st century weapons you can suppress the enemy so they have to take cover, resulting less casualties to attacker, meaning properly made bayonet charge may not result in any more casualties to attacker than standard assault. Bayonet itself is not used - but it never has been used like that, it is psychological weapon, meaning it is actually used in melee as much as it ever has been used. Rapid firing assault rifles can run out of ammunition faster than bolt action rifles of WW2, so at some point of the war melee weapons will be used. Warfare is so interesting, in a way everything has changed, but then again, nothing has changed, frontal assaults were not lethal only when machine guns were invented, they always were lethal, at early days of machine gun people just did not know how to counter it. When counter is found to new threat, everything returns to old school warfare where infantry advance supported by ranged weaponry, Roman legionaries would first throw their javelins like modern infantry would first suppress the enemy, and then advance to close quarters to actually take their positions.
Sure real warfare is more complicated than that.

 

[DoomBunny]

I agree that bayonet charges didn't kill that much but rather drove the enemy from its position. I'm not sure that during the Napoleonic wars, bayonet charges where that common. I think they tend to be overreported, as they are seen as heroic and romantic. I think it's very difficult to get reliable numbers on how many charges took place and what impact they had. I also wonder how much musket fire took place during such charges and again what impact that had.

Except that even if overreported, they're still a massive part of warfare.

A bayonet is basically an inferior spear: heavier and unbalanced. Why did the majority of fighters bother with armor when spears and swords dominated the battlefield?

Because then armour has a point, and because most people would have a shield (I'm not expert on medieval warfare, but I'd imagine for your average peasant his shield would probably be more important than his jacket).

Armour has a point whilst it can block most damage and actually protect the wearer/wielder of the armour/shield. Musket/rifle fire wont be stopped except by heavy armour (very expensive and used only by the very heavy horse), cannon fire wont be stopped at all, and bayonet thrusts/butts are somewhat uncommon as they're a morale rather than killing weapon.

Essentially you'd be lugging around extra-gear (that costs money, which is particularly a problem as armies increase in size) for little to no gain.

 

[Easy-Kill]

... I'm not expert ... and bayonet thrusts/butts are somewhat uncommon as they're a morale rather than killing weapon.

We can see that. Actually, most Bayonet charges (even the individual ones) result in far greater casualties. Operational Analysis of weapon systems used in combat (albeit modern, high velocity rifle warfare) highlights that the ratio between Perceived Probability of Injury and Actual Probability of Injury is lower for soldiers receiving a physical charge rather than accurate and deliberate fire. For example, if you read some of the reports of the modern bayonet charges, they typically result in a significant of casualties.

Essentially you'd be lugging around extra-gear (that costs money, which is particularly a problem as armies increase in size) for little to no gain.

I think the 'cost' factor is a little over-rated. I posted above that the cost for a pikeman's armour in the English Civil War was about 1 Pound 2 Shillings. The cost for Victuals (food and other stores) for a soldier in a single Month was 1 pound 5 Shillings (Colonel Edward Popham). 'There is not a place in England that you can victual in under 1#5S a man a month, which for 6000 men for two months amounts to 15000#, for though some things be cheaper in one place than another, yet other things are dearer.

Armour became less useful as modern (17th century) weapons provided improved massed firepower (it is the massing which was important). There were few ways to defend against massed fire-power - To bring superior massed fire power to the field to; to skirmish, using the terrain and hedgerow to break up the 'massed' component or charge and breakup the massing components.

Pikemen, though able to defend against cavalry, were too few in number to break up the mass of enemy fire power. However, transitioning from pikemen to musketeers (particularly with the bayonet) allowed you to bring more fire power, defend against cavalry (particularly if you chose to skirmish on the flanks and front) with the Bayonet and perform the traditional job of 'smashing' the enemy ranks if needed.

 

[Amallric]

I wonder if abandoning armour was really a conscious choice. Pikemen were the ones who wore armour, and were supposed to fight in close combat where their armour would be relevant. Musketeers were supposed to fight with ranged weapons unless things went wrong, and therefore had no need for armour. Then pikemen were gone, and musketeers had to do pikemen's job at times, but nobody cared about giving them armour back.

 

[Easy-Kill]

I wonder if abandoning armour was really a conscious choice. Pikemen were the ones who wore armour, and were supposed to fight in close combat where their armour would be relevant. Musketeers were supposed to fight with ranged weapons unless things went wrong, and therefore had no need for armour. Then pikemen were gone, and musketeers had to do pikemen's job at times, but nobody cared about giving them armour back.

What is interesting is that we have now gone full circle. Just checking out the British Army PPE, you get a balistic helmet, balistic eyewear, sharpnel resistive gloves, body armour (consisting of highly woven material for low velocity particles and 4xballistic plates), balistic underwear, and even silk underwear to protect your knackers.

In ww1/ww2, body armour was minimal, whereas now soldiers are highly protected bad ass mofos!

 

[gagenater]

I wonder if abandoning armour was really a conscious choice. Pikemen were the ones who wore armour, and were supposed to fight in close combat where their armour would be relevant. Musketeers were supposed to fight with ranged weapons unless things went wrong, and therefore had no need for armour. Then pikemen were gone, and musketeers had to do pikemen's job at times, but nobody cared about giving them armour back.

The armor technology changed. The development of Kevlar and other synthetic materials made it possible to provide useful protection at a weight and bulk that wasn't retarded. The fact that most soldiers nowadays ride rather than walk anytime the distances are long is also a factor. Another issue is that armies have shifted from mass conscript armies to long service professional ones in the 80's and 90's. That makes it more worthwhile to try and protect the soldiers.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

The armor technology changed. The development of Kevlar and other synthetic materials made it possible to provide useful protection at a weight and bulk that wasn't retarded. The fact that most soldiers nowadays ride rather than walk anytime the distances are long is also a factor. Another issue is that armies have shifted from mass conscript armies to long service professional ones in the 80's and 90's. That makes it more worthwhile to try and protect the soldiers.

Kevlar vests is of no use in protecting against rifle fire though. You need ceramic plates for NIJ III protection, Kevlar (or any flexible armor really) can give you IIIA (.357 and .44 Magnum pistol rounds) protection tops.

 

[gagenater]

Kevlar vests is of no use in protecting against rifle fire though. You need ceramic plates for NIJ III protection, Kevlar (or any flexible armor really) can give you IIIA (.357 and .44 Magnum pistol rounds) protection tops.

Yes but kevlar is great at protecting from shell fragments, grenades, pistol rounds, partially spent or deflected rifle rounds - a whole host of otherwise lethal things that are common on a modern battlefield. But I said 'Kevlar and other artificial materials' because I am aware of lots of non Kevlar things existing. I just don't know what they are called. Even Kevlar alone was/is good enough that Kevlar vests became near universal issue as soon as they were developed and available in large enough numbers.