Hacker News Reader

Comment by DiogenesKynikos | Hacker News Reader

Even though firearms were well and truly established by the 17th Century, blade weapons remained important right on through to the mid-1800s.

Bayonet charges were a major aspect of Napoleonic warfare, and only really went away with the development of firearms that had higher rates of fire and were accurate out to larger ranges. In the Napoleonic era, soldiers would close to within 50-100 meters, fire off a few volleys, and then charge in with the bayonet.

By the time armies were equipped with breech-loading rifles that could fire half a dozen accurate shots a minute at a distance of a few hundred meters, the volume and accuracy of fire made the bayonet charge obsolete. But that was rather late (the 1860s or so).

View on HN

Bayonet charges were not obsolete, but the killing in war was done by fire.

See, for example: https://journals.gold.ac.uk/index.php/bjmh/article/download/...

By the Napoleonic Wars, something below 10% of casualties were caused by melee weapons. And even that was mostly cavalry, bayonets account for ~2%. The purpose of the bayonet charge was not to kill your enemy, it was to convince your weakened enemy to cede his position after you had already done the killing. The forces rarely fought hand-to-hand and when they did it was notable, usually one side was so weakened and shocked that they fled or refused to charge.

Thanks for the interesting article.

Even though most of the casualties were caused by musket and artillery fire, the bayonet was tactically very important in Napoleonic warfare. A bayonet charge is absolutely terrifying, and the reason why there were relatively few casualties from them is likely because soldiers would break rank and flee in the face of one. If soldiers had stood their ground and fought, casualties would have been much higher, and with their low rate of fire, muskets would have been of little use in hand-to-hand combat.

They key change that happened in the mid-1800s is that firearms finally achieved ranges and rates of fire that made closing with a massed enemy nearly impossible.

I suspect running into grapeshot was a tad more terrifying than a bayonet charge.

Not until they first fire, though.

Charing into a solid wall of pointy bits is something you understand in your gut to be a bad idea.

I dunno, you see the cannons, you probably know what’s coming.

Also it would be pretty hard for officers to make soldiers do bayonet attack if it weren't known they'd probably face little or no resistance. People tend to value their lives.

IIRC, the British Army employed bayonet charges in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s.

https://www.military.com/history/british-soldiers-afghanista...

Bayonets have been used recently in Afghanistan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com