I'm sure I could have said this in half the time. Never mind - the gist of it is that I think psychology plays a big role in the use of weapons, and perhaps muskets in particular. www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
You always default to your lowest level of training under stress. Many people think "oh I will just do this if this happens" if you do not train for it, you will not do it under stress. All these guys do is train to reload and shoot, especially when they weren't professional armies.
+Evirthewarrior The real answer is that an individual is part of a larger firing line (even when indoors) as is the enemy, so an individual cannot just decide to come in close with the bayonet and break up his own line and come up close with his enemy line where he'd be outnumbered. He'd have to be ordered to charge in with the rest of his unit. So, if you're going to comment on the 'psychology pf combat' then it would apply solely to the officers who give the orders and not the soldiers actually firing. I don't know what particular instances he is referring to but building were habitually cleared this way by bayonet and short ranged firing was usually resolved with a bayonet charge.
***** That is why you train, I was in the army for 8 years half of that time was as infantry, we trained constantly to fight, you are talking about about women being in this training scenario, they obviously were not a combat MOS, so they did not train nearly as much at combat, they were doing basic combat training. When I reclassed (changed jobs) I had to deal with that also, I was put in charge of a mixed group of privates, male and female. I had one crying during a room clearing drill because she was scared, I was baffled because I had never seen anything like in the multiple deployments I was on, or in any training I did as infantry. These people are not infantry, there is a huge difference between them and infantry on the battlefield.
That is exactly why special forces train under live fire. They need all of their training to be the default. The Australian SAS has lost far more men in training then in combat, even if you take the Blackhawk crash out of the numbers.
faolan1686 Well, I know the American Special operations forces do not train under live fire. I am very familiar with it, while they fire live ammo, they do not shoot at their own soldiers with live ammo. I am skeptical of your claim that they train under live fire, when you can simulate live fire effectively through simunitions and not kill your soldiers.
Well, while I agree with pretty much every point you made here, there is one hugely fundamental point that you missed. Something that David Grossman hits on in his book "On Killing" which is about the psychological effects of warfare is that stabbing some one is also hugely unappealing. When you shoot some one, there is a bang, they get hit, they go down, and all you feel is the recoil. When you stab some one, even with a bayonet, you can feel it going into them, you are now essentially attached and feeling what you are doing. This is whole heartedly unattractive. This is partly why the charges were effective, as the thought that some crazy guy is charging you with the intent of putting a piece of metal into you rather than just shoot you is rather frightening, and has been shown in history to be enough to break a lot of people's morale (obviously not everyone's, but it does work enough of the time to be considered effective). All of the things you mentioned are also factors, I just wanted to make sure that last one was in there as well.
Gareth Worthy Exactly and precisely this. It's a point that is generally missed in these channels about medieval combat (Lindybeige, Schola Gladiatoria, Skallagrim). Historical evidence suggests, that unless dealing with a seasoned veteran soldier, human beings tend to be extremely reluctant to kill, or even seriously hurt, eachother. Especially when it comes to close-up fighting, where all the gore is so much more "In your face" (sometimes litterally, I would assume). Given the choice between shooting at someone, and charging in to combat with them, people will probably tend to choose the shot.
Sekhen Oni although i agree with most of that, you say "medieval combat", well, medieval combat involves a lot of up close melee, there are very limited options for attacking someone from afar. the infantry had to get up close and fight each other face to face, wounding and often killing each other.
I think the point remains, though altered a bit, in medieval combat. At the end of the day, it still takes a lot for Johnny Levy who has never been in combat, and has limited training, to actually go through with killing some one. The difference being, as you point out, that he does not have a shooting option, so he better damned well do something. That in its self will get many to get on with it. However, there still will be those who just can't get passed that issue (or at least hesitate with it long enough that they never get passed the issue). Considering that the US civil war (and doubtless others, I just happen to remember reading about those ones) had a number of finds where people just kept reloading their musket, and not shooting, to avoid doing it, and that is not as hard on the psych as stabbing someone, how many just could not do the death blow? Harder to track, what with an unused sword not making much of an archaeological find difference, so at a certain point it becomes very theory based, but based off of how people reacted for centuries after ward.
well ye as i said i completely agree, i was just pointing out that there is something to be said for when your all up in each others faces, with adrenaline pumping through your veins. i dont doubt that stabbing someone is more psychologically damaging than shooting someone, and so most would prefer the latter, but when you're up close to someone with a weapon in their hand who intend to do you harm, a lot of people will maim and kill out of sheer survival instinct. you dont wanna die, and someone is coming at you with a sword, at that point i think most would stab that someone perhaps even without really thinking about it.
+Gareth Worthy Could not agree more. I remember when I was younger and very into the period of history sort of roughly 1750 - 1820, and playing with my father, pretending we had muskets. I rushed into "bayonet" him, and when I did he of course went "pleeeeaseee..." to which I immediately stopped and said "What are you doing?" he replied, still in game-mode "please kill meee...". I never bayoneted him during that game again.
Closing on someone for hand to hand combat is one of the most terrifying things that a human can experience. I am not surprised that soldiers would be very reluctant to close.
there's some statistic that in WW2 only 15-20% of soldiers were actually trying to aim at and kill the other soldiers so this would also come into play, with the fact that humans dont like killing each other and we are hard wired psychologically not to.
bren cav That statistic/study is incredibly misleading for many reasons. For example: both sides use cover and covering fire to defend themselves. Even if fortune favors you and forces one of your enemies to hide behind some small form of cover that leaves him partially exposed, it may take several shots for before one actually manages to hit home and wound them. If you want to advance from where you are to some more advantageous form of cover, you'll need your allies to rain bullets down in the enemy's direction. This forces them to keep their heads down--which in turn, keeps them from firing on you while you're moving and otherwise exposed. Stuff like that. :p
HipposHateWater See On Killing, this is covered in depth. After WWII western armies started using operant conditioning to, by the time of Vietnam, increase the prevalence of soldiers pulling the trigger over 90%.
***** Actually, no. When I got in a fight in school, I just wanted it to stop. I didn't want to beat the kids senseless until my knuckles were bleeding. I mostly just wanted to hold him down until he gave up. I think you might be a psychopath, or you like to pretend to be one.
"In a fight, it's generally less important that you win, and more important that you don't lose." -- Skallagrim I think that this mentality applies here. Going out, alone, to bayonet your opponent might make it very likely to win, but you'll have his friends to deal with, you opponent will probably try to bayonet you once you get up close. You're now a big attractive target for all sorts of things that could kill you, and the tactic generally raises your chances of losing just as, if not more, significantly than sitting back and trying to hit him again.
It's also why some elite troops could be so effective with bayonets. One can imagine a group of tall, muscular, hand-picked professional killers charging with bayonets at regular troops, let alone some shaky conscripts, and what effect this might have on their morale. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson became notorious for its use.
I also don't think regular joes want to break ranks without orders. I would think bayonet Chargers were major orders that came down from a pretty high ranking person, so at every level from that spot down don't know if it's a good idea to do so, especially that individual soldier.
You are describing Grenadiers in Napoleonic armies. One company in 10 in a british battalion. Always on the right in the position of attack and honour.
@@Luke-hc4np During La Haye Sainte (A close-quarters struggle during Waterloo over a farm complex) there was at least one instance of bayoneting action, and it came without orders. A source describes that the commander did nothing to stop the charging men, implying he didn’t give the order. Of course, this is on a much smaller scale, and larger charges like Pickett’s charge did indeed come from higher places so you may very well be correct.
As you pointed out; "the training kicks in". Basically, it's the effect of drill. Which also explains why people (well, men, actually) could stand in rows, facing each other, separated by a few meters, and discharging their muskets again and again without running away or seeking cover (Sergeants standing behind them with spontoons may have had an effect as well, though).
I think the big thing is that the men know it's unlikely they will be shot, so that helps. Also the thing with bayonet chargers is that I would think a major move like that, for you to close you line in on the enemy, is a decision made at a very high level. So from that level down everyone is probably thinking it's a good idea, but no one wants to make the move without word from higher. I'd also think reloading is significantly harder with a bayonet fixed, so you aren't given the order to fix bayonets until the last moment. Plus I bet soldiers didn't like having them on because it added weight to the end of the gun and made it harder to hold up, so they probably weren't too eager to fix them on their own.
Of course it's the drill. They were drilled to walk in lines (well, not much point to that if you're alone), reload (while the enemy might shoot at you) and stand fast (while the enemy shoots at you, hoping they'll miss - a good chance) with maybe some attention given to cavalry charges (in which you stand your ground, holding a pointy bit of metal on the end of your musket out to greet them - expecting them to not charge into a mess of pointy metal). There was no such thing as individual combat tactics, just company or platoon maneuvers. A charge would be at least a full platoon. You do not charge alone but with a roaring platoon beside you. And you do not charge in to fight anyone but expect no one to still be there. So the psychology and (lack of) training of "stabbing the guy three strides away" is quite a bit different from doing whatever your platoon does - which means you fall back to the basics (loading, shooting - and then finding a line to stand in).
Training plays a big part, but will only get you so far when adrenalin and extreme fear are present. Your average guy will move forward when ordered because he feels the pressure to perform as expected, particularly when his mates are around him and authority figures will punish him, but when people start dying and he's in mortal danger, all bets are off. I remember reading an account of a regiment being ordered to bayonet charge the enemy but the charge never picked up steam because men disobeyed the colonels order not to fire and kept stopping to shoot (because, really, who in their right mind wants to get closer to the fellows trying to kill you) and those around them followed suit; the enemy showed no inclination of falling back and the charge faltered and ultimately failed with the regiment falling back. I read another account where a general ordered his men to charge with unloaded guns to "inspire" them to close with the enemy. But yeah, who wants to get into stabbing distance of someone who might be better at stabbing than you? No wonder melees with bayonets were rare.
My great, grandpa wrote down most of the stories his father told him from the US civil war. He never wanted it published, he just paid a publishing company for 20 copies. I recall that he wrote a lot about how to fire his Enfield Musket. These books make my huge family who lives in several European nations and the US to stay in touch and we have huge family gatherings once a year at least.
It was actually Swedish military doctrine during the 18th century (you probably know this already) to first get as close to the enemy as possible before shooting the first volley, I've heard it said that would see the white of a Swedish soldiers eyes before he fired, and then directly after that do a mass charge of the enemy lines instead of reloading.
Fascinating coincidence, I was just playing a game today called Napoleonic Wars, and even within video games this phenomenon happens. I found myself, at relative close range, in a building, with smoke kicked up all through the room, reloading and firing against rather then charging with a bayonet. Its interesting because its for the exact reasons you described, I was trying to get the musket jackpot, and I knew charging in with a bayonet would most likely end up with me getting stabbed by other soldiers.
Without having to guess about the likely outcome of a bayonet fight, you can look at historical records of World War I. They're filled with pictures of 2 men having stabbed each other with bayonets, dead, and leaning on each other still somewhat standing. That's how a bayonet fight is most likely to end. Not appealing at all. So yeah, I'd shoot.
+LexieAssassin I've heard that, but I've also heard that it's fairly psychologically challenging even to shoot people from a distance, and that apparently most fresh conscript troops such as in the Vietnam war, would deliberately miss.
The British Guards famously stood up on the hill of Mont St Jean,fired one smashing volley into the Imperial Guard and without further ado chased them all the way to La Belle Alliance. Of course La Garde thought that their way was clear as they could not see the Brit Guards in their prone position just behind the crest,so shock number 1 was seeing thousands of "Rosbifs" rise out of the ground virtually at their feet,closely followed by shock number 2 which was hundreds of their comrades mown down in an instant and shocking fusillade,followed finally by the same thousands of "Rosbifs" charging at them through their self made and instant smokescreen with extremely long and wicked looking bayonets fitted to their Brown Bess muskets. This all took place far quicker than you were able to read the above. One minute they're advancing to yet another glorious victory,15 seconds later they are defeated. That is what the bayonet can do!
At Waterloo the firing by the British Troops was highly controlled by their Officers. They fired and loaded by rank so that there was constant rate of fire one rank firing other ranks loading. At Hougomont the British troop were barricaded, they used they Bayonets when opportunity arose, as was the case at La Haye Sainte. Typically Troops on the attack would advance firing by ranks and would do the Bayonet charge once they closed with the enemy. Today the Bayonet is to be used once you close with the enemy or they close with you, if you get close enough to use your Bayonet, E-tool, Rifle Butt or Pistol the war is not going all that well.
@LutzDerLurch The crack is one of the sounds. Muskets were big bore, used a massive charge of inefficient black powder, which is twice as loud as modern gunpowder or cordite.
It is not generally in human nature to want to kill other people. Back in the days of muskets when people would line up in front of each other and shoot until either side routed, the vast majority of soldiers were deliberately aiming too high (perhaps subconsciously) because they did not want to kill anyone. Early muskets were very inaccurate though, so with lots of comrades next to you, you might accidentally hit an enemy without knowing it was YOU who killed him. If you attack your enemy with a bayonet though, it gets very personal, and you end up forcing your enemy (who probably doesn't want to kill anyone either) to fight back and try to kill you. It wasn't until after WWII that militaries around the world came up with training exercises, that trains soldiers to instinctively shoot enemies before their human emotions take over. The classic time trial runs in the Call of Duty games where cardboard enemies pop up in front of you is one such exercise. During WWII only about 5% of soldiers were intentionally shooting to kill. Often when two opposing soldiers suddenly came face to face, they would instinctively drop their firearm and throw stuff at each other until one decided to run away.
@@truegrit1860 It's true ... look at the Vietnam War which is a pretty good example... soldiers would deliberately shoot randomly just to scare the enemy because they didn't want to actually kill the enemy ... propaganda makes people monsters.
formerevolutionist LoL... want to be depressed? If your born in the USA to middle class or poor parents, you are 200 times more likely to win the lottery then to retire in the top 6%. .
Another point about noise, smoke and the like is forgetting to shot, or better put, is not shooting. Things like not putting on the cap, or not loading your pan. Then you think that you have and reload and the same thing happens. Quite a large number of rifles in the ACW were latter found to have as many as 3 or 4 balls in the barrel, sometimes as many a 6. The same was true for both the North and South.
Hi, There’s interesting thought. I would recommend a book for you that I read before deployd to Afghanistan that describes the psyke of the individual in war. On Combat by Dave Grossman. He is a former US Ranger and a professor in psychology. He has written a lot on the subject. Very American but still really good insights on the combat psyke. A lesson of war is that soldiers do what they trained. So if the army don’t train their soldiers to storm with bayonets enough they won´t. An example of that is a story from the Swedish army in the Balkan around the 90´s. A squad came in contact with the enemy. The squad returned fire, group their shoulder fired grenade launcher(M3 Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System) and got fire superiority and then regroupt. When the squadleader cheket the squad the loader of the M3 was gone and minutes after the loader returned with the empty casings from the grenades. When they trained the loader always went back and got the casings so they didn’t have to clean up afterwards. So when in combat, the loader ran and got the empty casings because in the stress his brain went on autopilot. And if you check the combat tactics done by the Swedish army on in the 1600 - 1700 they were really aggressive. An assault where the different ranks fired on different length from the enemy and then bayonet charge the enemy. So it is done, if you train your troops to charge. Thanks for a good and interesting channel.
Dear Peter Lynch I don't understand why sitting down quickly would load the weapon faster; and surely it would screw you for running away! As for your penis comment, I won't go there.
+rchave Yes I've seen some of those. And what's interesting is that a musket loaded that way still gets off a powerful and accurate shot at a short distance.
I can absolutely confirm the point about how loud modern firearms are. Ten years ago I permanently lost around 80% of my hearing in the left ear by shooting a 9mm pistol in a range without hearing protection. Stupid me.
@@Terra_LopezCould've been, but no, not really. When that happened I was fresh out of the military academy. I guess it was the hype 🤣🤣🤣 EDIT: I was actually misled by not having been in a range before. I had shot A LOT those days, and heavier weapons, but always in the open, when hearing protection is highly recommended but not mandatory.
Actually the National lottery in UK made it possible to restore the only functioning Tiger tank in the world, and it has funded some other historical heritages. So it's not as stupid as you may think.
+Emil Nilsson It's not stupid because of the using but because of the origin. Only stupid people give up money, which is pretty much what a lottery is.
Firing one or two volleys and then charging with bayonets was a popular Napoleonic tactic. If you were lucky the enemy would break and run, if not you had a very bloody melee on your hands. European observers of the American Civil War were shocked to find that the American soldiers on both sides simply stood within musket and rifle range and just constantly shot at one another until one side had no men left to shoot or be shot at. The bayonet was a vitally important part of the musket and most of time won battles and skirmishes. All soldiers, especially within the British army were trained to use the bayonet very effectively and certainly familiar with charging a French column.
+Ryan Markey Although every Napoleonic army had a myth of "cold steel", it was just that: a myth, supported occasionally by over-heroic paintings made by artists who generally wouldn't be found anywhere near a battlefield, and subsequent hyperbole by historians who rarely ventured further than their armchairs. Baron Larrey's statistics show that less than 2% of wounds treated by his surgeons were bayonet wounds, and almost all of those were to the rear, inflicted during post-battle pursuit. Jomini stated "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." Standard infantry doctrine in all armies was that the enemy was defeated by musketry, with a bayonet charge only delivered when it was certain the enemy would understand it was a signal to kindly de-camp, and certainly not with the intention of making actual contact ! It's worth bearing in mind that the French Pas De Charge was 120 paces per minute, equivalent to modern British drill quick march (for line, not light troops, who do it at 140ppm). Bayonet charges were thus delivered not at a run, but in disciplined formation at a rapid walking pace - easy to avoid unless you were determined to close.
+Sean Bissett-Powell "Treated by surgeons." That 2% number is that low because most people who were bayoneted or whatever NEVER MADE IT OFF THE FIELD. A bullet may pass right through you but a bayonet is really going to put you down. But you are true about their actually tactical use. Bayonet charges in open ground weren't often met because the other wise would run away. But it still happened and there was lots of fighting in villages, city's and redoubts.
problem is, the american civil war was a big step up in weapons technology, bayonet charges where extremely costly in the civil war, rifles, rifled cannons etc made it extremely hard to charge your enemies, this was again shown in the 1st world war, where bayonet charges was pure madness
Fired my Mosin outdoors once while hunting (just for fun since we were about to head in without anything bagged or tagged) and without ear protection I can tell you that for at least a couple of seconds it felt like I'd been hit by a mini flashbang (minus the flash, of course). I was literally partially deaf for a good few seconds after the fact.
DeathlordUSA Mosin Nagants fire at about 150 Decibels, However a .308 with 24 inch barrel is 153 db, a .30-06 with a 18 inch barrel you fire at 163 db; But a .375 with 18 inch barrel is 170 DB. At 155 DB you have temporary hearing loss, and the Mosin borders that, but a .308 with a 24 inch barrel exceeds that at 156 db. Pitch and Frequency also matter highly, and even a fucking leaf blower can be 100 DB when you're using it, OSHA requires hearing protection at 85 DB. However how annoying is a leaf blower at 100 DB (If Using, 75 DB at 50 feet) compared to a 120 DB (-30 DB from hearing protection) gunshot?
CAepicreviews I'm finding this to be a hard question. If you're being strapped into a chair and forced to listen to one or the other, I'd rather listen to a leafblower. It's gonna be less damaging to hearing. On the other hand, in a real life situation where you can close a window, put on hearing protection, or move away from the source of the noise I can't honestly say. If my neighbor's got his blower on, I can just throw on my headphones or shut my windows. Therefore reducing the noise pollution. If I'm out target shooting with others around, I'm going to have hearing protection and I'm going to be shooting targets myself. Therefore, I'm not going to care about noise pollution because shooting's a fucking blast (pun intended)! And in the case that I'm out hunting without hearing protection (like I was when I fired the Mosin) it's not gonna matter because at most I'll not even go through a single magazine. You also need to account for the fact that DBs in and of themselves are no way to judge the human ear (so I've been told). If I remember right, a 9x19mm handgun has a higher DB count than a .45 ACP (due to the much higher pressures). However, a .45 ACP (and don't quote ME on this) is louder to the human ear.
isnt that loud! ive shot a LOT of rifles.... i live in montana, and we were able to tag up to 8 deer at one time.... and then shoot geese and ducks, and elk if we won the lottery for an elk tag..... so im kinda use to rifle fire.... after 4 or 5 shots from my m91/30, my ears will start to feel and sound "clogged"...few more... RINGGGGGGGG for a good 10 15 mins. 5 more shells are were talking RINGGGGG for a good hour or 2. 5 more and im not hearing shit for a day or 2. ive had that happen also... right ear was jsut ringing for a solid 24 hours+.... i know im damaging my ears... i try to use ear pro, but it jsut isnt possible at all times.....
***** We had a "show attack" in a military show once here in finland with a BTR APC firing both its main 12,7mm and its accompanying 7,52mm AND a whole squad of troops firing their RK's (Finnish AK Remake) in a simulated assault on a hillside position. I gotta tell you, after the few first shots of the 12,7mm at about 20 meters, my hands were covering my ears, and I damned myself for not taking the free earplugs that were offered at the show before they started shooting.
I can attest at the loudness of a firearm firing indoors. I've had a pistol go off in a close room and I couldn't hear out of any of my ears for two minutes. It was a Tokarev
+Underscore Lucky you! I accidentaly fired an SKS indoors, i was deaf for 10-15 minutes, and also blind for about a minute or so. Gunpowder really bites at ones eyes. Never again have I loaded a gun indoors...
The simple answer is that there isn't time to think in a fire fight, it's all about reaction. I went to a Royal Artillery display on Salisbury Plain once where there was a crowd of a hundred people watching the 105mm light field guns getting ready to fire. The sound of those guns made women and children scream and even cry they were that loud. Chieftain and Challenger tanks hurt the ears when they fire.
@1x93cm Depends on the period. All soldiers were issued with swords until long after the advent of the musket period. Many were low-quality "hangers" but they'd still hurt.
Probably one of the most epic bayonet attacks in history was when Lawrence Chamberlain ordered the 20th Maine to charge the Confederates on Little Round Top because his men had run out of ammo. It was a last ditch effort to prevent the Federal line from being flanked and it worked.
As far as I know, a well-discplined soldier would not charge at his enemy with fixed bayonet... Unless his commanding officer orders it. If your commanding officer orders you to keep firing and hold the line, you do as you are told, if you're an obedient soldier (well-trained, well-discplined). You don't advance, you don't retreat, you keep firing untill you are hit or you receive new orders. Or you break down and either mount a single person bayonet charge while both your comrades and enemy watch on in disbelief or you rout and get the hell out of there. (edit): also, black powder creates an enormous amount of smoke. After a few volleys from both sides, you would not be able to see very far. So it is unlikely that you saw any enemy soldier face to face, unless he was stepping on your toes.
I was about to make just the same point. Yes, I'm sure psychology played some part in it but, as far as I know, rigorous training and never ending fire drills combined with the discipline of a professional fighting force would explain it better. Orders wuz orders and you did as you were told or got flogged matey.
Peter Brazukas Yes, after a fatal collission between two steamships of the Royal Navy, the sailors on the sinking ship apparently did not evacuate immediately but actually waited untill they were given the order to abandon ship. The admiral responsible for the order that caused the collission was already dead so his subordinate was court martialed. The subordinate officer was cleared of all charges because he had simply obeyed the admiral's order, even though he full well knew it would result in a fatal collission at that speed. But the admiralty accepted that an admiral could make a grave and fatal mistake. It would never accept disobedience however.
Got it the wrong way around there. Modern firearms are much louder than muskets. As an American Stereotype (with an impressive collection of firearms) and a former Revolutionary War reenactor I can tell you first hand. Firing indoors can be done without ear protection from a Brown Bess (as long as you don't do it too often) but I would not dream of firing a modern pistol without ear protection outside unless my other option was to die. Not even once.
I think It depends somewhat on the Powder load, with full military load for a Brown Bess (120 grains for an India pattern) It is going to be pretty loud, most reenactors I know use lower powder charges (about 70-80 grains) for safety reasons.
bskorupk I have used full charge with ball for fun at the range. It is a bit louder but noting compared to my revolver. I normally use 120 grain for that. Our standard for a mock battle was 90 grain though. So I know what a full charge sounds like with a ball. Still not as bad as my 380 though it did kick a little bit more. A brown bess has a more earthy sound to it when you are behind the blast rather than the sharpness of a smokeless powder charge.
not that I am an expert on the subject, but don't modern firearms, especially handguns, use powder that burns way faster than black powder? If so, the pressure wave might be quite different
Loïc Rebts Actually, it's the other way around. Black powder, as used in muskets and the like, is a low-pressure *explosive* whereas smokeless powder is a high-pressure *propellant* and therefore burns much slower. IV8888 did a video on the subject: /watch?v=tTAKr3Y2EV0
I love that you look at historical/medieval combat from a psychological standpoint, it's so rare to find someone talking about old wars who isn't either going "death and glory!" or "what a waste" and leaving the consideration of the individual out of it.
@futsalfred2 Finding time to do these videos is hard enough as it is. I prefer the spontaneity of no script, and there is some pride in the purity of the technique. The last five videos I shot were all done first take, in one take. On the other hand, I did seriously consider reshooting this one because it is unnecessarily long. So, sorry Cut Tha Never Heals, and thanks Futsal Fred.
Check out the movie Heat from 1995 and the robbery scene at the second part of the film. One of the few movies that get gunfire sounds accurate. Thank you for all these videos, very entertaining!
The gunfire in Heat is actually real! They recorded gunfire as a sort of "dub" track (like in most movies) but it didn't sound as good, so they kept the original audio (where they were firing blanks)
Another thing that people often fail to consider about warfare is this: Killing somebody... is not an easy thing. Psychologically speaking, I mean. There's a reason so many soldiers need to go into therapy when they return from war: It's harrowing as hell. The knowledge that because of you: another living, breathing, thinking, feeling individual, is no longer alive. Now, let's look at the musket: You've got a slow loading, smooth bore weapon that makes a loud, loud noise and spews smoke and fire from the end of it. Wildly inaccurate, even at close range sometimes, and even if you land a hit, you need to get somewhere important in order to actually kill somebody. A musket shot to the arm will definitely hurt you, and you may even lose all functionality in said arm. But if you get medical treatment - even vintage medical treatment - you've got an okay chance of surviving it. You won't likely be put back on a battlefield, of course, but you'll be alive. This means the musket is in an odd position of being a big, scary, loud and powerful weapon that doesn't actually land a whole lot of kills. This is actually pretty appealing for a soldier, especially a younger, or less experienced soldier (which musketeers often were) because it means you can potentially fire a volly of musket balls at a charging force, kill maybe one, or two, injure a bunch more, and scare the rest away. If there's a lot of you firing, then there's no real way to tell if it was your gun that killed somebody, or not. And a hail of fire, smoke, lead and the thunder of a thousand angry gods is not something most people want to run towards for very long, so there's a good chance your enemy will just retreat after the first few shots. Likewise, your enemy is probably using the same guns, meaning that while you might soil your britches when the guns start firing, the chances of you actually sustaining a lethal hit are more or less slim, and you're hardly going to be blamed for making a "tactical retreat" in the face of such terror. So you can essentially win a battle, or even a war, without a huge amount of causalities and with a lot less guilt (if a lot more hearing damage) using a bunch of guys with muskets. And people wonder why we used them for so long...
SwitchFeathers truth to be told, a hit of a musket shot was always game over, one way or other. If it hits you in the limbs, you may say your goodbyes to that limb, since only way you gonna survive from that with luck is amputation (with the level of medicine they had back then) A hit to the torso or head were almost always lethal. And then when you factor in the (sometimes deliberate) casting defects in lead balls, the lead ball might've fragmented on impact, like an hollowpoint bullet of today. So if you were hit, you were most likely out of the war. Also, lead bullets cause lead poisoning if lodged and not removed promptly, or if fragments are missed. Of course, Getting hit, or hitting something is completelly a different beast. Accuracy was near nonexistant. The philosophy back then was along the lines"More Dakka!" than anything else.
LasOrveloz Accuracy was always a thing they were striving for back then, it takes some one special to innovate something to a higher level. Its not like today, were computers can calcualte small differentials and we have a mountain of knowledge readily available.
Jonathan Rowley I didn't say they weren't striving for accuracy, I rather said that in the lack of it, they went with the other slightly viable option, volume of fire until the accuracy was improved. If theyd tried using accuracy as a thing with line infantry, they would've actually trained the bloody troops to aim properly instead of concentrating on training reloading. Usually the aiming consisted primarily of pointing the flamey end of the musket somewhere towards that direction the commander was pointing when giving the order. Hell, some muskets didn't even have sights. Of course Light infantry of the time was different. They actually aimed.
Lead poisoning was not a factor. The wounds caused by blunt musket balls were horrific, and may have been particularly terrifying. Bones don't crack - they shatter.
Perfect description. I have seen revolutionary war rifles fired before, in the interior of a fort, and even with about six or eight feet of space from me to the gun, it was still unbelievably loud. And, even though the fort was relatively large (not huge, you couldn't fit a thousand guys in the grounds easily) it still echoed off the walls. I would definitely recommend people hear one going off, with ear protection, to somewhat get the feel for it (I listened to them without, in short, don't.)
You're looking at this as a one-on-one situation. If there's one of me and I'm facing one opponent, and he's just fired and missed, I might be tempted to go in with the bayonet. Always assuming it was already fixed to my musket that is - bayonets were only attached at the last moment because they interfered with the firing. First there was the possibility of slicing your own arm open whilst ramming home, and second was the fact that the extra weight on the end of the musket did nothing for stability or accuracy. But anyway. The likelihood is that you and a bunch of mates would be facing the enemy and a bunch of his mates. Just because the man in front of you has just fired and missed, and is busy re-loading, this doesn't mean that none of his colleagues are ready to fire. This is why the British army in the Napoleonic era went in for platoon volleys. Yes, there might be an initial battalion volley, but after this they fired by platoons. Three platoons to a company, ten companies to a battalion. Thirty seconds to reload. Thus one platoon volley per second - and by the time the last platoon has fired, the first is ready again. Thus continuous fire. Now charge that...
Bayonets in the Napoleonic era were not meant to be used as knives, they were dull instead of sharp. A dull edge produces much more blunt trauma to the wound area. Much more than the slicing effect offered by a sharp blade.
2 more advantages I can think of. 1 - Effort. Drawing back a high powered crossbow in a hurry is hard work even with a windlass or mechanical aid. Firearms are more complicated but less tiring. Makes it easier to maintain rate of fire. 2 - Shields. Bullets go through cover more easily. Some crossbowmen would carry a pavise as portable cover, which would stop an arrow or a crossbow bolt but might not work so well against a musket ball. Those are my guesses. I hope that helps!
I think the same thing that fighting hand-to-hand is extremely scary and people wouldn't want to do it. I think in those days of massed infantry with muskets there's sort of an element of how you can almost pretend it's not happening until you get shot, you just load and fire and you can probably deal with it by trying to forget even what you're doing. Fighting hand to hand is a lot more frightening and a lot more real, it's a situation you have to mentally deal with immediately and not later if/when you get shot.
So the video got to where you say, "muskets are much, much louder" ... and the sound cut out. At first I thought you'd fired at and deafened your audience, but alas, it was just youtube seredipity.
+footbalr074 Have you been shooting from period or recreated muskets? What my (almost entirely uneducated) guess is that perhaps it's not so much the powder as it is the construction of the gun which makes it less like a really efficient modern firearm and more like a shrunk-down cannon.
if I'm not wrong, the amount of gunpowder in a modern cartridge is less than what a musket used to use, I could of course be wrong but it can certanly depend on the musket you use aswell.
+pingun96 That is not the case. Blackpowder is slow burning, and so if you add more black powder (past a certain point), it won't make the bullet go faster or be more deadly or create more pressure (aka bang), it will just get spit out the barrel and burn up in the open air. Modern hunters are not in the business of sending their projectiles at sub-optimal speeds, so they are more likely than not using the maximum effective charge of black powder. So, even if a 16th century soldier were to put twice as much powder into his musket, the result would be more smoke, a big burst of flame but not much of a bigger appreciable bang.
I took archery and I like going down to my towns old Colonial fort where they fire Brown Bess muskets frequently. Muskets are accurate up to 50 to 75 meters (a third of what a modern day assault rifle is accurate up to). When fired in mass volleys they can wipe down up to half an entire enemy regiment allowing you to finish them with sheer numbers. Bows also have much less range than a Brown Bess and when a musket is fired with an entire unit there effective range is up to 150 meters.
Most of the psychological studies on combat stress and (lack of) ability to kill one's foe were actually done in the USA. There was a massive study of WWII vets showing a startling number of troops who never fired their weapon towards the enemy. So it seems Americas are just as susceptible to the shock of combat and firearms.
Maurice de Saxe and Prince Eugene actually wrote at some length on this subject. Their conclusion was that it was better to charge and not worry about firing at all. This became widely adopted for a couple hundred years after the fact, even after it stopped being efficient (column attacks, relying on 'shock', persisted well into the American Civil War where they were butchered by rifled muskets).
A friend of mine shot off his 357 Magnum w/ an 8 inch barrel on New Years Eve outdoors. I was standing next to him. It was like he was launching something into space. Loud is an understatement.
@LutzDerLurch There were experiments done back in the day, using a white sheet the size of a battalion frontage. They were shocked at how few professional soldiers under no pressure of war managed to hit it.
Dan Carlin also has a good discussion of this regarding soldier psychology. it's an aside on his Persian Empire series - he notes how 18th/19th century soldiers would rarely go into melee. It takes a sterner stomach to gut someone while looking them in the eye.
been there done that with the firearm discharge in a room. test fired my Mosin-Nagant 91/30 (fires the 7.62x54R cartridge) from the steps of our workshop, and the echo inside the shop left my ears ringing for several minutes!
I like the points that you bring up. I am however told by the internet that while in rank formation charging with cold steel is the best way to get rid of your enemy. It is however not for the lightly trained troops.
There were 3 kinds of shooters back when they used muskets. The first NEVER shot, instead always reloaded. Some muskets were found with 4-5 reloadings inside, ball, powder and plug! The second shot, but never aimed, and the last was the killers, who shot to kill. These were quite rare, actually.
Very good thought. Back when armor and shields were in use, it was ideal but without armor, it wasn't the thing to do. Bayonet charges if you remember are usually done when the enemy is fleeing also, when the advantage is that you can simply stab a number in the back. Early in the American War for Independence, bayonet charges were frequent however because the colonists had no bayonets to counter with, facing rows of disciplined spears with only axes and knives.
Also, it's very hard to swing a weapon inside confined spaces. A typical move after delivering a bayonet charge would be a butt stroke, but if there's a door frame or piece of furniture in the way, you're not going to get the leverage. Lastly, the bayonet setup was designed for charging in mass formations. They used triple-bladed bayonets (now banned in warfare) that were mounted on the right side of the barrel as opposed to the knife-like bayonet we use today underneath the barrel. While it does deliver a more devastating wound, the triple bladed bayonet is harder to push in and so it benefits greatly from a running start and the effects of crushing two units together in an open field.
Spot on, although the part about wound severity is incorrect. Wounds from triangular bayonets bleed no more profusely than other wounds, it's just that the triangular construction of the bayonet was not only cheaper, but had the strength required for thrusting.
The colonists also lined up, that's how battle worked out during this time period. Back during the ages before fire arms were common place, you had two armies with swords and spears and bows marchign at each other, the firearm replace the bow but was so powerful swords and spears couldn't do anything against it, so you have blocks of them march at each other, it wasn't until automatic weapons were invented that blocks marching at eachother became inefficient
I like so much your latest "points"! Also a possible explanation for the resistance to do bayonet charges is that once the charge has been launched there is little chance to regain command and control of your own soldiers. so they charged only at the very last. When mass, momentum and situation was advantageous. The last maneuvre that like a single drop causes the water to overflow
@Mandalor91 I have read of a number of scientific tests, many of them done back in the day, and muskets were a lot more accurate than that. However, psychology plays a big role. For one thing, many men fired with their eyes shut, and for another, many would consciously or subconsciously aim high. Killing people is not something people find easy.
Just simple historical fact. In XVIII cent. Russian general, subsequently generalissimo, Suvorov Alexander Vasilyevich implemented tactical maneuver: Only one gunshot volley form the closest range possible and then fast rush at the enemy with bayonets attached. It was amazingly effective.
I can confirm the noise of shooting real firearms inside a building is incredibly loud, I used to be a member of a gun club until the government knee jerk reaction ban to semi automatic pistols. I love that in the movies characters can stand around chatting after an indoor gunfight without any problems, good old Hollywood science eh. In the gun club some of us wore earplugs under our ear defenders due to the exceptional noise of some of the weapons. Paintball or airsoft is all thats left now.
The quieter firearm noises in games and film is understandable, in a sense. Say you fire a gun in a game, and it makes the actual sound that gun would make... and you're wearing headphones. Most gamers would quickly consider turning the sound down or not using that gun very often.
This theory was presented with some great research in the book "On Killing". It was written by a retired US general whose job it was to study and prepare soldiers for the psychological effects of killing the enemy and overcoming natural hesitation.
1/2 Another reason that springs to mind is more about the disadvantages of attacking over defending. If you have fired your musket and the opponents have also fired theirs. If you charge in with a bayonet by the time you have reached your opponent they may have reloaded, in which case your at an extreme disadvantage. If you do reach your opponent before they finish loading all they have to do is stop loading and point the bayonet at you.
Another thing to keep in mind: Ring mounted bayonets were a late invention (sometime in the 1700's I think) until then, if you wanted a bayonet for your musket, you had to stick the hilt of your dagger into the musket barrel; the "plug" bayonet. If your musket barrel is plugged up with a bayonet, you can't shoot. Even when Ring Bayonets were invented, the early versions were less than reliable because they made reloading more difficult (now there's a sharp bit of metal right next to the end of your musket barrel, where your hands need to be) and they had a bad habit of coming off the musket in the middle of battle, or the middle of an enemy's guts... then you don't have a bayonet anymore.
I think "the training kicks in" is the most important point here. Musketeers were drilled to shoot and reload their muskets. As fast as possible. They were told that reloading their muskets faster than the enemy was the key to success (and survival). If they had a smart drill sergeant (assuming that that's not an oxymoron), maybe they had some melee training as well, but certainly no way near as much as aim, fire, reload. I would guess, that that became such an ingrained sequence for them to do, that they struggled to fire a musket without instantly reloading.
@PompeusMagnus I recall one test using flintlocks where they held the weapon rigid in a vice and fired it at the normal engagement range, aiming dead centre on a man-sized target and it hit about half the time.
I think it came down to discipline of a regiment. Soldiers were shooting in queues, so if some soldiers would have decided to go melee, shooters behind them could accidentally open friendly fire
One thing about the noise, muskets used black powder which is louder than modern gun powder. Also they used more powder per shot than is used in most bullets today.
300 feet, maybe, which is 100 meters (roughly). 60m was the ideal engagement distance. The Baker rifle was effective out to 600m, but took an eternity to reload, while the Enfield rifle-musket was effective out to 300m and could be reloaded as quickly as a normal musket. It's hard enough hitting a non-stationary man-sized target at 300m with a modern rifle. Muskets also lacked effective sights, having only a small front post, and only riflement generally fired aimed shots at individual targets.
Us army analysts researched dead battle field soldiers. In the civil war. They often found that many young men were so afraid that they had loaded their Enfields half a dozen times without firing it successfully.
I used to work with a former Marine drill sergeant from Parris Island. He said that the main thing that was necessary to keep men in their first battle was that they be more frightened of **HIM** than they were of the enemy.
The Caroleans won several battles against overwhelming enemy formations like this: The Gå-På-method (Literally Go-On) specialized on shock tactics and was the standard combat technique used in the Swedish army at the time. This very aggressive tactic often resulted in short-lived battles in order to counter superior numbers of enemies. According to 1694 and 1701 regulations, the infantry attack operates as follows: In four ranks with gaps, the Swedish battalion would "smooth and slowly" march against enemy fire (which often started at a distance of 100 meters), while making their way to the enemy lines. The Swedish soldiers were first issued to fire when "you could see the whites in the enemies eyes" a range of roughly 50 meters-when the marching drums stopped the two rear ranks would fill the gaps within the two foremost ranks and fire a salvo-and then draw their swords. The two rear ranks would then fall right behind in their previous position and the two foremost would close the gaps after which the battalion would resume their attack. The two foremost ranks then discharged at a range of roughly 20 meters before drawing their swords and the charge began. At this range, the powerful muskets usually felled many enemy troops and was demoralizing to them. Directly after the volley the Swedes charged the enemy ranks with pikes, bayonets and rapiers.[10][11] Note that the pikes were used as an offensive weapon: in close combat they had the advantage over their foes' weapons thanks to their range, it often happened that complete ranks of enemies ran before physical contact, frightened by the long pikes and the fact that the morale of the battalion could calmly withstand their fire.[12]
@Frauenman That's what my impression of musket+bayonet fights has always been. Not just for Swedes, but for anyone who wanted a decisive win in battle. Soldiers would advance, fire once, and then charge with bayonets. Having soldiers reload during battle means you're going for a drawn out fight of attrition, instead of a decisive win.
Maybe there's also the elaborate platoon fire schemes to take into account. If you have good troops, some part of your line would be always shooting while the rest reload, so there's always the possibility of being shot by fires from different platoons.
@lindybeige (cont.) The Crack of a modern arm is the Gasses and Bullet breaking the speed of Sound. Musket Balls tend to stay just below SoS, so they won't crack as sharply as modern guns. They are still very loud, of course. I have however, read that Bayonetfighting was occuring mainly in confined Space, like narrow Streets etc. and extremely bloody and messy then.
No they certainly did have the same technology available as anywhere else in the country did at the time. Cannons were almost a necessity for any side and full length muskets could have been used if they wanted, but they preferred firing one volley with hand pistols before discarding them to go into melee. The main reason the highland charge failed at Culloden was that each man charging was independent, he was fighting for himself whereas the Hanoverian troops were fighting with each other
One thing about gunfights particularly indoors, often your adrenaline is pumping so hard you don't even notice how loud the gun is. I think this is part of the reason suppressors aren't more prevalent despite improved modern designs.
Another point to consider is if you are just an average man posing as a soldier and not a psychopathic killer, you just want it all to go away. You don't want to be killed or neccesarily kill some one else. Your hope is in frightening the opponent off with your volume of fire, the basic premise of the fire fight. The winner is the one putting forth the most fire power in the shortest amount of time to end the unpleasantries.
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman looked at this kind of thing in 'On Killing'. He would say that the men weren't trying to kill each other, but to frighten each other off.
Secondly, yes. Although as you said in a comment they were often trained to fire and then charge, another reason for them not charging (other than your psycology theory, which I agree with), is that I think they had to be ordered to actually get stuck in. Hearing your Liutenant is going to be nearly impossible, particularly if you're indoors (more noise as you said AND you're more likely to be disordered). Plus they make so much smoke that, as you mentioned you wouldn't see how many there are
As a American who has taken APUSH maybe I can help here. Americans did not win but made England give up. We used "caution and delay" and "hit and run" tactics to make redcoats chase them in the woods. The Americans would use small forces mostly but not always many large battles were still held. The war would have been lost if we battled the British and their Germans but if they could bug them until we got help from the French they might go home, which didn't happen until after the war of 1812.
@MatteV2 The Americans in particular would often load what they called "buck and ball", putting three pieces of buckshot in with the musket ball to increase the short-range effectiveness of the piece.
The man in the first rank may not now have a loaded musket, but the man behind him certainly will. Even skirmishers fight in pairs so that one can always be ready to fire. The same applies to field pieces. Bayonet charges are reserved for the point at which the cohesion of the opposing force is starting to crumble. Ideally, when the charge comes to be made, the receiving side will break and run with little use of the bayonet really being required.
@LutzDerLurch About chutting the eyes when fireing muskets I think you have a valid point about the psychological aspect. But also the fact that fragments of halfburnt powder or parts from the percussion-cap could end up in your eys and face when fireing must also have played a part.
@Gilmaris good point. it does that too, but ive ben told thats also a semi badidea , well once you go beyond a certain point since naturally armour has its weak points and you can simply atttack around it. your point is still fairly valid though.
Regarding the noise of firearms: I've only been to an indoor firing range once, and I had to wear ear plugs as well as the over ear hearing protection, and my adrelinine was still pumping. I was also in a garage where a .45 M1911 pistol was accidentally fired, and it must've taken 5-10 seconds of he and I standing there before we realized what even happened. I can't imagine what an actual flash/bang would do.
it's 4 am I really need to stop binge-watching lindy's videos
help
Lindybinge, eh?
+Steve Miner four beige points!
+James Lockwood advance two beige points! Roll 1d20 for a chance at triple value, a roll of 20 means tripling your beige points!
You need to stop beige-watching.
ditto
I always love it when Lindy talks from the perspective of a soldier.
You always default to your lowest level of training under stress. Many people think "oh I will just do this if this happens" if you do not train for it, you will not do it under stress.
All these guys do is train to reload and shoot, especially when they weren't professional armies.
+OozingCrotchSmegma69 yea its a terrible thing, i have same... Probably we should have gone to theatrical universities to get rid of this fear!
+Evirthewarrior The real answer is that an individual is part of a larger firing line (even when indoors) as is the enemy, so an individual cannot just decide to come in close with the bayonet and break up his own line and come up close with his enemy line where he'd be outnumbered. He'd have to be ordered to charge in with the rest of his unit. So, if you're going to comment on the 'psychology pf combat' then it would apply solely to the officers who give the orders and not the soldiers actually firing. I don't know what particular instances he is referring to but building were habitually cleared this way by bayonet and short ranged firing was usually resolved with a bayonet charge.
***** That is why you train, I was in the army for 8 years half of that time was as infantry, we trained constantly to fight, you are talking about about women being in this training scenario, they obviously were not a combat MOS, so they did not train nearly as much at combat, they were doing basic combat training. When I reclassed (changed jobs) I had to deal with that also, I was put in charge of a mixed group of privates, male and female. I had one crying during a room clearing drill because she was scared, I was baffled because I had never seen anything like in the multiple deployments I was on, or in any training I did as infantry. These people are not infantry, there is a huge difference between them and infantry on the battlefield.
That is exactly why special forces train under live fire. They need all of their training to be the default. The Australian SAS has lost far more men in training then in combat, even if you take the Blackhawk crash out of the numbers.
faolan1686 Well, I know the American Special operations forces do not train under live fire. I am very familiar with it, while they fire live ammo, they do not shoot at their own soldiers with live ammo.
I am skeptical of your claim that they train under live fire, when you can simulate live fire effectively through simunitions and not kill your soldiers.
Well, while I agree with pretty much every point you made here, there is one hugely fundamental point that you missed. Something that David Grossman hits on in his book "On Killing" which is about the psychological effects of warfare is that stabbing some one is also hugely unappealing. When you shoot some one, there is a bang, they get hit, they go down, and all you feel is the recoil. When you stab some one, even with a bayonet, you can feel it going into them, you are now essentially attached and feeling what you are doing. This is whole heartedly unattractive. This is partly why the charges were effective, as the thought that some crazy guy is charging you with the intent of putting a piece of metal into you rather than just shoot you is rather frightening, and has been shown in history to be enough to break a lot of people's morale (obviously not everyone's, but it does work enough of the time to be considered effective). All of the things you mentioned are also factors, I just wanted to make sure that last one was in there as well.
Gareth Worthy Exactly and precisely this. It's a point that is generally missed in these channels about medieval combat (Lindybeige, Schola Gladiatoria, Skallagrim). Historical evidence suggests, that unless dealing with a seasoned veteran soldier, human beings tend to be extremely reluctant to kill, or even seriously hurt, eachother. Especially when it comes to close-up fighting, where all the gore is so much more "In your face" (sometimes litterally, I would assume). Given the choice between shooting at someone, and charging in to combat with them, people will probably tend to choose the shot.
Sekhen Oni although i agree with most of that, you say "medieval combat", well, medieval combat involves a lot of up close melee, there are very limited options for attacking someone from afar. the infantry had to get up close and fight each other face to face, wounding and often killing each other.
I think the point remains, though altered a bit, in medieval combat. At the end of the day, it still takes a lot for Johnny Levy who has never been in combat, and has limited training, to actually go through with killing some one. The difference being, as you point out, that he does not have a shooting option, so he better damned well do something. That in its self will get many to get on with it. However, there still will be those who just can't get passed that issue (or at least hesitate with it long enough that they never get passed the issue). Considering that the US civil war (and doubtless others, I just happen to remember reading about those ones) had a number of finds where people just kept reloading their musket, and not shooting, to avoid doing it, and that is not as hard on the psych as stabbing someone, how many just could not do the death blow? Harder to track, what with an unused sword not making much of an archaeological find difference, so at a certain point it becomes very theory based, but based off of how people reacted for centuries after ward.
well ye as i said i completely agree, i was just pointing out that there is something to be said for when your all up in each others faces, with adrenaline pumping through your veins. i dont doubt that stabbing someone is more psychologically damaging than shooting someone, and so most would prefer the latter, but when you're up close to someone with a weapon in their hand who intend to do you harm, a lot of people will maim and kill out of sheer survival instinct. you dont wanna die, and someone is coming at you with a sword, at that point i think most would stab that someone perhaps even without really thinking about it.
+Gareth Worthy Could not agree more. I remember when I was younger and very into the period of history sort of roughly 1750 - 1820, and playing with my father, pretending we had muskets. I rushed into "bayonet" him, and when I did he of course went "pleeeeaseee..." to which I immediately stopped and said "What are you doing?" he replied, still in game-mode "please kill meee...". I never bayoneted him during that game again.
Closing on someone for hand to hand combat is one of the most terrifying things that a human can experience. I am not surprised that soldiers would be very reluctant to close.
there's some statistic that in WW2 only 15-20% of soldiers were actually trying to aim at and kill the other soldiers so this would also come into play, with the fact that humans dont like killing each other and we are hard wired psychologically not to.
***** There was change in training methodology between Vietnam and WWII to deal with the low rate of shots to kill.
bren cav
That statistic/study is incredibly misleading for many reasons.
For example: both sides use cover and covering fire to defend themselves. Even if fortune favors you and forces one of your enemies to hide behind some small form of cover that leaves him partially exposed, it may take several shots for before one actually manages to hit home and wound them.
If you want to advance from where you are to some more advantageous form of cover, you'll need your allies to rain bullets down in the enemy's direction. This forces them to keep their heads down--which in turn, keeps them from firing on you while you're moving and otherwise exposed.
Stuff like that. :p
HipposHateWater See On Killing, this is covered in depth. After WWII western armies started using operant conditioning to, by the time of Vietnam, increase the prevalence of soldiers pulling the trigger over 90%.
***** Actually, no. When I got in a fight in school, I just wanted it to stop. I didn't want to beat the kids senseless until my knuckles were bleeding. I mostly just wanted to hold him down until he gave up.
I think you might be a psychopath, or you like to pretend to be one.
"In a fight, it's generally less important that you win, and more important that you don't lose." -- Skallagrim
I think that this mentality applies here. Going out, alone, to bayonet your opponent might make it very likely to win, but you'll have his friends to deal with, you opponent will probably try to bayonet you once you get up close. You're now a big attractive target for all sorts of things that could kill you, and the tactic generally raises your chances of losing just as, if not more, significantly than sitting back and trying to hit him again.
It's also why some elite troops could be so effective with bayonets. One can imagine a group of tall, muscular, hand-picked professional killers charging with bayonets at regular troops, let alone some shaky conscripts, and what effect this might have on their morale. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson became notorious for its use.
I also don't think regular joes want to break ranks without orders. I would think bayonet Chargers were major orders that came down from a pretty high ranking person, so at every level from that spot down don't know if it's a good idea to do so, especially that individual soldier.
You are describing Grenadiers in Napoleonic armies. One company in 10 in a british battalion. Always on the right in the position of attack and honour.
@@Luke-hc4np During La Haye Sainte (A close-quarters struggle during Waterloo over a farm complex) there was at least one instance of bayoneting action, and it came without orders. A source describes that the commander did nothing to stop the charging men, implying he didn’t give the order. Of course, this is on a much smaller scale, and larger charges like Pickett’s charge did indeed come from higher places so you may very well be correct.
So this is why noobs on mount and blade Napoleonic wars keep reloading their muskets rather than going melee.
because theres always one asshole with epic lag that runs around thinking hes god when infact hes just teleporting
+dip Yip Yeah, the reason people avoid melee as much as possible is because of lag.
Its because half of them in regiments don't train in melee, fuck the 63e
ch Y "I will not be caught running around like a wet chicken!"
In melee my bayonet goes through you a d doesn't do anything but your slight touch of my skin decapitates me. So yeah musket away
As you pointed out; "the training kicks in". Basically, it's the effect of drill. Which also explains why people (well, men, actually) could stand in rows, facing each other, separated by a few meters, and discharging their muskets again and again without running away or seeking cover (Sergeants standing behind them with spontoons may have had an effect as well, though).
I think the big thing is that the men know it's unlikely they will be shot, so that helps. Also the thing with bayonet chargers is that I would think a major move like that, for you to close you line in on the enemy, is a decision made at a very high level. So from that level down everyone is probably thinking it's a good idea, but no one wants to make the move without word from higher. I'd also think reloading is significantly harder with a bayonet fixed, so you aren't given the order to fix bayonets until the last moment. Plus I bet soldiers didn't like having them on because it added weight to the end of the gun and made it harder to hold up, so they probably weren't too eager to fix them on their own.
Of course it's the drill. They were drilled to walk in lines (well, not much point to that if you're alone), reload (while the enemy might shoot at you) and stand fast (while the enemy shoots at you, hoping they'll miss - a good chance) with maybe some attention given to cavalry charges (in which you stand your ground, holding a pointy bit of metal on the end of your musket out to greet them - expecting them to not charge into a mess of pointy metal). There was no such thing as individual combat tactics, just company or platoon maneuvers. A charge would be at least a full platoon. You do not charge alone but with a roaring platoon beside you. And you do not charge in to fight anyone but expect no one to still be there. So the psychology and (lack of) training of "stabbing the guy three strides away" is quite a bit different from doing whatever your platoon does - which means you fall back to the basics (loading, shooting - and then finding a line to stand in).
Training plays a big part, but will only get you so far when adrenalin and extreme fear are present. Your average guy will move forward when ordered because he feels the pressure to perform as expected, particularly when his mates are around him and authority figures will punish him, but when people start dying and he's in mortal danger, all bets are off. I remember reading an account of a regiment being ordered to bayonet charge the enemy but the charge never picked up steam because men disobeyed the colonels order not to fire and kept stopping to shoot (because, really, who in their right mind wants to get closer to the fellows trying to kill you) and those around them followed suit; the enemy showed no inclination of falling back and the charge faltered and ultimately failed with the regiment falling back. I read another account where a general ordered his men to charge with unloaded guns to "inspire" them to close with the enemy.
But yeah, who wants to get into stabbing distance of someone who might be better at stabbing than you? No wonder melees with bayonets were rare.
My great, grandpa wrote down most of the stories his father told him from the US civil war. He never wanted it published, he just paid a publishing company for 20 copies.
I recall that he wrote a lot about how to fire his Enfield Musket.
These books make my huge family who lives in several European nations and the US to stay in touch and we have huge family gatherings once a year at least.
It was actually Swedish military doctrine during the 18th century (you probably know this already) to first get as close to the enemy as possible before shooting the first volley, I've heard it said that would see the white of a Swedish soldiers eyes before he fired, and then directly after that do a mass charge of the enemy lines instead of reloading.
So basically light infantry.
In a VERY general sense, light infantry were used more as skirmishers in the Napoleonic wars, when compared to standard infantry....so no.
Fascinating coincidence, I was just playing a game today called Napoleonic Wars, and even within video games this phenomenon happens. I found myself, at relative close range, in a building, with smoke kicked up all through the room, reloading and firing against rather then charging with a bayonet. Its interesting because its for the exact reasons you described, I was trying to get the musket jackpot, and I knew charging in with a bayonet would most likely end up with me getting stabbed by other soldiers.
lethrington Mount and Blade? Great game.
HURRAH FOR OLD NOSEY!!!
Only if their muskets had pommels
Anthony Vang remove the butstock of thy musket and hurl it at thy foe
Anthony Vang ahaha I still remember that episode
With a swing of the musket and a flick of the bayonette, you can end your opponent rightly.
Don't forget the machicolations!
Without having to guess about the likely outcome of a bayonet fight, you can look at historical records of World War I. They're filled with pictures of 2 men having stabbed each other with bayonets, dead, and leaning on each other still somewhat standing. That's how a bayonet fight is most likely to end. Not appealing at all. So yeah, I'd shoot.
Wait, aren't muskets basically lobbing pommels at the enemy?
lol mini-pommels yes
That is why linear warfare is considered to be so polite.
They are a piece of garbage, slow reload, and inaccurate as f*ck
I could just imagine:
_"We need more swords! More swords, more pommels!"_
@@filipbizecki5009 more accurate than a bow
Also have to consider that psychologically it's much easier to shoot someone that go up and stab them... or so I hear anyways, I wouldn't really know.
+LexieAssassin
I've heard that, but I've also heard that it's fairly psychologically challenging even to shoot people from a distance, and that apparently most fresh conscript troops such as in the Vietnam war, would deliberately miss.
+Peter Raptor I did that when I was 10 and shooting rats
+BRUTALEX Cooper rats ain't the same as people
But its similar concept at least to a 10 year old me
+BRUTALEX Cooper shooting a rat is not the same concept as shooting somebody with a musket who is trying to do the same to you
The British Guards famously stood up on the hill of Mont St Jean,fired one smashing volley into the Imperial Guard and without further ado chased them all the way to La Belle Alliance.
Of course La Garde thought that their way was clear as they could not see the Brit Guards in their prone position just behind the crest,so shock number 1 was seeing thousands of "Rosbifs" rise out of the ground virtually at their feet,closely followed by shock number 2 which was hundreds of their comrades mown down in an instant and shocking fusillade,followed finally by the same thousands of "Rosbifs" charging at them through their self made and instant smokescreen with extremely long and wicked looking bayonets fitted to their Brown Bess muskets.
This all took place far quicker than you were able to read the above.
One minute they're advancing to yet another glorious victory,15 seconds later they are defeated.
That is what the bayonet can do!
At Waterloo the firing by the British Troops was highly controlled by their Officers. They fired and loaded by rank so that there was constant rate of fire one rank firing other ranks loading. At Hougomont the British troop were barricaded, they used they Bayonets when opportunity arose, as was the case at La Haye Sainte. Typically Troops on the attack would advance firing by ranks and would do the Bayonet charge once they closed with the enemy. Today the Bayonet is to be used once you close with the enemy or they close with you, if you get close enough to use your Bayonet, E-tool, Rifle Butt or Pistol the war is not going all that well.
Oh, thank you! I am a massive Waterloo enthusiast and genuinely didn’t know that was how they advanced!
@LutzDerLurch The crack is one of the sounds. Muskets were big bore, used a massive charge of inefficient black powder, which is twice as loud as modern gunpowder or cordite.
It is not generally in human nature to want to kill other people. Back in the days of muskets when people would line up in front of each other and shoot until either side routed, the vast majority of soldiers were deliberately aiming too high (perhaps subconsciously) because they did not want to kill anyone. Early muskets were very inaccurate though, so with lots of comrades next to you, you might accidentally hit an enemy without knowing it was YOU who killed him. If you attack your enemy with a bayonet though, it gets very personal, and you end up forcing your enemy (who probably doesn't want to kill anyone either) to fight back and try to kill you.
It wasn't until after WWII that militaries around the world came up with training exercises, that trains soldiers to instinctively shoot enemies before their human emotions take over. The classic time trial runs in the Call of Duty games where cardboard enemies pop up in front of you is one such exercise. During WWII only about 5% of soldiers were intentionally shooting to kill. Often when two opposing soldiers suddenly came face to face, they would instinctively drop their firearm and throw stuff at each other until one decided to run away.
you have any sources to back this up?? Just curious.
from another lindy beige video...
@@truegrit1860 It's true ... look at the Vietnam War which is a pretty good example... soldiers would deliberately shoot randomly just to scare the enemy because they didn't want to actually kill the enemy ... propaganda makes people monsters.
Where I come from, we call the state lottery the idiot tax.
formerevolutionist LoL... want to be depressed? If your born in the USA to middle class or poor parents, you are 200 times more likely to win the lottery then to retire in the top 6%. .
hear ya
+formerevolutionist I call it the Math Tax. Cause it's the tax for people who are bad at math and think they can come out ahead.
That's twenty years in the past. Skyrocketing student debt, combined with shrinking wages and increased cost of living...not likely, or probable.
Wow my daughter will be surprised that her $28.00 an hour job pays that well. Your mom is doing really well at $50.+ an hour.
Another point about noise, smoke and the like is forgetting to shot, or better put, is not shooting. Things like not putting on the cap, or not loading your pan. Then you think that you have and reload and the same thing happens. Quite a large number of rifles in the ACW were latter found to have as many as 3 or 4 balls in the barrel, sometimes as many a 6. The same was true for both the North and South.
Hi, There’s interesting thought.
I would recommend a book for you that I read before deployd to Afghanistan that
describes the psyke of the individual in war. On Combat by Dave Grossman. He is
a former US Ranger and a professor in psychology. He has written a lot on the subject.
Very American but still really good insights on the combat psyke.
A lesson of war is that soldiers do what they trained. So if the army don’t
train their soldiers to storm with bayonets enough they won´t.
An example of that is a story from the Swedish army in the Balkan around the 90´s. A squad came
in contact with the enemy. The squad returned fire, group their shoulder fired grenade launcher(M3 Multi-Role Anti-Armor
Anti-Personnel Weapon System) and got fire superiority and then regroupt. When the squadleader cheket the squad the loader
of the M3 was gone and minutes after the loader returned with the empty casings
from the grenades. When they trained the loader always went back and got the casings
so they didn’t have to clean up afterwards. So when in combat, the loader
ran and got the empty casings because
in the stress his brain went on autopilot.
And if you check the combat tactics done by the Swedish army on in the 1600 -
1700 they were really aggressive. An assault where the different ranks fired on
different length from the enemy and then bayonet charge the enemy. So it is
done, if you train your troops to charge.
Thanks for a good and interesting channel.
See I never believe those stories, I'm a a soldier and all stupid as shit goes out the window when the bullets start firing.
Also, at short ranges, muskets could be loaded very fast by hitting the butt on the ground and not using the ramrod.
+Peter Lynch that sounds spooky lol
Dear Peter Lynch I don't understand why sitting down quickly would load the weapon faster; and surely it would screw you for running away! As for your penis comment, I won't go there.
+Peter Lynch
There's a video on here where people demonstrate tap-loading, worth looking up.
+rchave Yes I've seen some of those. And what's interesting is that a musket loaded that way still gets off a powerful and accurate shot at a short distance.
It's called tap firing and is very dangerous and I'd bad for the musket
I can absolutely confirm the point about how loud modern firearms are. Ten years ago I permanently lost around 80% of my hearing in the left ear by shooting a 9mm pistol in a range without hearing protection. Stupid me.
Omg, that's so sad!
@@Terra_Lopez I was young, stupid and careless :D nothing out of the ordinary. Lesson learned, keep going.
@@alwoolridge6377 Yeah, I guess. But perhaps you were mislead by the movies about how loud guns actually are...?
@@Terra_LopezCould've been, but no, not really. When that happened I was fresh out of the military academy. I guess it was the hype 🤣🤣🤣
EDIT: I was actually misled by not having been in a range before. I had shot A LOT those days, and heavier weapons, but always in the open, when hearing protection is highly recommended but not mandatory.
Actually the National lottery in UK made it possible to restore the only functioning Tiger tank in the world, and it has funded some other historical heritages. So it's not as stupid as you may think.
+Emil Nilsson It's not stupid because of the using but because of the origin. Only stupid people give up money, which is pretty much what a lottery is.
+Emil Nilsson I would support a tax on restoring WWW II tanks!
Firing one or two volleys and then charging with bayonets was a popular Napoleonic tactic. If you were lucky the enemy would break and run, if not you had a very bloody melee on your hands.
European observers of the American Civil War were shocked to find that the American soldiers on both sides simply stood within musket and rifle range and just constantly shot at one another until one side had no men left to shoot or be shot at.
The bayonet was a vitally important part of the musket and most of time won battles and skirmishes. All soldiers, especially within the British army were trained to use the bayonet very effectively and certainly familiar with charging a French column.
+Ryan Markey Although every Napoleonic army had a myth of "cold steel", it was just that: a myth, supported occasionally by over-heroic paintings made by artists who generally wouldn't be found anywhere near a battlefield, and subsequent hyperbole by historians who rarely ventured further than their armchairs.
Baron Larrey's statistics show that less than 2% of wounds treated by his surgeons were bayonet wounds, and almost all of those were to the rear, inflicted during post-battle pursuit. Jomini stated "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."
Standard infantry doctrine in all armies was that the enemy was defeated by musketry, with a bayonet charge only delivered when it was certain the enemy would understand it was a signal to kindly de-camp, and certainly not with the intention of making actual contact !
It's worth bearing in mind that the French Pas De Charge was 120 paces per minute, equivalent to modern British drill quick march (for line, not light troops, who do it at 140ppm). Bayonet charges were thus delivered not at a run, but in disciplined formation at a rapid walking pace - easy to avoid unless you were determined to close.
+Sean Bissett-Powell As loyd stated in another video the bayonet captures ground without killing. Because the enemy usually runs away.
+Sean Bissett-Powell "Treated by surgeons." That 2% number is that low because most people who were bayoneted or whatever NEVER MADE IT OFF THE FIELD. A bullet may pass right through you but a bayonet is really going to put you down. But you are true about their actually tactical use. Bayonet charges in open ground weren't often met because the other wise would run away. But it still happened and there was lots of fighting in villages, city's and redoubts.
problem is, the american civil war was a big step up in weapons technology, bayonet charges where extremely costly in the civil war, rifles, rifled cannons etc made it extremely hard to charge your enemies, this was again shown in the 1st world war, where bayonet charges was pure madness
Fired my Mosin outdoors once while hunting (just for fun since we were about to head in without anything bagged or tagged) and without ear protection I can tell you that for at least a couple of seconds it felt like I'd been hit by a mini flashbang (minus the flash, of course). I was literally partially deaf for a good few seconds after the fact.
DeathlordUSA Mosin Nagants fire at about 150 Decibels, However a .308 with 24 inch barrel is 153 db, a .30-06 with a 18 inch barrel you fire at 163 db; But a .375 with 18 inch barrel is 170 DB.
At 155 DB you have temporary hearing loss, and the Mosin borders that, but a .308 with a 24 inch barrel exceeds that at 156 db.
Pitch and Frequency also matter highly, and even a fucking leaf blower can be 100 DB when you're using it, OSHA requires hearing protection at 85 DB. However how annoying is a leaf blower at 100 DB (If Using, 75 DB at 50 feet) compared to a 120 DB (-30 DB from hearing protection) gunshot?
CAepicreviews I'm finding this to be a hard question. If you're being strapped into a chair and forced to listen to one or the other, I'd rather listen to a leafblower. It's gonna be less damaging to hearing.
On the other hand, in a real life situation where you can close a window, put on hearing protection, or move away from the source of the noise I can't honestly say.
If my neighbor's got his blower on, I can just throw on my headphones or shut my windows. Therefore reducing the noise pollution.
If I'm out target shooting with others around, I'm going to have hearing protection and I'm going to be shooting targets myself. Therefore, I'm not going to care about noise pollution because shooting's a fucking blast (pun intended)!
And in the case that I'm out hunting without hearing protection (like I was when I fired the Mosin) it's not gonna matter because at most I'll not even go through a single magazine.
You also need to account for the fact that DBs in and of themselves are no way to judge the human ear (so I've been told). If I remember right, a 9x19mm handgun has a higher DB count than a .45 ACP (due to the much higher pressures). However, a .45 ACP (and don't quote ME on this) is louder to the human ear.
Warren Peace The last part, about the 9 and 45, is perception. Different sounds, rates, pitches etc cause more or less pain to some.
isnt that loud! ive shot a LOT of rifles.... i live in montana, and we were able to tag up to 8 deer at one time.... and then shoot geese and ducks, and elk if we won the lottery for an elk tag.....
so im kinda use to rifle fire.... after 4 or 5 shots from my m91/30, my ears will start to feel and sound "clogged"...few more... RINGGGGGGGG for a good 10 15 mins.
5 more shells are were talking RINGGGGG for a good hour or 2.
5 more and im not hearing shit for a day or 2.
ive had that happen also... right ear was jsut ringing for a solid 24 hours+.... i know im damaging my ears... i try to use ear pro, but it jsut isnt possible at all times.....
***** We had a "show attack" in a military show once here in finland with a BTR APC firing both its main 12,7mm and its accompanying 7,52mm AND a whole squad of troops firing their RK's (Finnish AK Remake) in a simulated assault on a hillside position. I gotta tell you, after the few first shots of the 12,7mm at about 20 meters, my hands were covering my ears, and I damned myself for not taking the free earplugs that were offered at the show before they started shooting.
I can attest at the loudness of a firearm firing indoors. I've had a pistol go off in a close room and I couldn't hear out of any of my ears for two minutes. It was a Tokarev
+Underscore Lucky you! I accidentaly fired an SKS indoors, i was deaf for 10-15 minutes, and also blind for about a minute or so. Gunpowder really bites at ones eyes. Never again have I loaded a gun indoors...
MegaElNinja
Imagine having to fire a moist nugget.
The simple answer is that there isn't time to think in a fire fight, it's all about reaction. I went to a Royal Artillery display on Salisbury Plain once where there was a crowd of a hundred people watching the 105mm light field guns getting ready to fire. The sound of those guns made women and children scream and even cry they were that loud. Chieftain and Challenger tanks hurt the ears when they fire.
@1x93cm Depends on the period. All soldiers were issued with swords until long after the advent of the musket period. Many were low-quality "hangers" but they'd still hurt.
Probably one of the most epic bayonet attacks in history was when Lawrence Chamberlain ordered the 20th Maine to charge the Confederates on Little Round Top because his men had run out of ammo. It was a last ditch effort to prevent the Federal line from being flanked and it worked.
As far as I know, a well-discplined soldier would not charge at his enemy with fixed bayonet... Unless his commanding officer orders it.
If your commanding officer orders you to keep firing and hold the line, you do as you are told, if you're an obedient soldier (well-trained, well-discplined). You don't advance, you don't retreat, you keep firing untill you are hit or you receive new orders. Or you break down and either mount a single person bayonet charge while both your comrades and enemy watch on in disbelief or you rout and get the hell out of there.
(edit): also, black powder creates an enormous amount of smoke. After a few volleys from both sides, you would not be able to see very far. So it is unlikely that you saw any enemy soldier face to face, unless he was stepping on your toes.
I was about to make just the same point. Yes, I'm sure psychology played some part in it but, as far as I know, rigorous training and never ending fire drills combined with the discipline of a professional fighting force would explain it better. Orders wuz orders and you did as you were told or got flogged matey.
Peter Brazukas Yes, after a fatal collission between two steamships of the Royal Navy, the sailors on the sinking ship apparently did not evacuate immediately but actually waited untill they were given the order to abandon ship. The admiral responsible for the order that caused the collission was already dead so his subordinate was court martialed. The subordinate officer was cleared of all charges because he had simply obeyed the admiral's order, even though he full well knew it would result in a fatal collission at that speed. But the admiralty accepted that an admiral could make a grave and fatal mistake. It would never accept disobedience however.
Got it the wrong way around there. Modern firearms are much louder than muskets. As an American Stereotype (with an impressive collection of firearms) and a former Revolutionary War reenactor I can tell you first hand. Firing indoors can be done without ear protection from a Brown Bess (as long as you don't do it too often) but I would not dream of firing a modern pistol without ear protection outside unless my other option was to die. Not even once.
I think It depends somewhat on the Powder load, with full military load for a Brown Bess (120 grains for an India pattern) It is going to be pretty loud, most reenactors I know use lower powder charges (about 70-80 grains) for safety reasons.
bskorupk I have used full charge with ball for fun at the range. It is a bit louder but noting compared to my revolver. I normally use 120 grain for that. Our standard for a mock battle was 90 grain though. So I know what a full charge sounds like with a ball. Still not as bad as my 380 though it did kick a little bit more. A brown bess has a more earthy sound to it when you are behind the blast rather than the sharpness of a smokeless powder charge.
Golvic Cool! what kind of groups did you get?
not that I am an expert on the subject, but don't modern firearms, especially handguns, use powder that burns way faster than black powder? If so, the pressure wave might be quite different
Loïc Rebts Actually, it's the other way around. Black powder, as used in muskets and the like, is a low-pressure *explosive* whereas smokeless powder is a high-pressure *propellant* and therefore burns much slower. IV8888 did a video on the subject:
/watch?v=tTAKr3Y2EV0
I love that you look at historical/medieval combat from a psychological standpoint, it's so rare to find someone talking about old wars who isn't either going "death and glory!" or "what a waste" and leaving the consideration of the individual out of it.
@futsalfred2 Finding time to do these videos is hard enough as it is. I prefer the spontaneity of no script, and there is some pride in the purity of the technique. The last five videos I shot were all done first take, in one take. On the other hand, I did seriously consider reshooting this one because it is unnecessarily long. So, sorry Cut Tha Never Heals, and thanks Futsal Fred.
Check out the movie Heat from 1995 and the robbery scene at the second part of the film. One of the few movies that get gunfire sounds accurate.
Thank you for all these videos, very entertaining!
One of the few films that used accurate gunfire. I think its one of the few films to not have foley sounds for the gunfire.
The gunfire in Heat is actually real! They recorded gunfire as a sort of "dub" track (like in most movies) but it didn't sound as good, so they kept the original audio (where they were firing blanks)
Another thing that people often fail to consider about warfare is this: Killing somebody... is not an easy thing. Psychologically speaking, I mean. There's a reason so many soldiers need to go into therapy when they return from war: It's harrowing as hell. The knowledge that because of you: another living, breathing, thinking, feeling individual, is no longer alive.
Now, let's look at the musket: You've got a slow loading, smooth bore weapon that makes a loud, loud noise and spews smoke and fire from the end of it. Wildly inaccurate, even at close range sometimes, and even if you land a hit, you need to get somewhere important in order to actually kill somebody. A musket shot to the arm will definitely hurt you, and you may even lose all functionality in said arm. But if you get medical treatment - even vintage medical treatment - you've got an okay chance of surviving it. You won't likely be put back on a battlefield, of course, but you'll be alive.
This means the musket is in an odd position of being a big, scary, loud and powerful weapon that doesn't actually land a whole lot of kills. This is actually pretty appealing for a soldier, especially a younger, or less experienced soldier (which musketeers often were) because it means you can potentially fire a volly of musket balls at a charging force, kill maybe one, or two, injure a bunch more, and scare the rest away. If there's a lot of you firing, then there's no real way to tell if it was your gun that killed somebody, or not. And a hail of fire, smoke, lead and the thunder of a thousand angry gods is not something most people want to run towards for very long, so there's a good chance your enemy will just retreat after the first few shots.
Likewise, your enemy is probably using the same guns, meaning that while you might soil your britches when the guns start firing, the chances of you actually sustaining a lethal hit are more or less slim, and you're hardly going to be blamed for making a "tactical retreat" in the face of such terror.
So you can essentially win a battle, or even a war, without a huge amount of causalities and with a lot less guilt (if a lot more hearing damage) using a bunch of guys with muskets. And people wonder why we used them for so long...
SwitchFeathers truth to be told, a hit of a musket shot was always game over, one way or other. If it hits you in the limbs, you may say your goodbyes to that limb, since only way you gonna survive from that with luck is amputation (with the level of medicine they had back then) A hit to the torso or head were almost always lethal. And then when you factor in the (sometimes deliberate) casting defects in lead balls, the lead ball might've fragmented on impact, like an hollowpoint bullet of today. So if you were hit, you were most likely out of the war. Also, lead bullets cause lead poisoning if lodged and not removed promptly, or if fragments are missed.
Of course, Getting hit, or hitting something is completelly a different beast. Accuracy was near nonexistant. The philosophy back then was along the lines"More Dakka!" than anything else.
LasOrveloz Accuracy was always a thing they were striving for back then, it takes some one special to innovate something to a higher level. Its not like today, were computers can calcualte small differentials and we have a mountain of knowledge readily available.
Jonathan Rowley I didn't say they weren't striving for accuracy, I rather said that in the lack of it, they went with the other slightly viable option, volume of fire until the accuracy was improved.
If theyd tried using accuracy as a thing with line infantry, they would've actually trained the bloody troops to aim properly instead of concentrating on training reloading. Usually the aiming consisted primarily of pointing the flamey end of the musket somewhere towards that direction the commander was pointing when giving the order. Hell, some muskets didn't even have sights.
Of course Light infantry of the time was different. They actually aimed.
Lead poisoning was not a factor. The wounds caused by blunt musket balls were horrific, and may have been particularly terrifying. Bones don't crack - they shatter.
Perfect description. I have seen revolutionary war rifles fired before, in the interior of a fort, and even with about six or eight feet of space from me to the gun, it was still unbelievably loud. And, even though the fort was relatively large (not huge, you couldn't fit a thousand guys in the grounds easily) it still echoed off the walls. I would definitely recommend people hear one going off, with ear protection, to somewhat get the feel for it (I listened to them without, in short, don't.)
That's odd.. there is a purplish hue to your video this one
cameras worked fine back then mate
+Dylan Fontaine Lloyd needs to remaster all his newer videos with that hue as well, for old time's sake.
+Dylan Fontaine i believe that is sunlight clashing with the indoor light.
you could be right
+Dylan Fontaine Lavenderbeige
You're looking at this as a one-on-one situation. If there's one of me and I'm facing one opponent, and he's just fired and missed, I might be tempted to go in with the bayonet. Always assuming it was already fixed to my musket that is - bayonets were only attached at the last moment because they interfered with the firing. First there was the possibility of slicing your own arm open whilst ramming home, and second was the fact that the extra weight on the end of the musket did nothing for stability or accuracy.
But anyway. The likelihood is that you and a bunch of mates would be facing the enemy and a bunch of his mates. Just because the man in front of you has just fired and missed, and is busy re-loading, this doesn't mean that none of his colleagues are ready to fire.
This is why the British army in the Napoleonic era went in for platoon volleys. Yes, there might be an initial battalion volley, but after this they fired by platoons. Three platoons to a company, ten companies to a battalion. Thirty seconds to reload. Thus one platoon volley per second - and by the time the last platoon has fired, the first is ready again. Thus continuous fire. Now charge that...
Bayonets in the Napoleonic era were not meant to be used as knives, they were dull instead of sharp. A dull edge produces much more blunt trauma to the wound area. Much more than the slicing effect offered by a sharp blade.
2 more advantages I can think of.
1 - Effort. Drawing back a high powered crossbow in a hurry is hard work even with a windlass or mechanical aid. Firearms are more complicated but less tiring. Makes it easier to maintain rate of fire.
2 - Shields. Bullets go through cover more easily. Some crossbowmen would carry a pavise as portable cover, which would stop an arrow or a crossbow bolt but might not work so well against a musket ball.
Those are my guesses. I hope that helps!
I think the same thing that fighting hand-to-hand is extremely scary and people wouldn't want to do it. I think in those days of massed infantry with muskets there's sort of an element of how you can almost pretend it's not happening until you get shot, you just load and fire and you can probably deal with it by trying to forget even what you're doing. Fighting hand to hand is a lot more frightening and a lot more real, it's a situation you have to mentally deal with immediately and not later if/when you get shot.
So the video got to where you say, "muskets are much, much louder" ... and the sound cut out.
At first I thought you'd fired at and deafened your audience, but alas, it was just youtube seredipity.
Sorry I shoot modern conventional smokeless firearms often and have toyed around with blackpowder, Black powder certainly isn't louder.
+footbalr074 Have you been shooting from period or recreated muskets? What my (almost entirely uneducated) guess is that perhaps it's not so much the powder as it is the construction of the gun which makes it less like a really efficient modern firearm and more like a shrunk-down cannon.
+12Metaman I'd say different burn rate/pressure/bullet speed
if I'm not wrong, the amount of gunpowder in a modern cartridge is less than what a musket used to use, I could of course be wrong but it can certanly depend on the musket you use aswell.
+12Metaman modern propellants definately have a much fast burn rate than conventional black powder
+pingun96 That is not the case. Blackpowder is slow burning, and so if you add more black powder (past a certain point), it won't make the bullet go faster or be more deadly or create more pressure (aka bang), it will just get spit out the barrel and burn up in the open air. Modern hunters are not in the business of sending their projectiles at sub-optimal speeds, so they are more likely than not using the maximum effective charge of black powder. So, even if a 16th century soldier were to put twice as much powder into his musket, the result would be more smoke, a big burst of flame but not much of a bigger appreciable bang.
For most, the training was to fire and then charge when at close range.
I took archery and I like going down to my towns old Colonial fort where they fire Brown Bess muskets frequently. Muskets are accurate up to 50 to 75 meters (a third of what a modern day assault rifle is accurate up to). When fired in mass volleys they can wipe down up to half an entire enemy regiment allowing you to finish them with sheer numbers. Bows also have much less range than a Brown Bess and when a musket is fired with an entire unit there effective range is up to 150 meters.
Europeans are funny. yeah guns are loud but you know what that sound is? freedom. it's ringing.
What's the point of freedom when you can't even properly use it because you're blind, deaf, missing some parts or some screws?
How can you hear the sound of freedom if it just made you deaf?
Penki I can't hear you over the sound of my freedom
That because you are now deaf form all gun shooting in your neighborhood :D
Most of the psychological studies on combat stress and (lack of) ability to kill one's foe were actually done in the USA. There was a massive study of WWII vets showing a startling number of troops who never fired their weapon towards the enemy. So it seems Americas are just as susceptible to the shock of combat and firearms.
Maurice de Saxe and Prince Eugene actually wrote at some length on this subject. Their conclusion was that it was better to charge and not worry about firing at all. This became widely adopted for a couple hundred years after the fact, even after it stopped being efficient (column attacks, relying on 'shock', persisted well into the American Civil War where they were butchered by rifled muskets).
A friend of mine shot off his 357 Magnum w/ an 8 inch barrel on New Years Eve outdoors. I was standing next to him. It was like he was launching something into space. Loud is an understatement.
@LutzDerLurch There were experiments done back in the day, using a white sheet the size of a battalion frontage. They were shocked at how few professional soldiers under no pressure of war managed to hit it.
Dan Carlin also has a good discussion of this regarding soldier psychology. it's an aside on his Persian Empire series - he notes how 18th/19th century soldiers would rarely go into melee. It takes a sterner stomach to gut someone while looking them in the eye.
been there done that with the firearm discharge in a room. test fired my Mosin-Nagant 91/30 (fires the 7.62x54R cartridge) from the steps of our workshop, and the echo inside the shop left my ears ringing for several minutes!
This is absolutely fantastic. It's one of those things that seem so glaringly obvious but had never actually occurred to you before.
I like the points that you bring up. I am however told by the internet that while in rank formation charging with cold steel is the best way to get rid of your enemy. It is however not for the lightly trained troops.
There were 3 kinds of shooters back when they used muskets. The first NEVER shot, instead always reloaded. Some muskets were found with 4-5 reloadings inside, ball, powder and plug! The second shot, but never aimed, and the last was the killers, who shot to kill. These were quite rare, actually.
Very good thought. Back when armor and shields were in use, it was ideal but without armor, it wasn't the thing to do. Bayonet charges if you remember are usually done when the enemy is fleeing also, when the advantage is that you can simply stab a number in the back. Early in the American War for Independence, bayonet charges were frequent however because the colonists had no bayonets to counter with, facing rows of disciplined spears with only axes and knives.
Also, it's very hard to swing a weapon inside confined spaces. A typical move after delivering a bayonet charge would be a butt stroke, but if there's a door frame or piece of furniture in the way, you're not going to get the leverage.
Lastly, the bayonet setup was designed for charging in mass formations. They used triple-bladed bayonets (now banned in warfare) that were mounted on the right side of the barrel as opposed to the knife-like bayonet we use today underneath the barrel. While it does deliver a more devastating wound, the triple bladed bayonet is harder to push in and so it benefits greatly from a running start and the effects of crushing two units together in an open field.
Spot on, although the part about wound severity is incorrect. Wounds from triangular bayonets bleed no more profusely than other wounds, it's just that the triangular construction of the bayonet was not only cheaper, but had the strength required for thrusting.
@LutzDerLurch The finding of multiple-loaded muskets in the ACW is well-attested..
The colonists also lined up, that's how battle worked out during this time period. Back during the ages before fire arms were common place, you had two armies with swords and spears and bows marchign at each other, the firearm replace the bow but was so powerful swords and spears couldn't do anything against it, so you have blocks of them march at each other, it wasn't until automatic weapons were invented that blocks marching at eachother became inefficient
@CorvusVal Yes, but it's much harder to organise a mass charge when you are blind and deaf and in a building.
I like so much your latest "points"!
Also a possible explanation for the resistance to do bayonet charges is that once the charge has been launched there is little chance to regain command and control of your own soldiers. so they charged only at the very last. When mass, momentum and situation was advantageous. The last maneuvre that like a single drop causes the water to overflow
@Mandalor91 I have read of a number of scientific tests, many of them done back in the day, and muskets were a lot more accurate than that. However, psychology plays a big role. For one thing, many men fired with their eyes shut, and for another, many would consciously or subconsciously aim high. Killing people is not something people find easy.
Just simple historical fact. In XVIII cent. Russian general, subsequently generalissimo, Suvorov Alexander Vasilyevich implemented tactical maneuver: Only one gunshot volley form the closest range possible and then fast rush at the enemy with bayonets attached. It was amazingly effective.
I can confirm the noise of shooting real firearms inside a building is incredibly loud, I used to be a member of a gun club until the government knee jerk reaction ban to semi automatic pistols. I love that in the movies characters can stand around chatting after an indoor gunfight without any problems, good old Hollywood science eh. In the gun club some of us wore earplugs under our ear defenders due to the exceptional noise of some of the weapons.
Paintball or airsoft is all thats left now.
The quieter firearm noises in games and film is understandable, in a sense. Say you fire a gun in a game, and it makes the actual sound that gun would make... and you're wearing headphones. Most gamers would quickly consider turning the sound down or not using that gun very often.
This theory was presented with some great research in the book "On Killing". It was written by a retired US general whose job it was to study and prepare soldiers for the psychological effects of killing the enemy and overcoming natural hesitation.
1/2 Another reason that springs to mind is more about the disadvantages of attacking over defending. If you have fired your musket and the opponents have also fired theirs. If you charge in with a bayonet by the time you have reached your opponent they may have reloaded, in which case your at an extreme disadvantage. If you do reach your opponent before they finish loading all they have to do is stop loading and point the bayonet at you.
Another thing to keep in mind: Ring mounted bayonets were a late invention (sometime in the 1700's I think) until then, if you wanted a bayonet for your musket, you had to stick the hilt of your dagger into the musket barrel; the "plug" bayonet. If your musket barrel is plugged up with a bayonet, you can't shoot. Even when Ring Bayonets were invented, the early versions were less than reliable because they made reloading more difficult (now there's a sharp bit of metal right next to the end of your musket barrel, where your hands need to be) and they had a bad habit of coming off the musket in the middle of battle, or the middle of an enemy's guts... then you don't have a bayonet anymore.
I think "the training kicks in" is the most important point here. Musketeers were drilled to shoot and reload their muskets. As fast as possible. They were told that reloading their muskets faster than the enemy was the key to success (and survival). If they had a smart drill sergeant (assuming that that's not an oxymoron), maybe they had some melee training as well, but certainly no way near as much as aim, fire, reload. I would guess, that that became such an ingrained sequence for them to do, that they struggled to fire a musket without instantly reloading.
@PompeusMagnus I recall one test using flintlocks where they held the weapon rigid in a vice and fired it at the normal engagement range, aiming dead centre on a man-sized target and it hit about half the time.
Depends on the periods. 'Hangars' - low quality swords were carried by many in the 17th-18th centuries, but by Napoleon's time they just had bayonets.
I think it came down to discipline of a regiment. Soldiers were shooting in queues, so if some soldiers would have decided to go melee, shooters behind them could accidentally open friendly fire
One thing about the noise, muskets used black powder which is louder than modern gun powder. Also they used more powder per shot than is used in most bullets today.
300 feet, maybe, which is 100 meters (roughly). 60m was the ideal engagement distance. The Baker rifle was effective out to 600m, but took an eternity to reload, while the Enfield rifle-musket was effective out to 300m and could be reloaded as quickly as a normal musket. It's hard enough hitting a non-stationary man-sized target at 300m with a modern rifle.
Muskets also lacked effective sights, having only a small front post, and only riflement generally fired aimed shots at individual targets.
Us army analysts researched dead battle field soldiers. In the civil war. They often found that many young men were so afraid that they had loaded their Enfields half a dozen times without firing it successfully.
I used to work with a former Marine drill sergeant from Parris Island. He said that the main thing that was necessary to keep men in their first battle was that they be more frightened of **HIM** than they were of the enemy.
This is interesting. You've got a valid point here. I wouldn't want to get into close quarters if I could avoid it, myself.
@Fortramnasdaq Solomon islanders loaded their guns for maximum noise and recoil, caring little for whether they were accurate.
The Caroleans won several battles against overwhelming enemy formations like this: The Gå-På-method (Literally Go-On) specialized on shock tactics and was the standard combat technique used in the Swedish army at the time. This very aggressive tactic often resulted in short-lived battles in order to counter superior numbers of enemies. According to 1694 and 1701 regulations, the infantry attack operates as follows: In four ranks with gaps, the Swedish battalion would "smooth and slowly" march against enemy fire (which often started at a distance of 100 meters), while making their way to the enemy lines. The Swedish soldiers were first issued to fire when "you could see the whites in the enemies eyes" a range of roughly 50 meters-when the marching drums stopped the two rear ranks would fill the gaps within the two foremost ranks and fire a salvo-and then draw their swords. The two rear ranks would then fall right behind in their previous position and the two foremost would close the gaps after which the battalion would resume their attack. The two foremost ranks then discharged at a range of roughly 20 meters before drawing their swords and the charge began. At this range, the powerful muskets usually felled many enemy troops and was demoralizing to them. Directly after the volley the Swedes charged the enemy ranks with pikes, bayonets and rapiers.[10][11] Note that the pikes were used as an offensive weapon: in close combat they had the advantage over their foes' weapons thanks to their range, it often happened that complete ranks of enemies ran before physical contact, frightened by the long pikes and the fact that the morale of the battalion could calmly withstand their fire.[12]
@Frauenman That's what my impression of musket+bayonet fights has always been. Not just for Swedes, but for anyone who wanted a decisive win in battle. Soldiers would advance, fire once, and then charge with bayonets. Having soldiers reload during battle means you're going for a drawn out fight of attrition, instead of a decisive win.
Maybe there's also the elaborate platoon fire schemes to take into account. If you have good troops, some part of your line would be always shooting while the rest reload, so there's always the possibility of being shot by fires from different platoons.
@lindybeige (cont.) The Crack of a modern arm is the Gasses and Bullet breaking the speed of Sound. Musket Balls tend to stay just below SoS, so they won't crack as sharply as modern guns. They are still very loud, of course.
I have however, read that Bayonetfighting was occuring mainly in confined Space, like narrow Streets etc. and extremely bloody and messy then.
No they certainly did have the same technology available as anywhere else in the country did at the time. Cannons were almost a necessity for any side and full length muskets could have been used if they wanted, but they preferred firing one volley with hand pistols before discarding them to go into melee. The main reason the highland charge failed at Culloden was that each man charging was independent, he was fighting for himself whereas the Hanoverian troops were fighting with each other
The swedish caroleans had the "gå-på" strategy:
Advance - get shot at - advance - advance - shoot - charge (with pikes and other melee weapons)
One thing about gunfights particularly indoors, often your adrenaline is pumping so hard you don't even notice how loud the gun is. I think this is part of the reason suppressors aren't more prevalent despite improved modern designs.
Another point to consider is if you are just an average man posing as a soldier and not a psychopathic killer, you just want it all to go away. You don't want to be killed or neccesarily kill some one else. Your hope is in frightening the opponent off with your volume of fire, the basic premise of the fire fight. The winner is the one putting forth the most fire power in the shortest amount of time to end the unpleasantries.
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman looked at this kind of thing in 'On Killing'. He would say that the men weren't trying to kill each other, but to frighten each other off.
I love your "loading my musket" gesture
@jedclampit True, but I was talking mainly about indoor fights, where the enemy is just a few strides away.
Secondly, yes. Although as you said in a comment they were often trained to fire and then charge, another reason for them not charging (other than your psycology theory, which I agree with), is that I think they had to be ordered to actually get stuck in. Hearing your Liutenant is going to be nearly impossible, particularly if you're indoors (more noise as you said AND you're more likely to be disordered).
Plus they make so much smoke that, as you mentioned you wouldn't see how many there are
As a American who has taken APUSH maybe I can help here. Americans did not win but made England give up. We used "caution and delay" and "hit and run" tactics to make redcoats chase them in the woods. The Americans would use small forces mostly but not always many large battles were still held. The war would have been lost if we battled the British and their Germans but if they could bug them until we got help from the French they might go home, which didn't happen until after the war of 1812.
@MatteV2 The Americans in particular would often load what they called "buck and ball", putting three pieces of buckshot in with the musket ball to increase the short-range effectiveness of the piece.
The man in the first rank may not now have a loaded musket, but the man behind him certainly will. Even skirmishers fight in pairs so that one can always be ready to fire. The same applies to field pieces. Bayonet charges are reserved for the point at which the cohesion of the opposing force is starting to crumble. Ideally, when the charge comes to be made, the receiving side will break and run with little use of the bayonet really being required.
I can’t get enough of this
@LutzDerLurch About chutting the eyes when fireing muskets I think you have a valid point about the psychological aspect. But also the fact that fragments of halfburnt powder or parts from the percussion-cap could end up in your eys and face when fireing must also have played a part.
@althesmith Agreed. Load, fire, hope, load, fire, hope...
@Gilmaris good point.
it does that too, but ive ben told thats also a semi badidea , well once you go beyond a certain point since naturally armour has its weak points and you can simply atttack around it.
your point is still fairly valid though.
Regarding the noise of firearms: I've only been to an indoor firing range once, and I had to wear ear plugs as well as the over ear hearing protection, and my adrelinine was still pumping. I was also in a garage where a .45 M1911 pistol was accidentally fired, and it must've taken 5-10 seconds of he and I standing there before we realized what even happened. I can't imagine what an actual flash/bang would do.