"New Perry 3 ups for Skirmishing infantry" Topic

Look very nice and it's not a period I game!

Beat Tango!

Did people seriously skirmish with fixed bayonets?

Yes. Yes they did. Soldiers were taught not only to maneuver and fence with them, but to load and fire in formation as well as while skirmishing.

The bayonet really adds so little weight and it really has a negligible effect on balance as well.

It's worth noting that the bayonet also angles off to one side slightly, and additionally, when in the loading position, the rifle is turned so that the barrel is facing away from the soldier, and thus places the bayonet on the soldier's right side, thus not interfering with loading.

There was a lot less use of bayonets in the actual ACW than there is in making Wargaming figures for the ACW.

Not quite sure what's "skirmishing" about the guy with his rifle on his right shoulder but some nice poses elsewhere.

Unfortunately I've already got plenty of their skirmishers from the metal range so probably not going to need these.

jowady wrote:

There was a lot less use of bayonets in the actual ACW than there is in making Wargaming figures for the ACW.

Factually incorrect. Bayonets were used extensively, as reported by the soldiers themselves. Historians and authors have sustained the myth of bayonets not being used through their own lack of research and intellectual laziness.

Here is a short article I wrote some years back on the subject:

The Bayonet

In American Civil War literature, no single item of equipment has had such a poor treatment as the bayonet. First appearing in the 17th century, the first known examples were said to have derived their name from the French Town of Bayonne, where it is alleged they were developed. Hard to say for certain.

What can be said for certain is that, by the time of the Civil War, the bayonet was still seen as an integral part of the Infantryman's kit, and many descriptions of both fact and fantasy were given of bayonet charges, coupled with cries of "Give ‘em the cold steel, boys!" by writers and politicians alike.

However, after the civil war, and interesting thing happened. Historians started to report that, despite all it's reputation, the bayonet was hardly used at all! How could this be? How could so many period letters and accounts be so wildly inaccurate?

The allegation of the rarely-used bayonet is a case of examining a fact out of context. The claim is based upon fact: The Surgeon General of the Army of the United States, in 1870, caused a series of books to be printed entitled: The medical and surgical history of the war of the rebellion, (1861-65) . These books, in several volumes, outlined all of the actions, capabilities, results, orders and letters of both armies during the course of the war. Among the many fascinating tidbits is a table of types of wounds treated in Federal Hospitals. Fewer than 1,000 bayonet wounds are listed.

Historians jumped upon this and began to proclaim that far, from being the decisive weapon, the instrument of close-order combat, the bayonet was by and large an impediment to the soldier, who had little use for it other than as a tool about camp or bivouac. Other writers, following the initial wave of books and articles, continued to report the same, and it has influenced many an arm chair general's discussions of ACW period combat.

Yet, there remains all those pesky letters, diaries, and other contemporary accounts, such as Jonathon Newcomb's letter regarding his unit (3rd Maine Infantry) and their actions during the 7-day's battles of 1862. Newcomb writes that the 3rd was posted in line of battle behind a rail fence, half-obscured with tall grass and ordered to lay prone. As the 8th & 11th Alabama approached, the 3rd Maine "Rose up and fired a volley, then pitched into them with bayonets and clubbed muskets and drove them back for nearly a mile".

The answer to the question is elegantly simple and involves the bayonet itself. The weapon was an 18" long steel triangular shape, with fluted blade which tapered into a solid triangle, attached to a socket via a curved steel shank. It was not sharpened, and was designed for thrusting and parrying. It's cross-section created a wound that would not close easily, and as a result, was normally fatal. Yes, fewer than 1,000 wounds from bayonets were treated at federal hospitals during the war. That is because most wounds were fatal, or were so slight that surgeons could deal with it and return the man to his unit without having to go to the hospital.

Litter bearers only picked up the wounded. Burial details only rarely remarked upon the nature of wounds. Thus, they were not included in the statistical abstracts put out by the Surgeon General's Office.

Bayonets were used, and often, with deadly effect. At times, the sight of a determined force advancing with fixed bayonets was enough to cause the other side to "skedaddle" before they came to close-quarters. However, the myth that bayonets were never actually used in combat should be put to rest alongside those of the "ragged reb" and the ‘well-fed yank" and others I will address in coming posts.

Hopefully, rules writers will continue to see the light and stop thinking that the melee and bayonet use were rarities during the course of the war.

Hmm…. the bugs seem to have set in. My last two comments don't seem to count with the post totals.

Never mind. NOW they show up. Sigh.

And yet we also have plenty of remarks from veterans that the bayonet was most useful as a candleholder. The bayonet was however still a psychological factor as the charge of the 20th ME showed, I actually doubt that many Alabamians were bayonetted however many surrendered and the rest ran when faced with the Charge (admittedly they were about as out of ammunition as the 20th ME as well as almost dying of thirst (the party sent to refill their canteens had been captured), they had made a forced march just to get to the battlefield, and Oates had them climb over Big Round Top. Those poor guys had already been through hell). But even then part of what induced the panic in the Confederate ranks the sudden appearance of Company "B" and the dozen or so Sharpshooters in their rear.

I have often seen the statement that there were so few bayonet wounds because the bayonet was so often fatal which begs the question, what made Civil War bayonets so much deadlier than those in pervious or later wars? Civil War combat generally didn't come to hand to hand fighting. Generally one side or the other would break first and fall back. If we look at accounts where it did, for example around the Angle at Gettysburg the clubbed musket is mentioned much more often than the bayonet.

The Peach Orchard saw severe hand-to-hand combat on the afternoon of 2 July at Gettysburg. The same thing happened right along the Emmitsburg Road.

The Confederates in Pitzers Woods also charged the 1st USSS and 3rd Maine with bayonets and came to blows there too.

That whole "candlesticks" and cooking irons bit doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as the candle drippings would get all over the socket, and heat from theg campfire would help to undo the temper of the metal in the blade. It's more likely that if soldiers were actually using bayonets in this manner, that they were ones picked up off the field that very day. The solder wouldn't risk using his own bayonet in such a manner, and he certainly wouldn't be carrying an extra one around. Anyone whose done any sort of campaigning in that period with authentic clothing and gear can back me up when I say that every ounce starts to weigh heavy after the first five miles. After 10,you start to pare down and lose a lot of what you thought was important.

Wilbur Fisk, 3rd Vermont, talks exactly about this as well in his memoir "Hard Marching Every Day". Rice Bull, 123rd NY, also echoes Fisk's sentiments in his book "Soldiering".

Even at the end, at both Saylor's Creek near Appomattox,and Bentonville, in NC,troops closed with the bayonet. The 5th NH closed and used the bayonet as they overran part of the confederate position at Saylors Creek.

I stand by my research that bayonets were used, often, and with deadly effect. That the myth of them being useless continues is a result of poor research and lazy authors.

V/R

Just glancing through, I initially thought one of the figures on the left had a bandaged head. Actually, it's part of his kepi. It raises the question, would troops return to the firing line after being wounded and bandaged?

As for the figures, I'm thinking "Christmas List," at least I hope!

Grelber

bc1745, you did post first and yet he posted the same thing the next day and when I pointed it out I am being attacked by people for just pointing out that you beat him to the punch.

Did people seriously skirmish with fixed bayonets?

All the time; it was even SOP in some of the manuals, IIRC.

-Will

If you don't wont your figure with bayonets you con just cut them off.