Hand-to-hand combat casualties

[TheKenoshaKid]

I was just noticing that, whenever a civil war battle is portrayed in a movie, the up-close fighting seems to be much more deadly than the rest of the fighting. Mostly cause of the constant bayonet stabbings to the gut.

But is this really accurate? Isn't it commonly known now that bayonet wounds were actually very rare? I could see officers with pistols being a real threat, but theres only so many of them. Even if a private enters the fight with his musket perfectly ready, he has one chance before hes essentially unarmed. are these movies just embellishing a bit?

My vision is a lot of shoving, broken bones, bruises and such. Plenty of prisoners taken of course, but I'm guessing a movie director would rather focus on each and every awful bayonet stabbing they can. Am I wrong in assuming that melee combat is generally exaggerated in media, in terms of killed/wounded ratio?

 

[JeffBrooks]

Well, the idea that bayonet wounds were very rare is based on hospital numbers. There were very, very few men admitted to hospitals with bayonet wounds compared to the number admitted for gunshot wounds or wounds caused by artillery fragments. However, if a guy is run through with a bayonet, chances are he's very, very dead and dead men are obviously not going to be brought to hospitals. So I count myself among those who believe that hand-to-hand melees were rather more common in the Civil War than the conventional wisdom suggests.

 

[rpkennedy]

Killing a man by sticking a knife in him is hard for a professional soldier, much less a citizen soldier and so most melee combat consisted of bashing one another with the butts of their rifles or fist-fighting. After firing the round in their weapons, of course.

R

 

[Tennessee_Mountainman]

I saw another post where someone was talking about this, and most of the time they would use their rifle butts. He also added in an interesting video. Hopefully this video is of some value to you:

 

[redbob]

Statistics from the Union Army showed that only .4% of wounds was caused by swords or bayonets and it is reasonable to feel that the number would be comparable for the Confederate Army. But, as Jeff Brooks says: Dead men tell no tales.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Below is my current breakdown of casualties at Gettysburg listed by type, counting only individuals who have been identified by name and unit:

Gunshot: 1,565 (70.0 %)
Artillery: 624 (27.9 %)
Injury by a horse (thrown, fall, kick, runaway, etc.): 8 (0.4 %)
Sabre: 7 (0.3 %)
Bayonet: 5 (0.2 %)
Clubbed musket or butt of musket: 4 (less than 0.2 %)
Other: 24 (1.1 %)

Total: 2,237

 

[Burning Billy]

Jeff Brooks raises a good point.

Hospital statistics are a poor way to gauge the frequency of hand-to-hand combat, as most people who don't retreat in the face of a charge and end up skewered by a bayonet or brained with a musket stock, are not going to be among the wounded. There were probably more casualties from hand to hand combat than hospital records suggest, regardless of whether you're looking at the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, or the American Civil War.

That said it was still likely dwarfed by casualties from musket or rifle fire and artillery.

 

[alan polk]

My opinion: a farm boy from Iowa, raised in the "Christian tradition" is less likely to stab an opponent at close range any more than an Alabama fellow, raised the same way, would stab a fellow from Iowa at close range.

I really don't think this sort of combat occurred unless it was a do-or-die situation. I could be wrong though.

I really suspect that the "type" of combat occurring between Americans in the ACW was a bit different than, say, the close combat between Americans and the Japanese at places like Iwo Jima, Guada Canal, or other fierce and hate-fuelled violence that occurred in that particular war.
But that's just an ignorant opinion backed up by nothing. It's an opinion, nonetheless.

 

[Legion Para]

QUOTE="alan polk, post: 1384940, member: 6714"]My opinion: a farm boy from Iowa, raised in the "Christian tradition" is less likely to stab an opponent at close range any more than an Alabama fellow, raised the same way, would stab a fellow from Iowa at close range.

I really don't think this sort of combat occurred unless it was a do-or-die situation. I could be wrong though.

I really suspect that the "type" of combat occurring between Americans in the ACW was a bit different than, say, the close combat between Americans and the Japanese at places like Iwo Jima, Guada Canal, or other fierce and hate-fuelled violence that occurred in that particular war.
But that's just an ignorant opinion backed up by nothing. It's an opinion, nonetheless.[/QUOTE][/MEDIA]


Hand to Hand Combat did take place during the Civil War and the following thread mentions some of the better known instances.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/best-examples-of-hand-to-hand-combat.91718/page-2

 

[huskerblitz]

I have read a similar understanding that Jeff Brooks mentions in that if a soldier is killed a record of his wounds may not be noted, especially if the body is only buried. Thus, the number of stab wounds may never be truly known. But I also agree with the notion the number of total stab wounds would still be quite small compared to rifle and artillery.

 

[alan polk]

QUOTE="alan polk, post: 1384940, member: 6714"]My opinion: a farm boy from Iowa, raised in the "Christian tradition" is less likely to stab an opponent at close range any more than an Alabama fellow, raised the same way, would stab a fellow from Iowa at close range.

I really don't think this sort of combat occurred unless it was a do-or-die situation. I could be wrong though.

I really suspect that the "type" of combat occurring between Americans in the ACW was a bit different than, say, the close combat between Americans and the Japanese at places like Iwo Jima, Guada Canal, or other fierce and hate-fuelled violence that occurred in that particular war.
But that's just an ignorant opinion backed up by nothing. It's an opinion, nonetheless.

[/MEDIA]


I did not say that it did NOT happen.

 

[AUG]

It depends on the circumstances, some battles tended to produce more hand-to-hand combat than others. I imagine that the fight for the Bloody Angle at Spotsylvania on May 12 that went on throughout most of the day caused a significant number of melee wounds. The Crater at Petersburg as well, when Mahone's troops made their counter-attack, collided with the Federal troops stuck in and around the Crater, pushing them out in mostly close quarters fighting. Many participants spoke of how the bayonet and clubbed musket were freely used in those engagements.

I think the more fluid battles tended to see far less, however. If two lines of battle got too close (even though the fighting was often done at 100 yards or less) then one line would break and run or gradually fall back fighting before they collided. If two lines did meet it never lasted for long in the open before one side would break. However, entrenchments worked as a morale support and enabled the defenders to stand and hold their ground for much longer. This is seen at Spostylvania, Franklin, Rowett's Redoubt at Allatoona Pass, Dead Angle at Kennesaw Mt., etc. In all cases both sides were fighting right across the works, often hand-to-hand, but the thin line of defenders held on for much longer than they would have without entrenchments. That led to prolonged close quarters combat and probably a larger number of melee wounds.

However, one exception of a fluid, open battle that did see a lot of hand-to-hand combat was Glendale/Frayser's Farm in the fights over Randol's and Cooper's Batteries. See my thread here. Micah Jenkins' South Carolinians and Wilcox's Alabamians slugged it out with the Pennsylvania Reserves over the guns. They changed hands multiple times, with attacks and counter-attacks. Some participants were bayoneted multiple times and officers fought with their swords - all over open ground.

 

[Scotsman]

Well, the idea that bayonet wounds were very rare is based on hospital numbers. There were very, very few men admitted to hospitals with bayonet wounds compared to the number admitted for gunshot wounds or wounds caused by artillery fragments. However, if a guy is run through with a bayonet, chances are he's very, very dead and dead men are obviously not going to be brought to hospitals. So I count myself among those who believe that hand-to-hand melees were rather more common in the Civil War than the conventional wisdom suggests.

I have heard people say this before (that bayonets were more lethal), but what is the evidence behind this? Why would a bayonet be more lethal than a lead slug tearing a half-inch hole through a body?

I think it is possible that men bayoneted may have died at a statistically higher rate than gunshot victims due to the circumstances of combat--in that, once close enough to be bayoneted once he is close enough to be bayoneted repeatedly until dead. Perhaps there was a higher lethality due to number of wounds.

Nonetheless, bayonet wounds were comparatively rare. I believe this is likely due to most hand-to-hand engagements being brief before one side fell back.

 

[Burning Billy]

I think it is range that is the issue. It isn't so much that bayonets are deadlier, but rather someone who uses a bayonet on another soldier is practically eyeball-to-eyeball with him. It is reasonable to assume that at that close proximity he's a lot less likely to miss hitting center mass or inflicting a non-lethal wound than a soldier with a musket firing at someone a hundred yards out, hidden behind smoke and maybe fortifications.

I'd be very surprised if bitterly contested hand-to-hand actions (which are admittedly rare) didn't result in more killed than wounded, while the reverse would likely be true before the two formations closed.

 

[Scotsman]

I think it is range that is the issue. It isn't so much that bayonets are deadlier, but rather someone who uses a bayonet on another soldier is practically eyeball-to-eyeball with him. It is reasonable to assume that at that close proximity he's a lot less likely to miss hitting center mass or inflicting a non-lethal wound than a soldier with a musket firing at someone a hundred yards out, hidden behind smoke and maybe fortifications.

I'd be very surprised if bitterly contested hand-to-hand actions (which are admittedly rare) didn't result in more killed than wounded, while the reverse would likely be true before the two formations closed.

I agree that range was a factor, but I do not believe it was easier to hit center mass even that close. People engaged in close quarter combat do not tend to stand still. A bayonet thrust against an unwounded opponent would more likely hit an arm, or leg, or one other object (the opponent's musket, cartridge box, etc.), or cause a non-lethal wound to the edges of the torso, than strike a crucial organ at one try.

Once wounded, an opponent may be more easily dispatched with a bayonet thrust. But we would expect there to be evidence of non-lethal bayonet wounds if the weapon was used frequently.

Range comes into play with the increased likelihood of combatants having opportunity to inflict numerous bayonet wounds upon an enemy at close range, while a soldier wounded by a bullet from a distance had a greater chance of being removed from the field by his comrades (or under his own power) before being struck again.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Hand to hand combat with clubbed musket or bayonet is extremely lethal. Most combat was decided before that point. Civil War units engaged in ferocious firefights at close range, 30-50 yards, after which one side or the other broke and retreated. H2H is extremely disruptive to both sides; it's hard to get your troops untangled from the enemy when they're committed that decisively. Yes, the cruciform bayonet is a potent killer, essentially like driving a 14" nail through your opponent. (Remember that in case of zombie apocalypse. )

 

[jackt62]

I guess the movies tend to emphasize hand to hand combat because of its cinematic value. Even then, there is still a difference between a bayonet charge, which I've always understood to be a rarity in CW conflict, and more frequent hand to hand combat, which involves clubbing, shooting, and all other types of mayhem.

 

[7thWisconsin]

A bayonet charge may not end in h2h combat. The enemy could retire or break before impact of the two lines. H2h has obvious cinematic value, but then again, if you're recreating an action like Confederate infantry piercing the Federal center at Gettysburg, there's going to be a brief and violent h2h depiction.

 

[Legion Para]

 

[rpkennedy]

A bayonet charge may not end in h2h combat. The enemy could retire or break before impact of the two lines. H2h has obvious cinematic value, but then again, if you're recreating an action like Confederate infantry piercing the Federal center at Gettysburg, there's going to be a brief and violent h2h depiction.

I would hope that they would depict a hand-to-hand action since that's what happened.

R