Grenade throw from/to windows

[AslakH]

From everything I've read, hand-to-hand combat wasn't all that rare on the Ostfront.

Often a few guys got into the trenches and had to be fought hand-to-hand.

In the book "De som falt" there are many, many accounts of people getting killed by shovels, bayonettes and just smashed to death. And that book only lists Norwegian and Swedish voulenteers.

[Broken]

Bayonet charges were more psychological than anything else. In these charges people usually died from bullets, not manly good-for-tv melee combat. :cool:

I'll leave everyone here with one thought: in the American Civil War, bayonets accounted with less than 1% of casualties. Similar rates can be found for World War 1, the Sino-Russian War, etc.

Indeed. However, bayonets were very useful for keeping the cavalry at bay during the era when cavalry was a decisive arm. Cavalry, of course, was primarily armed with melee weapons.

In that era, many infantry-on-infantry bayonet charges were conducted. Only a small fraction of them resulted in actual contact. The usual result was one side or the other broke and ran.

One exception to the rule was Borodino, where many melee combats between infantry transpired. Of course, when your musket has expended it's one shot, your bayonet or rifle butt is all you have left.

The US Marines still train with Pugil sticks, a surrogate form of bayonet training. This is done to instill psychological hardening, not in anticipation of actual bayonet fighting.

[noxnoctum]

I'm fairly sure I read of some Russian assault units in Stalingrad being issued only shovels and grenades... that should tell you something.

If I was in a small room with a bolt action rifle facing another guy with a bolt action rifle and we both had fired our round in the chamber I definitely wouldn't try to work the bolt again if I was within 10 feet of him. I'd rush him and bash his head in.

[sburke]

I'm fairly sure I read of some Russian assault units in Stalingrad being issued only shovels and grenades... that should tell you something.

If I was in a small room with a bolt action rifle facing another guy with a bolt action rifle and we both had fired our round in the chamber I definitely wouldn't try to work the bolt again if I was within 10 feet of him. I'd rush him and bash his head in.

I think that had more to do with throwing manpower as fast as possible at the Germans. The intent was that when the guy next to you with the rifle died, you were supposed to pick up his. You could leave his shovel for someone else who didn't even get that. :-P

[toxic.zen]

I recall a memorable moment in a CMAK game. My infantry unit was captured by a nearby halftrack and had there guns removed... I managed to destroy the halftrack by a far off antitank gunshot, the halftrack crew abandoned the halftrack, and were then assaulted by my infantry in hand to hand combat, my infantry won and I later rescued them. I assume if this happened in CM:BN my infantry would just be gunned down by the halftrack crew?

[SNAFU]

I think that had more to do with throwing manpower as fast as possible at the Germans. The intent was that when the guy next to you with the rifle died, you were supposed to pick up his. You could leave his shovel for someone else who didn't even get that. :-P

Let's not ignore the fact that there were good jobs for a man in Stalingrad at that time.

[Blackcat]

I assume if this happened in CM:BN my infantry would just be gunned down by the halftrack crew?

You would assume wrong, Mr. Zen. The behaviour involved in surrendering was the subject of much discussion earlier this year. Having seen it in operation at the Liverpool Preview, it works pretty damn well and much better than in CMx1.

[Nidan1]

I'll leave everyone here with one thought: in the American Civil War, bayonets accounted with less than 1% of casualties. Similar rates can be found for World War 1, the Sino-Russian War, etc.

1% of approximately 200,000 battle deaths in the US Civil War is still a fairly large sum.

Those 2,000 soldiers who were either killed outright by bayonets or who died later on from the wounds would probably take umbrage with your minimization of the deadliness of bayonets.

[ChrisND]

Those 2,000 soldiers who were either killed outright by bayonets or who died later on from the wounds would probably take umbrage with your minimization of the deadliness of bayonets.

I'm honestly unsure of what you mean by this statement. Am I somehow disrespecting these people by not fearing the bayonet as a deadly weapon?

[ChrisND]

Indeed. However, bayonets were very useful for keeping the cavalry at bay during the era when cavalry was a decisive arm. Cavalry, of course, was primarily armed with melee weapons.

In that era, many infantry-on-infantry bayonet charges were conducted. Only a small fraction of them resulted in actual contact. The usual result was one side or the other broke and ran.

One exception to the rule was Borodino, where many melee combats between infantry transpired. Of course, when your musket has expended it's one shot, your bayonet or rifle butt is all you have left.

For sure, as you go back in time and firearms technology is less advanced the proportion of casualties from sharp weapons would increase dramatically. By the time you get to the Civil War's technology though, with faster firing weapons, they've become primarily psychological. With notable exceptions, as I'm sure people will trot out like it proves the rule or something...

[Nidan1]

I'm honestly unsure of what you mean by this statement. Am I somehow disrespecting these people by not fearing the bayonet as a deadly weapon?

Not at all. I was just trying to illustrate how numbers and percentages can be sometimes misleading.

[noxnoctum]

Well keep in mind the vast majority of civil war deaths were due to disease too...

So 1% for the bayonet out of all civil war casualties ain't bad.

[YankeeDog]

Well keep in mind the vast majority of civil war deaths were due to disease too...

So 1% for the bayonet out of all civil war casualties ain't bad.

Note he said "Battle Deaths", not casualties in general.

Any way you slice it, battlefield casualties to stabbing, slicing, or melee blunt force injuries haven't been the dominant cause of casualties since the early 17th century, and they're nothing more than a footnote in 20th century warfare.

I don't dispute, however, that there is probably a psychological effect to having something sharp and pointy at the end of your bang stick that makes it mentally easier to charge at another human who is trying to kill you. This effect is especially important for the non-professional soldier (which the vast majority of WWII infantrymen were).

Popular history books tend to give a misimpression of just how common bayonet charges and other hand-to-hand combat were, precisely because they're thrilling and make for exciting reading. And when they did happen, the result was probably usually one of two outcomes: (a) If the enemy was not already well suppressed and demoralized, total failure, with the charging force going to ground and/or retreating with heavy losses, or ( if the enemy was already suppressed and demoralized, success, but probably very few actual bayonet skewerings, with most of the enemy either throwing their hands up, or running away in front of the charge.

But it did happen just often enough that I think the game needs to take it into account in some way. I see this being of a similar level of importance to infantry being able to take out a tank with only hand grenades (which is definitely in the game. Rarely happened, but not impossible. And it's important that these are in the game in some way, because if it's not, there might be some very strange results in certain situations.

In the case of tanks vs. hand grenades, if "plain" infantry doesn't have at least some chance of close assaulting a tank, then tanks can run through infantry with impunity, something that they certainly did not do in real life. Similarly, if infantry has absolutely no hand-to-hand combat ability (however abstract), then I could see getting very weird results in some situations, such as when an ammo-depleted, but good order infantry unit stumbles upon a significantly smaller enemy unit.

[LukeFF]

I don't dispute, however, that there is probably a psychological effect to having something sharp and pointy at the end of your bang stick that makes it mentally easier to charge at another human who is trying to kill you. This effect is especially important for the non-professional soldier (which the vast majority of WWII infantrymen were).

No doubt about that:

Many of the militiamen turned and fled but the close-quarters fighting left around 20 rebels dead.

Thirty-five of Shia Moslem cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's followers died and two British troops were injured during the three-hour battle.

A senior Argylls officer said last night: 'After a fierce fight and with small amounts of ammo left, they put in a conventional left-flanking attack.

'With bayonets attached, they finished off the enemy who had not run off.'

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14911

Never underestimate a Scotsman running at you with a sharp object.

[Michael Emrys]

Right, so instead they lock themselves in manly melee combat till one of them kills the other with their bare hands. :eyeroll: I'm not buying that most people would be up to that.

If this were about bare hands, I'd agree with you. That would be so rare as to be negligible. But rifle butts, shovels, knives, or any solid object that was handy all came into play. Not that every close encounter ended that way, or even a majority of them. But it did happen now and then.

Michael

[Magpie_Oz]

Right, so instead they lock themselves in manly melee combat till one of them kills the other with their bare hands. :eyeroll: I'm not buying that most people would be up to that.

Well yes you said, you would hold him down until you buddy shot him, so what is the other guy going to to if you turn and run ? Shoot you I expect.

I also think it unlikely that the other bloke is going to lie there and let you buddy shoot him so I expect "manly melee combat" is the most likely result.

No one is up for that which is why they avoid it like herpes.

But when it does happen you have to be the baddest if you want to stay alive and hanging about for some one else to shoot him/you/what ever happens to be in the way when the trigger is pulled or running away ain't going to cut it.