Did booze or drugs play a significant part in a major battle?

AJ,

Did my answer (#23) to your question about Missionary Ridge satisfy you?

Moderator AJ suggested I post my thoughts about Buel and Rosecrans. I have essays or rather mini-hompages about them (and Thomas, Hooker, Anderson, and Bragg) on my website. They are short, but too long to post here. The formula is the same: www.aotc.net/Buel_home.htm . Just change the name.

LOL, you'd be amazed what a surgeon can do with a #11 blade.

Mac, I love your point. I have an accurate replica of an 1861 Springfield I use for hunting. I have to think, using it as a club would be devastating. Think of what would happen if Big Papi hit you in the head with a 33 ounce Louisville Slugger at full swing! Then extrapolate that to a nine pound musket. In thinking of it, I'm surprised at how many references there are to close-in combat involving clubbed muskets.

To macreverie,

True a rifle used as a club would be an instant incapacitation... if you landed the hit. It does require more of a wind up than a bayonet stab and therefore could give your opponent a chance to see it coming/dodge the blow. Now think if you are in a somewhat thick melee or fighting in a dense forest, you lose the ability to wind your rifle back. If you're not careful with the back swing, you oculd kill your own man or destroy your rifle on a tree. In these instanes I would say the bayonet is more practical due to the ease of wielding. Also, I have read many accounts where soldiers used their rifle as a club, but at the expense of their rifle. The stock simply shattered on imapact. That's another interesting factor. You could wind up making your rifle a "one hit wonder" . My final conclusion would be that they used it all. I think they used whatever was best in any given situation, or at the very least, what they felt was best. Whether that be a rifle, bayonet, knife, rock, or fist, they used them.

Although originally, I didn't think the question was whether or not the club or bayonet was a better weapon. The question was whether or not the bayonet was obsolete. I would have to say it was not, given its extremely wide use(with great effect) in the Civil War. Also, my grandpa that fought in World War II defended against several enemy bayonet charges and participated in them himself. So I would have to say that if both sides were still using bayonet charges in World War II, they had to accomplish something.

To Ajhall,

I think that's a shame. I think every soldier should be trained with the bayonet. Hand to hand combat is ALWAYS a possibility, no matter how good our weapons are. I think that if it comes down to it, not training with the bayonet could get some of our soldiers killed. But we all know that the U.S. Army knows best in its infinite wisdom... right?

Buell, not Buel

1srTexReb wrote: My final conclusion would be that they used it all. I think they used whatever was best in any given situation, or at the very least, what they felt was best. Whether that be a rifle, bayonet, knife, rock, or fist, they used them.

That's in a nutshell. There likely wasn't much of a logical thought process in the heat and madness of close in combat; it was all instinct.

I don't know that I have much of an opinion on bayonet usage today one way or the other. In the CW, when dealing with a single shot muzzleloader in melee conditions, it makes perfect sense. In WWI when there was a large swatch of No-Man's-Land to cross under machine gun fire, a bayonet wouldn't be much use. In WWII, especially in the Pacific, where combat was often at very close quarter, especially in jungle conditions, it also made sense. Today? Given the "asymmetric" nature of combat, maybe it is a bit risky to take a close weapon away.

I do know that in my time as a corpsman with the Marines (early 80s), most of the grunts didn't think it was of much use, but they were trained primarily for a different type of warfare back then.

I guess my opinion would be it is ok to discontinue training with the bayonet. However, they should train with combat knives at the very least. I can see the impracticality of the bayonet on a modern rifle, because unless you are empty, you could shoot the man instead of ram a bayonet into him. Although I do recall my grandfather telling me he told his men to always leave a round or two in their magazine to dislodge the bodies when the bayonet got stuck in their rib cages!

However as I said, they need to be trained in some sort of hand to hand combat, especially in today's urban environment. Guns get knocked out of hands and all sorts of things happen in the close confines of structures.

No self-respecting Marine would be caught dead (forgive the pun) without his K-Bar in combat.

BTW, Abner Small goes into some detail about the process of recruiting and raising a company/regiment in "Road to Richmond"