Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

No I didn't. I said




That is a huge simplification between west and east, also plenty of European aristocracy keen on displaying dash and elan in cavalry formations waving sabres and lances about. As well eastern nobles using guns.





Again that's a simplification, where and when in 'the east'? Not every battle or campaign in the east was fought in a giant steppe. If by your argument cavalry dominated so fully in 'the east', why did they ever field infantry formations?




Again making assumptions about neglectfully trained natives is well an assumption. Can you please support your assertion that western armies defeated eastern ones with bayonet charge?

In Eurasia East of the Holy Roman Empire the spaces involved required a need for strategic mobility that was not present in the comparatively cramped cul-de-sacs of Europe. The Manchus, the Persians, and some Indians fielded efficient armies based primarily on cavalry. The main advantage of European style infantry was that despite it's difficulty on wide spaces it was able to take defensive formations that were immune to cavalry attack. In that sense the bayonet was reliably decisive and not in any other though in fact it was common enough to use it simply as an attempt to establish frightfulness, which was a continuation of the European usage. Infantry however except in a few cases such as imitators of Europeans like the Sikhs, or nations with a native infantry tradition like the Turks, seem to have been mainly gathered for the vanity of the prince who assembled them and would have been better out of the way. More efficient Asian armies like the Maratha often relied little on infantry.

And it is not to much of a simplification. While it is true that European cavalry was disproportionately aristocracized, the general policy was to use nobles as officers whether of horse or foot. Asian horsemen were often still "knightly". This was notable during the Mutiny when English commented on how sharp tulwars were; because the users in fact were people who had been taught to go out of their way to keep them sharp and not because there was anything special about tulwars to make them better then sabers.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In Eurasia East of the Holy Roman Empire the spaces involved required a need for strategic mobility that was not present in the comparatively cramped cul-de-sacs of Europe.

This is true, and while lots of cavalry (or rather a high proportion of it) helps you get around large campaign areas. But it doesn't necessarily follow that infantry was neglected on battlefields, unless you have a battle doctrine that removes the need for them or compensates for their lack.

Even than just having an army made predominately out of cavalry doesn't automatically mean you are faster at moving about than a mixed force. Cavalry itself can require a large support network to function limiting movement, different cavalry unit travel overland at different speeds. Now obviously some cavalry armies are better at this than other. The Mongols* famously moved from A to B quickly (also being really good at not getting lost between them so reliably arriving at B when they were supposed to). But the Mongols were not every cavalry based army.

*there are some other example but the mongols are like the ur example of this.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The Manchus, the Persians, and some Indians fielded efficient armies based primarily on cavalry.

The Manchu and Persians used both cavalry and infantry extensively, now ok maybe there were occasion some cavalry only forces fielded by these two areas with a very long history of fielding forces but that's not really supporting the basic point. Which armies are you discussing, when, and more important why was each one fielded as the specific context will be key.

'Some Indians', again India is a big place in terms of both area, military context and history. Plenty of infantry in there.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The main advantage of European style infantry was that despite it's difficulty on wide spaces it was able to take defensive formations that were immune to cavalry attack.

Seems that that would be quite useful whether your in France or Bengal. I mean I agree with this, but it directly negates your point about cavalry being pre-eminent (anywhere), because cavalry and infantry are barring extreme cases part of a combined arms doctrine.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In that sense the bayonet was reliably decisive and not in any other though in fact it was common enough to use it simply as an attempt to establish frightfulness, which was a continuation of the European usage.

Again there is psychological aspect to forest of sharp points, yes, but there's also a practical killing people aspect of it (which partly drives the psychology). This is true for most arms. The psychological impact of incoming volley fire was also a factor, but there's also the large number of bullets firing at you as well!

Now don't get me wrong some weapon are more rely more heavily on their psychological impact, but they tend to be very specific in both effect or context.

E.g Horses don't like camalry.

Very early guns and rockets scared horses (and men) without necessarily being that efficient in terms of actually killing them.

Although with both, experience with them began to negate this.

Either way some of these points were brought up in the rest of my post, including the text that followed "no I didn't. I said"....

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Infantry however except in a few cases such as imitators of Europeans like the Sikhs,

You think the Sikhs or before that the Punjab as a whole (a group with a very long military history and martial tradition), suddenly thought of dismounting when the Europeans turned up?!

Yes they reorganised under European lines in the C18th & C19th but that doesn't mean that infantry was unheard of before that.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

or nations with a native infantry tradition like the Turks,

The Turks while an ex-steppe nomad society used both cavalry and infantry (like most did).

Originally Posted by jason taylor

seem to have been mainly gathered for the vanity of the prince who assembled them and would have been better out of the way.

can you support that rather wide range claim, dont get me wrong well dressed but poorly trained vanity regiments are most definitely a thing, but they were neither isolated in Aisa or the infantry!

Originally Posted by jason taylor

More efficient Asian armies like the Maratha often relied little on infantry.

The Maratha where certainly keen on light horse, but they also where keen on first hiring and then developing their own artillery and musket formations. They certainly had infantry of other types as well.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

And it is not to much of a simplification. While it is true that European cavalry was disproportionately aristocracized, the general policy was to use nobles as officers whether of horse or foot.

True, but that was also true in Asia as well, nobles tended to lead whether on horse or foot. I'll agree that as modernisation kicks in it probably the cavalry that holds out longest in terms of nobility buying commissions, but that's likely true everywhere. There's also the issue that cavalry are expensive to form and run (horses are expensive beasts to buy and manage). So that takes initial money and continued sponsorship, and well when you've got someone to pay for the horses and uniforms it hard to say no to putting them or their son's at the front!

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Asian horsemen were often still "knightly". This was notable during the Mutiny when English commented on how sharp tulwars were; because the users in fact were people who had been taught to go out of their way to keep them sharp and not because there was anything special about tulwars to make them better then sabers.

I'm not sure how your story about sharpening tulwars, or tulwars vs. sabres in general* has anything to do with your point about Asian horsemen being 'knightly', or the inference that European cavalry wasn't or more importantly what that may or may not say about infantry in either European or Asian armies?

Anyway interesting subject

cheers

TD




*and that can involve a lot things that all go towards someone saying, "my that's sharp"

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Rupert

The primary advantage of the musket + bayonet over groups of infantry using a mixture of weapons is that it gives everyone a musket and an adequate spear, rather than one or the other. More firepower without losing the pike wall. Ease of supply and training is nice too, but more firepower without losing the ability to stand to cavalry and shock infantry charges is the big advance the bayonet enables.

Yep exactly. Obviously it's not as good a spear as a pike, but a pike makes a much worse gun for all those times you need a gun. At this time volume for fire was a key part of effective fire.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Plane

Regarding the avoidance of accidental discharges from impacts (hitting or parrying using your gun) or preventing an enemy from being able to quickly fire your weapon if he is able to grapple the handle/trigger (which you risk by gripping the barrel and using it like a mace)

Page 8 of Tactical Shooting (visible on page 4 of http://www.warehouse23.com/media/SJG37-0134_preview.pdf) mentions that safety can be thumbed off (going from Condition One: Cocked and Locked to Condition Zero: Cocked and Unlocked) using a Ready maneuver. Would it be reasonable to think the inverse: that it would also take a Ready maneuver to thumb the safety back on (going from Condition 0 to Condition 1) ?

It also mentions "Lightning Fingers" (page 39 of Tactical Shooting) or "familiar users" (page 80 of High Tech) can thumb off the safety as a free action. Would either of these allow re-safetying (thumbing on) weapons as a free action too, or should this always cost a Ready?

Sounds fine to me. if this was actually happening in close combat range I'd likely require a DX roll (or maybe a firearm skill roll) to do it though on top of the fast draw roll or free action. Or maybe just a penalty to the fast draw roll if there was one to cut down on dice rolling.

HTpg80 specifically states familiarity allows either taking the safety off or putting it on as a free action (just not both in the same turn)

Originally Posted by Plane

If someone is allowed to do either a free action, would they be limited to 1 free action per turn? I'm imagining using All-Out Attack (Double) with Rapid-Strike (getting 3 attacks) and all in 1 turn unsafetying a weapon, firing a shot, resafetying it, pistol-whipping someone (hammer fist with a fist load), unsafetying the weapon a 2nd time, firing a 2nd shot, then re-safetying the weapon a 2nd time (4 free actions in 1 second) and it sounds like it should be hard to do.

I agree that seems unlikely, I would go with either:

1). you only get one fast draw attempt per weapon as a free action per turn

or

2). Multiple fast draw skill based free actions attempts come with penalties based on the number of them applied to all of them (similar to rapid strike penalties). The penalty per attempted fast draw can be whatever you like. However as above if you getting a free safety on or safety off action due to familiarly than you don't need to worry devoting a fast draw roll to that. Similarly if you have lighting fingers that would also replace a fast draw use.

So for example someone with familiar gun and lightning fingers perk for that gun could get a free safety on/off at the beginning due to familiarity, and then another safety off/on latter based on skill from lighting fingers. All without having to use fast draw. if they wanted to then cram in more safety on/off ready actions brought down to free actions with fast draw skill use, the above would kick in.

On top of this depending on how you were using your gun to club people that itself might require a grip change action. Probably not for a fistload/hammerfist with a pistol*. But probably would for a rifle!

But as evileeyore says it depends on the game you are running. Even forgetting the readying actions that's three rapid attacks at -12 on each, so it's already a rather unlikely choice for non cinematic combatants anyway!

But as a general rule I dislike "no you can't" and prefer "yes you can...at a penalty"


* Although if you were previously shooting two handed I might penalise the following strike if you didn't swap your grip to one handed one, but it would depend on the situation

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Bayonets stayed around because they were small and there was never any particular reason to get rid of them especially as it is even more useful to simply convert them into field knives that happen to be able to mate with a bayonet mount as a secondary feature that is miniscule rather then just small.

Not to mention that the mounting lug on the bayonet can add functionality to the knife, such as being a hand-guard, attachment point for a rope or pole, or a candle holder.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I'd use the stats of a small round mace if someone was serious about this - it's the same weight, and does the same damage, so using the rest of the stats seems fair.

Some 16th-18th c. cavalry pistols were designed to be used in this fashion since there wouldn't be much time to reload in a cavalry melee. Shoot once, spend a second reversing your grip and you've got a functional melee weapon for when your saber or lance isn't handy.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

This is true, and while lots of cavalry (or rather a high proportion of it) helps you get around large campaign areas. But it doesn't necessarily follow that infantry was neglected on battlefields, unless you have a battle doctrine that removes the need for them or compensates for their lack.

Even than just having an army made predominately out of cavalry doesn't automatically mean you are faster at moving about than a mixed force. Cavalry itself can require a large support network to function limiting movement, different cavalry unit travel overland at different speeds. Now obviously some cavalry armies are better at this than other. The Mongols* famously moved from A to B quickly (also being really good at not getting lost between them so reliably arriving at B when they were supposed to). But the Mongols were not every cavalry based army.

*there are some other example but the mongols are like the ur example of this.




The Manchu and Persians used both cavalry and infantry extensively, now ok maybe there were occasion some cavalry only forces fielded by these two areas with a very long history of fielding forces but that's not really supporting the basic point. Which armies are you discussing, when, and more important why was each one fielded as the specific context will be key.

'Some Indians', again India is a big place in terms of both area, military context and history. Plenty of infantry in there.





Seems that that would be quite useful whether your in France or Bengal. I mean I agree with this, but it directly negates your point about cavalry being pre-eminent (anywhere), because cavalry and infantry are barring extreme cases part of a combined arms doctrine.




Again there is psychological aspect to forest of sharp points, yes, but there's also a practical killing people aspect of it (which partly drives the psychology). This is true for most arms. The psychological impact of incoming volley fire was also a factor, but there's also the large number of bullets firing at you as well!

Now don't get me wrong some weapon are more rely more heavily on their psychological impact, but they tend to be very specific in both effect or context.

E.g Horses don't like camalry.

Very early guns and rockets scared horses (and men) without necessarily being that efficient in terms of actually killing them.

Although with both, experience with them began to negate this.

Either way some of these points were brought up in the rest of my post, including the text that followed "no I didn't. I said"....



You think the Sikhs or before that the Punjab as a whole (a group with a very long military history and martial tradition), suddenly thought of dismounting when the Europeans turned up?!

Yes they reorganised under European lines in the C18th & C19th but that doesn't mean that infantry was unheard of before that.




The Turks while an ex-steppe nomad society used both cavalry and infantry (like most did).



can you support that rather wide range claim, dont get me wrong well dressed but poorly trained vanity regiments are most definitely a thing, but they were neither isolated in Aisa or the infantry!



The Maratha where certainly keen on light horse, but they also where keen on first hiring and then developing their own artillery and musket formations. They certainly had infantry of other types as well.




True, but that was also true in Asia as well, nobles tended to lead whether on horse or foot. I'll agree that as modernisation kicks in it probably the cavalry that holds out longest in terms of nobility buying commissions, but that's likely true everywhere. There's also the issue that cavalry are expensive to form and run (horses are expensive beasts to buy and manage). So that takes initial money and continued sponsorship, and well when you've got someone to pay for the horses and uniforms it hard to say no to putting them or their son's at the front!




I'm not sure how your story about sharpening tulwars, or tulwars vs. sabres in general* has anything to do with your point about Asian horsemen being 'knightly', or the inference that European cavalry wasn't or more importantly what that may or may not say about infantry in either European or Asian armies?

Anyway interesting subject

cheers

TD




*and that can involve a lot things that all go towards someone saying, "my that's sharp"

European horsemen did not take proper care of blades because only the officers were raised to live with swords. Asians had a greater proportion of concentrated units of noblemen, and hence those within would show it.

Sikhs didn't "suddenly think of dismounting". They did copy the use of line and column in a manner indistinguishable from Europeans.

Turks when they arrived were cavalry dominated. They evolved into an infantry power by using Jannisaries which had separate tactics from European infantry not least because they misused muskets.

Manchus and Persians both considered cavalry their primary arm because of the long distances in which they operated. There was nothing more primitive or more advanced about that, it was simply an adaptation to climate. They certainly used foot as they needed to both garrison and breech positions along the way. But neither could maneuver with infantry.

Some Indians precludes the Moguls who were in severe decline and some Rajahs who were to small to compete anyway. The Moguls were torn to bits by Nadir Shah in a way the John Company would not have been. It does not include Sepoys, not because they are not Indians but because they adopted techniques directly from European armies they had signed on with rather then at the behest of an Indian prince. It does include Maratha and other ambitious rebel powers in the degraded Mogul Empire that had proved themselves militarily efficient. At Third Panipat (which by the way is immortalized by Kipling's ''With Scindia to Delhi'') the Durranni fielded 42000 horse, 38000 line infantry, 10000 undefined reserves, 4000 guards, 5000 Quizibash (ghazis apparently) and 120-130 artillery pieces. The Maratha had 20000 horse, 10000 foot, 15000 Pindaris (rabble, according to the wiki) 200 artillery pieces, and 200000 camp followers. No European army regularly fielded such reversed (to Eurocentric eyes) proportions of horse and foot at that time.

At Plassey, The Company had 10000 horse, 35000 foot. The Moguls had 20000 horse and 40000 foot. Which is not as great a disproportion but on the other hand shows a difference in emphasis(1 horse, 3.5 foot to 1 to 2).

The point about the pre-eminence of cavalry in certain regions is strategic and operational, not tactical. Cavalry was absolutely needed on the steepes because of the flat land and great distances, and many powers in India retained steepe traditions. In a battle infantry was just as effective, assuming the enemy does the favor of staying put. Russia was able to counter that not only by having an effective cavalry of it's own but by having a large population. The proper way to gain a permanent advantage with infantry on the steepe was to march a few hundred miles, fort up, repeat for generations. Musketry allowed this to be done and bayonets made an infantry column a walking fort. In that sense bayonets could be decisive in the steepe but in no other. And yes that was effective in Bengal (which was owned by the John Company after 1757 and that of course did use European style infantry). Where it was not effective was Transoxiana at least not in the same way as in France.

In any case the whole discussion begs a question. If bayoneted muskets were equiv to six foot spears, what is wrong with six foot spears? The answer of course is nothing. Unless bayonets are an addition to a missile weapon giving it hand-to-hand capability rather then a hand weapon in themselves. If bayonets were a decisive weapon there would be no reason to issue muskets.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

European horsemen did not take proper care of blades because only the officers were raised to live with swords.

Asians had a greater proportion of concentrated units of noblemen, and hence those within would show it.

Please can you support your assertion that only nobles will sharpen their swords, this leaves aside that as the prestigious wing European heavy cavalry was quite loaded with nobility.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Sikhs didn't "suddenly think of dismounting". They did copy the use of line and column in a manner indistinguishable from Europeans.

Turks when they arrived were cavalry dominated. They evolved into an infantry power by using Jannisaries which had separate tactics from European infantry not least because they misused muskets.

Manchus and Persians both considered cavalry their primary arm because of the long distances in which they operated. There was nothing more primitive or more advanced about that, it was simply an adaptation to climate. They certainly used foot as they needed to both garrison and breech positions along the way. But neither could maneuver with infantry.

Some Indians precludes the Moguls who were in severe decline and some Rajahs who were to small to compete anyway. The Moguls were torn to bits by Nadir Shah in a way the John Company would not have been. It does not include Sepoys, not because they are not Indians but because they adopted techniques directly from European armies they had signed on with rather then at the behest of an Indian prince. It does include Maratha and other ambitious rebel powers in the degraded Mogul Empire that had proved themselves militarily efficient. At Third Panipat (which by the way is immortalized by Kipling's ''With Scindia to Delhi'') the Durranni fielded 42000 horse, 38000 line infantry, 10000 undefined reserves, 4000 guards, 5000 Quizibash (ghazis apparently) and 120-130 artillery pieces. The Maratha had 20000 horse, 10000 foot, 15000 Pindaris (rabble, according to the wiki) 200 artillery pieces, and 200000 camp followers. No European army regularly fielded such reversed (to Eurocentric eyes) proportions of horse and foot at that time.

At Plassey, The Company had 10000 horse, 35000 foot. The Moguls had 20000 horse and 40000 foot. Which is not as great a disproportion but on the other hand shows a difference in emphasis(1 horse, 3.5 foot to 1 to 2).

The point about the pre-eminence of cavalry in certain regions is strategic and operational, not tactical. Cavalry was absolutely needed on the steepes because of the flat land and great distances, and many powers in India retained steepe traditions. In a battle infantry was just as effective, assuming the enemy does the favor of staying put. Russia was able to counter that not only by having an effective cavalry of it's own but by having a large population. The proper way to gain a permanent advantage with infantry on the steepe was to march a few hundred miles, fort up, repeat for generations. Musketry allowed this to be done and bayonets made an infantry column a walking fort. In that sense bayonets could be decisive in the steepe but in no other. And yes that was effective in Bengal (which was owned by the John Company after 1757 and that of course did use European style infantry). Where it was not effective was Transoxiana at least not in the same way as in France.

To be honest your figures don't support your conclusion, looks like plenty of combined forces there to me. I've mentioned most of those you mentioned.

But again no not all of asia is a vast open steppe, not not every campaign fought east of the Bosphorus was over a million sq miles and a lot of those with a steppe tradition changed their tactics when they changed their context, the Turks as we have both mentioned, the Murguls in India and so on.

Again taking on board European style C18-C19th century line and file tactics doesn't mean they hadn't used infantry extensively before (this is true for the Turks and Janissaries as well. Turkish Janissary infantry mange to beat Mamluke cavalry after all!)

Again just being cavalry doesn't automatically mean you move about strategically faster. It depends on what cavalry you are what your logistical train is like and operational doctrine, I mentioned this earlier

Yes the Maratha's where keen on light horse (despite working on getting 200 piece artillery train, which is more than what we turned up to Waterloo with!) But that doesn't means everyone replaces infantry for cavalry, the same seem to be true in general. You use what you have of course, and you maximise the use of what you are best at, but different troop types complement each other and actually most successful generals knew hat whether they were in Germany or China.


Nadir Shah? Yes cavalry was the prestigious wing (but again that was true in Europe too) but as above he ended up fielding a very diverse force including working in infantry tactics when adapting to changing campaigns.


This last makes a good point I think. A lot of what you are talking about seems to be that Cavalry was the prestigious wing linked to nobility and chivalry etc, etc, and yeah I definitely agree it was. It was in Europe too, but that doesn't mean that infantry wasn't used, and wasn't effective in a multitude of roles in Asia.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In any case the whole discussion begs a question. If bayoneted muskets were equiv to six foot spears, what is wrong with six foot spears? The answer of course is nothing. Unless bayonets are an addition to a missile weapon giving it hand-to-hand capability rather then a hand weapon in themselves. If bayonets were a decisive weapon there would be no reason to issue muskets.

Of course bayonets are an addition to muskets, this has been said several times in this thread? They value add a musket into it being a 6ft spear (although not a great one, but a not great one is still way better then no 6ft spear).

You get the best of both worlds. Just 6 ft spears would get shot to pieces by muskets, just muskets do badly once in close contact, musket with bayonets get to do both. Your point seem to be that decisive must mean that you can only be one thing or the other. But that's not the case there were times when having a bayonet proved decisive*, there were times when just volume of fire was decisive. As with all things, included armies of Asia what the specific situation is is key. It's having that flexibility to adapt to it that is decisive.

This is the same point about cavalry vs. Infantry, it not either/or it's both, it's not either gun or spear, it's both. Combined arms is key, it makes you adaptable, it also stops you diluting your force so that 1000 chaps can be 1000 musketeer as well as 1000 spear men, and not having to dedicate a split to either weapon. A spilt that means you end up with weakened spear force and weakened gun force. It's the whole package that is important. Saying oh well the gun bit was used more then sharp pokey bit misses this key point.

It's like the old argument the "Roman legions won because of the gladius**, the gladius was dominate" vs. "no they won because of the shield, the shield was dominant". No they won because they at their best they used the gladius and the shield together exceptionally well! (and the pilum, and the cavalry wing, and great logistics so on, and so on)"



*decisive here doesn't have to mean "and we charged, broke and chased off their entire army with our bayonets", but also "despite the enemy getting their cavalry into contact with us, we were able to fend them off with our bayonets and then went on to carry the day, rather then getting broken by a cavalry charge and then ridden down which would have given the day to them right then". i.e sometime nullifying the enemy winning tactic thus allowing you to win is decisive!

**see various threads that start with some version of 'are swords worth it', the legions invariably get brought up!

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

if this was actually happening in close combat range I'd likely require a DX roll (or maybe a firearm skill roll) to do it though on top of the fast draw roll or free action
..
2). Multiple fast draw skill based free actions attempts come with penalties based on the number of them applied to all of them (similar to rapid strike penalties). The penalty per attempted fast draw can be whatever you like.

Does anyone remember there being a Pyramid article somewhere about all Readying requiring a skill roll? I might be thinking of something else like Aim or Evaluate. I like the idea of rolling for everything, but since the DX roll assumes someone is sharing your hex, when nobody is sharing your hex you should get a huge basic bonus like +10 to a single ready so that it would almost always succeed, as the Ready maneuver assumes. So using your idea of Rapid Strike, two of them would be DX+4 alone or DX-6 when sharing a hex with someone.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Plane

Does anyone remember there being a Pyramid article somewhere about all Readying requiring a skill roll? I might be thinking of something else like Aim or Evaluate. I like the idea of rolling for everything, but since the DX roll assumes someone is sharing your hex, when nobody is sharing your hex you should get a huge basic bonus like +10 to a single ready so that it would almost always succeed, as the Ready maneuver assumes. So using your idea of Rapid Strike, two of them would be DX+4 alone or DX-6 when sharing a hex with someone.

The only Pyramid article I can think of like that reworks the Aim maneuver as a skill roll... On Target, Pyramid 3-77 Combat.

So jumping off that to reworkin Ready would child's play.