Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

How much banging can a modern rifle take? Can they be used as mauls like they do in movies? I mean theoretically, not just "it's not a good idea." Of course by now they use fireaxes and tactical tomahawks for doorbusting I would imagine.

It depends. Smashing things with the actual butt is something most rifles will handle pretty well. Bashing things with the stock when swinging the rifle holding it by the barrel is something most will not. A heavy WWII or earlier battle rifle will generally care less than a modern assault rifle (there's less to break, and more mass in structure). Modern Optical sights are less likely to move their point of aim if they hit something than old open sights, but are more likely to simply break (those old sights can simply be bent or hammered back into alignment most of the time).

IF someone just pistol whips or butt-strokes someone, or bangs a door with the butt of the rifle, I wouldn't worry about breakage unless the weapon is known for being fragile (which is not the same as unreliable). If someone swings a modern weapon around by the barrel, especially if they hit something hard with it, I'd check for damage (with a HT roll, etc.).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I would think pistol whipping would count as a kind of knuckleduster or small club. Less like a brass knuckles and more like a nightstick or kubaton.

Per the rules in HT (p.93) it's a fist-load, with the special rule that bigger pistols do more damage than normal.

Note that those big muzzle loaders with the reinforced butts do get swing+1 damage, and count as a small club (i.e. they use Axe/Mace skill). 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.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

And had a charge with sword and targe, been made in formation and had it not been disrupted by musketry before coming in contact, it would have over come the methods described which after all were defensive methods meant specifically to counter the Highland Charge and only successful enough to level the playing field at that.

So, basically it would've worked if they'd not done it as they did historically?

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Ok, so I went looking for battles in the 1700's decided by the bayonet rather than the shot, and I remembered the great northern war featuring a lot of Swedish victories through melee. So I looked it up, and came across evidence that the bayonet was indeed primarily defensive: the Caroleans, the Swedish troops noted for charging to melee range, retained pikes for decades after their contemporaries stopped using them, and outfitted most of their musketeers with swords. Only a few men in each company used bayonets.

So it appears that at least one army that favored melee vs. muskets used swords and spears rather than bayonets. I'm surprised.

I still would rather have a bayonet than an entrenching tool for a fight in a field.

Does anyone know what the Swede's casualty figures were like? It's entirely possible that they were winning melees by a combination of willingness to accept casualties from closing fire, poor enemy morale and poor enemy firepower. To specialise in melee on a missile equipped battlefield you need to be able to force melee or have your opponent rout rather than accept melee - you will need to do this in the face of closing fire from the enemy and run the risk, if the enemy instead retire in good order, of accepting that fire and then not being able to close and having to repeat the process. Also, once you have forced melee, you have to win.

Which leaves the question, did the Swedes take a large number of casualties, force melee and still win, were their opponents ineffective in inflicting casualties before the Swedes could force melee or did the enemy simply run when charged?

Failure to answer this sort of question leads to the sort of false lessons that the Russo-Japanese war taught for WW1 - infantry can indeed break a trench line defended by wire with reasonable artillery support ... if they are very high grade troops, their opponents are fairly low grade and they are prepared to accept heavy casualties. And artillery defensive fire isn't really a thing yet.

Originally Posted by johndallman

A musket plus bayonet isn't a good spear. It's too heavy, too short and rather clumsy. However, if you want all your infantry to be trained the same, it's the best compromise.

If you're willing to have several types of infantry with different equipment in each unit, and pay the associated costs, then that would appear to work better. There's a parallel to the way that modern-day infantry in rich countries sometimes have a different weapon for each member of a fireteam.

As I understand it the main driver from moving from pike and shot to line infantry was that musket fire quickly proved to be a superior method of destroying enemy troops, and pikemen did not produce any and could not be effectively brought into melee action (except, as above, by the Swedes) ... once a solution to the need to keep enemy cavalry off the musketeers was found (the bayonet), pike became dead weight.

Actions such as Monmouth's rebellion and the various Irish risings provide good examples of where even highly motivated melee infantry would typically be cut to pieces trying to close. Even during the '45 revolt, the highlanders suffered terribly closing to melee range ... initially when they could force melee their broadsword/shield combination was effective against line infantry, but then mostly only against men unfamiliar with the correct techniques for fighting it and, in many cases, poorly trained in general. Once improved anti-shield drills had been developed and fully trained (in many cases veteran) infantry deployed against them (with a consequent improvement in volumes of closing fire) ... and we must suspect, many of their best men lost in earlier engagements ... the highlanders were comprehensively slaughtered.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by johndallman

A musket plus bayonet isn't a good spear. It's too heavy, too short and rather clumsy. However, if you want all your infantry to be trained the same, it's the best compromise.

If you're willing to have several types of infantry with different equipment in each unit, and pay the associated costs, then that would appear to work better. There's a parallel to the way that modern-day infantry in rich countries sometimes have a different weapon for each member of a fireteam.

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.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

So, basically it would've worked if they'd not done it as they did historically?

It would have worked had Highlanders been Romans and had there been no such thing as bullets.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Does anyone know what the Swede's casualty figures were like? It's entirely possible that they were winning melees by a combination of willingness to accept casualties from closing fire, poor enemy morale and poor enemy firepower. To specialise in melee on a missile equipped battlefield you need to be able to force melee or have your opponent rout rather than accept melee - you will need to do this in the face of closing fire from the enemy and run the risk, if the enemy instead retire in good order, of accepting that fire and then not being able to close and having to repeat the process. Also, once you have forced melee, you have to win.

Which leaves the question, did the Swedes take a large number of casualties, force melee and still win, were their opponents ineffective in inflicting casualties before the Swedes could force melee or did the enemy simply run when charged?

The battles were fought in the 1700's, so we have what claim to be good sources on the casualty numbers. Go to the great northern war on Wikipedia and click on the list of battles, and they'll start showing numbers. I don't know if the numbers are biased, but the Swedish victories tend to have utterly lopsided casualty numbers, while the losses tend to look like bloodbaths on both sides, though that's just me looking at a handful of numbers.



Sweeden certainly wasn't winning by throwing more men at a problem than its enemies. Its numerically outnumbered in most battles. Its troops are considered to generally be of higher quality than its contemporaries, so the high discipline vs. low morale argument is not without merit, but the swedes seem to have killed and wounded a lot of folks as well as scaring them (though that may have been pursuing horsemen).



Tactically, they would try to provoke the enemy into shooting at them at mid range, then charge to close range before the enemy could reload. They'd stop briefly to fire a volley at very close range, then go in with sword and pike.


Sweeden's defeat is usually attributed to a small population not being able to sustain a 20 year war against multiple foes each with a larger population. Their soldiers were considered elite, and I've always got the impression that solid melee troops take longer to train than musket troops.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

The point about proportion of casualties is not moot as you have just agreed in the first paragraph that bayonets were primarily psychological devices.

No I didn't. I said there are some knock on effects of being in tight formation when it comes to close combat between large groups and having a bayonet (or spear) as opposed to swinging rifles as clubs about facilitates that. I also said that there are certain drills that increased that.

This is not the same thing as saying bayonets are primarily psychological devices.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In a sense all weapons are in ground warfare. But if you wish to test their utility in an actual fight rather then the threat of one then their performance in fighting at the range for which they were nominally made becomes relevant.

Being a great weapon to fight in formation with is irrelevant if one never has shields, armor, or other stuff necessary to fight in formation and the opponents weapon is just as long. And when they were very seldom used in formation except for defensive purposes in any event in which case charging it was just as much bad news with a six foot spear that is not a reliable parrying device as a targe which is.

Right only since the highland charge was just that a charge, the bayonet line was defensive in this scenario and well it prevailed. (eventually)

I addressed the parrying point earlier. (there was a thread where we went into the detail on this, but I can't for the life of me find it now!)

Originally Posted by jason taylor

There is few records of an offensive bayonet advance in formation making contact with an enemy unit that had not been disrupted.

This is true but it dont really make the point that bayonets were ineffective etc. Yes bayonet fighting was comparatively rare (and got rarer) compared to exchanging volleys and than just firing at each othe in general. However that doesn't stop the bayonet being effective and when the situation arose very necessary.

Or put it another way should you get into HtH contact with you opposing if they have bayonets you really going to noice the lack if you don't!

Originally Posted by jason taylor

And had a charge with sword and targe, been made in formation and had it not been disrupted by musketry before coming in contact, it would have over come the methods described which after all were defensive methods meant specifically to counter the Highland Charge and only successful enough to level the playing field at that. And not noted as appearing anywhere else for any other purpose. The reason bayonets worked in this fashion is not that they were somehow to be compared with traditional hand weapons as hand weapons. It was because as with all formation fighting, everyone who comes in contact is outnumbered at the point of contact. It was fire that was the decisive factor, and discipline, not bayonets.

Right only the highland charge used to be more effective until they changed the bayonet drill. Don't forget the Scots also had guns, it's just they couldn't line up and exchange volleys with the English and win, so they went with what they had a nominal advantage in (and for while it was effective). Also re the point about numbers coming into contact again Bayonets allow a tighter formation than that of the highlanders that fought in more dispersed formation with sword and shield after a charge.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In the Continent formations seldom even came close enough to make a bayonet charge thinkable. Few had the discipline to advance without stopping to return fire, and once they did that momentum was lost. Meaning the tendency among most armies was for the battle to devolve into firefights at long enough range that they would have caused more casualties over all but not enough at once to shock a unit into fleeing. Bayonets were not decisive because they were not used and the reason they were not used, was that no one could get anyone close enough.

As above, the fact that bayonets might not come into play that often doesn't make than ineffective when they did.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Outside Western-Central Europe and North America (areas which are often neglected in military studies) heroic traditions still often prevailed and there still often were aristocratic warriors who relied chiefly on hand weapons. These tended to prefer traditional purpose built hand weapons, and either leave muskets to an infantry that amounted to little more then an "audience" or use them in suboptimal ways (basically as a composite bow, for which a composite bow would of course have been better).

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.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Cavalry pretty much dominated there too because of distances involved.

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?

Originally Posted by jason taylor

In a sense the bayonet proved decisive as European, and European trained infantry tended to push aside native infantry raised by rulers who had neglected their training, and cavalry who could not get their horses to go near bayonet armed musketeers any more then European cavalry could.

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?

If nothing else if you are talking about eastren armies here its not like the gun was an unheard of thing in teh east either?

[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?

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.

[evileeyore]

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 allow multiple free actions, but only one of any one type turn... so, Reload with Fast Draw (Ammo) and Quick Reload Perk as one free and then 'safetying/unsafetying' with Lightning Fingers as another.

I do put a limiter of "your free actions need to be possible and congruous"... so using Akimbo to get two Reloads + two safety changes (one per weapon) is okay. But I also tend to run Action games with the Cinematic dial set in the upper bounds.

For 'realism' sake, I'd limit it to "one free action" per round without "reasons"*.


For your above multiple safetying example... if the Player really wanted to be able to that, I'd allow him to as long as he had either 2 levels of Lightning Fingers, or Lightning Fingers and some other "and I can do two things at once with my pistols" Perk, like Akimbo, or Dial A Load, or what-have-you. It would have to make sense to me, but there would be that extra 1 point cost involved (heck, if he had Enhanced Time Sense I'd count that). I might even allow it with a Fast-Draw (Pistol) roll. It depends on the campaign settings.


* IE they have a UBC that gives them highly Cinematic abilities, like Heroic Archer, Weapon Master, TBaM, etc... or you're just running a higher Action/Cinematic game and allowing the above Akimbo, Quick Reload, Lightning Fingers combinations.