Re: Rifles, Tomahawks & Tactics

Posted by Bill Rooks on January 02, 1998 at 08:35:06:

In Reply to: Rifles, Tomahawks & Tactics posted by Victoria on January 01, 1998 at 08:18:10:

Victoria,

Very interesting Victoria! Tom Kildane and I had quite a discussion on weapons and tactics differences between regular and
irregular troops last year. He, being a Marine (not taking anything away from him..he was VERY knowlegeable about tactics, armies, history etc) was of the conventional mind. Not making a quality statement here...Marines are the hardened tip of the spear so to speak...they are just of a different mindset than would be an irregular force. Therefore he was strongly in favor of the bayonet and conventional tactics winning out.

I, on the other hand, believe that for provincial American troops
without the extensive training and experience the British had, saw the bayonet as a very unsettling and fearsome weapon when advancing upon them. On the other hand, for the British troops with no wilderness experience, it must have been just as fearfull
to them to see wild savages wielding tomahawks and knives at their grusome work in their ranks.

Bottom line? War is an ugly business. Given a bayonet or a tomahawk one is not better than the other inherently. One is not more fatal than the other. Depends on the situation. I still believe that advancing in phalanxes of muskets tipped with bayonets upon a like force...it is training and experience which will tell. Getting mixed up in a wild melee with a group who won't "follow the rules" but who are still disciplined and coordinated....in tight and jumbled up....muskets and bayonets become useless and it is the shorter weapon which is more handy and the side with the greater "berserker rage" will win all other
things being equal.

Bill R>

Follow Ups:

• Re: Rifles, Tomahawks & Tactics Victoria 07:52:57 1/03/98 (4)
  • Re: Rifles, Tomahawks & Tactics Bill Rooks 17:19:56 1/03/98 (3)
    • Re: Rifles, Tomahawks & Tactics George A. Bray III 21:10:14 1/03/98 (2)
      • Re: Rifles, Tomahawks & Tactics Victoria 07:43:57 1/04/98 (1)
        • Re: Rifles, Tomahawks & Tactics George A. Bray III 14:17:57 1/04/98 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: Victoria,

: Very interesting Victoria!  Tom Kildane and I had quite a discussion on weapons and tactics differences between regular and
: irregular troops last year.  He, being a Marine (not taking anything away from him..he was VERY knowlegeable about tactics, armies, history etc) was of the conventional mind.  Not making a quality statement here...Marines are the hardened tip of the spear so to speak...they are just of a different mindset than would be an irregular force.  Therefore he was strongly in favor of the bayonet and conventional tactics winning out.

: I, on the other hand, believe that for provincial American troops 
: without the extensive training and experience the British had, saw the bayonet as a very unsettling and fearsome weapon when advancing upon them.  On the other hand, for the British troops with no wilderness experience, it must have been just as fearfull 
: to them to see wild savages wielding tomahawks and knives at their grusome work in their ranks.  

: Bottom line?  War is an ugly business.  Given a bayonet or a tomahawk one is not better than the other inherently.  One is not more fatal than the other.  Depends on the situation.  I still believe that advancing in phalanxes of muskets tipped with bayonets upon a like force...it is training and experience which will tell.  Getting mixed up in a wild melee with a group who won't "follow the rules" but who are still disciplined and coordinated....in tight and jumbled up....muskets and bayonets become useless and it is the shorter weapon which is more handy and the side with the greater "berserker rage" will win all other
: things being equal.

: Bill R>


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: