Was WW1 the end of "great" melee warfare?

Was WW1 the end of "great" melee warfare?
When exactly did it die?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Danny_Boy
civilwar.org/learn/articles/small-arms-civil-war
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

In WW1 melee combat was more of an exception than rule.

Franco-Prussian war would probably be one of last "old-fashioned" wars in that regard. The French still sued cuirassiers like pic related. Everything past 1870s slowly evolved into industrial slaughter. Boer Wars, Spanish-American War and Russo-Japanese War are first modern wars.

>sued
*used

American Civil War? I'm legit asking, I've heard many times it being called one of the first modern wars.

Crimean War and The War of the Southern Secession was probably the frontier to modern warfare
there was still leftovers from Earlier warfare such as lines and massive melee,but there's alot of changes already with ironclads and proto-machineguns,The Franco-Prussian war have rifles firing up to 500 metres and Breach loading cannon

bump

Don't forget, that the Prussians were already using small group tactics, instead of lines.
Oh and the French had a proto machine gun

*The War of the Southern Treason

It died when Suvorov died

Wish it would've never stopped. War was so much better that way.

>War of Southern agression.
Could not agree more sir

They seized gov't property and ole Willy T came a knockin and jiving and he blew the house down.

Anybody got the news article about the Brit that jumped over roofs in Iraq to bayonet a dude? As I recall his reasoning was
>he made me mad, so I was like, "right let's fucking do it you bastard"
Or the Ghurka that beat a motherfucker to death with a machine gun tripod after killing like 19 other dudes?

Not as examples, just because they're neat. If anything theyre the exceptions that prove the rule. Brit army is pretty based. Didn't a platoon do a full on bayonet charge in Iraq too, and wreck shit?

i heard a story of two marines chasing a guy into a swamp, and one marine was like "hold my gun" pulled out his knife and jumped in.

Came out 5 minutes later with a bloody knife.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Danny_Boy

>Anybody got the news article about the Brit that jumped over roofs in Iraq to bayonet a dude?
sounds like daily mail bullshit

Yep
Brits are generally coward

Franco-Prussian war was last war with great melee.
US civil war was last Great War with great melee.

American civil war started with line fire warfare like in the 1700's but looked more like WW1 with trenches and small no mans lands by the end. It never got the great "front" of WW1 and following wars however because of the massive front line and lack of manpower .

Lots of fighting on the eastern front took place on the end of a bayonet. The japs also put a lot of effort into bayonet fighting.

>Throughout the afternoon, Confederate engineers scrambled to create a new defensive line 500 yards further south at the base of the Mule Shoe, while fighting at the Bloody Angle continued day and night with neither side achieving an advantage. At 4 a.m. on May 13, the exhausted Confederate infantrymen were notified that the new line was ready and they withdrew from the original earthworks unit by unit. The combat they had endured for almost 24 hours was characterized by an intensity of firepower never previously seen in Civil War battles, as the entire landscape was flattened, all the foliage destroyed. An example of this can be found in the Smithsonian Museum of American History: a 22-inch stump of an oak tree at the Bloody Angle that was completely severed by rifle fire. There was a frenzy to the carnage on both sides. Fighting back and forth over the same corpse-strewn trenches for hours on end, using single shot muskets, the contending troops were periodically reduced to hand-to-hand combat reminiscent of battles fought during ancient times. Surviving participants attempted to describe in letters, diaries, and memoirs the hellish intensity of that day, many noting that it was beyond words. Or, as one put it: "Nothing can describe the confusion, the savage, blood-curdling yells, the murderous faces, the awful curses, and the grisly horror of the melee." May 12 was the most intensive day of fighting during the battle, with Union casualties of about 9,000, Confederate 8,000; the Confederate loss includes about 3,000 prisoners captured in the Mule Shoe.

It wasn't, people who cite "muh trenches" have no idea that's how sieges had worked for the past two centuries.

Trains were pretty much the only "modern" thing about the ACW.

And Ironclad warships, submarines, repeating rifles, Gatling guns, aerial reconnaissance, and (proposed) poison gas...

WW1

It died somewhere in the rubble of Stalingrad

>
First explosive land mines, by the CSA. Union troops usually thought it was artillery.

All technologies that barely changed the tactics used in the war.

Oh yeah all those shit user mention were left in the dust nowadays right...

civilwar.org/learn/articles/small-arms-civil-war
>The Civil War witnessed a technological revolution in weaponry.
>Unfortunately for the common soldier, tactics did not advance as quickly as technology. Napoleonic linear tactics from earlier in the century now combined with more accurate, faster-firing weapons to result in catastrophic casualty figures throughout the War.
Manly military chads still needed their dick measuring contests and made the war far more terrible than it should have been.

>gatling guns and fucking ironclads changed nothing
Ironclads changed the goddamn face of naval conflict, you fucking fartknocker, and the gatling gun was basically the death of any idea of a cavalry charge, something that had been a part of warfare since man could ride a horse and stab things at the sametime.

this is some convoluted feet-dragging from someone that doesnt want to admit theyre wrong, and Im not even involved in this conversation.

The Union's ability to mass produce armor-plated warships was essential at preventing the Confederacy from breaking the blockade, as proven when the much feared CSS Alabama was taken down by the Kearsarge, a ship with newly installed armored plating.

Union troops armed with brand new Spencer rifles were instrumental in preventing a complete rout at Chickamauga.

The advances in artillery accuracy and penetration meant once-imprenetrable brick fortresses like Fort Pulaski could now be reduced to smoldering ruins.

The telegraph meant Lincoln could control Union forces directly and receive updates on a battle hour-by-hour, an advantage that contributed to the Confederate defeats at Antietam and Gettysburg.

>Ironclads changed the goddamn face of naval conflict
And had been around since before the ACW.
>the gatling gun
Barely used in the war, if at all.
>The telegraph meant Lincoln could control Union forces directly and receive updates on a battle hour-by-hour, an advantage that contributed to the Confederate defeats at Antietam and Gettysburg.
The telegraph had first seen widespread use in the Crimean War nearly a decade prior.
>Union troops armed with brand new Spencer rifles were instrumental in preventing a complete rout at Chickamauga.
Still weren't widely issued, and the US Army stuck with muzzle-loaders despite literally everyone else switching over to breech-loaders by the mid-1860s.
Blame West Point, Napoleonic tactics was pretty much all they taught despite warfare having moved far past that stage.

user.......

>more accurate, faster-firing weapons
Civil War infantry engagements took place at the same ranges as those of older wars using smoothbore muskets, as the Minie ball tended to arc like a bitch at the longer ranges it was technically able to hit (almost nobody on either side was trained for such long range fire). General Cheatham noted after the Battle of Franklin that virtually all his losses were laying within 50 yards of the Union position, despite the abnormally clear terrain--this was typical. Rifled muskets did not have a noticeably greater rate of fire than smoothbores either. When breech-loading and other fast-firing weapons slowly filtered into widespread use doctrine changed in lockstep with it. US officers were very attentive toward foreign developments, such as the effective long-range and rapid fire of Ottoman soldiers in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877, who were armed with American-designed Henry rifles.
>catastrophic casualty figures
The bloodiest battle of the civil war was Stones River, where 32% of combatants became casualties over the course of three days. The bloodiest battle of the Napoleonic Wars was Waterloo, where 39% of combatants became casualties in ten fucking hours.

Civil War tactics were employed because they worked, and when they stopped working they stopped being used.

>War was so much better that way.

WHITE OUTLINE. FUCK YOU!

>English soldiers got taken to court for btfoing Iraqi insurgents
Huh, I'm pretty lefty, but that seems fucking retarded even to me. It's no wonder Iraq is still a shit show.

>War was so much better that way.
lmao no it wasn't, war never had it's golden age it was always a shitfest just for different reasons

It's come out since that the lawyers involved were basically bribing people to come forward with stories about being mistreated by British soldiers.

Also the Iraqi doctor thought the bayonet wounds were knife wounds and thought they'd been stabbed to death after being captured.