>Пардон, я просил примеры штыковых боев, желательно со ссылками, а не ссылки на сайты, на которых, к тому же, я с ходу тоже не вижу подтвержденных источниками указаний на штыковые бои. Вы можете показать, где именно, а лучше привести цитаты?
На этих сайтах всё больше рассуждения о штыке в ПМВ и в гражданскую войну 1861-5. Но отрывок из воспоминаний участника инкерманского сражения (Sergeant Timothy Gowing, Royal Fusiliers) показателен:
Inkerman will not admit of much description, particularly from one who was in the thick of it. The fighting all day on that awful Sabbath was of a furious character. The bayonet was the chief weapon, and the Minié rifle balls told heavily upon the crowded ranks.
The bayonet was used with terrible effect by all regiments. The enemy, driven on by their brave officers, had to -- and did literally -- climb over the heaps of their slain countrymen and ours to renew this bloodthirsty contest; but they were met by British cold steel and were hurled or pitchforked from the field.
We had proved in a hundred fights that no enemy could resist our men, but at Inkerman victory hung in the balance, and our weak battalions had to resist the enemy's heavy columns bayonet to bayonet. A number of most determined encounters were maintained against very heavy odds; and as often as the Russian infantry charged us our people met them with that never-failing weapon.
Revolvers and bayonets told heavily that foggy morn; and when our men were short of ammunition, they pitched stones at the enemy.
And now commenced the bloodiest struggle ever witnessed since war cursed the earth. It has been doubted by military historians if any enemy have ever stood a charge with the bayonet; but here the bayonet was often the only weapon employed in conflicts of the most obstinate and deadly character. We have been prone to believe that no foe could ever withstand the British soldier wielding his favorite weapon, and that at Maida alone did the enemy ever cross bayonets with him; but, at the battle of Inkermann, not only did we charge in vain-not only were desperate encounters between masses of men maintained with the bayonet alone-but we were obliged to resist bayonet to bayonet the Russian infantry again and again, as they charged us with incredible fury and determination.
The men had to fight their way through a host of enemies, and lost fearfully. They were surrounded and bayoneted on all sides, and won their desperate way up the hill, with diminished ranks, and the loss of hear 500 men. Sir GEORGE CATHCART'S body was afterwards recovered with a bullet wound in the head, and three bayonet wounds in the body. In this struggle, where the Russians fought with the greatest ferocity, and bayoneted the wounded as they fell, Colonel SWYNY, of the 63d, a most gallant officer, Lieutenant DOWLING, 20th, Major WYNNE, 68th, and other officers, whose names will be found in the Gazette, met their death, and Brigadier GOEDIE, of the 57th Regiment, received the wounds, of which he has since died.
On the whole, the brigade of guards lost 13 officers killed, 15 wounded, and 580 rank and file, out of about 1,600 men engaged. The Coldstreams charged the enemy at the point of the bayonet eleven times. At each time the Russians crossed bayonets, and fought fiercely, but were slaughtered like sheep by our gallant fellows.
>>А сходу приходит в голову, например, Куллоден 1746, перед которым в георгианской армии особое внимание уделялось тому, как штыком противостоять рукопашной атаке горцев. И до рукопашной дело таки дошло, причём горцы "почти" победили, пусть и в одном месте георгианской линии.
>
>Начнем с того, что это некорректный пример для изучения вопроса о штыковых боях: шотландские горцы по-прежнему использовали щиты и мечи. Термин "рукопашная атака" также некорректен: есть атака и рукопашный бой, и это две очень разные вещи: в результате атаки может произойти рукопашный бой, а может и не произойти (обычно не происходил). И откуда взято, что при Куллодене дело дошло до рукопашной? Есть надежные сведения?
Eventually there was a charge by the Atholl Brigade, the Camerons, Appin Stewarts, Frasers and Mackintoshes largely against the royal left. There was time for a single volley into the highlanders followed by savage hand to hand fighting. The highlanders veered to their right away from the fire of Campbell’s and Price’s and the attack fell on Barrel’s and Munro’s on the royal left (as the casualties indicate). It is said that at this battle the musket and bayonet had the better of the highland broadsword.
There were twenty-one officers in Clan Chattan when the charge began and eighteen of them were to die, most before they reached the government line. Incredibly though, some of them managed to cut their way through the ranks of Cholmondley's battalion and came up on the second line of government troops. Fighting singly, their hopeless fury ended on the points of government bayonets driven home by the men of Howard's or Fleming's.
"They climbed over their dead, which soon lay four deep, and they hacked at the muskets with such maniacal fury that far down the line men could hear the iron clang of sword on barrel." "The fight was confused and bitter and the (Hanoverian) line swayed, Barrell's lion standard of blue dipping at the center. Lord Robert Kerr, captain of the grenadiers, received the first charging Cameron on the point of his spontoon, but then a second cut him through the head to chin. Stewarts and Camerons flooded through the gap of the guns and cut at the grenadiers of Munro's as well as Barrell's. Some ran to the rear where Lieutenant-Colonel Rich of Barrell's was standing on foot. He held out his slender sword to parry the swing of a broadsword, and both hand and sword were cut from his wrist." A captain of Munro's later recounted that "I thank God I escaped free, but my coat has six balls through it. In the midst of this action the officer that led on the Camerons called to me to take quarter, which I refused and bid the rebel scoundrel advance. He did, and fired at me, but providentially missed his mark. I then shot him dead and took his pistol and dirk..."
"The action and event of the onset were throughout quite as dreadful as the mental emotion which urged it. Notwithstanding that the three files of the front line of English poured forth their incessant fire of musketry — notwithstanding that the cannon, now loaded with grape- shot, swept the field as with a hailstorm — notwithstanding the flank-fire of Wolfe's regiment — onward, onward, went the headlong Highlanders, flinging themselves into, rather than rushing upon, the lines of the enemy, which indeed they did not see for smoke, till involved amid their weapons. All that courage, all that despair, could do was done. It was a moment of dreadful and agonising suspense, but only a moment — for the whirlwind does not reap the forest with greater rapidity than the Highlanders cleared the line. Nevertheless, almost every man in their front rank, chief and gentleman, fell before the deadly weapons which they had braved; and although the enemy gave way, it was not till every bayonet was bent and bloody with the strife.
Cumberland too encouraged his army as they had suffered previous onslaughts where men had broken ranks and run. From previous experiences new tactics had been devised. A soldier attacking a Highlander in front of him would catch his bayonet in the Highlander’s hide shield and then would be caught by his broadsword or dirk. The new plan was that every soldier should attack the Highlander on the left of their attacker and trust that his comrade would do likewise.
>На этих сайтах всё больше рассуждения о штыке в ПМВ и в гражданскую войну 1861-5.
Первая мировая не в тему - схватки происходили в траншеях и в них пользовались не столько штыками, сколько пистолетами, гранатами, ножами, лопатами и даже дубинами. К концу войны штурмовые отряды вообще не брали с собой винтовки. По поводу гражданской войны в США автор пишет совсем путано: он, похоже, не понимает разницы между штыковой атакой и штыковым боем. Штыковые атаки бывали часто - штыковые бои случались редко.
>Но отрывок из воспоминаний участника инкерманского сражения (Sergeant Timothy Gowing, Royal Fusiliers) показателен:
Нет, не показателен. Много хвастливой болтовни и мало конкретики. Похоже, речь опять о штыковых атаках, а не о штыковых боях. Я забыл добавить одну важную вещь: даже если упоминается, что много народу полегло от штыков, это еще не означает, что был штыковой бой - обычно это означает, что одни побежали, а другие их преследовали и убивали, если те не успевали убежать достаточно быстро.
>Или из The Battle of Inkerman, The New York Times, BALAKLAVA, Sunday, 5 November 1854 (особенно обратите внимание на последний (третий) отрывок)
Вы про это:
The Coldstreams charged the enemy at the point of the bayonet eleven times. At each time the Russians crossed bayonets, and fought fiercely, but were slaughtered like sheep by our gallant fellows.
Так это же обыкновенная газетная трескотня. Кстати, тут упоминается Майда, небольшое сражение в Италии в 1806 г между французами и англичанами, которое долгое время считалось чуть ли не классическим примером победы английских линий над французскими колоннами и английского штыка над французским. Однако, тщательное изучение свидетельств участников сражения показало, что при Майде французы тоже были в линиях, а не в колоннах, и никакого штыкового боя не было.
По поводу Куллодена: прежде всего, нужно отделить показания участников сражения от болтовни позднейших писателей. Мне сейчас немного некогда с этим разбираться, но если Вы укажете, где там показания участников, я посмотрю.
Мне попадалось мнение английского генерала, который воевал с шотландцами в XVIII веке, так тот утверждает, что если англичане не выдерживали стремительной атаки шотландцев, т.е. начинали пятиться и ломали строй, как это бывало поначалу, то шотландцы их быстро побеждали, попросту избивали, но если выдержать атаку, то шотландцы оказывались самым презренным противником.
Салют!
Что подразумевается под штыковыми боями?
Если столкновения, когда оба противника на уровне командиров частей и даже соединений принимали решение воздержаться от открытия огня и довести бой до штыка, то я мог бы найти несколько спорных примеров из Гражданской войны в России.
Если же речь идёт о тактике, при которой основным фактором боя является штык, то такой тактики ИМХО нигде не было. Разве, что можно у Скобелева найти примеры в 1877г., но это было уже после 1871г. и поэтому не могло задать тенденцию.
С почтением. Китаец.