Help with Boxer Rebellion infantry tactics!

[Fjodin]

I am very new to Boxer Rebellion research, so can someone tell me about infantry tactics. I mean They have used magazine-fed rifles. So does infantry still use dense formations? And the main question is does they use volley fire or rapidfire?

[fastolfrus]

For a fast very general reply - yes to both.

Although having said that, there were a large number of participants, so each nationality may have had different approaches. Also some nationalities had different contingents ie army/navy/marines who may have had different tactics, but broadly speaking, most western troops seemed to operate in fairly close order formation, and British used a mix of volley fire or individual rapid fire depending on circumstances.
Not sure about Chinese forces, but again they have three contingents to consider, Boxers, who generally get portrayed as an armed mob rather than a formation, Imperial troops, and Imperial Tartar troops. Not sure if there is a real distinction between these last two, but they get mentioned seperately in a few things so they must have been distinctive in some way, unless it's just a general western distinction between Chinese infantry and cavalry.

[Lupus]

Osprey do a good book on the Boxer Rebellion but you can find a lot of stuff out online.

I'd say that most armies kept to its standard style of tactics though you do have more than a few circumstances where armies from different nations were mixed together.

[Fjodin]

Thanx for replying. I was always interested in change of tactics when magazine rifles applied. Because this rifle have 5-10 bullets, so I wonder how big is time space between volleys
I like that at the begining of 20 century many countries use different tactics.
But World War One shows which of them are good and which are obsolete

Remember French army who tries to bayonet charge the Germans in WW1? I think because of Boer War Brits in WW1 use more advanced tactics.
 

[Dewbakuk]

The interesting one I find for tactics shifts is the Russo-Japanese war. The first war where machine guns are used properly in an offensive role, where the Japanese kept them moving forwards in support of the infantry, rather than them being used to hold positions etc.

A lot of countries had observers present during that war, yet the only observers to mention the new use of machine guns in any of their reports were the Germans, who mentioned it quite a lot...

[HerbyF]

Not sure about Chinese forces, but again they have three contingents to consider, Boxers, who generally get portrayed as an armed mob rather than a formation, Imperial troops, and Imperial Tartar troops. Not sure if there is a real distinction between these last two, but they get mentioned seperately in a few things so they must have been distinctive in some way, unless it's just a general western distinction between Chinese infantry and cavalry.

  Boxers would have been two different types. The true Boxers these would have been martial societies, fair moral, good close combat skills, but a distain for anything foriegn including fire arms. Boxer simpethisers basic street mobs, maybe a few boxers to incite them. Armed with anything including fire arms, no training poor moral. Imperial troops: three different types here too. Green flag made up of two of these types, old formations, provintial troops in many areas just as poorly armed as the Tartar troops but made up of Han Chinese also most of the cavelry being raise along ethnic lines. New formations, mostly foreign trained, armed with modern or near modern fire arms, some raised by local governments, some by warlords, some along ethnic lines, the training & arms vary greatly from one unit to the next. The Imperial Tartar troops, the Bannermen: the remnants of the Manchu banners that conquered China. Spread all over & basicly ignored by the court. Good moral, well trained, lived a life of martial tradition, but were poorly armed with old fire arms & archaic weapons. This is why they are refered to as the forgotten or orphan warriors.

[Fjodin]

I read somewhere that near half of Japanese losses was because of russian mashine guns and japanise suicidal human wave tactics towards russian trenches at Port Arthur...

[Luthaaren Von Tegale]

I think I recall reading somewhere that the British army used it's early magazine rifles as breechloaders to conserve ammo - so I guess they'd still use volley fire in that instance.
On the other hand I could have just imagined it!

   vT

[Malamute]

I think I recall reading somewhere that the British army used it's early magazine rifles as breechloaders to conserve ammo - so I guess they'd still use volley fire in that instance.
On the other hand I could have just imagined it!

   vT

Don' think you imagined it as I have read that too. British infantry were trained to load only one round at a time, despite having a magazine...!

[Lupus]

I read somewhere that near half of Japanese losses was because of russian mashine guns and japanise suicidal human wave tactics towards russian trenches at Port Arthur...

Its along those lines yes.  When Japanese Officers were told by the Emperor to take matter's into there own hands a lot of them dressed in there ancestral armour and ran attack after attack to inspire there men.  Some of the hills around took a while to take but once they did it mean't they could shell the Russian Ships in harbour.

Really good wiki page on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Port_Arthur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

[Ming]

For a good read on the subject try CHINA 1900, The Eyewitnesses Speak, by Fredrick Sharf & Peter Harrington, published by Greenhill Books, excellent source material, and also Bluejackets & Boxers, by Bob Nicholls. The story of Australias Naval Expedition. gret photos too.

[Fuzzywuzzieswiflasers]

http://www.russojapanesewar.com/index.html

May help with infantry tactics. Not much info on Boxers. It does cover the sino-japan war.

cheers

Fuzzy

[huevans]

Not an expert, but here's what I would suggest.

1. Find out what rifles the respective European armies were using. This was the transition period from single-shot late Nineteenth Century breechloaders to "modern" WW1 magazine rifles and rate of fire and range would be issues.

2. What is the tactical situation? If the Europeans are outnumbered by a large mob of poorly armed Chinese, a close-order square formation and volley fire is probably called for. The last thing you do is spread your troops out in a thin skirmish line, as this just gets you over-run and massacred a la Isandlhwana.

3. Formal European wars of the period called for opening rifle fire at about 1,000 yards and firing regular controlled volleys as your assailant approached. Attackers would be moving at a fast walk or jog and some doctrines called for alternate platoons to lie and fire and then leapfrog over their neighbours to provide a primitive version of "fire and movement". This is not likely to be practised against colonial foes.