The quality of the various elite troops in history

[Zinegata]

It was a question, not a citation.

The cite was the one I asked for a couple of pages ago. I'm genuinly curious about that one because it goes counter to much of the testimonies I've read.

Uh, I already did:

Also, while the thread is taking a collective deep breath, the German General who said US troops "benefitted more from their experiences than the British" was actually Rommel, not Bayerlein, and he's quoted in Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers page 66.

Because again, sorry, but sometimes I miss citation requests

=====

If so, why didn't you say so? And I'm a bit curious what you'd get from asking that instead of what I thought you were asking.

Huh? That's exactly what I asked. See below, emphasis mine:

Did the Swedes still use matchlock muskets during the Great Northern War and Thirty Years War? I know the Tercios were mostly using Arquebus which were matchlocks

My question was specifically aimed towards what sort of guns the Swedes used, and the point of comparison was meant to be the Tercios. I don't mind comparisons with Ruskie guns though.

What you might be thinking about was their use of light cannons which they employed on the battle field. If so that would be the 3-pounder. http://galleri.norrtaljekaroliner.se/#0.3 However again, all their opponents had similar stuff. Not utilized with the same tactics though.
FunFact - that 3 pounder reloaded faster than the muskets used by the infantry.
These are the swedish muskets:
http://www.janmilld.se/historia/3/bilder/karo10.jpg
The old was wheel-lock, the new was flintlock.

Well, I already know and mentioned the light field guns; the wheel-lock / flintlock does much to explain the Swedish fire superiority over the Tercio though - the Swedes had better muskets.

Even as late as Rocroi there were still Tercios armed with Arquebus, which were matchlocks and were so heavy they needed a firing rest. The Swedish muskets of the Thirty Years War apparently don't need one, and having them wheellocks instead of matchlocks also conferred an additional advantage.

[Spoonist]

Uhm, Greger, at the start of the war and for battles like Narva it was only the grenadiers (grenadjärer) that had bayonets. This because they didn't have the standard sabre because it interfered with the pouch for the grenades. Everyone else in the infantry got the m/1685 sabre to use in close melee, even the pikes got those.
Its a common mistake that because the m/1696 musket had fittings for bayonettes, that they would come equipped with them.

Well then it was not a tactical choice not to utilize the bayonet but rather the unavailability of the weapon;).

Nope, producing bayonettes is rather easy and cheap in comparison. They could wramp up production at any time and chose not to. From order to full production was only about 2 months when it finally was decided in 1704. So yes it was a definite choice.
They seriously prefered the troops to have and use the m/1685 sabre etc.

The swedish tactical utilization of the muskets where not due to the long loading time (probably not much greater than any other comparable musket in use at the time), but rather by choice. Swedish armies could simply not rely on firepower to win, due to the numerical superiority of almost all the enemies fought in this period.

Agreed that that was the thought, hence why I have already stated so a couple of times in the last pages. But I'd venture that the conclusion was wrong and it lost them the war against Peter. Their reliance on melee and not changing from that tactic meant that the enemy could simply ramp up artillery production and count on them to attack straight into fortified lines.

And swedish carolean grenadiers and pikemen never wore armour

*hmm* I could be mixing it with the pre reform stuff (indelningsverket). Could have sworn I saw some harnesks at the reenactments. Might have been the lutzen boys. *goes checking*
Seems like you are correct. The m/1683 harnesk was for the cavalry units, "livregementen till häst". So I'm mixing up the reenacter units. Sorry about that.
http://digitaltmuseum.se/things/harnesk/S-AM/AM.059350

Finally the defeat was attacking russia/ukraine in winter. Everything else is secondary. Carolus Rex thought the cossacks would come to his side and provide provisions etc. But Ivan Mazepa didn't have the following he thought he would have after the other crushed cossack rebellion: Bulavin something something I think

It is true that the battle was forced by the supply problems, brought on by the destruction of a swedish supply column under general Lewenhaupt at the battle of Lesna. But the outcome of the battle totally changed the military situation of sweden and Charles XII, and it was from then on that Sweden essentially where forced on the defensive.

Agreed on the defensive etc. Disagree on the Lesnaya effect. Yes that was a huge deal, but even if Lewenhaupt would have reached the main army with more supplies it wouldn't have made a difference. Lots of swedish apologists claim that it was close and Poltava and then Russia could have been won. That defies the data on Peter's troops and reserves. By 1707 the russians were outproducing the swedes in everything. Canons, muskets, pikes, sabres, supplies, horses, troops, everything.
Mogilev where they plundered on the 7 Juli 1708 is some ~500km from Moscow. Poltava and the surroundings is some ~750km from Moscow.
The plan was to "move to Moscow" in early september 1708. That is stupid on a grand scale. Everything else is secondary. Yes, I know the motivations, but its still stupid. Big suprise that cold came and that they had to abandon that plan.
Then to turn away and march further away from allies and the intended target, that is not smart either. It was this decision to move away from supply lines that hastened the fall. This since it meant that when supplies had to come it had to do so in really big numbers which would of course be observed and targeted, ie the hothead set up the disaster of Lesnaya by going to Ukraine.

[Spoonist]

Uh, I already did:

Also, while the thread is taking a collective deep breath, the German General who said US troops "benefitted more from their experiences than the British" was actually Rommel, not Bayerlein, and he's quoted in Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers page 66.

Because again, sorry, but sometimes I miss citation requests

=====

Sorry. My mistake, I completely glossed over that post since it was a continuation on the ranger debacle which you had asked me not to participate in.



Found the original source for that quote in the Rommel Papers p521-522.
In context it does not support your claim "it's worth noting that most German Generals draw a sharp contrast between the ability of American units (even regular line infantry) to learn much faster than their British counterparts".
You should check it out.