How was the warfare in later 19th century (1860-1880) in Europe?

[Incendio]

Some military paintings of later 19th century caught my attention and I am interested to know how European wars of this era was fought? Especially land battles of the following wars:

Austro-Prussian War (1866)
Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871)
Russo-Turkish War (1877–78)

Any information about this topic would be greatly appreciated

Thanks in advance

[Abdülmecid I]

Regarding the Franco-Prussian War:
Somewhat simplistically, I would say that the military situation was somewhere between the Napoleonic times and World War I. For example, the increasing logistical capabilites, the gradually changing methods of war and the large, industrial populations made the composition of hundreds of thousands of soldiers theoretically possible and militarily fruitful, but not on the extent of the Great War. That meant that delicate manoeuvres became progressively obsolete, but aggressive operations, aiming to outflank and isolate the enemy were still a perfectly viable recipe for victory. In other words, the static French units were attacked by significantly numerically superior German troops, which disrupted their lines and destroyed them one by one. Germany's offensive strategy and much more modernized conscription tactics, which were based on the French Revolutionary concept of a immense citizen-army, in contrast to France's archaic doctrine of centering around a relatively small number of professional veterans, really paid well.
In what concerns infantry tactics, the Chassepot rifle and at a lower level, the mitrailleuse, were able to mow down waves after waves of attackers. Disciplined French line infantry and stupid Prussian generals, obsessed with outdated, "chivalrous" principles contributed to some really severe casualties for the German side. However, they weren't the invincible wall of fire in Somme and, exactly like Napoleon predicted, the role of the artillery became gradually more important. The French defenses tended to collapse when their artillery was silenced down by the vastly superior Krupp cannons, which easily created holes along the French lines and forced huge garrisons to either surrender unconditionally or be subjected to a continuous cripplinmg barrage.
Cavalry was essentially only useful for reconnaisance. Due to a nonexistent airforce, light cavalry's role was still vital for that purpose and Germany's better trained units made sure that the German staff would keep having a better knowledge of the enemy's whereabouts than their French colleagues. Heavy cavalry simply had no place in modern warfare. French and Prussian cuirassiers were casually massacred in the battles of Wörth and Gravelotte respectively. Even their few successes were simply not cost-effective.

[EmperorBatman999]

There wasn't a lot of fighting in Europe at this time, as the Congress of Vienna settled most disputes and established a balance of power within Europe decades earlier.

Wars, if there were wars, were relatively brief and usually decided by one campaign.

Weapons technology was rapidly changing and was a deciding force in a campaign. In the Six Weeks War (Prussia vs. Austria), the Prussians had an immediate advantage in their use of the Needle Rifle, a breach-loading rifle that was easily able to outfire the Austrian muzzle-loading musket. The incompetence of the old Austrian officer corps didn't help matters either.

Of course, almost all fighting was carried out in mass-formations (though increasing attention was given to loose units of light infantry), and the increased range and rate of fire of rifled muskets and breech-loaders would cause massive casualties, particularly seen in the American Civil War. By the end of that particular conflict, both sides resorted to early trench warfare to minimize casualties.

Artillery was also becoming particularly important. Advances in explosives and ballistic technology meant that artillery guns could fire faster, further, and more accurate than ever before. Early rapid-fire weapons mounted on artillery carriages were developed like the Gatling Gun, but these were not frequently used in America or Europe.

Lever-action rifles, like the Henry and Winchester which were capable of firing many rounds before needing to reload, were developed but infrequently used in an official military capacity. While the weapons were effective, there were concerns over soldiers wasting ammunition. However, at the Battle of Plevna in the Russo-Turkish War, special units of Ottoman troops were outfitted with Winchester lever-action repeaters which were deployed successfully to mow down waves of Russian attackers at close range. Their rate of fire easily outstripped the Russians with their single-shot bolt-action Berdan Rifles and held out the attackers for months, but ultimately the siege failed and the Russians won. Still, the effective use of repeating rifles would not be lost on the international military community, and by the late 1880s multi-shot rifles were standard among most European armed forces.

Railroads became important assets in warfare. They came to be used for logistics networks and as artillery platforms.

[Incendio]

Thank you for the answers. Emperor, you mentioned mass formations so I guess the standard line infantry of napoleonic wars were not longer used in that wars?

[EmperorBatman999]

Thank you for the answers. Emperor, you mentioned mass formations so I guess the standard line infantry of napoleonic wars were not longer used in that wars?

No quite the contrary, my friend, the formations of the Napoleonic Wars are exactly the massed formations I speak of. Notice how tightly packed these Prussians are at Könnigrätz.



Of course, light infantry units like these Prussian Jagers would've moved in spread-out skirmish lines screening and flanking the main force, as developed in the Napoleonic Wars.


Formations like these would be used up into the opening days of World War 1, except by then technology had developed enough time make weapons even more deadly, with horrendous results.

[KEA]

Austro-Prussian War (1866)

This one, also called "the German War", is a somewhat forgotten but nevertheless highly important conflict (without that one, all following major wars in Europe up to WWII wouldn't have happened).

Concerning warfare: the Prussian army, or to be more precise for 1866: the Prussian infantry, was the most modern of its period, often decades ahead her opponents in tacitcal development. In 1866 the Prussians started experimenting with Kampfgruppen (task forces), a tatical system that most other armies adopted from the Wehrmacht as late as WWII. Prussian divisions were broken up into their batallions, squadrons and batteries. Of these elements, new mixed formations were formed (usually "Advantgarde", "Gros" and "Reserve") that fullfilled different tactical roles on the battlefield. This system not only gives modern wargamers a lot of headache because it makes drawing up proper OOBs for that campaign a challange, it also did its share to confuse the enemy recognition. But in the end it turned out that coordination (in a time without radio) of these adhoc formations was too complex and the system wasn't used anymore in 1870/71 until WWI.

Another important tactical development of the 1866 War was Auftragstaktik (mission command) which allowed a very high degree of initiative from local commanders. Most notably was the Battle of Gitschin in which two Prussian divisions, that neither were in contact with each other nor with high command, routed a Saxo-Austrian army of twice their size by both commanders attacking on their own initiative.

The Prussians also were fans of new techniques and made excessive use of railroads, telegraphs and the like. Most importantly was of course the decision to equip the entire infantry with the Dreyse needle gun as early as the 1840s, when all other armies still used smoothbore muskets. Even the later Minié rifle as used by the Austrians was a much inferior weapon. The Dreyse had an approximate 14 times higher rate of fire. The Prussians also were the first that made target practicing standard for all riflemen and placed more emphasis on fire and movement tactics than on charges. Compared to that, the Austrians favored mass charges in dense columns - exactly that rifle fodder the Needle Guns needed to be the most effective.

Artillery and cavalry left a lot to be desired in 1866, but in particular artillery developed much until 1870 when Krupp breechloading 4pdrs. butchered the French at Sedan at a rate of 10 shots per minute.

[Condottiere 40K]

We used to call those the Vorhut, the Gewalthut, and the Nachhut.

[hellheaven1987]

Disciplined French line infantry

French infantries were neither in line, nor disciplined.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Chassepot and metrailleuse keeps the Krauts away.
Which is funny cause the French only used the Chassepot rifle during the Franco-Prussian War. But prior in the Crimean War and the 2nd Italian Independence War they used the Minie Rifle.
Amazingly the Chassepot out ranged the Prussian Dreyse Needle Gun by almost twice as much.
At Gravelotte this lethal combination of Chassepot and metrailleuse fire from atop a defended series of hills, together with some miscalculations in the movements of some of the Prussian corps, gave the Prussians very high casualties.

[Condottiere 40K]

The mitrailleuse was a secret weapon, so the French generals hadn't quite figured out how to use them tactically, and their men didn't have much practice with them, while the Germans had modern Krupp cannons.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

In one battle ing Steinmetz decided to order his 3 corps to charge up a wooded hill where the French had placed troops at the base of the hill and an additional series of defenses at the top with infantry armed with Chassepot rifles and metrailleuse. His troops charged into the wooded area before being shot by the French infantry with Minie rifles and Chassepot rifles, then facing further fire from the top of the hill. His troops were forced to retreat soon afterwards. The topography of the area prevented Steinmetz from being able to clear the hill with his artillery. It was pretty hilarious how Steinmetz always wanted to attack like a raging bull but this time he was really stopped in his tracks. But I mean to be fair Steinmetz was being an insubordinate and Moltke never ordered him to attack but rather to distract those corps under general Frossard.

[hellheaven1987]

The mitrailleuse was a secret weapon, so the French generals hadn't quite figured out how to use them tactically, and their men didn't have much practice with them, while the Germans had modern Krupp cannons.

Not really, mitrailleuse is more a short/medium range firesupport due to its -2 accuracy, so the highly accurate Krupp gun could always snipe their position out, regardless how well its operators were trained.

But I mean to be fair Steinmetz was being an insubordinate and Moltke never ordered him to attack but rather to distract those corps under general Frossard.

Moltke did more or less task his subordinates went through search-and-destroy campaign though.

Anyway I do find it amazing Chassepot has an effective range of 1000 yards even it used blackpowder.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Well in this case Moltke knew that Steinmetz would be insubordinate and that all of his armies were poorly coordinated, so Moltke decided to leave his headquarters at Frankfurt and lead the troops himself. He brought King Wilhelm with him for good measure so that Steinmetz could not refuse his orders.
Here at Gravelotte Steinmetz acted out on his own anyway where as the other few corps under Charles Frederick miscalculated and attack the French right flank much too soon. Instead they accidentally ran into the French center and were beaten back. It took another day of fighting before those corps were able to outflank the French right and assault their defended positions from two sides.

[IrishBlood]

I think the Crimean War (1853-1856) and the German - Danish Wars (1848-1852 and 1864) deserve a mention.

The use of the Minie Rifle by the French was absolutely devastating during the Crimean war. It went a long way in terms of winning them the war. Withering French rifle fire drove the Russians away at the battle of Alma despite the relatively well entrenched fortifications the Russians had made for themselves in preparation for the battle. The longer range and accuracy of the Minie rifle also gave the French a pretty big edge over the Russians when it came to the near endless sniping and nullification of lines of fortifications and redoubts protecting Sevastopol during the siege.

The Crimean war made it pretty clear to everyone that muzzle loading muskets were a thing of the past, a lesson the Austrians failed to learn to their great dismay during the Austro-Prussian war!

Slightly off topic, but still relevant, was the devastating defeat of the Ottoman navy during the battle (massacre) of Sinop in the early stages of the war. This battle highlighted the devastating effect of explosive shells on wooden sailing ships and played no small part in forcing the great navies of the world to abandon solid shot cannon balls and to start building armored clad warships.

While the Danish - German wars are much less notable in terms of advances in military tech/innovation, they deserve a mention if only because of the David Vs Goliath nature of the wars (except Goliath curb stomps David in round 2 ).
They did however signal to everyone that Prussia was very much on the rise and was a sign of things to come. It also showed that smaller 'powers' that relied on a strong core of professional troops were no match for the sheer numbers that industrialized nations like Prussia/Austria could bring to bear. In some ways the Second Danish - German war was a practice run for what would happen during the Franco German war.

It should also be noted that a great deal of conflicts that occurred throughout the mid-late 19th century were civil wars and revolts/revolutions, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Serbs, Poles, Bulgarians, Greeks etc all revolted against their respective oppressors with varying results. In terms of actual warfare they were generally of a very much irregular/guerrilla nature and I don't think they would have been carried out much differently from similar revolts during the 1700's. New weapons perhaps, and with a steadily increasing nationalistic dimension, but that would be about it!

The Carlist wars, the Third one in particular as well as the Italian wars of independence are also good examples of large scale late 19th century wars, not sure how innovative they were though!

EDIT: Ok, last point and then I'll shut up

The Serbo-Bulgarian war of 1885 would prove quite significant for a number of reasons, despite the conflict being pretty limited.

The Serbs were armed with some of the best rifles available at the time (Mauser-Milovanović), but due to severe incompetence on the part of the Serbian king and a massive overestimation of the rifles abilities, this advantage was completely nullified. For example Serbian junior officers often ordered their troops to fire at distances of half a mile or more, wasting the expensive ammo, as the rifle wasn't meant for accurate fire at such distances.

The poor performance of the Serbian military during the war (despite their previously stellar record against the Ottomans) led to a massive overhaul of training and tactics, which in turn is what caused the Serbs to be so effective in the Balkan wars and WW1.

Perhaps of more significant importance for history in general is that the war caused irreparable damage to Serb-Bulgarian relations. The two had been allies in the fight against the Ottomans, but the Serbian King wished to curb Bulgaria's growing power and instigated the war. He knew such a betrayal would be so unpopular that he commanded the invading Serb army himself and told his officers that they were advancing into Bulgaria to help the Bulgarians to fend off an impending Ottoman attack. It proved a huge blow to Serbian moral when they found out they were there to attack their former allies.

Long story short, the war soured relations so badly that it almost directly led to the Second Balkan war as well as Bulgaria invading Serbia in both WW1 and WW2, as Bulgaria never again had any inclination to have a meaningful alliance with the Serbs ever again.

[KEA]

The Crimean war made it pretty clear to everyone that muzzle loading muskets were a thing of the past, a lesson the Austrians failed to learn to their great dismay during the Austro-Prussian war!

No. The Crimean War made it clear that smoothbore weapons were a thing of the past what the Austrians instantly learned and had the infantry armed with Lorenz rifle (a Minié) already durning that war. The Austro-Prussian War made it clear that muzzle-loaders were a thing of the past what the French quickly learned and re-equipped their infantry with the Chassepot immediatly after the war.

While the Danish - German wars are much less notable in terms of advances in military tech/innovation, they deserve a mention if only because of the David Vs Goliath nature of the wars (except Goliath curb stomps David in round 2 ).
They did however signal to everyone that Prussia was very much on the rise and was a sign of things to come. It also showed that smaller 'powers' that relied on a strong core of professional troops were no match for the sheer numbers that industrialized nations like Prussia/Austria could bring to bear.

The Danish army was much a conscript army as was the Prussian or Austrian one, just much smaller and weaker in terms of leadership and weaponary.

[Incendio]

What about the melee combats? Bayonets were still used by those times?

[EmperorBatman999]

What about the melee combats? Bayonets were still used by those times?

Yes, certainly, but it was becoming increasingly clear that ranged combat was a deciding factor.

That didn't stop countries like Austria-Hungary from developing a military doctrine strongly emphasizing the bayonet in use for massive attacks, but of course as discussed, Austria found that this strategy was disastrous in actual practice against Prussia. During the American Civil War, there was the notorious Pickett's Charge where Confederate infantry was ordered to charge across nearly a mile of open ground against fortified Union positions. It ended in disaster.

Bayonet offensives were a part of most European militaries up into World War I, where it was found that bayonet charges to the enemy trench were often disastrous failures. The bayonet was also no good in a trench as the long reach was incredibly impractical in close-quarters combat...so much so to the point that experienced soldiers learned that handmade clubs and sharpened shovels were more effective than the bayonet in trench combat.

While it is outside the scope of your questions, East Asian armies like the Japanese and Chinese held onto bayonet combat for much longer. Those nations still had very strong melee-based martial arts traditions and never learned the experiences of World War I, so the bayonet was still widely utilized into World War II.

The experiences of World War I did not render the use of the bayonet completely obsolete for Europe and the United States, however, and there was still plenty of bayonet training and combat usage of the bayonet by those armies. However, the bayonet became an increasingly rare sight on the battlefield and most of the time they either remained in their scabbards or were just used by hand as a normal knife. I believe only a few years ago some part of the United States military stopped training with bayonets altogether and transferred over to more practical martial arts like fist-fighting and improvised weapons usage. But anyway, by the late World War period and early Cold War, bayonet combat was reserved only for emergency situations, such as if soldiers ran out of ammunition.

[Condottiere 40K]

The point of cold steel is to break the morale of the enemy directly facing you.

[KEA]

What about the melee combats? Bayonets were still used by those times?

I don't know any examples of cold steel hand-to-hand combat (between infantry) in those wars. Doesn't mean it didn't happen by guarantee, but it not was common enough to have made into the records in general. The same applies to the 18th Century wars as well BTW. Those armies avoided direct contact with the enemy because it meant complete loss of control over their own units.

[IrishBlood]

No. The Crimean War made it clear that smoothbore weapons were a thing of the past what the Austrians instantly learned and had the infantry armed with Lorenz rifle (a Minié) already durning that war. The Austro-Prussian War made it clear that muzzle-loaders were a thing of the past what the French quickly learned and re-equipped their infantry with the Chassepot immediatly after the war.

The Danish army was much a conscript army as was the Prussian or Austrian one, just much smaller and weaker in terms of leadership and weaponary.

My mistake, I got a bit mixed up there. I should have said that the Crimean war made it clear that smooth bore muskets were a thing of the past and improvements in rifled barrels (followed by breach loading rifles) were the way of the future.

I'm no expert on the Danish wars and while the Prussian/Austrians were probably better trained and lead than the Danes, the 'rebel' forces of Schleswig-Holstein were pretty inferior to the comparably well trained Danes.

What about the melee combats? Bayonets were still used by those times?

As has already been said above, bayonet charges in open battles would have been fairly rare. However, when it came to assaulting fortified positions in villages/towns/forts etc melee combat would still have been prevalent.

Muzzle loading rifles in particular are of more limited effectiveness in close quarters combat and could prove quite unwieldy. As EmperorB pointed out above even more modern breech or magazine fed rifles were still fairly limiting when storming a trench and the likes of the Winchester 1897 trench shotgun and Thompson submachine-gun became extremely popular for this reason.

Any close combat situation in a fortified position during the 1800's would likely have resulted in a lot of fairly brutal melee combat.

While it is outside the scope of your questions, East Asian armies like the Japanese and Chinese held onto bayonet combat for much longer. Those nations still had very strong melee-based martial arts traditions and never learned the experiences of World War I, so the bayonet was still widely utilized into World War II.

Just as an aside to that point the Japanese did experience some WW1 trench warfare during the Siege of Tsingtao, but because the Germans/Austrian defenders were so heavily outnumbered they were fairly easily overwhelmed (albeit with heavy Japanese casualties). This success meant that the Japanese didn't feel the need to adapt or innovate their trench warfare tactics as much as they might have if they had suffered a serious defeat or extremely high losses.