Waterloo or not...

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by kronckew

True, later high explosives worked better. Actually wounding an enemy is better strategically as it takes more manpower to care for the wounded , more food, etc, too, a dead person just needs a hole, or not even that.

Conceive's rockets were in use in the war of 1812, and included in the US's national anthem (the Rockets red glare).

Apparently they also were under development in the Peninsular war.`

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0deTf57rUqE

I like the flank officer's sword....

Waterloo hospital site to be dug up by team including UK veterans

From The Guardian - Daniel Boffey in Brussels.

Quote"A group of 25 British and Dutch military veterans are to join the first excavation of the main field hospital established by the Duke of Wellington during the Battle of Waterloo. The former soldiers, sailors and RAF personnel will work with archaeologists, led by Prof Tony Pollard of Glasgow …"Unquote.

Thus in keeping with the theme above, of battle injuries inflicted... Something the weapons designers argued with incessantly...hardly surprising ! I note that the main Field Hospital at Waterloo on the British side is being excavated with a big British team to discover among other things what the main injuries were from gunpowder weapons and blades..Thousands of British troops were treated under continuous fire and the injuries were horrific as men were operated on often in the open...gaping laceration wounds inflicted by French Cavalry Swords and massive cannon and bullet wounds were treated all under fire... Most of the dead were cremated (and there are no graves) and after their bones were used as fertilizer by local farmers..