Why didnt they use shields or some kind of cover?

File: Nope.png (12KB, 707x228px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 707x228px

>>1937094
Wait a minute, didn't we just have this thread?

>>1937094
They dug trenches, as it was cheaper.

>what is ww1

Why didnt they just make a bayonet phalanx? if it worked for alexander it wouldve worked for napoleon

>>1937094

Too heavy, too slow, too much materials, too expensive.

>>1937094
>shields
useless, they were better off focusing on increasing their fire rate

>cover
they did, when possible

>>1937113
shields aren't expensive or wasteful in materials, the first 2 are right though

>>1937109
the bayonet would need to be as long as a pike and would be unwieldy

>>1937094
>>1937109
Wouldn't save them from artillery

>>1937141

A shield thick enough to stop a bullet is.

File: italian-trench-shield.jpg (172KB, 800x495px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 800x495px

>>1937106

File: poles.jpg (3MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2592x1944px

>>1937151

>>1937094

Didn't really need it.

>...powder is not as terrible as believed. Few men in these affairs are killed from the front while fighting. I have seen whole salvoes fail to kill four men.
General Maurice de Saxe, Reveries on the Art of War (1757)

File: cuirass.jpg (41KB, 253x354px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 253x354px

>s-surely le shield will protect me!!

>>1937163
>1757

That's why
Napoleonic Wars were much more violent
Most battles had dozens thousands killed (although most of them were inflicted by bayonet, sabers and artillery rather than musket fire)

>>1937094
Why didn't they use bushes or some kind of cucks?

>>1937167
>cannonball
We're talking bullets here, not cannoballs

Must've been a nightmare to clean the blood out of that thing

>>1937094
Why use shields? if you have lines of men.

>>1937169
Why didn't they throw away their muskets and go back to using halberds?

>>1937169

Right, most deaths were in route when a shield wouldn't be helpful, but a hindrance.

>>1937167

Cannon balls can kill without even hitting you.

>>1937162

Thats a shield for protecting against arrows.

>>1937162
>poles.jpg
:^)

File: w4554.jpg (92KB, 720x976px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 720x976px

>>1937182
Muskets were still pretty decisive in urban terrain

>>1937169

I don't have great info, but if you look at the casualty breakdown here.

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm

For 18th century stuff, it's about 70% by musket fire.

File: 1455318849721.jpg (566KB, 1280x1619px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1280x1619px

you guys should ask /k/ because military tactics and equipment is more of there thing.

>>1937169
Seven Years War had plenty of deadly battles.

>>1937323
Yeah but /k/ is retarded when it comes to non american military affairs, and don't know anything pre-WW2 with a babby american high school level of memery on WW1 (muh trenchs. muh german hostility. muh french surrendermonkey). THey still think they "won" vietnam ffs.

>>1937145
this.

people forget how effective the artillery was.

>>1937323
/k/ is worse than /his/ when it comes to military history, which is a feat i would not have thought possible but there you go

>>1937094
Artillery. You might be able to make shields for your men that can stop musket bullets but i'ts going to be heavy af and make them less mobile, thus more vulnerable to cannon fire. It's likely that armies with shields would suffer more losses than ones without.

>>1937907
This man is right

>>1937644
>>1937897
>>1937644
>>1937897
/k/ is good at coming up with really stupid ways to do things, like taking apart a steam boiler to rob a bank or some shit.

If you actively wanted to build a new way of protecting troops from black powder muskets, I'm sure /k/ already have a few ideas.

>beside you know, inviting a gun that you can easily reload on your belly.

because order and discipline wins battles
and you need a firm line for the bayonette charge

battles werent decided by shootouts until more accurate weapons appeared in the second half of the 19th century

File: lel.jpg (5KB, 210x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 210x200px

>>1937984
>falling for the bayonette charges meme

>>1937094
The big point of firearms in late medieval warfare is that it could effective shot thru any weight reasonable shield. So there would be no point to them using shields.

Why does this thread exist?

SHIELDS CANT STOP MUSKET BALLS

>>1938060
ISANDLWANA WAS AN INSIDE JOB

Light Infantry used cover.
Line Infantry used firepower, melee impact and unit cohesion.

>>1937144
That was the whole point of the bayonnet at the time though. I'll let you read about Napoleon's own statements about the rifle+bayonnet...