Barry Lyndon

If they kill you, you win.

Can you explain making this thread, every day, Jason?

>>3032998
Old, aristochratic, stupid, honor, gentleman tactics.

>>3032998
Every day until you learn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_warfare

>>3033001
Literally a retard
They fought that way because of their weapons not their honour, you dense shit

go ahead and try to think of a better way they could fight each other back then. if they didn't do this every battle would be a stalemate.

It's a numbers game

>>3033001
Literally retarded.

>>3032998
the bullets fired were quite inaccurate, so volley firing was the only means to keep the kill rate high

>>3033003
Don't engage in open plains and wage ambushes and gorilla warfare.
Bait them into sieges and battling fortifications.
Bombard them to hell with cannons from a hill.

I think it's so you're not all exhausted when you get to the enemy. The key to winning a battle is to break the enemy's morale and get them to run away. If you run to the enemy, get there out of breath and start getting stabbed to shit, your men will break and run, and be slaughtered. The muskets and cannon don't kill as many as the bayonets will when the lines close, so getting to the enemy fresh, having intimidated them with a cold, fearless march into their guns, is better than running at them across the entire field.

t. 30+ hours playing Empire: Total War

>>3032998
It was the optimal way to own a quarter of the world.

>>3033007
>gorilla warfare
did you learn those tactics from that class you graduated top of in the usmc?

Because muskets and their ammo are inaccurate and take a while to reload so they want to get as close as possible to do the most damage. Also close enough so that the enemy artillery is less effective.

>>3033007
>Don't engage in open plains

lol good luck with that

>gorilla warfare
bravo

>>3033008
Also want to add: You want to all get there at the same time. If you all run, you'll get to the enemy a few at a time, and each group that arrives will be heavily outnumbered and easily killed. An orderly march is slow, but it ensures you will all get there simultaneously and be able to bring the full force of your numbers to bear.

>>3033007
>Don't engage in open plains and wage ambushes and gorilla warfare.
Not viable when your army is limited in numbers and spread thin in a foreign country
>Bait them into sieges and battling fortifications.
There aren't just readily available forts every 50 miles.
>Bombard them to hell with cannons from a hill.
You have to take the hill before you can defend it

>>3033007
Bravo, move over Napoleon.

>>3033002
>>3033005
Yeah I have read all those arguments about the weapons and tactics, etc.

But there is no point to fight like that in an open field, why they couldn't hide and move fast? make trenches, make some barriers or soemthing...

Why in the war of independence the colonialists change their tactics and could resist against a much bigger and powerful enemy?

If the colonialists would have fought like that, all together in an open field they would have lost in one single battle.

>>3033016
>But there is no point to fight like that in an open field, why they couldn't hide and move fast? make trenches, make some barriers or soemthing...

because they didn't have machine guns and sniper rifles to engage each other. all they would have are shitty canons. they'd sit in trenches for 10 years and nothing would happen. until they decided to just fucking march at each other.

>>3032998
>american education

>>3033016
It was considered the fairest way to settle a dispute, back in those days there was honor.

>>3033016
>why they couldn't hide and move fast? make trenches, make some barriers or soemthing...
Because if you're making an offensive you're ultimately going to have to leave your trench and advance on the enemy position anyway.
>Why in the war of independence the colonialists change their tactics and could resist against a much bigger and powerful enemy?
Because that was a population turned militia. The napoleonic wars were armies in foreign countries.

>>3033016
Make trenches? Why? So you can get surrounded and starved? You can't even volley fire from a trench. What do you mean move fast?

And the colonialists did fight in open fields. The War of Independence had a lot more facets than le Patriot ambush man.

>>3032998
It's simply a matter of communications. Remember that a message could still only travel as fast as a voice or horse could carry it during this period and so units needed to be tightly packed to ensure ease of movement and order being clearly given and spread. The inaccuracy of contemporary muskets was partly the reason but it was mostly communications which prevented any larger scale spreading out of formations barring specifically formed light troops. So high casualty rates weren't really a problem when it was something which both side of a given battle expected beforehand in the context of warfare known to them at the time.

>>3032998
It was all part of their master plan.

Christ next this faggot would be asking why there wern't trenches built pre-gunpowder and that all archers should be in trenches.

>>3033019
Fucking kek, you can shut your face as well. They fought like that because it was the best and most efficient way of killing your enemies. Read up on the 30 Years War and tell me where you find honor in that. Also, sabotage, ambushes, guerilla tactics, partisans, raids etc wasn't anything new, it wasn't invented in the War of Independence. Americans just romanticize the idea of a mountain man and his rifle living in the woods and winning against the odds because they think it can be done today against their own government.

>>3033016
The colonials had a massive home advantage. Their supplies and reasons for fighting were all around them, and they knew the terrain like their back garden. The British supplies had to come across the Atlantic ocean and they were fighting in a completely foreign land, because they were ordered to.

With a large army, abroad like that, you can't have your men spread out and hiding in a wilderness. You'll have deserters, low morale, and you'll be unable to coordinate troop movements effectively.

>>3033016
Ok buddy do me a favor. Load up empire total war and fight a battle where the enemy has one group of 100 men in formation and you have 12 separate squads of 9 men and try to rout the men in formation.

See how effective you are

>>3033017
>>3033019
>>3033021
>>3033026
Always the same arguments...

Can you explain me why they can't move running in gropus hide in the forest then attacking from behind or something different than going straight foward to the bullets???

>>3033027
I don't play video games, video games are for children, sorry.

>>3032999
HAHAHAHAAHHAA!!!! You cracked me up son. Is /tv/ your main board? I find your sense of humor too strong for /tv/.

>>3033028
You're not fucking listening.

>>3033029
Dude, you're on 4chan you can't really call people out on being manchildren.

>>3033028
Cool, you hang out in the forest. We'll take the cities, the harbors, the breweries, the bakeries, the industries and the farmable land. Have fun surviving off squirrels and rain water.

>>3033028
>Always the same arguments...
Maybe because it's correct.

Spread your guys out and try to surround them, and your lines will be thin and vulnerable to a charge.

>>3032998
>https://youtu.be/tC7r8yBewTk

AMERIKEKS BTFO

>>3033028
>the world is all forest
>what is logistics
>what is morale

>>3033028
because the guns back then were fucking trash and weren't accurate. you had one bullet back then, if you miss then you either have to reload or go charge in (they didn't want to charge in, surprise surprise). ambushes didn't work the same way back then as they do now with modern weapons. they were in a weird area where they had guns but they were kind of shitty, but they also didn't want to go balls to the wall and charge in.

you can't fight all battles in a forest anyway. if you take your entire army and just go hide in a forest, how are you going to get supplies? you've just left everything including your supply lines open

File: 1496885778788.png (139KB, 228x260px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 228x260px

>>3033029

>>3033037
>because the guns back then were fucking trash

Even in ancient times there was more tactics and there weren't even guns.

>>3033028
You're so dense. There were lots of men far smarter than you who led armies and developed tactics during that period of history. The tactics they relied on were the result of the limitations in weaponry, communications, and logistics of the time. For the most part they did the best with what they had.

>>3032998

In this engagement:

>British must advance upon the French position
>they must march forward while the French have the advantage of being on defense
>being on defense, the French may hold position and fire/reload until the British reach them
>the British must advance and reach them, and their cohesion would break down if they tried to fire and reload while marching
>hence, the British must advance to close-range, fire, then charge the French position

good bait but i'm happy to discuss this film and style of warfare since i love both

>>3033039
>Even in ancient times there was more tactics
Please elaborate.

>>3033039
because guns changed everything, don't you get it? they were limited in some ways but it took less time to train people to use them. that's the thing right there, less training and more effective.

>>3033039
You sound knowledgable, I bet you have done some in depth studies juxtaposing Napoleonic tactics versus warfare in Antiquity.

>>3033040
Yeah so intelligent to run towards a wall of guys ready to shoot you and with guns.

Very very intelligent, sure.

Sure those very intelligent officers didn't go in those front lines and watch the battle from a comfy hill.

>>3032998
Puppets marching slowly and proudly like the fools they were. There were most likely many undoubtedly shat themselves in fear, but trudged on anyway out of fear of being legally shot as a traitor.

All this, of course, while their kings sat back snuggly out of harm's way, unlike the older wars. These people were idiots.

>>3033045
>Yeah so intelligent to run towards a wall of guys ready to shoot you and with guns.

stop thinking every battle can be a fucking ambush, jesus christ. how the fuck do you think we take defensive positions today?

>>3033042
In ancient times you can see how armies make deception movements. Use trunks, use fire, make ambushes.

Ohhhh now we have muskets and they are a shitty weapong with only one shot and we can train soldiers faster so let's make a shitty tactic of running all towards death playing drums. Let's hope that they run ount of bullets or don't know how to shoot.

>>3033047
with planes, tanks, artillery, etc???

>>3033045
>Sure those very intelligent officers didn't go in those front lines and watch the battle from a comfy hill.

Neither do they today, great argument. I bet you would fight from the front lines with your merry band of forest dwellers.

Honestly, you have an entire board of people more knowledgeable than you telling you that you're wrong and don't have a clue what you're talking about, doesn't that tell you something?

Maybe time to cut your losses, read up on some of this stuff and stop making an ass out of yourself.

>>3033048
there was no way around it. they either used guns or they were fucked.

>>3033050
And you are?

>>3033049
tanks still get shot at.

air support is something different and that also completely changed how we fight wars, but that's a different topic

>>3033051
Can you explain me what were they defending in OP pic??? An empty field??

>>3033048
You obviously have some sort of interest in this subject, so why don't you just read up on it? You'd likely find it interesting and you wouldn't have to make these bait threads all the time.

>>3033052
I'm what?

>>3033054
maybe they were defending a supply line and their only way of defending it was to fight a battle on an open field?

>>3033016
You've managed to say so much dumb shit in one post that I don't even know where to begin in refuting it.

>>3033049
Yeah that worked great in Stalingrad.

>lol they just marched into machine gun fire what idiots i bet hitler wasnt even on the front line herp derp

>>3033055
I didn't make the thread.

>>3033056
Yes, who are you? Professor of modern history I know, but in what university? What are some of your best publications? I'm interested.

>>3033057
how do you know that?

>>3033025
>Americans just romanticize the idea of a mountain man and his rifle living in the woods and winning against the odds because they think it can be done today against their own government.
Evidence guerrilla warfare works against the US government:
Vietnam
Iraq
Afghanistan

>>3033060
Ok, you should still do it though.

>>3033062
dont, just making up a scenario. perfectly adequate one too.

>>3032998
in the old British army it was either that or be flogged to death. or stoppage of the liquor allowance, which the drunks and criminals comprising their army probably dreaded most of all

>>3033061

Reading a few books doesn't make you a professor.

>lol what buttheads they shoulda just gone innawoods and snipe xD

Maybe you teach at West Point?

>>3033065
>just making up a scenario
Ahhhhhh ok.

File: The_Return_of_the_King_(1980_film)_-_Mouth_of_Sauron.jpg (24KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x300px

>>3033067
Touche.

>>3033063
The Americans won thanks to France and her allies, not a batshit innawoods Christian with a tomahawk and musket.

>>3033070
>The Americans won thanks to France and her allies, not a batshit innawoods Christian with a tomahawk and musket.

And what does that have to do with my post?

>>3033070
wtf i love frogs now

File: Sharpe - Sharpe's Sword.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>3033066
What would have been people's preferred choice, serving in the army or the navy? Sharpe or Hornblower?

>>3033067
You have only watched some documentaries and read wikipedia articles son. Don't act like some professor of history. Be more open minded, you don't have all the answers and you don't have the only truth.

ITT: idiots who dont know the history of warfare. It was fighting in formation just as in greek and roman times but with weaponry of that time. It was most effective way of fighting. Also battles during this time had least casulties of all battles in history. It was a matter of breaking enemy morale and formation to make them run.

>>3033071
Vietnam was propped up by both SU and China, it wasn't just le spooky pajama man with an SKS.

>>3033001
>aristochratic
Even assuming you mean aristocratic you are retarded cause those are not aristocrats fighting.

>>3032998
>tfw there will never be a traditional war again
>either guerrilla war or wiping everyone out with nukes

>>3033076
>guerrilla warfare wasn't significant in the Vietnam war

k, please adopt a trip so I can filter the rest of your shitposts

>>3033073
well I like to think I'd have been protected from impressment by such friends as I've got at work. it wasn't unusual for groups of people to respond with violence and actually succeed at it. certainly I'd like to take a bashing instrument to some stinking cunt of a redcoat

>>3033074
When have I ever pretended to be a professor? I've just tried to explain that there's a good reason people did things the way they did.You however pretend to know better than all the generals of the time and all historians after. It's a bit pathetic. Everyone is just calling you on your bs.

>>3033073
As a private soldier Richard Sharpe was damn near flogged to death. I don't know how he survived it. Hornblower's an interesting case because he's such a 20th century character in a brutish historical milieu (hates flogging, loves hygiene, finds everyone he knows insufferably stupid).

File: 1496247189960.png (226KB, 561x473px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 561x473px

>>3033078
>ywn slowly march with your comrades in a line while listening to a marching music waiting to see white in their eyes and shoot your musket then get shot while reloading

saying people were stupid for fighting like this is kind of like calling the romans stupid for not having airplanes dropping napalm on everything

they did the best with the limitations they had at the time

>>3033081
PhD student of modern history here. You are correct. The guy you are debating doesn't understand basic concepts of warfare.

>>3033077
>you are retarded cause those are not aristocrats fighting.
But the people who made the tactics yes. And that's what I meant.

>>3033016

trench won't help you for shit if your only firepower is inaccureate rifle with a very low firing speed. musketeers hiding in the trench would be very easy targets for bayonets and spears

>>3033083
I know how you feel, anon. I myself frequently reflect on the injustice of not being torn to bits by canister or having a big ball of shot smash casually through both my legs.

>>3033079
>it wasnt just

Great reading comprehension.

But yeah I guess they still would've won without Chinese guns, ammo, food, medical supplies and fuel. Also Russian fighter jets, AA missiles and advisors didn't even help.

>>3032998
>its a 'i have no understanding of 18th century warfare but i'll make a thread about it anyway' episode

>>3033086
Aristocratic warfare since ancient times is 1on1 fighting. Here we got mass armies fighting with relatively poorly trained soldiers. Yes, there is some pre-modern concept of honor in this but it doesn't have a lot do do with aristorcracy but more with masculinity.
If it was limited to aristocracy people wouldn't be fighting like they did. The concept of honor was extended and transformed before people fought like this. There is also a lot of money involved btw.

>>3033087
>musketeers hiding in the trench would be very easy targets for bayonets and spears
But they have to come to the trenches in the first place. We shoot them when they are near and then you fight with them hand by hand in the trenches. It's better for a little army fight in the trenches because a bigger army can't use their gibber numbers. Termophilas tactic.

>>3033014
Isn't gorilla warfare usually the best option for small armies?

>>3033089
Why are you replying to me? I already said I'm not interested in your low level shitposting.

>>3033030
go back to r3ddit

>>3033083
Join ISIS.

>>3033092
>Termophilas
Just stop talking and pick up a book.

>>3033091
>Aristocratic warfare since ancient times is 1on1 fighting.

That's the particular hallmark of a "hero culture". Hero cultures tended not to fare well against the Romans, can't think why.

>>3033093
Gorilla warfare is best for primate armies.

So this is how you get replies. Act like an utter retard. Good to know.

>>3033094
Sorry, I'll let you get back to your infographs on how to knock out MRAPs.

>>3033098
Well because Romans used mass armies, again changing the social structure of society by doing so. We know that in the early times equites/knights dominated the Italian battlefields.
You have a similar developement during the late middle ages when highly trained aristorcrats start losing fights against bowmen or pikemen.

>>3033073
Navy if it was like Carry On Jack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTBw24U-Mfg

>>3033088
>>3033083
https://youtu.be/tC7r8yBewTk?t=110
>ywn watch another anon get his head taken off by a bouncing canon ball

File: 1496700780010.jpg (45KB, 333x333px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 333x333px

>>3033099
Top qeq

>>3033092
>British invade a country and dig trenches
>Just sit in the trenches and wait for the defenders to come to them
>defending forces just never engage them, go about their lives like normal while the British autistically screech in a hole in the ground

Good plan my man

>>3033092

wtf, bigger army could literally walk over trenches and just start shoving their bayonets on the necks of defenders, they could just grab some big rocks and throw them over defenders to crush theirs skulls.. etc. Smaller army would panic the moment when the first attacker would cross the trenches

I doubt trench warfare was effective at all until machine gun was invented

>>3032998
1) Formations were key to Peninsula war era tactics.
Infantry would move slowly to ensure they kept a well formed line that could unleash the optimum amount of firepower and adapt if necessary.
2) Professional soldiers moving slowly and quietly scared the shit out of conscripts; it gave the illusion that they didn't care about the fire they were receiving was
3) it kept them from gettting tired out
4) it made the men calmer, and less likely to fuck up their weapon drills
5) it presented a unified line for when they performed a Bayonet charge
6) an obvious show of discipline would have made them less of an appealing target

>>3033093
GUERRILLA warfare is the best option if you don't need to defend anything and you can hide easily. it's basically a losers option, they know they are fucked but they don't want to just give up

File: 423424.gif (229KB, 300x156px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 300x156px

>>3033002
>>3033005
>>3033017
>>3033019
>>3033020
>>3033021
>>3033026
>>3033027
>>3033031
>>3033032
>>3033033
>>3033034
>>3033036
>>3033037
>>3033038
>>3033040
>>3033042
>>3033043
>>3033044
>>3033047
>>3033050
>>3033051
>>3033053
>>3033055
>>3033056
>>3033057
>>3033058
>>3033059
>>3033064
>>3033065
>>3033067
>>3033077
>>3033081
>>3033087
>>3033091
>>3033097
>>3033100
All these profesors of moder military history. My God. Get a life and stop studying dead people and guns HAHAHA.

>>3033104
OH, WHO'S THE FUCKING GUNNER'S PET?

You can argue against it all you want, but the simple fact that Britain owned a third of the world proves that it worked.
I can't believe there are people who are arrogant enough to watch a historical movie and then imagine that if they got sent back they would be a fantastic military leader far superior to anyone else alive at the time because they're able to find "plot holes" in military tactics. It's truly pathetic.

FUCKING MODS

>>3033110
>t. Burger

File: 1497466301413.gif (2MB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x394px

REEEEEEE fucking mods,literally half of shit currently on tv isnt tv related

>>3033124
they need to make sure the capeshit advertising are always in the top 10 bumped threads

>>3033110
>Get a life and stop studying dead people and guns HAHAHA.

>/his/ - crossboard shitposting & humanities

>>3033007
>Bait them into sieges and battling fortifications.
Most early modern wars were sieges. Pitched battles were rare. Also, you are more likely to die by disease rather than from someone else.

>>3033028
I don't even think you can understand modern combat tactics much less 18th century tactics.

>>3033110

Haha our boys aren't dying in Iraq just so that I have to go read a book. USA USA USA!

>>3033057
That or they knew the army was moving through that area so they went out to engage them.

>>3033028
*teleports behind you*
heh... too easy...

>>3032998
Stupid aristocrats making stupid strategies for "honor". Luckily this all ended when America taught them that things don't work that way lol

>>3033112
Haven't you read the thread? You could have just dug trenches or attack them from behind.

>18TH CENTURY GENERALS ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>3032998

Cuck Armies.

Just don't even try to understand them.

>>3033075

Difference is that in greek and roman times you just don't stand there like a dumb monkey waiting for the enemy formation to aim and shoot you at close distance while you are not allowed to duck, cover, move, use you fucking shield, take initiative, but just pray dog that the bullets don't hit you.

There were also formation in WWI and WWII and soldiers weren't used in dumb monkey formations (except for the retarded trench assaults in WWI and the soviet frontal zergrush tactic).

There were also formations prior to the age of line infantry and they didn't involve aristocrats and officers shepharding silly goys into close range distance to get shot like expendable pieces of shit.

>muh honorable fighting

This was the most retarded and less honorable style of fighting ever

>>3032998
It's a game of chess. The only difference is the pawns have many moves they can make. You need to remember your really only marching into one volly of inaccurate at best musket fire than its your turn to return fire with a closer firing distance.

>>3033299

If you think they fought that way for honor and not because it was the most effective way to cause somebody harm with the weapons of the period, your American education system failed you.

>>3033438
Yeah Romans and Greeks didn't fight in formation. Missile troops never beat Roman armies because they had shields. All thanks to not being led by aristocrats.

It's because the guns in that time weren't capable of shoot enemies in a long distance.

>>3033472
t. mad britbong still mad that his retarded ancestors got btfo

>>3033497
go read a book r-tard

>>3033544
Must be hard to spot sarcsasm without the "/s", huh?

It's a "we pretend modern warfare isn't still just running at the enemy while they shoot at you" episode

>>3033497

A Roman or a Greek warrior wasn't demanded to stand still defenceless in the open while some faggot readied, aimed and threw a javelin at him. Within the formation either he had a shield for himself or others were expected to protect the ranks.

The individual life of a warrior-citizen had a value. It was in the eastern despotisms like the Persian Empire where the masses>individual and people were just flesh to toy with in life and throw around in battle where you can draw a comparison with the line infantry armies mentality.

File: whatthefug.jpg (20KB, 150x200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 150x200px

I'd like to believe this whole thread is trolling but I know it's simply not true. You actually got plenty of know-it-all morons who unironically shit over early modern warfare.

i give up

File: kriegsspiel.jpg (166KB, 745x535px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 745x535px

>>3033029

"I don't play Kriegsspiel, its a game for children" - Napoleon III former Emperor of France

File: 1469579685747.jpg (33KB, 475x350px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 475x350px

>>3033007
>gorilla warfare
>>3033010

>>3032998
One of the more popular strategies at this time was to march to almost point-blank range with the enemy, fire one volley, then charge. This would hopefully trigger a rout within the enemy formation.

The reason they walked is that running makes you tired.

>>3033299
You'll find it was WW1 that taught the world new tactics. By the time the US got involved warfare had already moved on

File: kermitseppos.png (1MB, 989x1022px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 989x1022px

americans have no history ergo they shouldn't be allowed to post on /his/

>>3034674

running also causes your ranks to become disordered

>>3032998
that scene isn't very accurate.

OB
SESS
ED

File: 019.jpg (67KB, 600x828px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x828px

>>3033007

>>3032998
You do realise pitched battles were a minority for most of history, that only happened once fortifications could more easily be destroyed with artillery in a matter of minutes

File: IMG_1020.jpg (109KB, 500x435px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x435px

>>3035013
>>3032998

>>3033027
But that's impossible to do in Total War.

Because it was viable until the invention of the machine gun. Just depends on how many casualties you're willing to take, and in those days the soldier peasants weren't in any place to complain to their officers.

>>3032998

There were a variety of reasons.

You have to bear in mind that troops in skirmish formations were still highly vulnerable to cavalry at this point because of the limitations of their firearms. An army comprised entirely of skirmishers could get very easily routed by cavalry, which still played an important battlefield role. Line infantry wasn't so vulnerable because of their ability to unleash concentrated fire/organise quickly into squares.

Still, skirmishers were nevertheless an important part of the infantry in early modern warfare and war wasn't just lines of men marching towards each other - it was often more complex than that. And while maneuvers had to be relatively simple for practical reasons, you still had battles with multiple moving parts and highly complex tactics.

The line infantry just formed the majority for a long time because weapons hadn't yet developed to the point where offensive cavalry started to become irrelevant. As soon as that happened, these linear formations started to give way to more cover-based, initiative-taking warfare.

>>3032998
Keep in mind that probably most Europeans back then actually believed to some degree in Christian teachings. Marching stoically into enemy fire is easier if you believe that God and heaven literally exist.

In the 14th and 15th centuries the Spanish Square, or Tercio was the dominant form of warfare in Europe.

It was a mix of pikemen, swordsmen and guns.

The Swedes figured out that a line infantry can absolute wipe the floor with the Tercio, which is exactly what they did in the 30 yrs war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Revolution#Linear_tactics

>>3035525

There's some newer research that states the Swedes didn't do too hot against the "real deal" Spanish Tercios, rather than their not as good German knockoffs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_N%C3%B6rdlingen_(1634)

Didn't mean that linear tactics wasn't the way to go for the future, but it didn't prove super decisive in the 80 year's war or the 30 year's war.

>>3032998
>Barry Lyndon
One of the best movies ever made

>>3032998
While we're being stupid, what would happen if an army bayonet charged an army that was bayonet charging them?

>>3032998
The classic British redcoat tactic was to march towards the enemy, giving them the first chance to fire at a distance where few of their shots will hit, then firing their own volley at a closer range where it will deal far more damage than the inaccurate enemy volley did.

>>3036403
that sounds like it can easily be countered by holding fire until they march close enough

Was this a /tv/ thread?

You know you guys gotta be 18 to post here right?

>>3036279
Either carnage or hilarity would ensure.

>>3032998
Because single men and small units would easily to mowed down but cavalry. Only by staying in large formation could they stop the cavalry with their bayonets.

Also close formation means that they've got higher accuracy with their terrible muskets. 100 shots in the general direction is bound to hit something.

>>3036433
90% of war was having the discipline to not break and to properly volley fire. The opening salvos weren't the most lethal part of battle, that came after one side broke and got slaughtered as they routed. Heavy artillery and thousands of pounds of flying steel stopped the routing part of war in the 20th century, but the vast majority of training was still to get the soldiers to actually take aim and shoot, instead of cowering in the foxhole. Been like that since the dawn of civilization.

musket fire was very inaccurate, even at close range, its why the british are memeing this, they were actually able to hit something unlike most others

what usually happened is a volley of 1-4 and then a charge, standstills were not a thing

>>3036279
The exact same thing that happens when two armies of unarmoured spearmen charge each other.

>>3032998
Barry told them to do it so he could facilitate his escape from the British Army.

>>3035636

The Swedes stood there using linear infantry '''''''''tactics''''''''. The Spanish thought about ducking at the precise moment the Swedes ordered discharge, then responded with random arquebus fire. Rinse and repeat until a Spanish pike and sword charge sent the Swedes panicking, then disorderly fleeing then absolute carnage.

One of the most beautiful battles ever.