>lol lets just all stand together in a straight line and shoot

>>3037697
Makes sense when your guns are dogshit and inaccurate.

Why didn't they just hide in a forest as skirmishers with hidden catapults? when the cuck army marches up in line they're dead from the dispersed fire they can't fire back against.

>>3037697
If you didn't, you'd get run down by cavalry. Only in wooded areas or other areas with broken terrain would they break formation and take cover because you just can't do that in a field. Except for the Ottomans and Habsburgs, who used wagon lägers.

Why weren't trenches used?

>>3037723
Not every strategic location is in the forest. In Europe, most are in farmlands, which are mostly fields.

File: 1805 Austerlitz2.jpg (530KB, 1600x1147px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 1600x1147px

>>3037697
If only you lived in the 1700s so you could destroy Malborough, Frederic II, Suvorov, and Napoleon!!!!! Those "Strategists" have nothing on your extreme knowledge and experience of warfare!!

So it goes like this. You (an intellectual) take your men with rifles (because screw muskets amirite?) and simply hide in bushes and trenches while the enemy "commanders" (lmfao retards) just stand in lines! Imagine they'd make statues out of you and see you as the best general ever(!)

Forget the organization of armies, you can easily defeat some 60,000 french soldiers in battalion formations while your 50,000 men just kind of walk around on a 5 kilometre frontline and do their thing.

>>3037731
Mobility is still very important, makes you a magnet for artillery and cavalry, can't volley fire, etc.

>>3037731
They were. Particularly in sieges, but encampments were usually fortified. People had started reading Vegetius.

File: The Vauban Fortifications of France (OCR-Ogon)-36-7.jpg (552KB, 1560x1057px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 1560x1057px

>>3037731
They were: in sieges and when one side planned on defending one spot on a long term basis. Most battles however were fought by armies trying to intercept each other so you didnt have WWI style trench warfare.

Just look at the battle of Bunker Hill where the Amerifats dug in, or Borodino where the Russian artillery was entrenched.

>>3037720
they weren't that inaccurate (at least that's what a lot of historians say) but those guys where nervous as fuck and didn't hit that well because they were afraid (compare that to the movie "the last samurai" when the samurai charge and the poor guys don't hit anything)

>>3037731
they didn't have that wide defense lines like they had in later wars (WW1 as beginning). If you dig yourself in they just march around your position and surround you or sack the city you want to defend. If you "hide" in a city the enemy brings all his cannons and shoots your town to shreds so you have civilian losses and you don't want that.

>>3037739
>>3037741
>>3037749
Ok, that's actually interesting.

>>3037754
>muskets not inaccurate
Ever tried firing one?

>>3037754
B-but muh trace italienne

>>3037739
>can't volley fire
How do fortifications prevent firing synchronously, and why is it important ?

>>3037723
>with hidden catapults?

Because the enemys trebuchets will outrange you, dipshit.

>>3037826
There's not room in a trench for counter marching (look up how volley fire actually worked). Firing at will from a fortified position or in broken terrain was thought to be favorable anyway even compared to volley fire (under the right circumstances).

>>3037697
>Artillery is shit
>Machine guns don't exist
>Cavalry charges are a very real thing and disorganized infantry are walking dead.

>>3037720
More to do with the smoke and noise actually, easier to know where to go when everyone else in your army is almost touching you. Hence why everyone wore such bright uniforms

why didn't the soldiers lie down? would decrease the size of them as a target and they could still shoot all together.

>>3038025
Soldiers would have gotten trampled.

>>3038025

Reloading a muzzle-loaded firearm while lying down is really fucking impractical, especially if you're surrounded by dozens of other soldiers trying to do the same thing. Firing while lying down was occasionally done by some units during this era, like British riflemen, but IIRC even they would have to stand up to reload.

>>3038025
discipline is a hell of a drug

>>3037723
I remember this thread. The cuck army won.

>>3038086

>the cuck army won
>won

It conquered the ground at the cost of 5000 pawn cucks fertilizing the clay.

The Cuck Army general called it a victory and celebrated with tea and scones

>>3038025
Muzzleloaders.

>>3037697
> Lol lets just mass our firepower to practically machine gun the enemy with our volley

>>3037720
It's more to do with rate of fire. Broad fronts work when you have platoon level units that can put down high rates of fire. When you don't have any of that shit you have to concentrate more men to generate any significant weight of shot.
You also have to take into account that CQB will invariably happen at some point, and if your blokes are spread out then they're going to get fucked.

>You also have to take into account that CQB will invariably happen at some point, and if your blokes are spread out then they're going to get fucked.
I think that is the actual reason for massed formation. Light Infantry did exist at the time, but it could never stand its ground against charges.

>>3039790

> lets spread out lads
> no bayonet square
> run down by Cuirassiers

If you're at the front of the garrison what are the chances of you surviving?

File: Battle-of-Fontenoy.jpg (136KB, 1280x829px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1280x829px

>>3037697
>battle of Fontenoy
>British and French Officers toast each other before firing.

I fucking hate you /his/...only you would take one of the greatest man moments ever and mock it. I'm just happy /k/ never lived to see this day.