Are you really supposed to believe there were people so stupid

>>32962381

GOD SAVE THE KING!

>>32962381
Yes that's what happened. Different time different tactics.

>>32962381
Victory is life.

>>32962381
Imperial military discipline was damn brutal mate.

Disobeying orders gets you whipped or starved and you're honestly far more likely to die of bad food or hygiene than an actual bullet.

>>32962381
Smoothbore muzzle loaders were highly inaccurate and even the most pro of pros can only reload and fire once every ten seconds. There's a saying that it takes a man's weight in lead to kill him due to the inaccurate nature of the guns. Therefore, it is survivable to stay in formation and fire. Indeed, it is essential for you to stay in formation for the ease of maneuvering the troops around, or having any hope of surviving cavalry charges. It is difficult to advance in an orderly fashion if you are not just standing as a solid column of troops. It is also difficult to stay orderly if you run. So mostly it was controlled marching at a pace set by your drummer.

Such a beautifully shot battle scene for a movie that's not even really about war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBFpw-459VU

Fucking love Barry Lyndon

>>32962381
funny, that style of warfare pretty much dominated all other forms until the invention of the minie ball.

>>32962381
You know that they didn't get as close as they did in the movies right? A lot of musket fire either happened at 100 yards or more (so you were firing in a general direction and hope you hit the enemy) or it was one or two volleys followed by a charge that disintegrated into a melee with swords, bayonets, and buttstocks.

It only looks stupid to us because we have better weapons, the line formation system was simply the most effective means of war with the material available at the time.

File: tmp_24739-Kudaketan1437244137.jpg (19KB, 363x405px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 363x405px

>>32962414

>>32962471

wow thats gay, kissed.

>>32962471
Gah! Going into battle with their bayonets affixed? Do you know how hard it is to reload for the second volley with those on?

0/10 would not sally forth with.

>>32962381
Actual line infantry combat was nothing like you see in movies.

You know how you see them fire a volley, and then dozens of people fall over?

Imagine if instead they fired a volley, and then nobody fell over. And then they fired another one and nobody fell over. And then they fired another volley and nobody fell over. And then they fired another volley and one dude went down. And then they fired another volley and nobody fell over.

These battles took place at ranges 2 to 3 times the actual effective range of the guns being used, and the guns were so inaccurate they didn't even bother to put sights on them. Even for smoothbores they were awful because they were much larger diameter than the balls used to facilitate rapid reloads after sustained fire. Within minutes both units were completely blinded by their own smoke, and only shooting in the general direction they suspected there was an enemy.

There were skirmishers, which had much more accurate weapons and would deploy ahead of the main line. These men could hit much more accurately and actually aimed their weapons, but were much slower to fire and very vulnerable to cavalry if they strayed too far from the massive infantry blocks.

Bayonet charges were rarely met with resistance as well. If you seemed to be hitting more often than you were being hit, a bayonet charge would be your way of capitalizing on this advantage to gain ground. You would not expect the opposing force to actually meet you bayonet to bayonet, as this would be a blood bath on both sides. Instead, the inferior force would run in the face of the bayonet, knowing that they would have little hope of surviving if they stayed for an uphill fight in close quarters.

>>32962882
Stuff like Roger's Rangers really interests me. It's fascinating to learn about the recon/skirmishers of the time.

>>32962905
Skirmishers are really cool. Kind of underrated badasses in the history of warfare.

>>32962943
The whole Revolutionary war era is very cartoony in pop understanding. Most people kind of have this idea that the British were a bunch of stuffy types whole were only able to fight conventional line battles and totally ignorant of skirmishing, and on the other side the Americans invented the idea of running around in the woods and that skirmishing led to victory. Neither of those things are true, but the concept of them brushes the real history aside.

>>32962983
>Most people kind of have this idea that the British were a bunch of stuffy types whole were only able to fight conventional line battles and totally ignorant of skirmishing, and on the other side the Americans invented the idea of running around in the woods and that skirmishing led to victory.


this was literally what i was taught in school.

not even public school but a small private catholic school in NY.

what are some other misunderstandings about the american revolution?

>>32962983
Line infantry tactics in general are very misunderstood. People think of it as this incredibly horrific and bloody way of fighting that

A) was only done because people at the time were too mentally retarded and/or macho to think of using cover and

B) was done by incredibly brave but completely mindless drone soldiers with perfect discipline and zero fear.


In reality, it was the most efficient and effective way to conduct large infantry operations through multiple centuries of combat. It was conducted by conscripts who likely never fired their weapon once before going onto the field of battle and didn't actually require that much training to make an effective unit.

While there were instances where units got in close and absolutely devastated each-other in only a couple volleys, this was generally a mistake or the result of a called bluff, and not how commanders wanted the battle to go.

You'd have better chances as a redcoat than a Red Army soldier, and get a snazzier uniform to boot.

>>32963040
I'm no expert, I just read and have interest. The big takeaway being that the American military didn't really turn around the war until it started getting a lot of foreign (mostly French) material aid. There is also Von Steben who showed up and basically unfucked America's sub-par military and made it capable of fighting effectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben#American_Revolution

The turning point for America wasn't the militia/skirmishers. Those were a pain in Britain's balls, but you don't take and hold ground with an army of skirmishers. The real turning point was when the Continental military started being professional enough to stand up to Britain in straight up battles. That meant the US was able to actually take and hold ground consistently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben#American_Revolution

Skirmishers have their place in a military, and both sides of the war used them. There are some great stories like the Swamp Fox, but overall skirmishers exist perform specific tasks; they won't win a war.

>>32963040
>what are some other misunderstandings about the american revolution?

Basically everything.

I spend a lot of time researching history, and even I have difficulty understanding the American Revolution sometimes.

Basically anything anyone tells you about the causes though is at least 50% bullshit. The reasons behind the revolution were myriad and varied significantly between people from different parts of the colonies.

It wasn't just "hurr think I'll go die because I don't like taxes" any more than it was Mel Gibson bleeding heart "MUH FREEDUMZ." There were economic motivations, political maneuvers, and just a deepening cultural divide that made people in the colonies feel like their lives were being dictated by people who couldn't understand them (something common with pretty much every revolution ever)

>>32963174

i know about skirmishers from reading about the war in passing, but that stuff never gets mentioned.

french and german officers training americans does get mentioned, but in my textbook it wasn't emphasized as much.

my textbooks don't even mention the revolution was coincident with a number of other conflicts britain was fighting and made it seem like the US took on the full brunt of the british military.

>>32962381
Apparently after the guns started to be more accurate like the time of american civil war they started using cover and other almost modern era tactics but then again ww1 happened which was another tragedy

Also the comanders use to be so fucked up from seeing there men get fucked up some quite or started having mental problems which proves brass isnt all filled with pshycopaths

>>32963282
>my textbooks don't even mention the revolution was coincident with a number of other conflicts britain was fighting and made it seem like the US took on the full brunt of the british military.

This is a common one for some reason, though possibly an understandable one. In retrospect the American revolution kind of steals the spotlight because of the repurcussions it had into the late 19th and 20th centuries, but at the time it was just another thorn among many resting in Great Britain's side.

Muzzle-loading rifles took a long time to reload and weren't as useful in melee due to their inability to mount a bayonet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9H9cQT1i1c

File: IMG_0333.jpg (116KB, 912x569px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 912x569px

>>32963174
>>32963282
Best ally

>>32963229
Fuck off obvious poser faggot

>>32963333
second schleswig war the Austrias fought the Danish in trenches and did charges.

1864 bruh, spooky as fuck

rolling for trips or quads

>>32962381
Life kinda sucked and they took their religion as, well, gospel.

Science and education hadn't progressed far enough for the average grunt to suspect life might be worth living and an afterlife could be bullshit.

File: 475148_2579766113650_2053585644_o.jpg (96KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1600x1200px

rolling again for sequentials

>>32962471
Kind of weird that they would be entering the battlefield to 'British Grenadiers' when those looked like typical line infantrymen.

File: battle-of-the-somme-banner.jpg?w=1000&h=288&crop=1.jpg (38KB, 1000x288px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1000x288px

>>32962381
Are you really supposed to believe there were people so stupid that walked into their deaths so easily?
They didnt shot, they didnt run into the battle, they just let half of the soldiers died. Why didnt they shoot? Why didnt they use metal shields or something to advance? What was the fucking point?

>>32963569
At least for a little while...

>>32963716
Trenches and other fieldworks were common in siege situations or when there was time to set up, but this was often not the case.

File: IMG_3255.jpg (191KB, 962x694px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 962x694px

>>32963865
Always

>>32962381
They only did this to be able to easily square up and fight cavalry. In environments like the North American woodlands, even the British used light infantry that would take advantage of cover. This meme needs to die, to many normies spouting this.

>>32963333
I think around the time of the American Civil War was when people started to see rate of fire being more important than accuracy. Around the 1860 You start to see a change in arms manufacturing and design . The first bolt action rifle was designed and fielded by Prussians, cartridges start to become popular, lever actions really began to boom in America, and of course, the Gatlin gun's appearance in the battlefield.

Modern tactics really didn't kick off until WWI, and even then you had countries still using 18th and 19th century tactics into WWII.

The American Civil War more or less, had shown commanders and leaders that tactics would eventually have to change to accomodate the vast changes in weapon development and deployment. Unfortunately many of them didn't take note until well into WWI, where the giant shock of old world tactics meeting new world weaponry would leave millions dead.

>>32962381
Remember WWI when the machine gun came on the scene? No one knew how to deal with it so they just buried themselves in the ground and took turns charging at each other to no effect.WWII they had figured out squad movement and suppressing fire. Tactics develop slower than the technology. The US employed guerilla tactics against the brit bongs until they decided it wasn't worth the money anymore. The US Civil war tragically fought with tactics similar to that of the revolution era British. Most tactics developed prior to the self contained cartridge were based on old ass pikeman and cavalry formations. Point is tactics lag behind tech. Nukes for example. Turns out its better to not use them, but we just had to find out what they could do before we decided that.

>>32963282
We get a lesson on based Lafayette as pretty much the only reason America was able to pull it out of the fire long enough for the Brits to pack it in. They don't discuss much that the Empire was over extended globally and the American colonies were becoming a money sink. France is BFF5ever

>>32963110
Infantry line/column formations were useful because they allowed officers to most easily maneuver and control the great masses of men needed to deliver musket volleys (which were the only consistently reliable way to use smoothbore muskets). Allowing the men to fall into loose formation and take cover would result in at least half of them not firing (or firing in the wrong direction) when they needed to. Having other men in close proximity also made soldiers less skittish.

Close formations were also much safer to be in if infantry were charged by cavalry or even enemy infantry. An attacker could pick off isolated soldiers and escape safely, but could not count on that when facing a close formation of men. Sensible horsemen were cautious around infantry, and only charged when they felt the foot soldiers were vulnerable and liable to rout (ie from the flanks, rear, or just disordered).

>>32964051
>I think around the time of the American Civil War was when people started to see rate of fire being more important than accuracy.

Nigga what?

Literally all of smoothbore doctrine was about rate of fire. They didn't give half a shit about accuracy.

That's why balls were so undersized for the bores. It made it easier to load quickly with fouling, but made accuracy even shittier than a normal smoothbore.

>>32964144
>Literally all of smoothbore doctrine was about rate of fire.

breech loading rifles were introduced in the ACW

that's pussy war for you

what do you expect in faggots covered with frills to do?

>>32964051
>I think around the time of the American Civil War was when people started to see rate of fire being more important than accuracy

False. Accuracy was an obsession as rifling made the muzzleloader actually hit stuff. It ultimately lead to the development of bolt guns like the Lee Enfield and eventually the Garand.None of these focused on the elements required to create a large volume of fire. The 30-06 is a big cartridge designed to shoot far. It took the German machine guns to push warfare towards a volume of fire and suppression tactics we see today.

>>32964075
>wwi
>machine guns coming onto the scene
dude, you're retarded.
>nukes
>turns out it's better not to use them
if your understanding of nuclear policy is "it's better not to use them" you're both grossly simplifying the current position of nuclear force in the world and underage.

>>32962381
You lack the spirit of the bayonet, anon.

>>32964075
>No one knew how to deal with it so they just buried themselves in the ground and took turns charging at each other to no effect
You're a fucking idiot.

>>32964175
And saw very limited use what's your point?

Rifles existed for a long time before minie balls, but rifling only became popular in warfare after the minie ball was invented because only then could rifling be used with the same rate of fire as a smoothbore.

The fact that smoothbores were used in the 18th and early 19th century proves that doctrine at the time was focused on rate of fire over accuracy, as they had the means to be more accurate yet chose not to in favor of firing more quickly.

File: Antoine-Fauveau-Cuirass-700x500.jpg (55KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 700x500px

>>32962381
read a diary from a soldier at waterloo

said it sounded like a million coppersmiths beating on pots

they road straight for them anyway

>>32964292
>And saw very limited use what's your point?

that's the point you idiot. breech loading rifles indicated the shift towards rate of fire.

i've read accounts of soldiers even saving up money and buying lever-actions.

>>32962746
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox6MScSWp28

>>32964428
>That video
>Le Walking Fire meme

The stereotypical "walking fire" scenario people think of basically happened one time, and that was at Somme where the men were ordered forward with the expectation that the artillery was wiping the Germans out. As soon as the Germans starting shooting back, the British went tactical, they didn't just keep walking.

The actual "walking fire" tactic is meant as a short range final push when closing on an enemy. It's meant for dense terrain like woodlands where bounding fire would be too difficult to coordinate, and it's meant to be used in conjunction with armor and air support. Not just blindly walking over open ground and getting mowed down.

God, I fucking hate the pop culture version of WW1.

>>32964393
Technology advanced and, some time later, that technology got included into the doctrine.

If doctrine at the time had emphasized rate of fire, dreyse rifles or spencer carbines would have been standard issue, but instead they focused on controlled volley fire from muzzle loading rifles.

The fact that soldiers had to float the bill for their own repeating guns should tell you how much of a shit command gave about rate of fire

>>32964516
Are you able to comprehend that rate of fire was emphasized over accuracy, while at the same time governments weren't going to shell out huge amounts of money to outfit their troops with cutting edge guns?

Within their budget, rate of fire was the standard. Men with muskets were expected to be fast on them and out ROF the enemy.

>>32962471
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLguxH7w6BQ

>>32964345
http://waterloo200.org/200-object/antoine-fauveau-cuirass/

>>32964516
>If doctrine at the time had emphasized rate of fire

i'm not even the guy who posted that ACW was when people started to see RoF as more important than accuracy, but are you literally retarded or just figuratively illiterate?

shift towards a certain viewpoint DOESNT MEAN incorporated into doctrine.

>The fact that soldiers had to float the bill for their own repeating guns should tell you how much of a shit command gave about rate of fire

and unsurprisingly you dont know shit about how a military is run. standard equipment is invariably what the government purchases at the lowest bid. equipment for pre-industrial wars fought by conscript armies barely reflect idealistic doctrines.

>>32964548
They fired at the same rate they had with smoothbores, using mostly the same doctrine though with some shift towards fire by file and fire at will, which allowed for more aimed shots.

It seems silly to me to say that they "started to care about rate of fire" when they mostly kept to the same rate of fire that they had for hundreds of years in spite of technological advancements.

File: 99999.png (56KB, 146x158px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 146x158px

>>32962471
>Barry Lyndon
>not even really about war

>>32964603
Even when they replaced the muzzle loading rifles of the civil war they only went as far as breach loading rifles. Even into the early 20th century when bolt actions were becoming common there was resistance to the idea of the average soldier having that much firepower, hence the inclusion of magazine cutoffs and the stiff opposition to the Garand.

To be clear, it's not that I think they totally didn't give a shit about rate of fire, but there wasn't a focus on it that wasn't there before, and relative to the technology advances available they didn't increase it much at all.

During the Napoleonic wars, soldiers were equipped with some of the fastest firing weapons of their time (barring exorbitantly expensive and laughably weak air rifles, or definitely-will-blow-your-face-off superimposed charges)

Civil war soldiers by comparison were using some of the slowest weapons of their time.

>>32964853
>Civil war soldiers by comparison were using some of the slowest weapons of their time.

it's almost like the US was unprepared for a civil war and were fighting with older weapons! while technology and attitudes towards weapons developed during the middle of the war!

i know, it sounds crazy to me too.

>>32964885
>fighting with older weapons!

Except all the ones that they made during the war, which were still mostly single shot muzzle loading rifles.

It took 30 years after the end of the civil war to get a repeating rifle into the hands of the common soldier.

>>32964885
> while technology and attitudes towards weapons developed during the middle of the war!
Like most wars there were observers. The US ciuvil war was the reason that developement happened. Other countries were able to see exactly how the current tactics would fare in the event of open war.

Probably the best example was the Austro-Prussian war. The use of trains in the civil war led to their use for extremely fast mobilisation in Prussia and eventually to German dominance in the region.

>>32963811
It was the typical marching song by that time period regardless

>>32962882
Dude, you are completely full of shit. Do you actually think people who had fought in wars continuously for hundreds of years would be firing that much without being able to hit a target?

>>32963174
>what was the Saratoga campaign?
America would have won either way. By 1778 the war was pretty much decided and by then France was barely getting involved.

>>32964933
>Except all the ones that they made during the war, which were still mostly single shot muzzle loading rifles.

manufactured in 1864 doesn't mean developed in 1864.

the musket patterns they were using were based on decade-old patents.

just stop making yourself look like an idiot already.

>It took 30 years after the end of the civil war to get a repeating rifle into the hands of the common soldier.

yes and as stated before, the shift to that technological development can be seen in the ACW.

>>32962381
thread theme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIPgJMn8clI&index=15&list=PLy2WaakOLt27AN4wpxlwWpSbHKYvxNMYd

>>32964933
the Trapdoor Springfield can be fired at 10 rounds a minute, no problem. It was first issued in 1873. Idiot.

>>32965004
>yes and as stated before, the shift to that technological development can be seen in the ACW.

The Austro-Prussian war probably demonstrated the advantages of higher rate of fire (and being able to fire from prone) better than anything in the civil war did.

Custer's last stand might also be considered a moment that really woke people up to the advantages of having more firepower in the hands of each soldier.

In the civil war though most of the combat took place with the same rate of fire and in the same manner as centuries prior.

>>32964978
Only one in five vollies hitting anything is a gross exaggeration, but they were much lower casualty than you would expect. Only roughly one in 800 shots hit, which seems very small but is actually a bargain compared to the number of rounds fired in a modern war.

The reason for this style of fighting was low commitment. If you charge the enemy and come within range to be hitting, say, half your shots, they're going to hit half their shots too and probably get the first volley off to boot. At that range if the battle turns against you, it'll turn hard and your unit will be crushed.

Picking away form outside the effective range of the rifle means that commanders on both sides have plenty of time to see how the battle is going before committing to an assault or a retreat.

>>32965059
>I don't know what repeating means.

>>32964933
>It took 30 years after the end of the civil war to get a repeating rifle into the hands of the common soldier.


>The Spencer repeating rifle was first adopted by the United States Navy, and subsequently adopted by the United States Army, and used during the American Civil War, where it was a popular weapon.[11] The Confederates occasionally captured some of these weapons and ammunition, but, as they were unable to manufacture the cartridges because of shortages of copper, their ability to take advantage of the weapons was limited.

Notable early instances of use included the Battle of Hoover's Gap (where Col. John T. Wilder's "Lightning Brigade" of mounted infantry effectively demonstrated the firepower of repeaters), and the Gettysburg Campaign, where two regiments of the Michigan Brigade (under Brig. Gen. George Armstrong Custer) carried them at the Battle of Hanover and at East Cavalry Field.[12] As the war progressed, Spencers were carried by a number of Union cavalry and mounted infantry regiments and provided the Union army with a firepower advantage over their Confederate adversaries. At the Battle of Nashville, 9,000 mounted infantrymen armed with the Spencer, under the command of Maj. Gen. James H. Wilson, chief of cavalry for the Military Division of the Mississippi, rode around Gen. Hood's left flank and attacked from the rear.

File: image.jpg (77KB, 209x206px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 209x206px

>>32962381
Why would all of history lie to you asshole? What great secret are they hiding? That they actually were masters of small unit tactics and guerrilla warfare?
Yes you are supposed to believe that they fought as originally described to you for the entirety of your worthless life.

I think the worst misconception a lot of Americans seem to have (from what I've seen online anyway) is that they fought the British close to or at the height of their power.

Britain was still a bit of a backwater back then, they weren't hot shit until a century later.

>>32964978
Try hitting something 100 feet away consistently with a musket and you'll see why

>>32966047

I dunno man, I think a lot of areas around the world would say the British were pretty powerful in the late 18th century...you know, being under their rule and all.

File: IMG_2780.jpg (94KB, 800x705px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x705px

>>32966047
>fight off a numerically elite force of one of the largest empires in the world
>"W-Well we weren't ready yet!"
Stop making excuses, Britain

>>32966047
After fighting off the French for us I'm sure you were plenty depleted.

>>32966093
Most of the British overseas territories were limited to North America. They had some minor stuff in Africa and India, but a tiny fraction of what they would come to hold.

>>32966103
Numerically elite?

The revolutionaries took more casualties the and lost more battles. The sheer space of America meant the brits could never push their advantage as the revelutionaries would disappear into the woods. They kept playing wack-a-mole until pressure in europe and at sea exhausted them.

The British army numbered around 40'000 at the start of the war.

>>32965631
>The Spencer repeating rifle was adopted by the Union Army, especially by the cavalry, during the American Civil War, but did not replace the standard issue muzzle-loading rifled muskets in use at the time.
>but did not replace the standard issue muzzle-loading rifled muskets in use at the time.
>did not replace the standard issue


Not that guy but way to completely ignore that second paragraph

>>32964144
>>32964185
He obviously meant the rate of fire for the individual soldier, you mongs. And he's right, after the American Civil War, the Americans and most Europeans were phasing out muzzleloaders in favor of weapons that allowed the average rifleman to fire more than two or three times a minute.

>>32968045
After the civil war, but not during it.

The most common, second most common, third most common weapons, probably 4th 5th 6th 7th and 8th too, were slow muzzle loaders.

The prussians kicked austria's ass because they had breech-loaders (Dreyse needle gun) versus austrians with shitty muzzle loaders (Lorenz rifle)
Americans still just used shitty muzzle loaders.
Lorenz rifle was the third most widely used rifle during the American Civil War. The Union recorded purchases of 226,924 and the Confederacy bought as many as 100,000.

Most used was the springfield 1861, another shitty low RoF muzzle loader.

The rifles that didn't load slow as shit were rare as fuck, you'd be lucky if 1-in-20 men had one. Civil war logistics were also shit, so they'd have quickly ran out of ammo if they were more common.

>>32968150
This was compounded more by the fact that Austrian Factories couldn't produce Lorenz's fast enough and contracted them out which lead to drastically different specs and massive QA issues. Austrian Lorenz were highly sought after rifles, all others were pretty much discarded as soon as a springfield or enfield were available from the dead.

File: British officer.jpg (334KB, 1009x800px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1009x800px

Its enlisted men's job to not be smart

The officers sit on the horses off to the side

>>32966078
>100 feet away
That is a very very easy task, you've never fired a smoothbore weapon.

File: the-fbi-announces-gangs-have-infiltrated-every-branch-of-the-military.jpg (21KB, 337x253px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 337x253px

>>32962441
>whipped or starved
They should bring it back

Enlisted personnel cannot handle freedoms.

>>32963333
>Apparently after the guns started to be more accurate like the time of american civil war they started using cover and other almost modern era tactics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jäger_(infantry)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltigeur

File: 1458346144145.jpg (348KB, 1920x1317px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1920x1317px

>>32964075
>Remember WWI when the machine gun came on the scene? No one knew how to deal with it so they just buried themselves in the ground and took turns charging at each other to no effect.
Machine gun get to much credit. Pic what really changed battlefield not machine gun.

File: CEASE.jpg (25KB, 480x474px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x474px

>>32968601
>That whole film

>>32962381
We the British actually did in a way, the Rifles were skirmishers who didn't into line battle.

>>32968942
I say the rifles i mean the light infantry.

>>32964075

>I don't know anything about Great War Infantry Tactics: The Post

Reminder that the attrition rates for an American or British division on the Western Front in 1944 were the EXACT SAME as the attrition rates for a British division on the Western Front in 1917.

>>32963110
>It was conducted by conscripts who likely never fired their weapon once before going onto the field of battle and didn't actually require that much training to make an effective unit.

Except many if not most European armies consisted of full-time professional soldiers that served for decades. There were conscripts and national guard but they were reserves and not the main army.

File: community_image_1392755257.png (29KB, 591x422px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 591x422px

>when you see cavalry and pull a tight square in response and they go and sneak some cannons in from behind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EcmxpP2Iqo

>>32969041

I thought the response was "The Guard dies, it does not surrender"

File: 1483741069417.jpg (221KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1000x1000px

>>32969041

>they hid guns behind their cavalry during parley

PERFIDIOUS

>>32969106
Gotta be in it to win it lad

>>32964516

It's not that nobody gave a shit about rate of fire, it's because armies already had a gazillion muzzle loaders and replacing them all with breech would have been impossibly fucking expensive.

>>32963333
Light infantry and rifles existed before the american civil war.
>>32964075
i really hope this is shitty b8, anon.

>>32966103
>implying you fought them off alone

not even british desu

File: 1313371092094.jpg (38KB, 331x319px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 331x319px

>>32962471
>wow thats gay, kissed.
>Wow
>That's
>Gay,

>KISSED.

>>32964075
>this is an American "educated" historian

>>32963450
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9H9cQT1i1c

That was neat. Thanks.