Suicidal fighting.

>>138305193
the guns were so inaccurate they needed to have big blocks of soldiers fire in the general direction of the enemy.

most of the battles were won not by killing but out maneuvering the other side like chess.

>>138305193
Given the inaccuracy of weapons at the time, it was pretty efficient for large-scale battles. There was also a belief in gentlemanly battle, which lasted right up until WW1 slapped sense into the old world.

Of course, we as Americans also rendered those tactics obsolete by pioneering small-scale guerilla tactics during the revolution.

>>138305605
>Of course, we as Americans also rendered those tactics obsolete by pioneering small-scale guerilla tactics during the revolution.

Oh you mean fighting dirty, using snipers and shit.

>>138305859
Maybe you would have become independent sooner if you'd done the same : ^ )))

>>138305859
Snipers, ambushes, hiding in trees, pretty much avoiding any open field direct engagement. Too bad the french didn't learn from the US when it came to the first few weeks of ww1.

>>138305605
>>138305859

i thought the french started with guerilla warfare against the brits, and only cause they got the idea from natives

>>138306144
Actually, I think you're right about that.

File: 1502515675907.png (432KB, 780x780px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 780x780px

>>138305193
>be britbong
>trying to subdue traitors in the colonies
>teeth fall out
>load musket with teeth
>god save the qwen

File: sharpes deal with it.jpg (100KB, 400x460px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 400x460px

>>138305193

Ancient intimidation tactic. It's how napoleon conquered most of Europe.

>Column marches under smoke and gunfire
>First line falls under fire
>Inaccurate and long reload
>Column keeps moving
>Second line falls
>Inaccurate and long reload
>Column keeps moving
>Enemy line panics because they cannot stop the massed wave of men
>Overrun by numbers that fire it's volleys near point blank then charges with bayonets to stab anyone that's still standing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zSowOS4Wyg

>>138305193
>Using American propaganda movie as historical source
I've read accounts of British soldiers firing in volleys, firing at will and fighting as skirmishers. The volley system was necessary because inexperienced soldiers would often all fire too early leaving the company exposed to charges while they reloaded.

>>138305193
Interestingly, the bright uniforms had a very important purpose. Aside from giving your side a reputation for style that was (and is) a powerful recruitment tool and morale booster, and aside from intimidating the enemy with the impressiveness of your dress, it turned out that the inaccuracy of the smooth bore musket didn't really make it any more dangerous to be able to single you out for a shot. Meanwhile communications were so rudimentary and sometimes officers so inept that it was not uncommon for blocks of troops on the same side to mistake one another for the enemy and score an own goal so to speak.

So yeah, they made their uniforms bright and showy because they were more dangerous to their own side than the enemy was.

>>138305193
>Why did people use to fight like this?
>We're the British fucking retarded?


Concentration of firepower and having solid formations. If you spread out, then the enemy could just rush you in dense group with the bayonet and force you to flee. Or they could send a cavalry charge and you'd get raped.

Don't just focus on the guns. Most casualties were caused by bullets, because they'd stand and shoot at each other most of the time, but swords and bayonets still played a big role on the battlefield. Cold steel was still effective. A bayonet charge usually made one side flee, rather than coming to close combat.

Europeans took over most of the world. Their combat systems were the best, whether you understand them or not.

>>138305193
We just didn't give a fuck and we weren't scared of anyone or anything.

>>138306826
And we still aren't. Have you seen out new carrier?

>>138305969
I you lot had started playing cricket and rugby you might have had a better relationship with the Poms, they're very sporting. That's why they only sent one regiment to your little revolution.

File: 1498730100469.png (664KB, 797x601px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 797x601px

>>138305193
Fuck I am glad you cunts left the crown. Then when you tried to take Canada while the British were busy fighting the French they fucking pushed your shit in.

>>138306019
>Too bad the french didn't learn from the US when it came to the first few weeks of ww1.

When the US join WWI in 1917, they acted just like the Entente did in 1914. They suffered a ton of casualties in mass attacks without enough preparation.

The guerrilla tactics were mostly used in the South, like in Georgia. In the north, the Americans used line tactics supported by small numbers of sharpshooters. Neither of those tactics would be worth anything while trying to break through the Hindenburg Line. Nor would they have been useful in trying to capture Alsace and Lorraine in 1914.

File: tumblr_static_tumblr_static__640.png (226KB, 437x246px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 437x246px

While we are on the topic, I'd like to know something else.

What are you Brits taught about, John Graves Simcoe? I'm watching the Netflix show, Turn. And they depict him as a badass, but slightly a psychopath. I'm just wondering what his reputation is in the UK.

Pic related is Simcoe depicted in the show.

Also, what about Benedict Arnold? Here, we are taught that he is the biggest traitor in human history, right behind Judus.

Also most raw recruits can't shoot to kill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs

>>138305859
>Says the country who brought guns to an emu fight and lost

Talking about playing dirty

>>138307150
in 1917 ww1, everyone was fucking retarded. There was no avoiding it. In the first few weeks of ww1, the french could have not marched across open fields acting like MGs don't exist.

>>138307096
You lost a war to emus lol stfu

>>138306290
literally cannon fodder

>>138305605
Napoleon was the first modern general. He didn't give a fuck about the oppposing side. He attacked them all the time no matter what.

>>138307059
Spoken like a true slave
1776 motherfucker

File: 1499231178851.gif (556KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 240x240px

>>138307096

Yeah and you know what happened when the British invaded Washington and burned down the white house? A massive hurricane blew in and forced the British to retreat.

God is on our side, nigger!

>>138307680
And he got fucked up in Waterloo by some real men.

>>138307193

They aren't taught about the American revolution at all, the real secret with the American revolution is that it was actually supported by half of parliament, the Whigs wanted the revolution to succeed and they're the reason it even happened, that's why losing it never became a sore point for British pride. The French revolution was another event they supported and at the time they were trying to get the same thing to happen in Britain, it was only when they saw all the liberal aristocrats got beheaded along with conservative ones that they changed their tune and opted for constitutional monarchism instead

>>138307448
>the french could have not marched across open fields acting like MGs don't exist.

During the Franco-Prussian war, their army didn't have a real doctrine for battle because of the new weapons involved and the lack of experience using them. So the tactic they fell back on was digging a shallow trench line and then waiting for the Prussians to attack, relying on the great firepower of the chassepot rifle. After the war, they concluded that the lack of aggression was a big factor in losing the war. So they reoriented the army tactically towards to offensive, all out. That meant a huge emphasis on the bayonet and élan. Hence them having the longest bayonet reach for any rifle and the colourful uniforms for bolstering morale. They went to war with the army they had.

Anyway, the Americans didn't learn much from the British and French experiences from1914-17. They had to learn the hard way.

>>138305193
Fuck I hate young, dumb, full of cum, countries.

>>138307891
>And he got fucked up in Waterloo by some real men.

By 50,000 reinforcements showing up at the end of the day. Napoleon had Wellington on the ropes.

File: emu-war-an-emu-date-november-2-december-10-1932-7957456.png (227KB, 500x1089px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 500x1089px

>>138307524
aussies will never live that one down

>>138308112
Logistics is the real man's game.

>>138308112
And clever trickery with his men, also taking out most of a horseback regiment with men.

>>138307891
>sitting on your ass on top of a hill while getting outsmarted, nearly losing, only to be saved by prussians
yeah sure thing nigel. horatio nelson is the only brit i'll ever respect

Gandhi was the only one who managed to put the hurt on them British. They're still butthurt over it.

>>138306144
Yeah. Native tactics.

File: 3c7.jpg (69KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 680x680px

>>138305969

>>138308303
Fucking poo in the loo, you fucking pajeet, and take you're ghanidi loving ways back to seattle.

>>138305605
>wrong

All european powers used skirmishers and light infantry.

Even dragoon cavalry from the 1500s effectively used guerilla tactics and ambushing

>>138305193

At the time, it was fight like that and maybe die, or don't fight like that and almost certainly die by the hands of people who do fight like that.

>>138308303
Nobody gives a shit about Gandhi here. People either think he was a great peaceful man or he was a filthy pervert. Either way people just know he starved himself, most have no idea why.

>>138305193
in the olden times guns were used against swords and cavalry and pikes. also reload time was very long. if you had to defend a position you stood no chance of defending it by gunfire alone. thats why people stayed in formation - so they can fight in melee efficiently. as reload times became shorter, people started abandoning those tactics

>>138308393
>>138308452
Hey calm down we dont want that language here

>>138305193
Why are you on here asking this? Go to /his/ faggot

>>138307946
half sounds like a bit much. I know the British tobacco traders lobbied on Americas behalf. Fr the most part, I heard the brits were somewhat indifferent, as most americans were.

>>138306144
>>138306246

There was also a danish (I think) leader who waged successful guerilla warfare prior to the American Revolution

>>138305193
The Scots would do the same as this, but after a volley they would charge in with their claymores/battleaxes/ Broadsword and targe.

Interestingly enough it seems to have been rather effective, till a Englishman figured out how to defeat it after having lost like three battles against the tactic.

Some blame the Confederacy's lost in the American Civil War on the fact that many in the South were of Celtic descendant, and so there were more "aggressive" tactics deplored, such as Pickett's charge. As well as the fact that Pikes were bought by the Confederacy, something like 20k to be used, but the idea never took off...

In short while the pike and musket(and latter just musket) was suicidal, it was far more effective then any other fighting styles, thus why Europe conquered the world.

So no, no the British were not fucking stupid.

>>138305516

poor ass mountain men in American wilderness had rifled barrels for accuracy, why didn't the Brits?

>>138308452
> he was a filthy pervert

Fact: Gandhi used to dip his bald head in oil and rub it all over women's bodies.

>>138309481
He was a naughty little man was that Gandhi.

>>138309158
I'm not sure. Maybe it was the cost of making the guns. You probably have certain units with the better guns that have the +2 to hit

>>138308303
Gandhi was another one, why don't you think the British ever decided let's just start shooting the cunts instead of giving away a key piece of the empire? Because he had sympathisers in parliament. The Whigs barring a few like the Pitt the Elder and Younger were never pro-Empire or pro-Britain.

>>138308965

They succesfully had the Stamp Act repealed which is what led to American rebelliousness and they were ideological brothers of the American founders. The only reason they weren't openly seditious is because most were alive to see what happened to the Jacobite rebels

>>138307448
Not true. 1917 changed warfare forever. The origins of shock troops goes back to around 1915-1916 with the Russians, and then Germans shortly afterwards. You could call them proto-shocktroopers.

After the Battle of the Somme and Verdun, the introduction of machine/mass warfare, Canadian commander Arthur Currie was tasked with discovering what went wrong. One of the main problems was the severe disconnect between how the officers and their men saw the battlefront. So, among other things, the most significant shift came with democratisation of the military structure (this is essentially the introduction of modern warfare).

Men were now to be trusted and given some of the classified information to work out and even practise plans before a battle, and were encouraged to share insights with officers. This was likely due to Currie's own tendency to question the command, often at great risk. This new structure was combined with his strategy of the creeping barrage, non-linear battle structure, and the Canadian proto-shocktrooper tactics. The stalemate was broken once they did this and Currie became the unofficial leader of the Western Front for his efforts.

There is perhaps an argument to be made that it was the Germans who were the first to perfect this new warfare, or did it at the same time as the Canadians. but there isn't as much information available on the German command.

>>138309751

You can read Storm of Steel and see Ernst Junger coming to the same conclusions

>>138306878
>Have you seen out new carrier?
grats on your first carrier. have they finished any planes to go with it?

>>138305969
that fuckin baby bong australia cuck azoid just got
BTTTTFFFFFOOO

>>138309158
Something to bear in mind with this style of warfare is that the purpose of having these militias was to try and create a situation where the battle could be won decisively. Ignoring advances in technology and situations where battles would become long stalemates was in their interest until they were really forced to it. It wasn't until the late 19th century that their hands were forced, technology had caught up with them, and the nature of warfare frankly became a lot more complicated. They went from marching around in colourful units to using camoflage, more accurate guns, and extensive use of cover.

WWI's long stalemate is exactly the kind of battling they were trying to avoid. If you think about it this 'suicidal' tactic probably actually saved lives.

>>138309158
They did, the British used sharpshooters as well. Just not on a huge scale, not hiding and ambushing on a huge scale. One sniper had Washington himself in his sights but warned him to piss off, which he did.

>>138307150
They did break through at Argonne, although this is partly because of the sheer numbers of men and the success of the combined British and French forces in that offensive. But you are correct about the Americans using the old line structure. Quite unfortunate.

>>138309158
The US was on the ass end of this style of warfare being practical.

>>138306019
>. Too bad the french didn't learn from the US when it came to the first few weeks of ww1.
Too bad the US didn't learn from the revolutionary generation when it came to the first 25 years of Vietnam

>>138310015
You don't assassinate the enemy leaders because if want to be able to negotiate with them. Their successor will be less inclined, or without a proper successor it becomes more chaotic.

>>138310135
...enemy leaders *if you want to be able to...

>>138309158
“I fought in “The Bush” in America: so thick it was, that we could hardly pierce its denseness; my regiment was opposed to Kentucky riflemen. We had muskets, and we beat them. We had red coats—they had brown coats; yet we slew more of them than they did of us. We are told that, at the Cape, the Kafirs lie hidden till our soldiers come within a few feet! Then what do we want with a rifle? The Cape corps were armed with short carabines, not with rifles, and are said to have done better service than any other corps, while the men were faithful.”

>>138308112
And that's called psychological warfare: making the other attack when they think it's the right time to attack (feigning weakness/vulnerability).

>>138306826
>we weren't scared of anyone or anything.

That's where you are wrong, kiddo.

You were scared of your fat ugly women, and that's what has kept you faggots away from your island even if that means to be a monkey on a ship mast.

>>138309158
Time spent reloading decreased efficiency. Put simply the goal was volume fire, having 1000 men firing a cumulative 4000 shots per minute vs 1000 men firing a cumulative 2000 shots per minute.

File: IMG_0583.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>138309751
The first modern war was the U.S. civil war, people should have learned a lot more from that.
>>138306739
This
>>138308490
>if you had to defend a position you stood no chance of defending it by gunfire alone. thats why people stayed in formation - so they can fight in melee efficiently.
>fight in Melee efficiently
This.
>>138309158
The Americans were Chad hunters using thier own rifles, and hunters don't like to miss, becuase then you go hungry and you wife only has sex with you twice instead of 4 times. the British were virgin raw recruits that didn't even have enough money for a poxed whore before they died of disantry .
Pic unrelated

>>138310550
An American with a few hundred years of history calling someone kiddo.
An American calling other peoples women fat.

I've seen it all.

>>138305193

The rifles were not effective enough for them to realize this was stupid. It wasn't until the machine gun was fielded that the European militaries realized that it is better to fight from defensive positions, i.e., trenches and fox holes.

>>138311530
Trenches were used even in the very early days of firearms. I know of a English poem written in the 16th century that says harquebusiers are cowards for hiding in foxholes while archers bravely stand out in the open and die.

>>138305193
Please tell me almighty arm chair general how would you fight in the 1700s

>>138306290
QUEENHU AKBAR

File: IMG_1122.jpg (32KB, 293x513px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 293x513px

>>138305193
Why did the French dress like this in World War One?

We're the French fucking retarded?

>>138307193
Benedict Arnold is a war hero, he joined the British fight for freedom because he knew what's right.
Simcoe is a hero here, we have holidays named after him and streets

>>138312383
The red pants were supposed to prevent friendly fire.

>>138305859
>Oh you mean fighting dirty

How convenient that the largest and most powerful army of the time also got to determine what constituted a fair fight.

>>138305193
Why did the American use to fight like this? Even after the insane casualty's in places like Fredricksburg and Gettysburg.

Were the Americans fucking retarded?

And you can't explain it away with something like inaccurate guns.

File: battle1_zoom.jpg (83KB, 600x398px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x398px

>>138312529

>>138312529
It is literally the guns.

It takes so much time to load a 50caliber powder rifle. So when you are close enough to fire upon the enemy you need to retreat and reload.

File: IMG_1124.jpg (137KB, 750x1267px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 750x1267px

>>138312501
Why don't they dress like this then?

>>138311222
What changed in the Civil War to modernise war itself?
Perhaps 'modern' was the wrong term, I meant that it was the shift in its organisational structure towards its current form. So 'post-modern' or 'democratised' may be more fitting.

>>138312529
Because the dense formations were not because the guns were inaccurate, it's because of low rate of fire. A dense formation has superior firepower, can cover each other while they reload, can hold off a charge and is less likely to become disordered and run away.

>>138305193

>We're

unironically a retard

File: 1481838368091.jpg (106KB, 759x811px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 759x811px

>>138305193

>We're the British fucking retarded?

>we're

You should be asking yourself that question fellow burger.

>>138312529
raw recruits with shitty aim+black powder cartridges which completely block your field of vision after 2 or so volleys = literally the exact same hit percentages as their forefathers who fought with smoothbore muskets. The whole "civil war rifles were super deadly accurate" is a meme. True the potential was there but in practice it simply wasnt true and considering they were still muzzle loaders and still took a ridiculous amount of time to load, there really wasnt a point in changing tactics too much.

>>138312383
>Why did the French dress like this in World War One?
>We're the French fucking retarded?

They wore a very similar uniform in the Franco-Prussian war, 1870-71. Red kepi, red trousers, blue coat.

They thought that they lost that war due to using defensive tactics. So they trained the army for decades on the idea of being as aggressive as possible. That means an all out charge with the bayonet. This meant that morale and spirit was of the utmost importance to the commanders. They wanted men that were as stoked to bayonet charge as possible, as much esprit de corps as possible. So they were dressed in the traditional outfit, with vibrant red. It's about looking the part, so you feel the pride and want to fight.

>>138307193
Never heard or read the name. I guarantee that applies to 99 percent over here.

>>138312698
>What changed in the Civil War to modernise war itself?

Transporting troops, supplies and artillery using trains, communicating using telegraph, mainly.

>>138313197
>>138312938


Shut the fuck up. It was the auto correct on my phone.

I know it's were

>>138313289
And then the Germans just gunned them all down kek good job France, the less French "people" in the world the better

>>138310400
>British calling American patriots "Kafirs"
WTF were they "Asian" even back then? Is all of history a lie?!

>>138306739
Pretty much. The British bayonet charge and tactics of cold hard determined advanced with cold had hard steel broke many advanced enemy countries battle formations.

Wtf is this thread by op about anyway? May as well just ask "hurr durr why didn't the Brits use m14s and close air support"?

>>138313494
I think he means Africans.

>>138312658
>Why don't they dress like this then?

Colourful uniforms look bitchin' cool. Well cut, trim, striking colour. Everyone instantly knows that you are a soldier. They used to spend a lot on fancy uniforms because it made recruiting a lot easier. Since, for example, you take the King's shilling, become one of King George's men and they give you an impressive outfit to wear that everyone respects.

>>138305516
>battles were won like chess not by killing
They were won by killing allright. Any typical Napolionic era battle would routinely end with death tolls higher than the first week on the Somme (a battle in WW1 with a big death toll).
It's as deadly as it looks.

How scary would've it been just lining up like that?

You can imagine how scared soldiers felt in WW1 and WW2, what about in these wars?

>>138313586
>The British bayonet charge and tactics of cold hard determined advanced with cold had hard steel broke many advanced enemy countries battle formations.

It's classic, European, shock warfare. You go straight toward the enemy and hit them with everything you got. If they break there is no doubt in their mind that they lost hard and should fear you.

>>138313756
>what about in these wars?

Hard to know, the professional soldiers tended to fight longer and harder than the raw conscripts that were needed to fight in these kind of wars. Usually units that fight especially hard were just green units that didn't know in how much shit they were in and just fought it out until they won. At least that's how it was in the American Civil War.

>>138305193
Even with blocks of lead pouring, the casualties were comically low
/thread
Sage

>>138313756
>How scary would've it been just lining up like that?
>You can imagine how scared soldiers felt in WW1 and WW2, what about in these wars?

You would sometimes get a ration of booze right before the fight, for courage.

A battle was won by making the enemy flee. That was almost always achieved by killing them until their morale broke. Different units had different levels of morale. There were special regiments of elite troops that you'd have to kill more of before they ran away. So it'd be pretty scary I imagine. Musket balls caused horrible, big wounds. If they hit a limb they'd often shatter the bone and the only fix was amputation for that. But I imagine people were also tougher back them.

>>138309679
Ironically, the american colonies were always on the cutting edge of weaponsmithing, and the more savage the frontier, the more advanced the guns were. This was driven by the tiny advances in guncrafting being practical and useful for individual frontiersman, but not for massed armies on the battlefield. On the battlefield, a wheel-lock firearm offers virtually no advantage over a matchlock, because they take the same amount of time to reload. Out in the bush, having a wheel-lock can be the difference between life and death when some fresh-faced indian jackass tries to scalp you so he can be acknowledged as a man and maybe get some pussy, because it fires fractionally faster than a matchlock. A muzzle-loaded rifle takes something like three times as long to fire as a smoothbore musket, because the ball gets stuck. For a hunter this is a great trade, since the extra precision will let you actually hit your target. For the soldier, your officers are having a hell of a time even getting you to point the damn gun at the enemy in the first place-getting people into a mental state where they're willing to shoot to kill is harder than it sounds.

Besides all this, nobody in the thread has addressed the fact that combat doctrine in those days called for a massed assault after the initial volleys of musket fire. It was generally accepted that no reasonably disciplined force could be dislodged from the field just by shooting at them.

>>138313960
>Even with blocks of lead pouring, the casualties were comically low
>/thread
>Sage

That's not true. A battle could literally last all day and the losing side could often lose 1/3 of the entire army.

File: IMG_1133.jpg (488KB, 819x1024px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 819x1024px

>>138313601
Yeah, I wish technology didn't profess enough that we could still wear our red coats to War, sad we will never see it again.

>>138312698
rifled artillery and improved small arms made infantry close assault a suicidal proposition. Digging trenches became a practical thing to do in almost all circumstances. Civilian populations were targeted with the intention of demoralising the home front. Modern transport was used for supplies and troops.

>>138314227
>nobody in the thread has addressed the fact that combat doctrine in those days called for a massed assault after the initial volleys of musket fire

That was true up until the ACW. You tried to casually do a bayonet charge after your first volley you'd have to run about 200 more yards and face fresh angry men while you're winded and probably about to eat point blank rifled musket fire.

>>138314227
>Besides all this, nobody in the thread has addressed the fact that combat doctrine in those days called for a massed assault after the initial volleys of musket fire. It was generally accepted that no reasonably disciplined force could be dislodged from the field just by shooting at them.
Because such a doctrine was hardly universal, and there were indeed many battles where armies were defeated by shooting alone.

Another reason to have lots of guys packed together is how often muskets failed.

You'd want your line to get as close as possible before firing the first volley. The first volley was the most deadly because all the muskets were loaded properly before the battle and in working order. With each successive volley, more muskets in the unit would be loaded improperly in the heat of battle, flints would break and not be able to be replace during the fight, the lock could break, the ramrod could bend or break inside the barrel and render it unusable, every shot would add more fouling from the burning powder, the fouling makes loading more difficult, heavy fouling can block the touch hole. Tons of stuff could go wrong. The fire and smoke from the man in the third rank's flintlock mechanism could blind or injure the man in the second rank.

So the more muskets you have packed together, the more concentrated firepower you have. If you have a more sparse firing line, you have less muskets firing and less fire power.

>>138308112
We broke Napoleons unbeatable elite imperial guard regiment.
Once we best their best, the rest of the French army unsurprisingly started to panic.
Blucher and the Prussians turning up at the end of the fight just sealed the deal

File: 1503201213895.png (164KB, 353x332px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 353x332px

>>138309158
>ass mountain
Where can I find this place? Asking for a friend.

>>138314439
Yes, of course. OP posted troops from napoleonic warfare or earlier, so I discussed napoleonic tactics.

>>138315007
Well I think line infantry tactics is the more broadly discussed thing here. The ACW does have famous bayonet assaults, but they had to be timed at the right time. More like how bayonet assaults were used in the modern era. To drive out a wavering unit or to secure an area too dense for standard combat.

American Civil War really was the first modern war, even though it was fought using tactics over a 150 years old.

>>138314800
>We broke Napoleons unbeatable elite imperial guard regiment.
>Once we best their best, the rest of the French army unsurprisingly started to panic.
>Blucher and the Prussians turning up at the end of the fight just sealed the deal

Prussian soldiers started to arrive near Placenoit village long before Blucher arrived with the main body. To secure the flank of the Armee du Nord, Napoleon had to send the Young Guard to take Placenoit and as more Prussians arrived, the village changed hands multiple time. When the Prussians took the entire village at one point, Napoleon dispatched an Old Guard grenadier battalion there. It retook the whole village using only the bayonet.

Other Prussian units linked up with Wellington's left flank. This allowed him to redeploy units to his center and strengthen it right before Napoleon's final strike landed there.

Without the Prussian reinforcements, Napoleon's final strike would have include the entire 10,000 strong Young Guard and an extra Old Guard grenadier battalion. And this would have struck Wellington's unreinforced center. That's a completely different situation and I'd bet that Wellington's center would have broken. He would have been driven to the coast.

>>138313464
Probably why all French men are pussies now, they have been taught to be as least offensive as possible now.

>>138315200
I agree entirely, though it's worth noting that some of the many slaughters that happened in the Civil War happened because whatever officer had tactical command ordered a bayonet assault with by-the-book timing, but the book hadn't accounted for how much deadlier the guns had gotten.

>>138313494

Yeah famous American locality Cape Horn

>>138306739
This.

Also when the enemy was spread out and panicking we had grenadiers that would be tall, run fast and hurl grenades into panicked crows and blow them up.

Also..

>not strapping Muslims to cannons
>1857 + 160

>>138315428
Canister shot doesn't get hardly the recognition that the rifled muskets did in the ACW. But they could cut down entire companies of men in one volley. Imagine that seeing that.

>>138307059
Was your post here even in fucking english?

File: Indian Rebellion Muslims Executed.jpg (68KB, 600x420px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x420px

>>138315529
Forgot pic

>>138305605
WE

>>138315578
Yep. Rifled cannons are definitely worth mentioning too. Going from hitting the broadside of a barn to hitting the door of a barn makes artillery in general, with or without canister shot, much deadlier. Pretty much nobody in the ACW was prepared for that change.

File: 1280885960124.jpg (37KB, 400x273px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x273px

>>138305193

America hadn't kicked their ass yet.

File: lookatthisguy.gif (3MB, 400x206px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x206px

>>138305193
fuckikn spot on mate.

>>138315578
Whats grapeshot?

>>138315768
Fired at ship sails to slow them down.

>>138312383
The red pants were dropped early in WWI, because of the huge casualties it caused.

>>138315803
Approx. How big in diameter is it? And is it multiple projectiles?

>>138315529
>Also when the enemy was spread out and panicking we had grenadiers that would be tall, run fast and hurl grenades into panicked crows and blow them up.

Grenades were for siege warfare. They were for when the enemy fortifications were being stormed. The grenadiers were the elite attacked troops. You could throw grenades over the enemy parapets while setting up ladders and shit.

From very roughly 1690-1720, armies started to take the grenades away from the grenadier units and from then on, the grenades were used by the engineers or sappers of the army. So for almost the entirety of the 1700s plus the Napoleonic period and afterwards, the grenadiers didn't actually use grenades. The depiction of such in Total War games is inaccurate. They weren't used like that on the battlefield.

>>138315944
Why were they depicted in such a way?
How do you know if you're right?

>>138305193
>We're the British fucking retarded?
>We're
can't even speak English, well done Luke Duke

>>138315869\
>It was similar to case and the naval grapeshot, but fired smaller and more numerous balls, which did not have to punch through the wooden hull of a ship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canister_shot

Canister shot by the time of the ACW was used to repeal entire assaults, and famously used to help repel Pickett's charge.

>>138315869
What do you mean? Grapeshot and Chainshot were used exclusively by the royal navy to slow down pirate ships and later slave ships to mitigate damage done to the hull and not harm the cargo so they could board with said cargo intact.

If you want a nasty weapon that was used you should look at mortars, they were fired at the Americans from cannons during the blockade of Charlestown? I can't remember, what's the town that got bantered with cannon fire during the Revolution?

>>138315944
The units were reformed in the 19th century because it was no longer effective to do this. But they were used in the American revolution, the French fucking had them.

>>138316130
Im sorry, I meant how big is grapeshot and is it multiple projectiles.
Ill search for it.

>>138315803
>Fired at ship sails to slow them down.

It was for anti-personnel use on land. Ships sometimes used chain shot.

>>138315869
>Approx. How big in diameter is it? And is it multiple projectiles?

From the size of a musket ball to maybe the size of a ping pong or golf ball. Grape and canister shot are basically the same thing, except the container full of shot that you ram down the barrel is different. It would be dozens and dozens of lead balls, like a gigantic shotgun. Most armies used it at a maximum range of 200 meters, the British limited it to 150 meters.

My brother had a retarded history teacher that thought that Napoleon's famout "whiff of grapeshot" during the Royalist uprising in Paris was him literal shooting grapes as non-lethal projectiles.

File: 1503204106979.jpg (127KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1280x720px

People fought like that because cavalry was a very real threat.

You either held formation together, or died alone, desperately trying to flee from men on horseback.

Pro-tip, you can't outrun horses.

Aside from that, musket fire was highly inaccurate, and the difference between a disciplined army and a rabble was the disciplined army would stick around for more than a single volley. Armies trained exhaustively so that soldiers would hold for just one more volley of fire. It was all that stood before defeat and victory.

>>138316208
I know chainshot, I've never heard of grapeshot and wanted to know how big it was and if it was multiple projectiles

>>138316309
>Pro-tip, you can't outrun horses.
maybe you can't

>>138316271
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_artillery_in_the_Age_of_Sail

Stop now.

File: SpartanCharge.jpg (454KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1920x1080px

It goes back to ancient Greece and the Hoplite battle formations. Lining up in rows and charging the enemy straight on is an incredibly western thing to do. By taking his place in line in battle a man earned the right to vote.

>>138316092
>Why were they depicted in such a way?

Probably to make more varied unit types.

>How do you know if you're right?

I've read a ton of battle accounts and never heard them mentioned.

>>138316271
Top kek. Retarded teachers.
So grape shot was multiple ping pong sized lead balls?

>>138316130
>Canister shot by the time of the ACW was used to repeal entire assaults, and famously used to help repel Pickett's charge.

Canister shot can't be used in rifled cannons, right? Shot from a rifled shotgun barrel forms an expanding donut pattern due to the rotation.

>>138316344
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k86XhYS8GJI

Here, idiot confederates using our weapon (that they used against their fellow man instead of ships).

See.

>>138316447
>So grape shot was multiple ping pong sized lead balls?

Maybe 24-36 or more per load. Different armies probably all had their unique loadouts and preferences and different sized shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPC7KiYDshw

These were also effective.

Stay mad you bunch of useless fucks.

>>138316397
Thanks
>Grapeshot – Canvas-wrapped stacks of smaller round shot which fitted in the barrel, typically three or more layers of three. Some grape shot was made with thin metal or wood disks between the layers, held together by a central bolt. The packages broke open when fired and the balls scattered with deadly effect. Grape was often used against the enemy quarterdeck to kill or injure the officers, or against enemy boarding parties

>>138316482
Canister shot is encased and isn't affected by the rifling of the cannon. I imagine shooting canister shot does damage the rifling of the barrel, but if you're shooting canister shot that isn't what you are worried about.

File: 1448775629283.jpg (49KB, 596x628px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 596x628px

>>138305193

>has a Confederate battle flag in post

How's Pickett's Charge coming along for ya Johnny Reb?

>>138305193
imagine how terrifying it would be to see a thick uniformed line like that marching at you as an ooga booga jungle man

>>138316397
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_artillery_in_the_Age_of_Sail
>Stop now.

>Cans filled with dozens of musket balls. The cans broke open on firing to turn the gun into a giant shotgun for use against enemy personnel.

>Canvas-wrapped stacks of smaller round shot which fitted in the barrel, typically three or more layers of three. Some grape shot was made with thin metal or wood disks between the layers, held together by a central bolt. The packages broke open when fired and the balls scattered with deadly effect. Grape was often used against the enemy quarterdeck to kill or injure the officers, or against enemy boarding parties.

Yeah, anti-personnel. On land or sea. Not for hitting sails. Little holes in the sails wouldn't do much. The goal was to bring down the masts or rigging. They had chainshot and other funky kinds specially designed for that.

The British just preferred to get in really close and kill the enemy crew with roundshot through the hull and pivot guns firing shot from the deck. Later they packed lots of carronades on their decks. Other navies preferred targeting the rigging and masts. Then there were boarding parties.

>>138316710
>Canister shot is encased and isn't affected by the rifling of the cannon. I imagine shooting canister shot does damage the rifling of the barrel, but if you're shooting canister shot that isn't what you are worried about.

Wouldn't the canister itself start spinning while leaving the barrel. They still used lots of smoothbore guns during the war. Plenty of them, all over the place. I don't see the rifled guns managing canister shot at all.

>>138309751

>Canadians advancing tactics to combined arms total assaults
>AT the time Canadians shit on the Aussie General who proposed the idea to suck the cock of the British high command.

>Who is Major General Monash?

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P10676516

Monash was promoted to lieutenant general and given command of the Australian Corps. His first battle in this role, Hamel, of which he wrote: "the operation is a striking example of the success which invariably results from careful preparation and coordinated action: and will serve as a model and the standard of the fighting efficiency of the Australian corps".

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2008/04/25/2226668.htm

General Monash conceived a plan using untried tactics to take the town. His plan would see the use of tanks and a creeping barrage to enable a small force of Australians with the support of some newly arrived United States Army troops to enter the town behind armour and artillery protection. He also arranged for air support to drop supplies during the battle so the soldiers were not hindered by having to carry heavy ammunition boxes. In the lead up to the attack General Monash ordered the Australian artillery to shell the town with gas. On the day of the attack they fired smoke bombs instead of gas. Reports from the field indicated that many of the Germans were severely hampered having donned their gas masks while the Australians had a wide field of vision. The attack was a resounding success with the town falling in 93 minutes, 3 minutes longer than General Monash had anticipated.

Monash wont he war and Guderian himself having lost a battle first hand to Monash immediately set about writing up the basis for Blitzkrieg tactical warfare because of it.

>>138317135

>http://abc net au/local/stories/2008/04/25/2226668.htm
https://archive.is/y8iPw

>>138317085
If the canister itself spun it wouldn't make a difference because it would break apart as soon as it left the barrel and the dozens of balls inside would create a shotgun effect. The only benefit of shooting it out of a smoothbore was that there was no rifling to damage.

>>138317321
>If the canister itself spun it wouldn't make a difference because it would break apart as soon as it left the barrel and the dozens of balls inside would create a shotgun effect.

But the centrifugal force on the shot inside the canister would still be acting on it. They would get spun with the canister, and keep rotating after the canister broke apart.

>>138317559
Might be over thinking it, these are simply round lead balls. This isn't a APFSDS round.

>>138317135

Had WWI lasted longer, The British PM Lloyd-George was going to replace Haig with Arthur Currie with Monash as his second in command

>>138309961
Stupid Frenchie. God save the Queen.

>>138307193
Never heard of John Graves Simcoe.

Only heart of Benedict Arnold from /pol/. Seems like a cool guy though.

>>138305516
Nonsense, muskets were still accurate enough to aim and hit a target, even smoothbores. Go watch videos of it.

>>138317734

That may be so, but it was Monash and the Australians that moved war forward from WW1 mass charges into machine guns - and the overvaluing of machine over men.

Within two days the Germans were pushed off Mont St Quentin and out of Peronne. The victory is still regarded by many as the greatest achievement of any army in World War 1. The AIF suffered only 3000 casualties.
With the Germans now forced back to their eastern-most defensive position, Monash once again painstakingly planned a series of attacks, which ultimately overwhelmed the German Hindenberg line.
When the war ended on November 11, 1918 all the Australian divisions had been retired from the line. They'd been on the attack for over 60 days.

>As a tribute to his achievements and tactical success he was knighted in the field by King George V.

At the end of the war Lieutenant General Sir John Monash oversaw the repatriation of Australian troops before returning to Victoria where he led the restructure on the State's electricity system.
When he died in 1931 nearly 300,000 people attended his funeral.

Australians also heavily revised war and its practices again in North Africa and the Pacific. Having been the first to defeat both the Germans and the Japs in the war. Proving it wasn't blind luck having continual success either holding on in Tobruk or fighting the japs outmanned outgunned with no support in the jungles of the pacific islands.

The entirety of modern special forces and fire teams developed from Australian tactics during these battles. For example as a lark Aussies used to go out at night to find a German mine and because the Germans did everything in perfect order so they knew where to walk threw their own minefields, they dug up the whole mind field then reburied them in random spots. They did while wearing no insignia and black clothes/face paint knowing they could be charged and executed as espionage agents and not protect by Geneva convention.

>>138305193
you don't need a cover when god is on your side.

>>138307227
Bullshit.

>>138305193
most attackers just fling themselves like dogs at random
orderly shooting is more effective and harder to attack because you are always being shot at
simply standing their ground was often enough to turn the battle to the side
after better guns showed up, different tactics are now used but it took time to overcome the retards running the show - usually from old age

>>138315839
French are so retarded, the British already had khaki before the war and they go in dressing like dandys and get killed
Good riddance too bad they figured out their mistake and more of them weren't put down

Guns were shit back then. you could say warfare on the fields as a whole was retarded, and armies had to mold their formations around their firearms, not the another way around like we do now. Lower density among soldiers meant death in the first volley, if a stray shot didn't kill you, a bayonet did. You couldn't just 360 noscope them like nowadays. Real warfare was political.

File: 1480454481900.jpg (744KB, 1510x1600px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 1510x1600px

>>138308995
We WUZ TACTICAINS N SHIEEET!

>>138313374
same, never heard of him, i barely went to school though

File: file.png (777KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 750x563px

>>138305859
Is that a note of jealousy I hear, penal colony anon?

File: IMG_1611.jpg (55KB, 876x493px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 876x493px

>>138306284
This doesn't even make sense

>>138314297
It was the 2nd Boer War (or it was the 1st I can't remember) that caused us to ditch redcoats in favour of solid colour uniforms.

>>138315722
Honestly it's pretty good we lost the 13 colonies. It gave rise to the United States that champions rights that we all here supports and made us Bongs look elsewhere to Suez and India for lucrative expansion. Worked out for both of us in the end (except the growing pains) with our friendship.

>>138305193
It was when they tried it out in WW1

File: 1496505738280.png (181KB, 662x421px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 662x421px

>>138315667
WUZ

File: IMG_0599.jpg (39KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 200x300px

>>138321660

>>138305859
Skirmishers were not a revolutionary concept nor was that the norm for the continental army during the war.

The British lost for the same reason any empire does trying to fight a war thousands of miles from home: logstical strain, no support from the local populace, your rival superpowers supplying them, and finally an enemy with a will to fight.

File: 1497610764073.png (55KB, 1172x1416px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1172x1416px

>>138318308
>The entirety of modern special forces and fire teams developed from Australian tactics during these battles. For example as a lark Aussies used to go out at night to find a German mine and because the Germans did everything in perfect order so they knew where to walk threw their own minefields, they dug up the whole mind field then reburied them in random spots.
kek, will Germans ever not be defeated by their own autism?

File: magnolia-model-fashion-8-data.jpg (352KB, 940x529px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 940x529px

>>138305605

this kiwi cuckold >>138308394

is correct. All european powers used skirmishers. It just didn't become widespread until later because the goal of the battles was to get the other side to route and then you could massacre their forces with cavalry. Given the inaccuracy of muskets at the time, it reduced your chances of a route if you kept your forces huddled together and drilled them to fight in unison and ignore their instincts to flee, as well as it being protection from a cavalry charge if you had them fanned out.

It was Nader Shah, a king of Persia, who was the first to really use infantrymen in guerilla tactics and trenches as a normal standard, which he used against the Ottomans with great success. The Ottomans had the Janissaries who fought more similarly to the Europeans. The Austrians and others copied the tactics of Nader Shah.

Some of you might be interested to listen to this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heAHhtrv48M

by dan carlin, who touches on the topic of firepower vs grand strategy.

>>138322432
Yeah Germans under the Nazis were too organised for their own good. The Allies intelligence could calculate with exact accuracy how many of everything the Germans were manufacturing by looking up serial numbers (or whatever the equivalent was) of the items they captured because they increased in logical numbers. They could also estimate their numbers of armed soldiers etc because everything was labeled logically. The Americans and Soviets randomized numbers a lot more or increased numbers dramatically to give the impression they were more stronger than they were. Like labeling a newly created brigade the 42nd brigade when there were only like 10 brigades

>>138305193
Because it was the most effective way of doing battle. Tactics were implemented to try and terrify troops rather than be efficient at killing such as ripple fire to give the impression of a non stop hail of gunfire to make the enemy flee.

>>138322918
That's right. And as soon as the enemy routes you send in the cavalry to wipe them out. Most of the casualties in these battles happened during the route

>>138305193
fuck off to quora with your dumb slide questions.
>https://www.quora.com/Why-did-soldiers-in-the-17th-18th-and-19th-century-walk-in-closed-ranks-in-battle-towards-the-enemy-as-they-shot-with-their-muskets-Wouldnt-spacing-themselves-make-them-more-difficult-targets

Sage goes in all fields

>>138305193
Military men were merely props for the kings.
Think we have NEETs now? Go back 400 years.

>>138322692
Yeah, the tank problem is well known in statistics as a motivating example. Had to derive the estimator for a class once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem

>>138305193
You also fought like that.

If you're going to have a lot of people fighting a battle back then it was better to form in that matter because it's easier to manage.

>>138307800
Ah yes God is certainly on your side because he gives you nothing hurricanes and tornados to destroy your cities and towns.

Yes, of course.

>>138306467
Also because red dye was cheaper, so Ive heard

>>138324186
>he gives you nothing hurricanes and tornados to destroy your cities and towns.
Well at least it keeps with what we know about Him from the Bible.

>>138308965
Well of course it wasn't half but there was big support with Washington back in Britain. You've got to remember that we had a similar revolution in the 1640's, where the revolutionaries won. That, and one of the main academic figures behind your revolution and nation was British: Thomas Paine.

>>138309906
No you haven't. And you also haven't figured out how to get the planes to talk to our carriers yet so we're going to have to do that once you've finally delivered them.

>>138306290
We Swedes used that 100 years before him. Napolean was a hack. I prefer Armfeldt or Rhenskiöld.

Brits fought honourably like men

Burgerfucks fought like the Taliban

>>138307193
I've literally never heard of him.

We've heard of Benedict Arnold only in the sense that we know Americans loathe him as a traitor. Its only in hindsight though. At the time most people were loyalists and if the rebels had lost Benedict Arnold would have been championed as a noble man.

File: 2915619F00000578-0-image-a-60_1432648316213.jpg (112KB, 634x476px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 634x476px

>>138308303
You've got Hitler to thank, more than Gandhi.

File: important.gif (980KB, 227x221px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 227x221px

It's common knowledge that the Scots carried the Anglos in most wars and ground combat.
What would you do without us? :')

Also note that back then, the concept of always loading the same amount of powder wasn't recognized that well, resulting in completely random muzzle velocities on top of the inaccuracy of a smoothbore. There actually were a few really accurate riflemen back then who always loaded the same amount of powder. One of them scored a hit on an English officer so far away nobody thought possible.

Line formation warfare was relevant for thousands of years, technology finally made that aspect of it obsolete as weapons became more accurate.
Swedish Caroleans were known for marching super close to the enemy before firing.

>Strict discipline was necessary in the Carolean army to allow its very offensive tactics, which among other things exposed soldiers to a medium-distance enemy fire before being allowed to respond. This tactic was intended to get the soldiers close enough to the enemy so that it was almost impossible to miss a shot. The steadfast courage shown from the Swedish troops would also affect enemy morale, and on several occasions this frightened the enemies into retreat

>>138305193
t. Cletus education

>>138305516
Calvary are the more important reason, Muskets, even more so rifles, can't fire fast enough to avoid being overwhelmed by horsemen on open ground so they turned their muskets into spears with bayonets, together in tight formation horsemen could be repelled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97dBfdNrf9A

>Use blackpowder muskets
>Just tell all your buddies to shoot the enemy however they want, those retards are just lining up. Honestly what a bunch of morons amirite
>Every time anyone fires a shot the whole area is filled with thick white smoke which makes it impossible for the guys near him to aim.
>Guys can't even see the enemy let alone fight him.
>Get utterly slaughtered by the enemy who fight in neat lines and fire in volleys to allow time for the smoke to clear and maximize their effective fire rate.

You know, not everyone in history was retarded. If they did it some way, there was probably a reason for it.

>>138326459
"I thus allowed them to advance unmolested until the head of the column might have been about fifty or sixty yards from us, and then gave the word, "Fire!" The effect was terrible. Nearly the whole leading rank fell at once; and the round shot, penetrating the column carried confusion throughout its extent ... the discharge of every gun was followed by a fall of men and horses like that of grass before the mower's scythe."

—Captain Cavalié Mercer, RHA

The French cavalry got BTFO at Waterloo.

File: 14.png (839KB, 428x828px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 428x828px

>>138307193
Based Simcoe did nothing wrong.