where they stupid?

>ywn go back in time with modern weaponry and mow down entire armies by yourself and become undisputed ruler of the world and get a gf

>>84190718
Educate yourself about the History of Line infantry, marching and fighting in columns until new tactics and weapons emerged on the battlefield.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(formation)

>>84191849
so the movie was accurate

>>84191934
Yes it was. The tactics of the Independence war were heavily influence by the Seven Years war which also had Battle scenarios in North America.

Especially the Strategies and Tactics of Friedrich der Große ( Frederick the Great ) against opponents with far greater manpower/armies had a severe impress on the leading Military of that Era.

>>84191701
>tfw gf will never cuck you with Tyrone on national tv

>>84192073
we have different dreams, you and I.

>>84190718
>where they stupid?


Yes, the tens of millions of soldiers who fought in this way over the centuries were all stupid and not a single one of them tried anything else. If only you had been born 300 years ago you could teach them a lesson in warfare.

>>84190718
always wondered this, it makes zero sense
maybe they considered it to be the honorable and civilized way to die for a monarch?

>>84192293
>die for a monarch
lol this is what people believe

>>84192293
Guess what: Military strategies and tactics are a constant race based on technology, organisation, manpower, etc.
And therefore the CHANGE all the time due to new developments in the mentioned domains.

File: 1471360646731.png (97KB, 232x239px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 232x239px

>>84190718
>like how about the first row of men shoots, then ducks and runs to the back of the line and reloads. followed by the second row and the third row and so on and so forth? so there is a consistent stream of bullets heading toward the enemy.

1) Because the formation now has to leave room for soldiers to pass through, it is more spread out. Therefore it is harder to maneuver, it is more vulnerable to direct charges, it is harder to mount its own charge and it is harder for division commanders to keep control of it.

2) You're creating a situation in which soldiers will get the impression of constant retreat. I'm sure the psychological effects on a soldier when he's constantly being drummed forward to a battleline he's seeing his fellow soldiers "flee" from (getting shot in the back too) can't be underestimated, especially on a smoke-filled battlefield with little visibility.

t. not a military historian but a good guesser

File: Battle of La Moncelle Franco-Prussian War 1870.jpg (621KB, 1459x859px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 1459x859px

>>84190718
>>84192293
It was done primarily to aid officers communication to their troops, shouting only gets you so far in the midst of battle.

Have heard secondary rationales that it was also employed as means of reinforcing unit-cohesion.

The first reason is likely the largest consideration for line formations.

You have been visited by /k/.

why didn't the front line carry a portable wall with them to use as cover?

>>84193418
There was a reason why metal armour fully disappeared from the Battlefield when Muskets, Arquebus and finally Rifles appeared on mass.

There was nothing at that time that could stop a Bullet AND by light enough to be used/transported as a shield by common Infantry.

>>84193418
Nips tried that iirc

Didn't work out so well for them

>>84190718
>>84192293
>>84193418

Man, I spent a few minutes thinking about a topic, why didn't the men who lived through these events do it my way? Haha retards.

>>84195021
probably because they were uneducated. they would've benefited greatly from some of the ideas in this thread. for real

>>84195079
The people who came up with these tactics were smarter than your worthless NEET ass.

>>84195230
then why do I know what DNA is and they don't?

>>84195436
Because other people far greater and smarter than you didnt wasted their Life and discovered something you parrot about but not understanding at all.

>>84191934

Of course it was. Have you ever been to school? They teach the civil war like 4 fucking times by then end of high school

>>84191849
Without reading this article my understanding of line tactics was pretty much to focus fire and protect against cavalry. I might be wrong so I'm going to read it now.

>>84195079
>>84195436
Look out everybody, there's a genius in this thread!

>>84195436
Will DNA help you win wars? If this thread is anything to go off the answer is no.

I'm not a military expert or anything, but my personal understanding is that it allowed for control of the men by commanding officers, it was the most effective way to hit anything because guns had dogshit accuracy before rifling came along, and it usually worked wonders on a morale-shattering level for the really big armies who had a fuckton of guys they could march along in formation.

I always wondered why smaller countries didn't immediately look for different strategies because getting in a big line and shooting with masses of guys obviously favors the group with more guys.

>>84195554
Do it, especially about the tactics of Friederich der Große.

>>84195617
>I always wondered why smaller countries didn't immediately look for different strategies

Standing armies were damn expansives at these times. To support a professional military was only possible for few Nations.
Therefore these so called smaller nations were either stomped to the Ground or spared because another big player stepped in, just to stop the other nation from gaining more power.

>>84190718
how about instead of having a soldier run to the back to reload, a loaded gun is just passed to him?

what if i told you that was actually what they did, and it's better than your strategy?

>>84190718
>couldn't one side come up with a better strategy to avoid mass casualties?

Yes, its called guerilla warfare and the Minutemen and Continental Army did it all the time. In fact, its some of the earliest examples of guerilla warfare used with firearms.

why didn't they just have one guy sneak up alongside the enemy line and shoot an entire row in the heads with one bullet?

>>84195763
these were gentlemanly wars, no AWPs allowed

>>84190718
The average musket was really inaccurate.
You fire as many balls as you can and let God sort out the rest.

A line of infantry firing at once was basically a giant shotgun. Rifled guns didn't become standard till later.

They should make a sequel to Braveheart with Braveheart's son fighting these toy soldier fagets in cool and inventive ways.

>>84195230
not that guy but if they were so smart why didn't they come up with ideas as good as the ones featured in this thread?

>>84196274
Okay please educate me about the strategies and tactics of military combat in the year 2243.
Especailly in relation to the used combat gear and weapon systems of that time.

>>84192975
You forgot
>People getting up and running in front of people who are shooting.

>>84195021
>minutes
more like seconds. these questions are fine but the people that assume they are more clever than their ancestors are retards

>>84196354
>irrelevant nonsense
k

>>84196503
>implying they couldn't just stop drop and roll out of the way

>>84195436
>confusing knowledge with intelligence

Recounting facts that have been spoofed to you is not intelligence

>>84196557
don't see how assuming your ancestors were so brilliant is any better. you can critique people in positions of power today for beings morons, but it's unheard of to question people from a few hundred years ago? you're putting historical figures on a pedastal for no reason. some of the anons in this thread probably have more cobat strategy experience playing RTS games than those old losers had. don't see why you should write off their ideas so quickly

File: 1475260261125.jpg (25KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x386px

>two genders
>kings and queens
>stand in a line and go shooty bang bang

LMAO why were are ancestors so stupid?

>>84195663
That wasnt a reply to his question at all. Hes wondering why it took so long for guerrila tactics to come about

>>84190718
Inaccurate weapons drove those tactics. They were only really effective if they could be volley fired to put the maximum amount of lead towards the enemy.

>>84190718
>>>/his/

You know that there are other boards beside /tv/, right?

Did you retards really not know how wars were fought back then? How old are you? Did you not have history class? Have you never seen any movie or show or documentary about this shit? You really can't be this clueless. You're almost as dumb as they were back in the day

>>84197734
>caring about white people doing stupid lineshoot

yea that sure is useful stuff to know

File: 25.jpg (250KB, 1300x731px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1300x731px

>>84190718
because until the invention of fast firing rifles in the mid-19th century massed infantry was the only way to counter these guys pictured.

also line infantry was only one part of armies that usually included light-infantry, light-cavalry, heavy-cavalry, field-artillery, heavy-artillery, sappers, engineer and hookers...lots of hookers.

>>84195663
some smaller countries like Portugal or Denmark had pretty solid armies during the 17th and 18th centuries.

>>84197766
t. Jamal Washingtonian

>>84196860
You can't possibly be serious

File: 1455398125365.png (353KB, 302x299px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 302x299px

I honestly cant tell if most of these retarded posts are bait or /tv/ is actually just that stupid.

File: 784e7727484efa5270dbdc56862524f5--military-art-military-uniforms.jpg (84KB, 556x740px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 556x740px

>>84191934
hell no...by 1780 the Brits had guerrilla fighters of their own, Marion (the guy Mel is loosely based on) spent most of his time fighting these guys and not the main British army.

>>84197766
You should, considering they blew every nonwhite that they fought the fuck out using those tactics

>>84195617
This is exactly how the Yankee scum managed to get wins in over the British as >>84195704 says

>>84195436
Because they didn't live in the time of DNA.

You could go back in time as far as you like, but unless it was the time to build railroads, you simply could not build them.

>>84198068
We are talking about the board that spent hundreds of hours trying to (fruitlessly ) understand a simple gag from the Simpsons. Of course they are retards

Line formation creates a large effective amount of free space.
If you have people densely packed, then most shots that would otherwise be stray bullets find their home in your allies.

Also those rifles really weren't very accurate at range, and though you had to advance to get any effective use out of your weapons, advancing into a line of soldiers is still suicide.

Why didn't they at least use cover?

It isn't really accurate. for instance, it was incredibly rare for two large armies to come face to face in open field, so that entire ending battle in the patriot where the Americans win because Mel Gibson holds a flag up is total bullshit. The vast majority of battles during this time period, and in much of history, were assaults on towns, fortresses or one army being dug into trenches, which are usually no quarter given as the defending forces already had time to surrender. The United States effectively won the war by being terrorists and attacking unsuspecting troops and supply trains whilst the French blockaded the eastern seaboard.

File: 521291.jpg-c_300_300_x-f_jpg-q_x-xxyxx.jpg (20KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x300px

>>84198215
>Line formation creates a large effective amount of free space.
>If you have people densely packed, then most shots that would otherwise be stray bullets find their home in your allies.

yep...lines are harder to hit with artillery. The French and Spanish figured this out by bashing the hell out of each other in the 17th century.

>>84192162
Imagine being this cucked.

File: 1483332146675.png (178KB, 330x319px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 330x319px

>>84196860
>some of the anons in this thread probably have more cobat strategy experience playing RTS games than those old losers had.

>>84198320
how dare you question your forefathers!

>>84195436
idk anon why did 12 year olds back then know how to ride horses and start a fire with nothing but a stick and leaves and you don't???

File: IMG_4144.jpg (50KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1280x720px

why were the english so fucking evil???

It's like an formation, it has it's pros and con.
For armies with no rifling.

Pro:
-Maximized firepower. Everyman is within range so you maximum the available fire power. This will dominate a scattered formation where only a limited number of men will be in range to fire at at a given time. Also, the scattered formation will be right fucked by cavalry
-Easy to give orders and peform strategies
-Stronger resistance to cavalry charges

Con
-You take more damage. However because you have the same muskets as the enemy, if you break whatever enemy is in range, you don't ttake much extra damage or break even. See the maximized firepower above.
-Artillery is amplified. However once the enemy front line breaks and you can charge in the artillery is fucked. The counterbalance is your own artillery.

>>84198356
>The United States effectively won the war by being terrorists and attacking unsuspecting troops and supply trains whilst the French blockaded the eastern seaboard.

the Brits were pretty good at defending their stuff but that was about it. the Rebels controlled the country-side north of Carolinas and east of Ohio for pretty much the whole war.

Both sides swapped rare major victories with the British slightly ahead until Yorktown.

That said it was French and Spanish support that let the war last in any significant form passed 1777.

>>84198533
Literally didn't happen, if you were wondering.

total war empire was a fantastic game

>>84198356
Holy shit you are retarded

>>84198114
Cool. That would have been a way better movie

explain to a non-american what role american natives played in the war, if any. did they just sit back and watch or did they have a horse in the race?

>>84198706
according to hippies they were peaceful and were run over by the white man

>>84198356
Nigga, it's a mother fucking declared war between countries and one military attacking another miilitary. It's not terrorism you anti-american ass.

>>84198706
supported the Brits

File: french_cuirass_WW1.jpg (55KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x450px

>>84193729
then explain WW1!

>>84193729
No they just needed the metal for other shit, dumb ass.

>>84191701
>and get a gf
i love you bruh

>>84198815
Rarely used and mostly ineffective.

>>84198858
You can't possibly believe that, can you?

>>84191701
your wrong go back in time with a way to manufacture viagra and become undisputed ruler of the world as the only way to give old kings bonners and charge whatever you want

>>84198881
umm, if it was rarely used, then why would Battlefield 1 make a whole campaign around it?
dumbass

>>84193356
make sense

File: kings-mountain.jpg (133KB, 752x518px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 752x518px

>>84198670
it would have...Kings Mountain, Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse were probably the 3 most kino battles of the war and would be great in a movie.

>>84198921
Funny.

>>84190718
There's a technique called 'fire and advance' that's a little bit like what you described.

>>84198936
tfw no good Hollywood European ball & shot moobies
tfw everyone associates these firearms with Americans

>>84198991
Do they? Over here we associate them with the Napoleonic wars more than the Americans.

>>84198906
You know how expensive it would be to fit out all your infantry with armor? Not even really seen as worth it when they were using ranged weapons anyway.

>>84198706
Brits made a huge mistake and encouraged them to attack settlements...this vastly increased support for independence among the colonial population, led to decades of war between whites and indians and ultimately resulted in the virtual extermination of the tribes east of the Mississippi river.

>>84198706
Depends on the tribe.
But the french and indian war, part of the seven years war had french and indians on one side and british and colonial militia on the other. And that was a big precipitator to the revolutionary war. Namely the taxes to pay for it were what the colonist chimped out over.
During the revolutionary war they tended to side with the british because they made promises of land and borders. Stupid fucking red skins, every time.

>>84199013
niggas don't even remember Napoleon himself much less any wars surrounding him out of high school
far, far more exposure to American independence and the Civil War which is reinforced with movies belonging to those two settings

>>84198991
Barry Lyndon...

>>84199092
you're in /tv/ anon...

>>84199032
Cost was a factor, but the primary reason was that it was mostly ineffective. If it was actually effective, then there would still have been armoured units, they'd just have been rare and expensive - yet I don't know of any widespread use of armoured units besides cuirassiers, and they just wore breastplate.

>>84199088
Maybe in the States. Waterloo and such is a big deal here in the UK though.

>>84199088
>the Civil War
what a great name for a war

>>84199135
I kek'd

>>84195526
fun fact: countries other than america exist

>>84199138
You fucking moron. Read what you just wrote.

>>84199281
Care to explain what you find so difficult to understand about my explanation? If armour was effective against musket fire, then generals and other key units would wear armour. They didn't - instead, only one, fairly unexceptional unit did, and only a small amount. They didn't "need the metal for other shit".

>>84199051
>indians attacking white people
nice lies, you fucking racist

File: manlets , when will they learn.png (798KB, 672x502px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 672x502px

>>84197895

>>84198001
Yes, but Portugal had A) An incredibly profitable trading empire and B) A perma-alliance with England

>>84198815
That armor is designed to stop them being gutted by shrapnel from shelling, not to stop a high-caliber cartridge from close range

File: tmp_17026-1498174300374-937055374.jpg (18KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 640x480px

>>84193729
Why didn't they just use large metal cylinder that blocked bullets but they could be rolled rather than picked up so weight wasn't an issue? They could literally roll over the enemy and pop over to shoot.

>>84198991
Guarantee we're done with colonial kino until the "accurate depictions of the past are racist and problematic" trend dies off

File: SARTI - January Suchodolski - Victory of Ochakiv, 1788 December 17.jpg (210KB, 1134x755px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1134x755px

Once upon a time, a crazy little Russian named Suvorov said "what if we just rush them right away before they can shoot us to pieces? The enemy always runs from a bayonet charge, right?"

And he did, and he won. And he did it again, and he won again. In fact, that stupid little Russian won every battle he ever fought, by being the fastest fucker on the field and never letting his enemy's lines fire more than a volley or two.

He wrote a treatise for training troops entitled "the Science of Victory" - it's very short.

>>84200968
>it's very short.
kek'd

File: 30yearswar_musketeers_firing_by_rank.jpg (38KB, 540x330px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 540x330px

>>84190718
>like how about the first row of men shoots, then ducks and runs to the back of the line and reloads. followed by the second row and the third row and so on and so forth? so there is a consistent stream of bullets heading toward the enemy.


Are you trolling? This was literally a real tactic, but from the 15th-17th centuries. It was even practiced by cavalry discharging their pistols and reading around to the rear. Caracole was the name.

It was replaced by ranks firing and reloading in place, but crouching or lying down to give a clear aim for the men behind them. Then that was replaced by all ranks firing together, but rotating their fire along the line (one company fires at a time, or one platoon, so that each battalion is constantly shooting somewhere along its front).

In the heat of battle, platoon fire usually broke down in the smoke and din into every man firing at will.

they just need to gain ground.
British troops tend to fire one or two valley, then they banzai charge and enemy generally just run away. so british gain the ground

But america tent to keep shooting. keep shooting.

>>84200118
hor let

File: 1223097660524.jpg (11KB, 251x232px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x232px

>>84191701
ive had this exact daydream about 1 gazillion times

They did this because it was supposedly more """civilized"" than melee hand to hand combat of the middle ages

You have to remember this was also the time where thing such as duels or fraternal initiation rites became a widespread thing

>>84203350
They did it because it was more effective.
You probably have misconceptions about the weapons that were available at that time.

when did archers become obsolete? i feel like a bunch of archers could still be effective in these battles. i would bring back archers

>>84203504
archery required training, you can just hand any peasant a gun

>>84203504
when a state-mandated training session every sunday for every boy and man for the entirety of their lives became far too demanding in comparison to the easy-to-pickup shootyrootymctooty

>>84191701
Watch the Man who would be King

>>84203504
Armour penetration. Range. Weight of ammunition.

Sort of they marched and fought in similar lines but the movie is very dramatic they almost never went that close to each other and just traded shots like that. Usually both sides would trade shots at a 100 yards or so when they get as close as the movie it would be over after 1 volley, artillery and cavalry cutting down fleeing men are what really did the killing

>>84203350
You think duels and fraternal initiation rites were less common before then?

>>84203504
The same reason knights became obsolete.
They required long training and yes archers were probably more effective than rifleman until somewhere in the 19th century but 1 archer requires lifelong training while 1 rifleman can be trained to march in formation in a few months.

>>84193356
>>84192293

the line formation has been a staple of warfare for literally thousands of years

do you know why?

It's because if the line is broken you are effectively routed and your side automatically loses

the idea is to keep the line in formation (with predictable casualties) while you attempt to flank the other guy's line with more mobile troops. Sometimes that's not enough so you're basically hoping your line holds until the other guy folds.

But effectively being in formation means to an average soldier that shit is still going according to some plan. If the line is broken most people would just leg it towards the nearest woods

>>84203660
>The same reason knights became obsolete.
Heavily armed and expensive well trained cavalry didn't become obsolete until the 20th century.
>>84203662
Don't forget that there are always guys that run ahead of the line and skirmish. Skirmishers don't want to be anywhere when the cavalry shows up.

>>84203350
>expecting me to believe people disregarded superior battle tactics because it was 'civilized' to do so

>>84203703
>Heavily armed and expensive well trained cavalry didn't become obsolete until the 20th century.
Their goal changed.

File: Russian_1812_northern_cupids.jpg (99KB, 1023x700px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1023x700px

>>84203504

Horse archers saw limited action in 1806-07 when Russia called enough every loyal panfaced gook from Kiev to Tobolsk. Their arrows had trouble penetrating the French winter coats and jackets and since they fired in high arcs to avoid getting too close to the enemy, their arrows lacked the full power their bows were capable of.

Longbowmen might fair better, until the enemy skirmishers with rifles show up and blow them to hell.

Just a reminder that you "won" the war of independence because we got bored

>>84195704
>>84198130

I watched The Patriot too.

>>84190718
Cannon fodder.

>>84204461

I'm sorry, but in which company did you fight?