Napoleon innovated on the linear tactics of the time by concentrating infantry into attack columns supported by heavy concentrations of artillery fire. The artillery disrupted the enemy line while the infantry charged home, dispersing the target unit. Then the breakthrough regiments could turn and fire enfilade into the flanks of the neighboring enemy regiments and force them to fall back or surrender as well.
Gustavus adolphus is the one who started that, napoleon’s most important innovations weren’t in inventing brand new tactics, they were in the application of a more efficient and meritocratic chain of command. It’s the reason so many ranks in the military have a French name. Corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, major, colonel, etc.
The guns sucked, being in a line and marching up to your enemy gave you a better chance to actually hit something. That and it was a terror strategy. Imagine being some people armed with shit like swords and spears, then these guys just walk up in a big line, drums banging, all armed with sticks that shoot fire and smoke
It worked for awhile. Then when everyone had the same capabilities it became kind of moronic
>Then when everyone had the same capabilities it became kind of moronic
no no... that was why it was a tactic; equally matched national armies comprised of musketeers really only could effectively match each other by lining up (QUITE FAR AWAY RELATIVE TO THE ACCURACY OF THE MUSKET) and ripping volleys at one another until one side broke.
if they were fighting indians in the trees with bows and arrows they would quickly stop with the "line infantry" deal
It was never really effective. What worked was artillery concentrations followed by infantry attacks. That has been the name of the game all the way up to present day.
It also provided people with a mob mentality in battle. You got into the mindset of "sure people will die, but I'll be fine as long as I'm part of the pack."
It ended with the invention of the machine gun.
We are. Instead of 20 million European men colonizing the earth, they died in some trench fighting over 300 meters of land. Those 20 million could be 150 million by now.
The entire modern world has its roots in the 2 world wars. Culture, fashion, manufacturing companies. They'll be remembered as something like the Mongol invasions or the discovery of America.
Meh, Europe basically recovered by the 1930s. at least with dabbing on Napoléon and Pax Brittanica and Europes population recovering from centuries of war so that they could go die in ww1, also they were many medical breakthroughs during the war probably saved millions of lives today. Ww2 was the real tragedy affecting culture and the current pozzed state of the world today along with the rise of the ~~*Americans*~~ and the evil that came from that
WW1 was the natural end result of the French Revolution, which was the real tragedy that marked the end of European power (though it took a century the results to catch up). The FR was a ploy by the non-noble rich to seize power from the mobility whose rule they were straining under. As soon as the oligarch class saw people were now ready and willing to put kings into the background, they all seized power over the following century and turned Europe and North America into the businessman ruled shitholes it is today. The biggest tragedy for the white race was the French Revolution.
the biggest tragedy was the communist takeover of russia in 1917 and the cold war, if you remove those two main events, Black person worshipping wouldn't have existed
the central bankers were already getting goyim to dance to Black jive by the 1890s with ragtime. but again, central bankers seizing power was a result of the power vacum caused by the extinction of the old nobility and rise of the merchantile classes.
5 months ago
Anonymous
yes, bourgeoisie society+ industrial revolution during the XIXth Century paved the way for mass society which slowly throughout the 20th Century eroded socio-cultural norms but the cold war and the october revolution certainly played a key role in things going out of control
Wrong. The whole point of nobility was to protect commoners from the people running the market economy. A wealthy ruling class that gets all of its money from taxing the commoners has a vested interest in making sure commoners can afford to pay taxes.
No. It was the fact that muskets coincidentally appeared alongside the age of absolutism when modern states emerged ruled by autocratic kings that were more focused on maintaining internal power than waging real war against their neighbors. The army was a way to occupy the noble losers who had claims to the throne but no money or backing to seize it, and the army was the perfect institution to absorb the troublesome elements of society like criminals and vagabonds and revolutionaries. It didn't matter if they died in droves against another nation, because nobody was waging wars to actually displace other monarchs so at worst you lost a border town or fort. In fact the more soldiers that died the better, more potential threats to the monarchs rule removed, less pensions to pay. And there was nothing disorganised peasants could do to seriously threaten a column of the king's infantry and the sheer spectacle of numbers was often enough to quell potential uprisings, so marching them about en masse to instill fear and awe in the civilian populace instead of breaking them up into platoons and squads was also beneficial.
In serious wars tactics were changed and modified, like during the American Revolution, but by and large the gunpowder age was an era of inconsequential and unserious war. As soon as someone got serious and shook up the game, like the Swedes under Adolphus or the French after the revolution, tactics changes perceptibly while the threat remained.
The problem with homosexuals who think seriously like OP is that they think they're smarter today than people in the past were. Humans are rational human beings, they did what they did at the time because it was the best way to achieve their goals with the means they had available. Only an actual dumbass thinks everyone up to 1918 was just tol stupid to wage war "properly".
The guns sucked, being in a line and marching up to your enemy gave you a better chance to actually hit something. That and it was a terror strategy. Imagine being some people armed with shit like swords and spears, then these guys just walk up in a big line, drums banging, all armed with sticks that shoot fire and smoke
It worked for awhile. Then when everyone had the same capabilities it became kind of moronic
you're a grown adult, it's time you start questioning the really moronic shit you were told in state mandated public schooling instead of mindlessly repeating it.
Those soldiers were sent to their deaths on purpose.
WWI was fricking tragic
Pretty sure we're still reeling from its effects
ww1 was to cull the old nobility and wipe out the last remnance of monarchy
ww2 was to cull the upstart middleclass and reset the population growth of the lower class which was ballooning thanks to industrial aggricultural techniques
people finally started questioning this shit during the vietnam war, which forced the transition into the so called volunteer army. But as ukrainehas demonstrated, the sleavy businessmen who replaced the nobility will just as happily draft you and fight until the last (you) because the purpose of war is to remove excess/undesirable populations.
>ww1 was to cull the old nobility and wipe out the last remnance of monarchy
Those wars were declared by the monarcy, why were they wanting to get rid of themselves? You can't just look at some outcomes of these things and decide it was all orchestrated to achieve that, sometimes it actually just was what's written in the history books
both you an OP are mouthbreathing morons who BY FAR overestimate both the accuracy of smoothbore muskets (both inherent inaccuracy in addition to the smoke and haze of black powder gunfire), and the rate at which the common soldier was sending lead downrange.
The scene wasn't a realistic depiction of linear tactics. A small group of French fusiliers is firing from extreme range and somehow dropping entire files of men from the British battalion. Looked liked a hundred casualties including the colonel and all the officers.
It didn't matter how stupid it was, Europe mostly agreed to fight that way and thats all that mattered.
>I disagree with you >Ok, Im going to send 10,000 troops to this spot >Alright, Im sending 12,000 troops there too >fast forward >"Ah you have bested me, consider our beef squashed for now"
The end. Kind of crazy that men were either farming in dirt or being sent out to die for 99% of human history, its amazing to be living today in an era with relative peace, technology, knowledge, and freedom.
>general is sitting in a luxurious mansion flustered and anxious >ebony skinned maid walks in with handmade treats >he smashes them to the floor >"it is hopeless, we keep losing every battle!!" >she quickly glances at the battle map >in an instant she casually replies "have ya tried puttin' them cannons on dat dere high ground?" >slow zoom in on the general's face >cut to montage of victories across the land >cuts back to maid washing dishes in a dark kitchen >orchestral version of Zombie starts playing
with their tanks and their bombs...
>Mr. Scott, I have something I think you'll really like for the third theatrical trailer for Napoleo- >Third? If you think I'm bothering with a third trailer you're out of your mind. The audience can go to hell. >Oh...yes, sir. Sorry, sir.
Using the same strategy during ww1 when guns and artillery became far more accurate was moronic.
Anyway OP is moronic himself knowing nothing about military history and shitpostin same shit over and over
guns were still pretty unweildly but at the same time made any other strategy useless so the result was just fricking standing there shooting each other until the other side runs away >bu bu but just use cover and win
using cover just slowed your firing rate down letting your enemy advance and pin you down
You got btfo'd last thread so why do this again? Militaries spend ridiculous amounts of money through all history on parades. Why? To flex on enemies.
This strategy is the same. It shows dominance when you refuse to hide but march, not run, towards your enemy in the open with bright red uniforms. Why did the French get stereotyped as cowards? Because the British mastered intimidation.
>This strategy is the same. It shows dominance when you refuse to hide but march, not run, towards your enemy in the open with bright red uniforms. Why did the French get stereotyped as cowards? Because the British mastered intimidation.
True. Pretty much all of human history with set-piece battles apparently more people were killed when one side broke and ran than in the actual front lines fighting.
The ancient greeks would say phobos (fear/panic) is the master of the battlefield. It's also contagious among troops - if you see guys from your side turning and running you naturally want to do it too. In these battles it was common for some solders to be pissing and shitting themselves. So intimidation as a strategy has always been effective.
>for pretty much all of human history
There are some notable exceptions to that, such as cannae. Every soldier’s worst fear is ending up in that kind of scenario. Usually panic would break out after an army was outmaneuvered or forced to break formation by enemy artillery.
No.
-Due to being inaccurate, each rifle fired had a certain % chance to incapacitate its target. It could miss up and down or side to side, and might not hit a critical part of the body.
-1 person firing at 10 people has about a 10% chance to inflict a kill, increased to 20% since if it misses to the side, it can still hit.
-10 people firing at one person has about a 100% chance to inflict a kill.
That's not a strategy. It's tactics. It's the natural evolution of pike and shot.
Get rid of the pikes and turn the muskets into pikes. You have to mass fire for any real effect because reload rates and accuracy are both shit for early muskets. As soon as you start seeing improvements to muskets (see American long rifles during the French and Indian and Revolutionary Wars) then you start seeing irregular guerilla tactics.
If they had tried to fight dispersed, rather than in formation, they would be vulnerable to cavalry charges.
Is it really that moronic? To kill someone’s with a sword you have to get right up to them where they’re also in range to kill you with a sword. To kill someone with an M16 you still have to get within range and have a straight line of sight where they could theoretically shoot you right back.
Maximization of firepower. Think of it like this, you can fire every 30 seconds, so one guy puts two shots downfield a second. Now expanding it into a formation lets say you have a hundred guys, you’re spread out and in cover, lets say you each have about a three foot radius circle, still a close formation by modern standards so covering 600 yards your entire unit can fire 200 rounds a minite. But what if we lined you up shoulder to shoulder covering 600 yards? Now your 600 yard front is firing about 600 rounds a minute. Now lets put a second rank and have them fire over your heads or step out in front of you and fire while you’re reloading with you firing in front of them while they reload, now you have 1200 rounds per minute.
This improved density of fire is highly useful in protecting against the secondary danger which is melee. Beyond being able to form an effective wall of bayonets the high rate of fire can whittle down assault units which is why assault columns were vital since if a unit is 60 guys deep and you can only hit the front rank or two per volley you’ll be unable to kill everyone (or more reasonably break unit cohesion) before they reach melee combat.
Massed infantry formations were the only way to fight with muskets.
When you're using a weapon where its effective range relative to its rate of fire is such that the enemy could charge you and get into melee before you had a chance for a second volley, you need to fight in formation with bayonets so that you don't get overrun.
you now realize the purpose of war is intentional population culls. the upper class always fear a slave uprising, so they routinely send out poor people to die on purpose when lower class population numbers get uncomfortably high or when resources get too expensive to keep the slaves fed.
No, dudes with buffalo hide shields and spears charging Brits at Rorke’s Drift was pretty dumb.
Human wave attacks during WW1 trench warfare was pretty dumb.
French knights at Crécy and Agincourt were pretty dumb.
Soviet mass attacks were pretty dumb.
Japanese Banzai charges in WW2 were pretty dumb.
You posting this fricking thread for the fiftieth time is pretty dumb.
I don't understand what makes people spam a thread for a fricking decade.
This Black person and the 'gallops on his horse and says the name and keeps riding guy' are fricking looney.
no it isnt. it's a game of chicken with the side that shoots first losing. if you shoot too early, nothing prevents the survivors of the other line to walk right up to you and shoot you in cold blood, meaning the side that shot too early is bound to break formation and flee instead.
they did not have good tactics 1000 years ago people were pretty much all moronic living in mud huts. so them fighting like this makes sense if you think about it.
Everything post Napoleon till 1922 is tainted by the cult of the offense, despite Napoleon tactics being outdated 20 years after Napoleon, it was in all the military textbooks and handbooks when the officer cores were being trained in thier 20s, who were making the decisions in thier 40s
>Trench Warfare also seems incredily moronic
trench warfare only makes sense if you have enough troops to frontline the entire territory you want to protect. if you dont, you will have a meeting engagement with the opposing at a place that both sides deem acceptable. there is no point in entrenching if the other side will just deny you battle until you emerge in the open. or worse, bypass you and ravage your countryside
It seems moronic because the ones currently relying on it are lazy stupid slava that refuse to put so much as a twig over their trench leaving them totally exposed not only to artillery and grenades but also to the multitude of drones that now haunt the battlefield. Most of those Ukrainian drone deaths could've been prevented by those lazy fricks taking 3 hours to chop a tree up and putting overhead cover on their position but they'd rather sit there sniffing their own farts until a lancet slams into them.
Meanwhile over in Gaza the Muslims spent years making tunnels to nullify Israel's overwhelming technological advantage and fought the IDF to a bloody stalemate by popping out of holes Cong style and blasting vulnerable israelites before retreating back into the earth. Trench warfare will be the only effective means of the defensive part of warfare going forward, but it's not enough to dig 4-5 feet down anymore, you have to go right into the Earth and create elaborate tunnel systems that invalidate air and artillery and drones.
kek, the majority of drone deaths are russian. not to mention the dozens of armored vehicles they send straight into minefields or the infantry straight into meat grinders to be slaughtered for no gains. I almost feel bad for them watching the hundreds of videos a month of russian lives being snuffed out for a war that has no purpose
>most drone deaths are Russian >source: western media sites
Go on Russian telegrams and you’ll see just as many Ukrainians being killed. From everything I’ve seen and read it does seem that the casualty rate is nearly 1 to 1.
How could they counter it? By their very nature cavalry could not match the same troop density that infantry could meaning they could never win in a shooting engagement. Horses do not want to charge in a wall of knives and even if they did and you managed to kill even 3 soldiers you still lose because you are guaranteed to die by riding your horse into a mass of bayonet wielding men. There's no flank or rear to attack. All you could do is gallop helplessly around the formation firing into them hoping they don't shoot you back.
Cavalry were what special forces are now. On the front lines, against regular units standing their ground, they had little value. They were meant to harass vulnerable flanks and rear positions, scout, chase down beaten foes, etc.
No radios and loud battles meant tight formations kept unit coherency. They were still using battlelines and walking fire even in WW2 and Korea. Much more than people let on.
Back then this was the only way you could stand a chance in many scenarios. It looks crazy so why did they do this? The main reasons are >no instant communication
Can’t coordinate with anyone out of shouting distance, so looser formations have a terrible time trying to maneuver coherently, especially on the offensive >fog of war
Can’t see or hear anyone more than a few feet away once the dirty black powder guns start firing >cavalry
Can’t defend against a horse charge without dense formations. Horses are way more hardcore and scary than people realize. >battlefield logistics
It’s a lot easier for ammo and powder to be replenished for a block of guys than for people to run out supplies to small groups. Line formation also wasn’t really as ubiquitous as people assume, scouting, ambushing, and loose formations still existed back then too.
It makes me laugh when military cucks get all big headed and full of unwarranted pride
You're basically risking your life and limbs for the system and very poor money. Why would anyone do that. I guess they market it really well (movies and videogames)
It worked for Napoleon
So why is he dead?
Vaxxed
lol
Pretty sure he LOSES at the end of that movie.
To people using the same exact tactics
Regrettably, I am that guy.
Napoleon innovated on the linear tactics of the time by concentrating infantry into attack columns supported by heavy concentrations of artillery fire. The artillery disrupted the enemy line while the infantry charged home, dispersing the target unit. Then the breakthrough regiments could turn and fire enfilade into the flanks of the neighboring enemy regiments and force them to fall back or surrender as well.
Gustavus adolphus is the one who started that, napoleon’s most important innovations weren’t in inventing brand new tactics, they were in the application of a more efficient and meritocratic chain of command. It’s the reason so many ranks in the military have a French name. Corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, major, colonel, etc.
The guns sucked, being in a line and marching up to your enemy gave you a better chance to actually hit something. That and it was a terror strategy. Imagine being some people armed with shit like swords and spears, then these guys just walk up in a big line, drums banging, all armed with sticks that shoot fire and smoke
It worked for awhile. Then when everyone had the same capabilities it became kind of moronic
>Then when everyone had the same capabilities it became kind of moronic
no no... that was why it was a tactic; equally matched national armies comprised of musketeers really only could effectively match each other by lining up (QUITE FAR AWAY RELATIVE TO THE ACCURACY OF THE MUSKET) and ripping volleys at one another until one side broke.
if they were fighting indians in the trees with bows and arrows they would quickly stop with the "line infantry" deal
not really they would just not go into the trees and burn down their village instead.
Battle formations were a tactical and a strategic advantage for over 3000 years and they still kinda are just not so much for infantry.
what did the red indians do when their villages were being burned?
lazing about that's what
They just sat around and smokum peace pipe. Look how far that got those fricking stoners.
It was never really effective. What worked was artillery concentrations followed by infantry attacks. That has been the name of the game all the way up to present day.
It also provided people with a mob mentality in battle. You got into the mindset of "sure people will die, but I'll be fine as long as I'm part of the pack."
It ended with the invention of the machine gun.
WWI was fricking tragic
Pretty sure we're still reeling from its effects
We are. Instead of 20 million European men colonizing the earth, they died in some trench fighting over 300 meters of land. Those 20 million could be 150 million by now.
That's why we need immigration, chud.
These posts arent even entertaining. Kys plsxjd4mk
The entire modern world has its roots in the 2 world wars. Culture, fashion, manufacturing companies. They'll be remembered as something like the Mongol invasions or the discovery of America.
Meh, Europe basically recovered by the 1930s. at least with dabbing on Napoléon and Pax Brittanica and Europes population recovering from centuries of war so that they could go die in ww1, also they were many medical breakthroughs during the war probably saved millions of lives today. Ww2 was the real tragedy affecting culture and the current pozzed state of the world today along with the rise of the ~~*Americans*~~ and the evil that came from that
WW1 was the natural end result of the French Revolution, which was the real tragedy that marked the end of European power (though it took a century the results to catch up). The FR was a ploy by the non-noble rich to seize power from the mobility whose rule they were straining under. As soon as the oligarch class saw people were now ready and willing to put kings into the background, they all seized power over the following century and turned Europe and North America into the businessman ruled shitholes it is today. The biggest tragedy for the white race was the French Revolution.
the biggest tragedy was the communist takeover of russia in 1917 and the cold war, if you remove those two main events, Black person worshipping wouldn't have existed
>Black person worshipping wouldn't have existed
the central bankers were already getting goyim to dance to Black jive by the 1890s with ragtime. but again, central bankers seizing power was a result of the power vacum caused by the extinction of the old nobility and rise of the merchantile classes.
yes, bourgeoisie society+ industrial revolution during the XIXth Century paved the way for mass society which slowly throughout the 20th Century eroded socio-cultural norms but the cold war and the october revolution certainly played a key role in things going out of control
shut up twitter moron
Bad take if you aren't born into immense wealth already
Wrong. The whole point of nobility was to protect commoners from the people running the market economy. A wealthy ruling class that gets all of its money from taxing the commoners has a vested interest in making sure commoners can afford to pay taxes.
>French ruined everything
To the surprise of no one.
No. It was the fact that muskets coincidentally appeared alongside the age of absolutism when modern states emerged ruled by autocratic kings that were more focused on maintaining internal power than waging real war against their neighbors. The army was a way to occupy the noble losers who had claims to the throne but no money or backing to seize it, and the army was the perfect institution to absorb the troublesome elements of society like criminals and vagabonds and revolutionaries. It didn't matter if they died in droves against another nation, because nobody was waging wars to actually displace other monarchs so at worst you lost a border town or fort. In fact the more soldiers that died the better, more potential threats to the monarchs rule removed, less pensions to pay. And there was nothing disorganised peasants could do to seriously threaten a column of the king's infantry and the sheer spectacle of numbers was often enough to quell potential uprisings, so marching them about en masse to instill fear and awe in the civilian populace instead of breaking them up into platoons and squads was also beneficial.
In serious wars tactics were changed and modified, like during the American Revolution, but by and large the gunpowder age was an era of inconsequential and unserious war. As soon as someone got serious and shook up the game, like the Swedes under Adolphus or the French after the revolution, tactics changes perceptibly while the threat remained.
The problem with homosexuals who think seriously like OP is that they think they're smarter today than people in the past were. Humans are rational human beings, they did what they did at the time because it was the best way to achieve their goals with the means they had available. Only an actual dumbass thinks everyone up to 1918 was just tol stupid to wage war "properly".
we have one that can see...
you're a grown adult, it's time you start questioning the really moronic shit you were told in state mandated public schooling instead of mindlessly repeating it.
Those soldiers were sent to their deaths on purpose.
ww1 was to cull the old nobility and wipe out the last remnance of monarchy
ww2 was to cull the upstart middleclass and reset the population growth of the lower class which was ballooning thanks to industrial aggricultural techniques
people finally started questioning this shit during the vietnam war, which forced the transition into the so called volunteer army. But as ukrainehas demonstrated, the sleavy businessmen who replaced the nobility will just as happily draft you and fight until the last (you) because the purpose of war is to remove excess/undesirable populations.
maybe. the purpose of war is to make money and displace a population most recently.
>ww1 was to cull the old nobility and wipe out the last remnance of monarchy
Those wars were declared by the monarcy, why were they wanting to get rid of themselves? You can't just look at some outcomes of these things and decide it was all orchestrated to achieve that, sometimes it actually just was what's written in the history books
interesting analysis
Based
This guy can easily be a powerful revered warrior
Go to mma gym. You can be a modern day gladiator minus dying for nothing
Better yet, once you have a few fights you realise violence is overrated and you can chill out
>thinks everyone up to 1918
People seem to think that the whole 19th century had the same gunpowder tactics when it didn't.
both you an OP are mouthbreathing morons who BY FAR overestimate both the accuracy of smoothbore muskets (both inherent inaccuracy in addition to the smoke and haze of black powder gunfire), and the rate at which the common soldier was sending lead downrange.
First paragraph=straight up moronation on a biblical scales
Last paragraph=well said.
Fricking bizarre post.
The scene wasn't a realistic depiction of linear tactics. A small group of French fusiliers is firing from extreme range and somehow dropping entire files of men from the British battalion. Looked liked a hundred casualties including the colonel and all the officers.
were you there? no? then shut the frick up
>t. ridley scott
underrated
I actually was there but I wasn't paying attention because
>nothing ever happens
no more moronic than medieval muh chivalry shit or romans sacrificing 5000 goats before deciding to make a charge
Is that Sookie from True Blood?
It didn't matter how stupid it was, Europe mostly agreed to fight that way and thats all that mattered.
>I disagree with you
>Ok, Im going to send 10,000 troops to this spot
>Alright, Im sending 12,000 troops there too
>fast forward
>"Ah you have bested me, consider our beef squashed for now"
The end. Kind of crazy that men were either farming in dirt or being sent out to die for 99% of human history, its amazing to be living today in an era with relative peace, technology, knowledge, and freedom.
can’t tell if this is irony or genuine brainwashing
>general is sitting in a luxurious mansion flustered and anxious
>ebony skinned maid walks in with handmade treats
>he smashes them to the floor
>"it is hopeless, we keep losing every battle!!"
>she quickly glances at the battle map
>in an instant she casually replies "have ya tried puttin' them cannons on dat dere high ground?"
>slow zoom in on the general's face
>cut to montage of victories across the land
>cuts back to maid washing dishes in a dark kitchen
>orchestral version of Zombie starts playing
with their tanks and their bombs...
>orchestral version of Zombie starts playing
KEK made me look up something else
Ridley should have used this in Napoleon lol
>Mr. Scott, I have something I think you'll really like for the third theatrical trailer for Napoleo-
>Third? If you think I'm bothering with a third trailer you're out of your mind. The audience can go to hell.
>Oh...yes, sir. Sorry, sir.
Using the same strategy during ww1 when guns and artillery became far more accurate was moronic.
Anyway OP is moronic himself knowing nothing about military history and shitpostin same shit over and over
guns were still pretty unweildly but at the same time made any other strategy useless so the result was just fricking standing there shooting each other until the other side runs away
>bu bu but just use cover and win
using cover just slowed your firing rate down letting your enemy advance and pin you down
You got btfo'd last thread so why do this again? Militaries spend ridiculous amounts of money through all history on parades. Why? To flex on enemies.
This strategy is the same. It shows dominance when you refuse to hide but march, not run, towards your enemy in the open with bright red uniforms. Why did the French get stereotyped as cowards? Because the British mastered intimidation.
>This strategy is the same. It shows dominance when you refuse to hide but march, not run, towards your enemy in the open with bright red uniforms. Why did the French get stereotyped as cowards? Because the British mastered intimidation.
True. Pretty much all of human history with set-piece battles apparently more people were killed when one side broke and ran than in the actual front lines fighting.
The ancient greeks would say phobos (fear/panic) is the master of the battlefield. It's also contagious among troops - if you see guys from your side turning and running you naturally want to do it too. In these battles it was common for some solders to be pissing and shitting themselves. So intimidation as a strategy has always been effective.
>for pretty much all of human history
There are some notable exceptions to that, such as cannae. Every soldier’s worst fear is ending up in that kind of scenario. Usually panic would break out after an army was outmaneuvered or forced to break formation by enemy artillery.
No.
-Due to being inaccurate, each rifle fired had a certain % chance to incapacitate its target. It could miss up and down or side to side, and might not hit a critical part of the body.
-1 person firing at 10 people has about a 10% chance to inflict a kill, increased to 20% since if it misses to the side, it can still hit.
-10 people firing at one person has about a 100% chance to inflict a kill.
That's not a strategy. It's tactics. It's the natural evolution of pike and shot.
Get rid of the pikes and turn the muskets into pikes. You have to mass fire for any real effect because reload rates and accuracy are both shit for early muskets. As soon as you start seeing improvements to muskets (see American long rifles during the French and Indian and Revolutionary Wars) then you start seeing irregular guerilla tactics.
If they had tried to fight dispersed, rather than in formation, they would be vulnerable to cavalry charges.
You are packed to defend against cavalry and lay down a wall of fire against it.
This scholar and gentleman gets it.
Is it really that moronic? To kill someone’s with a sword you have to get right up to them where they’re also in range to kill you with a sword. To kill someone with an M16 you still have to get within range and have a straight line of sight where they could theoretically shoot you right back.
Maximization of firepower. Think of it like this, you can fire every 30 seconds, so one guy puts two shots downfield a second. Now expanding it into a formation lets say you have a hundred guys, you’re spread out and in cover, lets say you each have about a three foot radius circle, still a close formation by modern standards so covering 600 yards your entire unit can fire 200 rounds a minite. But what if we lined you up shoulder to shoulder covering 600 yards? Now your 600 yard front is firing about 600 rounds a minute. Now lets put a second rank and have them fire over your heads or step out in front of you and fire while you’re reloading with you firing in front of them while they reload, now you have 1200 rounds per minute.
This improved density of fire is highly useful in protecting against the secondary danger which is melee. Beyond being able to form an effective wall of bayonets the high rate of fire can whittle down assault units which is why assault columns were vital since if a unit is 60 guys deep and you can only hit the front rank or two per volley you’ll be unable to kill everyone (or more reasonably break unit cohesion) before they reach melee combat.
Those dudes with slow loading muskets conquered 3/4 of the planet.
Massed infantry formations were the only way to fight with muskets.
When you're using a weapon where its effective range relative to its rate of fire is such that the enemy could charge you and get into melee before you had a chance for a second volley, you need to fight in formation with bayonets so that you don't get overrun.
Large scale coordination before radio existed
you now realize the purpose of war is intentional population culls. the upper class always fear a slave uprising, so they routinely send out poor people to die on purpose when lower class population numbers get uncomfortably high or when resources get too expensive to keep the slaves fed.
No, dudes with buffalo hide shields and spears charging Brits at Rorke’s Drift was pretty dumb.
Human wave attacks during WW1 trench warfare was pretty dumb.
French knights at Crécy and Agincourt were pretty dumb.
Soviet mass attacks were pretty dumb.
Japanese Banzai charges in WW2 were pretty dumb.
You posting this fricking thread for the fiftieth time is pretty dumb.
I don't understand what makes people spam a thread for a fricking decade.
This Black person and the 'gallops on his horse and says the name and keeps riding guy' are fricking looney.
I think I'd be more scared to stand in the front line of a push of pike or an ancient hoplite battle.
How the hell did they get anyone to stand at the front of these formations? It's basically guaranteed death.
no it isnt. it's a game of chicken with the side that shoots first losing. if you shoot too early, nothing prevents the survivors of the other line to walk right up to you and shoot you in cold blood, meaning the side that shot too early is bound to break formation and flee instead.
they did not have good tactics 1000 years ago people were pretty much all moronic living in mud huts. so them fighting like this makes sense if you think about it.
Trench Warfare also seems incredily moronic
So will being bombed by a drone that posts your death on the internet, to people in the future.
Everything post Napoleon till 1922 is tainted by the cult of the offense, despite Napoleon tactics being outdated 20 years after Napoleon, it was in all the military textbooks and handbooks when the officer cores were being trained in thier 20s, who were making the decisions in thier 40s
>Trench Warfare also seems incredily moronic
its just a big ass heavily guarded border
>Trench Warfare also seems incredily moronic
trench warfare only makes sense if you have enough troops to frontline the entire territory you want to protect. if you dont, you will have a meeting engagement with the opposing at a place that both sides deem acceptable. there is no point in entrenching if the other side will just deny you battle until you emerge in the open. or worse, bypass you and ravage your countryside
It seems moronic because the ones currently relying on it are lazy stupid slava that refuse to put so much as a twig over their trench leaving them totally exposed not only to artillery and grenades but also to the multitude of drones that now haunt the battlefield. Most of those Ukrainian drone deaths could've been prevented by those lazy fricks taking 3 hours to chop a tree up and putting overhead cover on their position but they'd rather sit there sniffing their own farts until a lancet slams into them.
Meanwhile over in Gaza the Muslims spent years making tunnels to nullify Israel's overwhelming technological advantage and fought the IDF to a bloody stalemate by popping out of holes Cong style and blasting vulnerable israelites before retreating back into the earth. Trench warfare will be the only effective means of the defensive part of warfare going forward, but it's not enough to dig 4-5 feet down anymore, you have to go right into the Earth and create elaborate tunnel systems that invalidate air and artillery and drones.
kek, the majority of drone deaths are russian. not to mention the dozens of armored vehicles they send straight into minefields or the infantry straight into meat grinders to be slaughtered for no gains. I almost feel bad for them watching the hundreds of videos a month of russian lives being snuffed out for a war that has no purpose
Yeahhhhhh this isn't /k/ fella. Everyone knows the Russians have already won and lost way less men to do so.
>most drone deaths are Russian
>source: western media sites
Go on Russian telegrams and you’ll see just as many Ukrainians being killed. From everything I’ve seen and read it does seem that the casualty rate is nearly 1 to 1.
>popping out of holes Cong style and blasting vulnerable israelites before retreating back into the earth
I want a tattoo that says this
>could only fire twice a minute (three times if very well trained)
>melee a real possibility
>short range of weapons
>inaccurate
It's a good strategy because you don't have to pay dead soldiers.
That may be true, but it's also beautiful.
he's confusing strategy with tactics.
So does the square just trump all cavalry? Do they have a counter?
How could they counter it? By their very nature cavalry could not match the same troop density that infantry could meaning they could never win in a shooting engagement. Horses do not want to charge in a wall of knives and even if they did and you managed to kill even 3 soldiers you still lose because you are guaranteed to die by riding your horse into a mass of bayonet wielding men. There's no flank or rear to attack. All you could do is gallop helplessly around the formation firing into them hoping they don't shoot you back.
Cavalry were what special forces are now. On the front lines, against regular units standing their ground, they had little value. They were meant to harass vulnerable flanks and rear positions, scout, chase down beaten foes, etc.
Did the Colonists become so good at fighting/battle because of all the Indians they had to kill to settle the land?
I mean, how does the British Military lose to a bunch of farmers and townspeople?
No radios and loud battles meant tight formations kept unit coherency. They were still using battlelines and walking fire even in WW2 and Korea. Much more than people let on.
>No radios and loud battles meant tight formations kept unit coherency
That actually makes a lot of sense.
Back then this was the only way you could stand a chance in many scenarios. It looks crazy so why did they do this? The main reasons are
>no instant communication
Can’t coordinate with anyone out of shouting distance, so looser formations have a terrible time trying to maneuver coherently, especially on the offensive
>fog of war
Can’t see or hear anyone more than a few feet away once the dirty black powder guns start firing
>cavalry
Can’t defend against a horse charge without dense formations. Horses are way more hardcore and scary than people realize.
>battlefield logistics
It’s a lot easier for ammo and powder to be replenished for a block of guys than for people to run out supplies to small groups. Line formation also wasn’t really as ubiquitous as people assume, scouting, ambushing, and loose formations still existed back then too.
how long did it take for these idiots to understand that walking into bullets = bad
Back then walking into bullets was a hell of a lot less scary than being caught in the open alone with mounted cavalry chasing you down.
It makes me laugh when military cucks get all big headed and full of unwarranted pride
You're basically risking your life and limbs for the system and very poor money. Why would anyone do that. I guess they market it really well (movies and videogames)
>SeMpEr Fi!!!
Dumbasses lmao