Did you know that the British infantry had a higher fire rate from their brown bess muskets because they used a lower caliber ball and would tamp it down by dropping the rifle on it's butt rather than using the rod, this saves many seconds on reloading and won them many battles.
>why don't they hide behind a tree and shoot?
Because cover shoot only works with rapid rate of fire and quick reloading. Siting behind a tree with maybe one other person as you take 60s to reload is a good way to get flanked. There would also be no volley shots so odds are a bayonet charge into your position would be very effective.
>Carry a piece of metal thick enough to stop a musket ball. >Strap it to my chest to make it easier to carry. >Realise that I've just created plate armour. >Mfw muskets are the reason plate armour became obsolete in the first place.
Good bait nonetheless.
That just means a non-asiatic non-girl would fricking sprint in the samurai armor.
1 year ago
Anonymous
and whats the usefulnes of being able to sprint around at top speed in your armor
1 year ago
Anonymous
To avoid cannon and gunfire.
1 year ago
Anonymous
God damn weebs are moronic
1 year ago
Anonymous
Armor or not, anyone sprinting at top speed cannot do it for very long.
What the frick do you think the point of the webm was, then? morons.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Armor or not, anyone sprinting at top speed cannot do it for very long.
1 year ago
Anonymous
They both enter the battle with horses and when shit hits the fan, its wood vs metal. Why would they sprint on an enemy? They have range weapons back then.
A plate chest could reliable stop a musket shot from a far distance and was still worn, most notably by Spanish officers. The problem was armies were getting big and giving 200,000 infantry a steel chest wasn't exactly economical. Even before muskets, you weren't wearing plate steel in battle unless you were rather wealthy or a special unit sponsored by a lord.
It's not pretty, but this is what peak musket warfare was always destined to be. Hiding behind trees and cowering in foxholes is not how you win a decisive battle and take the field with this level of technology.
A grand epic about Napoleon was the lifelong dream of Kubrick, but he never got to make it because of how ruineously expensive it would be. Spielberg is how now confirmed as working on adapting all the work Kubrick did into a miniseries.
It's probably impossible to do a series right where Nappy is the main PoV, but you could have the show be about a primary follower who often interacts with Napoleon. Jean Lannes, Davout, or Marbot, shut like that.
If nothing else a show going from the siege of Toulon to Napoleon becoming first consul would probably have an excellent narrative arc. Have a brief prologue where he's just involved in the civil war on Corsica as a zealous Corsican nationalist before being forced to leave with his family would make for a great intro and show the complexities of that era.
Hell, are there even any historical dramas where Napoleon is a protagonist? There's a billion stories written about Caesar or Alexander, in comparison, it feels like.
>It's probably impossible to do a series right where Nappy is the main PoV, but you could have the show be about a primary follower who often interacts with Napoleon. Jean Lannes, Davout, or Marbot, shut like that.
Thats my thinking. Follow Soult in Spain, Ney in Russia, Lannes in the war of the Third Coalition. So many potential kino moments, but it would be so ungodly expensive
>"During the campaign, Marshals Murat and Lannes were ordered to take a key bridge into Vienna intact, and so they attempted to bluff their way into possession of the bridge. Loaded with explosives, the Austrians intended to destroy the bridge the moment the French attempted to take it. Lannes, Murat, Bertrand, Belliard, and a few other officers crossed the bridge, telling the Austrians that an armistice had been signed that gave the French the bridge. Sending Bertrand with the Austrians to meet the Austrian commander, Murat and Lannes talked to the Austrians in an attempt to distract them from Oudinot's grenadiers who were sneaking up. One Austrian noticed the approaching grenadiers and lit a match to fire the artillery, but Lannes immediately seized his arm and demanded how dare he break the armistice without higher authority. Bertrand returned with Austrian General Auersperg, whom Lannes and Murat explained the same story to, and the Austrian general agreed to not fire upon them. Oudinot's grenadiers finished coming up, cut the fuses to blow the bridge, and with that the bridge was in French hands without a shot being fired."
And there are billions more moments worthy of immortalizing in a series.
I'd welcome a Sharpe-type tv show about Jean Bernadotte, starting with him being a common soldier and how he rose through the ranks during the war/s and how he interacted with Napoleon, ending with him becoming the king of Sweden(despite still calling himself a Republican) just because they wanted to get on Napoleon's good side. The "death to all kings" tattoo stays, even though it's a myth.
absolute kino warfare. after the napoleonic wars the weapons got too powerful and all soul left. now its just people throwing high explosive ordnance at each other from far away.
Imagine if they came with weapons preloaded. They walked to the front, the front row laid down on the ground, the second row sat on their knees and the third row stood and they fired, and then they walked back to the line furthest behind and the men behind them repeated their process. My army would win all battles with this tactic.
That was the premise of 1632 >Aliens accidentally time travel a WV town of rednecks back to the 30 years war. >Modern guns obliterate rank and file armies >One redneck reveals he smuggled an
MG back from nam.
Well that is clearly not possible. Army is not laying down. Its standing. So this is how it works
Armies march towards each other on the battlefield.
Armies get within firing range. They start reloading and shit. But here is my army is different, the army already has its weapons loaded, they don't have to load the weapons. The front row drops down, the second sits down, the third stands, they fire, a 3 row volley. Boom they run back and the next guys go forward the shooting positions, another 3 row army. They can do this maneuver quite quickly. The time it takes to drop down and stand up is that of couple of seconds. It will has no cost on maneuverability and you will not be able to obtain any kind of advantaged troop position.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_fire
very effective tactic, but it required good officers and a lot if discipline. i think you also played too much Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai
1 year ago
Anonymous
holy shit that is exactly what i meant. I always wondered why they didn't do that but it looks like they did. In my view standing there in front another army and loading your gun while the other army is doing the same and you are standing there about to get shot that must take some serious discipline and balls. That is a lot more scary then getting it done fast and then getting out of line of fire. Haven't played Shogun 2 btw
>Volley fire, as a military tactic, is (in its simplest form) the concept of having soldiers shoot in the same direction en masse.[1] In practice, it often consists of having a line of soldiers all discharge their weapons simultaneously at the enemy forces on command, known as "firing a volley", followed by more lines of soldiers repeating the same maneuver in turns. This is usually to compensate for the inaccuracy, slow rate of fire (as many early ranged weapons took a long time and much effort to reload), limited effective range and stopping power of individual weapons, which often requires a massed saturation attack to be effective. The volley fire, specifically the musketry volley technique (also known as the countermarch), requires lines of soldiers to step to the front, fire on command and then march back into a column to reload, while the next row repeats the same process.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Volley fire us how the Brits killed kazillions of Zulu warriors
1 year ago
Anonymous
that was very racist why would they do such a thing?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Because they thought racism was jolly good time
1 year ago
Anonymous
This.
that was very racist why would they do such a thing?
I don't really know what their war goal was, I think slavery was illegal at that point. Maybe it was to protect the colony or some shit. Maybe also it was to scare the free settlers at Jones jonestown or whatever cause they had frickloads or gold.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Self-defence.
1 year ago
Anonymous
How much drugs do you have to take to willingly charge into Willy Wonka and his band of merry riflemen
1 year ago
Anonymous
>you are standing there about to get shot that must take some serious discipline and balls. That is a lot more scary then getting it done fast and then getting out of line of fire
This is the reason why British officers have been considered the best leaders in firefights for the last 300 years. Imagine being able to get hundreds of soldiers to stand still, ignore direct gunfire, and quickly load a complex weapon just be yelling simple sentence commands. Few else could do it as good as the British
Cavalry raids your baggage train and kills your camp followers.
Your troops would rage quit your army if their disease riddled prostitutes/cooks died. Also all their stuff is there.
yeah, the point is not to kill the enemy to the last man, but to convince the poor souls on the other side, that if they dont run away they'll all fricking die. shock and morale were huge parts of warfare back then.
This is what made the French so compelling under Napoleon, every other country had royals that were terrified of a revolution, so the French lads knew if they lost it was off to the guillotine and back into slavery.
I'm not a tactician but were cavemen so legitimately moronic that they thought "oonga booba, me safer as pack in brightly colored outfit, very grug, me no camouflage self or split up to go around big scary cannon"? Seems kinda sussy to me.
So, the first thing to understand is that people were obviously not stupid back then. It was literally a matter of life and death, so they had every incentive to do what maximized the chance of winning the fight and surviving. So they fought like that because it was literally the best thing to do given the weapons and technology available at the time.
someone posted a video above, but the main reasons for this is style of fighting is:
>command and control
you have no radio, so if your soldiers spread out you effectively lose all ability to control them
>morale
soldiers running around alone or in smaller groups are much more likely to get scared and run, rather than all together
>firepower
the guns they used were very inaccurate and took a long time to reload, so the best way was to fire in big volleys for maximum damage, noise and smoke to hit enemy morale
>weakness to cavalry
single or small groups of soldiers are very vulnerable to enemy cavalry rolling up on them and cutting them down.
Regardless, it is clear that the concept of volley fire had existed in Europe for quite some time during the 16th century, but it was in the Netherlands during the 1590s that the musketry volley really took off. The key to this development was William Louis, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg who in 1594 described the technique in a letter to his cousin:
I have discovered … a method of getting the musketeers and soldiers armed with arquebuses not only to keep firing very well but to do it effectively in battle order … in the following manner: as soon as the first rank has fired together, then by the drill [they have learned] they will march to the back. The second rank, either marching forward or standing still, [will next] fire together [and] then march to the back. After that, the third and following ranks will do the same. Thus before the last ranks have fired, the first will have reloaded.[31]
—Letter from Louis to Maurice
Based Louis felt smart for thinking about that, but don't it seem obvious?
I just invented this shit again on my own so that must mean i am brilliant.
This.
[...]
I don't really know what their war goal was, I think slavery was illegal at that point. Maybe it was to protect the colony or some shit. Maybe also it was to scare the free settlers at Jones jonestown or whatever cause they had frickloads or gold.
I still remember that movie where they mow down zulu Africans. Good one. Could never be made today
CAMERAMAN GET DOWN
I will now watch sharpe.
Kubrick shot this scene pretty bad.
Watch Waterloo instead
Did you know that the British infantry had a higher fire rate from their brown bess muskets because they used a lower caliber ball and would tamp it down by dropping the rifle on it's butt rather than using the rod, this saves many seconds on reloading and won them many battles.
im not sure that is true, it might be a meme originating from sharpe
I need to watch Sharpe for research purposes..
Cool.
God, Sharpe is so stupid most of the time, but still good fun.
90's kino
they would also train with live ammunition
Sounds like lindybeige youtuber history. Dripping with francophobia.
why don't they hide behind a tree and shoot? i bet i could take most of their army if i had a tree
Because then a guy on a horse comes and fricks your shit up
horses are bad at dodging trees
Exactly.
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>pew pew pew pew pew pew
>horses have peta plot armor
They're just that good of a shot.
oof that's gotta hurt
i thought horses couldnt be made to charge into solid blocks of men.
lol what? Calvary charges have always been a thing. Infantry just started using long spears and pit traps to stop them.
thanks for the keks boys
>why don't they hide behind a tree and shoot?
Because cover shoot only works with rapid rate of fire and quick reloading. Siting behind a tree with maybe one other person as you take 60s to reload is a good way to get flanked. There would also be no volley shots so odds are a bayonet charge into your position would be very effective.
>Dont move! We need you to die to increase the female rate back home!
>Yes sir!
damn vietnam was fricked
Didn't know ukraine had grassy fields for battle.
>Sir can we bring some shields in the front line?
>What for?
>To stop the bullets sir!
>lol coward
>Carry a piece of metal thick enough to stop a musket ball.
>Strap it to my chest to make it easier to carry.
>Realise that I've just created plate armour.
>Mfw muskets are the reason plate armour became obsolete in the first place.
Good bait nonetheless.
>muskets are the reason plate armour became obsolete in the first place.
not true they were just expensive
I thought plate armor died because it basically immobilized you and made you a sitting duck.
maybe try not putting a small asiatic girl into it and see what happens.
That just means a non-asiatic non-girl would fricking sprint in the samurai armor.
and whats the usefulnes of being able to sprint around at top speed in your armor
To avoid cannon and gunfire.
God damn weebs are moronic
What the frick do you think the point of the webm was, then? morons.
Armor or not, anyone sprinting at top speed cannot do it for very long.
They both enter the battle with horses and when shit hits the fan, its wood vs metal. Why would they sprint on an enemy? They have range weapons back then.
>unironically believing a comedy show doing Japaganda to try and make their gay samurais wearing wood armour look better
A plate chest could reliable stop a musket shot from a far distance and was still worn, most notably by Spanish officers. The problem was armies were getting big and giving 200,000 infantry a steel chest wasn't exactly economical. Even before muskets, you weren't wearing plate steel in battle unless you were rather wealthy or a special unit sponsored by a lord.
It's not pretty, but this is what peak musket warfare was always destined to be. Hiding behind trees and cowering in foxholes is not how you win a decisive battle and take the field with this level of technology.
the korean war was pretty fricked up
crazy to think that world war II started forty years ago today
>2001 is 40 years ago
>2001 is 40 years ago
moron
Yeah but they were hard countered by those zeppelin bombers. What a massacre that was...
Watch this short explanation of why they fought like this
What the frick
>tfw ranked 1 on the server
>88
We are fighting to save the people that can cure our grandchildrens gender dysphoria
Why didn't they just land at night when all the Germans were asleep
It was a different time.
why didn't they just dig trenches?
Bros, will they ever do a series about Napoleon? If they did, how bad would they frick it up?
A grand epic about Napoleon was the lifelong dream of Kubrick, but he never got to make it because of how ruineously expensive it would be. Spielberg is how now confirmed as working on adapting all the work Kubrick did into a miniseries.
which Spielberg? the one who made Jaws or the one that made Ready Player One?
Whichever one is kicking about these days
It's probably impossible to do a series right where Nappy is the main PoV, but you could have the show be about a primary follower who often interacts with Napoleon. Jean Lannes, Davout, or Marbot, shut like that.
If nothing else a show going from the siege of Toulon to Napoleon becoming first consul would probably have an excellent narrative arc. Have a brief prologue where he's just involved in the civil war on Corsica as a zealous Corsican nationalist before being forced to leave with his family would make for a great intro and show the complexities of that era.
Hell, are there even any historical dramas where Napoleon is a protagonist? There's a billion stories written about Caesar or Alexander, in comparison, it feels like.
>It's probably impossible to do a series right where Nappy is the main PoV, but you could have the show be about a primary follower who often interacts with Napoleon. Jean Lannes, Davout, or Marbot, shut like that.
Thats my thinking. Follow Soult in Spain, Ney in Russia, Lannes in the war of the Third Coalition. So many potential kino moments, but it would be so ungodly expensive
>"During the campaign, Marshals Murat and Lannes were ordered to take a key bridge into Vienna intact, and so they attempted to bluff their way into possession of the bridge. Loaded with explosives, the Austrians intended to destroy the bridge the moment the French attempted to take it. Lannes, Murat, Bertrand, Belliard, and a few other officers crossed the bridge, telling the Austrians that an armistice had been signed that gave the French the bridge. Sending Bertrand with the Austrians to meet the Austrian commander, Murat and Lannes talked to the Austrians in an attempt to distract them from Oudinot's grenadiers who were sneaking up. One Austrian noticed the approaching grenadiers and lit a match to fire the artillery, but Lannes immediately seized his arm and demanded how dare he break the armistice without higher authority. Bertrand returned with Austrian General Auersperg, whom Lannes and Murat explained the same story to, and the Austrian general agreed to not fire upon them. Oudinot's grenadiers finished coming up, cut the fuses to blow the bridge, and with that the bridge was in French hands without a shot being fired."
And there are billions more moments worthy of immortalizing in a series.
Filthy lying Frenchies. They ruined France!
I'd welcome a Sharpe-type tv show about Jean Bernadotte, starting with him being a common soldier and how he rose through the ranks during the war/s and how he interacted with Napoleon, ending with him becoming the king of Sweden(despite still calling himself a Republican) just because they wanted to get on Napoleon's good side. The "death to all kings" tattoo stays, even though it's a myth.
Why don't they just invent automatics?
fouling from black powder
absolute kino warfare. after the napoleonic wars the weapons got too powerful and all soul left. now its just people throwing high explosive ordnance at each other from far away.
Imagine if they came with weapons preloaded. They walked to the front, the front row laid down on the ground, the second row sat on their knees and the third row stood and they fired, and then they walked back to the line furthest behind and the men behind them repeated their process. My army would win all battles with this tactic.
Imagine if they came with automatic weapons. My army would obliterate yours with this tactic.
they didn't have automatic weapons back then omg anon
That was the premise of 1632
>Aliens accidentally time travel a WV town of rednecks back to the 30 years war.
>Modern guns obliterate rank and file armies
>One redneck reveals he smuggled an
MG back from nam.
what if just walked around your army with my army
why would i let you walk around my army?
because your army is laid down and crouched and mine isnt, so ill just walk around you before you stand up and lay down again
Well that is clearly not possible. Army is not laying down. Its standing. So this is how it works
Armies march towards each other on the battlefield.
Armies get within firing range. They start reloading and shit. But here is my army is different, the army already has its weapons loaded, they don't have to load the weapons. The front row drops down, the second sits down, the third stands, they fire, a 3 row volley. Boom they run back and the next guys go forward the shooting positions, another 3 row army. They can do this maneuver quite quickly. The time it takes to drop down and stand up is that of couple of seconds. It will has no cost on maneuverability and you will not be able to obtain any kind of advantaged troop position.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_fire
very effective tactic, but it required good officers and a lot if discipline. i think you also played too much Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai
holy shit that is exactly what i meant. I always wondered why they didn't do that but it looks like they did. In my view standing there in front another army and loading your gun while the other army is doing the same and you are standing there about to get shot that must take some serious discipline and balls. That is a lot more scary then getting it done fast and then getting out of line of fire. Haven't played Shogun 2 btw
>Volley fire, as a military tactic, is (in its simplest form) the concept of having soldiers shoot in the same direction en masse.[1] In practice, it often consists of having a line of soldiers all discharge their weapons simultaneously at the enemy forces on command, known as "firing a volley", followed by more lines of soldiers repeating the same maneuver in turns. This is usually to compensate for the inaccuracy, slow rate of fire (as many early ranged weapons took a long time and much effort to reload), limited effective range and stopping power of individual weapons, which often requires a massed saturation attack to be effective. The volley fire, specifically the musketry volley technique (also known as the countermarch), requires lines of soldiers to step to the front, fire on command and then march back into a column to reload, while the next row repeats the same process.
Volley fire us how the Brits killed kazillions of Zulu warriors
that was very racist why would they do such a thing?
Because they thought racism was jolly good time
This.
I don't really know what their war goal was, I think slavery was illegal at that point. Maybe it was to protect the colony or some shit. Maybe also it was to scare the free settlers at Jones jonestown or whatever cause they had frickloads or gold.
Self-defence.
How much drugs do you have to take to willingly charge into Willy Wonka and his band of merry riflemen
>you are standing there about to get shot that must take some serious discipline and balls. That is a lot more scary then getting it done fast and then getting out of line of fire
This is the reason why British officers have been considered the best leaders in firefights for the last 300 years. Imagine being able to get hundreds of soldiers to stand still, ignore direct gunfire, and quickly load a complex weapon just be yelling simple sentence commands. Few else could do it as good as the British
Cavalry raids your baggage train and kills your camp followers.
Your troops would rage quit your army if their disease riddled prostitutes/cooks died. Also all their stuff is there.
They're only meant to trade a few shots then get in stab range and have at it
yeah, the point is not to kill the enemy to the last man, but to convince the poor souls on the other side, that if they dont run away they'll all fricking die. shock and morale were huge parts of warfare back then.
This is what made the French so compelling under Napoleon, every other country had royals that were terrified of a revolution, so the French lads knew if they lost it was off to the guillotine and back into slavery.
>Let's just run in a straight line towards the guys with guns!
Wow such majestic tactics. Fricking turn off this slop.
I'm not a tactician but were cavemen so legitimately moronic that they thought "oonga booba, me safer as pack in brightly colored outfit, very grug, me no camouflage self or split up to go around big scary cannon"? Seems kinda sussy to me.
So, the first thing to understand is that people were obviously not stupid back then. It was literally a matter of life and death, so they had every incentive to do what maximized the chance of winning the fight and surviving. So they fought like that because it was literally the best thing to do given the weapons and technology available at the time.
someone posted a video above, but the main reasons for this is style of fighting is:
>command and control
you have no radio, so if your soldiers spread out you effectively lose all ability to control them
>morale
soldiers running around alone or in smaller groups are much more likely to get scared and run, rather than all together
>firepower
the guns they used were very inaccurate and took a long time to reload, so the best way was to fire in big volleys for maximum damage, noise and smoke to hit enemy morale
>weakness to cavalry
single or small groups of soldiers are very vulnerable to enemy cavalry rolling up on them and cutting them down.
Regardless, it is clear that the concept of volley fire had existed in Europe for quite some time during the 16th century, but it was in the Netherlands during the 1590s that the musketry volley really took off. The key to this development was William Louis, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg who in 1594 described the technique in a letter to his cousin:
I have discovered … a method of getting the musketeers and soldiers armed with arquebuses not only to keep firing very well but to do it effectively in battle order … in the following manner: as soon as the first rank has fired together, then by the drill [they have learned] they will march to the back. The second rank, either marching forward or standing still, [will next] fire together [and] then march to the back. After that, the third and following ranks will do the same. Thus before the last ranks have fired, the first will have reloaded.[31]
—Letter from Louis to Maurice
Based Louis felt smart for thinking about that, but don't it seem obvious?
Every brilliant inventions seems obvious in hindsight.
Like the wheel.
I just invented this shit again on my own so that must mean i am brilliant.
I still remember that movie where they mow down zulu Africans. Good one. Could never be made today
It bothers me that the hats are angles the wrong way, I only learnt this by watching a video by an autist on Youtube
Monarchs had to thin out the surplus plebs somehow. Couldn't have them unemployed and getting ideas.