Damned technology. I really like firearms but wars should be swords, pikes, slings and shields or not at all.
I'll allow big ladies made of wood for castles made of stone.
You would seriously be safer just marching alongside your bros. Muskets back then were so hilariously inaccurate that hitting the broad side of a barn made one a "Marksman". Massing together like that was literally the only way to get anyone killed. >Just spread out lol
Yeah, and every battle takes six weeks to resolve. The idea is to settle whatever issue caused the war, not to play Davey Crockett in the woods for twenty-five years. It seems ridiculous now, but it's the best they could do, and really no different than two hoplite phalages plowing into each other 'til one side breaks.
>mass produce inaccurate muskets >instead of mass producing much more accurate rifles
I don't get why they didn't do this. The technology was available by the 1750s.
1. more expensive and complex to manufacture
2. lower fire rate and reliability - the rifling groves make loading harder/slower due to friction and tighter fitting of rounds (to grasp the grooves) and the dirty ass black powder would fowl the grooves and ruin the accuracy after a few shots anyway
smoothbore is faster and allows you to load buck and ball which is much more firepower at close range
Muskets were also far less powerful than later rifles. The shots that did land were only going to take down one soldier, which meant that attackers had strength in numbers and defenders needed to maximize the size of their volleys.
Ukrainians counter offensive was merely Zelensky seeking to genocide Ukrainians in an unwinnable battle forced to fight against their will via conscription.
Whereas the British tactics although utmost questionable have SOME tactical purpose. Such as if there was enemy cavalry near or the position is UTMOST valuable.
Typically line infantry don’t do a big march unless it’s an absolute victory to take a crucial ground.
Why didn't they just calculate the average traveled distance for a bullet shot by a musket at a 60 degree angle, then stand further away from the enemy and shoot a volley of bullets at 60 degree angle that will rain down on the enemy similar to how arrows used to be used in war.
The line formations seem moronic because movies usually don't have enough extras to depict the sheer size of these formations. Watch the battle scenes in Waterloo and try imagine having to coordinate thousands of men when all you have is men on horseback and trumpet signals.
Even in smaller battles, people still used the tactics that they were taught. Line formation warfare has been the norm for thousands of years. Line formations during the musket era were just a continuation of that.
Loose formations would just get slaughtered by cav and the flintlock musket was not accurate enough so massing men in lines increased the chance of a ball hitting something.
It was a different time tbqh
It was a time to be different
Damned technology. I really like firearms but wars should be swords, pikes, slings and shields or not at all.
I'll allow big ladies made of wood for castles made of stone.
Dumb sheeple marching into gunfire.
If it were me I would be dodging the bullets and deflecting them with my katana.
You would seriously be safer just marching alongside your bros. Muskets back then were so hilariously inaccurate that hitting the broad side of a barn made one a "Marksman". Massing together like that was literally the only way to get anyone killed.
>Just spread out lol
Yeah, and every battle takes six weeks to resolve. The idea is to settle whatever issue caused the war, not to play Davey Crockett in the woods for twenty-five years. It seems ridiculous now, but it's the best they could do, and really no different than two hoplite phalages plowing into each other 'til one side breaks.
why didnt they just put some sandbags on wheels and then just pushed it in front of them like mobile cover?
Too heavy
dyel
>mass produce inaccurate muskets
>instead of mass producing much more accurate rifles
I don't get why they didn't do this. The technology was available by the 1750s.
1. more expensive and complex to manufacture
2. lower fire rate and reliability - the rifling groves make loading harder/slower due to friction and tighter fitting of rounds (to grasp the grooves) and the dirty ass black powder would fowl the grooves and ruin the accuracy after a few shots anyway
smoothbore is faster and allows you to load buck and ball which is much more firepower at close range
t. gungay
You should also say that spreading out made you easy prey for cavalry which would just ride you down and slash the shit out of you.
Muskets were also far less powerful than later rifles. The shots that did land were only going to take down one soldier, which meant that attackers had strength in numbers and defenders needed to maximize the size of their volleys.
why didnt they just roll big chariots with heavy weights into the enemy
Only women and brainlets have to ask.
Because they were there, lad, and nobody else
>*works well*
>War, war never changes.
Oh yes it did. Jesus Christ, people were so fricking stupid back then.
reminds me of ukraine's counteroffensive
Ukrainians counter offensive was merely Zelensky seeking to genocide Ukrainians in an unwinnable battle forced to fight against their will via conscription.
Whereas the British tactics although utmost questionable have SOME tactical purpose. Such as if there was enemy cavalry near or the position is UTMOST valuable.
Typically line infantry don’t do a big march unless it’s an absolute victory to take a crucial ground.
Why didn't they just calculate the average traveled distance for a bullet shot by a musket at a 60 degree angle, then stand further away from the enemy and shoot a volley of bullets at 60 degree angle that will rain down on the enemy similar to how arrows used to be used in war.
The line formations seem moronic because movies usually don't have enough extras to depict the sheer size of these formations. Watch the battle scenes in Waterloo and try imagine having to coordinate thousands of men when all you have is men on horseback and trumpet signals.
Even in smaller battles, people still used the tactics that they were taught. Line formation warfare has been the norm for thousands of years. Line formations during the musket era were just a continuation of that.
imagine muskets as longer spears
thats why
The advancing toward each other and firing were games of chicken to see who routed first. Any formation that broke would get deleted by cavalry.
Jews
Because ~~*their*~~ ultimate goal is to destroy the white race.
I'm smarter then these old fricks on history, if i were back in time I could conquer the world
Weren't these type of line warfares heavily dependant on a chivalry code of conduct? Something Napoleon would shit all over?
Technological limitation of the times.
Loose formations would just get slaughtered by cav and the flintlock musket was not accurate enough so massing men in lines increased the chance of a ball hitting something.