This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
The Youtuber Brandon F has a 4 part series talking about why they fought like this. Spoiler- it wasn't because they were stupid.
TLDR- if you split up you just get run down by enemy cavalry.
TLDR- a close formation lets you concentrate your firepower at one point.
TLDR- a close formation makes communication and controlling the army much much easier (or even possible at all).
TLDR- the formation makes the troops less likely to run away.
Fun (and short) read, the Manual of 1791, the gold standard of how to Infantry in the French army (translated): https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/62609125/french-drill-manual-1791
It's literally ALL marching and formation drills. How to not-shoot the guy in front of you, how to place your feet when firing, how to go from colums to line. Marksmanship isn't in there, bayonet practice isn't in there. None of the actual-killing-the-enemy was considered required knowledge, because the formation stuff was considered FAR more important.
And as a reenactor who has been clubbing in the back of the head with a musket more than I count (on account of being clubbing in the head a lot), this stuff really isn't as easy as it looks. The French might have had a YEAR to learn this at first, the latter recruits had a week.
Ex-Military here.
Seems not much has changed. Unless you're a Tier 1 or Special Forces, you don't spend all that much time on marksmanship either.
Maybe 5-10% of actual training time goes to marksmanship. The rest of it is infantry skills. Squad level movement, field craft, field defenses, cover and concealment,urban ops, the list goes on. These are the things that win wars, not a 3rd Prestige COD pro.
These are the things that win wars, not a 3rd Prestige COD pro.
That's exactly my point. They learned what they had to know to win, just like today. And that generally isn't hitting a stationary target from a shooting table. And since nobody is training for that, it's hardly surprising they're not all that great at hitting stationary targets from a shooting table.
Nowadays, small-unit tactics and field ops win wars, back then, formation movement won wars. So that's what they trained, and as a result, they're not an army of sharpshooters. But they did win wars.
Yup.
What do you think would send a rag-tag group of fighters running, efficient use of ammo, or a regimented wall of firepower? Wars back then were won by breaking up the army so disease and desertion can take its toll, so you want your army as regimented as possible so you'll eventually win.
Look at the Revolutionary War, George Washington lost more battles than he won, but he knew defensive wars were won through attrition, not shooting more of your enemy. So he focused on disrupting supply lines and harassing the enemy (so more disease and attrition), not on direct confrontation. I imagine other musket-era wars were similar: if you have superior numbers, you break up the enemy armies; if you have fewer numbers, you disrupt enemy supply lines. In both cases, accuracy isn't important, strategy is.
... But they were also a little stupid
Well, in the sense that knowingly going somewhere that’s likely to host crowds of people trying to kill each other is pretty stupid, sure.
So, from what I remember from history, this was widely used by British forces right up until the invention of the machine gun by the Germans. Once you could deliver a large number of projectiles down range very quickly from a single position, this was an insanely stupid strategy. Before that, most rifles were very slow to load and fire, and had the accuracy of a storm trooper.
By lining up like this you would create a dense "cloud" (if you will) of projectiles every time the commander would yell "FIRE!" Making it far more likely for something to land on an intended target (whether that was the target being aimed at or not). Additionally, it wouldn't just be one row of soldiers, more like 5+ rows of soldiers in this formation. When someone inevitably gets shot, the next soldier in line would step forward, over their dying friend to take their place. The result was a wall of firepower that worked very effectively in field combat.
More soldiers = more guns = more projectiles going down range for the enemy. If you wanted to be effective in the field, having more bodies to throw into the battle was a way to ensure success.
Once the machine gun was invented, one small troop of 3-4 soldiers could effectively counter this maneuver by simply holding down the trigger and panning across the field of battle half a dozen times. Which is when trenches and fox holes were the preferred way to ensure you didn't lose your entire military trying to fight the enemy. With the improved accuracy of weapons and the invention of automatic fire, these battle tactics only spelled failure for anyone attempting them. Suddenly having cover either in the form of a trench or sandbags or something, was the only effective way to ensure you didn't get "mowed down".
In the modern era, field combat is a complex operation of coordinating troop movements and directing them towards the enemy while maintaining cover to protect the lives of the soldiers. Somewhere between radio and high accuracy assault rifles is where modern combat exists. Keeping in communication with your team while coordinating your movements, and accurately firing at the enemy as you go is now the norm. In times between WW2 and the modern (electronic) era, you would use code names and reference places with specific, agreed upon alternative namings for locations. Once cryptography became efficient enough to be portable, encryption has become favorable to increase the security of communications and clarify names and locations by using more plain language while protecting that information from eavesdropping. Before encryption and digital transmissions, everything was either AM or FM voice (not dissimilar to AM/FM radio), and could be intercepted or listened to by any person, friend or foe, with the equipment to do so; the only option was to use namings that would obfuscate the intention, locations, attacker, and size of force from anyone who may be listening in.
The cypher/cryptography of the age was fascinating, and "both sides" employed code breakers to try to understand the messages being sent. It's very fascinating. As an amateur radio operator, I get what they were doing, and it employed some very clever tactics, which had varying degrees of success. Now it's just a matter of using a digital encryption cypher to encode any communications (not dissimilar to what is used for secured websites) which is nearly impossible to break without significant time and effort, and usually by the time the cypher is broken the operation is complete and the codes have been changed. Being an IT person by day, and knowing how those cyphers are generated and used, it would be nearly impossible to "crack" in a reasonable time frame, even with even powerful supercomputer hardware. The modern digital and military communications systems are only really countered by employing jamming technology to scramble legitimate signals with noise. The only counter to such jamming is moving to a channel which is not jammed, which may be impossible with limitations to the equipment that is employed in field operations (they generally have a fairly small operational frequency band, which they cannot exceed), however, with software defined radios and multi band radio transceivers, this limitation is getting easier to overcome. However setting up multiple jammers to cover the useful radio bands for long distance communications, is becoming easier at the same time (generally bands below 500Mhz or so). The arms race to find ways to overcome these problems is far from done though.
But now I'm way off topic.
Well written and all.
However I'd like to point out that even modern warfare, despite how much it's changed (take for instance rather basic troops having access to small drones to drop grenades with into foxholes and trenches), kinda the basics remain: you have men advance to a position by any means necessary.
Since, idk, thousands of years ago when first actually organised militaries appeared, the basics — or "the game", if you will — has been very much the same, but the technology changes "the meta."
When I was sitting lessons in the army in 2009, most of us were wondering why we needed to drill such basic strategies and tactics, and why would they ever matter, because the enemy has thousands of nukes. The lieutenant explained rather well how despite modern weaponry and technology, a lot of the basics of war are still very much the majority of it.
Like for example the Gatling gun made this strategy quite bad, but the Gatling gun wasn't instantly everywhere. It's not like with videogames where the whole game is patched and everyone has to use the new meta because everyone has the same rules. Unlike in real life, where the "meta" changes slowly and not everywhere all at once.
And where one reliable thing is that in war things like new tech can't always be relied upon.
Wars are just so futile nowadays. I get that global cooperation was a practical impossibility even just 50 years ago, but nowadays it really isn't. Case in point, I have no idea which country's army you the reader thought of when I said "army." With probability, American, but I actually talked about the Finnish one.
I've also veered quite far from the original point. Here, have some Doctor Who as compensation:
Case in point, the Germans had an automatic "rifle" if you still (machine/Gatling gun), before the allies in WW2. Guns of the era were far more accurate than the muskets used during older conflicts like the American civil war, but were far from automatic; to my best understanding of it, most were barely semi-automatic and had very limited magazine capacity, often only a handful of round at most. This was a massive step up from the single shot muskets used in previous battles but would not stand up to modern versions of the same which are often more accurate, can fire at much faster rates, and can have a lot more ammunition per magazine.
Looking at schematics of current era rifles, the designs seem so primative compared to the intericacies of other common modern items, like computers and smartphones, but still, even this level of technological advancement was far out of reach of the people from that era. The technology really took off when we started using jacketed self contained rounds, which were easily changed out by mechanisms rather than having to do so by hand (such as with a revolver versus a more modern semi automatic pistol).
I understand why firearms are kept so primative compared to our current level of technology, since they are required to have a high level of reliability and resilience to interference, maintaining a fairly simple mechanism rather than a more complex electronic firing mechanic is preferable. So called "gas powered" weapons have been proven to be effective, reliable and resilient.
I know that more complex systems are used in weapons like missiles and drones to great effect, at the cost of reliability, more or less. The fact is, if you lose a drone or missile which has been launched or controlled many hundreds or thousands of miles away, you've only lost equipment. That's not ideal, but it's better than losing your personnel who represent hundreds or thousands of hours of training, and cannot be replaced on an assembly line. Simply put, human assets are a limited resource in any conflict, so the fewer losses to manpower, the better the outcome regardless of all other factors, since a new drone or missile can be created in a week or a month (even six months or more) which is less time than it takes to make a new person, allow them to develop to the point where they can capably hold and fire a weapon, then train them.... A process that can take upwards of 20 years or more.
In previous eras of battle, there was no choice but to put lives on the line for battle. No alternatives existed, and in the cases of field battle, alternatives still don't exist for man to man combat.
I appreciate the quotes from the doctor. It's nice to see them in the wild. I personally don't believe armed conflict can accomplish anything productive, and should only be used against those who will use it against you (aka, for defense). In the current era, we have the technology to discuss and resolve conflicts without violence, whether through peace talks via telepresence, or over more common communication technology, there's few places where communication isn't possible. Every effort should be made to solve things diplomatically, and only failing that, should force ever be considered.
We're at a point in warfare where we can seriously damage the survivability of humans on Earth, and doing so through warfare seems like a foolish thing to do. Especially if the reason for such conflict is something as idiotic as land ownership or material goods. Global trade has made such things unnecessary. We should be focused on moving forward to an era of peace and cooperation, since society is no longer bound by the trappings of the old empires, where food and land scarcity was significant and having more airable land was critical to survival. We should be pooling resources to bring better living to all peoples of the world. Yet, some are still stuck in the old ways of grabbing power by any means necessary.
And I'm off topic again. Oh well, it is what it is. Maybe some day we will learn that we don't have to fight eachother for the ability to survive.
The guns were quite accurate. They had rifling etc long before the Maxim gun.
Being a top grade British rifleman required hitting a 3 foot wide target at 900 yards or something. That's pretty fucking good without glass optics.
They were slowish to fire, but they had paper cartridges that made it not too slow. Lower casualty rates probably have more to do with soldiers not being brainwashed yet, lots of people didn't actually shoot to kill. Compare the casualty rates of the colonial campaigns where soldiers didn't consider their enemy human.
I don't think that sort of accuracy or equipment was common in the revolutionary war, tbh.
They had about a thousand Pattern 1776 Rifles made in 1776 and a few Ferguson Rifles but the British Army still commonly used the Bakers flintock until the 1840s, and all of the above still used standard ball projectiles. It was so impressive when Tom Plunkett shot the French General Colbert-Chabanais at 370 meters (400 yards) it got recorded as a great feat.
I'm not a usian but I do know that in one of your various wars some dude bought heaps of pom guns but not the right bullets for them so they got some terrible reputation for being unreliable because the bullets didn't work.
The Baker's was rifled, hence the name. I mean tbh from standing/crouching with ironsights on a real day it would be impressive today to shoot someone at 370 meters with one shot using a modern gun and these things were heavy as fuck. Idk specifically how that gun performed but we have a tendency to assume past tech was much worse than it actually was.
The colonial campaigns didn't have an organized or well equipped enemy
TL;DR - when your guns are really inaccurate (like, give or take a meter), putting a bunch together increases the odds you'll hit something. If you spread them out, you'll hit less stuff. Modern guns are a lot more accurate, so cover makes more sense.
Oh ! I have a history question :
Every time is watch a movie about some war in the USA, with their inefficient guns and all, there is guns, there is bayonets, there is swords but where are the arrows and bows? How come there isn't any depiction of such an efficient weapon ?
Speaking as someone who has archery experience, it's a lot more skill oriented and has a lot more variance in field combat. The shots, while they can be quite fast, are not nearly as quick as a bullet. The skill with firearms tends to be with long range shooting. At short range, you can point and shoot and generally hit something. Even at 50m, a minimal amount of training is required to get to be accurate at that range especially with newer weaponry.
This may or may not factor in, I don't know, I'm not a history buff really, I know technology more than anything.
Personally I feel like the most contributing factor is that a bow is a comaritively fragile weapon. Most firearms are metal with wood grips. The core of the weapon is metal, and comfort aspects of it are wood.
Compare that to the requirements of a bow, where every part, aside from the riser (where the grip and sights are) needs to be flexible. The limbs, which are the upper and lower arms of the bow, need to bend and flex to provide the reaction force to fire the arrow, the string needs to be very flexible, but strong enough to handle the weight of the draw. Every part moves, bends and flexes as the weapon is drawn and fired. That flexibility introduces a lot of risk in terms of damage on a highly dynamic field of battle. At one time we had no alternative, and bows when weilded by trained archers, were a formidable force compared to the alternatives, which at the time were mainly knives, swords and shields.
The likelihood of a tool like a bow becoming damaged in the field (a limb breaking, a string breaking) whether through regular use, or intentionally by the enemy, or even by negligence, in stepping or sitting on the bow, is not trivial. Factor in that when a bow is at "rest" it's still under tension, and you can be hurt by the string or limb breaking unintentionally, especially if you're in the middle of a draw, and the difference is pretty clear in terms of operator safety. With a gun, whether a musket, rifle, or something else, generally you have fairly think iron or steel containing the discharge of the weapon. While misfires are still possible and the consequences of a misfire can be much more severe, they're far less common. I've seen people shatter arrows, sending fragments of the arrow shaft into their hand and requiring significant medical treatment; on a battle field, if you get a bad arrow that splinters when you try to fire it, which wouldn't be as uncommon as you'd like, then that Archer is out of combat for weeks or months. It's far less common for a firearm to have a similar catastrophic failure. Again, not impossible, just far less likely. It's far more likely to have a firearm jam or misfire in the sense that it fails to fire, than for it to fire in such a way that the operator is injured. There's small issues with the safety of an operator when it comes to firearms, beyond the obvious of shooting yourself, such as getting bitten by the slide (common on modern pistols), or impact injuries from not bracing properly for a weapons kickback. But given the limited amount of propellant in a bullet, it's far less likely to "blow up in your face" so to speak.
Given operator safety, and the relative ease of training (at least compared to archery), and the consistency of the performance of the weapon, operator error is effectively reduced to loading and aiming the weapon. The effects of operator errors is also reduced.
Factor that in with the lethality of firearms versus archery, and the accuracy, especially at long range, where an archer would need to factor in wind and gravity, at far closer range than a rifleman would, and the advantages are now far outweighing the negatives of firearms.
The benefits of archery is generally in the ability to reuse ammunition, the relative silence of the weapon, and the light weight nature of the materials used in archery. It's a good way to hunt and fight, but when it's compared to even (relatively) primative firearms, it doesn't really have the ability to compete. Most even better than average archers don't usually loose more than an arrow a second on a good day; once jacketed rounds became common and semi automatic rifles and firearms became commonplace, even a relatively poor rifleman can release more than one shot per second. So for shooting speed, either train for thousands of hours to become an expert archer, or pick up a revolver and squeeze the trigger as quickly as you can.
Firearms are simply better, easier machines to deliver projectiles down range in almost every comparison.
Thank you for taking time to write this explanation.
I learned a lot today.
Napoleonic tactics worked fairly well in the 19th century. Mixed results in mid to late-19th.
It’s when they tried to apply them to WW1 that the body counts got ridiculous.
It’s my understanding that they really didn’t. The American Revolution was won in part because the Americans more often “adopted Native tactics” (I.e. attacking from tree lines, on paths on unsuspecting units moving from place to place, aiming for officers, etc).
The big Napoleonic blocks were done, but often just out of honor and so officers had some sense of “control” over the battle so they could both easily pull out before it descended into a large brawl where they might actually be killed
The American Revolution was won in part because the Americans more often “adopted Native tactics”
The American Revolution was won because Britain was fighting a real war against France, Spain and the Netherlands. And those countries basically used the US as a cheap way to distract the British.
Not really. The American Revolution was still fought with the same Napoleonic tactics used by the regular army. The irregulars might have adopted more guerrilla methods in the frontier, but they weren’t widely adopted.
Reinforcements from the French army and navy won the war. The French Revolution followed shortly after.
And IIRC those Napoleonic tactics were still used in the American civil war and beyond. The “big Napoleonic blocks” led to trench warfare in WW1.
I agree, also important to note that the "big square" actually served a purpose in preventing cavalry from picking off separated infantry and detering cavalry charges. From my understanding the formation was genuinely effective until horses stopped being a factor in war.
I mean maybe "honour" played a role in why they did things but i think we're sometimes too quick to assume people in the past were idiots.
Coordination is essential to any military action. The better you can coordinate your actions, the greater the objectives you can achieve.
When your ability to coordinate is limited to the distance that people can hear a drum or a trumpet, you're not capable of coordinating across any area larger than a few city blocks. You're a sitting duck against any massed troops, unless you also mass enough troops to stop them from marching right through you.
Small unit tactics are largely ineffective against massed troops until the invention of the telegraph, 30-40 years after the revolution.
From what I recall from my history classes, one of the most critical battles of the American Revolution was won because a bunch of red coats were slacking off and taken by surprise. So while the use of guerilla tactics was an important factor in victory, sheer dumb luck also played a major role.
Nobody used those tactics after the machine gun was invented.
Mechanised warfare was a game changer
See also the French entering WW1 in bright red pants, versus Germans in such boring uniforms that onlookers said they blended into the landscape.
Which is what historians call "a hint."
Just shoot at the bullets that fly towards you. Too easy.
yeah. sounds like a skill issue
That's what made Wanted an awesome and super dumb movie.
When a movie knows how stupid it is, it can get away with anything.
Wanted knew its own stupidity to five decimal places.
This was shock and awe tactics at the time. Professional soldiers were trained to accept the casualties dealt out at the start of the battle and keep advancing until the enemy broke and then slaughter them as they attempted to flee. Everyone who makes fun of George Washington for how he conducted his troops conveniently forgets that his army consisted of untrained volunteers who consistently broke when confronted with the British war machine.
And Joe Rogan wants me to believe these people could build pyramids?
Muskets were not all that accurate. The plan, I suppose, was to get close and then rush in and fight man-to-man.
Lindybeige suggested that the opposite might be true, at least for the individuals
I guess I was basing my comment on novels, such as the Sharpe series, rather then actual history.
There's a good reason for doing these types of engagements. First things first: The rifles were inaccurate, people had to be close enough to clearly see each other to hit a person. It takes a person out of battle 20s to reload a rifle but raw recruits with shaking hands take a lot longer.
So here's what you would like to do with an army. Shoot them all down before they reload or even engage them in melee with bayonets to create a breach and crossfire the side of the opponents line.
To make this more effective you stack as many guns as you can in as little space as possible and use the men as cover for the men behind.
There is of course space for guerilla warfare but if you want to take out a big army of flintlock muskets you cram everyone into a line and blast them. The other side does the same since it's the current war meta and you end up with 2 lines of people lining up and shooting each other.
So why not just guerilla warfare? This comes down to the same reason why castles forts and fortified cities were important in medieval times.
To win a war you take the capital, large cities and whatnot. To take a major objective you need an army. There's no army without supply. Running supply lines between forts means you won't really get a lot of them. So you need to prevent a big blob from taking them. You can't win with guerilla warfare fast enough before the opponent takes major objectives.
That's how you end up with the meta from 1700 until bullets.
Pretty much, yeah. There was honour and stuff with war, so many wars were lost becausecthe attacked group decided, "...Why the fuck are we playing fair when you want to demolish us?"
Isn't it because of the weapons? Without rifled barrels the bullet could come out flying all kinds of directions. If you were all hiding behind trees and other forms of cover, taking proper aim, the fighting would never end. Now if each side is just a wall of bullets going aginst a wall of people, you'd actually have a chance to hit something.
Nope, smoothbore muskets were/are much more accurate than most people think, here's a video of someone shooting at targets with one, and they were able to hit a man-sized target out to 150m. By modern standards it isn't great but definitely not "flying all kinds of directions".
When it comes to comparing muskets to modern weapons, people get weird. They compare field-performace of muskets to the seller's catalog for modern weapons.
Soldiers back then got about 0 hours of marksmanship training, unless they were in whatever the country's version of Light Infantry was, so the average soldier was a horrible shot. So when people talk about the accuracy of muskets, they're mostly saying "Lots of soldiers would miss with this weapons".
Modern weapons are, if you fire from a table on a clear day, at least an order of magnitude better, and soldiers are signficantly better trained at shooting. And yet, the vast majority of shots aren't even remotely close to hitting. Nobody says things like "The accuracy of an M16 is 0.002%" due to the vietnam war taking 50.000 rounds for a kill, but this is basically the same thing.
Coordination requires communication. Instant communication was only possible within drum, trumpet, or semaphore range: a couple miles at best. Long distance communication was only possible by messenger.
Small units cannot be effectively coordinated against a massed enemy when your best communication method is some dude with a horn. Until the telegraph and telephone allow for trench warfare, Napoleonic big-unit tactics are the best we can expect.
"back then"? Isn't this the exact strategy Russia currently uses in Ukraine?
Russia follows the "ant" strategy: throw bodies at a problem until there's no problem.