Why didnt they use shields or some kind of cover?

Why didnt they use shields or some kind of cover?

Other urls found in this thread:

napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Wait a minute, didn't we just have this thread?

They dug trenches, as it was cheaper.

>what is ww1

Why didnt they just make a bayonet phalanx? if it worked for alexander it wouldve worked for napoleon

Too heavy, too slow, too much materials, too expensive.

>shields
useless, they were better off focusing on increasing their fire rate

>cover
they did, when possible

shields aren't expensive or wasteful in materials, the first 2 are right though

the bayonet would need to be as long as a pike and would be unwieldy

Wouldn't save them from artillery

A shield thick enough to stop a bullet is.

...

...

...

Didn't really need it.

>...powder is not as terrible as believed. Few men in these affairs are killed from the front while fighting. I have seen whole salvoes fail to kill four men.
General Maurice de Saxe, Reveries on the Art of War (1757)

>s-surely le shield will protect me!!

>1757

That's why
Napoleonic Wars were much more violent
Most battles had dozens thousands killed (although most of them were inflicted by bayonet, sabers and artillery rather than musket fire)

Why didn't they use bushes or some kind of cucks?

>cannonball
We're talking bullets here, not cannoballs

Must've been a nightmare to clean the blood out of that thing

Why use shields? if you have lines of men.

Why didn't they throw away their muskets and go back to using halberds?

Right, most deaths were in route when a shield wouldn't be helpful, but a hindrance.

Cannon balls can kill without even hitting you.

Thats a shield for protecting against arrows.

>poles.jpg
:^)

Muskets were still pretty decisive in urban terrain

I don't have great info, but if you look at the casualty breakdown here.

napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_2.htm

For 18th century stuff, it's about 70% by musket fire.

you guys should ask /k/ because military tactics and equipment is more of there thing.

Seven Years War had plenty of deadly battles.

Yeah but /k/ is retarded when it comes to non american military affairs, and don't know anything pre-WW2 with a babby american high school level of memery on WW1 (muh trenchs. muh german hostility. muh french surrendermonkey). THey still think they "won" vietnam ffs.

this.

people forget how effective the artillery was.

/k/ is worse than Veeky Forums when it comes to military history, which is a feat i would not have thought possible but there you go

Artillery. You might be able to make shields for your men that can stop musket bullets but i'ts going to be heavy af and make them less mobile, thus more vulnerable to cannon fire. It's likely that armies with shields would suffer more losses than ones without.

This man is right

/k/ is good at coming up with really stupid ways to do things, like taking apart a steam boiler to rob a bank or some shit.

If you actively wanted to build a new way of protecting troops from black powder muskets, I'm sure /k/ already have a few ideas.

>beside you know, inviting a gun that you can easily reload on your belly.

because order and discipline wins battles
and you need a firm line for the bayonette charge

battles werent decided by shootouts until more accurate weapons appeared in the second half of the 19th century

>falling for the bayonette charges meme

The big point of firearms in late medieval warfare is that it could effective shot thru any weight reasonable shield. So there would be no point to them using shields.

Why does this thread exist?

SHIELDS CANT STOP MUSKET BALLS

ISANDLWANA WAS AN INSIDE JOB

Light Infantry used cover.
Line Infantry used firepower, melee impact and unit cohesion.

That was the whole point of the bayonnet at the time though. I'll let you read about Napoleon's own statements about the rifle+bayonnet...