Is it true they would walk into enemy fire just to get close enough to fuck shit up?

And not only is it hard to find evidence that this technique ever happened, it doesn't make any sense. Shooting from horseback is more difficult than shooting on foot. The effective range of a carbine was something like 30 yards on horseback, and a pistol only 8-9 yards or less. Using expensive horsemen as an inferior imitation of musketeers makes no sense. The entire advantage of cavalry is mobility, which this technique would sacrifice for no gain.

>Caracole
Interesting, I did think it sounded a little odd when I read it. Glad my suspicions were justified, thank you, user.

I read somewhere that they get within shooting distance, everyone shoots once, then they fix bayonets and charge. Is this true?

>english troops
>brave enough to advance

kek'd

That's probably counting all the very long range volley fire they always attempted which everyone always forgets about.

Also hit rate doesn't mean casualty rate

It's true if you're French. The British preferred to fire and rely on their high level of reloading skill and discipline.

I read once that the French infantry only shot 2 live rounds in training while the British shot 100s.

Because Britain had a tiny army.

Fuck off cunt, we ruled the World and our descendants (though unwanted) still do.

I think he meant more that because Britain didn't have the numbers, they needed to have well trained and disciplined soldiers

>states the fact that Britain's army was not as big in numbers as most of its time
>OI FUCK OFF CUNT
>WE RULED THE WORLD
Typical bong in action desu
youtube.com/watch?v=_JEd5NfoZBU

You are forgetting that pistols are light and cavalrymen would carry them if they could. That doesn't mean it was their primary weapon.

Why wouldn't they wear any armor if close combat was still a large part of the battle?

Wrong picture

The pistol was the primary weapon of heavy cavalry in the period I'm referring to.

Because artillery was the king of the battlefield, and explosive round weren't so common. Armor wasn't worth the cost and the weight. Some cavalry did wear breastplates, though.
By WW1, anti-shrapnel flak vests were common.

> British
> not charging

Good one mate. I distinctly remember several first hand accounts of the peninsular war where the British would charge multiple times. It often threw the French off balance because they only really did one large do or die charge

- not to knock the French, as it clearly worked for them most o the time.

Prussians could stand and take shots like a beast. They just were shit at fucking everything else. According to Christopher Clark, the Prussians were awful at flexibility compared to the French who could maneuver extremely well, and their commanders were cowards who surrendered rather than fight as the French rolled over them. Average soldier was decent.

>get conquered for a decade in just 19 days in a time where armies could only move as fast as footsoldiers could march
How is this possible?

I remember reading an account of Wellington's battle in India. He sent the Scots forward and when the Indian army saw the tall, bearded men advancing at a walk with bagpipes playing they just turned and booked it.

I wish I remember where I read that

> Most 18th centuryish battles would see around 10-20% casualties per force in the whole battle, which would be a lot more than 2 volleys.

And a lot of that would probably come from Artillery fire

Yep
And given that charges were more efficient that volleys, stuff like pic related happened when the French and British met

Was that always true? I seem to recall British doctrine being several volleys followed by a charge, but I think that was around the revolutionary era

>Cherrypicking

French attack columns must have been a terrifying sight

>By WW1, anti-shrapnel flak vests were common.
But these were so heavy they were generally only worn by people expected to be mostly stationary; like machine gunners. They also were mostly useless against bullets, they were more about protecting from shrapnel.

No, but the caroleans did.

Their entire tactic was a calm walk into fire, only discharging their muskets at point blank, and the charging with drawn swords to break their enemy. A lot of them carried pikes to help them roll over opposing formations.

Cavalry were forbidden form shooting at all until they'd broken the enemy, instead charging knee behind knee with drawn swords.

And yes, this shit worked very, very well. They crunched the math and came to the conclusion that at standard march would allow for only two volleys to be fired- the first would hit them at max effective range-estimated by eye, os often beyond effective range-and do jack shit. This would happen somewhere around 100 yards.

The'd hold fire until 50 yard, with the two rear (of four) ranks shooting and the drawing swords.

First two would fire at 20 yards and absolutely fucking wreck the opposing fornt line-and then you'd get a bunch of terrifying, seemingly fearless swedes rushing you with swords drawn. Or worse, you're the poor bastard facing a wall of charging pikes, because they had a lot of them marching on the flanks of their muskets.

Math worked out that they inflicted more damage with musketry than you, though they'd likely take one bad volley before the charge.

This shit was wildly successful.

Couldn't afford it, might not be allowed even if they could.

Best uniforms of the era. Probably by design Prussian grey was the color of black powder smoke. As a battlefield filled with smoke it became harder and harder to target Prussian soldiers. First use of camouflage uniforms if deliberate.

The heavy braid you see on the front of uniforms was a form of armor against slashing weapons. By the mid 1800's a lot of officers uniforms had a double row of buttons down the front of their coats with a separate panel that buttoned on. This panel would be made of tightly woven silk if the officer could afford it. Spider silk from a Black Widow Spider was best but only Royalty could afford it. Franz Ferdinand was wearing a spider silk panel on his uniform when he was shot in 1914. It was proofed against all existing handgun ammunition of the day.

when ney doesnt fuck up

it doesnt make sense that your artillery or cavarly would let a body of enemy cavalry dance infront of your lines

Bayonet charges were infact conducted at a walk.
Source: Rules and Regulations for the Formation, Field Exercise, and Movements of His Majesty's Infantry, boards, 1798, 6s

The drill manual used by the British forces in the Napoleonic wars

In fact, I am being unclear.
The troops were not released into a run until being about 10 paces from the enemy. So i suppose they were conducted at a run, but the main advance was conducted at the quick time, although in a lot of situations the enemy would break before your forces were ordered to charge.

/watch?v=KfEnZ_Assm0
Example of the coldstream guards 1815 reenactment group (An excellent group btw)

During the Napoleonic era there was no army that used the bayonet as much as the Russians.

If their muskets weren't english imports they were likely trash, if their ammo was low they used improvised balls and where most armies of the world trained with about 60 balls a year the russian did with 6 which meant they were terrible at aiming.

Sometimes the Russians would fire once before charging but sometimes they wouldn't even bother because they knew the enemy would have to reload and it was quicker to simply fasten the pace and once the enemy was broken to fire a volley in their backs.

Apparently the Russians were so eager to charge that when officers wanted them to stay and fire they sometimes had to chase their men back in line