So line infantry battles dominated western warfare during the 18th century and the first half of the 19th. Up until WWI however, I have no idea how the western world fought its wars (excluding shitfights with colonial natives and outdated empires).
So how wuz tactics in between the demise of line infantry battles and WWI? Seems to me with all the new firearms invented, it's just mobs of gunmen shooting at each other with fast firing, accurate weapons.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
It *WAS* mobs of gunmen shooting at each other with fast firing weapons.
To be specific, artillery pummeling the enemy in advance and then the mobs of gunmen come to attack enemy positions using a firing tactic that allowed them to pour fire with the volume of automatic weapons. It was fucked up.
If you're familiar with line tactics, you'd know they'd be preceded by light infantry skirmishers who are expert marksmen. With the new firearms, EVERYONE, became skirmishers. They didn't form lines anymore.
Also the first machine guns were deployed in batteries similar to artillery pieces, and were used in support of an infantry attack.
Look up the Boer War, Spanish American War and the Balkan Wars. Also it's a bit mite line infantry still, but the Franco-Prussian War (particularly what the Prussians did) provides you with a good perspective of how war evolved from line battles.
Oh and the Ruso-Japanese war too.
from what i've read the switch in warfare was consistent but slow and several key moments in history boosted it.
The armies still fought in lines for a while, the weapons were getting faster and uniforms were changing from visibility on the field to invisibility on the field. One moment responsible for large reforms was when the Prussians and Habsburgs fought in Konnigsgratz where the german squads picked off lines of white-clad Austrians charging in line. Reforms to change the white had been failed earlier and "The Prussians did one evening what Joseph II couldn't in a decade."
The armies then progressively used terrain (as their weapons can now be loaded in prone position, broke off into smaller units to use a larger front, and used uniforms that were a slow shift from ornamental parade dress to khakis, greys, etc.
The modernization of weaponry during the American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, and even the Crimean War (and also multiple conflicts in Africa) largely reformed military drill.
Giant blobs of skirmishers since quick firing rifles meant standing line abreast was suicide, but shitty communication meant blobs were easier for command and control. Men were organised into squads but still worked within their respective blob. They would deploy in close formation then spread out as they closed in on the enemy.
Not really sure but from what I remember the main goal was to close in on the enemy while preserving enough mass to overwhelm them with a charge. Fast firing rifles were seen as a tool to thin the enemy out before the charge, or defend yourself when on the receiving end of one.
Painting is from the Franco-Prussian war, early 1870s
The invention (or rather, the mass production) of breech-loading rifles is what allowed fighting in prone position. Now that every infantry soldier could shoot fast and accurately while laying behind concealment, every infantry became, under the scope of the battle, light infantry, even-though units continued to be called "Line Infantry" and "Grenadiers".
Furthermore, the increase in the volume of fire of the infantry pushed away heavy cavalry from the battlefield, making dense formations like squares irrelevant (except against enemies who sought to be in melee as fast as possible, like colonized natives and fanatics of outdated empires).
The first months of WW1 were probably much like what had been seen three decades before.
Study the American Civil War. It's possibly the most well preserved war in history so this shouldn't be hard to figure out.
>Oh and the Ruso-Japanese war too.
The Russo-Japanese War actually had the largest battle in world history before the World Wars, Mukden.
Civil War is still line-infantry tier.
Which is strange, considering that they had rifles.
Not breech loading rifles, which means line tactics still dominated.
Suprise, the soldiers with breech loading rifles fought with skirmish tactics.
Im more puzzed as to why cavalry existed at that time.
No I'm not talking about mounted riflemen, but shit like lancers and hussars still waving lances and swords about when they could be easily shot.
A huge mob of dudes riding horses with huge fuck-off lances (and sidearms) could still break a formation. Plus they were still the most mobile land unit on the battlefield useful in the event of a break through and for recon.
>A huge mob of dudes riding horses with huge fuck-off lances (and sidearms) could still break a formation.
Did it really happen ?
The American Civil War already proved cavalry was outdated for use as anything other than mounted infantry or reconnaissance, but tradition dies hard.
>did it really happen?
Against artillery and small groups of infantry? yes.
>the trumpeter accidentally shoots his horse in the head
fucking Italians
Here is an actual picture of how it was.
As you can see, they formed loose skirmish lines, not tight ranks like in the American civil war. Still looking at the picture it seems like casualties were still very heavy.
Although they are appear to still march in closed columns.
It did happen a few times, but it was clear that cavalry had become outdated. More often than not, did the cavalry get completely shredded, by massed, fast firing rifle fire.
That's impressive. Even more impressive is the fact that it is an Italian victory.
I still think that's an exception.
Why is there a battalion of men just standing off to the side like nothing is happening?
I'd figure that they're either being held in reserve or they've just marched in and haven't deployed yet.