Line infantry

because if you don't stand in a line and shoot you get massacred and your lands conquered like every non-european country did

Sure, for his pic that is fair, but it is not true for the entirety of line warfare. Though muskets are generally far more accurate than people meme them to be.

line infantry is also the best way to repel and launch bayonet charges

I understand that this was the best strategy but how could the soldiers be fine with fighting like this? Especially those in the first lines.

You have a better chance of surviving that than guerilla warfare.

When you are organizing people on a massive scale in battles that can number well over 20,000 people, how the fuck are you supposed to communicate. It's better to have an easily distinguishable "ourside" and "theirside" so that you can shoot someone without killing your own men. Also it lets you control the pace and flow of battle because you can more easily distinguish the battle lines.

is right, a hunter could hit a target at 100 meters half the time, if there is no smoke obscuring vision

also reload times were slow and there was a risk of bayonet charges and cavalry charges while you were reloading

Napoleonic tactics were stupid by about the 1850s, the Crimean War showed it before the US Civil War did.

Until then it was a reasonable tactic due to the limitations of firearms

A human voice only ranges so far. If you make everybody stand apart you need way more officers and sergeants to keep everybody doing what they need to be doing.

Biggest problem with gun accuracy was fouling after the first shot, smoke, and poor trigger discipline. So yes, first volleys would be effective but accuracy would drop off after that first volley

>dig a trench, or otherwise fortify your position
why didn't they do this?

>lets just get out flanked lmao

This only worked in WW1 because they had enough prep time to make the trench unflankable.

they did though, def during the civil war era from which OP's pic is from.

What is light infantry?

And also because armies went into the millions. Combine that with longer ranging weapons and you've got a solid line at the whole westfront.

>What is the race to the sea

Daunted few
Paid extra, given tickets to heaven, slightly drunk

Because rifles didn't tend to kill, you'd be wounded, then taken to the field hospital, lie there for a few days then die of infection.
You put all the men together to boost morale and more easily guard against cavalry as horses will not charge blocks of men even if they don't have spears, cavalry relies on the men breaking to work
If you put them all together then they can more easily coordinate fire, if they all fire at the same time then it's more likely for them all to hit as if they do it one by one you have smoke from the rifle obstructing it
Also easier to Manuver large blocks of men you can see and know where to send the runner to
Inb4 you're the cuck poster from before who thought he could just hide in forests and set the ground on fire

Hidden catapults are the answer, I swear!

That is the race to the sea

What do I win!?

Lets see...

>there is no radio unit for them to take into the field
>limited rate of fire
>inaccurate weapons
> cavalry is a thing

Light infantry had a very hard time of dealing with that last issue back in the day.

They did that a lot really.

Why do we have this thread every week?

Seriously fuck off.

Trenches didn't really make sense until firearms had enough range to justify them. My understanding is that the American civil war was when trenches really came into standard practice. They were then codified during the Russo-Japanese war of 1904. And, of course, trenches had a renaissance during the 1914 Great War.

I think movies and the like have made it look less efficient than it is. While the rate of fire was slow, it wasn't that slow. The british were expected to get off 4 shots a minute, so while you're in it, you're probably confident that if you and the guys around you do your best then you'll beat the enemy by just getting off more shots and aiming better.

did they really fight against each other in these huge blobs like in OPs image? Because if they were more split up with smaller units taking on other smaller units it would make more sense

would say that since they couldnt accurately command smaller groups (no radio) it would be better to keep all your forces focused, if i shot 100 bullets while you shot 10 i will more likely kill you all then move onto the next 10 etc

The "small unit" thing doesn't really work at that point in time. You see, there were no radios. Very hard to coordinate groups of small units without radio. The only people who operated in small units were skirmishers.

>But why not just make everybody a skirmisher?

That's basically what ended up happening once technology caught up with the idea.

It would be a block of 60 with a gap then another block of 60
Squads battalions and all that were used to designate unit size

It's really not much of a meme...if one man with a musket were to aim and fire at another single man 75-100 feet away, there's a good chance he'll miss.

There are a lot of factors that go into the accuracy though. How fouled is the barrel from previous shots? Do you flinch during the short delay from pulling the trigger to the time the shot actually leaves the barrel? Do you have decent training?

That's why line infantry tactics developed the way they did. When your musket goes off and you risk getting burnt black powder and smoke in your eyes, you tend to close your eyes or turn your head when firing. That plus barrel fouling and poor ball-barrel fit means they were indeed pretty inaccurate.

It's when people start confusing Smooth-bore Muzzle Loading Muskets with Rifled Muskets that the accuracy comes under debate.

A HUNTER would most likely be using a RIFLE. A muzzle loading firearm with a rifled barrel and a tighter barrel-ball fit.

A SOLDIER would use a SMOOTH-BORE musket which, yes, were pretty damn inaccurate.

A typical British Brown Bess had a barrel diameter of 0.75 inches. The ball it fired was typically 0.69 - 0.70 inches

To engage the grooves of a rifle, the ball must be a tighter fit. Usually only a 0.02inch difference in diameter and then a lubricated patch was used to make it even tighter.

The reason you see such terrible wounds and casualities in the American Civil War is that most soldiers were using Rifled Muskets with superior range, accuracy, and ammunition with the same tactics from the previous generation due to communication needs and protection from cavalry

Line Infantry isn't like movies and TV make out, the most accurate depiction I've ever seen was in Barry Lyndon where only the march is in a stand up line, after that it was ranks of volley fire using cover and elevation to outrange the opponent

Have you ever used an actual muzzleloader? You can get off three aimed shots in a minute. And that's only if you're really good. Most people struggle with two.

To offset that, armies used volley fire. Also, cavalry will rape you if you're not in a dense formation.

Civil war muskets were rifled and they still stood in lines. That method of warfare was practical, and necessary, because of slow rate of fire, not accuracy.

Trench warfare was common since the 16th century.

The American civil war is the tipping point where line infantry started to dissolve as well, specifically because of improvements to firearms. It wasn't terribly uncommon for a Union soldier to save up a portion of his salary in order to buy a repeating rifle such as a Henry or Spencer.

Yes, several times lol. /K is my home board. I'm not discounting your post, but how does it argue against anything I said in mine?

And because communication/organization which seems to be getting left out repeatedly.

because strategy required decisive outcomes, so tactics were adapted for maximum impact, which means concentrated fire and mass infantry in manuverable formations

there were other ways of fighting and they vere highly effective they just didnt realy have bulk results, like you could fight a enemy in guerrila style for months or defend a few vilages by skirmish, and wherever the population resorted to these tactics or such tactics were used by troops fighting on any side say the austrian balkan infantry, they caused a lot of damage and were difficult for the standard standing armies of the day to handle, but they neded to actualy conclude campaings and win wars and sign peace agreements betveen each other, so every war was like another round in a game of chance, and most often they couldnt afford protracted problems, so the doctrine was to go all in

most battles were concluded with way more hand to hand fighting that gunshot wounds any way

This the ottoman used them a lot atleast.
Others at the time probably also did.

Exactly, Spain used it a lot during the sieges of the dutch cities. youtube.com/watch?v=Aco1IK-qyts (only in spanish, sorry)

Why are you so fucking stupid? Read a book you fucking inbred goatfucking moron.

In napoleonic wars it really wasn't that bad being line infantry.

The effective range of a musket was around 300 yards where a musket had a 1/3 chance to hit a target. At that range it was pretty lethal and bad for both sides.

However, they usually began firing at like 5 times that range.

Even at the effective range or even or even closer it still wasn't that bad. The anxiety and fear was much more unpleasant than the actual bullets. The sounds were terrifying and the soldiers wouldn't be very concerned with aiming, they would load as fast as possible and then fire. The terror and fear was so bad that after the battle they would find like 20 rounds shoved down a barrel.

Skirmishers were known for things like shooting off their cartridges as fast as possible so they would have an excuse to retreat. By skirmishers I mean the section of a line that was detached to act as skirmishers, so regular fusiliers not voltigeurs or riflemen who would actually aim.

Furthermore, they weren't trained to aim. Like in the Imperial Russian Army, the general infantrymen got six rounds to practice each year. UK gave out 60 but my point is they weren't trained to aim generally.

These factors combined meant that a whole volley, even at 200 yards would cause minimal casualties. The effectiveness of fire was generally high at the start, but when the barrels got clogged and the men got tired or afraid or blinded by smoke, the muskets were almost useless. Like there are accounts of an entire volley not hitting a single man. The average volley would hit like 3 guys.

A line battle is not as stupid as some would think and not as deadly. Most casualties were from artillery or during decisive moments (bayonet charge, general specifically ordered offense, taking hills). They had a saying back then that it took a man's weight in lead to kill him.

I can't believe this thread exists

I think it's either lazy trolling, or that our public is just that far removed from the reality of the world as it existed before they were born

It was getting close near the end, but the Austro-Prussian war is where line infantry tactics died.

The Prussians with their breech loading Dreyse needle guns could not only shoot faster, but also allowed them to load while prone. The Prussians relied more heavily on shooting and skirmishing than the Austrians, partly because their guns were better, but also because the Prussian army was made of conscripts. Shooting takes less drill and training than making a massed infantry charge.

How could you just stand there and shoot at another human being you don't know to try and kill him because some fat manlet general told you to because your shitty king started a pointless war?

Because otherwise you couldn't feed your family? Because you were proud of a national identity? Because you believed in the cause? Some people have values and are/were willing to fight for them.

And because your own side would shoot you if you didnt

>muh "guerrilla/skirmisher Total War" argument
Sustaining guerrilla campaigns was not feasible. Communication with skirmishers, who were defenseless against the roving groups of murderous and terrifying cavalry, was technologically impossible.
>muh "why are they just standing there :DDD" argument
Battles were extremely decisive and financially profitable back then. You're underestimating the FuckYou power of standing right in front of your enemy with your countrymen and killing them. This was during a time where honor and bravery were real and tangible concepts that could launch you and your family from serfdom to great importance.
>muh "why didn't they spread out" argument
It was good for cohesion; whenever there was a break in cohesion, cavalry would massacre the spaced out soldiers. This happened a lot. It also gave the impression of organization, which will most often deter enemy attacks.

OP.. i hate to say it.. but i think you should kys.. :/

Cuck

Whore

>Why were armies before 1900 so fucking stupid?

Because they suffered of a crippling lack of properly fried onions!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=db4QJUqDqbA

m.youtube.com/watch?v=h_RCJ4bAF2c

WARNING!
Open the second link at your own peril...

This. Line Infantry was basically Heavy Infantry with ranged capacity.

The Voltigeurs (Napoleon's skirmishers) used smoothbores.

I've read accounts both of musket volleys doing nothing, and others of volleys "decimating" a line in an instant (which means a 1/10th hit rate if it's to be taken literally).
The results of different shooting tests performed with antiques make me think that the later was more common.
uniform-evolution.0catch.com/weapons3.html
journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312
The "400 bullets to kill a man" is a meme.

Rank rotation is GOAT

>The "small unit" thing doesn't really work at that point in time. You see, there were no radios. Very hard to coordinate groups of small units without radio. The only people who operated in small units were skirmishers.
Mongols could do it. The problem was the lack of assabiyah. If the troops are motivated and loyal to each other they can work independently.

Veeky Forums is basically lazy trolling.

I can understand missing a "target", but how is it actually possible to shoot thousands of bullets into a mile-wide wall of human flesh and not hit anything?

Aiming takes fine motor control, and under stressful conditions that's the first thing to go.
It's not a meme. It's just people forget that today it takes hundreds of thousands of bullets for each kill. Soldiers use a lot of ammunition taking shots that are extremely unlikely to hit.

>there was a choice
Idk about the rest of the world but in the United States the penalty for desertion is still death

They evolved out of the need to shoot large groups of men who didn't have guns, when everyone started to use them nobody had thought of anything else. Plus how would you organise small to medium sized semi-independent groups of well trained, equipped and supplied men who were constantly kept abreast of current info and war aims at a time when communication was very difficult? I think you're being a bit too harsh

The sea, control over most of Belgium/Northern France

>innacurate
>simple minded soldiers who were like expendable anyway
>Innacurate weapons, they built a human wall because it was essentially a wave of bullets that had to hit SOMETHING
I'm honesty surprised they didnt have archers behind the wall of guns. Imagine an assault from the front AND above. Yeah, the tech is primitive but I'm sure an accurate team of archers could best a group of soldiers

meanwhile, 19th century OP:
>haha everyone is so stupid why dont they just split up into small skirmisher units like we do
>wait wtf why are we not hitting anything
>omg why is everyone dying to cavalry wtf this is bullshit

Yes, but the context is different : automatic weapons make an incentive to "spray and pray", and there is the tactic of suppressive fire. None of these things existed at the time, right ?

>Imagine an assault from the front AND above.
Yeah... just imagine...

Archers are hard to train.

They aren't really. Modern bowhunters only need to practice two or three months. The fact is simply that muskets are a lot more effective than archers.