Lol ok guys lets just all stand in a line and shoot at all those other guys standing in a line lmao

they move much slower in forests, given the spread out dudes time to fire at the cucks. The forest also provides natural cover against cuck infantry standing in line and shooting.

>what is "Chevaunche" tactics?

The cavalry would have just not gone in the forest and raided all the farms while you plebs went hungry had to hunt squirrels in the forest

I mean what strategic value is there in occupying a bunch of trees?

>le cuck army autismo thread time
kys you'reself

back to /int/ with you.

Fucking nigger i hope your dog grts fucking raped u retardrd unfunny piece of shit. People like you should just fucking get shot or hanged or soemthing. Fucking waste of space

those are Husaren. Kürassiere have straight swords and in that era Kürass (plate bodyarmor) and helmet...

>being shoulder to shoulder improves morale
>improves ability for commanders to maneuver
>provides defence against cavalry
>coordinated mass fire makes losses seem more significant for the other side (6 guys drop suddenly as apposed to 1 guy every once in a while)
>there actually were guys that fought in loose formation

The balls of these warriors, to watch the enemy load their gun and shoot at you while you stand there.THE BALLZ!

>Sagan

come on did nothing groundbreaking he just hosted a show. might as well include Bill Nye or that black guy

How dense are you?

i had my history teacher in the senior year of high school talk about those wacky stupid people in the days of yore who wore funny hats and stood in lines to shoot each other because it was "gentlemanly"

most casualty from line battles wouldn't be from the standoff or engagements
but rather being hacked by the enemies cavalry once they broken through your line
or artillery, just plain ol artillery

>Yeah g-guys loose formation beats shoulder-to-shoulder every time

Okay, sure, I'll humor you for a bit

>Imperial Battalion of 500 stands ready to fire, pointing at a treeline, led by a respectable and morale-inducing field lieutenant
>Group of about 750 untrained vagabonds rallied from local towns burst out of trees, and led by a single rider, charge towards the enemy, firing muskets while moving
>First wave cut down by barrage of fire, rider first, and front row crouches to allow second row a chance to shoot
>Second wave torn apart while first row reloads
>Vagabonds don't even have a chance to properly aim
>wash, rinse, repeat
Current Numbers:
Vagabonds: 400-600 (Casualties: 150-350)
Imperial Battalion: 450-480 (Casualties: 20-50)
>Vagabonds, now without a leader and low on morale, scramble back to the treeline
>Battalion cuts down stragglers
>Total Vagabond Casualties: 400
>Total Battalion Casualties: 75
>Post battle, the Imperial Soldiers return to their barracks, celebrate another victorious battle, and mourn the few who fell (not that many shots were lethal)
>Meanwhile, the "Rebels" either appoint a new leader to lead and die in the next battle, recruit several hundred new soldiers and leave them barely knowing how to load a musket and pull the trigger, and get their "soldiers" drunk enough to fight again, or realize that their brittle charges are getting them nowhere fast and disband.

So tell me again how loose ranks are better?

>a tight formation would always win because they would all shoot and kill the other guys lol

>or artillery, just plain ol artillery
Artillery casualties wouldn't outpace small arms casualties until the Franco-Prussian war.

That's not true. Part of the reason casualties were so high at Aspern-Essling was because there was so much artillery crammed into what was a small battlefield.

Are you dense?

Muskets are barely accurate beyond 50 metres, the point of being in a tight formation is that the mass of having the entire formation (or line by line, platoon by platoon, etc) fire together can overcome that weakness.

Soldiers aren't stupid, and everyone had skirmishers. If skirmishers wrecked line infantry everytime, why didn't everyone just use skirmishers?

My 8th grade history teacher described it as "their muskets sucked so they's shoot and move forward and shoot and move until they both got close so they could stab each other"
Which to give him due credit wasn't the worst simplification. He did however still teach the "Americans won because they hid behind trees" meme.

American education is retarded.

The Americans won because the French Navy got involved and the British decided their Caribbean colonies were more important.

*loads kentucky long rifle in a bush*
nothing personnel kid...
*snipes your colonel*

He did at least explain Yorktown in great detail, which included the role of the French Navy pinning British artillery in place on the seaward side of their position.
In general our primary education just doesn't teach more than the bare minimum about military tactics and focuses on socioeconomic forces, which tbf is probably more important for a foundational curriculum.

yeah and a million other reasons on top of that, I can think of a shit ton of ways the British could have still won that war and I'm not even American

How could you just stand there in the front li, seeing your enemies reloading and about to shoot and not run away? Were soldiers suicidal back then?

>guys guys, why don't we just WALK instead of run?

they just had the confidence that those balls wouldnt strike them

running destroy a unit cohesion especially in line battles
having everyone march in an orderly manner means that the commander have an easy time maneuvering and changing formations in accordance to battlefield situation

getting to a place quickly isn't a big deal in this kind of warfare,since you would rely more on cavalry to do that job and any advantage in gaining advantangeous ground is offset by exerting your troops and losing cohesion, positioning and tempo

>someone got mad enough at a meme to make this

Why do people shit on Dr. Tyson so much? He runs the planetarium at the natural history museum in NYC, that's pretty cool.

Busmp

name of the building in the top right? Looks like mix of Oriental with South American pyramids.

Blumpf

>standing in formation has an influence on the accuracy of the weapons
Why can't you into logic ?

>why didn't everyone just use skirmishers?
They did.

>standing in close order makes the weapons more accurate
Why can't you into logic ?

>why didn't everyone just use skirmishers?
They did.

Also go load 20kg in a backpack and go for a short run outside.

>standing in close order makes the weapons more accurate
Why do brainlets always misinterpret it like this? There is a very clear difference, especially in effects on morale, between some muskets going off sporadically versus a massive, thunderous volley of lead coming towards you.

Interesting fact: this is why Scottish highland warriors were really good heavy infantry. They would fire once throw their muskets down and charge with one handed broadsword and bucklers and try to make it to the enemy musket line before they could reload. Important part of British military tactics until guns became better.

Imagine trying to reload a musket while pic related charged at you running down a hill screaming. It would be a little bit distracting.

kek since when is some ugly English coastline considered a natural wonder

theres also a sizably larger ammount of flying lead per square meter

but realy its about someone figuring out this meme touches peoples autism

>standing in close order makes the weapons more accurate
Because they make it more accurate if you want to hit a single point, retard.

These are weapons that aren't accurate past much beyond a hundred yards. And you want everyone firing at the same point in the enemy line, to try to make a hole that can be exploited. If everyone's standing two feet apart, they'll be closer together when you want to fire at point X, say in the center of the opposing line. If everyone's ten feet apart, everyone firing from the diagonals now has a longer and thus less accurate shot.

>I mean what strategic value is there in occupying a bunch of trees?

the strategic reason is that now someone has to go and get you out of there, or make sure you never leave, its a silly game mostly

But they don't need to make sure you never leave. Your loose ranked skirmisher army is pretty useless in open terrain where it can be run down by cavalry, so any opposing force can simply start attacking your towns or fields and either let you sit there while your nation burns, or come out to fight in terrain that gives them a heavy advantage.

Why didn't everyone go into a prone position to reduce target area?

This is an era before breech loading weapons. You reloaded by pouring powder and then a ball down the front of your musket. It's theoretically possible to do so while prone, but it's much more difficult than when standing up, and lowers your rate of fire enormously.

Plus, you still had significant amounts of hand to hand combat, and risk of hand to hand combat dominating tactical considerations. If a dozen cavalrymen swing by, you want to be standing up.

>laymans understanding of Napoleonic warfare
Just go.

.t idiot.

Pic related, despite its slapdash nature, illustrates the point. If you're all shooting at a particular point in the enemy formation, not everyone will be shooting straight ahead. For everyone turning and aiming at that pressure point, you will have a shorter distance between you and the target if you're in a short line than in a longer, spread out line.

>Don't stand in line
>"Look,their cavalery is charging"
>Why is everyone dead?

Why would they all be shooting at that single point in the entire enemy line though? Besides it being stupid as shit, how would you eve coordinate such a stunt?

No I am not getting dragged into this again. Just go.

also forget to mention that lines also allow a general to occupy more of the space in a battlefield, giving them a handy advantage in force deployment, group movement and terrain advantages

also they would've have other formation depending on their situation,having a line gives the men easier time to march into that

Tour a bit gay arent u

-grabs by the throat-
back the fuck off?!?

>Why would they all be shooting at that single point in the entire enemy line though?
Because it's a good idea? Heavy losses in one locale offer the chance of exploitation and breakthrough that the same amount of losses spread over the enemy more or less at random wouldn't.

> Besides it being stupid as shit, how would you eve coordinate such a stunt?
You have guys called "officers" who direct where the line is to fire.

>lol ok guys lets just all stand in a line in overt uniforms

Guerrilla warfare cannot be defeated.