How do you justify this

why did white people fight like retards during the 18th

>Lets stand in a line and just shoot each other, no tactics and no strategy

at least Shaka Zulu knew how to actually flank an army

scouting was overpowered relatively at this time

they asked devs to nerf several times

Do we really need to go troigh this again, how hard it is to use google ffs?!

explain it to me

justify why they did this?

Cause rifles were retardedly inaccurate at the time and firing them in mass made it so you could actually hit something. Gunpowder wasn't smokeless so the lines, flags, and bright uniforms were there to make sure you didn't lose your entire army after the first volley

Rifling wasn't widespread until the American independence war, and even then firearms lacked accuracy at long distances. The only way to have any real effect was massed fire at a relatively short distance, say 50 meters. Also, firearms were single-shot only, and trained troops would take up to 20 seconds to reload a gun, that meant that it was possible to get from the optimal firing distance to the enemy troops themselves with only a few rounds fired.
Additionally, armies were broken up into regiments, so you'd only have a few hundred to a thousand men with each formation, so armies would be split up into dozens of individual moving regiments, so there was some maneuvering of line infantry.
Also can you name me any successful incidences of countries defeating westerj powers in battle in the 18th century?
Btw the zulus won a battle because the british were outnumbered 10-1 and took orders from a complete retard.

why not try to still flank their enemies?

You’re either absurdly uneducated or baiting.

Flanking tact’s were used whenever possible, with cavalry, infantry, or a combination thereof. The problem is that against well ordered infantry you’d need either well timed assaults or a combined arms attack.

Against flanking cab infantry could square up and repel them, and against flanking infantry a defending commander could bend the line to hold them

who is considered the winner of the zulu-british wars?

One of the principal french tactics in the revolutionary era was to break the center of the enemy line with a deep formation, then ‘roll up’ the enemy line with flanking attacks spreading from the breakthrough

who the fuck say they didn't flank their enemies?
also formation can march and flanking battalion
perhaps go fucking read,you sound like a goddamn ignorant indian in quora for fucks sake

It's hard for infantry to flank other infantry in the midst of battle since they can be seen by the enemy. Flanking was only real pulled off by an army approaching an enemy unseen but once deployed and in battle flanking was difficult to pull off. Calvary was more suited to this due to the much greater speed on horseback, a group of men running at 2mph in front of the enemy lacks the element of suprise.

British. Zulu empire was undone, the Zulu nobility either died or had to swear loyalty to the British, and the British subdued the only major native threat to their most prosperous African colony

>rifles
Didnt exist in mass at the time.
Smooth bore muskets were good for 50 yards but any further was ridiculous.
They went into larger formations because this way they could shoot at each other from farther.

mostly inaccurate. Large formations were easier to command, much more resistant to cavalry, and had more staying power in melee combat.

Range had little to do with it.

the problem is large formations couldn't defend against flanking enemies

Yeah after I posted I realized rifle wasn't the correct word, but my point stands

Large formations could in fact defend themselves against flanking cavalry better, and could bend to repulse infantry.

The fuck are you on about?

Have you even heard of square formations, or the battle of the pyramids?

>large formation cant defend from flanking enemies
are you retarded,formation is the best way to counter flanking troops even in modern warfare

People unfamiliar with pre civil war combat don’t understand how narrow the use of dispersed infantry or skirmishers in general was

Top tier bait user

Alright OP go 1v1 in napoleon tw and show me how op your flanking strategy is. Here is what will happen and happen irl, if you send too many troops to flank, your center will break under the sheer mass of enemy fire and a charge, making your flank irrelevant. The point is to bring as many guns firing to bear on the enemy at once and to do this you make a line.

You can try using skirmishers, but those can get run down by cavalry quite easily and everyone already uses them on the flanks and ahead of the army anyway. Everything happens for a reason

I see you also enjoy destroying noobs that like to make a long, thin line of men that can't be flanked.

>a group of men running at 2mph in front of the enemy lacks the element of suprise.
Plus while they are marching they are totally exposed in profile to the enemy who can take pot shots at them for free. Really the only smart move once battle is engaged is to maximize the effectiveness of your volleys so you inflict as many casualties on the enemy as possible each passing minute. Every enemy you drop with each volley is one less gun firing at you, it's a strong incentive to fire fast and accurately for line infantry.

Command, control, and cavalry.

It's easiest to command large groups of soldiers effectively when they're in nice tight formations. So, while light infantry and other specialized troops could get away with more fluid formations and tactics, the line infantry would require a more inflexible formation if they were to be commanded effectively on a loud, smoky battlefield. And that's not just for maneuver, but things like coordinating fire among units as well.

Cavalry was the other huge factor. Cavalry is a huge threat to individual soldiers, and the solution to this threat for thousands of years has effectively boiled down to dense, disciplined formations. With line infantry, a dense formation allows you to stagger gunfire in such a way that it's not feasible for enemy cavalry to rush in while the whole formation is reloading, and the sheer number of men with fairly long muskets tipped with spears is generally enough to keep cavalry at bay.

Cavalry was a surprisingly important driving factor in infantry technology development. Even by WW1 we'd see rifles like the Lebel carrying over important design elements that were legacies of the line infantry days - particularly the very long overall length and unusually long bayonet - all intended to help keep cavalry at bay.

Give your men an incredibly inaccurate gun, and ask them to pick single targets, they'll miss most shots down to about 10 metres, or they misfire.

give a line of men an inaccurate gun to fire at a general area of people doing the same and chances are you will hit someone.

why the fuck are their bayonets fixed

Because command and control was more important then spreading out. if you spread out a 1000 dudes over a range of a km they will be harder to hit sure, but if you order an advance it will take a long time before they start advancing and they wont be advancing as one unit but as a 1000 individuals, making them pretty fucking easy to kill by cavalry

Now what tactics were generally used to great effect by the British to force the Zulus into total submission?

why flank when u can just encircle them....

do you know anything of tactics???

starvation and murder, the usual

Gatling Guns and Brown Bess

So retarded that they likely conquered whichever savage filled shithole you hail from.