you're an idiot. the next step is trench warfare which are just even stronger lines. battles are fought as a group, you're not an individual playing cowadoodty and if you try you just get killed
how are you going to communicate and organize your force when every fricked is just running around for cover and doing their own thing? you effectively end up trapping yourself and the enemies superior firepower will crush you
>men break ranks to take cover >Immediately get run down by cavalry >men stay in line >they form square and repel the cavalry
Besides there were units who fought in a disorganized fashion and took cover. They were called skirmishers and they were unable to break enemy units with the strong cohesion and firepower of a line
Cavalry can't take fortified positions with trenches fences and cannons.
They didnt have rifles until the american revolution, so effective range and reloading ment it made sense to use organized mobs to maximise your firepower.
They didnt have rifles until the american revolution, so effective range and reloading ment it made sense to use organized mobs to maximise your firepower.
To be fair, most casualties in those kinds of wars weren't even from fighting, they were from trying to get to the battlefield. Who cares if you're more likely to get shot in a line if statistically speaking small arms isn't even in the top five of death causes in a war?
Actual Warfare is the purest form of competition, being governed by very few rules. Line warfare would not have lasted in actual wars if it was ineffective.
People who criticise it usually do not fully understand:
1. The inaccuracy and extremely low fire rate of smoothbore muzzleloading weapons (2-3 shots per minute for extremely well drilled soldiers)
2. How 5ft long muzzleloaders are a struggle to reload when crouched or prone.
3. The importance of the bayonet charge and how dense formations benefit soldiers in melee.
4. The danger of cavalry charges and the formations needed to counter these.
5. The innacuracy of artillery and the lack of long range killing power. Reliable explosive shells had not been invented.
All of the above points were true thoughout the 18th century and become no longer true throughout the 19th, coinciding with line warfare dying out.
>wrong
You sure, because armies that often went to war usually succeeded, while those which played at war did not
For a good example see the Eight Banner Armies performance in the Taiping Heavenly Rebellion compared to that of the Green Standard Army
i do 1812 (American Great Lakes - militia and artillery) reenactment, so i don't have the full scope of euro line battles. we can get a battalion or two maneuvering up against each other, with a few rare cavalrymen (mostly at Mississinewa)
it's a good spectacle, with loud booms, but sometimes lacks the action of melee. still, powder is fun and its pretty neat when smoke fills the field and all you can hear is the crack of ignition. from the ground perspective, it's pretty fricking intense, your mind can get pretty locked into your drill and muscle memory that you can barely realize what's going on around you, which is why the officers/NCOs are so important to keep everyone moving according to the program. i've been flanked by horse and company without even realizing it, just because of how i've only been looking at my musket/looking forward: tunnel vision is pretty bad when you're tightly packed and not doing light infantry/skirmisher drill.
most of these; plus, the morale effect of a mass volley is much more horrifying than individual shots. coordinating units is a fricking challenge, especially with fog of war and the literal clouds of gunpowder. people always ask "why didn't they wear camouflage?" but there was a battle where american militia were killed by friendly fire after retreating through the smoke because nobody in the american lines knew who was falling back--if they had been bright red or freedom blue, they would've been able to identify them quicker than the infantrymen's nerves
I feel you. I want it so bad I've started worldbuilding a fantasy setting with line war as it's central focus. I wish I could draw so I could draw their uniforms. I'm even making conlangs for the various nations and factions.
If you like eu4 check the anbennar mod. Its fantasy pike and shot that evolves into line war.
The way movies depict them is fricking moronic. They act as though people just waited around to get shot.
Line formations were incredibly mobile and a hell of a lot more decentralized than what's depicted. They were organized into firing lines, yes, but in practice they broke off into smaller supporting contingents in engagements.
>yes, but in practice they broke off into smaller supporting contingents in engagements.
Regular infantry units typically didn't unless the terrain absolutely called for it (forests, buildings) because it destroyed any kind of command and control. The actors in the pic you posted are representing skirmishers who had a very different role to play and thus were able to act in those kinds of formations.
I feel like most people see the american civil war as an example of line battles when really the european observers were appalled by these batshit americans dying so senselessly.
They just didn't realize how bad wars were gonna get. The tech was way better at killing but not so much better that you could use small unit tactics. A truly terrible time to fight a war.
Takes a lot of balls to just stand there and take being shot at.
I understand the cruel logic behind it, and why it was the best option they had, but it must've been hellish on the mind (to say nothing of the body!) to be a part of the line. I do not envy them.
big dick energy
and the best you can do considering the technological and sociaal development back then
long story short they prevent defeat in detail and maximize firepower. stop thinking you're a better general than actual successful generals please
Nah they are pretty moronic and grew out of class divide. If you care for your soldiers let them take cover.
you're an idiot. the next step is trench warfare which are just even stronger lines. battles are fought as a group, you're not an individual playing cowadoodty and if you try you just get killed
how are you going to communicate and organize your force when every fricked is just running around for cover and doing their own thing? you effectively end up trapping yourself and the enemies superior firepower will crush you
>you're an idiot. the next step is literally shifting your lines into cover from trenches lile you say
Great argument frickbrain
>men break ranks to take cover
>Immediately get run down by cavalry
>men stay in line
>they form square and repel the cavalry
Besides there were units who fought in a disorganized fashion and took cover. They were called skirmishers and they were unable to break enemy units with the strong cohesion and firepower of a line
Cavalry can't take fortified positions with trenches fences and cannons.
This says nothing against using cover.
They didnt have rifles until the american revolution, so effective range and reloading ment it made sense to use organized mobs to maximise your firepower.
NOOO NO NO NO IM SMARTER THAN EVERY MILITARY MIND FROM 1444 TO THE 1890'S. I'M THE ULTIMATE MILITARY GENIUS
explain
I'm just mocking people who know nothing of line warfare yet think they could do it better
6'2 men in kilts charging with swords btfos the linelet spiritually and physically
>Charging into pointy sticks with knifes
To be fair, most casualties in those kinds of wars weren't even from fighting, they were from trying to get to the battlefield. Who cares if you're more likely to get shot in a line if statistically speaking small arms isn't even in the top five of death causes in a war?
try stop the line without another line
pro tip, you can't.
I'm reading war and peace rn and austerlitz made me really sad
Actual Warfare is the purest form of competition, being governed by very few rules. Line warfare would not have lasted in actual wars if it was ineffective.
People who criticise it usually do not fully understand:
1. The inaccuracy and extremely low fire rate of smoothbore muzzleloading weapons (2-3 shots per minute for extremely well drilled soldiers)
2. How 5ft long muzzleloaders are a struggle to reload when crouched or prone.
3. The importance of the bayonet charge and how dense formations benefit soldiers in melee.
4. The danger of cavalry charges and the formations needed to counter these.
5. The innacuracy of artillery and the lack of long range killing power. Reliable explosive shells had not been invented.
All of the above points were true thoughout the 18th century and become no longer true throughout the 19th, coinciding with line warfare dying out.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
It's shit, guns ruined war.
>Actual Warfare is the purest form of competition
wrong.
>wrong
You sure, because armies that often went to war usually succeeded, while those which played at war did not
For a good example see the Eight Banner Armies performance in the Taiping Heavenly Rebellion compared to that of the Green Standard Army
>You sure
No, I just hate gun warfare.
What makes a good soldier in your opinion, Sharpe?
The ability to fire three shot a minute. In any weather.
Your not even a Gentleman. Your opinion is voided.
does the virginian get more exposure in the books? loved that guy
Yes. Everyone does. The books are so much better than the show its crazy. And the show was already based as hell
Shut up simmerson you should have killed yourself tbqhwy
I HAVE FRIENDS IN HORSE GUARDS
A man who loses the king's colours loses the king's friendship.
And you can't even speak your own language.
Go void your bowels, that's all you're good for.
MAJOR LENNOX ANSWERED WITH HIS LIFE
i do 1812 (American Great Lakes - militia and artillery) reenactment, so i don't have the full scope of euro line battles. we can get a battalion or two maneuvering up against each other, with a few rare cavalrymen (mostly at Mississinewa)
it's a good spectacle, with loud booms, but sometimes lacks the action of melee. still, powder is fun and its pretty neat when smoke fills the field and all you can hear is the crack of ignition. from the ground perspective, it's pretty fricking intense, your mind can get pretty locked into your drill and muscle memory that you can barely realize what's going on around you, which is why the officers/NCOs are so important to keep everyone moving according to the program. i've been flanked by horse and company without even realizing it, just because of how i've only been looking at my musket/looking forward: tunnel vision is pretty bad when you're tightly packed and not doing light infantry/skirmisher drill.
most of these; plus, the morale effect of a mass volley is much more horrifying than individual shots. coordinating units is a fricking challenge, especially with fog of war and the literal clouds of gunpowder. people always ask "why didn't they wear camouflage?" but there was a battle where american militia were killed by friendly fire after retreating through the smoke because nobody in the american lines knew who was falling back--if they had been bright red or freedom blue, they would've been able to identify them quicker than the infantrymen's nerves
I want more fantasy series with this rough tech level, second most aesthetic era after the immediately preceding one of pike and shot.
I feel you. I want it so bad I've started worldbuilding a fantasy setting with line war as it's central focus. I wish I could draw so I could draw their uniforms. I'm even making conlangs for the various nations and factions.
If you like eu4 check the anbennar mod. Its fantasy pike and shot that evolves into line war.
based
please add hobbits as your anglo standins, luv me some 'obbits
RN I just have human two human factions and a barely fleshed out map. I want to add all your standard races and maybe some I come up with on my own.
ultimate midwit filter
God the British riflemen uniform was so fricking clean
The way movies depict them is fricking moronic. They act as though people just waited around to get shot.
Line formations were incredibly mobile and a hell of a lot more decentralized than what's depicted. They were organized into firing lines, yes, but in practice they broke off into smaller supporting contingents in engagements.
>yes, but in practice they broke off into smaller supporting contingents in engagements.
Regular infantry units typically didn't unless the terrain absolutely called for it (forests, buildings) because it destroyed any kind of command and control. The actors in the pic you posted are representing skirmishers who had a very different role to play and thus were able to act in those kinds of formations.
I feel like most people see the american civil war as an example of line battles when really the european observers were appalled by these batshit americans dying so senselessly.
They just didn't realize how bad wars were gonna get. The tech was way better at killing but not so much better that you could use small unit tactics. A truly terrible time to fight a war.
did you forget which war this was
you're about a century off
>line warfare
lol
lmao
>ships of the line
>not line warfare
whats so funny
Ships also fought in lines
How tf did the french lose this?
Nelson crossed their T's.
Guerrilla warfare is better
>Guerrilla warfare is better
no honor or courage just getting lucky in battle
Takes a lot of balls to just stand there and take being shot at.
I understand the cruel logic behind it, and why it was the best option they had, but it must've been hellish on the mind (to say nothing of the body!) to be a part of the line. I do not envy them.