>you will never experience musket warfare


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

>you will never experience musket warfare

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >good
      give me a reason why

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Even at the time they knew standing in a line and getting shot at was fucking stupid. It may have been the best way to go about fighting with muskets but its still horrific.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Compared to what? Something tells me weathering a storm of arrows wasn't much fun either.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            People had armor and shields when going up against arrows. Line warfare had you marching right up to a literal firing squad and just standing there.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              Which just meant that combat didn't last as long; a regiment could only fire for thirty minutes. Every era has its ups and downs.
              >and just standing there
              Stop using this dumb argument, it was the same for ranged units in previous wars.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                ranged "units", in as much as they existed, weren't the front line main combat troops. armored infantry and cavalry were. other than preliminary skirmishing most field battles were decided in close combat.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >People had armor and shields when going up against arrows. Line warfare had you marching right up to a literal firing squad and just standing there.
              you would engage at tens of meters, maybe a 100m. Soldiers did not aim, simply pointed the gun towards the general direction. It was very innacurate and 10% of soldiers in a line didn't shoot
              The casualty rate for an entire battle ranged from 0% to 30% (for one side) and it only increased with time as more and more cannons were made, not because of muskets

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The casualty rate for an entire battle ranged from 0% to 30% (for one side)
                And how much of that is because not every unit actually got committed to a front line engagement? Of course you wouldn't get shot if your battalion spent the entire battle just chilling in the reserve. But do you really believe that only "0-30%" of units actually sent into to fire at each other point blank would perish? What about ones marching straight into defended positions and getting raked in echelon by grapeshot?

                Only about 10% of all infantry who served in ww1 trenches became KIA. Does this mean going over the top was not suicidal? It was, most people just didn't get the chance to do it.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                This, also people almost always make those assessments using the overall number of men in a unit rather than breaking down combat versus noncombat roles, meaning the casualties of frontline soldiers are watered down by being lumped in with the clerks, armorers, cooks, stretcher bearers, farriers, adjutants and so on. It's particularly deceiving when you get into the 20th century with the expansion of logistics requirements and specialization.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Soldiers did not aim
                wrong, drill manuals from the 18th and 19th century call for aiming the musket and muskets did have a front sight. It wouldnt have been as accurate as a front and rear sight post but it was there and it was used. Thats not even mentioning the role of skirmishers and riflemen.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                You don't even need a sight to quite reliably hit a man sized target at 30 or so yards. The barrel should be enough.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >muskets did have a front sight.
                hunting versions had them. neither the charleville nor the brown bess had front sights
                >riflemen
                appeared much later
                >skirmishers
                depends on who is in command
                Some general wanted skirmisher that fired faster than the ennemy, others wanted precise skirmishers.

                >The casualty rate for an entire battle ranged from 0% to 30% (for one side)
                And how much of that is because not every unit actually got committed to a front line engagement? Of course you wouldn't get shot if your battalion spent the entire battle just chilling in the reserve. But do you really believe that only "0-30%" of units actually sent into to fire at each other point blank would perish? What about ones marching straight into defended positions and getting raked in echelon by grapeshot?

                Only about 10% of all infantry who served in ww1 trenches became KIA. Does this mean going over the top was not suicidal? It was, most people just didn't get the chance to do it.

                for units engaged in combat, it's around 20-30%

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >for units engaged in combat, it's around 20-30%
                What definition of "engaged in combat" are we using here? What is the source of this statistic? Please cite.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                yes, but i can block almost every single arrows aimed at my vital spots with my shield. meaning my probabilities of death from arrow wounds is near zero. still better.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's good to know that most of infantry casualties in musket warfare was caused by artillery and bayonet close combat.

          Imagine using black powder under rain.

          They didn't. They just shot a few volleys under the rain for shock effect then turned to bayonet.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine using black powder under rain.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >godawful conditions for soldiers
        >terrible medical care
        >high casualties from diseases like dysentery, TB, cholera
        >no support if permanently disabled by wounds, you'll be a beggar
        >hard tack
        >standing still in a firing squad firing close up at another firing squad
        >1 or 2 shots per minute max
        It's at the perfect intersection to have all the shitty aspects of medieval combat and all the shitty aspects of more modern combat with none of the benefits of either.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Musket balls basically destroyed limbs entirely. You'd be better off dead than wounded, and that's a disgusting prospect of Minie ball weapons.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cavalrychads are the only guys who looked like they were having a good time in this period

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >cavalry
      >all balls no brains galloping to their death
      >not mentioning ARTILLERYCHADS
      ngmi bro

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >all balls no brains galloping to their death
        Yes.
        >"A hussard that hasn't died at 30 is a lazy ass" - Colonel Lasalle

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >>"A hussard that hasn't died at 30 is a lazy ass" - Colonel Lasalle
          Actually it's
          >"A hussard that isn't dead by 30 is a coward and I don't expect to live much longer"
          >General de Division Antoine Lasalle
          aged 34 killed at battle of Wagram

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Artillery Niggas when you tell'em towatch out for that cavalry charge from their right

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >stand there and wait for your turn to get shot in the gut with a musketball or you'll be flogged for cowardice

    No thanks

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Musket warfare was what forced armies to invent the brainwashing techniques they use to this day. Turn people into soulless automatons blindly executing orders that will obviously lead to them getting turned into mush by grapeshot.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fanfiction. It wasn't better or worse than what came before or after.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >after
          sure, being sent over the top in ww1 or patrolling the jungles of vietnam is probably no more fun than standing in the middle of the field and getting shot at repeatedly
          >before
          no lol. before guns you could get by through 1337 skillz and having a good set of armor - and more importantly, being on the winning side, as casualty rates were pretty low and mostly incurred during routs. in the mid 1700s whether you lived through a battle was mostly down to luck of the draw.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was better than modern warfare and anyone who has seen these drone footages on /misc/ agrees

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine phantasizing over a time period de-humanized warfare tactics because "your" country was doing "good" at the time

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      this, grug smash grug with rock is peak soul

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Im gonna be honest with you chief, this was the gayest era of warfare

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *