this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
531 points (97.3% liked)

Greentext

4375 readers
1397 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Muskets were not all that accurate. The plan, I suppose, was to get close and then rush in and fight man-to-man.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

The last of the human soldiers who chose to engage in proper melee combat. Smh.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Lindybeige suggested that the opposite might be true, at least for the individuals

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

"back then"? Isn't this the exact strategy Russia currently uses in Ukraine?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Russia follows the "ant" strategy: throw bodies at a problem until there's no problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 113 points 8 months ago (4 children)

The Youtuber Brandon F has a 4 part series talking about why they fought like this. Spoiler- it wasn't because they were stupid.

Part 1

TLDR- if you split up you just get run down by enemy cavalry.

Part 2

TLDR- a close formation lets you concentrate your firepower at one point.

Part 3

TLDR- a close formation makes communication and controlling the army much much easier (or even possible at all).

Part 4

TLDR- the formation makes the troops less likely to run away.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

... But they were also a little stupid

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

TLDR- a close formation lets you concentrate your firepower at one point.

Can't they just all aim at the same spot no matter where they're standing?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They only had a range of like 50 yards. Split your troops up and they can't aim at the same point because they wouldn't all have the range to hit it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Fun (and short) read, the Manual of 1791, the gold standard of how to Infantry in the French army (translated): https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/62609125/french-drill-manual-1791

It's literally ALL marching and formation drills. How to not-shoot the guy in front of you, how to place your feet when firing, how to go from colums to line. Marksmanship isn't in there, bayonet practice isn't in there. None of the actual-killing-the-enemy was considered required knowledge, because the formation stuff was considered FAR more important.

And as a reenactor who has been clubbing in the back of the head with a musket more than I count (on account of being clubbing in the head a lot), this stuff really isn't as easy as it looks. The French might have had a YEAR to learn this at first, the latter recruits had a week.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ex-Military here.

Seems not much has changed. Unless you're a Tier 1 or Special Forces, you don't spend all that much time on marksmanship either.

Maybe 5-10% of actual training time goes to marksmanship. The rest of it is infantry skills. Squad level movement, field craft, field defenses, cover and concealment,urban ops, the list goes on. These are the things that win wars, not a 3rd Prestige COD pro.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

These are the things that win wars, not a 3rd Prestige COD pro.

That's exactly my point. They learned what they had to know to win, just like today. And that generally isn't hitting a stationary target from a shooting table. And since nobody is training for that, it's hardly surprising they're not all that great at hitting stationary targets from a shooting table.

Nowadays, small-unit tactics and field ops win wars, back then, formation movement won wars. So that's what they trained, and as a result, they're not an army of sharpshooters. But they did win wars.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Isn't it because of the weapons? Without rifled barrels the bullet could come out flying all kinds of directions. If you were all hiding behind trees and other forms of cover, taking proper aim, the fighting would never end. Now if each side is just a wall of bullets going aginst a wall of people, you'd actually have a chance to hit something.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Coordination requires communication. Instant communication was only possible within drum, trumpet, or semaphore range: a couple miles at best. Long distance communication was only possible by messenger.

Small units cannot be effectively coordinated against a massed enemy when your best communication method is some dude with a horn. Until the telegraph and telephone allow for trench warfare, Napoleonic big-unit tactics are the best we can expect.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nope, smoothbore muskets were/are much more accurate than most people think, here's a video of someone shooting at targets with one, and they were able to hit a man-sized target out to 150m. By modern standards it isn't great but definitely not "flying all kinds of directions".

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

When it comes to comparing muskets to modern weapons, people get weird. They compare field-performace of muskets to the seller's catalog for modern weapons.

Soldiers back then got about 0 hours of marksmanship training, unless they were in whatever the country's version of Light Infantry was, so the average soldier was a horrible shot. So when people talk about the accuracy of muskets, they're mostly saying "Lots of soldiers would miss with this weapons".

Modern weapons are, if you fire from a table on a clear day, at least an order of magnitude better, and soldiers are signficantly better trained at shooting. And yet, the vast majority of shots aren't even remotely close to hitting. Nobody says things like "The accuracy of an M16 is 0.002%" due to the vietnam war taking 50.000 rounds for a kill, but this is basically the same thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

Pretty much, yeah. There was honour and stuff with war, so many wars were lost becausecthe attacked group decided, "...Why the fuck are we playing fair when you want to demolish us?"

[–] [email protected] 56 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Napoleonic tactics worked fairly well in the 19th century. Mixed results in mid to late-19th.

It’s when they tried to apply them to WW1 that the body counts got ridiculous.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

Mechanised warfare was a game changer

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Eh. I'm still convinced it could have been better, and resulted in less death.

After watching scenes from The Patriot, I was thinking ”why not kneel, or go prone!?”

But no, let's just stand up right and risk getting hit in the head by a cannonball.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

They did do this sometimes. The Patriot isn't so great for this

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

You couldn't easily reload one of those bad boys while prone.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

The moment breach loaders became available Prussia used them to absolutely destroy Austria-Hungary and their muzzle loaders in battle.
This shows that the soldiers back then where limited by technology not their intellect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Nobody used those tactics after the machine gun was invented.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

See also the French entering WW1 in bright red pants, versus Germans in such boring uniforms that onlookers said they blended into the landscape.

Which is what historians call "a hint."

[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 months ago (7 children)

It’s my understanding that they really didn’t. The American Revolution was won in part because the Americans more often “adopted Native tactics” (I.e. attacking from tree lines, on paths on unsuspecting units moving from place to place, aiming for officers, etc).

The big Napoleonic blocks were done, but often just out of honor and so officers had some sense of “control” over the battle so they could both easily pull out before it descended into a large brawl where they might actually be killed

[–] [email protected] 32 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The American Revolution was won in part because the Americans more often “adopted Native tactics”

The American Revolution was won because Britain was fighting a real war against France, Spain and the Netherlands. And those countries basically used the US as a cheap way to distract the British.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

See: “in part” in my comment.

Wars can be won or lost for multiple reasons

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Coordination is essential to any military action. The better you can coordinate your actions, the greater the objectives you can achieve.

When your ability to coordinate is limited to the distance that people can hear a drum or a trumpet, you're not capable of coordinating across any area larger than a few city blocks. You're a sitting duck against any massed troops, unless you also mass enough troops to stop them from marching right through you.

Small unit tactics are largely ineffective against massed troops until the invention of the telegraph, 30-40 years after the revolution.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

From what I recall from my history classes, one of the most critical battles of the American Revolution was won because a bunch of red coats were slacking off and taken by surprise. So while the use of guerilla tactics was an important factor in victory, sheer dumb luck also played a major role.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not really. The American Revolution was still fought with the same Napoleonic tactics used by the regular army. The irregulars might have adopted more guerrilla methods in the frontier, but they weren’t widely adopted.

Reinforcements from the French army and navy won the war. The French Revolution followed shortly after.

And IIRC those Napoleonic tactics were still used in the American civil war and beyond. The “big Napoleonic blocks” led to trench warfare in WW1.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I agree, also important to note that the "big square" actually served a purpose in preventing cavalry from picking off separated infantry and detering cavalry charges. From my understanding the formation was genuinely effective until horses stopped being a factor in war.

I mean maybe "honour" played a role in why they did things but i think we're sometimes too quick to assume people in the past were idiots.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

I mean, ancient people could make proper megalithic buildings and we can barely make prefabricated houses that resist a few tremors...so yeah, they were intelligent as well, except they had different tools

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Just shoot at the bullets that fly towards you. Too easy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's what made Wanted an awesome and super dumb movie.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

When a movie knows how stupid it is, it can get away with anything.

Wanted knew its own stupidity to five decimal places.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago

yeah. sounds like a skill issue

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›