Suicidal fighting

Why did people use to fight like this?

We're the British fucking retarded?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1zSowOS4Wyg
youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

the guns were so inaccurate they needed to have big blocks of soldiers fire in the general direction of the enemy.

most of the battles were won not by killing but out maneuvering the other side like chess.

Given the inaccuracy of weapons at the time, it was pretty efficient for large-scale battles. There was also a belief in gentlemanly battle, which lasted right up until WW1 slapped sense into the old world.

Of course, we as Americans also rendered those tactics obsolete by pioneering small-scale guerilla tactics during the revolution.

>Of course, we as Americans also rendered those tactics obsolete by pioneering small-scale guerilla tactics during the revolution.

Oh you mean fighting dirty, using snipers and shit.

Maybe you would have become independent sooner if you'd done the same : ^ )))

Snipers, ambushes, hiding in trees, pretty much avoiding any open field direct engagement. Too bad the french didn't learn from the US when it came to the first few weeks of ww1.

i thought the french started with guerilla warfare against the brits, and only cause they got the idea from natives

Actually, I think you're right about that.

>be britbong
>trying to subdue traitors in the colonies
>teeth fall out
>load musket with teeth
>god save the qwen

Ancient intimidation tactic. It's how napoleon conquered most of Europe.

>Column marches under smoke and gunfire
>First line falls under fire
>Inaccurate and long reload
>Column keeps moving
>Second line falls
>Inaccurate and long reload
>Column keeps moving
>Enemy line panics because they cannot stop the massed wave of men
>Overrun by numbers that fire it's volleys near point blank then charges with bayonets to stab anyone that's still standing

youtube.com/watch?v=1zSowOS4Wyg

>Using American propaganda movie as historical source
I've read accounts of British soldiers firing in volleys, firing at will and fighting as skirmishers. The volley system was necessary because inexperienced soldiers would often all fire too early leaving the company exposed to charges while they reloaded.

Interestingly, the bright uniforms had a very important purpose. Aside from giving your side a reputation for style that was (and is) a powerful recruitment tool and morale booster, and aside from intimidating the enemy with the impressiveness of your dress, it turned out that the inaccuracy of the smooth bore musket didn't really make it any more dangerous to be able to single you out for a shot. Meanwhile communications were so rudimentary and sometimes officers so inept that it was not uncommon for blocks of troops on the same side to mistake one another for the enemy and score an own goal so to speak.

So yeah, they made their uniforms bright and showy because they were more dangerous to their own side than the enemy was.

>Why did people use to fight like this?
>We're the British fucking retarded?


Concentration of firepower and having solid formations. If you spread out, then the enemy could just rush you in dense group with the bayonet and force you to flee. Or they could send a cavalry charge and you'd get raped.

Don't just focus on the guns. Most casualties were caused by bullets, because they'd stand and shoot at each other most of the time, but swords and bayonets still played a big role on the battlefield. Cold steel was still effective. A bayonet charge usually made one side flee, rather than coming to close combat.

Europeans took over most of the world. Their combat systems were the best, whether you understand them or not.

We just didn't give a fuck and we weren't scared of anyone or anything.

And we still aren't. Have you seen out new carrier?

I you lot had started playing cricket and rugby you might have had a better relationship with the Poms, they're very sporting. That's why they only sent one regiment to your little revolution.

Fuck I am glad you cunts left the crown. Then when you tried to take Canada while the British were busy fighting the French they fucking pushed your shit in.

>Too bad the french didn't learn from the US when it came to the first few weeks of ww1.

When the US join WWI in 1917, they acted just like the Entente did in 1914. They suffered a ton of casualties in mass attacks without enough preparation.

The guerrilla tactics were mostly used in the South, like in Georgia. In the north, the Americans used line tactics supported by small numbers of sharpshooters. Neither of those tactics would be worth anything while trying to break through the Hindenburg Line. Nor would they have been useful in trying to capture Alsace and Lorraine in 1914.

While we are on the topic, I'd like to know something else.

What are you Brits taught about, John Graves Simcoe? I'm watching the Netflix show, Turn. And they depict him as a badass, but slightly a psychopath. I'm just wondering what his reputation is in the UK.

Pic related is Simcoe depicted in the show.

Also, what about Benedict Arnold? Here, we are taught that he is the biggest traitor in human history, right behind Judus.

Also most raw recruits can't shoot to kill.
youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs

>Says the country who brought guns to an emu fight and lost

Talking about playing dirty

in 1917 ww1, everyone was fucking retarded. There was no avoiding it. In the first few weeks of ww1, the french could have not marched across open fields acting like MGs don't exist.

You lost a war to emus lol stfu

literally cannon fodder

Napoleon was the first modern general. He didn't give a fuck about the oppposing side. He attacked them all the time no matter what.

Spoken like a true slave
1776 motherfucker

Yeah and you know what happened when the British invaded Washington and burned down the white house? A massive hurricane blew in and forced the British to retreat.

God is on our side, nigger!

And he got fucked up in Waterloo by some real men.

They aren't taught about the American revolution at all, the real secret with the American revolution is that it was actually supported by half of parliament, the Whigs wanted the revolution to succeed and they're the reason it even happened, that's why losing it never became a sore point for British pride. The French revolution was another event they supported and at the time they were trying to get the same thing to happen in Britain, it was only when they saw all the liberal aristocrats got beheaded along with conservative ones that they changed their tune and opted for constitutional monarchism instead

>the french could have not marched across open fields acting like MGs don't exist.

During the Franco-Prussian war, their army didn't have a real doctrine for battle because of the new weapons involved and the lack of experience using them. So the tactic they fell back on was digging a shallow trench line and then waiting for the Prussians to attack, relying on the great firepower of the chassepot rifle. After the war, they concluded that the lack of aggression was a big factor in losing the war. So they reoriented the army tactically towards to offensive, all out. That meant a huge emphasis on the bayonet and élan. Hence them having the longest bayonet reach for any rifle and the colourful uniforms for bolstering morale. They went to war with the army they had.

Anyway, the Americans didn't learn much from the British and French experiences from1914-17. They had to learn the hard way.

Fuck I hate young, dumb, full of cum, countries.

>And he got fucked up in Waterloo by some real men.

By 50,000 reinforcements showing up at the end of the day. Napoleon had Wellington on the ropes.

aussies will never live that one down

Logistics is the real man's game.

And clever trickery with his men, also taking out most of a horseback regiment with men.

>sitting on your ass on top of a hill while getting outsmarted, nearly losing, only to be saved by prussians
yeah sure thing nigel. horatio nelson is the only brit i'll ever respect

Gandhi was the only one who managed to put the hurt on them British. They're still butthurt over it.

Yeah. Native tactics.

...

Fucking poo in the loo, you fucking pajeet, and take you're ghanidi loving ways back to seattle.

>wrong

All european powers used skirmishers and light infantry.

Even dragoon cavalry from the 1500s effectively used guerilla tactics and ambushing

At the time, it was fight like that and maybe die, or don't fight like that and almost certainly die by the hands of people who do fight like that.

Nobody gives a shit about Gandhi here. People either think he was a great peaceful man or he was a filthy pervert. Either way people just know he starved himself, most have no idea why.

in the olden times guns were used against swords and cavalry and pikes. also reload time was very long. if you had to defend a position you stood no chance of defending it by gunfire alone. thats why people stayed in formation - so they can fight in melee efficiently. as reload times became shorter, people started abandoning those tactics

Hey calm down we dont want that language here

Why are you on here asking this? Go to /his/ faggot

half sounds like a bit much. I know the British tobacco traders lobbied on Americas behalf. Fr the most part, I heard the brits were somewhat indifferent, as most americans were.

There was also a danish (I think) leader who waged successful guerilla warfare prior to the American Revolution

The Scots would do the same as this, but after a volley they would charge in with their claymores/battleaxes/ Broadsword and targe.

Interestingly enough it seems to have been rather effective, till a Englishman figured out how to defeat it after having lost like three battles against the tactic.

Some blame the Confederacy's lost in the American Civil War on the fact that many in the South were of Celtic descendant, and so there were more "aggressive" tactics deplored, such as Pickett's charge. As well as the fact that Pikes were bought by the Confederacy, something like 20k to be used, but the idea never took off...

In short while the pike and musket(and latter just musket) was suicidal, it was far more effective then any other fighting styles, thus why Europe conquered the world.

So no, no the British were not fucking stupid.

poor ass mountain men in American wilderness had rifled barrels for accuracy, why didn't the Brits?

> he was a filthy pervert

Fact: Gandhi used to dip his bald head in oil and rub it all over women's bodies.

He was a naughty little man was that Gandhi.

I'm not sure. Maybe it was the cost of making the guns. You probably have certain units with the better guns that have the +2 to hit

Gandhi was another one, why don't you think the British ever decided let's just start shooting the cunts instead of giving away a key piece of the empire? Because he had sympathisers in parliament. The Whigs barring a few like the Pitt the Elder and Younger were never pro-Empire or pro-Britain.

They succesfully had the Stamp Act repealed which is what led to American rebelliousness and they were ideological brothers of the American founders. The only reason they weren't openly seditious is because most were alive to see what happened to the Jacobite rebels

Not true. 1917 changed warfare forever. The origins of shock troops goes back to around 1915-1916 with the Russians, and then Germans shortly afterwards. You could call them proto-shocktroopers.

After the Battle of the Somme and Verdun, the introduction of machine/mass warfare, Canadian commander Arthur Currie was tasked with discovering what went wrong. One of the main problems was the severe disconnect between how the officers and their men saw the battlefront. So, among other things, the most significant shift came with democratisation of the military structure (this is essentially the introduction of modern warfare).

Men were now to be trusted and given some of the classified information to work out and even practise plans before a battle, and were encouraged to share insights with officers. This was likely due to Currie's own tendency to question the command, often at great risk. This new structure was combined with his strategy of the creeping barrage, non-linear battle structure, and the Canadian proto-shocktrooper tactics. The stalemate was broken once they did this and Currie became the unofficial leader of the Western Front for his efforts.

There is perhaps an argument to be made that it was the Germans who were the first to perfect this new warfare, or did it at the same time as the Canadians. but there isn't as much information available on the German command.

You can read Storm of Steel and see Ernst Junger coming to the same conclusions

>Have you seen out new carrier?
grats on your first carrier. have they finished any planes to go with it?

that fuckin baby bong australia cuck azoid just got
BTTTTFFFFFOOO

Something to bear in mind with this style of warfare is that the purpose of having these militias was to try and create a situation where the battle could be won decisively. Ignoring advances in technology and situations where battles would become long stalemates was in their interest until they were really forced to it. It wasn't until the late 19th century that their hands were forced, technology had caught up with them, and the nature of warfare frankly became a lot more complicated. They went from marching around in colourful units to using camoflage, more accurate guns, and extensive use of cover.

WWI's long stalemate is exactly the kind of battling they were trying to avoid. If you think about it this 'suicidal' tactic probably actually saved lives.

They did, the British used sharpshooters as well. Just not on a huge scale, not hiding and ambushing on a huge scale. One sniper had Washington himself in his sights but warned him to piss off, which he did.

They did break through at Argonne, although this is partly because of the sheer numbers of men and the success of the combined British and French forces in that offensive. But you are correct about the Americans using the old line structure. Quite unfortunate.

The US was on the ass end of this style of warfare being practical.

>. Too bad the french didn't learn from the US when it came to the first few weeks of ww1.
Too bad the US didn't learn from the revolutionary generation when it came to the first 25 years of Vietnam

You don't assassinate the enemy leaders because if want to be able to negotiate with them. Their successor will be less inclined, or without a proper successor it becomes more chaotic.

...enemy leaders *if you want to be able to...

“I fought in “The Bush” in America: so thick it was, that we could hardly pierce its denseness; my regiment was opposed to Kentucky riflemen. We had muskets, and we beat them. We had red coats—they had brown coats; yet we slew more of them than they did of us. We are told that, at the Cape, the Kafirs lie hidden till our soldiers come within a few feet! Then what do we want with a rifle? The Cape corps were armed with short carabines, not with rifles, and are said to have done better service than any other corps, while the men were faithful.”

And that's called psychological warfare: making the other attack when they think it's the right time to attack (feigning weakness/vulnerability).

>we weren't scared of anyone or anything.

That's where you are wrong, kiddo.

You were scared of your fat ugly women, and that's what has kept you faggots away from your island even if that means to be a monkey on a ship mast.

Time spent reloading decreased efficiency. Put simply the goal was volume fire, having 1000 men firing a cumulative 4000 shots per minute vs 1000 men firing a cumulative 2000 shots per minute.

The first modern war was the U.S. civil war, people should have learned a lot more from that.
This
>if you had to defend a position you stood no chance of defending it by gunfire alone. thats why people stayed in formation - so they can fight in melee efficiently.
>fight in Melee efficiently
This.
The Americans were Chad hunters using thier own rifles, and hunters don't like to miss, becuase then you go hungry and you wife only has sex with you twice instead of 4 times. the British were virgin raw recruits that didn't even have enough money for a poxed whore before they died of disantry .
Pic unrelated

An American with a few hundred years of history calling someone kiddo.
An American calling other peoples women fat.

I've seen it all.

The rifles were not effective enough for them to realize this was stupid. It wasn't until the machine gun was fielded that the European militaries realized that it is better to fight from defensive positions, i.e., trenches and fox holes.

Trenches were used even in the very early days of firearms. I know of a English poem written in the 16th century that says harquebusiers are cowards for hiding in foxholes while archers bravely stand out in the open and die.

Please tell me almighty arm chair general how would you fight in the 1700s

QUEENHU AKBAR

Why did the French dress like this in World War One?

We're the French fucking retarded?

Benedict Arnold is a war hero, he joined the British fight for freedom because he knew what's right.
Simcoe is a hero here, we have holidays named after him and streets

The red pants were supposed to prevent friendly fire.

>Oh you mean fighting dirty

How convenient that the largest and most powerful army of the time also got to determine what constituted a fair fight.

Why did the American use to fight like this? Even after the insane casualty's in places like Fredricksburg and Gettysburg.

Were the Americans fucking retarded?

And you can't explain it away with something like inaccurate guns.

...

It is literally the guns.

It takes so much time to load a 50caliber powder rifle. So when you are close enough to fire upon the enemy you need to retreat and reload.

Why don't they dress like this then?

What changed in the Civil War to modernise war itself?
Perhaps 'modern' was the wrong term, I meant that it was the shift in its organisational structure towards its current form. So 'post-modern' or 'democratised' may be more fitting.

Because the dense formations were not because the guns were inaccurate, it's because of low rate of fire. A dense formation has superior firepower, can cover each other while they reload, can hold off a charge and is less likely to become disordered and run away.

>We're

unironically a retard

>We're the British fucking retarded?

>we're

You should be asking yourself that question fellow burger.

raw recruits with shitty aim+black powder cartridges which completely block your field of vision after 2 or so volleys = literally the exact same hit percentages as their forefathers who fought with smoothbore muskets. The whole "civil war rifles were super deadly accurate" is a meme. True the potential was there but in practice it simply wasnt true and considering they were still muzzle loaders and still took a ridiculous amount of time to load, there really wasnt a point in changing tactics too much.

>Why did the French dress like this in World War One?
>We're the French fucking retarded?

They wore a very similar uniform in the Franco-Prussian war, 1870-71. Red kepi, red trousers, blue coat.

They thought that they lost that war due to using defensive tactics. So they trained the army for decades on the idea of being as aggressive as possible. That means an all out charge with the bayonet. This meant that morale and spirit was of the utmost importance to the commanders. They wanted men that were as stoked to bayonet charge as possible, as much esprit de corps as possible. So they were dressed in the traditional outfit, with vibrant red. It's about looking the part, so you feel the pride and want to fight.

Never heard or read the name. I guarantee that applies to 99 percent over here.

>What changed in the Civil War to modernise war itself?

Transporting troops, supplies and artillery using trains, communicating using telegraph, mainly.

Shut the fuck up. It was the auto correct on my phone.

I know it's were

And then the Germans just gunned them all down kek good job France, the less French "people" in the world the better

>British calling American patriots "Kafirs"
WTF were they "Asian" even back then? Is all of history a lie?!

Pretty much. The British bayonet charge and tactics of cold hard determined advanced with cold had hard steel broke many advanced enemy countries battle formations.

Wtf is this thread by op about anyway? May as well just ask "hurr durr why didn't the Brits use m14s and close air support"?

I think he means Africans.

>Why don't they dress like this then?

Colourful uniforms look bitchin' cool. Well cut, trim, striking colour. Everyone instantly knows that you are a soldier. They used to spend a lot on fancy uniforms because it made recruiting a lot easier. Since, for example, you take the King's shilling, become one of King George's men and they give you an impressive outfit to wear that everyone respects.

>battles were won like chess not by killing
They were won by killing allright. Any typical Napolionic era battle would routinely end with death tolls higher than the first week on the Somme (a battle in WW1 with a big death toll).
It's as deadly as it looks.

How scary would've it been just lining up like that?

You can imagine how scared soldiers felt in WW1 and WW2, what about in these wars?

>The British bayonet charge and tactics of cold hard determined advanced with cold had hard steel broke many advanced enemy countries battle formations.

It's classic, European, shock warfare. You go straight toward the enemy and hit them with everything you got. If they break there is no doubt in their mind that they lost hard and should fear you.