Are you really supposed to believe there were people so stupid that walked into their deaths so easily?
They didnt shot, they didnt run into the battle, they just let half of the soldiers died. What was the fucking point?
This is one of the most stupid things Ive ever watched in the history of film.
Still a good movie but with several plot flaws. I might even say that BvS is the Barry Lyndon of cape movies.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
napoleonistyka.atspace.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
are you a woman?
No, just a bit smarter than 1700's England people it seems.
Did you even watch the scene? What kind of tactic was that? Why didnt they shoot? Why didnt they use metal shields or something to advance?
>hurrdurr dying like a faggot is more manly
No, winning is.
Millenial faggots such as yourself cannot grasp the concept of dying for your values and honor, regardless of how dumb it is in retrospective, it wasn't back then
No, no. I understand the concept of war you dumb fuck.
I dont understand the particular tactic of walking forward slowly without shooting and letting the enemy shoot you freely. What does the use of this stupid tactic have to do with protecting your values? Couldnt you do the same with a better tactic? One that doesnt involve losing half your men for nothing?
That was the honorable way battles were fought back then. Kys you retard.
youtube.com
The particular scene. I cant believe wars were fought like this. Specially when moments before they portrayed this soldiers as criminals.
>honor
>they came from pillaging the house and farm of innocent peasants
>also burned their houses for nothing
>honor
>War
>Honor
Fucking lel
Good goyim run into hell fire, Bad goyim ask questions
I'm not usually one to bemoan the evolution of warfare tactics, but just walking at the enemy and getting mowed down never made any sense to me.
Like it's a straight regression from walking at the enemy with shields up that the previous technological era used. Like if you had a line of men who stood at the front with shields up, THEN went for the volleys of gunfire tactic, would anything be lost?
I know this whole thread is bait but fuckkkkkkkkk
I don't think shields would do much against musket bullets. Keep in mind, we are not talking about hollow point ammo here. Musket bullets could penetrate you and hit the guy behind you as well.
I doubt shields would do much against a force like that.
you'd lose a lot of resources on useless shields that can't stop musket balls
Its about intimidation.
Its like a game of chicken. You have a line of guys who are marching towards you. They give absolutely no fucks. They just keep coming, banging away on their drums. You'd be surprised how many times the other side would shit themselves and run, or their lines would break.
You have to remember how shitty the guns were. The average gun didn't have rifling so the shot didn't go very far and weren't at all accurate. You could be in spitting distance of a guy, fire, and still miss.
Its not that they were stupid, they just had limited technology and felt stronger advancing together.
if shields blocked musket bullets then they would have used them
>Like it's a straight regression from walking at the enemy with shields up that the previous technological era used.
Why the FUCK are people so ignorant even allowed to post?
The previous technological era from musket line infantry was pikemen, who didn't have shields at all.
Most of them were probably just wounded irl though, muskets have terrible velocity and even worse accuracy. I'm sure a good few would have been seriously wounded or killed but there's a decent chance of surviving, unlike a battalion marching slowly towards a line of mgs or something.
Do you even war?
This kind of shit is actually less hardcore than battle used to be.
See Towton, where 50,000 men fought in a snowy field, not even knowing who was on their side or not, just smashing faces in with hammers and swords. 28,000 died, most in the rout, being cut to bits as they tried to run.
>Musket bullets could penetrate you and hit the guy behind you as well.
It would be very rare. Musket balls were often made of lead. When fired, they got very hot and, since lead is pretty soft, would often mushroom on impact.
The thing is that there are instances of body-worn armor that could stop musket balls at moderate distances. So I imagine it would be possible to create shields to block them as well. I think the Japanese had limited success with what were essentially bamboo tower shields.
But honestly, I guess the British just didn't give a fuck because they had so many people to throw at you and they could often win fights just by showing how many people they had rather than the actual combat.
Getting only wounded doesn't mean you're going to survive, necessarily. Medicine was still not as advanced and an infected wound could be a death sentence.
You're overestimating the quality of medical care injured men would receive
If you get shot and survive it's going to be a toss up between whether or not the wound gets infected, if it does you're more than likely dead
If you don't understand something ask like a normal person you insecure cuck. And fuck everyone for bumping this bait.
Straight rifles had shit poor aim and even a highly trained Prussian could only fire one round every 40 seconds. So the tactic was to get as many rifles firing as possible from as close as necessary. Like the nobility commanders cared if some peasants died on the way to shooting range. Deserteurs were shot. Your best way to survive was be in the winning team.
Because of the prevalence of cavalry, yeah. Pikemen were still being used in cooperation with muskets to stop cavalry.
But warfare also moved to just marching straight at each other into walls of gunfire. Which is still retarded.
Could you provide an explanation on the actual topic instead of doing the Internet form of arguing where you just argue one wrong part of a post? The reason I asked the question is because I don't know the answer.
True but it would be less daunting walking towards something dangerous than walking towards sudden death.
This is all supposition but I'd imagine infantry soldiers would have come into contact with other soldiers who had survived such engagements so the possibility of survival would have been tangible as they advanced.
Also considering that desertion would have certainly resulted in the death penalty, it's an easy choice.
What a disgusting nu male.
Actual answer for anyone who isn't just a shitposting redditor:
Hollywood massively exaggerates the casualty rates per minute of virtually any era it portrays, from the ancient to the modern. 18th century battles lasted for hours, and ended with the losing side often only taking 10-15% battle casualties (excluding captured), yet if you would believe a Hollywood account both sides should have been virtually annihilated within an hour.
The same problem occurs with depictions of ancient combat. You'd never know from Hollywood that often battles between armies in the tens of thousands only produced a few hundred casualties in the opening melee engagements , with massive losses in the thousands/tens of thousands only occurring when why side was broken and run down or flanked and surrounded.
guns were a mistake, lads. It used to be that shield formations would be used to protect against both archers and close range skirmishers, but that was all thrown out the window when muskets were mass-produced and suddenly faggots with shields got mowed down like grass. Shields are a complete waste in a battle with something only fortification walls can protect against, and close-range combat became utterly pointless.
So no, it's not a regression of the previous time period, it's an evolution on it. The British front lines were generally remarkable sharpshooters that would fire a volley at the opposing line, then switch out with the secondary line to reload. Meanwhile, the sides would curl in and flank the enemy given the opportunity, and soon a hole would appear in the center of the British line and the opposing force wouldn't have time to readjust their focus before they were completely cut off from supply lines.
From our modern viewpoint, it seems crude, but they really didn't have much of a choice. Their guns weren't entirely accurate, and guerrilla tactics only worked up to a point (that is, until your opponent gets tired of your bullshit and sends a brigade to strike at the source (see: field tactics, above)). It wasn't until the late 1700s and early 1800s that more accurate rifles, repeaters, and reliable artillery became widespread, which allowed tactics to become more refined and fitted to the landscape.
What this guy said . Also, most people involved in battles didn't die, and if you only count those who died on the battlefield and not later from infection etc. it was a small margin of all the men you had. Unlike in video games where units have their own morale and shit, if a rout started during battle, it would almost always lead to a total rout of the army in question, hence morale being the ultimate key. One fine example of a vastly smaller army beating a larger one through such means is the Battle of Narva where a Swedish army defeated a Russian army 3 times its size, or another battle between Russia and Sweden (can't remember which one) where the Swedish cavalry counter-charged the Russian cavalry, which caused them (the Russian cavalry) to collide with their own front lines flank, which lead to the whole army routing straight away.
>It would be very rare. Musket balls were often made of lead. When fired, they got very hot and, since lead is pretty soft, would often mushroom on impact.
You're completely full of shit, never fucking post again.
>The thing is that there are instances of body-worn armor that could stop musket balls at moderate distances.
You again are completely full of shit. Body armor got progressively more useless as firearm technology improved, to the point of the 18th century (which is what we're talking about) it was abandoned for all but a few specialized calvary units (for its hand to hand benefits) for the specific reason that it could not provide protection against muskets at battle ranges.
> honestly, I guess the British just didn't give a fuck because they had so many people to throw at you and they could often win fights just by showing how many people they had
Unbelievable. As if you could not demonstrate your ignorance even more clearly. The British army was of course much smaller than its continental rivals and absolutely could not rely on sheer numbers.
In a musket volley at the time only around 5% of shots actually hit a target:
youtube.com
(skip to 2 minutes in)
The tactic of walking slowly was done to keep step, so everyone stayed as a unit, meaning they were easier to manage and direct, and came into range of the enemy at the same time. It reduced the possibility of the squad routing, and reduced chances of friendly fire within the unit. The generals knew where their men where, and the actual men who were put out of action was surprisingly small.
Also it had a major psychological advantage against the enemies, who would see their attackers as fearless and unstoppable, increasing their chances of routing.
>lindybeige
Never EVER EVER post again.
>The British front lines were generally remarkable sharpshooters
Bullshit. The british were not exceptional sharpshooters in general, it was the opposite for most of the musket era (their soldiers had fuck all accuracy training compared to Prussian and Swedish soldiers), in fact their go-to tactic was one or two volleys and then a charge.
The shit that gets spewed in this thread is unbelievable. Widespread repeaters in the late 1700s early 1800s.
Redcoats were actually famous for marching unusually close towards the enemy before firing their weapons. Sure, the enemies got a few hits in (muskets are notoriously inaccurate), but the redcoats counter-volley was much more accurate because they were closer, and oftentimes the enemy routed immediately.
That said, personally I wonder why it took several years of line infantry fighting before people started to fire two ranks at a time (one kneeling, one standing), or firing a whole rank, then they kneeled, and the next one fired and so on... feels like a pretty obvious move.
And here come the pike autists
every single time historical warfare is discussed
>Make a bullshit comment (that prior to musket armed line infantry everyone was using shields)
>Gets called on it
>A-a-a-autist!
Triggered by the beigeman Sup Forums ?
youtube.com
>you will never hang out with lindybeige talking about the history of warfare and filming pigeons
>I'm just going spout off whatever I want and people will post my videos like I'm an authority on anything: the channel
>Why didnt they shoot?
The closer you get the higher accuaracy they had.It took 40 seconds to reload a rifle so hitting as many bullets as possible was very important.
Is this fresh pasta?
>took 40 seconds
Not true
>a rifle
None of the weapons in the clip are rifles.
>That said, personally I wonder why it took several years of line infantry fighting before people started to fire two ranks at a time (one kneeling, one standing), or firing a whole rank
Several reasons. Firstly, keeping unit cohesion was vastly more difficult the more intricate the method came (and since most fighters were still essentially peasants that had little to no training the commanders were hesitant in trying anything complicated). Secondly, the cloud of smoke a volley of muskets creates acts as a huge visual obstacle, both for your troops and the enemies. There are several more minor ones as well but essentially the advent of more intricate musket warfare only came into being when the Swedish army was reformed so that the men became professionals who had to constantly train (and thus were reliably able to pull of the tactics in question) and other nations took note.
Ah, I didn't think of those factors. Thanks man.
To add to the shitty guns comment.
They also took a huge fucking time to reload, so advancing was a legitimate tactic. The enemy is wasting ammo and time reloading without doing much damage, meanwhile you're getting close enough to actually hit them and all of your men have fully loaded guns ready to go.
It looks asinine, and dramatizations make it look much dumber than it probably was. It's likely that due to the shitty guns there weren't many casualties during the advance.
In my autistic research I've found another source for musketball accuracy. It's so web1.0 that it must be authentic!
napoleonistyka.atspace.com
The jist of the article is that musket accuracy was pretty damn awful, and wars were hectic, awful places. Any attempt to maintain discipline and keep your soldiers level-headed probably paid dividends in avoiding freakouts and breakdowns.
The better part is that column tactics, which I've never seen properly depicted on film, would be even more derided by mouth breathers, and yet won the French near mastery of the world.
Guns were super innacurate, goung second meant closet and thus more kilss for your side. It may sound weird, but walking closer before shooting was a real.advantage.
No one answered the guy correctly...
Here is the reason why armies back then walked towards the enemy slowly:
You HAD to attack that way, say you are 1000 -100 yards from the enemy? Are you going to run the entire way? No, your rifle is also inaccurate, so you have to get close in.
You march till you get 20-10 yards away, fire then charge if ordered too.
If you charged from 100 yards away, you would be too TIRED to fight.
Nothing fresh about it.
You want to see some even more retarded shit? Watch Gallipoli, instead of walking to their certain death they ran out of a trench straight into machine gun fire.
Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about, both from the simple mistakes ("rifle") to your believe that 10-20 yards was a typical engagement distance.
Most materials that can stop a musket bullet would be way too heavy to slog around as a tower shield.
Where are you going to put your shield when you're reloading your muzzle loaded gun standing shoulder to shoulder with other soldiers? Firing rate won battles back then, you basically wanted soldiers to carry as little as possible.
Why didn't they just roll big boulders in front of themselves ?
the kinetic energy would probably break your arm
The flaaa of Straya! Neva fahget!
I love this b8, have a (You)
Lindybeige is a fucking retard. He thinks that the authority granted to him by acting confident around his autist LARP friends somehow carries over into the real world.
For some reason he believes that him and his friends hitting each other with wooden sticks somehow grants him knowledge about how people in the ancient era actually fought and died.
>mfw Yanks are too stupid to pick up a book.
>mfw Yanks call themselves gun enthusiasts and they never studied line rifle tactics
You American dogs are truly a disgrace.
No you wouldn't. These people marched 20 miles a day. They were fit. Also full of adrenaline so a short jog wouldn't make a difference
The real reason why you don't charge a regiment over distance is because the line can't keep pace and keep cohesion, and arrives as a disorderly mob, impossible to command and. manoeuvre. There are examples of this throughout history.
>implying OP isn't b8 posted by a shitlord in yuropooristan
For most weapons I don't think so.
Remember that the energy on impact is necessarily less than the energy when it was fired, so if you could handle the kick from the musket as you fired it you could probably handle the bullet impacting the shield especially if you were bracing it.
What are your legs? Springs, steel springs. What are they gonna do? They're going to hurl me down the track. How fast can you run? As fast as a leopard. How fast are you gonna run? As fast as a leopard. Then let's see you do it!
this though a hunter with a musket can hit a deer about 50% of the time at 100 yards, the inaccuracy was due to the smoke, terror and the musketeer being a petty criminal or impoverished peasant pressed into service
The average amount of shots fired per soldier during training could be as low as a few dozen, before Charles XI reformed the Swedish army to have a significant standing portion (thus creating the Caroleans).
and neither do you. youre a fat neckbeard
Obviously they used recoilless shoulder mounted muskets back then :^)
You're asking a historical question on fucking Sup Forums, you're either a troll are legitimately retarded
...
...
>Why didnt they shoot
Volley fire is more effective at breaking morale than firing at will
>Why didnt they use metal shields
Because then the army would have to carry giant heavy metal shields with them wherever they went, and it would also restrict the regiment who was carrying them ability to move and reposition in a battle.
>>hurrdurr dying like a faggot is more manly
>No, winning is.
Why the fuck do you think people used line formations for hundreds of years? I'll give you a hint; it's because it fucking worked.
The reason they fought like this is because their weapons were extremely innaccurate, so having everyone stand in a line and fire at the same time would at least make a wall of bullets that could both hit more in the chaos and also keep them from advancing.
It wasn't until the civil war where guerrilla tactics and weapons improvements really took hold (and early artillery-type weapons), where it became necessary to sneak up on enemies and ambush them.
mein sides, what film is this? please tell me it was meant as a comedy
en.wikipedia.org
>anti war drama
>I might even say that BvS is the Barry Lyndon of cape movies.
well shit, that armor was real
en.wikipedia.org
Why didn't they just stay in the ditch?
Once you play total war empire ot total war napoleon, then you'd understand
this user gets it. what you should be pissed at Stanley for is the amount of redcoats getting shot to there death from those barrages.
Do you not understand tactics?
Yeah fuck that. Soldiers were generally uneducated peasants with few critical thinking skills. Perfect fodder for gunfire, especially considering they were usually dying for something that would have little to no effect on their own quality of life. The smart ones are always in the back giving orders. Surely the values being fought over matter much more to them
sorry did you want them to 360 noscope from across the map or something
This
>killing the fathers of young children
>destroying land and historical artifacts and architecture
>raping women
I-it's honorable!
These guys were just waiting for you to break and run so they could cut you down from behind
In truth you had a better chance of survival by holding the line as in the heat of battle the other side in addition to firing from an unsupported standing position wasn't taking the best aim.
The side that was better disciplined and ignored their flight response better was the side that took fewer casualties
The only thing wrong with this scene is the sound design and pyrotechnics. It's very obvious that the actors in French uniform are firing reduced charges and they look and sound weak as shit.
Honour has nothing to do with it, you noob. It's about maintaining command coherence until all units are in place to deliver a full volley.
The reason the enemy is shooting at them at that range is to demoralize and disrupt the formation. Being disciplined to march forward under fire is a major advantage.
Why do you people fall for threads like these? Post feet instead.
No, it was definitely dumb back then too.
Why did he tongue kissed the fat guy?
>this entire thread
Far right please
Hunters could use rifled muskets that were very accurate, the reason these weren't used for line infantry is that they are slower to reload and required more maintenance.
That's what training and conditioning does to you, also if they tried to run they could get executed for cowardice.
>that filename
>italians in charge of warfare
Different time period, same weapons. This video will explain it all for you. There's even someone you can relate to in the video.
The British had the most disciplined and well drilled soldiers in the world in that period, their tactic was to march up closer than any other army would ever dare, then volley and charge. It was far more effective but most armies didn't have the discipline to not break before getting that close. It also didn't work as well when the other side had good discipline and a competent commander, and held their fire until just before the british readied, then held after the return volley.
Because he was his father-figure and he was dying. You'd jap-kiss your dad too if he was gut shot in some muddy shithole in Butt-Fuck, France.