What caused white people to fight like this? Use cover you morons. Spread out and don't stand next to each others.
It was the intelligent way of fighting given the technologyHere's what happened when whites people who used these seemingly "dumb" tactics fought chaotic brownoids who didn't
>>18471618>2 killed vs 6000 killed and woundedDamn
>>18471604Technological limitations. Spreading out only fucks you over. Tight line formations will just rip you to shreds while you can barely hit a single person standing off by yourself.
>>18471604>Use coverThey did. But people tend to avoid attacking entrenched, fortified positions. And you don't want to let your enemy invade and ransack your urban population centers without a fight. So sometimes you had to meet them in the field, where initiative and maneuverability are important. Up until the rifled musket, bayonet charges were still an integral phase of battle.>Spread outThis could theoretically have been useful if you were, for some reason, standing around outside the range of muskets and reach of cavalry but within the range of cannon. But why would you do that? In an infantry engagement, spreading out just means less volume of fire. And the tactic for defending against cavalry was to bunch up even tighter. Spreading out would just make it even easier for them to ride through your ranks stabbing people.
>>18471604>What caused white people to fight like this?Probably getting raped by the Ottomans for 200 years straight because their Janissaries fought exactly like this, and slaughtered pikefaggots.
>>18471604The average soldier could reload a musket in 30 seconds. A well trained soldier could pop off maybe 4-5 in a minute. It just wasn't practical to scatter a line behind whatever cover was available. Forming rows directed by an officer allowed them to direct a volley in a general direction with decent accuracy.>durrr but da enemy will just shoot uWhy would the military bother producing tanks today if the enemy will just have their own tanks to shoot them back with? Retards.
>>18471604People have been fighting in close infantry formations since "those days, those distant days">cover & spread outWas done when it came to dedicated skirmishers. But the bulk of the army (be those ancient greeks, romans or 18th century musketeers) fought in tight formations.
There were no radios, so coordinating an army was done via verbal commands, or signals from loud instruments that carried over distance, like drums and trumpets, or sometimes with banners and flags. But there still had to be a contiguous chain of communication that people could either see or hear, or both. This limited the effective size of armies, and also limited how these armies could array for battle, and what tactics they could employ once the battle started.Cover-based fighting WAS used, but mostly in engagements with smaller forces, where the units involved were in familiar territory or used to operating autonomously. Such fighters would usually be auxiliaries or irregulars, or else comprised of local militias or regiments and thus used to fighting on their own, rather than part of a larger coordinated army.The issues of coordination aside, the reason why massed formations and ranked fire were used for musket-bearing armies is the principle of massed fire and the law of disproportionate casualties that goes along with it. To wit: in a shooting battle with muskets, the more guns you bring to bear at one time, the more likely you will quickly defeat your opponent. There is basically no advantage to breaking your force up into many smaller forces if your enemy is not compelled to do the same. Wherever you can maintain overwhelming firepower, therein lies your surest advantage.
>>18471604because people have better shit to do than die in a battle, so they all line up on either side, then the leaders go talk it over and the side with the most wins without firing a shot and everyone goes home so the crops don't waste in the fields
>>18471604>What caused white people to fight like this? Aura, you wouldn't get it
People forget that cavalry still existed, and an infantryman outside a dense formation is easy prey for equestrians. Infantry is only safe from cavalry charges in large, dense formations, because with enough men the charge loses momentum and the horse and rider become trapped, surrounded on all sides, easily pulled down and killed. This has been true for pretty much as long as there have been cavalry charges, even back to the bronze age with chariots dominating the field. Infantry adapted by forming huge, closely packed formations that were simply too dangerous for mounted warriors to even get close to. Chariots in particular were vulnerable to it because they could not turn as easily as a rider, if the chariot slowed down to turn too close to a huge infantry mass, they could simply surge forward and swarm the chariot before it could get moving again. This is actually how a few bronze age armies defeated charioteers.
>>18472056>because with enough men the charge loses momentum and the horse and rider become trappedSo long as the infantry holds formation, the cavalry won't engage to begin with. And if they don't they get killed (so do many of the footmen, but it's a bad trade).
>"spread out!">btfo'd by cavalry
>>18472095edit:I re-wrote one sentence of my post, but didn't re-write the other to match...>And if they don't they get killed (so do many of the footmen, but it's a bad trade).If the cavalry DO end up engaging a well-ordered infantry formation which has sufficient mass, they get wrecked (and so do many footmen, but it's a bad trade). Most of the time horses will probably refuse to press the charge because they have survival instincts.
>>18471618Did brownoids not have guns or were they just stupid. I guess they were stupid either way but still.
>>18472290>Most of the time horses will probably refuse to press the charge because they have survival instincts.Yes, movies depict this badly of course, but horses will refuse to just run into what appears as a wall to them. Cavalry had to do a lot of mock charges to try to break the nerves of the foot soldiers and get them to break formation and spread
>>18472293they did, and the Ottomans and Mysore which was a formal Mughal breakaway state were colloquially called the gunpowder empires since they adopted firearms and canons to a massive scale before the Europeans did. They knew how to use them but they got cocky killing Africans and Hindus that they thought they didnt need to keep discipline up
>>18471618Guerilla warfare is truly the brown man's way of fighting
>>18472095>>18472290>>18472368I hate this retarded meme that horses won't charge into people. There are videos of modern riot horses that have a fraction of the ferocity and training of a medieval warhorse trampling protestors. Horses will run off of cliffs to their deaths.Cavalrymen avoided charging into tight, organized infantry because it was dangerous, not because their horses wouldn't do it.
>>18472855They will charge into people. They will most likely not charge into a tight formation of dozens or hundreds of men many ranks deep bristling with weapons that isn't budging.A scattered mob of protestors, or re-enactors deliberately causing a collision, isn't the same scenario as historical combat.
OP must be the some dronefag spamming at /k/ about how the tank is useless because like most brownoids he doesn't understand context, coordination, long term planning and so on, in truth this is what differentiated the elites leading these armies from the literal rank and file, with the most successful states being the ones who encouraged their elites to excel at these things.OP doesn't only admit he is a man of color, he must think these formations just walked around, no support skirmishers, cavalry, dragoons, artillery, no previous evaluation of the terrain, no scouts, informants and advance parties furthermore he somehow doesn't have enough self-preservation or interiority to imagine if you were to try to attack these formations as a lone fighter you will be spotted and killed.
>>18472869>They will most likely not chargeYes they will. Not only could a horse not tell or comprehend what you just described, an amped up warhorse wouldn't give a shit anyway. This is the same kind of retarded thinking as the OP. >surely men wouldn't just stand there and get shot at!>surely men wouldn't go over the top into machinegun fire!Well they did. And with even greater understanding of the risk than a horse that can barely see in front of it and doesn't even understand the tactical objective it is intended to accomplish.
>>18472908Men also comprehend what war is and can attempt to override their survival instincts for the sake of war. horses do not comprehend war. We have many accounts of cavalry forces being defeated by infantry because the footmen and hold their ground.>thatz cuz they were using pikez!!1!Polearms help, but aren't necessary.
While it is true that light infantry in open formation is very vulnerable to cavalry attacks it is not like they had no countermeasures. At best the light infantry would simply retire into terrain where the cavalry would struggle - i. e. forested areas or networks of hedges. Occupying houses was of course also done. And ideally the light infantry would also operate in conjunction with heavy infantry (line infantry) in order to have stout anchor points to fall back to. But even on their own lights could challange cavalry. The french Infanterie Légère regiments were units with superb training and thus fulfilled both the roles of light and heavy infantry (keep in mind that regular french line infantry regiments also contained a light company for integrated skirmishing support - the Infanterie Légère were self contained regiments). The austrian Jäger Battalions were similarly trained and often also performed assault duties. Of note is that the riflemen of the austrian Jägers were issued with long sword bayonets that gave the short rifle the reach of a regular musket + bayonet. At the Battle of Leipzig a Jäger Battalion even countercharged french hussars after receiving them in a square.
>>18471604/his/ this time? You make this thread to /k/ regularly and all is explained to you every time. You're not even trolling anyone.
>>18472914Men comprehending war makes them less likely to charge into death, not more likely. A horse has a much worse understanding of how much danger it is in. This works both ways. It's why an untrained horse can spook at nothing. But it's also why a trained horse will charge into pikes and gunfire without realizing it is almost certainly going to die.>We have many accounts...This doesn't refute what I'm saying. I directly acknowledged that cavalrymen avoided charging into tight, organized infantry because it was a bad idea. But that was the riders making that decision with the their human judgement, not the horses. These were horses getting shot and stabbed and yet still, for the most part, continuing to follow their riders' commands so long as they were physically able.>thatz cuz they were using pikez!!1!I would never say this. The idea that pikemen were some kind of hard counter to cavalry is people trying to apply video game logic to real life. Charging into a wall of pikes is obviously a bad idea, on foot or horseback. But presenting that wall of pikes also requires a high degree of organization, the momentary lack of which is most easily exploited by fast moving cavalry.
>>18472095If you kept reading past that sentence you would have realized that was my argument. Cavalry don't charge into dense formations because of the reasons I gave. It's literally 4000 year old military theory.
>>18472965>Men comprehending war makes them less likely to charge into death, not more likely.Yes but also no. Survival instincts can be suppressed by human intellect. Horses don't have this, so while they may not comprehend the level of danger as well as their rider, they're also not going to situationally override their instinct. At best you can attempt to recondition instinct through training, but you can never fully recreate combat conditions.It's both horse and rider averse to charging into well-formed ranks, but the rider can at least tell himself "It's totally worth it!" Being shot at and stabbed is different than running (though a full gallop wouldn't have been used) headlong into a gapless wall of men too deep to jump over. This isn't to say that horses would always balk, but it would be more likely, since animals don't like running into solid objects that they know will cause themselves injury. Just knowing that your horse is likely to balk is another reason for a rider to break a charge.>I would never say this. I know you didn't say that, but many people do say that, so I pre-empted it. Yes, rock-paper-scissors video game warfare is retarded.
>>18472970I read your entire post, but mis-interpreted what you meant by "the charge loses momentum." Apologies, yes, the charge most likely loses momentum even before contact is made.If contact against solid infantry is made with the horses moving at a trotting pace or faster, it's going to be a massacre on both sides, but I don't know how often that actually happened.
>>18471618>WE KILLED 6 GORILLION OF THEM >SOURCE? USwhen will you retards stop posting these useless fanfictions?
>>18473205Keep copingRegardless of casualties numbers 30,000 turkroaches attacked 1,500 frogs who keep them at bay for an entire afternood in an open field with line infantry tactics, until a 2500 men reinforcement made the roachs fleeThat alone shows the superiority of European tactics
>>18472855War tested cavalry mount was priceless. I have a letter written by an ancestor that fought with Nathan Bedford Forrest in the American Civil War. That ancestor was killed (concussed by artillery) during a battle in Kentucky. At letters end they asked if the Confederate Army could buy his horse that survived.
>>18471604>spread out >get bent over a rock and fisted up the shitter by cavalry until you're bloody and begging for deathGreat plan Patton.
>>18473186>they're also not going to situationally override their instinctThis was a baseline requirement for all warhorses, especially once gunpowder was involved. They had to be trained to not spook under battlefield conditions or they would be less than useless. If they had to be trained to ignore cannons going off in their vicinity, I don't know why you'd doubt their training to charge without hesitation.And speaking of instincts, they could also be leveraged to make horses more willing to do their jobs. Horses are herd animals. If you've ever watched them run around, they act like terrestrial schools of fish. Whatever apprehensions a lone horse might have go out the window when the "herd" is charging. That would actually be the greatest inhibiting factor in a charge. If the leading horses aren't able to punch through and keep moving the following ones would get disoriented and the charge would collapse.>>18474049That doesn't demonstrate they were unwilling to charge into ranks of infantry. It's a reason why you wouldn't want to do it under most circumstances. Although of somewhat lesser importance than the danger to the rider. But they'd still do it.And you'd need them to be willing to do it. Just consider the situation where a cavalryman would be most likely to think that was worth it. It's going to be when he needs to escape, when busting through a line of men is the least bad option available. That would be the absolute worst situation to have your horse stop listening to you, where that would get both horse and rider killed.
>>18471604Brown people couldn't defeat it so it must have worked.The reason is simple, this dense formation allowed for optimisation of firepower and defence against shock troops.You can use all the cover you want but then you lose on density and your firepower becomes too little to defend from cavalry and just a column or men charging with bayonet.
To salvage this thread: what is your favorite troop type from the age of linear warfare? For me it would be the light infantry and cavalry. I find reconnaissance, raids, skirmishes and outpost warfare far more engaging than those grand battles.Some information about the origin of the light infantry within the prussian army: during the First Silesian War Prussia encountered the austrian Pandur infantry, which were irregular soldiers sourced from the austrian military border with the Ottoman Empire. Their skirmishing capability had a lasting impression on Friedrich II. the Great and as an answer he created the so called Freibataillone (Free-Battalion). Those Freibataillone were usually mixed formations and could contain infantry, cavalry and artillery - in other countries similar formations were called Legions. As the name suggest those soldiers and cavalry troopers within such a formation were "free" to operate from the rigid linear tactics of their times and were mainly intended for skirmishing and the small war. Of note is that many of those free battalions were lead by nobles of huguenot origin.
For the USAnons: Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben (the guy who was the inspector general of the Continental Army) served in such a free battalion and greatly internalized the methods of the light infantry and cavalry. Pic rel are a Jäger and a Hussar of the Freibataillon Mayr, in which von Steuben served. During the Seven Years War the Freibataillon Mayr went on a large raid from prussian occupied Saxony all the way down to Franconia and due to their light tactics were able to travel fast and hit hard. They were able to take several cities with only 1500 men, 300 hussars and 5 light field guns - information warfare was also a key here as Mayr spread the deliberate rumor that his force was just the vanguard of a much larger prussian field army, which greatly intimidated his foes. During this time von Steuben was the personal adjutant to Mayr.
