>>64412484
lines maximized the amount of firepower in a single direction while minimizing the impact of a cannonball

>Yeah I know the enemy had cavalry but you have guns and can always counter charge.
those guns need to be in a dense formation to be fully effective and trying to charge enemy cavalry on foot is a death sentence

>>64412488
Ok but why didn't they carry pavise with them at least? Im sure at range it can stop a musket ball while yours will hit them.

I always wondered where you actually aimed as the guys in line. Do you just point in the general direction of the other line? Pick a specific target and aim for it? Aim at whatever guy is closest to your own position?

>>64412495
>Im sure at range it can stop a musket ball
Not likely, unless you made it so thick that it would be too heavy to carry around.

The pavise was effective against arrows not because it stopped the arrowhead from penetrating, but because once the arrowhead penetrated, the shaft would continue to experience friction as it passed through the wooden shield, stopping the arrow after a few inches. With a musket ball, once it penetrates, that's it. It will continue on and hit the man, having been only slightly slowed.

>>64412484
We just had that thread. Read it up there.

>>64412507
Can you link it i cant find it on the catalog

>>64412495
>Im sure at range it can stop a musket ball while yours will hit them.
you needed 4-5 inches of wood or 3-4mm of steel, probably thicker because they would have used iron
either way, the shield would weight several kilograms and be difficult to carry long distances

and formations would move around a lot during the battle, so your men would need to repeatedly deploy and then pick up these shields every time the enemy moved
and the enemy would move once they see your troops placing shields down

>>64412534
Ok but at the very least shouldnt they wear cuirasses or helmets?

>>64412484
you try co-ordinating ten thousand dudes without any radios and see if you can come up with anything better

>>64412564
those dont stop bullets either

>>64412564
cavalry wore cuirasses to stop sword slashes but they could only stop pistol rounds from enemy cavalrymen and couldnt stop fullsized muskets at any reasonable range

giving them to infantry would have cost a lot of money for only a small amount of protection

If they are allowed to disperse, some soldiers will try to stay in a safe area.
Dense formations and lines seem to be very effective in forcing soldiers to participate in battle.

>>64412495
Every extra pound of gear is not just more cost, it also slows the formation not only at the tactical level (moving around in a single battle) but the day to day "how fast we reach XYZ battlefield" strategic one as well.

>>64412506
>>64412534
That scale is an exaggeration.
No historical battlefield loading for a musket is penetrating four inches of dried hardwood at 100 or even fifty paces. That would be exceedingly good performance for a modern hardened lead shotgun slug let alone a musket. The difference between woods, the range, and the fact that undersize balls were routinely used for fast loading (which can drastically bleed velocity) is quite significant here, in case you're thinking of some test you've seen.
I doubt it would make it to three inches, even.

I doubt you could find any quality of steel at 4mm that would be penetrated under those conditions either.

>Kilograms
Well that explains a few things lol

>>64412564

You could make helmets and chest armor capable of stopping musket rounds even at close range, but the massive cost and extra baggage would probably not be worth it. The army that goes further in the day and arrives first and can maneuver further and better in the battle wins, even if your men are superior on the small scale of an exchange of fire.

You could have given everyone multi barreled firearms too, and there were some niche cases of their use, but cost and weight kept them rare.

File: Scotland_Forever.jpg (1.77 MB, 1804x910)

1.77 MB JPG

>>64412484
>You and 2-3 of your mates standing practically by yourselves in an open field
>See this coming at you
>"Hey guys, let's counter charge!"

>>64412778
With your own cav

>>64412495
>just triple the weight of the equipment your men carry around
the used to have corporal punishment for pike men cutting down their pikes. but still kept doing it because long pikes are heavy and hard to carry.
those passives are going to get "lost" on the third day of the march at the latest

>>64412484
Battles/wars in the past were different
>2 people killed
>1 person lost his wallet
>one lost the will to live

File: M-Volley-6-4C-Aug11.jpg (90 KB, 652x439)

90 KB JPG

This is a silly thread, but let's put it this way: Gunpowder armies existed for several hundred years at a time and place of rapid military innovation a& competition.

Many different things were tried, whether different formations, tactics, and even some variations on the basic "row of guys with single-shot muskets".

But the fact that nearly EVERYBODY used this formation/tactics for hundreds of years and uncounted battles should clue you in that this was the optimum method, despite its obvious downsides. It is military evolution at work.

>>64412964
a weirdly common sentiment online, including here, is "this thing is very stupid but I can apply rationality and logic and do things better"

>>64412484
Am I actually going crazy or didn't we just have threads for this specific subject twice already recently?

>>64412812
>those passives are going to get "lost" on the third day of the march at the latest
i love how to this day things for some weird reason gets mysteriously lost during long marches.

>>64412982
You left out the most important part.
>this thing sounds very stupid, but because I am ignorant of the details I think I can do better

>>64412999
Yes we did and retards still couldnt wrap their heads around the idea of multiple things aligning that made line warfare the best way to fight with the militaries of the day. People can't look past the 'men shooting at each other on the battlefield' and realise that's the smallest aspect of it.
Most campaigns had more men die from disease and other environmental conditions than fighting.

>>64412936
You're retarded, and so is anyone ITT claiming muskets have a practical, man-sozed-target range of anything less than 100 yards

>>64412982
it's a side effect of the "march of progress" mentality that we have.
the idea that things will only get better and since we are further along we have it better.
this get's confused with because we are further along we are better. we have gay marriage they didn't that means they where meanies and big dumb dumbs for not accepting love is love.
and since I have all this modern knowledge I can do better than them.

File: Prussian_infantry_advance(...).jpg (191 KB, 1024x739)

191 KB JPG

>>64412484
Man, we just had this thread: >>64352164
The tl;dr is
>communication and control becomes easier with a dense formation
>maximizing firepower for the shock value
>apes together strong and confident
>>64412495
Making a shield that can stop musket balls would requite a thick and thus heavy piece, which will weigh down the soldiers even more. And making yourself a static position gives the tactical initiative to your enemy. And lastly: at range they are perfect targets for lighter field artillery (3 to 6 pdr guns) and the enemy line infantry can always close in and give a volley at closer range.
>>64412497
Musket had simple sights. While nowadays they are often described as bayonet lugs (and they did fulfill this function) in the period they were called sights. And depending on the distance you would either aim at the formation or specific men within it.
>>64412564
Those were expensive as well and at best protected only against pistols and maybe carbines. The strenght of the 18th/19th century musketeer was that he was very cheap while still being armed with a very potent weapon.
>>64412812
In "The Recollections of Rifleman Harris" he states that his company abandoned their heavy cookware in Spain because 1) they were lazy and didn't want to carry that stuff around and 2) they wanted to move faster. The next chapter is about the complaints about the shitty non-cooked rations.

File: For show or safety - a st(...).jpg (1.85 MB, 4129x2428)

1.85 MB JPG

>>64412511
>>64412999
see >>64352164


>>64412564
>Ok but at the very least shouldnt they wear cuirasses or helmets?
The cavalry did. Mainly because they are on horses unlike infantry who have to walk. Every pound or kilo counts for the infantry man that have to walk. You can test it yourself. Do a 10 mile march with 60 pounds of gear and then do another with 80 pounds of gear.

According to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258883795_The_History_of_the_Soldier's_Load
Then french during the napoleonic war carried a load between 27.5 kilo or 25 kilo and they marched 16-43km per day. If you throw in a extra 10 kilo of weight (cuirass and helmet) and then have them do a 144km march in 72 hours then you are gona kill them with the weight, they might shoot you for focing them to wear that armor.

>>64412584
Actually a cuirass that can stop a pistol shot has a reasonable chance to stop a fullsized musket at 30 meters+ (assuming the cuirass thickness is greater or average around 5mm). However you cant reasonably armor the face, arms, legs and the horse and have the mobility demanded for the napoleonic war at the same time.

So while the cavalry can resist musket balls even at closer range on the torso, they still get fucked by musket volleys hitting the unprotected areas.

>>64412484
>french
They liked their columns. Shorter, fatter lines that made it easier to move on the enemy in a mass.
>you have guns
And large spaces between you and your besties because holding a line formation while moving is hard. Cavalry have broken the odd square if they get an opening, so I don't know how the fuck you think your line is going to hold

>>64412484
At the time of Napoleon, line was'nt a march formation anymore.
Line is either a transition formation, a iddling formation or a defensive position.
At the time of Napoleon, skirmishers also played a much more central role than during the Barry Lindon meme era : armies had up to 25% skirmishers proportions, not working in formation. They relied on terrain, could hide in building, behind tree, crouch, react infividually. They were used to scouting, to harass the ennemy but also for urban fighting and assaults on defensive positions.
But skirmishers alone cannot win the battle. They lack the powerforce to decisively break the ennemy. You need line infantry to effectivelly hold the line and occupy the terrain. And too much skirmishers became an annoyance to manoeuver on the battlefield.

>>64412495
>muh pavise
Great, now you get a shitload of wood spall on top of a musket ball.

>>64412708
>four inches of dried hardwood
Dude. Pavises were like 8-12mm thick at best. 2cm was considered extreme. Can't really go much over that without making them prohibitively heavy.

>>64413419
Because it's easier to use a shovel to ditch an earthwork, instead of carry this shit. What they did.

File: Napoleon_Grenadier_and_Vo(...).jpg (307 KB, 654x1033)

307 KB JPG

>>64412484

Yo know they skirmish troops fighting in dispersed formations too, right?
Fun fact: in Napoleon army the Voltigeurs could only be no higher than 4 feet 11 inches. Rat manlets rage.

>I know I could find out the objective factual answer to my question by googling it, but I'd rather put my trust in /k/ strangers
People who want to be spoon fed information don't deserve information

>>64413469
This is an internet forum where you talk, fart sniffer

>>64413612
Yeah, I know the most valuable objective information I've ever received was in casual conversation with strangers.
Just admit you're too lazy to research anything

>>64412778
Well you cant run away so may as well shoot one and die trying to poke a horse

>>64413629
Well some fag in 2010ish told me about bitcoin. So yes.

>>64412778
>>"Hey guys, let's counter charge!"
Uh, they did, and they got fucked by lancers.

>>64413438
>Pavises were like 8-12mm thick at best
You seem to think I said pavises were four inches thick, rather than responding to a specific point about how much wood a musket can penetrate with standard loads at standard range.
Re read what I said and what the post I responded to said very carefully.

>>64413691
Koreans actually had 5 inch wooden pavises designed to stop arquebus bullets.

how many times do we have to have this thread
if you can think of doing something differently from the comfort of your armchair, then the people actually doing it for a career whose lives literally depended on doing it as well as possible surely could too; it's possible that they actually did and you're just not aware, or otherwise there was more than likely some other reason that made it not as viable as you think
linear warfare only seems nonsensical to normies in current year because their understanding of it is based on current year media made by equally clueless people
>>64412484
>Did they seriously march in lines towards enemy guns?
how else are you going to coordinate a batallion of 500-ish dudes without any radios?
consider roman legionary tactics: they would advance towards their enemy, throw javelins into the enemy formation, and then charge in to attack with their swords before the enemy regains cohesion
linear warfare is fundamentally identical, just with muskets and bayonets instead of javelins and swords
>Why not spread out?
They did: armies possessed light infantry/skirmisher troops which fought in such a manner, so they obviously were aware of the possibility
this wasn't done as standard in pre-smokeless powder warfare because within the limitations of period technology, it was only really viable in niche situations (harrassing, skirmishing, screening for the main body of infantry, fighting in rough terrain), were absolutely helpless against cavalry or a bayonet charge, and still depended upon the big wall of bayonets for protection if things went south

1/2

>>64413278
in the example they use where they say that a cuirass of sufficient protection would be 7kg; do they actually consider that the back on a cuirass would be much thinner?

2/2
>>64413758
>Yeah I know the enemy had cavalry but you have guns
you've only got time for one shot before they close in; once you've fired it you're basically helpless and they know it
the conventional anti-cavalry tactic for infantry would therefore be for everyone to hold your fire until the last possible second, so that if they don't think better of it and break off, it'll be as devastating as possible and hopefully ruin their charge
the cavalry on the other hand is trying to panic you into running or taking your shot too early, either way leaving you at their mercy; if they decide it's not going to plan then they can use their superior mobility to just turn and leave
it's basically a big game of chicken
>and can always counter charge.
when a squadron of cavalry advances, they form a line & advance at a steady trot (roughly 8mph or 13km/h) for the sake of easily keeping cohesion and not tiring the horses
if they decide to commit to a charge, they will break into a gallop for the last 23m/25yds or thereabouts (otherwise just breaking off and leaving if they decide it's not worth it)
by the time the charge connects, they should have reached full speed of about 25-30mph/40-48km/h
next time you're walking by a road with such a speed limit, look at the cars going past and ask yourself if you can really just "counter charge" that

>>64413758
>linear warfare is fundamentally identical, just with muskets and bayonets instead of javelins and swords
No at all. linear warfare was shooting enemy with muskets over and over until no enemy is left. Musket casualties were 70%, bayonet casualties were about 2%.

>>64413278
>The cavalry did. Mainly because they are on horses unlike infantry who have to walk. Every pound or kilo counts for the infantry man that have to walk. You can test it yourself. Do a 10 mile march with 60 pounds of gear and then do another with 80 pounds of gear.
Why didn't they just have wagons carry the infantry supplies and have them pick up the extra gear during battle? They could even use the wagons for extra bulletproof protection. Are they stupid?

File: Schlacht_Schoenberg.jpg (548 KB, 1280x917)

548 KB JPG

>>64413823
Wagons were part of the supply train and having form handout queues for equipment (such as dedicated infantry cuirasses) takes away valuable time and requires even more coordination.
>They could even use the wagons for extra bulletproof protection.
The usage of Wagon Forts diminished in in the early 16th century as field artillery became lighter and more mobile. Emperor Maximilian I. fought a czech hussite style army (they relied on their wagon forts for defense) in 1504 at Wenzenbach and while the wagon fort did repell the assault of the mounted knights, it was blasted apart by the imperial field artillery and taken by the Landsknechte. And in the next centuries field artillery became ever more numerous and mobile.

>>64412484
managing large groups of men, when your only means of controlling them is shouting orders - battle tends to be noisy so officers had to be near to their men, and the men had to be closely packed so they could all hear the orders

>>64413823
Wagons were confined to good roads and tracks and have fun coordinating tens of thousands of men resupplying themselves from a wagon train mid battle.

File: bp1 and bp2.jpg (2.54 MB, 3299x3855)

2.54 MB JPG

>>64413784
No, I think they are just focusing on the frontal breastplate so a 7 kilo half-curiass in practice. A full curiass with the same frontal protection as a 7 kilo half-curiass would be roughly 3.5 kilo heavier (assuming the rear plate has roughly half the thickness of the front so half the weight). It would be 10.5 kilos. It could be less then 10.5 kilo if the rear plate has even lower thickness then half of the frontal plate.
>https://en.topwar.ru/173358-kirasiry-i-kirasy-napoleonovskih-vojn.html
The French in 1825 adopted a cuirass that protected from a musket bullet at distance of 40 meters. It had a variable thickness: 5,5-5,6 mm in the center and 2,3 mm at the edges. The back was very thin - 1,2 mm. Weight 8-8,5 kg.

https://docslib.org/doc/9035893/thickness-mapping-of-body-armour-a-comparative-study-of-eight-breastplates-from-the-national-museum-of-slovenia
Two austrian cavalry curiass breastplates from the 19th century are listed of having the weight of 4.9 and 4.57 kilo with each having max thickness of 5.9 and 5.7mm and a min thickness 1.1 on both.

For comparisson in 1618-1648, the earlier three-quarters armor worn during the earlier period of the thirty years war ( hand protection. arm protection, half-leg protection, face protection, helmet, neck protection) that offered full frontal protection had an average weight of 25 kilos with some examples having whooping weight of 42 kilos but at later periods of the thirty years only the curiass (front and back) and helmet was retained by the curiasser with the total weight dropping down to around 10-13 kilos.

The weight of the breastplates ballistically tested in the pic related study was 5.48 kilo and 2.42 kilo with the 2.42 kilo being not proof against pistols and later concluded to have been a victorian era replica of a 17th century design while the 5.48 kilo plate was geniune 17th century breastplate and it was proof against pistols and some muskets.

>>64413108
its not even that
most people will have a conclusion in mind based purely on argumentation like "this sword is better than that sword because of its shape and size" and then solely use argumentation to support their conclusion

in essence, reality supports their argument rather than vice versa
a certain weapon being used for decades if not centuries is proof that people were being dumb for not using a more optimal version of it rather than using the historical longevity of a weapon as proof that it may have excelled in a certain role

>>64412484
We just had this thread, anon.
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/64352164/

File: pom.jpg (89 KB, 673x720)

89 KB JPG

>>64412484
training and equipping soldiers is expensive, and making elite soldiers is even more expensive.
during the early Napoleonic Wars era, countries could afford to deploy smaller elite infantry like mounted infantry, skirmishers, and grenadiers.
but by the late Napoleonic wars era, shit got so expensive and troop quality declined massively, that countries could no longer afford elite mobile infantry.
thus they had to conscript every dumb mouthbreather possible, and the only thing a mouthbreather can do is be a line infantry in massive blocks of fellow mouthbreathers.

File: en3qwt4fmiof1.jpg (111 KB, 622x648)

111 KB JPG

>>64413057
There was some quote I can't remember but basically "if you gave any ancient army 10 machine guns you could affect the outcome of one battle, but if you gave any ancient army 10 walkie talkies you could change world history." Communication and battlefield transparency have always been underappreciated. The lack of literal and figurative visibility when a battlefield is covered in smoke and your best methods of relaying orders are physical messengers, trumpet signalers, and looking for the right flag makes line formations arguably the best at maintaining proper order. Add to that the speed at which innovation spreads and the extremely unequal amounts of education to where lots of people could neither read nor write and it's like that Crecy line from picrel:

File: 1752799919859567.jpg (76 KB, 1280x720)

76 KB JPG

>>64412484
>spread out
How do you intend to issue orders or maintain any sort of unit cohesion when your only means of communication are horns, drums, and trying to shout louder than twenty thousand dudes shooting at each other?

Whenever a thread like this comes up it's the same shit.
>Why didn't they just try x maneuver or y strategy
I don't think people realize how immensely difficult it is to coordinate an army of that size - and the smaller units within it for that matter - in an era before the invention of radios.

>>64415851
not that you would want to spread out too much in the first place, since it leaves each individual soldier exposed and ready to get sliced by cavalry

>>64415856
How is cavalry even a problem? Horses are fucking huge, just shoot them. And if you have a palvaise wall that'll block the horses too.

>>64415872
>How is cavalry even a problem?
such a huge problem that the square formation exists solely to help survivability against cavalry despite making them more vulnerable to gunfire and cannonfire in exchange

>>64415872
by the end of the Napoleonic Wars, cavalry were pretty much relegated to scouting/skirmishing/harassment.
melee focused cavalry like dragoons and especially cuirassiers were heavily diminished, because they're simply too expensive and took too much casualties from newer infantry tactics.

File: KnightsCharge.webm (934 KB, 640x640)

934 KB WEBM

>>64415872
Cavalry can close the distance for an effective charge to infantry faster than they can reload and being spread out is detrimental to the confidence of the soldiers.
And paveses will do nothing against charging horses.
>>64415896
No. Heavy cavalry was kept by most european states up until WW1

>>64415980
>No. Heavy cavalry was kept by most european states up until WW1

always wondered why they insisted on all these special cavalry types up until ww1.
After the Napoleonic Wars, they should've just followed the American generalist cavalry type, a cavalry that can do everything with a slight focus towards shooting and less stabbing.

>>64415997
Actually Europeans went the opposite direction and fell for the lancer/uhlan meme. The low point was probably the time when a British cavalry regiment dumped a new shipment of carbines into the manure pile.

>>64415872

When a cavalry regiment faced off against a regiment of line infantry, the cavalry would generally dick around beyond effective range of their muskets doing feints to threaten a cavalry charge, but breaking off each time just beyond effective range. In return, the infantry had to stay in close order with their muskets at the ready in case the cavalry did charge for real, which of course they weren't going to do. What they were trying to do is bait out the infantry to fire their volley, which at that range wouldn't do any real damage.

Normally, the stalemate would continue for a bit, and then the cavalry would leave. Alternatively, if the infantry had a light company of skirmishers with rifles, they could go out and take potshots and the cavalry and force them to leave.

However, if the infantry were poorly drilled, they could take the bait and a few of them would panic and fire, causing a chain reaction where the rest of them also panicked and fired. The volley would be at too great a distance to be of any real effect. The cavalry could then immediately initiate a charge for real, and close the gap before they could complete a reload and fire a second volley, and the result would more than likely be a complete slaughter.

>>64415997
Try convincing all the rich ponces in all the different cavalry regiments that they're now all the same as each other. It all comes from knightly autism.

>>64415896

It wasn't newer infantry tactics, it was a series of technology improvements which began to rapidly decrease reloading time and increased accuracy and effective ranges, such as the self-contained cartridge, the percussion cap, the Minie ball, the breechloader, and the repeating rifle.

>>64415896
I'm going to say something controversial and say that heavy cavalry reached it's peak during the high middle ages in the 13th century, and then kept declining further and further.

Heavy cavalry kept declining each century from the 14th century onwards until it died for good by the 20th century.

File: Charge_des_dragons_lourds(...).jpg (337 KB, 1200x760)

337 KB JPG

>>64415997
Because they were still effective. It wasn't until the late 1840s that rifled muskets became widespread. Single shot rifles and metallic cartridges became common in the 1860s. There was no need to forsake existing cavalry structures after the Napoleonic Wars.
And dragoons (the generalist cavalry type you mean) were the most common type of cavalry since the late 17th century.
>>64416045
>The volley would be at too great a distance to be of any real effect.
There is also the opposite scenario of firing too late for repelling a charge. At the Battle of García Hernández in 1812 french infantry in square only shot their volley once the KGL dragoons were too close and the dead/dying horses & troopers, carried forth by their momentum, crashed into the square and created gaps - gaps which were then exploited by the other KGL cavalry squadrons, who hacked the square to pieces.
>>64416066
And those technological improvements only occured 20 to 40 years after the Napoleonic Wars had ended.
>>64416105
The french gendarmes of the 15th and 16th century would clown on 13th century knights.

File: Tin-Can-Listening-2024-0121.png (327 KB, 1100x326)

327 KB PNG

>>64412572
Checkmate, historyfag

>>64415872
>Horses are fucking huge,
You just answered your own question.

If you're seeing a huge animal with a screaming dude charging straight at you, you're not holding your ground unless you have a solid mass of your buddies to back you up

>>64413810
What?
Linear warfare depended on the bayonet charge as one of the core principles of it's operation, and depending on the army and exact time period even more so than musket fire

>>64416450
He's conflating casualty rates with effectiveness.

>>64413810
>obligatory disclaimer that linear warfare is a very broad topic with much more variety and depth than it's often given credit for, so exact tactics and usage will likely vary depending on exactly when/where one looks, and it's not impossible that we might both be recalling correct information from sources of different contexts
From what I've read, bayonet charges were quite decisive, with the low casualty rate being a result of them typically being resolved before connecting: the ultimate purpose is not to inflict harm upon the defenders with the bayonet, but to force them into giving up their position under threat of it. Either the defenders get the message and withdraw (at risk of routing if the order is delayed too long), or the advancing attackers decide it's not turning out as well as they hoped, cut their losses, and break off the attack.
>>64415851
>I don't think people realize how immensely difficult it is to coordinate an army of that size - and the smaller units within it for that matter - in an era before the invention of radios.
I suspect that many aren't fully aware of the true scale of such battles in the first place
movies for one are obviously incentivized to cut down the amount of people involved, because coordinating more extras requires more budget and effort
it's not really their fault but reenactors have a similar problem, because no matter how passionate and well-informed they are, the hobby is simply too niche to represent the actual numbers either: the end result is reenacting battles with maybe a dozen or two people per batallion, often with the field itself being downscaled for lack of space or being easier for spectators to observe (I've seen videos where they're stuck "fighting" so close together that even without any shot, they have to aim extremely high above the enemy due to the risk of harming them)

>>64417898
I watched the Battle of Audterliz from the new Napoleon film on YouTube the other day. I reasoned if they did it justice then mayhe the rest of the film might be worth a watch.
It was like 30 real people and 100 CGI ones running around like retards while Joquin Phoneix pretended he was some sperg playing total war.

>>64418321
The only good thing about that movie were the costumes.
Watch waterloo if you want some actual scale, and even then the number of extras involved is like 1/10th of what the actual numbers were at the battle

>>64418398
I have and while the scale is impressive its really constrained by the filming capabilities and effects of the day.

>>64418321
>>64418398
>>64418660
https://youtu.be/bIij-KQ0jYU?si=1iBCZmay-OJzW730&t=5894

Austerlitz from the 7 hour War and Peace the director, Bondarchuk, made before Waterloo. Part 3, almost exclusively about Borodino, has some of the greatest moments in film. That being said, stuff like the delayed/faked recoil of the artillery, and his love of cavalry charging in the background alongside long panning montages aren't for everyone.

>>64413057
Line warfare also coincided with the point in history where European armies went up against literally everyone else on earth, usually outnumbered, and won so decisively their former subjects are still crying and shitting their pants over it to this day.

>>64416152
how would yuroid cavalry have done against the plains injuns? could they have won at little big horn?

If cavalry was such a problem for irregular formations, why didn't people just wear Cheval de frise spikes on them all the time? There's no way horses could charge through that.

>>64420213
I mean they were armed in a similar way to US cavalry, especially the dragoons. They were just a lot more flashily dressed. Saber and cuirass beat tomahawk.

What they would be is more numerous. The US standing army was absolutely tiny even post civil war.

>>64413823
the crossbowmen that the English wiped of the field at Agincourt had their pavises in wagons.
wagons that got bogged down in the wagon train. the battle was at Agincourt their pasives where God knows where.
now do that not for a contingent of a couple hundred mercenary crossbowmen but for and entire Napoleonic army in the tens of thousands.
heck just think of the draft horses, one wagon per company, two horses per wagon you are looking at 20-30 horses for a regiment. that also includes an other two dozen men to drive and care for them, two wagons of feed for the carts with the armour.
if you want to give battle those carts have to be brought up, find their company and have them take their armour . that would take at least half a day to get everything sorted. if you are attacked while so disorganized, gg. or the enemy can just give you the slip and make you pack up again. by the time you are done they are a full days march away. or you could go after them with the armour on but you will be slower and a good number of men will ditch their armour. by the time you catch them half your men will be exhausted and the other half without their armour.
that's not to mention that ever regiment has now added an other two hundred or so meters to the supply train. you are doubling the length of the division's supply train. all of it going over single often not very great condition road that's going to get torn up. if the supply train get's suck due to this it isn't just the armour that's going nowhere but also guns, extra provision and munition.
you division is now slowed down because it's supply train gets stuck more, has to go int action without proper support more often ect.
that's not even touching on the cost of it all.
for half the horses, extra length of the supply train, extra men and cost of supplying the armour. you could just double the division's artillery

>>64420233
custer's 7th cav didn't have sabers or armor. they only had trapdoor carbines and colt revolvers.

File: Spanischer_Reiter-min.jpg (940 KB, 3648x2736)

940 KB JPG

>>64419946
European cavalry wouldn't have developed in the "european" way if those states were located in North America. The loss at Little Big Horn was due to false information supplied by native scouts and Custers own choices and not the organisation and tactics of the US Cavalry.
>>64420213
This was done by the Imperials during the Ottoman Wars of the 17th century on the Balkans. See pic rel: spears with integrated musket rests could be linked together with a central beam to create a Cheval De Frise. The issue is that those are additional items that needed to be carried into the field and had to be assembled there. A process which will slow down your infantry and costs time - and time is a ressource one seldom has.

>>64412484
We covered this.
First, between the smoke and lack of radio it was hard to coordinate a scattered group. You could field skirmishers but they needed more training not to get disoriented.
Second, the shear weight of firepower a line of infantry could deliver often meant that line infantry could break through lines of skirmishers.
Third, muskets were so inaccurate that most deaths were due to the bayonet. A common tactic was to march up to maybe 50 paces, fire a single volley, and then charge while the enemy is disoriented.
Fourth, cavalry was still a thing. Infantry squares worked well but it's really hard to get skirmishers into a square.
>>64412495
Short answer, it would be expensive and heavy and not really work. Infantry would just march right up to those shields and put shots through them while artillery would target the pavises specifically to make shrapnel.

>>64420281
Yes and European dragoons and cuirassiers would have had armour. I said similar, not identical. And US cav would have had sabers, at least the officers.

>>64420879
>there's a napoleon quote about how you can't have a decisive victory without cavs
This was also why an ordered withdrawal was so important, it kept the enemy cav from ripping you to shreds.

>>64420213
irregular means an open, lose skirmishing formation. you'd have a man every couple of meters
to have enough cheval de frise every man would have to lug around 200+kg of wood and metal

>>64412778
Me and my three friends stand back to back forming a square, checkmate Mr. Ed

>>64420879
>the bayonet would prevent a cavalry charge
Lots of bayonets arranged in a square, yes. A few guys with bayonets? Read a book, midwit

>>64421589
>>64420879
Bayonets did not prevent cavalry charges. Bayonets and two close range volleys prevented cavalry charges.

>>64420392
>European cavalry wouldn't have developed in the "european" way if those states were located in North America.
so you're saying the difference was because of geography?

>>64421634
No. Well done. I'll go a step further and clarify that these bayonets were attached to muskets, and these musket were wielded by human men

>>64415840
Sauce?

It is the commander's job to find the right moment for a charge to be effective, but even Napoleon failed.

>>64412484
Dumbass commanders were too stupid to invent the mounted grenadier carricole. Would fuck those squares right up to wheel an entire regiment throwing bombs into their lines.

>>64421865
Crecy by Warren Ellis. A bit of metafiction, not at all historically accurate, but a pretty interesting read.

>>64421634
Oh for fuck sake are you going to rethread the previous.... ehm, thread word for word?

>>64415840
>picrel:
The retarded comic that was written by someone that thought longbows dominated battles in Europe for centuries after Crecy? Despite firearms rapidly becoming far more important?

>>64412484
Yes they did, and it all makes sense if you understand the time period and how they fought.

>>64412484
Everything has a counter.
Line = Line
Column > Line
Column < Artillery
Line > Artillery
Cavalry > Line
Cavalry > Artillery
Cavalry = Column (debatable)
Square > Cavalry
Square < Line
Square < Column
Square < Artillery

>>64412964
I think one of the problems people have is that they are thinking today's way of thinking and with the technology we have instead of thinking in a mindset in the past with their technology. Rows of soldiers are easier to control, see and command in an era with black powder that obscured vision and an era with no telephones, radios and the tech was very limited.

>>64421815
Mainly yes. Their foes were also mainly natives and other colonial states that fought in lighter manners as well. Cuirassiers were simply not needed.

>>64422119
I'm not saying the rest of the comic is good, I'm just saying this one line he says has always stayed with me and has helped to recontextualize decisions made in the past.

>>64422150
>Column > Line
Not if it's a British line

>>64422336
what about during the civil war?

>>64423181
Napoleon style cavalry wouldn't have worked as by that time gun technology advanced enough to give infantry advantages over cavalry so most were either dragoon equivalents or raiding units.

Which is ironic because civil war generals were Napoleonboos who used similar tactics but without the critical addition of shock cavalry that was needed to complete the formula outlined here >>64422150

>>64419946
>could they have won at little big horn?
Didn't the cavalry at lbh manage to be both ounumbered and outgunned? Sounds like a really poor premise.

>>64423864
custer had decisive victory disease, and left behind most of his heavy equipment, including some gatling guns, to speed up his march to confront the injuns faster under the belief that their spencer repeating rifles could handle it
it couldnt

>>64423877
Didn't Custer get hit of the break and then his men kept retreating without a leader and killed piecemeal? A lot of the battlefield wounds of troopers were self inflicted gunshot wounds to the head.

File: Violet-3.png (32 KB, 600x337)

32 KB PNG

>>64412484
>Spread out
>Can't order anyone to do anything because everyone is all over the place doing their own thing
>Can't see shit with all the smoke to change your mind
>Officers can't locate or distinguish men to give orders
>Enemy concentrates fire and destroys every position piece by piece by having 10x more guns at every engagement
>Enemy takes every position for free with mass and shock
>Everyone runs away whenever confronted because of local superiority and no support or officer oversight
>Cavalry carves up every weak position
>Uncoordinated retreat, lose your entire army in an era where battle casualties normally very low
>Nation destroyed
>Ur race considered cucks for the next 1000 years

>>64424045
which race was that?

>>64424065
The one everyone laughs at 2 this day because of the battle of cucksville under general spreadeagle

>>64424119
Poland?

>>64412484
Ignore the anons rationalizing this shit, it was barely less stupid than it sounds today. One /k/ommander alone could have redpilled the entire civilized world by using slightly less retarded tactics. I curse god that we will never be able to prove this.
>wars were won by logistics and morale, numbers etc bla bla bla
These armies rarely ever punched above their weight, and kept winning easy fights only after taking stupid losses.

>>64425151
have fun organizing thousands of dudes without a single radio when the field is covered in smoke
>These armies rarely ever punched above their weight
literally steamrolled the entire world so hard that everyone else is still seething about it

File: Portuguese_Army,_4th_Caça(...).png (3.13 MB, 1195x1564)

3.13 MB PNG

>>64425151
oh yeah also the mere existence of light infantry is proof that they had considered just not fighting in lines; with technology of the period, such tactics only had niche applications and weren't really viable as standard practice without smokeless powder, metallic cartridges, etc (which in of themselves weren't really viable for mass-production without further developments in industrialization)

>>64422150
Why column beats the line?

File: Sharpe Sunglasses.jpg (78 KB, 400x460)

78 KB JPG

>>64422150
>Column > Line
Not with three shots a minute

>>64412805
what if your own cav are doing something else? Or the enemy has more cav than you?

>>64426531
What if we go to four shots per minute?

>>64429083
Now that's soldiering

File: OrdreMixte.jpg (69 KB, 1089x618)

69 KB JPG

>>64426907
Don't waste your cav then. Easier said then done; I know. Multiple battles were lost because the cavalry of the winning side decided to fuck off and plunder the bagge train. One good example would be the Battle of Lützen, where Wallenstein sent his light Croats (catch all term for irregular cavalry of the Balkans) to outflank the swedes. They did but also found the swedish bagge train and chose to raid it. Thus preventing a full encirclement of the swedes.
>>64426401
Not exactly. The column was the primary manoeuver formation for infantry and cavalry on the battlefield as it is thin - albeit long. Usually the column was to deploy into line when hostile line infantry is met but such a manoeuver is rather complicated. As the newly raised massed infantry of the 1st French Republic had no chance to be properly drilled, the Demi-Brigade (also known as Ordre Mixte) was developed. It fulfilled the function of a regiment but this term was associated with the old monarchy and thus not used. But most importantly it mixed freshly raised recruits with experienced soldiers (the brain & talent drain of the french army wasn't as bad as that of the french navy). The fresh recruits would be formed up as columns on the battlefield. Thus they were deployed in formations that were easy to move, control and (importantly) good for moral as the green recruits were surrounded by their buddies. The experienced soldiers on the other hand were deployed in lines and as skirmisher. Thus they had the duty do "prepare" the enemy formations with their firepower while the fresh recruits in column would be used to assault the "prepared" enemy with a bayonet charge (and a simple was to repell cavalry due to their mass).
While this organisation as a whole was complicated it compartmentalised the tactical difficulties and the experienced soldiers carried the brunt of those.
1/2

Come 1802 and the Peace of Amiens the organisation of the Demi-Brigade was abandoned and the terminology of "regiment" reinstated. With this period of peace a bulk of the french army was trained at the Camp of Boulogne for an anticipated invasion of the UK. Here the experienced soldiers of the revolutionary wars were further drilled and the french army became truly standardized (a process that already began during the 1st republic). And while now organised as regiments again, the mixed order was still practiced. But as the Napoleonic Wars dragged on the once high standards dropped. Columns were redeployed too late into lines or even deployed in the wrong situations (see here the spanish theater). This of course was exacerbated by the fact that the newly raised recruits needed the column for the aforementioned reasons and that the pool of supporting veterans grew ever slimmer.
2/2

>>64412484
I asked this very Question in 1915, and General Haig said it was because we've always done it that way, and we would keep doing it that way until we finally had that big cavalry breakthrough. It was a bad time.

>>64430262
so the columns weren't even expected to shoot and were just supposed to run in and stab?

>>64430441
No. The battalions/companies that form the columns could and did deploy in line. It was just easier for very fresh recruits to keep them in column and use their weight on the charge.

>>64426531
Patrick can do 7 shots in 1 second, forget about the reload

>>64412484

Lately I've been doing some reading into how linear warfare worked, and there's one thing in particular that I've not been able to find a good source on yet: when officers and NCOs were killed/wounded/otherwise incapacitated in battle, what were typical procedures regarding reorganization to accommodate ther absence in management/chain of command?
Would there be trusted subordinate/s nominated to take command in their absence? Would private casualties generally be proportional enough to just merge multiple companies/platoons/divisions together and carry on as normal without them?

File: Friedrich-II.-von-Preußen-1.jpg (206 KB, 800x1008)

206 KB JPG

>>64429162
Soldiering, you say? Do go on.

>>64433543
If any given link is killed the link below it rises to take it's place. Typically, you'd figure out who that was before-hand and have them briefed and positioned to take command. When dealing with multiple officers of similar rank you'd go by seniority either in-rank or overall.

That being said, the system didn't always work so good. If you suffered enough casualties it could take a few minutes just to figure out who wasn't dead and who was in charge. Sometimes, you'd get officers of similar rank and seniority that absolutely refused to cooperate. Very common in the pre-industrial era when most officers were nobles or just very, very rich.

>Would private casualties generally be proportional enough to just merge multiple companies/platoons/divisions together and carry on as normal without them?
Merging units was a command decision. Yes, units got merged if they took too many casualties but there was no automatic process for this.

>>64433557
Ah, Friedrich the Second. Excellent strategist, cunning politician, economic reformer, gayer than a rainbow.

>>64433543
Like the other Anon said: local command was passed down to the most senior officer. NCOs like sergeants in general would be exempt from higher commanding roles due to their status - but they were of course still important and if killed or wounded, experienced soldiers would take up their roles in an ad hoc manner.
The whole rank system of the 18th and early 19th century was far less developed and more fluid than more contemporary ones.
>Would private casualties generally be proportional enough to just merge multiple companies/platoons/divisions together and carry on as normal without them?
Fun fact: different grenadier companies were often detached from their regiments to form dedicated grenadier battalions for specific battles and afterwards those battalions were dispanded.

>>64433718
Gayer than a rainbow?

>>64412484
The rulers were all inbred/interbred Habsburgs so it was just a way of flexing on each other.
>MY expendable minions are so much more disciplined than yours! Watch how they march to certain death in hilariously impractical uniforms without breaking rank!

>>64415840
>an illiterate peasant from the 12th century would know the term "cumulative knowledge"

>>64412495
>>64412708
>>64413438
Unnecessary expense. Conscripts are cheap.

File: tsp-160-grapeshot.jpg (259 KB, 672x936)

259 KB JPG

>>64422150
>Cavalry > Artillery

File: Tinder-14-768x1365.jpg (59 KB, 768x1365)

59 KB JPG

>>64413108
Obviously we're smarter than they were back then we have phone cameras and Tiktok

>>64434667
kekking at this

>>64434554
he was so gay that he wanted to become french

>>64434685
lol kek. And he played the flute too.

>>64412484
You're thinking of it all wrong. Stop comparing it to mordern warfare and start seeing it as an extension of medieval warfare, where you spread out, you get run down by superior numbers and stabbed to death.

>>64435395
>stabbed to death.
How is this possible, you have a gun, just shoot them nigga lmao

>>64433718
Rainbows are not gay. You on the other hand...

>>64434554
Absolutely no interest in women, definitely an interest in men. Fainted when his farther forced him to watch his first boyfriend be executed.
>>64435589
I told you Freidrich was gayer than a rainbow.

>>64436114
I don't think he had a boyfriend. I heard he tried to leave the army or something and that a court said he should be executed, but the nobility of Europe intervened to prevent it and they killed some other guy who was part of or helped him escape. I do remember a quote in which he said that women don't catch his eye, but a tall man gets his interest. I thought it was reference to grenadiers.

But he must have disbanded his father's beloved Giants regiment.

>>64436169
>>64436114
nvm. I stand corrected. Man that sucks.

>>64435395
It's safe to compare it to modern warfare when they fought in modern conditions and did fight like modern soldiers: mostly during sieges.

File: Carl_Rohling_-_Friedrich_(...).jpg (125 KB, 555x800)

125 KB JPG

>>64436114
>Absolutely no interest in women
He had an interest in women, as he courted an italian ballerina (Friedrich II. even imprisioned her fiancé for over a year) and dedicated several poems to german duchesses and most famously Catherine the Great of Russia.
The fact that he died childless is also probably due to a sexually transmitted infection but it is likely that he sired a bastard as a young prince with the wife of his fathers court banker.
>>64436169
>I heard he tried to leave the army
Friedrich II. wanted to escape his strict and brutal father, Friedrich Wilhelm I., who had often beaten him in public. Most likely the abuse he experienced by his father turned Friedrich II. into a celibate/unable for romantic relationships.
> I do remember a quote in which he said that women don't catch his eye, but a tall man gets his interest.
That statement was made by his father Friedrich Wilhelm I. Friedrich Wilhelm I. became the chief of this regiment in 1675. In 1709 a special battalion for this regiment was raised by order of Friedrich Wilhelm I., which was to contain the "giants". This battalion became known as the Red Grenadiers and only this battalion became a guard formation for Friedrich Wilhelm I. and the successive prussian kings.
>>64436207
Friedrich II. reduced the regiment to a single battalion (the Red Grenadiers) to be kept as guards in addition to his own guard regiment. He also abandoned the minimum height requirement for those soldiers of 1,88 meters.

>>64412484
That era was a doctrinal war fought between the grenadier and the voltigeur. While guns were still too unwieldy and inaccurate, squares of grenadiers with bristling bayonets were the king of the battlefield. They could decimate light and heavy cavalry alike with shot as they charged and then act as pikemen when there was no more time to reload.

I think more ado is made about massed fires than is deserved. Without cavalry on the battlefield, we might have seen voltigeurs skirmishing more successfully even before the advent of cartridges and smokeless powder. Obviously, today we are all voltigeurs. The grenadiers are strictly ceremonial.

File: 85e67e2fc839be028d8c64bea(...).png (425 KB, 634x1098)

425 KB PNG

I bet the hatmakers hat a great time during the wars of the period. In fact it would not surprise me if they spend their enormous wealth to partially conspire to start and fuel conflicts.

The hatmaker, he starts wars, he fuels wars.

>>64413792
>they can use their superior mobility to just turn and leave
Then you can just fire 10% of your muskets at them as they are retreating and pick up a few free kills while the other 90% are kept in reserve in case the cavalryfags get any funny ideas.

>>64416391
Have you ever used one of those?

>>64424155
No. Getaklooistan.

>>64422150
Arty isn't a counter to a square?

>>64412484
Yeah, old people were just retarded and did stuff like this for literally no reason, even though it killed them.

>>64436905
Imagine how retarded the other guys must have been if these ones conquered the world doing it

>>64436890
The square formation is static. It’s just for defense against cavalry because they can’t flank you. It doesn’t move or bring as many guns to bear as a line formation so it loses there and because it doesn’t move you can’t do anything about artillery. You have to form back up into a line to attack the artillery. I don’t know why he’s mentioning columns like fighting was done in columns, those were just for marching from place to place before forming up into a line.

>>64436906
Yeah, we’re so much more enlightened and gay now. I love Israel!

>>64436890
Squares don't really need a counter, they're weak against everything but cavalry.

>>64435510
>shoot one guy
>now you have to take ages to reload while his homies stab you

>>64435510
It takes 30 seconds to reload.

>>64412484
Since the Middle Ages, this WORKED.
Sending single troops with inaccurate firearms, advancing using cover to arrive in small numbers WAS LESS EFFECTIVE.
When your weapons are not accurate, THIS WORKS.
It seems like stupidity to you because you only understand and know modern rapid warfare with modern systems and machines and accuracy.
You wouldn't have lasted long using 'modern tactics' in those olden days. The kit your troops had would have made those modern tactics useless, and more importantly, deadly to you and your men.

>>64436861
10% of your muskets firing isn't going to accomplish anything at all.

>>64437466
niggas still stood in lines and shot each other in the American Civil War even though they had reliable repeating rifles by then lmao

>>64438466
Repeating rifles were also rare and the ACW is when we see the breakdown of line warfare.