How the hell did anyone want to fight back in the age of line infantry? The thought of being in the first rank frightens the fuck out of me, the casualties must have been sky high for the guys at the front without mention of cannonballs smashing through several ranks of people as well.
Fuck WW1, this was the most brutal type of warfare.
Watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zSowOS4Wyg
>>1265102
>having to stand in formation and not fire wile several hundred men shoot at you.
That's it, I prefer trench warfare.
>>1265076
The most brutal would be ancient or medieval I think. Mostly because medieval would be fairly even until one sides shield wall broke, and then it would become an actual slaughter as one side just butchered the retreating forces.
Medieval would be brutal too.
At least with guns (especially before rifling) you had no way of knowing who you had actually killed
>>1265122
And when I say medieval in that first part I mean ancient
Much less of the uncertainty and tension of modern warfare, and much less of the personal brutality of medieval and ancient battles, plus you get to wear some fabulous uniforms. Sure it's no picnic, but I can't see why it wouldn't be the easiest of all possible worlds
Casualties actually weren't so huge, see numbers for those battles.
Musketry wasn't so precise, that's exactly why they were massed. Usually less disciplined formation lost it and ran away. That's why Swedish infantry was so feared for quite some time, they were fanatic (predestination) and they would march under enemy fire until coming very close, then they would unleash a volley, come even closer and unleash another one, and that was usually enough. Then charge would follow.
But I don't remember a single battle in that period that was Cannae-style slaughter.
>>1265151
On the other hand today if you're shot in the arm or leg it doesn't mean probable amputation or even death as in those times.
War in general sucks, that's how it is.
>>1265076
It's why discipline and cohesion were so essential, the individual soldier wasn't a target, it was the formation. If you're advancing with your battalion in column and you've got hundreds of men marching shoulder to shoulder with you to the sound of a steady drum beat then you might not feel as afraid as you think. Bear in mind also that when battalions would face each other in the field they would rarely fire more than a few inaccurate shots before quickly closing the distance.
But yes, as a general rule pitched battles were costly and armies were expensive. So if you were a soldier in the age of line infantry you'd more likely be marching back and forth trying to threaten lines of communication and digging siege trenches than actually facing the enemy head on. It was like a giant chess game, you want to position yourself to win but you don't want to lose your pieces.
>>1265076
Being at the front was seen as an honor. The vanguards were usually the more veteran soldiers.
>>1265182
On the other hand combat in medieval and ancient times almost certainly meant death though.
I would much rather serve in modern/premodern military than ancient or medieval.
>>1265166
>But I don't remember a single battle in that period that was Cannae-style slaughter.
battle lines were much longer and more flexible so harder to encircle the enemy.
also quarter was often liberally offered and taken.
>>1265209
>On the other hand combat in medieval and ancient times almost certainly meant death though.
the Battle of Bouvines was one of the largest and most important of the medieval period and resulted in very few actual deaths. Lots of folks ran away, lots surrendered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bouvines
>>1265238
Unfortunately I believe this stands closer to an exception than a rule. Medieval probably has less slaughter than ancient warfare (I'm no expert) but in general they were both quite brutal.
>>1265166
>they were fanatic (predestination)
What did anon mean by this?
>>1265276
I don't know, but if it's anything like the movie predestination we will be here a while trying to work it out.
>>1265279
At first I thought he was referring to the Swedes belief in Predestination stemming from Calvinism. But I know for sure that the Swedes were mostly Lutheran during the Early Modern Age.
>>1265276
He means the notion that God has already chosen your path through life and the manner of your death (including your salvation) It's common among certain protestant sects.
See John Calvin.
>>1265076
It wasn't until the American Civil War when images of actual battlefield carnage became easily available in newspapers. Most soldiers were quickly mustered up with inexperienced troops nothing nothing about warfare than what was portrayed in romantically drawn pictures like OP posted
>>1265102
pathetic way to die desu
You all understand that minie ball bullets only had a penetration of about 4 inches?
>>1265369
>4 inches
Yeah, and you get 2 pounds of shattered bone and muscle in the process.
>>1265102
How did such warfare even develope?
They were desperate men looking for some prestige and pay, mostly young, lost boys. Like any army pre 1991. Prove me wrong.
>>1265404
What, did mercenaries magically disappear after 1991?
>>1265400
More guns per square foot is more efficient. You try to attack in a spread out formation, and the enemy in a close formation is going to have more guns shooting back at you than you can direct against him. The close formation is also more resistant to charges, better able to execute a charge itself, and less likely to be dispersed and retreat. The benefits of standing close together outweighed the drawbacks. Bullets tended to miss high or low much more often than to the left or right.
>>1265102
>enemies fire four times before british start firing
Who was the retard here? The british didnt look out if effective range.
>>1265400
Well, for starters, the level of communication is at the level of "Shout really loudly".
Secondly, despite the fact that guns had advanced to the point that every soldier would have some sort of firearm as their primary weapon, they were still slow and unreliable enough that hand to hand combat was very much a thing, especially from cavalry. A formation could take losses way, way faster from a cavalry charge breaking through and hitting people with sabres than it could by standing there and being shot at.
So you have these two forces that pushed in different directions: You're less vulnerable to fire if you're spread out, but you're less vulnerable to hand to hand (shock) if you're bunched up. And shock was still considered the more deadly of the two, so bunching up became the norm.
It's really with the development of something akin to modern rifles, the bullets finally getting more dangerous than the melee, that you see 18th-19th century lines drifting further and further apart to become the skirmish lines of the Franco-Prussian war era
>>1265409
Mostly. Blackwater was a small operation and is mercs are lost and think they are paid handsomly.
With cheese dicks getting paid 250 grand at google and global mercenary bans, theyre much less popular than before.
>>1265397
Yes but there is a reason why they literally walked at each other - dying wasn't as common as you thought. yes you would get shot and wounded, killed though? not likely.
>>1265428
Disease was more likely.
Also, the minie ball was relevant for only about 3 decades tops.
>>1265428
Dude, where are you even getting this from? A musket leaves a much larger wound cavity than even a modern bullet. There are accounts of musket balls passing through a man and killing the guy standing behind him.
>>1265441
From the fact that minnie bullets had a very small penetration rate, and by the fact that armies literally walked at each other.
![Wallen_wounded_by_Minie_ball[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LuwiC6a.jpg "Wallen_wounded_by_Minie_ball[1].jpg")
>>1265449
>From the fact that minnie bullets had a very small penetration rate,
WHAT is your SOURCE?
>>1265461
History? Science and testing? I am not pulling this number out my ass.
>There are accounts of musket balls passing through a man and killing the guy standing behind him.
If you had read the wiki article you are referencing then you would know that's literally a rumor spread after they tested the minnie rifle and minnie bullets.
>>1265468
>History? Science and testing? I am not pulling this number out my ass.
Okay, so you don't have a source and you're pulling it out of your ass.
I'm not referencing a wiki article. I've come across these accounts during my own reading of primary sources, because believe it or not, it actually fucking happened pretty often.
"I have kept in bed these 11 months, through a musket bullet that pierced my chest, and killed my fellow that stood behind ; but cursed be the death that left me to languish."
>>1265474
You literally pulled that image from a wiki article which the rumor you are still using is based on. Do you think I am an idiot or something?
>A test in Vincennes in 1849 demonstrated that at 15 yards the bullet was able to penetrate two boards of poplar wood, each two-thirds of an inch thick and separated by 20 inches. Soldiers of the time spread rumors that at 1,200 yards the bullet could penetrate a soldier and his knapsack and still kill anyone standing behind him, even killing every person in a line of 15.
>>1265482
Hell even the fucking image file names you used are the exact same as the wiki, where I got this test from.
Jesus Christ anon, you need to up your autism.
>>1265102
Kubrick was the best.
I wish Napoleon got made.
>>1265482
I pulled the image from google images because it's a fitting reaction image to your bullshit.
Obviously the bullet wouldn't retain enough energy to do that kind of damage at 1,200 yards. Thing is, nobody actually fought at that range. At reasonable combat distances the bullet was extremely deadly.
You still haven't named a source for your 4" of penetration story (penetration of WHAT?) so you have no right to complain about Wikipedia even if I was citing it, which I'm not.
>>1265495
Are you illiterate?
>>1265505
Wait, you're citing wikipedia after falsely whining that I was citing wikipedia?
Wikipedia is talking about penetration of wood at 1,000 fucking yards. A bullet would have lost most of its energy from wind reistance at that distance. Nobody was shooting at each other from 1,000 yards. They wouldn't have even been able to see each other from that far away. Penetration at 1,000 yards is not evidence of how the bullet actually performed at actual combat distances.
>>1265523
So yes, you are illiterate.
>>1265523
A test in Vincennes demonstrated that at FIFTEEN YARDS the bullet's penetration was X
Soldiers of the time spread rumors that at TWELVE HUNDRED YARDS the bullet could go through the soldier and the guy behind him.
Not even the guy you're responding to, but Jesus, you're thick.
>>1265267
Not really. With a lot of corpses archaeologists find on medieval battlegrounds the skeletons show healed injuries from previous battles like broken & healed bones, and slight cuts that had been partially healed in the bones or in the skull, indicating you could very well survive injuries sustained in battles several times.
As well, usually after the first lines started to route you would allow the enemies army to retreat for the most part, if they didn't send in rested troops as an exchange (like the Romans did). You maybe ran down the slowest of them with your cavalry, but not all of them, since it was well known, that a cornered army (cause now they are fighting for their lives) was fighting much more fiercely, leading to higher losses on your side as well.
>>1265539
>A test in Vincennes demonstrated that at FIFTEEN YARDS the bullet's penetration was X
And you're calling me illiterate? Read it again.
Then read this. It's intended for highschool students, so it might be a bit beyond you, but give it a try anyway.
http://muttermuseum.org/static/media/uploads/civilwar_lp4_fnl.pdf
Or watch a minie bullet tested against ballistic gel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0AxKGRKY3g
>>1265421
>the level of communication is at the level of "Shout really loudly"
In small skirmishes yes. In large one that just isn't true. From ancient and medieval times on already you had trumpets and other instrument signals giving orders to troops that are fairly far away, and from the Napoleonic aera on even Semaphore lines / optical telegraphs were used to give orders to far away on the field.
>>1265076
Chances of being shot were pretty low. You'd have way more chance of dying from shitting yourself in camp than being shot, and that's not because muskets were SUPER INACCURATE!!!
>>1265555
Yes, I am calling you illiterate. Anon >>1265482
quoted a test which was conducted at 15 yards. Your immediate response in post >>1265495
was to claim that
>Obviously the bullet wouldn't retain enough energy to do that kind of damage at 1,200 yards. Thing is, nobody actually fought at that range. At reasonable combat distances the bullet was extremely deadly.
when 1200 yards was only mentioned in regards to a soldier's rumor, you fucking idiot. Also, the source you posted mentioned nothing about penetration depth, or engagement ranges. So good job there.
>>1265555
Literally the first thing in that article says that the bullets rarely passed through it's victims, you understand that's the whole fucking point right? No one said they didn't wound or maim people - they didn't kill, because they didn't penetrate, that's the fucking point you mong. You are extremely illiterate and you need to practice your reading of English.
>>A test in Vincennes in 1849 demonstrated that at 15 yards the bullet was able to penetrate two boards of poplar wood, each two-thirds of an inch thick and separated by 20 inches.
Where does this say 1000 yards?
Where does it say anything but what it fucking says
Jesus fucking Christ man, when I said you have to increase your autism I didn't mean like this. Not like this.
The entire military culture back then was based on the concept of marching in lines. Soldiers were drilled constantly, and whipped/hanged if they did not obey.
>>1265584
>>1265583
Holy shit
AND
YOU
ARE
CALLING
ME
ILLITERATE
Watch this video. The minie is able to easily penetrate two block of ballistic gel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0AxKGRKY3g
>>1265595
You understand that has literally nothing to do with what we are saying right? Jesus fucking Christ illiterate/10. You pulled that out of no where and expected us to know what you are talking about, hahahahaha. You understand even YOU were refuting that point? When you were the only one using said point and you are now using it as reasoning? Holy shit cunt, you are actually hilarious.
>>1265609
Let's just forget the fact that this argument isn't even about the bullets anymore, I wonder why?
:^)
>>1265609
You were claiming that the bullet could only penetrate 4", unsourced.
I point out that the wikipedia article you apparently got the information from was describing 4" of penetration at 1,000 yards.
I also posted a video of a minie ball penetrating two blocks of ballistic gel which you've ignored because it completely demolishes your argument.
Fuck it, I'm being trolled, aren't I? You got me good, Mr. "Minie balls couldn't kill anyone". Respect.
>>1265076
Just turn sideways.
>>1265634
I am glad you are done, Mr Literacy.
Have a nice day, if you can understand what that means.
>>1265634
Remember, literally everything you post proved the fact that bullets did not penetrate deep, which was the reason why armies walked straight at each other.
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2N3JGQb.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>1265650
![BallisticGelW[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lqnnKpd.jpg "BallisticGelW[1].jpg")
>>1265650
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDX_Lc_FTm0
>>1265650
Shoot yourself with one
Don't worry, it won't kill you :^)
>>1265654
You understand neither of those guns were used in the American Civil war. They used the 61' variants.
>>1265664
>The Model 1863 was only a minor improvement over the Springfield Model 1861. As such, it is sometimes classified as just a variant of the Model 1861
>>1265669
>this is evidence
What?
>>1265671
>A hurr durr lets shoot modern guns with older bullets and use this as evidence.
Can't tell if still trolling or just noguns
You can't shoot a .58 minie ball out of a .45 pistol.
>>1265676
You understand they are testing the 1903 Springfield vs the 1861?
What are you all even trying to prove? You all got rustled hard, not even trolling - you're all just idiots.
Let's just agree to disagree. Armies during the American civil war walked straight at each other without fear of gunfire not because the bullets barely penetrated, but because the generals were idiots and the army was made up of real men who didn't care about nuffin.
Happy?
Let's just disregard the fact that literally, again, literally everything you all are posting is proving the fact that they do not penetrate deep enough on a consistent basis to slaughter as you say they do :^).
>>1265076
>How the hell did anyone want to fight back in the age of line infantry?
Paying people helps.
>>1265693
Then why does this say that a minie bullet could penetrate 11" of pine at 200 yards and 6.33 inches at 600 yards?
https://archives.columbusstate.edu/gah/1993/46-53.pdf
>>1265693
>bullets didnt penetrate
Autism doesnt reflect bullets anon. You'd be immortal if that were the case
>>1265725
You understand the modern .303 can penetrate up to 40 inches of hardwood? There is a reason why when bullets got more penetrative power the tactics change.
11 inches is fuck all, especially considering the fact you would have to hit a fatal spot for that penetration to kill someone. You should also probably read the things you are using as source.
>22%
>>1265756
>22%
29%**
>>1265758
Well I derped that.
>>1265756
I can post screenshots too.
You've been demolished. It's time to stop posting, son.
>>1265773
So where does this post even touch on penetration?
Did you go to high school? Did they teach you how to identify bias?
>Clearly the Civil War soldier faced a far grimmer prospect of injury from shot than does his modern counterpart
You understand if you take this incredibly biased statement literally it still proves me right? Simply because injury doesn't equate to death.
>>1265792
>the source is biased because it disagrees with me
Yeah and a 50% chance of needing an amputation didn't matter to the soldiers at all :^)
Tactics only changed because of penetration even though minie balls caused more severe wounds than modern bullets, not because of breech loaders and machine guns and high explosives :^)))))))))
>>1265809
You understand the whole point of the argument is the fact that they were able to face each other in a straight line and shoot/advance because the chances of death were so low? It's got literally nothing to do with injury/maiming, I've said that over 50 times, it's got to do with death. Holy. Shit. And you have now provided me with evidence that even during facing off in a straight line shooting almost point blank the causality rate was only 22%, low as shit.
>Tactics only changed because of penetration even though minie balls caused more severe wounds than modern bullets, not because of breech loaders and machine guns and high explosives :^)))))))))
What is projection?
You can simply stop posting.
![casualties-by-war[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/WHYrJwo.jpg "casualties-by-war[1].jpg")
>>1265817
>You understand the whole point of the argument is the fact that they were able to face each other in a straight line and shoot/advance because the chances of death were so low?
![kwc-totals[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LaKGy9P.jpg "kwc-totals[1].jpg")
>>1265817
>>1265824
>what is a percentage.
>500k people died in WWII
What?
>>1265827
HAHAHAHAHAHAH, now, what has this got to do with minie bullets and straight line formations?
>the only weapons and tactics used in the civil war were minie rifles and straight advances.
Come now.
>>1265838
*30%
>>1265421
>"Shout really loudly"
Or you know, how all formations and large groups of people communicate, with musical instruments like the pipes, drums, horns, or flutes
>>1265838
>Don't you get tired from lugging arorund those goalposts?
This still has nothing to do with minie bullets and straight line formations though. You are using total deaths as use as evidence, whereas I am using actual records dated from the war relating to actual deaths from BEING SHOT. And how many people DIED and SURVIVED FROM BEING SHOT. 22%.
>>1265076
>Fuck WW1, this was the most brutal type of warfare.
Watching this is nightmare fuel, honestly fuck being a combatant in WW1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Pd527GN48
>>1265845
>And how many people DIED and SURVIVED FROM BEING SHOT. 22%.
People shot in the limbs, Mr. Illiterate. That number does not include men shot in the torso or head.
>>1265400
Sweden invented it during the 30 yrs war.
>>1265857
No fucking shit mate. It's not like I referenced this about 50 posts a go.
>11 inches is fuck all, especially considering the fact you would have to hit a fatal spot for that penetration to kill someone.
:^)
Literally proven thanks to material provided by you as use as evidence against me. If you think a 22% rate of death is high when the armies literally walked at each other in a straight line, then you are simply being ignorant. And the rate must be so low because they were shit shots, not becasue the penetration power was so low.
When will you understand that creating a wound has nothing to do with penetration power? It's essentially the opposite.
>>1265857
And here's fatality rates for those:
>The devastating trauma caused by the Minié ball was seen on a much larger scale during the US Civil War. Fatality rates were high for penetrating gunshot wounds to the abdomen (87%) and chest (62%) [12]. Early in the war, cautery and tourniquets were the primary approach to controlling hemorrhage, but as physicians grew more experienced, ligature became the primary means for hemostasis. Primary hemorrhage became rarer, but intermediate hemorrhage, after 3 or 4 days, was more frequent and carried a mortality rate of 62% [13].
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706344/
>>1265865
No you didn't.
>>1265867
>not providing full context of the quote
>giving percentages without the scope
:^)
![200[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/KoSoaMR.gif "200[1].gif")
>>1265866
>you would have to hit a fatal spot to kill someone.
WOWWWWWWWWWWWW
>When will you understand that creating a wound has nothing to do with penetration power?
Then why did you spend 50 posts arguing that a minie ball could only penetrate 4" until you were proven wrong?
>>1265873
>implying I have been proven wrong.
>WOWWWWWWWWWWWW
Literally fact as proven by surgical records indicating a fatality rate of 22% after being shot.
When will you make an actual point?
>>1265102
Why does war music sound so lame?
>>1265876
>Literally fact as proven by surgical records indicating a fatality rate of 22% after being shot.
22% for hits to the limbs. Fatality rates were high for penetrating gunshot wounds to the abdomen (87%) and chest (62%)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706344/
>>1265880
Are you actually retarded?
Did you just use 2 different uncorroborated or even cross-referenced sources and try to use it as a point? Kek. You understand 87% means literally nothing, right? What if it is 87% of 10 people shot in the abdomen but 22% of 174 thousand cases? It means literally nothing, those are 2 separate studies, you cannot use them together like that, are you serious right now?
>>1265887
Are you seriously implying that only 10 people were shot in the torso during the US Civil War?
That's almost as stupid as your belief that soldiers wouldn't care about losing limbs as long as they didn't outright die.
>>1265891
>Are you seriously implying that only 10 people were shot in the torso during the US Civil War?
No but you are the one using percentages without providing the full scope.
As while unlikely, it is still possible - you cannot know what those percentages mean without the full scope, do you understand?
You really need to pay more attention at school.
>>1265555
Quads wins?
>>1265817
>they were able to face each other in a straight line and shoot/advance because the chances of death were so low? It's got literally nothing to do with injury/maiming, I've said that over 50 times, it's got to do with death.
Are you retarded?
Armies dont give two fucks if you are injured vs you are killed. you are still a casualty who cannot fight. How deep the bullet penetrates doesnt matter, and tactics didnt change due to penetration. Tactics changed due to higher rate of fire and more accurate weapons. Soldiers didnt "walk at eachother" because they didnt think they would die, they did so because that was part of the honor code and tactics of the time, you nitwit.
>>1265979
Do you understand that all that has to do with the available weapons at the time?
Are you telling me that if they had the killing power of modern weapons they would still walk straight at each-other? Simply because that's what they did at the time? What their generals told them to do? What their generals thought was the best course of action to win a battle?
The reason why they were able to walk straight at each other to point blank range and shoot surely is because of the moral code and not the (by today standard) sub-par killing power of the rifles and munitions available at the time.
You need to think about what you are saying.
>>1265829
I think that's talking about americans.
>>1266062
I know, but that still doesn't hold up at all. Muricans were not the only ones in WWII.
>>1265076
>The thought of being in the first rank frightens the fuck out of me
Because you're a coward. Bullets were inaccurate as fuck, the thing were people really died were bayonet charges.
>>1265102
Kubrick's best film
>>1265118
It was about portraying an abrupt (and bad) decision by a commander, that cost people senselessly their lives. An overconfident commander will advance quickly and fire only once at close range before charging - that was the case here. Any other "staggered" advance where you move and shoot, costs time.
>>1266109
>Kubrick's best film
They are all shit. Babies first non-Bay Hollywood director.
Over glorified cinematographer.
>>1265102
Wow I am now a #guerillachilla
>>1266114
>Babies first non-Bay Hollywood director.
No. I still like 2001 and Barry Lyndon.
>>1266162
Thanks for proving my point.
>muh natural lighting
>muh evolutionary process only becoming evident after reading the book
Watch an actual director. Kubrick is shit. He is only famous because he is one of the better modern American directors, he and Lynch are trash. He didn't actually write any of his stories, all he did was film others ideas.
>>1265129
ancient warfare is still not shield wall warfare anon
>>1266169
>OHNOIAMSTUPID
:)
>>1266662
>LOL HURDUR IT MAKES SENSE EVEN THOUGH THE DIRECTOR SAID IT MAKES NO SENSE
:(
Men were of harder stuff back in the day. The idea of sacrificing yourself for something greater was still around. A modern "man" like you wouldn't understand.
>>1265076
>the casualties must have been sky high for the guys at the front
They weren't.
>>1265449
Nigga minnie bullets are fucking 19th century.
They've used simple lead balls.
>>1265076
Before the last century very few soldiers actually died in combat
>>1265166
>That's why Swedish infantry was so feared for quite some time
kek
>>1265102
Wait i thought this was an american song
>>1265468
>>1265474
>>1265482
>>1265485
>>1265495
>>1265583
>>1265595
>>1265609
>>1265611
>>1265634
>>1265644
>>1265650
>>1265654
>>1265659
>>1265663
>>1265676
>>1265693
>>1265734
laying this to rest. the muskets your talking about had stronger discharges than hunting shotguns, like the one i own.
i know my shotgun can go threw 2 whole cows.
from 35 feet away.
that gun your talking about can deal silly high damage
>>1267363
Protip, most American war songs are just British ones with altered lyrics.
>>1265640
hahahha
>>1265118
>would rather run over a muddy surface with artillery exploding around you, gas, machine guns, and bolt action rifles firing t you all at once
>not wanting to be in a war where the enemy take a minute to fire an innaccurate as fuck rifle.
die
>>1265102
This is like that Monty Python scene where the knight keeps running and never gets any closer.
>>1265118
You fucked up, it's "That's it, I'm a #Trenchmissle now"
>>1265669
Clearly says shell fragment in the photo. That's not a bullet wound, it's a cannon or mortar wound.
Daily reminder that rifled muskets gave very little advantage, if any at all, over smoothbore muskets except when talking about sharpshooters and marksmen.
>>1268731
He said trench warfare technically whitch wasn't exclusive to ww1 and did have occur in the American Revolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtXVhwK45yw
The nature of the musket is why line combat was fought the way it was.
>>1270084
During the Civil War rifled muskets proved so effective that you can literally count the number of times true hand to hand combat occurred on one hand.
To be fair, it had more to do with improved artillery and the liberal standards of prisoner exchange in the early war, but rifled muskets did increase the effective range of infantry from 100 yards to about 200. The accuracy of their shots was not really changed significantly, but the range at which they could effectively engage was.
Rifled muskets were a huge part of the reason why in late 1863-1865 the soldiers on both sides of the Civil War started building trenches and breastworks literally any time their commanders called a halt.
>>1266109
>Bullets were inaccurate as fuck
WRONG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3753790267&feature=iv&src_vid=LwgL820kQFs&v=1Xu4QQnUJRI
If you dont watch the video. He fires a brown bess (American Revolution) from 50 and 100 yards and gets an amazing spread. The gun is a real restored musket.
>>1265879
Maybe because you have shit taste
>>1270084
Wrong.
Rifled muskets give quite a lot of advantage both in range and accuracy. They require tightly-fit ball to shoot though so the rate of fire dropped.
Then minnie bullet came and gee, rifled muskets gave advantage big enough for almost every army to adapt it.
>>1266114
>BAAWWW HE'S TOO POPULAR FOR MY TASTES
Fuck off back to /tv/
>>1265867
they did though
>>1265076
TL;DR
>Alcohol
>Herd behavior
>Strict military drill
>Drums 'n flutes (they were more effective than it may seem)
>>1265209
No, quit fucking talking.
>>1265209
Greek phalanx battles had something like 5-10% casualties at the worst. Fuck off.
>>1265289
The Swedish army during Charles XII was extremely religious, interrupting service was punishable by death for example. The other poster was wrong though. Swedish doctrine was to march right up to the enemies line before firing a volley and then charge with swords and bayonets. The orders were to literally see the whites of your enemies eyes before presenting arms. Before that it was not uncommon for the Swedes to have absorbed two full volleys themselves.
>>1267447
It's almost like Americans are altered British people.
>>1271104
He means that the accuracy advantage was wasted because most soldiers don't aim. The minie was particularly difficult to aim because its trajectory arced so high.
>>1273220
Averages at least during the early Peloponesian war would be about 15% to the losing side and 1-2% for the winners.
>>1265102
such a fucking great movie, goddamn
>>1265369
>>1265396
>MUH STOPPAN POWAH
>MUH PENETRATION!
Hello, /k/
>>1265102
I never understood this scene. Did they not have ammo or something?
