Why did it take so long for Napoleonic tactics to be phased out despite the invention of more accurate firearms?
>>278051
Explain. Because 1870's fighting isn't "Napoleonic."
>>278051
Because the 19th century had relatively few wars in Europe between Great Powers, so a lot of the tactics remained due to inertia and not having battles you could point to and saying "See! It doesn't' work!"
>>278051
Because up until the time of mass production, accurate firearms were expensive as fuck. And you had to be very careful using them.
>>278058
The American civil war was pretty Napoleonic.
>>278085
Yeah, because nobody in America knew how large-scale wars works and generals literally followed books written about Napoleonic warfare.
>>278085
American Civil War armies were pretty much a backward army for its day
You want to look at a modern army? Look up Brits and Germans. Germans deployed in skirmish lines ffs, not in those huge line formations anymore.
>>278051
It's not weapon accuracy that phased out napoleonic tactics, it's the advent of smokeless gunpwder allowing for soldiers to actually see what's in front of them after shooting their rifles, and thus allowing to aim a second volley.
>>278229
We mass charges now.
>>278058
Explain yourself.
>>278051
>Napoleonic tactics
Standing in lines and shooting each other isn't Napoleonic.
>>278566
But it was the era that mastered them and set standards for them. I'm just curious why it took so long to move away from them.
>>278229
The Europeans watched the Civil War because the technology changed so much they had no idea how it would work.
>>278051
Because the uniforms were pretty cool and it takes a shitload of time for people to get used to new tactics.
>>278846
It was a common practice to watch war among western powers at the time.
Also
>Crimean War
>Second Italian War of Independence
>Second Schleswig War
>Austro-Prussian War.
>Franco-Prussian War
Europe itself wasn't "Peaceful" at the time.
>>278051
At best you had the Baker Rifle as made famous by the 5/60th, 95th and over light regiments in the British army. But it was slow loading and needing specialist training.
Or the Austrian air rifle, which while it was an accurate, powerful, and multi-round weapon, it was unreliable and expensive.
Also, Cavalry still wipes the floor with any troops in loose skirmishing order.
>>278085
Cavalry and bayonet charges were genuinely good tactics in the napoleonic wars. Not so much the civil war.
I'm clueless, how does us civil war compare to franco-prison wars or other wars of the period in terms of tactics?
>>278938
I may be mistaken but the big thing they wanted to see in the Civil War was the machine guns and repeating rounds. But I'm not sure about it.
>>278965
>Gatling
Yeah, that was pretty much the only new thing that war brought about.
Not so much for repeating rounds. Europe was already ahead of the rifle game as their guns were already needle-guns. No more muzzle loading needed. (Well: France and Prussia at least. Austrians were still muzzle loading and Britain can't make up its mind between muzzle/breech up until 67)
Also Zeppelin, who was observing the Union Observing Balloons during the war, got the idea for his ships during the war.
>>278229
I was told the classic depictions of warfare in the period was apocryphal. The soldiers used terrain as much as possible. Certainly there were elderly generals who emphasized the bayonet, and massed bayonet charges were certainly capable of punching a hole through an untrained line. But, by the Wilderness campaign, they were all dead or fired.
The true lesson of the civil war, was an industrial one. The United States would surpass Great Britain in industrial input within a decade. The stimulation of factories by the war economy helped to change the US from an agrarian resource exporting economy into the dominant economic power. It was that economic power which won every war since.
The greatest feat of the North wasn't battlefield tactics, or even the fact of putting millions of men under arms, it was their ability to consistently keep such armies supplied.
>>279023
The Gatling was what caused a lot of the death, that and the use of Napoleonic tactics.
>>279023
>Union Observing Balloons
Speaking of American Observer Balloons:
>Spanish American War.
>American soldiers trying to sneak up San Juan Hill fortress, in Cuba.
>"Guys, we need to know how the Spanish are deployed. Inflate a balloon."
>Balloon inflates.
>Be Spanish
>See big red spot emerging from the jungle.
>Shell area to fuck.
With Maxim Guns, better rifles, and fast firing cannons, I always wonder how the Spaniards lost that war.
Shit Spanish navy tho.
>>279041
Interesting. I wasn't aware the us overtook the brits at economic output at this period. Thought it was more around the 1910's.
>>278947
>franco-prison wars
>>279100
I said Great Britain, not the entire British Empire.
For reference:
UK GDP PPP in 1870 and 1913
100,180 224,618
USA
98,374 517,383
From this you can see that in 1870 the UK still had a slight edge over the USA, but remember, half of the USA was burned and devastated at that time. UK GDP would be overtaken within the decade.
>>279091
better technology doesn't really mean shit, if your troops are not very good and have poor training
not even joking when i say nearly 9/10 american deaths were due to disease
>>279041
The other lesson of the Civil war, mostly ignored by Europe, was the shape that war would take upon mass conscription. Most of the world ignored the American example in favor of the Franco-Prussian one, dismissing the former's bloody siege/trench warfare as bottom of the barrel tactics brought on by ill trained, ill motivated troops. They were right, of course, but WWI would quickly devolve into just the same mess after the professional armies ground to a halt in France and reserves were mobilized.
>>279041
>It was that economic power which won every war since.
uwot
>>278846
>>278051
because the doctrines were teached to young officers and they made sense at that point - but when they became older the turned obsolete.
and since generals and high ranking officers are usually stubborn and conservative they refused to see past their teachings costing the lives of millions of men.
it was almost like the cavalry charges in japan they went from the most vicious and successful tactic to a complete worthless and suicide move - all during nobunaga's reign.
before this the balance between firepower and defensive maneuvers was pretty well maintained, with the introduction of smoothbore carbines, rifled barrels and later on the breech-loading mechanism started to unbalance things in line infantry warfare to the point it was purely suicidal by the end.
then in ww2, it was the exact opposite - too much defense and too little offense. and at this points firearms became less useful and bigger booms and smelly chemicals started doing most of the killings.
![jimi_hendrix_military_jacket[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MtSUYQN.jpg "jimi_hendrix_military_jacket[1].jpg")
>>278917
the hussar jacket was used by many rock stars: from jimi hendrix, prince, michael jackson, the beatles and many others i can't remember... today is still used by mostly by fags and autists.
>>280491
Fun fact: Jimi was in the 101st Airborne for a year before they discharged him because (a broken ankle, so he couldn't jump was the excuse) he slept on duty and played guitar whenever not on duty.
>>278051
Because Henry Shrapnel invented a type of reliable explosive ordinance. Before then your cannons could shoot either a roundshot at the enemy at long range or grapeshot at short range at enemy musket lines. If everything went right, a roundshot would kill three men dead in an enemy formation a kilometer away, but leave the rest unaffected. Grapeshot could kill a whole bunch of guys if they were about a hundred meters away. With shrapnel shells you got the area effect of grapeshot with the range of roundshot. Formations of guys standing shoulder to shoulder went from "unstobbable death machine" to "huge slow moving target".
>>280859
What an inspiring man
>>278051
I don't get how "let's all stand in a dense line and shoot slow as fuck guns" even got popular, no taking cover etc.
Can someone explain this to me?
>>281516
>inaccurate weapons
>slow to reload
>smoke and noise makes communication of orders difficult
>men less likely to panic and flee when they are close together
>>281516
Roman morale (ie standing close and personal with all your buddies makes you feel strong AND makes it harder to flee), easier communication/ordering, guns are slow and inaccurate and most battles were decided in one go, anyway, long drawn out fighting with high casualties was rather rare before the 20th Century
>>281516
Because of the slow rate of fire, if you all expanded into a skirmish line the enemy can just charge and kill or drive off your men with the bayonet, without expecting many casualties.
Even in the American Civil War people were trying to move away from Napoleonic shit.
First day of Gettysburg had Union Cav holding up a position with repeating rifles after using their horses to get their first. It really depends on the officer in charge desu.
>>281516
Not the entire army did that. The army was divided up. Why do linemen in American football "form a line and move slow as fuck"?
The basic strategy was to hold the line to prevent the opposing army from coming forward. Inch forward slowly. Sometimes, the opposing general may send in ""shock troops"", these are guys who run or charge forward. They're called so because they are meant to shock your line into breaking up. Oh no, youve just been flanked form shock troops, now your left column is collapsing. Now that your left column is collapsed, the opposing general sends out the cavalry. The cavalry are mounted on horseback and can run at about 30-40 MPH. While you run, a cavalryman slashes the back of your neck with a a sword going 30-40 MPH.
Your line broke. Congrats. Game over.
That's why people formed lines
