Was line infantry really the best way to lay down fire on the enemy?
Would more modern 20th-21st century tactics work better with the same weaponry used during the 18-19th century?
No because you can't fire and maneuver towards a position when you only have one shot, it's not going to go where you aim it and you need to stand still and upright to reload your weapon.
>>30116960
No. Effective repeat firing firearms, aircraft, and long ranged artillery are all required for modern tactics.
>>30116967
would it also be detrimental when attacked by cavalry?
>>30116977
Yes
>>30116967
>>30116975
also, were engagements on open fields necessary? or would defending forces actually seek a good place for defense (a hill, some buildings) and not just send their forces out there?
They had them
They were called skirmisher
They had longer guns and could shoot further than your average musketman and they usually tried to take cover
>>30116960
Until the advent of portable radios, soldiers have to be within hearing range of bugles or at least can see their commander. The best and quickest way to do this is to bunch together and march in lockstep.
>>30116998
what about platoon sized engagements?
>Was line infantry really the best way to lay down fire on the enemy?
Yes.
There's a reason every fucking country on the planet did it.
>>30117003
Then it becomes a skirmish.
>>30116998
I'd agree with the first step but trench warfare is a viable alternative to lockstep, proven by WWI era tactics
>>30117010
Then what kills line infantry, the mg, the closed cartridge, or rifles holding more than 1 round?
>>30116998
I thought only the american had good access to radios during ww2? everyone else had to be stingy with their talkie
>>30117063
even then at what unit size did a unit get a radio, squad, platoon, company?
>>30117046
I would say machine gun and better field artillery.
there were some primitive repeating rifle in the 50 odd years between 1850 and 1910, but the machine gun and artillery really make it suicidal.
>>30117046
All of it
So let me ask an inverse question then.
Does the Bayonet charge still have a place in today's world?
>>30117140
Of course it does
>>30117140
In small irregular vs irregular conflicts maybe.
>>30117155
what would be an example where it would be useful today? an ambush?
>>30117140
An EXTREMELY niche one, which isn't likely to occur, but hey.
>>30117140
>>30117155
a VERY limited place.
there's also the fact the knife is a versatile and cheap piece of equipment. it make sense to at least give them some training for the knife they are always going to be carrying.
>>30117167
Either in extremely close-quarter fighting (Like the USMC in Fallujah) or you need to break an enemy before they can overrun you (Like the Battle of Danny Boy).
>>30117046
rifles alone made line tactics far less viable, machine guns and artillery killed it completely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini%C3%A9_ball
meant rifles could be reloaded as rapidly as muskets and fired further and with greater accuracy than muskets, a significant increase in the effective fire power of infantry formations,
When your soldiers are all 14, yes.
>>30116960
Don't be silly with all the battles of the 1700-1880s if there was a better way of fighting it would of been eventually used. Think of world war one, generals tried to enforce a Napoleonic style of warfare but despite there efforts this was not a effective way of warfare, against high commands will it evolved into trench warfare. It's like biological evolution in that regard, the ways that don't work are widdled down into a final product that produces the best result in the given condition.
>>30117140
They had a famous example of it against the Chinese in the Korean War.
I remember because I helped do the ceremony for it one year.
>>30117033
Trenches were also used in the American Civil War
>>30117836
Yeah but it was not trench warfare
>>30116960
PLEBS ARE NEEDED
>>30116995
Commanders would seek out Hills for artillery, and walls weren't that uncommon if you were on the defensive because they can stop bullets and they'll also help protect you against cavalry.
>>30117046
The mass produced rifle, more accurate artillery, and explosive/shrapnel shells. Crimean war, US Civil War, etc.
>>30117775
>would of
>widdle
>>30116960
>Was line infantry really the best way to lay down fire on the enemy?
That wasn't entirely the reason behind it, but yes. Massed blocks of infantry allowed for fire to be better coordinated, and, given the amount of smoke you're going to be throwing out with those black powder weapons, soldiers needed to keep close together if you wanted any hope of them actually seeing/hearing their orders.
The other big factor was cavalry. Dispersing into a skirmish line may make volleys do less damage, but then you're liable to get overrun by the other guy's cavalry. Horses tend to not like to charge dense formations, so massing together deters enemy cavalry from attacking and makes it easier to repel them if they still do charge you.
>>30117800
Didn't most of those guys die in the process?
>>30119765
Plebs are needed.
Old plebs are kill