- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What were militaries prior to 1900s thinking?!?!
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:18 am to tidalmouse
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:18 am to tidalmouse
Um see Prussians and needle guns. Demolished Austria-hungary forces with them. The needle gun and improved tactics helped Prussia become Germany
1
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:25 am to fr33manator
Wow that was awesome.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:26 am to forever lsu30
The OP doesn't understand that war changed after WWI. It wasn't the same fight prior to to the age of modern warfare. Hell the bayonet charge was one of the harder to defend tactics in warfare during Napoleon's campaign.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:31 am to fr33manator
quote:
from the reddit thread. This is incredible writing.
altho it was a different war, it reminded me of the original "All quiet on the Western Front" with Lew Ayres
it was a bleak, harsh, cold shot of reality...
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:37 am to forever lsu30
quote:
With the Revolutionary War we begin to see guerilla warfare
???
There has been asymmetrical warfare since before recorded history. You've heard of the Kurds, right? Well they were famous for that shite 5 centuries before Christ walked the Earth.
So, there's that.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:38 am to fr33manator
I don't understand why someone downvoted your thread, so I gave you a well-deserved upvote.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:39 am to forever lsu30
Technology was different. When you have swords, shields, and spears, grouping up in mass numbers is the most effective use of manpower. Trying to attack an army of 1000 people with an ambush of 20 isn't going to get you anywhere. When your muskets are wildly innacurate getting together in a large group and firing at another large group is the most effective use of manpower.
Believe it or not you really aren't smarter than them.
Believe it or not you really aren't smarter than them.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:41 am to fr33manator
Good article. At the time of The War Between the States, many of the generals of both sides had been trained using these tactics. Muskets, artillery, the telegraph, and other things had been updated or invented. The tactics had not. It was the first modern war and advisors from other countries learned and took note.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:48 am to Peazey
quote:
When your muskets are wildly innacurate getting together in a large group and firing at another large group is the most effective use of manpower.
The rifle didn't start seeing wide use in infantry regiments until the mid-19th Century. Combined with improving munitions for field artillery, as well as the rapid fire support weapon (ultimately to become the "machinegun" of the late 19th/early 20th Centuries) and better defensive tactics/fortifications, the defense became a strong form of combat. You saw horrendous casualty rates for assaults during the American Civil and Franco-Prussian Wars of the 1860s and 1870s. A lot of those old generals were still fighting off Napoleon's playbook - that would continue, in various forms until WWI.
WWI introduced (at least the wide use) of the airplane for combat, over-the-horizon field artillery, water-cooled machineguns - just a number of technological advancements that made massed infantry assaults against heavily fortified positions a futile gesture best left in the past. By WWII, the Germans proved a concept worked out by many of the warring powers of the Great War - mobile warfare spearheaded by tank formations, supported by aircraft, bypassing fortifications in a more fluid, dynamic style of warfare. We are currently in the later stages of that style of warfare some 80 years later.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:48 am to forever lsu30
1900s?
100 years ago at this exact moment the battle of Verdun was raging in France, and they were sending waves of men into machine guns.
100 years ago at this exact moment the battle of Verdun was raging in France, and they were sending waves of men into machine guns.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:55 am to forever lsu30
quote:To better frame the discussion of 19th Century military strategy, let's look at the parameters of it.
re: What were militaries prior to 1900s thinking?!?
Every person involved with military strategy (from the Kings/Emperors/Presidents, etc. on down to field officers and rank & file) desperately wanted to win their battles. It was truly a matter of survival. So they were completely motivated to find the best strategies and techniques to accomplish the win.
People in the 19th Century are arguably just as intelligent as we are today. To become a military leader today is more open to a larger portion of a society than it was 200 years ago but still there were some very smart folks involved in those 19th Century armies. If there was an innovative tactic to conceive of and try, they did it, by and large. Did they miss individual opportunities? Sure, the South or Napoleon or the Brits could have done plenty of things differently and had better outcomes. That's true for Desert Storm and Vietnam too. It will be true in future conflicts as well.
They were mainly limited by technology, not just gun and artillery but logistical support technology as well. The use of railroads in WWI got lots of people and materiel to the fronts and were able to sustain them there. The Napoleonic campaigns didn't have that luxury.
tl/dr: Armies pretty much always have done as "good" as they could with what they had.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 8:10 am to forever lsu30
WW1 was the fight that was slow to adjust to the technology of the times. They were still lining up and shooting at each other, but now with accurate rapid fire rifles and chemical weapons blowing any which way. Led to a huge stalemate and trench warfare and way too many casualties for no real results, other than to set up WW2.
This post was edited on 3/30/16 at 8:14 am
Posted on 3/30/16 at 8:50 am to prplhze2000
quote:
Um see Prussians and needle guns.
I don't think I want to.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 8:51 am to forever lsu30
they were thinking with those muskets you could fire at someone from point blank range and it still might miss
Posted on 3/30/16 at 9:10 am to foshizzle
quote:
I don't understand why someone downvoted your thread, so I gave you a well-deserved upvote.
This isn't my thread. Still that Reddit post is excellently written and deserves to be shared. Brilliant explanation and description of the tactics and realities back then.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 9:28 am to forever lsu30
In the civil war, for example. when there were battles, every other row would shoot while the other loaded their guns. Based on the weapons they had, what other ways would you suggest? If it is so easy to come up with a strategy, lets hear yours.
In the Revolutionary war, England's military was "too formal" and they still almost won if it wasn't for the French.
Militias use to ambush England military convoys.. Really, I don't know what the frick you trying to get at.
In the Revolutionary war, England's military was "too formal" and they still almost won if it wasn't for the French.
Militias use to ambush England military convoys.. Really, I don't know what the frick you trying to get at.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 9:43 am to forever lsu30
quote:
Then once guns were introduced, they just lined up & took turns shooting at each other! Why the hell didn't they have larger & more efficient shooting lines that essentially never stopped firing (while the previous shooting lines reloaded)?
Prior to WWI, it was a function of honor. It was dishonorable (something only militia and guerrilla forces did) to attack an enemy who couldn't see you.
Guns didn't change all that. Mustard Gas did.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 9:45 am to fr33manator
that was an interesting read, thanks for posting it
Posted on 3/30/16 at 9:45 am to forever lsu30
For the OP and anyone else interested, I would like to recommend reading "Reveries on the Art of War" by Maurice de Saxe, if you want to get a grip on the thinking of a successful general in the early days of gunpowder in Europe.
LINK
Don't be put off by the old-timey type and writing style. De Saxe was a legit badass, utterly without fear, who left a decades-long trail of dead bodies across Europe, starting with his first command at age TWELVE.
If you read this, you will see that the commanders of his age were not stupid. These were people who legitimately struggled with how to protect troops while maximizing the firepower offered by new technology. Read how de Saxe trained his troops, and how arranged his army to deliver the maximum number of shots possible in the time it would take an enemy to charge his lines.
You will see that yes, firepower was indeed a prime concern, and their thinking was much more sophisticated and "modern" than you might realize. The read is a true eye-opener for anyone interested in military theory. I cannot recommend it more highly.
LINK
Don't be put off by the old-timey type and writing style. De Saxe was a legit badass, utterly without fear, who left a decades-long trail of dead bodies across Europe, starting with his first command at age TWELVE.
If you read this, you will see that the commanders of his age were not stupid. These were people who legitimately struggled with how to protect troops while maximizing the firepower offered by new technology. Read how de Saxe trained his troops, and how arranged his army to deliver the maximum number of shots possible in the time it would take an enemy to charge his lines.
You will see that yes, firepower was indeed a prime concern, and their thinking was much more sophisticated and "modern" than you might realize. The read is a true eye-opener for anyone interested in military theory. I cannot recommend it more highly.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 9:53 am to forever lsu30
quote:
How did they not realize that building more fire power was the way to go?
hindsight is 20/20
millenial much?
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News