- 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 10:01 am to CGSC Lobotomy
Posted on 3/30/16 at 10:01 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
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.
Just finished Dan Carlin's podcast series on WWI a couple weeks ago and it's fascinating when you realize how many lives were lost, especially early on, because of this mindset of "gentlemanly" warfare merging with advancing technology, with people just marching headlong into machine gun fire to maintain their honor and glory. What a brutal war that must have been to live through, with so much death and destruction for seemingly no tangible purpose.
1
Posted on 3/30/16 at 10:03 am to Brummy
Yup. In the beginning they were basically going into it with the mindset from 100 years before, in the same uniforms the Napoleonic army wore. At least on the French side.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 10:11 am to forever lsu30
I might also add, that while line formations continued up through the Civil War, most warfare in the 18th and 19th centuries was based around what ware fare usually is. Finding a defensible position, building defenses around that position, and resisting attacks against that position. Much more technical than people give it credit for.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 10:27 am to athenslife101
They also had to be constantly prepared to shift into some type of square or hedgehog formation to repel a cavalry charge.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 10:37 am to forever lsu30
quote:
Why the hell didn't they have larger & more efficient shooting lines that essentially never stopped firing (while the previous shooting lines reloaded)?
you are soo stupid. you are so fricking stupid and I hate you. Read a book
Posted on 3/30/16 at 10:46 am to foshizzle
Quote? that was straight out of frman's brain!
Posted on 3/30/16 at 10:55 am to jeffsdad
What anyone that has never shot a gun in an adrenaline raged environment does not realize is how inaccurate you become. Yes those muskets could hit a man at 250 yards often in a practice environment under good conditions, but throw in battle adrenaline, cannon fire, weather, etc. and accuracy drops considerably.
In order to truly hit hit and affect the targets in a timely manner that they were shooting at, those large lines were necessary. Otherwise as said, cannon fire and cavalry would take a large effect very quickly.
In order to truly hit hit and affect the targets in a timely manner that they were shooting at, those large lines were necessary. Otherwise as said, cannon fire and cavalry would take a large effect very quickly.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 11:04 am to forever lsu30
Damn. You've got a lot to learn about military history and the development of technology and how those developments dictated battlefield tactics.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 11:25 am to OweO
quote:
If it is so easy to come up with a strategy, lets hear yours.
Terrorist attacks.
One devoted group of individuals could have disrupted any war before the invention of the telegraph.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 11:30 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.
As ACE alluded to in another post, this is the primary reason large groups formed to fire at each other. The "guns" back in those days were not very accurate. Therefore, walls of men firing shot was the most likely was to inflict casualties.
It was kinda like creating a mega shotgun fire effect by the shear number of bodies doing the firing.
Most of the time the soldiers were not even "aiming" the muskets like we would think of it. They would point the guns in the general direction, shut their eyes and turn their heads to fire.
Another person could chime in on when "rifling" was introduced thereby making those firearms increasingly accurate.
I think it was the "Kentucky Longrifle" in our country that began the evolution of more accurate firearms for us.
This post was edited on 3/30/16 at 11:33 am
Posted on 3/30/16 at 11:54 am to forever lsu30
Warfare has always been a contest of fire and maneuver, but the effectiveness of either are limited by command and control. Napoleonic tactics were designed to enable controlled maneuver of units to places on the battlefield where the fire could be massed for maximum effect. The effects of the massed fires was constrained by the technological limits of the period's weapons. As the weapons improved, the tactics became obsolete.
Most military commanders learn their trade through trial and error. Few national leaders are going to put their trust in generals proposing untried tactics. Thus, changes in tactics tend to be incremental rather than revolutionary. The costliness of incremental change away from Napoleonic tactics was enormous since it occurred as the faster pace.
Most military commanders learn their trade through trial and error. Few national leaders are going to put their trust in generals proposing untried tactics. Thus, changes in tactics tend to be incremental rather than revolutionary. The costliness of incremental change away from Napoleonic tactics was enormous since it occurred as the faster pace.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 7:02 pm to fr33manator
quote:
This isn't my thread.
Sorry, I meant "post", not thread. Still good work though.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 11:19 pm to lsu480
quote:
What is wrong with you that you can relate a random Reddit thread from two years ago to a new TD thread?
It is actually a thread I searched for because of this thread....I hadn't seen it before yesterday.
Figured it would be a common question from someone uninformed, and thought it interesting that both prob were related to watching the Patriot.
Also saw some damn good explanations in it, one of which was reposted here.
He gets 40 upvotes.
I get 2 and a inquiry that something is wrong with me.
Posted on 3/30/16 at 11:33 pm to Poodlebrain
The guns of the time
(1) were inaccurate
(2) took a long time to reload after each round
(3) create a huge amount of smoke
and
(4) were prone to misfires and other general shittery
The modern idea of having soldiers provide covering fire and isolated firing points simply doesn't work when your guns work the way the guns of the time worked.
(1) were inaccurate
(2) took a long time to reload after each round
(3) create a huge amount of smoke
and
(4) were prone to misfires and other general shittery
The modern idea of having soldiers provide covering fire and isolated firing points simply doesn't work when your guns work the way the guns of the time worked.
Posted on 3/31/16 at 12:33 am to Poodlebrain
Your point of command & control is more my original point.
Back then, they knew how long it took to aim, fire, & reload a shot. With any tactical training combined with the wave after wave attack approach could've easily been studied to show a more "rapid fire/high kill" approach.
Line 1 could fire then lay forward to reload.
Right after Line 1, Line 2 could fire then lay forward to reload.
Then Line 3. Line 4 & so on. As many lines as needed to get Lines 1 & 2 enough time to reload, stand back up, aim, & fire all over again.
Could stagger the Lines diagonally so as not to shoot their own.
Just seems like someone could've employed a faster higher kill rate tactic.
Back then, they knew how long it took to aim, fire, & reload a shot. With any tactical training combined with the wave after wave attack approach could've easily been studied to show a more "rapid fire/high kill" approach.
Line 1 could fire then lay forward to reload.
Right after Line 1, Line 2 could fire then lay forward to reload.
Then Line 3. Line 4 & so on. As many lines as needed to get Lines 1 & 2 enough time to reload, stand back up, aim, & fire all over again.
Could stagger the Lines diagonally so as not to shoot their own.
Just seems like someone could've employed a faster higher kill rate tactic.
Posted on 3/31/16 at 12:47 am to forever lsu30
I think you overestimate the amount of training armies received at that time. Also this isn't a time with radios, sat phones, and other signaling equipment. The best you had some drums and bugle to communicate over the noise of gunfire.
Posted on 5/5/16 at 10:48 am to forever lsu30
Bump. This was a great thread
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News