# Former battle strategies



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

We watched &#8220;The Patriot&#8221; (Mel Gibson) in honor of the 4th of July last night and I have a question. Why in the world did warring armies face each other in shoulder-to-shoulder straight lines, muzzle to muzzle, and commence to slaughter each other? Seems real stupid, but I&#8217;m sure there is an explanation. Anyone know why they did this?


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

Lack of concern for human life?!


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Cabin Fever said:


> We watched &#8220;The Patriot&#8221; (Mel Gibson) in honor of the 4th of July last night and I have a question. Why in the world did warring armies face each other in shoulder-to-shoulder straight lines, muzzle to muzzle, and commence to slaughter each other? Seems real stupid, but I&#8217;m sure there is an explanation. Anyone know why they did this?


Simple, their smoothbore military muskets were not accurate. The military didn't use rifling in their weapons up till about the time of the American Civil War or just before..

It those days it was the civilian population that had the most advanced firearm technology, not the military. The military was slow to adopt "new" technology..

Think of it this way.
Pretend that the 100 men on each side are 2 opposing shotguns.. When fired some of the pellets hit the target, but most don't.. That is why they would get as close as they did.. Now being so close they also have the opportunity to advance against the other side when they are reloading... They also used round ball ammo.

But this changed at the start of the Civil War, in the USA. The Springfields and Enfields were lightly rifled which made them more accurate and then add the Minie ball (which is a bullet to us modern folks, invented by a French man named Minie) which is inherently more accurate... That is when the major militarys started switching to fight from cover and quit standing out in the open across from each other..

Hope that helps answer your question..


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

beowoulf90 said:


> ....Hope that helps answer your question..


I dunno, I'd stil want to be firing from cover.... 

Thanks, I figured I'd get an answer from you.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

I agree with beowoulf90. As I recall most rifles were 69 caliber with a range of about 100 yards or so. Think of a 10 gage shotgun using slugs. The closed ranks in effect provided better coverage of the opposing army, but also provided them a better target. With a tight line the men could also hear their offices commands better.

The smooth bore also facilitated reloading time. I believe the rate of fire was 4 or 5 shots per minute. 

The American Civil war also introduced fighting from a trench which hadn't been thought of before.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Cabin Fever said:


> I dunno, I'd stil want to be firing from cover....
> 
> Thanks, I figured I'd get an answer from you.


You have to understand the Honor code of the time.. 

You didn't target Officers at all.
Sniping was considered dishonorable and if caught doing it you were punished by death, then and there...

It wasn't till the Rev war That the British and Americans understood gorilla tactics. The Hit and Move tactics used by Washington help him win the war..

You also have to understand that the "privileged class" /officers were consider to be gentlemen and rarely did their own fighting.. They paid soldiers to do that and to die.. The British Officers of the time had little regard for the common soldier, they didn't associate with each other at all, except the soldier followed orders... PERIOD!

The Code of Honor, changes as generations change..
For example during the Civil War the most honorable position in a Unit was carrying the flag, on both sides.. So here you have a man carrying a flag, unarmed and charging toward the enemy..

Today I don't think that would go over well. Or at least not anyone including myself would be willing to do that.. But the technology has changed. War is still dirty, but there tends to be less casualties, relatively speaking. 
We lost over 51,000 men July 1, 2, 3 1863, 149 years ago at Gettysburg, PA.
In 3 days of fighting we lost that many men.. Yet the public goes crazy if we lose 10 in a day (but that also depends on who the president is)..
Some don't understand soldiers die.. Period!
No one likes it, especially and old soldier like myself. But it is the reality of military service..
Sorry I'll stop before I get too carried away...

I will take that as a compliment, thank you.


----------



## lostspring (Jun 29, 2007)

Another factor was that many of the british common soldiers were conscripted from prisons and scoflaws, those that owed taxes and such. They had almost no experience with firearms. Also they did not fire from the shoulder, they fired with stock under the armpit. almost all shots were low.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Oh and to add to what I posted above.

Take the term "friendly fire" it really didn't come about or was widely reported until Vietnam. But there were many instances of it in American history from as early as the Rev War.. 

I read a report where the American General fire his artillery into the melee going on in front of him. Killing both American and British troops. The reason was his troops were getting slaughtered by better trained British soldiers. He know the Brits didn't have an reserves nearby and he did have reserves handy.. So by firing into the melee he destroyed the Brits.. Yes he lost some of his own men, but the Brits couldn't continue the battle, while he could.. 

Also the original Captain (Ezekiel Rambo) of Company K 45th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry was killed in the first skirmish they were in in March of 1862. Him and 2 others (IIRC) were killed when company H mistook them to be Confederates and fired on Company K during a night time march on one of the Islands off the coast of SC.

Rambo was a veteran of the Mexican War in the 1840's


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Explorer said:


> I agree with beowoulf90. As I recall most rifles were 69 caliber with a range of about 100 yards or so. Think of a 10 gage shotgun using slugs. The closed ranks in effect provided better coverage of the opposing army, but also provided them a better target. With a tight line the men could also hear their offices commands better.
> 
> The smooth bore also facilitated reloading time. I believe the rate of fire was 4 or 5 shots per minute.
> 
> *The American Civil war also introduced fighting from a trench which hadn't been thought of before*.


But not in the beginning.. It came later when they started realizing the numbers they were losing...

The 45th PVI Regiment had 10 Companies with approx. 100 men per company, not counting officers.. Only Company A and K had rifled Springfields the other 8 companies had smoothbore muskets shooting buck and ball. This was like this for most of the war for a lot of Units/Regiments


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Wow! Thanks for the history lessons. I had no idea.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

It was my understanding that it was the "noble" thing to do , that lining up in brightly colored uniforms showed your enemy that you had no fear and were a disciplined.
I always figured it was a lot more "NOBLE" looking from a Hill mounted on a horse watching the commoners march in nice strait lines carrying your flag against the other

and that only "savages" would hide , shoot and move 

funny how our for fathers new to shoot the officers to maximize each shot on the march on concord that started things off in 1776 , it helped that officers wore a better quality of uniform and the red wouldn't be faded like the red of the red coats 

cabin fever , i figured out the black front sight issue , just put the front sight where the white sashes cross, to bag a red coat

also maybe that the order of marching gave the men in uniform an order , a peace ,if it looked like the madness it was then order might fall apart and that all they had to do was follow orders and not think , march like you were taught in training , also that those deserting , breaking ranks , or having second thoughts could be easily seen , also that if you see the line in front of you marching you might thing I can do that or that if your the guy next to you is marching at the same speed even if every one wants to run and hide or fall back they might keep moving because they think if the guy next to them can do it i can to , not even knowing that the guy next to them is thinking the same thing. how many have done something really stupid because they didn't want to be the guy who said no so they wen along with the leader , it happens every day it doesn't take a war.

the British phrase , for ours is not to question why only to do and die

the Russians figured it out , chance of running into a bullet when charging the enemy >0% and <100% chance of catching a bullet not charging the enemy 100%


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

it may also have been a carry over from , roman , and early British fighting techniques where shields were used , when the first rows shields were interlocked , the second rows could be raised to cover above them protecting first and second line from archers 

then when the enemy was right in-front of the shields they could open just far enough to fight the enemy of you partner to the right , this carried over to early bayonet use.


----------



## lostspring (Jun 29, 2007)

Commanders had a real problem with fighting in formation with the militia. The militia were not as discipined ( or maybe smarter lol)as the regular army troops. When faced with the prospect of facing the british troops many times they would break formation and run. This was used to good advantage by Gen Morgan in the Battle of Cowpens. His adversary was a british calvary officer named Tarleton. The same officer as the cruel cavalry commander in the movie The Patriot. Morgan put the militia in front and begged them to stay for just two shots then turn and run. 
He had hid the regular troops back and out of sight. The british charged, the militia fired their two shots and turned and ran. The british kept coming and ran into the regulars. Big victory for Morgan and a turning point. Tarelton was not killed but turn and ran and eventually he returned to England.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

lostspring said:


> ...Tarelton was not killed but turn and ran and enentually he returned to England.


No! That's not the way it happened. I saw - with my own eyes - Mel Gibson kill Tarelton!


----------



## T-Bone 369 (Jan 18, 2007)

beowoulf90 said:


> Oh and to add to what I posted above.
> 
> 
> I read a report where the American General fire his artillery into the melee going on in front of him. Killing both American and British troops. The reason was his troops were getting slaughtered by better trained British soldiers. He know the Brits didn't have an reserves nearby and he did have reserves handy.. So by firing into the melee he destroyed the Brits.. Yes he lost some of his own men, but the Brits couldn't continue the battle, while he could..


I beleive that was actually a British General Cornwallis at the Battle of Guilford Court House . Killed a lot of his own men but turned the tide of battle. Rather a Pyrrhic victory as after the battle the Redcoats had to withdraw as they lost too many men to be an effective fighting force. This mostly ended the Southern campaigns of the Revolution. 

One other thing to consider about standing and firing - ever try to load a musket while laying down? It can be done but is slow.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

T-Bone 369 said:


> I beleive that was actually a British General Cornwallis at the Battle of Guilford Court House . Killed a lot of his own men but turned the tide of battle. Rather a Pyrrhic victory as after the battle the Redcoats had to withdraw as they lost too many men to be an effective fighting force. This mostly ended the Southern campaigns of the Revolution.
> 
> One other thing to consider about standing and firing - ever try to load a musket while laying down? It can be done but is slow.


I believe we are talking about different events.. From what I remember, the event I was referring was in the New England States. I'm also almost positive that it was an American General, that is one of the things that made it stand out to me.. But this was a long time ago and memory has a way of failing... I just remember I took note of the event while I was doing research on something else.. Either way "friendly Fire" isn't anything new like the media of today trys to make it..

Oh and as you stated loading a musket while laying down can be hard.. But some of us can still load 3 times a minute standing or kneeling.. It's just a matter of knowing the proper technique..:dance:


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

I thought the British had snipers during the Revolution? I seem to remember that fate saved us General Washington as a British sniper had him dead to rights but never saw his face. It was suppose to be dishonorable to shoot an officer in the back, but sniper fire was still allowed.

Am I remembering this wrong, it's been awhile.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

Cabin Fever said:


> We watched âThe Patriotâ (Mel Gibson) in honor of the 4th of July last night and I have a question. Why in the world did warring armies face each other in shoulder-to-shoulder straight lines, muzzle to muzzle, and commence to slaughter each other? Seems real stupid, but Iâm sure there is an explanation. Anyone know why they did this?


Massed fire from closely ranked, highly disciplined troops was the most effective infantry tactic of the time. The reality was that quite often only a few or even a couple of volleys were fired and then the real work was done with the bayonet. The tight formation was ideal for the bayonet charge. Probably more dangerous to face a bayonet than a ball from a pretty innacurate musket with a horrible trigger that was fired by someone who was highly trained in repetitive motion but not marksmanship.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

All offense, no defense


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

Beowoulf, thank you for the insights. A good source for this is Appleseed.org and the book about Paul Revere , Ill look it it up, think its by fisher hancock. Good read , with loths of resources.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

siberian said:


> Beowoulf, thank you for the insights. A good source for this is Appleseed.org and the book about Paul Revere , Ill look it it up, think its by fisher hancock. Good read , with loths of resources.


Thanks for the references..


----------



## BillHoo (Mar 16, 2005)

beowoulf90 pretty much has it down.

I would also throw in that the tactics may not have changed much since the time of Roman legions who stood side by side with spears. Old habits hard to beat?

The honor code in warfare also played out quite a bit.

I think I remember a critical moment when the Continental Army was decimated and driven out of Long Island. Washington and what was left of the army was cornered at the southern tip of Manhattan (near Chinatown or Wall street I think).

The British demanded his surrender as the code warrented and even gave him til morning as he had requested. 

Washington then deceived the Red Coats by keeping camp fires burning to give the impression they were camped out over the night. Instead, he got some boats and escaped with his army to New Jersey!

Scandalous! He violated the code of honor!


----------



## Gregg Alexander (Feb 18, 2007)

Don't know if this helps but does explain why the tactics were used
Napoleon's Strategy and Tactics : Napoleonic Wars


----------



## Gregg Alexander (Feb 18, 2007)

Infantry Tactics Combat: Infanterie taktiken : tactiques d'infanterie

Deadly way of fighting that is for sure


----------



## Gregg Alexander (Feb 18, 2007)

Napoleon Warfare Strategy that followed revolutionized military strategy.

The way the Army is trained now is very much different to way I was trained back in the early 1970.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Cabin Fever said:


> We watched âThe Patriotâ (Mel Gibson) in honor of the 4th of July last night and I have a question. Why in the world did warring armies face each other in shoulder-to-shoulder straight lines, muzzle to muzzle, and commence to slaughter each other? Seems real stupid, but Iâm sure there is an explanation. Anyone know why they did this?


Well,most were armed with smootbore muskets with a limited range,rifles were costly so weren't issued to many troops except for special units.

So massed volley fire was about all that worked.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Well,most were armed with smootbore muskets with a limited range,rifles were costly so weren't issued to many troops except for special units.
> 
> So massed volley fire was about all that worked.


Even up to and through the Civil War, this is the case..

For example the Unit and Company we portray is Company K of the 45th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry Regiment. The Regiment had 10 Companies, but only Companies A & K carried rifled Springfield rifles, they were the 2 end companies (one on either end of the regiment) The other 8 Companies carried smooth bore muskets that shot buck and ball (which were only accurate (used loosely) up to about 100 yards)..


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Artillery was King on the battlefield,it decimated infantry units from afar.

There were tactics to minimise casualties,at Waterloo,Wellington had his infantry on the back side of the hill.

Some of the most heroic actions in my opinion happened later,when the same tactics were being used but technology had progressed to where it was,almost suicidal to do what they did.
This is how historian Michael Howard described the charge in The Franco-Prussian War: The German Invasion of France, 1870-1871:

During the Franco-Prussian War, the 120,000 strong French Army of ChÃ¢lons was cornered at Sedan, in a massive encirclement battle. After hours of intense fighting, the Army of ChÃ¢lons was driven into the Bois de la Garenne and surrounded. The French cavalry (4 Chasseurs d'Afrique regiments - light cavalry), commanded by General Margueritte, launched three desperate attacks on the nearby village of Floing where the Prussian XI Corps was concentrated. Marguerite was mortally wounded leading the very first charge and the two additional charges led to nothing but heavy losses.

This is how historian Michael Howard described the charge in The Franco-Prussian War: The German Invasion of France, 1870-1871:

"... and with his artillery shattered and his infantry nearly overwhelmed Ducrot could only turn to the last, most splendid, most useless weapon of all: the cavalry of General Margueritte.

The plan which Ducrot outlined to Margueritte was desperate. The cavalry was not only to repulse the advance Germans; it was to act as a battering-ram to force a passage for the French infantry, which would make one last attempt to break out towards the west.

While the squadrons collected in a hollow above Cazal, sorting themselves out under shellfire into two massive lines, Margueritte rode out to reconnoitre the slopes towards Floing and the Meuse down which the charge was to be made. He was hit: a bullet passed through his face, mangling his jaw and tongue, and his appalled squadrons saw the figure of their general returning over the crest, supported by his two aides, with enough strength only to raise one arm to point towards the enemy before he collapsed. An angry murmur came from the ranks - "Vengez-le! ["Avenge him!"]" and the whole mass of horsemen moved up over the crest, past the disorganised lines of their infantry, to increase speed slowly from to trot to canter to gallop until they were thundering down the slope in an avalanche which it seemed that no human power could arrest. But as at Morsbach, as at Vionville, it was shown that when faced with resolute men armed with breech-loading rifles all the anachronistic splendour and courage of French chivalry was impotent.

The German skirmishing lines were overrun, but the supporting formations stood immovable and poured their volleys into the advancing mass. At no point was German line broken. The cavalry torrent divided and swept by it to either side, northwards towards Illy to return to their own ranks, southward to crash into the quarries of Gaulier or to be rounded up in the valley towards Glaire, leaving the carcasses of horses and the bodies of their riders lying thick in front of the German lines.

As the survivors of the charge rallied, Ducrot sought out their [new] commander, General de Gallifet, and asked him whether they could try again. "As often as you like, mon gÃ©nÃ©ral," replied Gallifet cheerfully, "so long as there's one of us left." So the scattered squadrons were rallied and once more the watchers above FrÃ©nois saw them plunging down the hill to certain destruction. King Wilhem was stirred to exclaim at their courage in words still carved on their memorial above Floing: "Ah! Les braves gens!" but it was not for him to lament that it was courage tragically wasted.

Even now the cavalry were not exhausted. At 3 p.m. Ducrot, his front everywhere crumbling, threw them in yet again, while he and his staff rode along the ranks of the infantry trying in vain to rouse them to advance in the wake of the horse. This last attack, its cohesion gone, was repulsed as decisively as the rest, and with the greatest bloodshed of all. A pleasing legend speaks of Gallifet and his last followers passing exhausted within a few feet of the German infantry regiment. The Germans ceased fire; their officers saluted; and the Frenchmen were allowed to ride slowly away, honoured and unharmed."


----------



## denaliguide (Aug 30, 2008)

Einsatzkommando ? Patrol ? Sniper ? 

Contemplate if you will, you can, btwn everyone under your protection, muster maybe a squad of people that can actually shoot,whom you have shot with and actually have a weapon or two suited to your purpose.

Whom is at your disposal? How many? Age ? Gender ? Experience ?

Here is, in a nutshell what I was thinking, in my previous situation.

People. I had a partner, 4 kids age 12-16, just us. So small frame house,

basement.

Against a large organized force, either flee or if not liable to be taken prisoner, appear harmless.

Against and assault by a numerically superior but organizationally inferior
force:

Patrol by 2 members dusk and dawn, for detection & recon.

Upon force threat, deployment of best shot into cover and concealment as sniper. Covered retreat route back into home base.
Engage advancing opfor with accurate but desultory fire. Sniper to pick
De-Cap target of Leader or Officer.

Once assault is underway, Einsatzkommando and sniper deploy into deep
cover position just outside grenade range of house / base with hi volume fire weapons.

Mom covers rear of house with Mini-14, two older kids cover front of house with Mini's or SK's.

As assault breeches 40 yd perimeter, base defenders only fire occassionally indicating weakness and inviting assault rush.

When assault upon house materializes, house defenders fire in earnest, engage assailants, whence Sniper and Einsatzkommando pump hail of fire into the backs of assiailants from positions they passed by.

Firing continues until assailants fall, and attack is broken. Sniper and Einsatzkommando slip back BEHIND attackers, and observe.

Can the retreating force be obliterated, Sniper and Einsatzkommando
signal base defenders to execute Hammer and Anvil with Pincher on flanks.


That is one of my tactical plans.


----------



## Farmer Willy (Aug 7, 2005)

From what I saw watching the movie the most devastating weapon was the knife and 'hawk. More effective than a muzzle loading firearm and more effective than a bayonet since they allowed greater movement.

If you don't have them add them to your kit.


----------



## Alaska (Jun 16, 2012)

I think a semi auto 22 is one of the best weapons to have. Cheap ammo large magazines and you draw no attention when purchasing.
I dare anybody to come at me and my 10/22 with 10000 rounds loaded in quick change clips


----------



## Owldancer (Jun 24, 2010)

Cabin Fever, The American's did have snipers (who used rifled guns) in the Rev War. Washington did issue them an order to not fire beyond 300 yard (if I remember right) in case they might miss. They were known to not miss.
The officers hated the snipers since they were the major targets.
As stated before when caught they were killed.
Washington convereted man units from rifled guns to smooth bore because of the rate of fire allowed by the reloading of the smooth bore.

Last time I tried I could hit a dinner plate at 100 yard with my musket (smooth bore).


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The American Revolution was a new kind of war. (I have been led to believe) Up until then a war would involve only a few real battles, and they were more or less planned out and relatively organized events.


----------

