Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Jihadin wrote:Will admit...lining up and firing at each other....now that ballsy

lining up and hacking/stabbing at each other... even more ballsy

can't hack much with a bayonet. An Etool though...now thats a quick nifty weapon.....small folding shovel...hack, slice, bludgen, stabbing.....its a multitool...then though...that takes to much effort...9mm works better and less effort

Jihadin wrote:can't hack much with a bayonet. An Etool though...now thats a quick nifty weapon.....small folding shovel...hack, slice, bludgen, stabbing.....its a multitool...then though...that takes to much effort...9mm works better and less effort

actually, i was referring to what we did before the advent of gunpowder but yeah, i know what ya mean... i know quite a few of the guys that went outside the wire with me (including myself) had no less than 2 knives on our persons at all times

I know that the british, particularly during the American War of Independence favoured the bayonet charge and drill, which was pretty much: charge, thrust, twist, remove, thrust etc. Obviously this is where the drilled and well trained British Troops could quickly overwhelm the militia troops more effectively than by firing volleys. The British at this time also used Grenadiers and Light Infantry as the Shock troops and fell back on the line infantry when it was required. As far as rifles are concerned i know the German States and indeed the British army used "Jaegers" which were basically german hunters and woodsmen with rifles.

I know that the british, particularly during the American War of Independence favoured the bayonet charge and drill

Hence we kinda fought a insurgent war and introduce you all to the Tomahawk

Yeah although truth be told the britsh lost because they had become to confident, even after being defeated at the battle of the cowpens the war was very much in the Britain's favour, not as much because the british were actually winning but france and therefore spain were pretty much ready to ditch the rebels and make peace in which case it was only a matter of time. But then Britain thought "oh yes we are so awesome we dont even need to make peace" and of course lost.

Jihadin wrote:Will admit...lining up and firing at each other....now that ballsy

I believe due to the tendency of trained troops to aim low, quite a few soldiers advanced/marched into enemy fire with the butt of their musket covering their groin.

Why we have groin protectors. Like a mortal fear to lose one's manhood

British during that time (America War of Independence) had one major thing going against them. Distance from England to the colonies

Jihadin wrote:British during that time (America War of Independence) had one major thing going against them. Distance from England to the colonies

Indeed. Most historians will tell you today that American's didn't really win the Revolution. Britain just found itself in an ultimately unwinnable situation. Between 3000 miles of ocean, disease, and foreign pressures Americans didn't really need to win. They just needed to last long enough for Britain to give up which is defacto victory for us.

Britain lost because of the combined naval pressure from France, Spain and Holland. (Battle of Chesapeake Bay, etc.)

However that is nothing to do with infantry tactics.

Infantry have always fought mainly in line because of the need to maximise combat power using weapons which have a very short reach. Equally, there are certain examples where a column formation was used and worked well as a surprise tactic.

Naval power makes ease of transporting troops easy to the US

Lone Cat wrote:even when the war ended. US. Army infantrymen still not getting repeating rifles. (but got single shot Springfield trapdoors instead). why? did the line infantry volley still practiced by then?
In the battle where Gen. Custer was slain, it is said that the dead spot of the US army was single shot weapon (while the natives got repeaters, and they did it well along with pre-gunpowder weapons like axes and archery)

As noted, government contracts. At the time, the army liked to make its own rifles, and trapdoor conversions were less expensive. We're dealing with a budget here people!
It should be remembered, until WWII's massive expansion, the US never had a large standing military.

Interestingly, we had less wars then...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:

I know that the british, particularly during the American War of Independence favoured the bayonet charge and drill

Hence we kinda fought a insurgent war and introduce you all to the Tomahawk

And of course the Kentucky Rifle. Kentucky Rifle vs. stupid officer in bright red on horse equals riderless horse soon after.

Line tactics haven't gone away. The basic squad movement technique might by the fire team wedge, but once in contact squads move to a line formation in order to maximize firepower, minimize flagging, and facilitate communication.

From .58 caliber rounds to 5.56mm-7.62mm...just no beards and droopy mustaches

At least the beards and mustaches were exchanged for ambulances, antibiotics, and body armor.

At least the beards and mustaches were exchanged for ambulances, antibiotics, and body armor.

Evolution of a combat soldier past to present. One weapon system still in use today that was use in WWII is the .50 cal.

Jihadin wrote:Line Infantry title is pretty much the norm throughout history. Its Infantry

Line Infantry refers to a specific troop type, though, which used muskets in close formation to maximise firepower in a specific area. Over the 17th and 18th century they become the absolutely dominant form of infantry across Europe, and were only replaced when the more accurate weapons used in mass in the American Civil War meant you could maintain firepower and dramatically improve survival by adopting looser formations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:And of course the Kentucky Rifle. Kentucky Rifle vs. stupid officer in bright red on horse equals riderless horse soon after.

It's interesting how closely Americans attach to the idea of clever snipers shooting stupid British officers. Never mind the casualties caused by guerillas and snipers was pretty negligible, and the British inflicted heavy casualties on the US forces throughout the war.

I wonder if history would have been very different if the US had taken different lessons from their revolution, such as having a superior military doesn't mean victory, if the enemy has more motivation to stay in the fight.

sebster wrote:I wonder if history would have been very different if the US had taken different lessons from their revolution, such as having a superior military doesn't mean victory, if the enemy has more motivation to stay in the fight.

Arguably more wars have been won by stubborn folks unwilling to give up than by military awesomeness.

Military awesomeness probably helps though

Jihadin wrote:Evolution of a combat soldier past to present. One weapon system still in use today that was use in WWII is the .50 cal.

In terms of the firepower a soldier can put downfield, things really haven't improved that much since WWII. What's really changed is the amount of communication that soldier can receive and give back, and the extent and effectiveness of support he can rely on from other military assets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:Arguably more wars have been won by stubborn folks unwilling to give up than by military awesomeness.

Military awesomeness probably helps though

I wonder if, by the end, having won through stubbornness and just having more bodies than the other side has bullets, if other countries have then built myths about how totally awesome they were at fighting like the US has? Do the Vietnamese talk about how they killed the stupid French and stupid American soldiers by the dozen?

sebster wrote:I wonder if, by the end, having won through stubbornness and just having more bodies than the other side has bullets,

Not even necessarily how much of something you have, but a willing to lose what you have to win. Especially in its early years, the hallmark of Rome was less its military superiority and more its willingness to absorb casualties its enemies would not.

if other countries have then built myths about how totally awesome they were at fighting like the US has?

The American Revolution is definitely overstated. We didn't really win it, and to be honest, Washington was capable but not a particularly notable general. Then we look at the Civil War, probably the most poorly led war in human history for the past few hundred years. The US doesn't become militarily awesome until the 1930's in my view but we like to think its always been that way as a culture. EDIT: Heck, grant even recognized this. He wasn't a military genius, he just realized that all the North needed to do to win was grind the South until it had nothing left.

Do the Vietnamese talk about how they killed the stupid French and stupid American soldiers by the dozen?

That's actually a really good question. My guess would be yes, but then I don't really know how the Vietnamese view the history. Their military leaders though certainly recognized that the key to their victory (the north) lay not in militarily defeating US troops but in forcing a political withdraw. The US was certainly less committed to the fighting than they were and the North knew it and factored that into their decision making.

EDIT: Another hallmark of how Americans view their history actually. We usually don't give our enemies much credit if any.

In terms of the firepower a soldier can put downfield, things really haven't improved that much since WWII. What's really changed is the amount of communication that soldier can receive and give back, and the extent and effectiveness of support he can rely on from other military assets.

M1 puts out the same amount of firepower then a M4?
.30 Cal puts out the same then a M249 or 240B?

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Line tactics haven't gone away. The basic squad movement technique might by the fire team wedge, but once in contact squads move to a line formation in order to maximize firepower, minimize flagging, and facilitate communication.

what? Are you sure that modern riflemen still do this Line march in combat while weapons like Assault Rifles and SAWs (like M60) aren't really need line fornations to be that effective?
if so. what is the distance each of the team elements need keep up with others in the same section? i'm talking about coherency.

if the 17th century line inf. formations, each elements within the same formation are required to keep a coherency of (about) 50 centemeters next to the other elements.

sh... i've just play a computer game 'Sun Age' (the game sucks! i've tried it). even in a few years in the future, each forces still fight with the renaissance style formations. regardless that each forces have hi-tech weapons.

LordofHats wrote:Not even necessarily how much of something you have, but a willing to lose what you have to win. Especially in its early years, the hallmark of Rome was less its military superiority and more its willingness to absorb casualties its enemies would not.

Yeah, definitely. That's basically what I meant, but I phrased it rather loosely.

The American Revolution is definitely overstated. We didn't really win it, and to be honest, Washington was capable but not a particularly notable general.

I think Washington did rather well in keeping his army together, but I agree he certainly didn't fit the modern myth of masterfully out-playing the British.

Then we look at the Civil War, probably the most poorly led war in human history for the past few hundred years. The US doesn't become militarily awesome until the 1930's in my view but we like to think its always been that way as a culture. EDIT: Heck, grant even recognized this. He wasn't a military genius, he just realized that all the North needed to do to win was grind the South until it had nothing left.

Do you think there was a reduced level of militarism in greater society before then?

That's actually a really good question. My guess would be yes, but then I don't really know how the Vietnamese view the history. Their military leaders though certainly recognized that the key to their victory (the north) lay not in militarily defeating US troops but in forcing a political withdraw. The US was certainly less committed to the fighting than they were and the North knew it and factored that into their decision making.

Yeah, I didn't mean it as a rhetorical question, I'm honestly curious to know if the Vietnamese have created myths of military supremacy. I know at Long Tan there's a Vietnamese monument that's wildly inaccurate (claiming they knocked out multiple tanks when we didn't even have any deployed in Vietnam, and lost about a dozen men all up).

EDIT: Another hallmark of how Americans view their history actually. We usually don't give our enemies much credit if any.

Or you allies, for that matter

But I think that's probably true of most nations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:M1 puts out the same amount of firepower then a M4?

Well, yeah. The M1 is firing a bigger round at about the same speed, resulting in a greater effective range, and much greater maximum range. In modern tactical environments this is okay, because the smaller round produces less recoil, allowing the firer to maintain accuracy with a higher firing rate, while at the same time the range isn't really missed because of the things that's really, really improved since WWII - support. It used to be that engagements outside of 500m were common and rifles needed to be effective out to those ranges, but now conflicts at that range and beyond are solved with support.

The amount of firepower capable of being delivered in support by artillery, aircraft and helicopters has improved incredibly, both in the sheer amount of destructive potential and in accuracy. And what's more, vastly improved communications tech has meant this stuff can be delivered sooner and with more accuracy. That's what has really changed.

sebster wrote:Do you think there was a reduced level of militarism in greater society before then?

No. I think the US has always had a somewhat militant perspective very well engrained in our cultural psyche. My point was rather that the US was all bark and no bite prior too. We talked a big game but really, we didn't have much to back it up with. Today of course we're the strongest military power in the world, which is pretty easy to do when (arguably) no one other than China and some developing world countries are really trying.

LordofHats wrote:No. I think the US has always had a somewhat militant perspective very well engrained in our cultural psyche. My point was rather that the US was all bark and no bite prior too.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure that's true. I'm not saying anything with any great deal of certainty, but it seems to me the national icons of the past generally weren't soldiers, other than Washington. Stories were written about cowboys and frontiersmen, but not soldiers. That seemed to change after WWII.

Today of course we're the strongest military power in the world, which is pretty easy to do when (arguably) no one other than China and some developing world countries are really trying.

Not just the strongest military in the world, you're arguably as strong as everyone else put together.

All I have to say is whoever thought of walking into lines of rifle fire and batteries of cannons as if it were just a spring rain oughta be shot himself...dumbest idea I've ever heard of...

WARORK93 wrote:All I have to say is whoever thought of walking into lines of rifle fire and batteries of cannons as if it were just a spring rain oughta be shot himself...dumbest idea I've ever heard of...

Now you have the way of it. Don't forget the batteries of cannon were substantially better than Napoleon's time as well.

Frazzled wrote:
Interestingly, we had less wars then...

Over the whole of its existence the US has averaged about one military conflict every two years, since WWII this has not changed.

You could argue that the wars are now more remote, but that would ignore the gradual trend towards expeditionary campaigns that took place in the late 19th century. You might also narrow the definition of what constitutes a war, but again that presents its own set of problems; ie. is it sufficient to be a participant, is there a minimum level of commitment, is that commitment to be considered in a relative sense?

You'll have to support that statement bigtime Dogma. Of course I said wars so your definitional use of "conflict" could be extremely broad.
Here's the ones I can think of in the 1800s
*Quasi War
*Seminole War
*War of 1812
*Mexican American War
*War of Northern Aggression
*"Indian Wars" of the 70s/80s
What else? Thats not a war every 2 years. Did you mean every twenty?

Frazzled wrote:You'll have to support that statement bigtime Dogma. Of course I said wars so your definitional use of "conflict" could be extremely broad.
Here's the ones I can think of in the 1800s
*Quasi War
*Seminole War
*War of 1812
*Mexican American War
*War of Northern Aggression
*"Indian Wars" of the 70s/80s
What else? Thats not a war every 2 years. Did you mean every twenty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States