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.

All I know about those early modern grunts are.
1. They're a perfect mixture of pikemen and musketeers, They use muzzleloading smoothbore firearms (some even say that this Line Inf. thing was once equipped with matchlock and wheellock weapons), each usually supplied with a detachable blade called 'bayonette'
2. three primary formations: Line (usually three ranks deep), Column (usually five or six columns of troops), Square (hollow at the centre)
3. All of them got close order drill. and dress in a very fancy outfit (as we seen them)
4. command retinue doesn't wield swords, but uses either pikes or sabers.

some questions.
1. What is the brits Line Infantry tactics? in Barry Lyndon movie. they don't seem to do any volley shootings (I don't agree with the movie, the line officier should call a halt and open fire on french formations .


the most stupid bayonet charge ever! i believe that in reality, the brits line inf. will do some few volleys before charging.
but in The Patriot. brits line infantry did a few, but decisive volleys. but they usually shoot a bit late.


what's british Line Infantry tactics, do they march a bit closer before open fire?
2. How do Swedes line inf. looks like?
3. even with bayonet. why in 18th century and in Napoleonic Wars, each Line infantrymen still gets sword as a side arm? if they fight melee with bayonet charge not swashbuckling (due the the fact that much of them are conscripts and recruited from peasants.
those swords are ridiculously long! the bayonets of that time are socket type and its aesthetic looks like a lightning bolt! AFAIK the knife bayonet became common by the time if first world war. (and it became shorter, to the point that it is more a survival tool than an actual melee combat weapon)
4. When was the last time the Line Infantry tight formations was used in combat? in ZULU movie, Brits still use Line Infantry tactics even with an advanced weapon, Martini Henry breech loading rifle.

British line infantry were trained usually to outshoot opposing armies, and often did so at point blank. The basic idea was this

The muskets at the time were highly inaccurate, and thus needed to be fired enmasse at a target to do any damage, so the lines would concentrate as much firepower in each volley onto the enemy. Due to inexperience, troops often fire slightly too high and too early, meaning many shots were wasted, so the British infantry waited until they were quite close, often 50-60 yards before presenting and firing, and they also aimed low to help ensure the volley counted.

Later on, Platoon Fire drill was developed which meant a force would volley by platoon, so there was a constant rippling gunfire effect. Instead of the entire line firing, the leftmost/rightmost part would fire, followed by the next, and by the next and so on until it got to the opposite end, by which time the left/right most had reloaded and began the process again. Very nasty that was, as often a full volley would expend most of its force on an enemies front rank before the dead/wounded fell, whereas platoon fire meant that the bullets kept coming.

Bayonet charges didn't often end up in actual melee, the otherside was far more inclined to flee screaming than be gutted. This was helped by the fact the British usually bayonet charged in total silence, which was unnerving as hell.

Column was simply to allow a large group to march as quickly as possible (apart from the French, who also had a formation known as the attack column), Line was to maximise shooting at the enemy, and Square was to repel enemy horse (and sometimes to fight enemies on multiple sides).

Lone Cat wrote:All I know about those early modern grunts are.
1. They're a perfect mixture of pikemen and musketeers, They use muzzleloading smoothbore firearms (some even say that this Line Inf. thing was once equipped with matchlock and wheellock weapons), each usually supplied with a detachable blade called 'bayonette' Yup. Back in the 17th centuries, you actually had a combination of Pikemen and musketeers - wheellocks and matchlocks were much more difficult to use and produce, and since no one had thought of the bayonet yet, the musketeers had to be protected from cavalry by pikemen. Later developments made muskets much easier to load/fire and different kinds of bayonets meant that pikes were no longer needed.

2. three primary formations: Line (usually three ranks deep), Column (usually five or six columns of troops), Square (hollow at the centre) Lines could actually be deeper or shallower - the Brits, for example, eventually came to the conclusion that 2 ranks was the most effective

3. All of them got close order drill. and dress in a very fancy outfit (as we seen them) This depends on the era, but to us nowadays they do look very fancy (and often silly). Europeans that fought in North America, for example, often did away with the fancier bits of their uniforms.

4. command retinue doesn't wield swords, but uses either pikes or sabers. Not entirely true - Color sergeants wielded pikes to defend the regimental flags (and from plain tradition) and officer often wore swords or sabers (basically the same thing, really) - and so did cavalry.

some questions.
1. What is the brits Line Infantry tactics? in Barry Lyndon movie. they don't seem to do any volley shootings (I don't agree with the movie, the line officier should call a halt and open fire on french formations . What's british Line Infantry tactics, do they march a bit closer before open fire?

British Line Infantry Tactics! Taking a course on this now, such a great class. MrDwhitey is on the money - first off, muskets were horribly inaccurate, so lines would often advance towards each other to about 50-60 yards and then fire. The British created the Platoon Fire system during the Seven Years War, and put it to great effect during the Battle of Minden, where the Duke of Marlborough managed to defeat a much larger French force. It works exactly as MrDwhitey explains, and it's horribly effective.

2. How do Swedes line inf. looks like? Dunno!

3. even with bayonet. why in 18th century and in Napoleonic Wars, each Line infantrymen still gets sword as a side arm? if they fight melee with bayonet charge not swashbuckling (due the the fact that much of them are conscripts and recruited from peasants. those swords are ridiculously long! the bayonets of that time are socket type and its aesthetic looks like a lightning bolt! AFAIK the knife bayonet became common by the time if first world war. (and it became shorter, to the point that it is more a survival tool than an actual melee combat weapon)

I don't believe regular infantry were given swords - they were an officer's weapon. Bayonets were used primarily against cavalry - it was, after all, meant to replace the pike. Horses tend to resist charging into bright, pointy, solid-looking masses. Bayonet charges, on the other hand (and as MrDwhitey said!) were mainly to scare the pants off the opposing force, and rarely actually descended into melee.

4. When was the last time the Line Infantry tight formations was used in combat? in ZULU movie, Brits still use Line Infantry tactics even with an advanced weapon, Martini Henry breech loading rifle.

Well, that's military tradition for you! I'm not entirely sure when Line formations stopped being used - but it was certinaly somewhere between 1860 and 1914 (large margin of error!). The Americans eventually stopped using Napoleonic methods of warfare during the Civil War, especially since the US wasn't really suited for that style of warfare, and the Brits eventually stopped during the Zulu wars.

1. yep the smoothbore muskets are inaccurate, but the tight formatins are practiced in the times of pikemen, and once the pikemen was upgraded to line inf. some pikemen drill continues.
2. Who else practiced platoon fire? in the Patriot, brits do this in the 'Battle of Camden' scene.
3. How long does it takes to train a full company of line infantry? when compared to modern riflemen, which ones take longer to finish training??
4. How does french 'attack column' works?
5. judging from the 'Barry Lyndon' movie footage. it looks like that french line inf. are well prepared for bayonet charge. but who won that battle? brits? or french?

I'd proffer early Civil War and Crimean War were the lsat times they were used. Actual rifles absolutely obliterate lines (and columns). Hence the shift in the Civil War from Napoleonic lines to what an best be described as trench warfare.

Also:



Hat varied, bicorne, as above and possibly shakoe.

The French Attack Column was basically a much wider than marching column used to "encourage" the fights in it. This was due to the French army being heavily reliant on conscripts, often inexperienced and frightened during battle. The "Column" surrounded each soldier and helped with their moral.

In attacking, only a few of the members could fire though, it was a very bad formation for fighting shooting battles, and was sometimes used to "Smash" directly into enemy infantry lines. Usually though, once they came into firing range the column would expand and become a line to fire back. Against trained enemies this didn't work very well and they often got engaged well before a line was formed. Trying to form into a firing line was difficult at best with conscripts, but when under heavy fire by a disciplined enemy? Hah. Platoon fire was extra harsh against the column formation (and cannons liked them too).

It's also sort of a myth too, it's often said that the French -always- attacked in this way, they did not.

^ French Line Infantry with fusil and sword thing.

1. Does brits uses conscripts too?
2. Does the USA the first nation on earth to arm their troops with rifles EN MASS? what are their fighting styles? do they prefer loose formation over tight line inf. thing?

I don't know if they were the first to have massed rifles, but they were the first to use them on an industrial scale. Prior to that there were rifles with specialized units, including the above skirmishers. Initially in the war they too used the two man line, and in-depth widely spaced line attack. (Glory and Gettysberg are excellent examples therein).

As the war moved on it shifted to a more trench context and more loose formations (in reality vs. training).


Pickett's charge

Ehm, sort of. When someone committed a crime in Britain back then (common men, not rich people), the sentence was often either prison, or joining the army. They also had plenty of volunteers tricked into joining with promises of much money and being made very, very drunk by the recruiter.

You could try to read some Drill Manuals: http://www.acws.co.uk/gilhams/. That's basically a copy of A US officer's 1859 Drill Manual, which is basically a copy of a French Manual from the 1840's.

Lone Cat wrote:2. Does the USA the first nation on earth to arm their troops with rifles EN MASS? what are their fighting styles? do they prefer loose formation over tight line inf. thing?

The piece of tech that basically changes the whole deal is the minie ball.



While rifles had been around before, their ludicrously long barrels and very slow reloading times meant they were only useful for specialised sniping duties. On the other hand, the minie ball was a new bullet design, that had a hollowed out base, so it would expand under the pressure of the gunpowder to fit the barrel of the gun. Previously the bullet had to be a very tight fit for the barrel in order to trap most of the force of the exploding gunpowder behind the shot. The minie ball allowed you to use a round that was actually a little smaller than the barrel, so you could load much faster. The other thing it allowed you was to rifle the barrel of your gun - previously the tight fit of shot and barrel meant rifling would slow down reloading horribly as you had to basically 'screw' the round down the barrel, and the rifling would quickly wear out, but with the smaller bullet it would slide down the barrel, then expand when fired and fit into the rifled barrel.

The minie ball was a French invention, and first deployed by French and English forces in the Crimean War, although the round still relatively new then and standard muskets were more common. It gave its users far greater accuracy, and up to four times the effective range, and was a major cause in the victory of the French and English forces over the Russians.

By the time the American Civil war rolled around the effectiveness of the minie ball was pretty clear, and most troops were armed with rifled muskets using the round. This led to a pretty rapid learning curve, as tactics centred around the general inaccuracy of the musket were hammered by the range and accuracy of the new rounds. Looser formations became far more common, as did defensive formations built around local terrain.

It's actually why I find the American Civil War was such a fascinating period of history. Before then, most of the killing was done by cannon, and after it most of the killing was done artillery and other new weapons of war. But here, for this one period of history, the most deadly thing on the battlefield was the humble infantryman.

About marching
1. do each formation has specific marching song? if each nation has its own (Ex. Brits has 'British Grenadiers' and 'Lilliburero', Republic France has 'La Marseilles (??), U.S.A. has johnny thing?? can't remember).
2. When did the marchin' band plays musics? Is there any generic battlefield rules when playing marching musics??
3. While drum acts as signal tools as well as a part of musics, why fifes are more common? do the marching band uses hornes too?




About rifle thing.
1. Brits uses a carbine-sized Baker Rifle once after they've lost the war against Americans, is the carbine size still inconvenience?
2. In the American Civil War, did the quartermaster corps had all smoothbore fusils converted into rifles? and how?

Frazzled wrote:I don't know if they were the first to have massed rifles, but they were the first to use them on an industrial scale. Prior to that there were rifles with specialized units, including the above skirmishers. Initially in the war they too used the two man line, and in-depth widely spaced line attack. (Glory and Gettysberg are excellent examples therein).

As the war moved on it shifted to a more trench context and more loose formations (in reality vs. training).


Pickett's charge

Thank you Frazzled. I am actually in that Pickett's charge clip.

Infantry often took commands by the drum and or bugle call. Problem was they were often unsure as to which calls were for them or someone else. A man in the Union army named Dan Butterfield invented a 6 note flourish, which was repeated twice, before the order call was sounded. By using it there was no mistaking who the calls were for.

Lone Cat wrote: About marching
1. do each formation has specific marching song? if each nation has its own (Ex. Brits has 'British Grenadiers' and 'Lilliburero', Republic France has 'La Marseilles (??), U.S.A. has johnny thing?? can't remember).
2. When did the marchin' band plays musics? Is there any generic battlefield rules when playing marching musics??
3. While drum acts as signal tools as well as a part of musics, why fifes are more common? do the marching band uses hornes too?




About rifle thing.
1. Brits uses a carbine-sized Baker Rifle once after they've lost the war against Americans, is the carbine size still inconvenience?
2. In the American Civil War, did the quartermaster corps had all smoothbore fusils converted into rifles? and how?

Early war is a grab bag (If you're referring to Civil War). In actuality a study of the available arsenals and Southern militias will not a large majority of weaponry were non-rifled muskets (aka old school smoothbores). However, as Seb noted, rifles were produced thereafter as the standard arm for both. You can even see if in the casualty rates. Compare Bull Run (moderate casualties) to something like Shiloh, Cold Harbor, or Pickett's charge. The casualty rates become staggering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thank you Frazzled. I am actually in that Pickett's charge clip.

Infantry often took commands by the drum and or bugle call. Problem was they were often unsure as to which calls were for them or someone else. A man in the Union army named Dan Butterfield invented a 6 note flourish, which was repeated twice, before the order call was sounded. By using it there was no mistaking who the calls were for.

A butternut wearing re-enactor? I always wanted to do that, but performing a marching re-enactment in 105 degree Texas would not be conducive to living.

Didn't Butterfield write the taps bugle call (and a bunch of other ones)?

Lone Cat wrote: About marching
1. do each formation has specific marching song? if each nation has its own (Ex. Brits has 'British Grenadiers' and 'Lilliburero', Republic France has 'La Marseilles (??), U.S.A. has johnny thing?? can't remember).
2. When did the marchin' band plays musics? Is there any generic battlefield rules when playing marching musics??
3. While drum acts as signal tools as well as a part of musics, why fifes are more common? do the marching band uses hornes too?

Music was generally not used in actual combat (not like a song anyway). Drums were used to create a beat so everyone stepped at the same time and stayed in formation. Horns were used to carry orders over a line since you generally can't hear someone's voice over cannons. Theme music was more of a parade thing, not a combat thing.

1. Brits uses a carbine-sized Baker Rifle once after they've lost the war against Americans, is the carbine size still inconvenience?

I'm unsure what you mean. Now a days, the Carbine is much more common as a weapon than a full length rifle. They're cheaper, more flexible, and the loss of accuracy is mostly meaningless. When line tactics were common place though full length rifles were the rule and carbines were more common to Cavalry and Skirmishers.

I'd also point out that some of the videos you post are inaccurate. Those four or five man deep lines were common prior to the Napoleonic Wars, but afterwards lines were typically just two rows deep, maybe three due to increasing weapon accuracy.

2. In the American Civil War, did the quartermaster corps had all smoothbore fusils converted into rifles? and how?

As far as I know there were no conversions. The US (North and South) bought large numbers of weapons overseas. The South actually took most of the weapons they used throughout the war from battlefields in 1861 and 1862 after Union troops retreated. The South didn't have the industrial capacity to make the weapons. The North made almost all the rifles used in the war and simply discarded old muskets or gave them to militia and home guard units that didn't see combat.

LordofHats wrote:

Lone Cat wrote: About marching
1. do each formation has specific marching song? if each nation has its own (Ex. Brits has 'British Grenadiers' and 'Lilliburero', Republic France has 'La Marseilles (??), U.S.A. has johnny thing?? can't remember).
2. When did the marchin' band plays musics? Is there any generic battlefield rules when playing marching musics??
3. While drum acts as signal tools as well as a part of musics, why fifes are more common? do the marching band uses hornes too?

Music was generally not used in actual combat (not like a song anyway). Drums were used to create a beat so everyone stepped at the same time and stayed in formation. Horns were used to carry orders over a line since you generally can't hear someone's voice over cannons. Theme music was more of a parade thing, not a combat thing.

1. Brits uses a carbine-sized Baker Rifle once after they've lost the war against Americans, is the carbine size still inconvenience?

I'm unsure what you mean. Now a days, the Carbine is much more common as a weapon than a full length rifle. They're cheaper, more flexible, and the loss of accuracy is mostly meaningless. When line tactics were common place though full length rifles were the rule and carbines were more common to Cavalry and Skirmishers.

I'd also point out that some of the videos you post are inaccurate. Those four or five man deep lines were common prior to the Napoleonic Wars, but afterwards lines were typically just two rows deep, maybe three due to increasing weapon accuracy.

2. In the American Civil War, did the quartermaster corps had all smoothbore fusils converted into rifles? and how?

As far as I know there were no conversions. The US (North and South) bought large numbers of weapons overseas. The South actually took most of the weapons they used throughout the war from battlefields in 1861 and 1862 after Union troops retreated. The South didn't have the industrial capacity to make the weapons. The North made almost all the rifles used in the war and simply discarded old muskets or gave them to militia and home guard units that didn't see combat.

many clips are from movies. too bad I can't find the most historical accurate Line Inf. tactics.
I don't know why in the movies. in the scene of line inf. battles. there's musician band playin' marches (especially British Grenadiers, for brits) and march alongside those line infantrymen. i'm not sure if Almansa clip is more accurate than others?

I believed that... if the Confederacy did looting, then the Union might have ordered a big pile of muzzleloading rifles from France. (which by the time they're upgrading their armed forces with a very advanced breech loading Chassepot, the bolt action rifle. so during the upgrades, all of the existing muzzle loaders (which being replaced) has to be dumped elsewhere. it was just a right time the Americans were divided into two. just an opportunity they're lookin' for. so Napoleon III sold those loads. but i think Union gets the shipment first.

In the meantime. the Americans already have access to some Breech loading rifles. (like Sharps) or evenmore advanced weapons. the repeating rifle! (Spencer), Why didn't the US Armed Forces upgraded their troops with those new weapons by then? (but choosing Minie' rifles), does that has anything to do with Line Infantry drills? do the officiers still have the mindset of 'Seven Years War'?
even worst, by the end of civil war, the U.S. Army line infantrymen still get a very outdated upgrades. singleshot trapdoor rifles. one that looks much like brits. why don't the Quatermaster corps rearm them with Spencer repeating rifles instead? Spencer repeating firarms are the first in the world that featured a detachable magazine!


^ Spencer Carbine, there's also a rifle versions exists. (well it was made after carbine ones)

^ box for its detachable magazine. the weapon is very advanced by the time of inception. the magazine holds 7 shots. if the cartridge is slightly extended the mag could hold 5 or 6, but the power increased .. i think.

i'm not sure if the U.S. Army still maintains Line Infantry volley fire by then?

Government contracts are the reason there were no mass upgrades to Spencer and Henry rifles.

The south looting its weapons is a romantic but semi-innacurate picture. Each state had it's own armouries stocked with muskets which were provided to it's troops.
Some were more updated than others. Many of the weapons had originally been flintlocks, smoothbore, which were converted to percussion ignition systems as funds were available. The south also imported thousands of Enfield rifles from England for it's war effort. Some regiments retained their smoothbore weapons until the end of the war, while others upgraded to rifles through supply or capturing federal weapons.
Arthur Fremantle wrote of seeing heaps of rusting captured federal weapons lying by the side of the rail platforms.


Frazzled: 100 degree heat at Gettysburg in July was the main reason I hung up my musket after 15 years of reenacting.

snurl wrote:Government contracts are the reason there were no mass upgrades to Spencer and Henry rifles.

Cost, reliability and ammunition supply. And also the practicality of mass producing a new weapon with a relatively high level of machining.

It isn't that practical to begin cranking out a whole new type of weapon on an industrial scale in the middle of the war.

As a former line infantryman, here's what you need to know:

"I'm up, he sees me, I'm down"- how to advance on an enemy. Saying this is the amount of time that you should run toward the enemy before hitting the deck. Repeat as necessary until you've closed the distance and killed them.

"Die melon-fether, die"- The time it takes to say this is the length of time to hold the trigger on a full-auto weapon.

Do you want to know more?

sebster wrote:

snurl wrote:Government contracts are the reason there were no mass upgrades to Spencer and Henry rifles.

Cost, reliability and ammunition supply. And also the practicality of mass producing a new weapon with a relatively high level of machining.

It isn't that practical to begin cranking out a whole new type of weapon on an industrial scale in the middle of the war.

Thats all part of it. Plus the feds weren't too happy with the way the Maynard tape primer system turned out.

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)

"I'm up, he sees me, I'm down"- how to advance on an enemy. Saying this is the amount of time that you should run toward the enemy before hitting the deck. Repeat as necessary until you've closed the distance and killed them.

3 sec rush rule that goes with the buddy rush

"Die melon-fether, die"- The time it takes to say this is the length of time to hold the trigger on a full-auto weapon.

5-6 round trigger hold

Do you want to know more?

Just wanted to clarify for some who has to much education or to little education to understand

^ that's modern infantry tactics! not the classic line Infantries!

are those goons with assault rifles also called Line Infantry? given that they aren't from special forces units but belongs to Infantry Regiment of the Army or Marines corps instead.

Lone Cat wrote:are those goons with assault rifles also called Line Infantry? given that they aren't from special forces units but belongs to Infantry Regiment of the Army or Marines corps instead.

Though I don't think it's official terminology, I have heard modern day riflemen referred to as linemen on occasion. I think that's informal though.

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

AFAIK, "line infantry" like we are talking about would not be as tight as one thinks.


From what I have studied, here is how a typical volley cycle would work:

1. unit(s) form up in line, at proper interval. The interval is extremely important in a moment.
2. Command given to load/take aim/fire for first rank, meanwhile second rank is loading.
3. After the volley, the second rank steps through the gap to his right (I'd assume right, because at least in american military thats the direction we ALWAYS dress, and take guidance from).
4. While the second rank has stepped on step infront of the first rank, and is taking aim, the first rank is now loading as fast as possible.
5. Second rank fires its round...first rank steps forward on command, etc.
6. repeat until ammo exhausted, or bayonet charge issued.



Additionally, from some more reading, post American War for Independence I have seen documents on a four rank, line infantry volley line.... Basically, the first and second rank become the "first rank". This requires slightly more space in between troops to maneuver... the first rank kneels, while the second takes position with his side aligned with the spine of the guy in front of him (basically, he is half way into the gap, but there is still space, and they are slightly offset so powder/weapon discharges, debris, etc. don't affect each other too much). The two ranks then fire as one concerted volley, first rank stands, then ranks three and four step through, assume kneeling/offset standing positions while 1/2 reload.

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

That's what I thought too.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr0022.htm

Monster Rain wrote:

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

That's what I thought too.

While it's generally accepted as the term for normal infantry, however I think we all understood exactly what he meant

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