British Army tactics


Is there a reason why they just stood there in the open field and waited for the order to fire? Wouldn't it make more sense if they had some type of a shield or hid behind something or at least kept moving so that people shooting at them have a more difficult time killing them?
Otherwise, you just hope that a guy shooting at you is a poor shot; otherwise, you're making a really easy job for the enemy to kill you.

===
When I die, I want to be buried face down. That way whoever doesn't like me can kiss my ass.

reply

They still used these tactics in the American civil war and even to a degree in WW1. Two armies, marching at each other in open field (but in ww1 it was more: 1 army running at an army hiding in trenches).

For thousands of years these tactics were used.

But in the civil war and especially in WW1, these tactics were obsolete.

Someone who is more of a military historian can tell you more about this. And correct me if i'm wrong :)


English isn't my 1st language. I'm sorry for any mistakes in grammar, spelling...

reply

I believe the basis for the tactic was that the weapons lacked accuracy and firepower. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the weapons, it was necessary to have a tightly spaced group of soldiers firing at the same time.

---
Choocheechoo choocheechoo choocheechoo ya ya pow!

reply

By the civil war those tactics were obsolete. The rifle much better and accurate, my God I couldn't imagine getting wounded by a .58 caliber"bullet"

reply

A musket can actually be 100 yard minute of man accurate if loaded with a tight fitting patch/ball. However, due to the powder fouling making it difficult to reload after only a few shots, an undersized ball (in the case of the Brown Bess in particular a .69 caliber ball down a .75 caliber bore) was the standardized load. You might notice in the film that the men were actually looking away as they fired. This is because they weren't aiming at anyone, they were pointing at a wall of men.

The Minie ball is pretty much what ended the reign of the smoothbore musket by giving the soldier a weapon that was both fast (relatively) to load AND accurate. As was stated earlier, tactics took time to catch up with this and casualties were horrendous until they did.

On a side note, the Minie balls were originally in .69 caliber. .58 caliber was selected as it was considered to be more ballistically efficient and humane.

I'm genuinely convinced that every movie would be better with Arnold Schwarzenegger in it.

reply

Revolutionary War was towards the end of when these tactics were effective. It make more sense if you consider how a lot of these strategies evolved from more primitive weapons like bows and arrows that were less deadly.

Discipline is one of the most important elements in these kinds of battles. If you let your men run around and take cover and fire from spots that are safer, you lose a lot of control and can easily get routed if the enemy makes a strong advance. Battles like this are generally won through superior formations and organized advances. Just put yourself in the soldiers shoes. If you are hiding behind a bush and taking potshots against a strong enemy line, you arent really paying attention to your officer further away down the line telling you to charge. If you are marching in a unified formation, you are going to be more likely to follow the officers orders and lead a potentially successful advance that breaks through the enemies defenses.

reply

Excellent point. Another reason you can't have soldiers of that era hiding and shooting... they often wouldn't shoot. The smoke from the gunpowder would attract enemy fire.

reply

It was the best way of fighting with those weapons in that era. If you look at the statistics you were far more likely to die of disease than being shot by the enemy - and this continued to be the case up until the end of the 19th century.


reply

Yeah the Brit brass bitching about & asking the colonists to not shoot the officers was funny. They viewed that kinda like we view IEDs set by the Taliban basically.

reply

As other posters mentioned the musket didn't even have man to man accuracy from 20 yards. The most talented marksman had no clue what way the ball was going to fire from the barrel due to the lack of rifling. The packing together of troops at close range with muskets can be likened to a shotgun effect. Of course it mean you had to suck it up and pray while the other lot had their go.

Why didn't the troops use rifles? Though they more accurate they were slower to load since the muskets of the time used paper cartridges and the rifle loaded powder separately. Also moving from muskets to rifles and altering battlefield tactics so dramatically wouldn't have been an easy transition.

I've had a lot of sobering thoughts in my time Del Boy, it's them that started me drinking!

reply

The British regulars also didn't use rifles because bayonets, which were vital to the British tactics, usually could not be fitted to rifles.

reply

In short, the military mindset at the time was that in order to mass your fire, one had to mass your men.

As other posters have said, a company of men with smoothbore muskets functioned like a shotgun, and it only worked effectively at close range.

Ordering soldiers into prone position or implementing some sort of shield would have complicated the commands and possibly led to the breakdown of uniformity, and in turn a rout. Infantry tactics were kept basic. The men at the front paid dearly for it.




I couldn't believe when I read his filmography that he played a toilet (no joke) in According to Jim

reply

[deleted]

In short, the military mindset at the time was ... one had to mass your men.
Agreed and also the reason the militia who rarely committed men to frontal warfare, but repeatedly surprised larger bodies of the enemy with quick surprise attacks and equally quick withdrawals from the field were so successful, whether they were thought to be gentlemen or not.🐭

reply

Is there a reason why they just stood there in the open field and waited for the order to fire? Wouldn't it make more sense if they had some type of a shield or hid behind something or at least kept moving so that people shooting at them have a more difficult time killing them?

This is a movie, lol. The real tactics would've been to stay at the longest distance possible from the enemy, and fire the muskets at them, hoping yours have a better range.

That is why cavalery was so important, only horses would make a difference in a war of distance.

Most of what you read about warfare is idealized, romanticized, bullsh!t. It's like reading of story of soldiers in Iraq today - oh how brave they are, how they fight the elements not only the enemy. Propaganda bullsh!t.

reply

The real tactic was a bayonet charge. Muskets had short range and little accuracy. Infantry were moved in groups for the best firing position. They fired in line, to create a wall of lead. That was to reduce enemy numbers and soften them up, in preparation for the bayonet charge. Meanwhile, cavalry and artillery were used for heavy hitting. Cavalry charges could be devastating. To counter that, infantry formed squares, creating a hedge of bayonets which would cause the horses to turn away. That also made a tempting artillery target.

Rifles were used, with Ferguson and his breechloading rifle, though not in great numbers. the patriots employed them, especially Daniel Morgan, with his sharpshooters. they would try to pick off officers and non-coms, to disrupt command. The British subsequently used riflemen, in the Napoleonic wars, to do the same thing.

If you want to read battle tactics of the era, in an entertaining fashion, read Bernard Cornwell's Redcoat, which covers the period, and the Sharpe series, which covers the Napoleonic wars. The man did his research and writes a darn good adventure story.

Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!

reply

If you want to read battle tactics of the era, in an entertaining fashion, read Bernard Cornwell's Redcoat

The tactics you describe, were theoretical, ideal, not what really happened in the field.

In theory, a boxing or a karate fighter or football player, ideally, would use different techniques, to achieve victory.

In reality, it all spirals down into quasi-chaos, with both parties struggling to achieve a coordinated strike.
The armies would spend most of the time not fighting, but maneuvering
The command would spend most of the time not executing maneuvers, but trying to bring the men in a position whence they'd accept to fight.

reply