Видео

Same here

@@isaiahjones2089 same here

Anyone who has literally a modicum of knowledge about "Line Infantry" tactics and strategy rolls their eyes when they see comments like yours. The good news is you are on RUclips. You have internet access. Instead of posting a mindless comment, why not go to Wikipedia and look up Line Infantry tactics, strategy, or better yet... find a RUclips video that goes into great detail why this style of fighting existed. SPOILER: It was the best for land warfare in Europe given the terrain and the weaponry at the time. Black gunpowder and smooth-bored guns are HUGE factors in why they fight like this. The bright colors of the uniforms (instead of camouflage) was because the black gunpowder burns horribly and creates huge clouds of smoke, obscuring friend from foe; having bright colored uniforms help distinguish everyone so commanders could lead and direct troops. Now, you may have noticed the lack of radios and other communications tech out there. That's because there are not any. Not for a couple hundred years to portable enough at least. The reason drums and bugles and flags are present on the battlefield (along with actual GENERALS) is because communicating to people was limited to shouting but remember that dirty burning black gunpowder?? That is also fucking loud. No one can hear Generals who are perched up on some hill using a fucking telescope to command his troops.. So, soldiers were trained to respond to commands given by drums, bugles, or signals given by flags. Ah, but you are probably calling the Soldiers "dumb" for standing in a line just waiting to be shot. Well, you have a tiny point. This was the last relic of "chivalry" present in most battlefields. A lot of honor was left over from the days of old when officers were likely aristocrats. But the Soldiers themselves were likely low-born peasants or merchant-class. The biggest reason they fought in a "line" and "took turns shooting" is that other thing I mentioned, ... smooth bore guns. Smooth bore guns are fucking inaccurate as all get out. Also, those things have to be reloaded FROM THE MUZZLE. A well-trained Soldier was considered great if he could fire *3 rounds per minute* . Imagine that. A gun that fires 3 rounds a fucking minute and even if the dude is great with it, he likely would miss because the gun is smooth bored. And do not get me started on the delay from trigger pull to the actual gunpowder hopefully igniting and sending your round off. So, what does a glacier-slow reload on an inaccurate weapon have to do with standing in a fucking line? Well, the best way to hit your target was turning all your musket fire into basically a "shotgun" blast with volley fire. One dude may miss but if I have 50 dudes lined up and shooting in the same direction, SOME of the musket fire is gonna hit the enemy. You also may be asking, "Why not shoot and then like, lay down or something?" Great question; the point of a battle is to kill the other dude but also take control of advantageous terrain. I already said the guns have to be reloaded from the muzzle. You cannot take territory while laying down and trying to reload a musket (also, muskets are bitches and do not do well when you put dirt or gunk in the muzzle. It jams them with the ramrod and makes the musket inoperable... which is not good when the other dude is trying to kill you). So, they "took turns shooting while walking at each other" to account for the muskets inaccuracy and reload speed whilst trying to take advantageous terrain. There are loads and loads of more considerations with line infantry warfare. Even the fucking weather can dictate battles. I mentioned the black gunpowder right? that pan is not going to ignite in the rain. Hell, even if the humidity is too great the powder can be unreliable. That's why all the battles you see in this era tend to take place on bright, sunny days (at least in the European theatre). There is a big shift with how the 7 Years War (French and Indian War for the US peeps) was fought in the Americas by the Native Americans but that is a topic all on its own. I guess what I am trying to say is, "Fuck you. You are dumb. Stop acting like you are smarter than literally military generals who devoted their entire lives to killing people with the technology and weaponry that was available during their time. Your retarded self probably struggles to microwave food while you admire your Funko Pop collection."

The British were a well-disciplined force. They had men who patrolled behind the lines and were ordered to shoot those who ran. This gave the men incentive to keep moving forward and do their job. If they went forward, they had a chance. If they tried to run, the odds were they'd be killed. An approach like that cannot fail but to instill order.

Which one ? I’ll watch it again and let you know. Give me a time stamp please

B24

Must have been thinking of the Lanc!

Isn't it ironic that eighty some years later, the North & South would still be fighting each other using Napoleonic tactics?

@@chrishernandez4266 They worked. You have a better idea?

@@DieFlabbergast part of why the militias were so effective was bc they weren't so much "going muzzle to muzzle" with the opposite side. They were a little more stealthy about how they went about fighting, using rocks & trees, etc., for cover & guerilla tactics. At least that is my opinion. I wasn't physically present during those periods of history so I can only base my opinion off things I have read or heard.

WWI as well

Uh... Warfare absolute changed in the American Civil War. Ever heard of a "rifle bore" or perhaps a Minié ball??? The sieges of Vicksburg and Petersburg literally had trench warfare.

@@0ThrowawayAccount0Weapons changed. The tactics stayed the same.

@@esbam2002 Did you even read my comment, you dunce?

* In the late 19th century (1800-1899). The 18th century was the period of Bach and Mozart, the American War of Independence, and the French Revolution.

And the Colonials still won. Sometimes you need something to fight for.

Tell me you know nothing of the time period without telling me you know nothing of the time period.

okay britbong.

Different battle. The battle where the men lose their legs is the final battle not this one. And why would they show a guy getting his head blown off but not show a few legs taken off?

No. I've only ever seen it as The Patriot

@@breadders86 thought I was being fed a line.

I feel like the Patriot isn't the best movie to learn about American history from

It's more realistic. You can actually see other British officers repeating the order down the line. Soldiers further away will hear the order later and so will fire later.

@@jessiemeisenheimer8675 Yeah I found out what it was called now - 'Platoon Fire' was the method. And the explanation of it makes sense aha - thusly: 'Nearly all line infantry of the period carried smoothbore, muzzle-loading muskets. These take considerable time to reload after firing: anything up to a minute for poorly trained or nervous troops. During that time, the enemy can close or return fire unmolested. In the time it takes to reload, a unit can be cut down, its half-loaded weapons useless in the face of an aggressive foe. It is sensible to make sure that not everyone in an infantry unit is reloading at the same moment; this, in turn, means that not everyone should be firing at the same time. Platoon fire was a way of dividing a unit into smaller groups that each fire, reload and fire again in turn. The result is a "rippling fire" down a line formation and, as the last platoon fires its muskets, the first is ready to fire again. In this way, a unit can always give some fire to the enemy at all times, even if this is less than a complete volley. When more than one unit was involved all the troops in every first platoon fired, followed by all the second platoons, and so on, creating several rippling barrages down the battle line.'

​@@bobpage6597Huh. Guess Empire Total War is actually somewhat accurate in its depiction of such tactics.

ruclips.net/video/qpUd4GE8IgU/видео.htmlsi=NUWVY6_5lUins7Bm educate yourself, you dolt

not sure that id call it amazing more like tragic and terrifying

He did play Fletcher Christian in The Bounty.

Also a rabid anti-Semite. Never saw a historical event he couldn't lie about.

Guerrilla warfare was invented thousands of years ago. The Picts, Jews, and Germans used it against the Roman Empire, and there are hundreds of other examples. If the enemy has the advantage in numbers and weaponry, you use what you can, which includes greater knowledge of the terrain (your home ground).

No

The Americans at the start of their War of Independence WERE Englishmen. Changing that was what the war was about.

What a load of BS. Learn some real history. You're a clown.

And now americans cant choose what gender they are lol

That's interesting the British army was considered to be one of best in the world at this time, second only to the French. Your comment is interesting considering the British were winning the majority of the battles before they had to fend off the Dutch, Spanish and French. Your comment is interesting considering George Washington hated using the militia. Famous quotes include "are these the men with which I am to defend America?" and "To rely upon militia is to lean upon a broken staff (walking stick). Yeah, I call bull on your statement.

Tell that to George Washington when he got his butt kicked up and down New York

Yes most British regulars did not know how to shoot a musket BEFORE they were enlisted. However, the drill sargeants made sure that at the end of boot camp they could do it blindfolded. The British were the only ones practicing the loading and firing of a musket with live ammunition. They were considered the finest line infantry in the world at the time. However, the colonists often used their hunting pieces in battle as they were familiar with them. Those often happened to be rifled guns with a better accuracy and hence they probably had an advantage in that respect. Having said that, frontloading rifles are a bastard to load as you need to force the bullet down the groves. So in a battle like the one depicted here, the colonists' higher accuracy and their knowledge of the terrain did them no good, as the battles were fought on short distances, which negated their advantages and tilted the tide of battle to the British's side. Only when the colonists started using ambush tactics (or as we call it today 'asymmetrical warfare') they gained the upper hand.