Have you heard of the Battle of Cowpens? American forces marched straight up to British forces and routed them. In real life, flanking attacks in small action battles like this film clip or the Battle of Cowpens, are very difficult. It's easy for the enemy to see you trying to flank w/ pickets/scouts. The enemy just has to wheel right or left to face you. Meanwhile your troops tire out trying to outflank the enemy while the enemy hasn't marched but only did a half wheel.
@Gaming and Education LOL generals didn't just sit at the back They charged many times to rally their troops and secure flanks, just look at Gustavus Adolphus or the Swedish king during the great Northern wad
The only stupid thing I saw was that they hold the position so long instat of fall back to regroup to an proper fire line or charge to break through. To stand there - enemies in the flank - was suizid.
@@mateuszjokiel2813 I do find it confusing the concept of standing there effectively taking turns at trying to kill each other like in a Warhammer battle. It seems like it would be impossible to keep the soldiers from fleeing. How does this warfare work exactly?
@@tomthefox8909 Basically, the firearms back in the day were so shit (inaccurate because of slow-moving projectiles and unrifled barrels, and hard to reload) that you literally needed a wall of them firing to do any substantial damage. Tactics worked like that not because people were somehow less intelligent back in the day despite having some of the greatest modern philosophers and forefathers of science etc., it was just necessitated by the technology. Edit: As for keeping the soldiers from fleeing, I'd have to read more about it, but I presume the coupling of harsh punishments and sheer fear of not finding food and dying in a ditch somewhere would contribute to that.
I wish that a movie would one day accurately depict tactics from the period. For example, a tactic that the British made use of (especially the Scottish regiments) was to advance close to the enemy, fire two crushing volleys and then charge immediately afterwards. The two volleys would disorganize the enemy. The smoke from these volleys would also obscure their charge as it closed the distance. Imagine the terror of getting hit with two volleys of concentrated musketry and then out of the smoke come a bunch of yelling, screaming men with bayonets. It's actually really easy to see how inexperienced militia (and even professional troops) would break and flee in the face of that tactic. This was often used by the Scots because it was an adaptation of the traditional 'highland charge'. In general, it was fairly uncommon for the British to use volleys to break the Americans. The British issued bayonets across their army while many Americans lacked the bayonet. In an age where a good soldier could only fire 3-4 rounds per minute, the bayonet was a difference maker. As American forces became better at volley fire, the British were forced to engage in longer firefights. In this case, the British often used 'platoon firing', where the battalion or company would fire by platoons, creating a rippling effect that ensured an almost constant stream of fire into the enemy formation. It did require a high level of coordination and training, so it was not universally used by British regiments at the time. It became much more widely used later, I believe, during the Napoleonic wars where the British faced densely packed but small frontage French columns. Delivering a constant stream of fire to the front of the column was a devastating tactic that allowed the British to effectively counter this feared formation.
British observes during the civil war were horrified when the americans would just stand there and fire at each other's for ages. The casualties that resulted from that style of fighting were unheard of.
@@leetommerson639 Well, there was another detail in the civil war: They used 18th century line tactics, but had the Minié bullet, which was very precise compared to the traditional round ball. Line tactics made sense as long as muskets were so inaccurate that one could sustain the casualties. Add a precise musket into the mix and it becomes suicidal (which it was during the civil war).
@@DJOttmarthat is not true, line formations were used due to the slow rate of fire and the threat of cavalry, what do you think a more accurate firearm would do to hordes of cavalry?
They explain it in the show that they need to start winning battles on their own to convince the French that they have a shot at winning the war and to join the Americans
@Joshua Castro It might be as they are both speaking in English, so that the men aren't confused with the order. For example, if the British officer was close enough and shouted "Take aim", there is a chance in the confusion the US men might interpret that as their order
That's actually historically accurate. The British Army also trained their troops to look away when firing because they frowned upon inflicting casualties, even to traitors to the crown
The British were masters of that sort of warfare, and it was the standard fighting method of the time for large formations of troops in open terrain. It required great discipline, good timing, and well-trained troops who would stand up under heavy fire....and maintain a steady rate of fire. It was not so good for attacking well dug in positions (as at Bunker Hill) or dealing with guerrilla tactics (as in forest combat). In that case one had to adopt different tactics to avoid suffering very heavy losses. And then there were lengthy sieges....which again required different tactics. The British were generally good at all these things, but in the case of the American Revolution they were simply unable to bring the conflict to a conclusion, so in the long run it became too expensive for them, and they gave up on the 13 colonies....one of the very few times the British Empire ever conceded defeat in a major war.
@@user-qi5jw2hg1c - I'll correct that. Since the Act of Union in 1707, the Kingdom of Great Britain has fought in over 120 wars across a total of 170 countries. Of those 120 wars, they lost the War of Independence with the USA, the Irish war of independence 1919-1921, the first Boer war , the 100 years war with France in the 15th century, the war against the Dutch in the 1660s, and they also got severely defeated by the Afghans when they tried to occupy Afghanistan, so that makes 6 wars they lost out of the 120. I'm not sure if they were all *major* wars (maybe not the Afghan one), but they were all lost. Happy?
@@georgecoventry8441 wars of the coalition, bar the last? I'll forgive your arrogance, which is measured by your ignorance: Kingdom of Great Britain existed from 1707 to 1800. You mentioned many wars post-dating that.
Actually according to lord North… they expended about 75,000 troops to the americas. About 35% of their army. Not sure where you got your numbers from but they are highly inaccurate
@@traviskarnes6825 yeah let's ignore the preceeding 20+ years of French military dominance. Tho thats facts about Warerloo that battle was the last nail on the coffin for sure.
People tend to forget that the reason for line battles was due to how inaccurate muskets were and that they used these tactics to help increase the number of casualties inflected on the enemy
This would be the form of warfare for a long time, even through the Napoleonic Wars. It's only around the mid 1800s when firearms became more accurate where these line tactics were rendered obsolete.
@@Warmaker01 Not really. They were still in use by the late 19th century, an example would be the zulu wars. The british used volley fire as a tactic against the thousands of charging zulus, which was very effective. But i would say in the start of the 20th century, line formations were used less and less before they were rendered 100% obsolete, with the introduction of accurate bolt action rifles and machine guns.
The biggest Battle of the War actually took place in the Mediterranean. Spanish and French Forces had set up a siege around Gibraltar. In 1780 came the great assault. 55’000 French and Spanish troops supported by their combined fleets attacked the well defended fortress consisting of just 5’000 British and Hessians. The assault failed. This came just a year after the combined fleets had attempted to land an army on the South Coast of England.
Anyone who played Total war: Empire knew that the Americans didn't stand a chance once the british infantry with broader firing lines appeared on their flanks. There wasn't much sense ordering the troops to hold the line.
That skirmish was fought twice in that episode. Washington was not far and stopped them from retreating, relieved Gen. Green, and took command of the skirmish which lead to the British to retreat from the field. I remember it because it was the first time that I saw a real British tactical withdrawal for that time period, really graceful. In the episode, it was as if the British said "You know what? I'm bored with you." Made an about face and marched calmly off the field while the American forces continued to fire a volley or two. They didn't run off the field. The just turned their backs and continued to march.
@@soap8572 British would be easier I know Irish dont identify themselve as british but if you look trough history a lot of irish and english have almost identical DNA even tho English are anglo-saxons(german,dutch,scandinavian)
Didnt know this but 2/3rds of the "english army" were colonists. The British parliament didn't think the colonies were worth the money to send the full might over. That and France was becoming a big issue.
Love you too from Texas. I have British ancestry and am proud of my British heritage. I found some ancestors in the Revolution at Cowpens. This war was so sad. I wish had not have happened. It just brought so much bitterness unfortunately. This was a great show. Not sure you guys have this show over there but it really made you wonder what side you would have been on. They did a great job. I was rooting for Benjamin's dad more than I was rooting for Benjamin. I had to pinch myself to make sure I was American😅😅
I'm English and I have never heard such a ridiculous accent as the British captain who said " With pleasure sir" he must of had something up his arse or been to the American school of British accents. Either way it was poor
Yes, accurate? Possibly, as I can find three line regiments of foot who MAY have been in America at the time. The 2nd Regt of Foot, the 6th and the 55th most of the rest are in this old link. tmg110.tripod.com/british3.htm Who were those on Green? Surely not the one day to be the 60th Royal American Rifles (the Green Jackets and onward?) - I was odd to see the rear rank firing volleys between the front ranks.
I don't live too far away from Lexington and Concord and the British that day got mauled up pretty good..... if Fatboy didnt come with reinforcements, the first force of 700 would have been annihilated
@@geminisixx4 don't talk about being mauled. The british won the American revolution for you. (Few germans too, give them their credit. And the french) but to try gaslight history is embarrassing. George Washington was taught exclusively by the british, most of your founding fathers were. Also if we wanted to win the war we could of easily, we were beyond doubt the most powerful military to exist in the whole of history at that time. We freed as many African American slaves as we could. To fight in the British army. That's why we recognized the Confederate states despite outlawing slavery long before the American civil war. Yet Lincoln still gets credited for freeing the slaves, when Britain had long established anti slavery laws, and sent a huge chunk of the navy to deal specifically with the slave trade. America is a better country than Britain today. (Britain arrests people for mean tweets). But in the height of the empire Britain was the country that bought prosperity to the four corners of the globe. It will never be repeated, what an extraordinary time it must of been.
From my research for a little book published by our local Civic Society here in Rotherham England:- In 1775 the British Army consisted of just 48’000 men. Later the ‘British’ Army available for service in America consisted of:- 50’000 Brits 30’000 Hessians serving as Auxiliaries 25’000 American Tories.
It's hard to believe that at the time when England had one of the greatest armies in the world that their regular army was so small, but your research was correct. They relied on a lot of local militia in their colonies but unfortunately for them, most of their local militia in the American colonies was fighting against them.
England and later Britain has a long tradition of only maintaining a very small standing army. During times of war they relied on civilians volunteering to fill the ranks. However on this occasion this did not work. Many Brits refused to fight against what they saw as fellow Englishman. Such a fight they said was unnatural. The politics did not help, as I explained in another comment the Patriot movement started in Britain and revolution in England was only narrowly avoided. To fill the ranks Britain tried press ganging, but this proved so unpopular it had to be stopped. They had more luck recruiting criminals who were given a choice of serving or prison. The entry into the conflict of traditional enemies such as France, Spain, Holland and the Mysore helped to increase the numbers, but it was not until 1783 at the war’s end before the target of 200’000 was achieved.
A battlefield in the revolution would never be so quiet and calm. The British would’ve already been deployed and firing volleys, artillery would already be firing
Respect for the American that won the war for independence, but I hate it when they think that it was jsut Britain vs america when it wasn’t. British troops had to stay by ports for reinforcements , won most battles and also america had both France and Spain on there side I’m not saying it wasn’t fair, I’m jsut saying don’t be disappointed when you find out you ran from msot battles and the British were superior until France and Spain came to help you. France btw who caused you economic downfall hence the reason the British taxed you in the first place as they had to fight off the french for your benefit
Another movie depicting the British taking GREAT joy and devilish delight in killing their fellow human. These were soldiers 1000's of miles from home...they just wanted to do their duty and return.
@@Valencetheshireman927 lol, everyone knows that imperialist britain was extremely cruel just look at what u did to the natives of america, australia and NZ and ur cruelty in the indian subcontinent
@@hey0173 We didn’t treat the natives of America badly, that was the Americans post independence. Australia and NZ as dominions were responsible for most of the cruelty the natives suffered. The British empire as the name suggests was an empire and like empires it was capable of doing great things both good and bad. In that it wasn’t unique
@@hey0173 Are you dumb? The natives literally fled from the Americans and came to Canada and some reservations we'd set up for them in America. Why do people like you insist on lying just to fit how you feel? Why would the natives have joined us if we treated them badly? We used to take a handful of natives everywhere we went because the Americans were so scared of them that they'd surrender at the first sight of them. You're a joke, learn history.
@@hey0173 im not fully defending the british, they did horrible things but not really to the native AMERICANS. it was mostly the u.s. post independence that committed the atrocities to the native americans but the british were mostly responsible for the genocide of aboriginal australians and the maori
@@koonkoon01 I have a Brown Bess and a French Charleville...you'd be very hard pressed to hit a man at 75 yards..much better chance at hitting a row of men side by side at 75 yards..
@@magicman3163 Kinda difficult to be honest. Sure, technology would advance slightly faster, but not fast enough for the Americans to gain an advantage early on. And Line Battle Tactics haven't been taught for years, so the top Generals would have no fucking clue how to work this.
@@magicman3163 Not to mention most of the tech was invented by a Brit so if you defeated Britain back then much of the technology you acquired from the Tizard mission would not exist, nor would many of the advancements Americans got from the Germans as without the British WW2 would have played out differently.
The reason the british liked this is cause there soldiers were trained the americans were not the british would take aim and fire the americans would just fire so the british had the upper hand
Anakin Skywalker Because we didn’t need America. India and China was far more lucrative. If Britain wanted to, they could have crushed the Coalition forces
Britain was a naval power, it only had a small army that was tiny by European standards. It was very well trained because it had to compensate for what it lacked in size. The Colonists' real victory was against the Loyalists that made any political resolution impossible. Even in 1782, Washington's New York Campaign ended in debacle.
This is a pretty crap depiction of line warfare. The firing would have started much earlier, at greater range, and likely by company. The formations look very weird too - with these small numbers, they should be strung out in open order, independently firing.
This was more or less meant to be an attack on the rear guard of the british army :) it is explained in the show. It is from "Washington's Spies" a series that aired on AMC.
French supplied weapons. French supplied uniforms. French supplied power and weapons. French blockades to keep the British from resupplying. The French had the most powerful army at that time...the British Empire was smaller - not the global beast of a century later. A third of the colonies in full rebellion, outnumbering the British. Americans: "We were the underdogs - we beat the big empire!" Reality: "How did the British hold on as long as they did?"
@@stingy8029 Spain's was bigger. France had the biggest navy and land army. Sorry to spoil your rebel underdog parade....your nation is built on lies like all Republics in history.
@@Hereticalable Ignorance, Americans did over 98% of fighting and dying on land, French helped with supplies, disciplining, and Naval assets as you said.
@Alex Abbott It takes a brave man to hide behind a keyboard and call a stranger stupid. A smart man too....one who cannot actually articulate why he thinks someone is wrong, and argue a different point.
Line up shot。 When I was a kid, I wondered why they didn't run. It's too easy to beat yourself up and feel like they're brave. 当我还是孩子的时候，我觉得他们为什么不跑。这样太容易打到自己了，也感觉他们很勇敢。
That was the problem with muskets. They were horribly inaccurate. It took at least 10 seconds to reload one and if you were alone, you only had enough time for one shot and if you had a group of soldiers closing on you, you might get one, if you're lucky, they fire back and you're either wounded and captured, or dead. They had to stand in long lines, facing each other and all the soldiers in the line had to fire at the same time to have any hope of hitting anything. The bayonet, those blades attached to the muzzles of the muskets, were actually more feared than the muskets themselves. The reason was, they had a triangular shaped blade that left a stab wound the surgeons from that period didn't know how to stich up. By the Revolutionary War, both the British and Continentals were thinking differently. They realized that taking cover and then popping up and firing was more effective than the old fighting style. Something they learned from the local First Nations People. The reason they didn't wear camouflage was because back then it was like a sports team. You had to be wearing your team's colors to tell who was who. There was a battle in the War of 1812, where the British sent an army wearing camouflage to fight the US Army. Upon their return, the British didn't know who they were, since they weren't wearing red and shot them. There's a video on here called Musket Demonstration At Fort Niagara if you want to know more.
@@baddriversofmoosejaw8681 Horribly innacurate? Bruh cmon, these muskets had an effective range of 100 m and their accuracy was not that horrible. It of course had lesser accuracy than a bow, but was enough.
A battle often was won by a bayonet charge and melee after several rounds of volley fire. British soldiers were very fond of the bayonet. They had to pay for every shot fired.
They weren't at all. That is American propaganda, Britain's army was fairly weak at this point, or at the very least, not strong enough to hold onto the colonies without mercenary support. The British were the underdogs in the Revolution
They did march in lines back then, they did fire in ranks sometimes, but at that distance, they would've probably just charged, or withdrew. The Battle of Bunker Hills the firing distance was close, and the British did a quick withdraw as it decimated (tore through) their ranks. The musket isn't as inaccurate as many people think. It was inaccurate by today's standards, but a decent grouping can be obtained at 50 yards. The British even had marksmanship competitions in Massachusetts. In the Napoleonic wars it was said "it takes the weight of a man of lead to kill him", and most battles were won with bayonet charges, so highly unlikely a typical engagement would've had the soldiers stand there exchanging shots at that distance. If you want to see maybe a more accurate depiction of 18th Century warfare, watch protestors vs. riot police. It's human nature to stand up when fighting and assert, especially when it's politically driven. The goal is to dominate, dissuade, and discourage a political objective. Clausewitz makes this rather clear. If you look at paintings of 18th century warfare, they're messy AF. Today's tactics are a bit more practicality and survival driven, as opposed to emotional and social domination driven.
Actually, there are many RUclipss where experienced shooters can regularly hit man-sized targets at 100 meters. Certainly, French and British light infantry received more training in hitting targets at 100 meters. Supposively, at 50 yards you have an 80% chance of hitting a man-sized target. The issue may come from the gun themselves. As the firing progressed, you start getting more misfires. The statistic I read was that after the first few shots, you could expect 20% of the muskets to misfire in the line.
@@johnmoreno9636 also, the actual engagement distances seems to be longer than depicted, just like modern warfare, much of musketry seemed to be suppressive fire for the purpose of maneuver. If you could send vollies down range you could hold the enemy back until your forces flank them...is my interpretation.
Warfare back then was not driven by emotion? Those tactics were driven by as much practicality as todays strategies are, you looking back at tactics used back then without understanding why they were used do not make you smarter than tacticians and generals of that time, our tactics with weapons that completly change the battlefield doesnt make their weapons and strategies emotion driven
Excellent reenactment. But did the two sides really apose each other that close? It looks like 30-40 yards and the effective range of a musket was already at 100 yards.
@Abraham Girt Let me educate you about guns and Muskets Muskets were muzzle loaders and they were always the Shots (round balls), first the gunpowder was rammed into the muzzle then the shot was loaded and rammed. Now there was always a difference between the inner circumference of the barrel and outer circumference of the shot, so that the shot could be loaded and fired. Even if the tolerance between the muzzle and that of the shot was 0.1 mm then at say 200 metres the error could be as big as 2-5 metres, I am talking CEP, thus against massed ranks, if you fire a muzzle, it could either hit the ground, or 2nd to 5th man on either side. But error was smaller if the distance was smaller. Remember, this Shot did not have anything to keep it stable in the flight. The so called marksmen used many tricks to be accurate. They used gunpowder from consistent source, they also made their own shots based on the musket they had, also there is concept of Wadding where the shot was wadded with small paper or silk cloth so that it sat cozily inside the barrel, this allowed the shot to be fired much straighter and at better velocity as all the hot gases would be behind the shot giving it better power. The same concept is used in Tanks which also have smoothbore barrels and to kill other tanks they use Sabot round which has similar concept. If the round musketball was accurate to say 300 metre what you say, we would not require cartridge. The discovery of rifling in the rifle barrel helps to spin (rotation along the axis) the bullet in flight thus giving it flight stability and much more accuracy. Muzzle could be shot at say 1km (as wiki says)but has any musket achieved a kill at that Range? For doing that the musket had to be raised at an angle of 40-60 degrees (Like a bow) to achive that shot, and you how how "accurate" that shot can be.
You're quite right. Battles like this would be fought at much, much longer ranges. Between 100 and 200 yards (or, for those of us more acquainted with metric, 90-180m) was the norm, but firing could start even further away. There are lots of inaccuracies here, but that's probably the most egregious. It would be suicide to stand around and have a firefight at this range.
They marched across an open field, upright and in the open, because the musket fired a ball 100 yards only. Out of range of that shot they might as well be marching around a parade ground. The trick was to win the manoeuvring, get close enough to make most shots count, and fire the notoriously innaccurate musket into a dense column of men. The British maintained savage (quite inhuman bu today's standards) discipline of their men so they could march, stand and fire like robots. If it were not for French and Spanish regulars and frequently overwhelming numbers, especially of reserves, the colonists simply did not have the material to do the job.
@@freedomfunnies770 I loved the show too. I liked how it showed the point of view on every side. I am a hard-core American Patriot and felt sorry for some of the British officers and was rooting for some of them. Major Andre was awesome, and I wanted to strangle Hewlett. He was so nice. I kept thinking… this guy needs to be an asshole every once in a while! just once!! I also liked Rogers... That guy was a pycho.. Of course, we know the real Psycho was Simcoe. I hated him but some people really liked him.
Yes, the americans are too dumb to understand that they are supposed to aim if their officer doesnt tell them too. The british aimed, they just didnt have to be told to aim
Lots of talk about how inaccurate the firearms were back then... to be fair they did have rifles- thing was they cost about 4 times the amount as a rank-and-file smoothbore musket would when you factor the time it would have taken to produce them. Keep in mind, at this point the world was just on the cusp of an industrial revolution but things like guns were still made by craftsmen-admittedly to the same standard pattern, but that was nowhere near the even, precision made mass produced firearms of today. In other words, the skill of the smiths making the guns introduced a significant hurdle into the concept of making all guns EXACTLY alike. And the army is on a budget...so what’re ya gonna do?... That being said, I actually own a musket that I target shoot with and while it is true that you generally wouldn’t put your money on being able to hit a man-sized (or deer sized) target further than a few dozen yards...conversely, you’d be surprised by just how accurate they can be once you get a hand on the mechanics and “personality” of your particular weapon
The Baker Rifle was that the first "rifled" weapon in the early 1800s or was there one earlier. The was a breach loading "musket" but was that "rifled"?
@@Richard500 Hunting rifles were rifled. In America you had the Kentucky and Pennslyvania rifles well before the Revolution. Also keep in mind that smoothbores are not that inaccurate. A good smoothbore with experienced shooter can hit at 100 yards - plenty of RUclipss demonstrating that. The big issue is rate of fire. Rifles only work with tight fitting bullets. They would litterally pound the bullet down with a mallet. Might take two minutes to load a rifle. In 2 minutes a British grenadier could fire a volley at 100 yards, walk across the field, maybe fire another volley at 50 yards, close the gap and stick you with a bayonet. Most riflemen would break at that point. Plus, much easier to have troops stand and take it if they are firing - even if you do not hit your target. You feel you are fighting back. Hard to focus on pounding down a bullet while you watch the Grenadier walk up to you. That is why riflemen in Rev War battles are out in front. They are to shoot the officers and NCOs, then fall back to the main line of muskets.
@@Richard500 The British Ferguson rifle in the Rev War was a breech loading rifle designed and used by troops under Major Ferguson. However, it did have issues. Importantly, it was very weak in the breech area, and easily fractured there. Not good in a military gun on campaign. Also, it was twice as expensive to make as the Brown Bess, and took very skilled gunsmiths. The Baker Rifle avoided the weak breech area problem.
I can’t believe they fought like this back then 😂 I mean when British soldiers say present and about to fire like jump to the ground to dodge the bullets
The British didn't drawl out the words as leisurely as this makes out for dramatic effect, I can assure you. It was more like "presentaimfire!" it was said so quickly.
Real life isn't Matrix so you cannot dodge bullets. And if you drop down early then nothing stops the British from shrugging and marching closer as you gave them a perfect chance to do so.
Muskets were very inaccurate, unreliable in bad weather and created alot of smoke that's why they fought in lines, because it made communication easier and made powerful volleys
yeah. i bet that in real life they would be engaging in combat at a 100 m or greater. Maybe 50 m but definitely not that close. Even a slingshot can fire accurately at that distance
Can y’all imagine if one person in the rev war had a semi auto or automatic rifle or even a pistol, but anyway imagine just mowing down their lines with a combine with a corn chopper head on lol just like choosing the corn but it’s red
@Eduardo Cortez Cornejo Calm down before you have a heart attack from all them Quesadillas. America got slapped around like an abused dog until they sucked off the French king so he'd come and save them. They've never won a war by themselves, they get others to do that for them.
Marches across open field to meet British in an open field.
‘My god they’re ready for us’
The show is Turn, watch it for context. It was supposed to be an ambush but the other way around.
@@timengel9164 You mean Ambush the Brits???
@@angieroxy7550 Yes
@@timengel9164 Impossible.
Have you heard of the Battle of Cowpens? American forces marched straight up to British forces and routed them. In real life, flanking attacks in small action battles like this film clip or the Battle of Cowpens, are very difficult. It's easy for the enemy to see you trying to flank w/ pickets/scouts. The enemy just has to wheel right or left to face you. Meanwhile your troops tire out trying to outflank the enemy while the enemy hasn't marched but only did a half wheel.
Lol the old guns are so “chill” that their generals just basically sit there on top of their horses watching the scene right before their eyes
Legendary general😂
Oh yeah real chill shooting 100cal balls of lead at one another is chill
Jr94 mmz it more chiller than WWll that shit is is just made lemme finish smokin my weeed
@Gaming and Education LOL generals didn't just sit at the back
They charged many times to rally their troops and secure flanks, just look at Gustavus Adolphus or the Swedish king during the great Northern wad
@Gaming and Education LOL yep I have played total war, wish they would make an empire or Napoleon 2
Someone already come with that "haha, look how silly they are, firing in the open" kind of comment?
Der Alte it’s basically Russian roulette with extra steps
Aye, I've seen a couple. Man, people *really* don't understand what combat was about and how those guns worked at the time.
The only stupid thing I saw was that they hold the position so long instat of fall back to regroup to an proper fire line or charge to break through. To stand there - enemies in the flank - was suizid.
@@mateuszjokiel2813 I do find it confusing the concept of standing there effectively taking turns at trying to kill each other like in a Warhammer battle. It seems like it would be impossible to keep the soldiers from fleeing. How does this warfare work exactly?
@@tomthefox8909 Basically, the firearms back in the day were so shit (inaccurate because of slow-moving projectiles and unrifled barrels, and hard to reload) that you literally needed a wall of them firing to do any substantial damage. Tactics worked like that not because people were somehow less intelligent back in the day despite having some of the greatest modern philosophers and forefathers of science etc., it was just necessitated by the technology.
Edit: As for keeping the soldiers from fleeing, I'd have to read more about it, but I presume the coupling of harsh punishments and sheer fear of not finding food and dying in a ditch somewhere would contribute to that.
I wish that a movie would one day accurately depict tactics from the period. For example, a tactic that the British made use of (especially the Scottish regiments) was to advance close to the enemy, fire two crushing volleys and then charge immediately afterwards. The two volleys would disorganize the enemy. The smoke from these volleys would also obscure their charge as it closed the distance. Imagine the terror of getting hit with two volleys of concentrated musketry and then out of the smoke come a bunch of yelling, screaming men with bayonets. It's actually really easy to see how inexperienced militia (and even professional troops) would break and flee in the face of that tactic. This was often used by the Scots because it was an adaptation of the traditional 'highland charge'.
In general, it was fairly uncommon for the British to use volleys to break the Americans. The British issued bayonets across their army while many Americans lacked the bayonet. In an age where a good soldier could only fire 3-4 rounds per minute, the bayonet was a difference maker. As American forces became better at volley fire, the British were forced to engage in longer firefights. In this case, the British often used 'platoon firing', where the battalion or company would fire by platoons, creating a rippling effect that ensured an almost constant stream of fire into the enemy formation. It did require a high level of coordination and training, so it was not universally used by British regiments at the time. It became much more widely used later, I believe, during the Napoleonic wars where the British faced densely packed but small frontage French columns. Delivering a constant stream of fire to the front of the column was a devastating tactic that allowed the British to effectively counter this feared formation.
British observes during the civil war were horrified when the americans would just stand there and fire at each other's for ages.
The casualties that resulted from that style of fighting were unheard of.
@@leetommerson639 Well, there was another detail in the civil war: They used 18th century line tactics, but had the Minié bullet, which was very precise compared to the traditional round ball. Line tactics made sense as long as muskets were so inaccurate that one could sustain the casualties. Add a precise musket into the mix and it becomes suicidal (which it was during the civil war).
Thanks for this. Very informative
inrealtà quando si arriva allo scontro alla baionetta una formazione cede subito,
@@DJOttmarthat is not true, line formations were used due to the slow rate of fire and the threat of cavalry, what do you think a more accurate firearm would do to hordes of cavalry?
*”Well worth it to end this war”*
“S-Sir this is only like 50 men?”
That's what I thought. The whole mass isn't even regiment size, let alone army. Whatever rebellion they're hoping to end, this isn't gonna do it
How do I get that musket fire sound effect
A platoon to be precise
They explain it in the show that they need to start winning battles on their own to convince the French that they have a shot at winning the war and to join the Americans
Ah yes, the true enemy of all TV show armies...THE BUDGET.
I like how the britain says "present" but the americans said "Take aim".
@Joshua Castro It might be as they are both speaking in English, so that the men aren't confused with the order. For example, if the British officer was close enough and shouted "Take aim", there is a chance in the confusion the US men might interpret that as their order
We do like to be polite in everything sir! hee hee
@@JACK-jd1tb When war was civilized in a way
That's actually historically accurate. The British Army also trained their troops to look away when firing because they frowned upon inflicting casualties, even to traitors to the crown
Lol logic
The British were masters of that sort of warfare, and it was the standard fighting method of the time for large formations of troops in open terrain. It required great discipline, good timing, and well-trained troops who would stand up under heavy fire....and maintain a steady rate of fire. It was not so good for attacking well dug in positions (as at Bunker Hill) or dealing with guerrilla tactics (as in forest combat). In that case one had to adopt different tactics to avoid suffering very heavy losses. And then there were lengthy sieges....which again required different tactics. The British were generally good at all these things, but in the case of the American Revolution they were simply unable to bring the conflict to a conclusion, so in the long run it became too expensive for them, and they gave up on the 13 colonies....one of the very few times the British Empire ever conceded defeat in a major war.
Or lots of Gin!! 😳
@@Richard500 - Yes! That helped too. LOL!
The only time Britain conceded defeat in a major war? What on earth are you talking about?
@@user-qi5jw2hg1c - I'll correct that. Since the Act of Union in 1707, the Kingdom of Great Britain has fought in over 120 wars across a total of 170 countries. Of those 120 wars, they lost the War of Independence with the USA, the Irish war of independence 1919-1921, the first Boer war , the 100 years war with France in the 15th century, the war against the Dutch in the 1660s, and they also got severely defeated by the Afghans when they tried to occupy Afghanistan, so that makes 6 wars they lost out of the 120. I'm not sure if they were all *major* wars (maybe not the Afghan one), but they were all lost. Happy?
@@georgecoventry8441 wars of the coalition, bar the last?
I'll forgive your arrogance, which is measured by your ignorance: Kingdom of Great Britain existed from 1707 to 1800. You mentioned many wars post-dating that.
Fun fact: Britain only had 3% of their whole army In the USA at the time of revolution
Well, they can't send their whole army to the U.S knowing they had a lot of territories to handle.
@@janmelmeteoro5904 yes indeed, couldn't be happier Britain lost the revolutionary war. Led to our best ally yet!
the american revolution was only a side task for us
@@techyfan2.0fucjbbv27 yes it was, I assume your British?
Actually according to lord North… they expended about 75,000 troops to the americas. About 35% of their army. Not sure where you got your numbers from but they are highly inaccurate
You could see how the continentals wanted to stay and brawl this one out. Love that commitment.
That battle was over before it even started. Fighting the British army on an open field? Madness.
The French were the true masters of this era of warfare.
@@strechemall
Yeah Waterloo really shows it (snicker)
The Prussians under Blucher saved the day at Waterloo.. turning up just as The British were on the verge of collapse...🇬🇧
@@traviskarnes6825 yeah let's ignore the preceeding 20+ years of French military dominance.
Tho thats facts about Warerloo that battle was the last nail on the coffin for sure.
@@hedgefundshyster..3241 You mean the Scots? The English were still fighting
When you pick small unit sizes in empire total war
Or when you go bankrupt and your soldiers leave you in empire total wat
People tend to forget that the reason for line battles was due to how inaccurate muskets were and that they used these tactics to help increase the number of casualties inflected on the enemy
This would be the form of warfare for a long time, even through the Napoleonic Wars. It's only around the mid 1800s when firearms became more accurate where these line tactics were rendered obsolete.
@@Warmaker01 Not really. They were still in use by the late 19th century, an example would be the zulu wars. The british used volley fire as a tactic against the thousands of charging zulus, which was very effective. But i would say in the start of the 20th century, line formations were used less and less before they were rendered 100% obsolete, with the introduction of accurate bolt action rifles and machine guns.
@@c_01m26 Don't forget Waterloo and the effectiveness of the tactic AND forming squares.
@@c_01m26 let's not also forget the advent of explosive artillery shells
They were also a built in spear wall.
The biggest Battle of the War actually took place in the Mediterranean. Spanish and French Forces had set up a siege around Gibraltar. In 1780 came the great assault. 55’000 French and Spanish troops supported by their combined fleets attacked the well defended fortress consisting of just 5’000 British and Hessians. The assault failed.
This came just a year after the combined fleets had attempted to land an army on the South Coast of England.
Anyone who played Total war: Empire knew that the Americans didn't stand a chance once the british infantry with broader firing lines appeared on their flanks. There wasn't much sense ordering the troops to hold the line.
That skirmish was fought twice in that episode. Washington was not far and stopped them from retreating, relieved Gen. Green, and took command of the skirmish which lead to the British to retreat from the field. I remember it because it was the first time that I saw a real British tactical withdrawal for that time period, really graceful. In the episode, it was as if the British said "You know what? I'm bored with you." Made an about face and marched calmly off the field while the American forces continued to fire a volley or two. They didn't run off the field. The just turned their backs and continued to march.
Wonder if Mel Gibson seen this
Nevermind him he's too washed up for movies these days.
patriot is a good movie
@@frailewe113 they should’ve called Connor Kenway.
@@frailewe113 Good movie, based on good history, but still has plenty of historical inaccuracies.
Basically english fighting against the english
Actually it's more like English, Scottish and Irish facing English, Scottish and Irish descendants
@@soap8572 Yeah
Wales leaves chat
@@aaronbrennan7164 The Welsh are technically English in a way.
@@soap8572 British would be easier I know Irish dont identify themselve as british but if you look trough history a lot of irish and english have almost identical DNA even tho English are anglo-saxons(german,dutch,scandinavian)
Didnt know this but 2/3rds of the "english army" were colonists. The British parliament didn't think the colonies were worth the money to send the full might over. That and France was becoming a big issue.
So you’re basically guaranteed to get shot if your in the front
Why is a dragoon officer leading an infantry unit please?
Love to all Americans from the North of England
Right back at you friend.
@@rc59191Trump 2020 , love from the majority of true Brit's
Love you too from Texas. I have British ancestry and am proud of my British heritage. I found some ancestors in the Revolution at Cowpens. This war was so sad. I wish had not have happened. It just brought so much bitterness unfortunately. This was a great show. Not sure you guys have this show over there but it really made you wonder what side you would have been on. They did a great job. I was rooting for Benjamin's dad more than I was rooting for Benjamin. I had to pinch myself to make sure I was American😅😅
@@historygeekslive8243 I guess george washington was english by his ancestry
🇺🇸❤️🇬🇧
I'm English and I have never heard such a ridiculous accent as the British captain who said " With pleasure sir" he must of had something up his arse or been to the American school of British accents. Either way it was poor
loving the green regimental colours with white facings. very accurate
I know an Ulster Scot sounding like he’s from Cork 🤦♂️
Yes, accurate? Possibly, as I can find three line regiments of foot who MAY have been in America at the time. The 2nd Regt of Foot, the 6th and the 55th most of the rest are in this old link. tmg110.tripod.com/british3.htm Who were those on Green? Surely not the one day to be the 60th Royal American Rifles (the Green Jackets and onward?) - I was odd to see the rear rank firing volleys between the front ranks.
As we all know British uniforms are always red and blue (not like only the royal ones) so this is terribly inaccurate!
I love these kind of vids and history keep doing your thing
Sounds like Lexington, the "shot that heard the world".
I don't live too far away from Lexington and Concord and the British that day got mauled up pretty good..... if Fatboy didnt come with reinforcements, the first force of 700 would have been annihilated
@@geminisixx4 don't talk about being mauled. The british won the American revolution for you. (Few germans too, give them their credit. And the french) but to try gaslight history is embarrassing. George Washington was taught exclusively by the british, most of your founding fathers were. Also if we wanted to win the war we could of easily, we were beyond doubt the most powerful military to exist in the whole of history at that time. We freed as many African American slaves as we could. To fight in the British army. That's why we recognized the Confederate states despite outlawing slavery long before the American civil war. Yet Lincoln still gets credited for freeing the slaves, when Britain had long established anti slavery laws, and sent a huge chunk of the navy to deal specifically with the slave trade. America is a better country than Britain today. (Britain arrests people for mean tweets). But in the height of the empire Britain was the country that bought prosperity to the four corners of the globe. It will never be repeated, what an extraordinary time it must of been.
(We recognized the Confederate states to put pressure on Lincoln to abolish the slave trade.)
@@bendover6087 bro you keep saying “we” lmfao. Please stop, you weren’t there and likely none of your ancestors were either(if they were… who cares)
I love how they used the musket sound fix from “The Patriot”
From my research for a little book published by our local Civic Society here in Rotherham England:-
In 1775 the British Army consisted of just 48’000 men.
Later the ‘British’ Army available for service in America consisted of:-
50’000 Brits
30’000 Hessians serving as Auxiliaries
25’000 American Tories.
It's hard to believe that at the time when England had one of the greatest armies in the world that their regular army was so small, but your research was correct.
They relied on a lot of local militia in their colonies but unfortunately for them, most of their local militia in the American colonies was fighting against them.
England and later Britain has a long tradition of only maintaining a very small standing army. During times of war they relied on civilians volunteering to fill the ranks. However on this occasion this did not work. Many Brits refused to fight against what they saw as fellow Englishman. Such a fight they said was unnatural. The politics did not help, as I explained in another comment the Patriot movement started in Britain and revolution in England was only narrowly avoided. To fill the ranks Britain tried press ganging, but this proved so unpopular it had to be stopped. They had more luck recruiting criminals who were given a choice of serving or prison. The entry into the conflict of traditional enemies such as France, Spain, Holland and the Mysore helped to increase the numbers, but it was not until 1783 at the war’s end before the target of 200’000 was achieved.
Wdym 'Tories'? Were the loyalists tories?
The ‘British’ Army who fought in America:-
50’000 Brits
25’000 Americans
30’000 Hessian Auxiliaries.
3:00 the American leadership is something else oh my god 🤣🤣
Later in this scene George Washington arrives with the main army and relieves General Lee of command of the battle and the second army.
Jesus they were way too close. The British would have immediately charged after one volley. Just standing there and taking it is a garbage idea.
A battlefield in the revolution would never be so quiet and calm. The British would’ve already been deployed and firing volleys, artillery would already be firing
Can you upload the other battles from this show?
Respect for the American that won the war for independence, but I hate it when they think that it was jsut Britain vs america when it wasn’t. British troops had to stay by ports for reinforcements , won most battles and also america had both France and Spain on there side
I’m not saying it wasn’t fair, I’m jsut saying don’t be disappointed when you find out you ran from msot battles and the British were superior until France and Spain came to help you. France btw who caused you economic downfall hence the reason the British taxed you in the first place as they had to fight off the french for your benefit
I like these vids :)
Can we respect this whoever made this put effort into adding different regiments
Another movie depicting the British taking GREAT joy and devilish delight in killing their fellow human. These were soldiers 1000's of miles from home...they just wanted to do their duty and return.
Can’t expect anything but bias from American movies/shows when it comes to the war of independence.
@@Valencetheshireman927 lol, everyone knows that imperialist britain was extremely cruel
just look at what u did to the natives of america, australia and NZ
and ur cruelty in the indian subcontinent
@@hey0173 We didn’t treat the natives of America badly, that was the Americans post independence. Australia and NZ as dominions were responsible for most of the cruelty the natives suffered.
The British empire as the name suggests was an empire and like empires it was capable of doing great things both good and bad. In that it wasn’t unique
@@hey0173 Are you dumb? The natives literally fled from the Americans and came to Canada and some reservations we'd set up for them in America. Why do people like you insist on lying just to fit how you feel? Why would the natives have joined us if we treated them badly? We used to take a handful of natives everywhere we went because the Americans were so scared of them that they'd surrender at the first sight of them. You're a joke, learn history.
@@hey0173 im not fully defending the british, they did horrible things but not really to the native AMERICANS. it was mostly the u.s. post independence that committed the atrocities to the native americans but the british were mostly responsible for the genocide of aboriginal australians and the maori
this period battle style is so freaking dangerous..
Not really... It has one of the lowest battle casualty rates of any time period...
Muskets were also pretty inaccurate at the time. Hence, why they try to get close.
@@koonkoon01 I have a Brown Bess and a French Charleville...you'd be very hard pressed to hit a man at 75 yards..much better chance at hitting a row of men side by side at 75 yards..
Now picture the same battle field tactics during the US Civil War with rifles..= slaughter house. And that's exactly what happened
@Hoàng Nguyên Didn’t the British find that out during the boer war?
Not gonna lie I cry everytime a Red Coat goes down. They’re just doing their jobs.
But I don’t want to be a colony
chironex but at the end the British returned like all of their colony’s to the original countries
@@mrmister1827 doubt
Spooks Look at British India, look at Canada all returned so see? Hong Kong was also returned. What about African colonies?
Lol I didn’t mean it that way 😂
*Whats the price of the end of this war*
His blood
F
F
The British are coming ,The British are coming .
Back then: 🇬🇧⚔️🇺🇸. Now: 🇬🇧🤝🇺🇸
💖💖
Just wait till part 2
@@thebritishempire8838 AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Well I say, those british had magical potions to make themselves immune to gunshot pains. Sana ol
I like how only 3 soldiers would fall each volley
imagine if one of our top general and millitary scientist just suddenly transported to that era
kim prime Continental Army invades London
@@magicman3163
Kinda difficult to be honest.
Sure, technology would advance slightly faster, but not fast enough for the Americans to gain an advantage early on.
And Line Battle Tactics haven't been taught for years, so the top Generals would have no fucking clue how to work this.
@@magicman3163 Not to mention most of the tech was invented by a Brit so if you defeated Britain back then much of the technology you acquired from the Tizard mission would not exist, nor would many of the advancements Americans got from the Germans as without the British WW2 would have played out differently.
@@jammydodger1449 exactly well said
Imagine if we had sent back some radios or walkie talkies those alone would drastically change the battles in the United States's favor.
The reason the british liked this is cause there soldiers were trained the americans were not the british would take aim and fire the americans would just fire so the british had the upper hand
And still lost
Anakin Skywalker Because we didn’t need America. India and China was far more lucrative. If Britain wanted to, they could have crushed the Coalition forces
@@evanlavery9788 spain France and America vs Britain
@Daryon Brown they did and still failed... HUGELY
Daryon Brown they did 😂
Standing whilst being fired at and wearing white pants!--So British!
Britain was a naval power, it only had a small army that was tiny by European standards. It was very well trained because it had to compensate for what it lacked in size. The Colonists' real victory was against the Loyalists that made any political resolution impossible. Even in 1782, Washington's New York Campaign ended in debacle.
This is a pretty crap depiction of line warfare. The firing would have started much earlier, at greater range, and likely by company. The formations look very weird too - with these small numbers, they should be strung out in open order, independently firing.
This was more or less meant to be an attack on the rear guard of the british army :) it is explained in the show. It is from "Washington's Spies" a series that aired on AMC.
@Sebastian Guevara He meant that England cannot be called "independent" because it is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
this is a better war than the wars we have these days
Untrue these olden wars were more brual and gave more ptsd than patriotism
@@historyhds1018 Doubt
English villains, I love how Americans see us brits as villainous 😅
Turn was so good never felt AMC did it justice
bringing a M16 to this war would be nice.
Modern radios would cause way more chaos.
lmao they will just charge with bayonet
French supplied weapons. French supplied uniforms. French supplied power and weapons. French blockades to keep the British from resupplying. The French had the most powerful army at that time...the British Empire was smaller - not the global beast of a century later.
A third of the colonies in full rebellion, outnumbering the British.
Americans: "We were the underdogs - we beat the big empire!"
Reality: "How did the British hold on as long as they did?"
false, British was the biggest empire at that time too,
@@stingy8029 Spain's was bigger. France had the biggest navy and land army.
Sorry to spoil your rebel underdog parade....your nation is built on lies like all Republics in history.
@@Hereticalable what lies?
and french lost easily,
and Spain was not bigger
@@Hereticalable Ignorance, Americans did over 98% of fighting and dying on land, French helped with supplies, disciplining, and Naval assets as you said.
@Alex Abbott It takes a brave man to hide behind a keyboard and call a stranger stupid. A smart man too....one who cannot actually articulate why he thinks someone is wrong, and argue a different point.
A shame this show was ended at 4 seasons
They were not known as the "American colonial army".
'nuf sed.
No they werent, they were the Continental army
Enough said, Learn to spell
Imagine uploading content that isn’t yours, putting ads on it, and then having a 2 minute outro
Your describing every scene uploader on RUclips 😑
I love how the Americans don’t have that weird American accent
i think it was because most were still imigrants from the UK that identified as American that fought in the war.
TheCptnZ I know pal that’s my point
Team Com1X again, I know this it was my point
TheCptnZ these guys were Irish.
@@TheIceman567 Ireland was part of the UK at the time
The “rebellion” wins at the end of the episode
This is like some turn based RPG
Turn: Washington's Spies is an amazing series could not recommend it more!
I love the show, except for Abe and Ben tbh.
Is it available on Netflix?
John Manuel Ambata yes
Julian Stys I am too but the battles are still fun in my opinion
Turn ended too soon. need at least another season and probably 2 to do it close it properly.
Esse Filme é muito bom
Wish Turn had the budget Game of Thrones did could of had such bigger and cooler battles but people prefer fake history over the real thing.
This scene is far from realistic or historically accurate
@@ghostie7028 ya that's because of the budget.
ok, I guess we never got the Memo. We're still standing.
Line up shot。
When I was a kid, I wondered why they didn't run. It's too easy to beat yourself up and feel like they're brave.
当我还是孩子的时候，我觉得他们为什么不跑。这样太容易打到自己了，也感觉他们很勇敢。
wars back then: Don't take cover, just stand here and FIRE!
wars now: TAKE COVER, SQUAD A LEFT SIDE AND SQUAD B RIGHT SIDE.
That was the problem with muskets. They were horribly inaccurate. It took at least 10 seconds to reload one and if you were alone, you only had enough time for one shot and if you had a group of soldiers closing on you, you might get one, if you're lucky, they fire back and you're either wounded and captured, or dead. They had to stand in long lines, facing each other and all the soldiers in the line had to fire at the same time to have any hope of hitting anything. The bayonet, those blades attached to the muzzles of the muskets, were actually more feared than the muskets themselves. The reason was, they had a triangular shaped blade that left a stab wound the surgeons from that period didn't know how to stich up. By the Revolutionary War, both the British and Continentals were thinking differently. They realized that taking cover and then popping up and firing was more effective than the old fighting style. Something they learned from the local First Nations People. The reason they didn't wear camouflage was because back then it was like a sports team. You had to be wearing your team's colors to tell who was who. There was a battle in the War of 1812, where the British sent an army wearing camouflage to fight the US Army. Upon their return, the British didn't know who they were, since they weren't wearing red and shot them. There's a video on here called Musket Demonstration At Fort Niagara if you want to know more.
@@baddriversofmoosejaw8681 Horribly innacurate? Bruh cmon, these muskets had an effective range of 100 m and their accuracy was not that horrible. It of course had lesser accuracy than a bow, but was enough.
This looks like a spinoff for The Patriot
Except more historically accurate, unlike any of Mel Gibson's movies.
@@beaucaspar3990 there's clearly an anti British agenda in some of his movies like braveheart and patriot
With those muskets it would have been more effective having a sword and fists
A battle often was won by a bayonet charge and melee after several rounds of volley fire. British soldiers were very fond of the bayonet. They had to pay for every shot fired.
If you think you are having a crappy day, think about these soldiers.
the tightly packed ranks, the massed volleys .. the British empire at this time was the greatest army on earth
The Zulus had the right idea as demonstrated at Isandlwana,
Dod o And our General being a bit of a bellend
Amen to that!!😏🇬🇧👌🏻
British army was wiped out by Afghan and Ottoman Janissaries.
They weren't at all. That is American propaganda, Britain's army was fairly weak at this point, or at the very least, not strong enough to hold onto the colonies without mercenary support. The British were the underdogs in the Revolution
Imagine connor kenway just came in running and dominating the brits lmao
too bad realism exists
Americans and Europeans are same people
My god this is hard to watch without cringing.
They did march in lines back then, they did fire in ranks sometimes, but at that distance, they would've probably just charged, or withdrew. The Battle of Bunker Hills the firing distance was close, and the British did a quick withdraw as it decimated (tore through) their ranks. The musket isn't as inaccurate as many people think. It was inaccurate by today's standards, but a decent grouping can be obtained at 50 yards. The British even had marksmanship competitions in Massachusetts. In the Napoleonic wars it was said "it takes the weight of a man of lead to kill him", and most battles were won with bayonet charges, so highly unlikely a typical engagement would've had the soldiers stand there exchanging shots at that distance.
If you want to see maybe a more accurate depiction of 18th Century warfare, watch protestors vs. riot police. It's human nature to stand up when fighting and assert, especially when it's politically driven. The goal is to dominate, dissuade, and discourage a political objective. Clausewitz makes this rather clear. If you look at paintings of 18th century warfare, they're messy AF. Today's tactics are a bit more practicality and survival driven, as opposed to emotional and social domination driven.
Actually, there are many RUclipss where experienced shooters can regularly hit man-sized targets at 100 meters. Certainly, French and British light infantry received more training in hitting targets at 100 meters. Supposively, at 50 yards you have an 80% chance of hitting a man-sized target. The issue may come from the gun themselves. As the firing progressed, you start getting more misfires. The statistic I read was that after the first few shots, you could expect 20% of the muskets to misfire in the line.
@@johnmoreno9636 also, the actual engagement distances seems to be longer than depicted, just like modern warfare, much of musketry seemed to be suppressive fire for the purpose of maneuver. If you could send vollies down range you could hold the enemy back until your forces flank them...is my interpretation.
Warfare back then was not driven by emotion? Those tactics were driven by as much practicality as todays strategies are, you looking back at tactics used back then without understanding why they were used do not make you smarter than tacticians and generals of that time, our tactics with weapons that completly change the battlefield doesnt make their weapons and strategies emotion driven
Excellent reenactment. But did the two sides really apose each other that close? It looks like 30-40 yards and the effective range of a musket was already at 100 yards.
Yes at that range I'd bayonet charge them after a salvo
Muskets had good range, but terrible accuracy
@Abraham Girt Let me educate you about guns and Muskets
Muskets were muzzle loaders and they were always the Shots (round balls), first the gunpowder was rammed into the muzzle then the shot was loaded and rammed. Now there was always a difference between the inner circumference of the barrel and outer circumference of the shot, so that the shot could be loaded and fired. Even if the tolerance between the muzzle and that of the shot was 0.1 mm then at say 200 metres the error could be as big as 2-5 metres, I am talking CEP, thus against massed ranks, if you fire a muzzle, it could either hit the ground, or 2nd to 5th man on either side. But error was smaller if the distance was smaller. Remember, this Shot did not have anything to keep it stable in the flight. The so called marksmen used many tricks to be accurate. They used gunpowder from consistent source, they also made their own shots based on the musket they had, also there is concept of Wadding where the shot was wadded with small paper or silk cloth so that it sat cozily inside the barrel, this allowed the shot to be fired much straighter and at better velocity as all the hot gases would be behind the shot giving it better power. The same concept is used in Tanks which also have smoothbore barrels and to kill other tanks they use Sabot round which has similar concept. If the round musketball was accurate to say 300 metre what you say, we would not require cartridge.
The discovery of rifling in the rifle barrel helps to spin (rotation along the axis) the bullet in flight thus giving it flight stability and much more accuracy. Muzzle could be shot at say 1km (as wiki says)but has any musket achieved a kill at that Range? For doing that the musket had to be raised at an angle of 40-60 degrees (Like a bow) to achive that shot, and you how how "accurate" that shot can be.
They were practically breathing on each other.
You're quite right. Battles like this would be fought at much, much longer ranges. Between 100 and 200 yards (or, for those of us more acquainted with metric, 90-180m) was the norm, but firing could start even further away. There are lots of inaccuracies here, but that's probably the most egregious. It would be suicide to stand around and have a firefight at this range.
1:29 what the heck is going on with the shadows
I just finished this show on Netflix this is such a good show if yoI can I suggest you watch it.
🥂 HAPPY NEW YEAR 2020 🥂
This spunky year is still going strong. Maybe the best is yet ahead!
This is from the show turn it’s pretty good
Ah. Then I’ve seen it before and just forgot
Destroying the American rebellion army in an open field? Now that's soldiering!
They marched across an open field, upright and in the open, because the musket fired a ball 100 yards only. Out of range of that shot they might as well be marching around a parade ground. The trick was to win the manoeuvring, get close enough to make most shots count, and fire the notoriously innaccurate musket into a dense column of men. The British maintained savage (quite inhuman bu today's standards) discipline of their men so they could march, stand and fire like robots. If it were not for French and Spanish regulars and frequently overwhelming numbers, especially of reserves, the colonists simply did not have the material to do the job.
I can't remember the name of this show i wanna se it again :D it was good..
its called Turn: washington's spies, its on netflix right now
Turn
Oh darn we didn't have that
Florp it’s not on Netflix.
for anyone who wants to know, this is from the TV show TURN
I love that show
@@freedomfunnies770
I loved the show too. I liked how it showed the point of view on every side. I am a hard-core American Patriot and felt sorry for some of the British officers and was rooting for some of them. Major Andre was awesome, and I wanted to strangle Hewlett. He was so nice. I kept thinking… this guy needs to be an asshole every once in a while! just once!! I also liked Rogers... That guy was a pycho.. Of course, we know the real Psycho was Simcoe. I hated him but some people really liked him.
Captain Simcoe, a future governor of Upper Canada and home to United Empire Loyalists!
Cool scene. Interesting to see how they fought.
Now go and read military tactics of the day, and see how inaccurate this portrayal is
🇺🇸🇫🇷🇬🇧🇱🇺🇵🇱
American war of independence(1775-1783)
UK pov-Why didn't they just charge when they're reloading like they could get there in 20 seconds
Blake maybe it was a war crime
@@philipt7150 bayonet charges were used in ww1 I believe so I think it's legal
The start of uprising turn to victory
American: "take aim!"
British: "present!"
Yes, the americans are too dumb to understand that they are supposed to aim if their officer doesnt tell them too. The british aimed, they just didnt have to be told to aim
Lots of talk about how inaccurate the firearms were back then... to be fair they did have rifles- thing was they cost about 4 times the amount as a rank-and-file smoothbore musket would when you factor the time it would have taken to produce them. Keep in mind, at this point the world was just on the cusp of an industrial revolution but things like guns were still made by craftsmen-admittedly to the same standard pattern, but that was nowhere near the even, precision made mass produced firearms of today. In other words, the skill of the smiths making the guns introduced a significant hurdle into the concept of making all guns EXACTLY alike. And the army is on a budget...so what’re ya gonna do?... That being said, I actually own a musket that I target shoot with and while it is true that you generally wouldn’t put your money on being able to hit a man-sized (or deer sized) target further than a few dozen yards...conversely, you’d be surprised by just how accurate they can be once you get a hand on the mechanics and “personality” of your particular weapon
The Baker Rifle was that the first "rifled" weapon in the early 1800s or was there one earlier. The was a breach loading "musket" but was that "rifled"?
@@Richard500 Hunting rifles were rifled. In America you had the Kentucky and Pennslyvania rifles well before the Revolution. Also keep in mind that smoothbores are not that inaccurate. A good smoothbore with experienced shooter can hit at 100 yards - plenty of RUclipss demonstrating that. The big issue is rate of fire. Rifles only work with tight fitting bullets. They would litterally pound the bullet down with a mallet. Might take two minutes to load a rifle. In 2 minutes a British grenadier could fire a volley at 100 yards, walk across the field, maybe fire another volley at 50 yards, close the gap and stick you with a bayonet. Most riflemen would break at that point. Plus, much easier to have troops stand and take it if they are firing - even if you do not hit your target. You feel you are fighting back. Hard to focus on pounding down a bullet while you watch the Grenadier walk up to you. That is why riflemen in Rev War battles are out in front. They are to shoot the officers and NCOs, then fall back to the main line of muskets.
@@Richard500 The British Ferguson rifle in the Rev War was a breech loading rifle designed and used by troops under Major Ferguson. However, it did have issues. Importantly, it was very weak in the breech area, and easily fractured there. Not good in a military gun on campaign. Also, it was twice as expensive to make as the Brown Bess, and took very skilled gunsmiths. The Baker Rifle avoided the weak breech area problem.
Hamilton brought me here 😂
I can’t believe they fought like this back then 😂
I mean when British soldiers say present and about to fire like jump to the ground to dodge the bullets
The British didn't drawl out the words as leisurely as this makes out for dramatic effect, I can assure you. It was more like "presentaimfire!" it was said so quickly.
Real life isn't Matrix so you cannot dodge bullets. And if you drop down early then nothing stops the British from shrugging and marching closer as you gave them a perfect chance to do so.
Muskets were very inaccurate, unreliable in bad weather and created alot of smoke that's why they fought in lines, because it made communication easier and made powerful volleys
1:30 WTF? That's all too close. Either side could have just bayonet charged and be in contact in 1 second.
yeah. i bet that in real life they would be engaging in combat at a 100 m or greater. Maybe 50 m but definitely not that close. Even a slingshot can fire accurately at that distance
Can y’all imagine if one person in the rev war had a semi auto or automatic rifle or even a pistol, but anyway imagine just mowing down their lines with a combine with a corn chopper head on lol just like choosing the corn but it’s red
Bro can you upload the continuation part of this video
What is the season and episode of this?
Brit's can't be beat on the battlefield hardly at all . British are a warrior race .
" These rustics " takes the honour out of war, well almost .
“These rustics are so inept; nearly takes the honour out of victory...nearly.”
These rustics are so inept...
I like both of these countries and more
British army was and always will be the best
Simon Sweeney shame that 10 minutes later Washington shows up with reserves and sauces the British
@Eduardo Cortez Cornejo I dont see how he doesnt want freedom
@Eduardo Cortez Cornejo are you delusional mate, or just 10 years old?
Us British came way before u. We actually helped u guys so say thanks
@Eduardo Cortez Cornejo Calm down before you have a heart attack from all them Quesadillas. America got slapped around like an abused dog until they sucked off the French king so he'd come and save them. They've never won a war by themselves, they get others to do that for them.