Why was the Line Formation Used?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- A brief overview of the Line Formation commonly seen in 17th-19th Century period movies.
More War Movie Content: / johnnyjohnsonesq
Request a review: johnnyjohnsonreviews@gmail.com
Movies Featured
War and Peace 2016 America:
Union of Salvation 2019
Outlander 2014
The Story of the Us 2010
The Sovereign's Servant 2007
The Four Feathers 2002
Gladiator 2000
The Patriot 2000
Gettysburg 1993
Sharpe's Eagle 1993
The Last of the Mohicans 1992
Glory 1989
Zulu Dawn 1979
Barry Lyndon 1975
Cromwell 1970
Waterloo 1970
Zulu 1964
300 (2006)
War and Peace 1956
#warhistory #britishhistory
They began to realize in the American Civil War that tight formations were outdated. As you noted, the Minie ball made the rifled musket much more accurate out to 400 yards and deadly out to 1000 yards. They started to use dispersed skirmish lines more. They also realized that defending was much more effective than attacking. General Lee won battle after battle by outmaneuvering the Union army and forcing them to attack him. He seemed to forget this at Gettysburg where he attacked Union forces on good ground and in protected positions.
Even after the American Civil war some countries were stuck with Napoleonanic tactics up until WW1.
@@griz312 indeed at Mons in 1914 , the mased German column came up against excellent British musktry ,
civil war?
not yet ... most armies figured mass volley fire would still be a thing right up until WW1 where technology and tactics proved it incorrect
but with machine guns being used as light artillery in support of defensive positions or slow advancements
@@bigmoniesponge it didnt have machine guns, quick firing artillery, proper trenches nor accurate weapons
it was still mostly a linear war fought with muzzle loaders ......
trench warfare is a very specific set of circumstances that lead to a certain type of combat and its why most historians will call the civil war battles "pseudo trench warfare"
After the American civil war the United States also adopted breach loaders. Rifle muskets were a very bad weapon for war as soldiers had to stand to reload
The discipline required to stand there while a line of guys shot at you.
discipline, or stupidity
British soldiers marching at a French line when 6 of their friends get shot : 😶
Like the Russian comasars the punishment is worse than the enemy
Yes. This is why army training in those days consisted almost entirely of formations excercise.
People weren't stupid though. They knew that turning your back on the enemy and flee was the most dangerous thing you could do. Most casualties occured after one army would break their formation and rout. This is where light cavalry (lightly armed riders on fast horses) would be sent after the fleeing infantry to cut them down with sabers or lances.
This part of battles is almost never seen on film though.
@@GameFuMaster Seeing as the sentence for desertion was certain death back then, it was much more stupid to run away.
Waterloo is still the only film I have ever seen where they actually get the right number of extras, horses, props etc. The panoramic of the formed square during the cavalry charge is just epic.
The makers of Waterloo used the Red Army as extras.
Great movie!
I mean it looks like the right number but the total amount of men they had to film with was like 15,000, and the cavalry charge was like 12,000 horses. And I doubt that’s 3,000 infantrymen makings up those squares.
because special effect is still weak compared to real objects. using real objects is just so much more appealing visually.
You may to watch "War and Peace" of Bondarchuk.
One the main reasons for the use of the line formation was the fact that smokeless powder hadn't been invented yet. After the first volley everyone was basically firing into a fog bank and aiming was impossible. That explains the really bright uniforms too. Even after the development of rifled barrels they were only issued to skirmishers (like Sharpe's 95th Baker rifles) and ordinary troops kept on using smooth bores because a higher ROF was superior when firing blind. I shoot a reproduction Brown Bess and even by myself I can make an impressive cloud. With a few thousand of us it would be completely impossible to film a movie that's for sure.
Not to mention black powder quickly fills in the grooves of your rifling, basically rendering it a smoothbore that's still slower to load than a normal musket.
John D Ahh the Cloud . Muzzle loading Season is in December after Shotgun Season . It was amazing How the Deer reacted to the Cloud verses 2 or more Shots during Shotgun Season . Sometimes 15 or 30 seconds Obscuring my vision Depending on Humidity and the Breeze that may not be there at the Time of the Shot . Ducking down reloading to view what the Deer was doing . It was almost like the Deer enjoyed the Cloud ? They had calmed down after 5 days of less Pressure . For Decades I used a .58 Cal Zouave eventually replaced by a .54 . Yes you are Correct one Musket alone can make an Impressive Cloud !
And then of course breechloading rifles with Minie balls changed everything and smokeless powder killed it for good. Of course the British were late to get the message and the Boers massacred them in the first war firing prone with Mausers.
This was long before they discovered data science. Could have all that figured out In a few days. 😮
Maybe even a dozen of you could block a whole shot lol
Line formations are the most misunderstood tactics of military History because the modern man is too much used to quick-firing rifles and squads doing fire-and-movement. Armies used massed formations of sorts since before Rome, and they were far from suicidal fools. Only when 'infantry firearms' and later 'communications' improved in the past 150 years did tactics and fire discipline began to change.
The way its depicted in movies is also pretty unrealistic
Idk ab you, but I’d just rather NOT stand infront of an enemy.
@@ismu34 Warfare in general is unrealistic in movies. The trope is called "Hollywood tactics" and puts more emphasis on looking flashy and impressive than on actually being effective. In movies, ancient and Medieval troops often broke formation to turn the battlefield into a chaotic melee that looks amazing to the average moviegoer. In reality, survival in battle often depended on staying in a line better than the other army and breaking up like in the movies would be a good way to get yourself killed by either the enemy infantry (if you were suicidal enough to try to attack them) or by the enemy cavalry or archers if you tried making a run for safety.
Also the decline in cavalry, being alone on foot against someone on horse is a good way to die
@@tomasdawe9379 Also the proliferation of long range artillery, where an area could be targeted with indirect fire and is excellent for almost instantly wiping out line formations of any kind.
From the morale standpoint, lines gave a confidence boost to the soldiers. Think of it like a "safety in numbers" kind of feeling. Of course keeping the line took lots of training and discipline, as you were safer in formation than when it broke.
Also consider that until WW II, most army units were created from single communities so your fellow soldiers were also your brothers, friends and neighbors. A lot of bravery comes from not wanting to disappoint your friends and family.
@@cdjhyoungvery true
Many places during the American Civil War resembled WW1 Europe with trench networks and obstacles like Frisian horse (since barbwire was not yet invented), and some generals even adopted more modern fire and movement tactics.
A topic worth a video for certain
There are aspects of the American Civil War which were a precursor to WW1. Interestingly the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 were little different from that of the Napoleonic Wars.
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq Sharpe, in dramatic fashion displayed this fire and movement too....each episode bit like the William Shatner Star Trek era , a quick romance followed by a good punch up with the enemy
Maybe that's another reason why the US was so hesitant to jump into WWI, because we'd experienced the brutality of trench warfare a mere 50 years prior
1864 and 1865 especially.
One thing to mention, less frequently repeated now, but utterly pervasive amongst boomers. The myth that America won the Revolutionary War because the British stupidly fought in the open firing in lines while the Americans fired back from cover is 3000% untrue. In fact the opposite is true. It took years of effort to train the Continental Army to fight in proper European line formation. It was only once the Continentals had mastered the line formation that they could begin to modify and adapt the strategy to begin executing more fluid and mobile tactics.
Thank you for adding this. You're bang on.
I'm a boomer, and when I was 12, I knew that the Continentals fought in line formations as often as possible, but ran away when the better trained British pressed the fight. As to the American long rifle being the decisive weapon? That was BS. The British also had sharpshooter battalions with rifled barrels. They also had American Loyalists that fought for the Crown, armed with long rifles. The British were not stupid soldiers, and knew that a long rifle took a long time to reload, so they learned to charge the smoke and catch the Americans with the bayonet before they could fire another volley. There was no mercy shown to American riflemen, so most of the time they ran after a couple shots. They were not the effective force in the war that myths would have us believe.
Even the accuracy of the long rifle was greatly exagerated, with kills on British officers at 200 yards and beyond. Yes, it happened, but there was NEVER corroborating proof that any aimed,deliberate shot was the cause. Troops at 200 yards were shot, but most likely by chance. I have spent 50 years studying and shooting the American Long Rifle, and some are very accurate, but it is extremely difficult to hit a man in the vitals at 200 yards - especially a man marching or on a horse. Men were hit by common musket ball at 200 yards,too, but it was just an unlucky day for that man, not necessarily an aimed shot.
Late in the revolution, American units began to stand toe-to -toe with British troops, and gave a good accounting. But they were never the equal of the British Army, which was by then suffering from moral problems, lack of supply, and threat from the French, whom they were rightfully more concerned about.
In the end, the British tired of the financial drain the war was causing, and the unpopularity of it at home. They hadn't even yet recovered from the Seven Years War. When General Clinton decided not to come to the aid of Cornwallis, that was the end of unified British command in America.
@@OutnBacker I think close line formation is just used out of convenience of communication and command (change of formation, direction, fire, charge, retreat, etc). Casualty was a smaller concern, like you said the gun was not that good to completely outweigh the benefit of staying in close lines, if a few more men had to die because of it, sucks for them.
@@nomooon It was far more than convenience. It was absolutely necessary with the smoothbore muskets of the time. In comparison to 80 years later in the American Civil War, casualties in the Revolution and in many European wars were relatively light. The entire reason was that rifled barrels were far more deadly then smoothbores at vastly longer ranges., provong that line warfare needed to be either modified or eliminated. It was so deadly with rifled barrels that trench warfare on a vast scale was introduced.
In the end, line warfare never really went away, despite the horrendous casualties - right up to the First World War. Mostly because, as you say, command and communications were always difficult until the advent of squad or company level radio.
@@OutnBacker "When Webster entered the stream, and was slowly fording its rocky bed, the marksmen all discharged their rifles at him in consecutive order, each certain of hitting him, yet not a ball touched him or his horse. Thirty-two discharges were made without effect..."
“Because shapes hadn’t been invented yet”
Timely addition of Gettysburg, nice
Having you on my channel is a blessing
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq having found your channel is a blessing itself :)
Part of the reason from the continued use of line formation in the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century was the advent of smokeless powder providing more range. The concept was the ability to engage enemies but still out range them meant that friendly troops could not be killed while enemies could. This is why rifles like the Lebel Modle 1886, the Gewehr 98, the Krag-Jorgenson rifles, the M1903 Springfield, the Mosin-Nagant and others had sight settings for very long ranges while Lee-Enfield rifles and Pattern 14 rifles had separate volley sights. The reason the Lebel, Krag, Mauser, the First Lee-Enfields, and Mosins were so first rank of troops didn't have the muzzle blast from the second rank of troops in their faces. Due to machine guns, the concept was truly obsolete and down right dangerous.
In the First World War, this concept was dropped from infantry, eventually being replaced by the new radical form of combat, fire-and-maneuver. Volley fire as a concept itself was transformed into the plunging fire from machine guns with their range tables as well as indirect artillery like mortars.
Don't forget combined-arms warfare. While WWI planes weren't developed enough to effectively help infantry as directly as WWII planes could, WWI tanks were developed specifically to directly aid infantry. The Allies would develop this doctrine more than the Germans, who decided the best way to break the stalemate would be to develop what were essentially proto-special forces.
@@foxymetroidusing artillery and infantry is also combined arms tactics but I get what you mean good sir!
Didn't know this, thanks.
Makes you wonder how many cases of PTSD were actually caused from it. Oh sure, that is a modern diagnosis but it makes you think: how many people were called cowards and punished because of a lack of understanding of mental health. War, no matter the time period, is gruesome.
Good point. PTSD was just beginning to be acknowledged as a trauma reaction in the Vietnam War Area. Fear before and during combat is certainly as old as warfare, and there's plenty proof where and whenever you look. I remember for instance reading that there is a rare account of a knight admitting that he virtually sh.t his armour before a charge at the enemy out of sheer terror.
Hey man, just wanted to say I appreciate the effort you put into your video. Your selection of films has led me to put more than one movie on my watchlist. I wouldn't have discovered "Life is Beautiful" if it weren't for your MP40 video. Thanks and keep up the good work!
Thanks man. I don't love every movie I use. Some are just good examples for the narrative but Life is Beautiful is fantastic.
ngl, I have watched this guy for around 3 months and watched majority of his videos and they are some goddamn good videos
@@missingoperators7113 indeed they are...
I ended up watching 'Female Agents' after it was in a Sten video. It was decent. Sophia Marceau was also in Braveheart, so I kinda already knew who she was.
@@Themaxwithnoname oh she's a beauty
fun fact about the French:
leading up to and during WW1 they still had a "full length rifle" in the Lebel specifically so they could still stand in a line and volley fire without shooting their own men in the back as they believed it would continue to be the way war was fought and it took a lot of failures in early battles to kick that way of thinking
It's also funny to look at the iron sights of early war rifles. Since they had all transitioned over to smokeless powder cartridges the increased power meant that bullets could travel further than with black powder. So you had iron sights that could be ranged up to 2000 meters because theoretically you could hit someone that far away.
@@nick0875 while I respect the optimism I cant help but smh at the ignorance of that mentality lasting so long in militaries
@@nick0875 they did actually use volley fire to decent effect up to around 1200 metres
@@bigmoniesponge the first few months of the war was still somewhat mobile so they did still use linear tactics and mass infantry movements its why they saw more casualties in the early phases then at battles like Verdun
they did learn eventually but like most innovation when dealing with a traditionalist and rigid structure it took time and a lot of deaths before they realized that "courage" and red pants didnt win wars
They had newer rifles like the Berthier M1907/15 and Berthier M1916 Carbine
Line formations are one to two (or a few more) lines deep, while column formations are the ones with deeper ranks. Columns are used to keep discipline among poorly-trained conscripts, while Line formations are used for maximise gunfire.
The title should be close to explaining "Linear Warfare" than just the Line Formation itself, because you're missing a lot if it's the only covered. Anyways, good videos as always.
Troops in small snort columns could move much faster than troops in line.
Column and square formation are type of line formation.
Informed and educational. Thanks for posting.
Very good video, and I know I may be commenting a few months late, but we still use line formation today. In the era of automatic weapons, we use loose line formation when moving over hills or moving over uncharted terrain where the chances of the enemy appearing on the flanks is limited. This allows the squad or even regiment (in large formation) to move forward and respond to fire without the limitations of the wedge formation
So basically one of the same reasons that they used line formations back then, to use all of your fire power
So happy to see that you used clips from Sharpe it has been my favourite show since as long as I can remember
Now that's soldiering.
I'd hope my viewers would have thoroughly shamed me had I not! A must for this video.
On first sighting this Sharpe comment I naturally had to reply to it, that's my style Sir.
+1 For showing Alatriste which showed the Spanish square (three of which made a Terçio), the movie is good but a bit slow (like Barry Lyndon).
We need more movies about the 80 years- and 30 years wars though.
And now I think I will spend my Monday watching Glory and Waterloo. Awesome videos as always Johnny!
I would be interested to see a “hand to hand combat in the movies” video where perhaps you break down different hand to hand combat tactics from different militaries displayed in film?
Fun fact I used to teach hand to hand combat for a sheriff's office so could be fun for me
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsqlet me sum up my teachings for both firearm and pre firearm combat, “you see that guy? SHOOT HIM!” and “you see that guy? STAB HIM WITH YOUR SPEAR!” I don’t know it just that in movies people are using spears like quarter staffs, I mean a glave has a blade yes but you STILL STAB PEOPLE WITH IT!
You included the more accurate movie and TV clips; Sharpe and Waterloo especially. However, the line formation is not totally dead yet. There is an infantry assault formation which is line abreast (well separated) with a gun to the side providing enfilade fire. This works well at sub-unit sizes in jungle and probably some other forested terrain .
Absolutely thanks for adding this Jeremy
The harbour defensive position is used by the british army still. You basically have a triangle of three lines of rifles facing outwards with machine guns on the points, with your HQ or whatever you are 'harbouring' in the centre. A dispersed line can still be used when going directly up a hill.
Indeed, Burma and the Malaya emergency spring to mind...
I love these historical videos you're putting out johnny. Keep it up.
Thanks David! Will do
In short why line formations were used :
Musket balls go wherever they goddamn want and it's usually not at the target
also three more reason why line formations were used because they were a successor to the pike and shot and later Dutch and Swedish formations. commanders needed formations that were both easy to break and regroup , and more firepower for the lines . since no one is going to bother their brains for more new formations which could even end up disastorous , they simply removed the pikes placed them with more guns and just made swapping up for firing positions more easy and understandable.
second , the metallurgy was also improving and new techniques for igniting gunpowder besides a match. Like your wheellock pistols. later the Spanish , Italians and Ottomans came up with Miquelet locks which predates to doglock mechanism out of which flintlock and later percussuion cap and finally single shot breechloader conversions were developed. plus guns became lighter with the introduction of lighter but durable barrel .
third , Logistics. Logistics are the dominant priority , more than tactics and everything else.
Actually reason why line formation is used not accuracy, actually the opposite. Muskets were accurate under 100 meters. That's why line formation is used. Your musket has high accuracy but low range. With tight formation, soldiers gain most firepower. Soldiers with spread formation has no chance against tight formation because they have more rifle per m2.
Ending on the Barry dance and a Sharpe quote is why I love this channel
just wanted to mention something about cannons used in line-fire warfare. depending on bore-size and ammunition available, it was preferred to load cannons with Grape-Shot or Canister-Shot when firing specifically on formations of infantry. effectively turning these cannons into massive shotguns, Grape-shot was a load of 4-5 smaller-gauge cannon balls than the normal large-single cannon ball size, which did more widespread damage to infantry without sacrificing too much range. and Canister shot could literally be just that, a large canister of Musket-balls that could be fired off to massacre a crowd of infantry in formation if the distance was close.
there are all kinds of alternative cannon-ammunitions out there that were used for hundreds of years, heck, it could be the subject of a video in and of itself! just look up Chain-Shot and Bar-Shot from Naval Warfare/Pirate movies, specifically designed to do damage to Ships' Masts' and rigging. Grape and Canister shot was also used to try and clear decks of enemy sailors when boarding was attempted. Cannon-Warfare going all the way back to the dawn of gunpowder-arms and forward all the way to the American Civil war is such a wide range of interesting history!
on that note, look up the Puckle-Gun if you wanna see an early attempt at a repeatable-fire small-bore cannon (flintlock era), dont think its ever been on film but it did show up on the naval warfare in the game Assassin's Creed Rogue iirc.
Yes I struggled hard not to go into that because it's good info I just wanted to save it for when I did a video on the topic. Grape-shot/Canister-shot is very worthy of a video! Basically a cannon shot-gun.
Then there'd also be a chance to explain that shrapnel specifically refers to the submunitions delivered by a shrapnel shell (basically a canister shot with extended range), and is not simply a synonym for fragmentation - an erroneous but exceptionally common use of the word.
Canister shot is much larger than a musketball.
It was the British who fired three rounds per minutes not the French. The French, like all other armies, could only manage two. The other thing was that the British used two lines rather than the three of the other armies. So a formation of 900 men would have 450 British soldiers fire each time rather than the 300 of a French line of the same number. So that meant that for the British each volley fired 50% more rounds each time and each soldier fired 50% more rounds per minute that any other army.
At the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 it rained just before the battle which led to red dye running out of the uniform into the white webbing making look like blood was running down the belts and straps. At the 150th anniversary in 1965 the same thing happened to the webbing of the reenactors who appeared on the battlefield.
The Prussians via operant conditioning were known to fire 3 rounds a minute as well.
excellent additional info! Sorry my last line in this video I was trying to channeling Sharpe's energy and the comment to the men he was training :)
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq No problem, Johnny.
@@Themaxwithnoname Thanks Max. I'd forgotten about about the Prussians. If anyone else could fire three rounds a minute I'd put money on the Prussians.
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq Channeling Sharpe’s energy into a RUclips comment? That’s soldiering. (Depressing lack of Sharpe fans in the comments section - I’ve been scrolling for ages and haven’t found a single “that’s not soldiering” quote 😔)
I actually grew up in Stayner Ontario, near Base Borden, and used to see the Army drive by, perhaps that was where I had gotten an interest in the armed forces, that and watching Star Blazers/Space Battleship Yamato.
Take care, and all the best.
Ever played Total War Empire or Napoleonic? Line infantry is the backbone of your army, and it's so much fun late-game, when you can do all sorts of advanced movements like those you mention.
Empire Total War is fantastic!
Shogun 2 Fall of The Samurai also has some cool linear warfare (though horse carbines are op 😂)
No I'm an adult I don't play childish games😂
@@James-kv6kb If you think total war games are childish, think again.
@@IQsveen no I won't think again because it's the bloody yanks turning everybody into children so that so they will spend money. I don't care what the game is everybody needs to grow up and start doing adult things instead of acting like children.
Saw a very interesting documentary explaining why troops advanced at a walk now I don't know how accurate it was but it was explained that it could be 1/2 a mile or more between trench lines over broken bomb cratered land running would be hard if not impossible and by the time you reach the enemy trenches you'd be out of breath making it harder to fight.
And it's really hard to stay in formation while running. Besides that, who would want to be the first guy to reach the enemy line?
Even cavalry charges would be done in a controlled way, going from canter into trot into gallop, building up speed while staying in formation.
The classic bugle call associated with the cavalry charge is actually the final in a series of signals, that tells everyone to shift gear into gallop.
@@JH-lo9utThe depiction of cavalry charges is often what bugs me - showing them going to a gallop right away, even outside the range of enemy guns.
@@Spearca 100% and battlefields were often muddy which massively impaired the speed of the horses. In the movie “Waterloo” the charge of the Scots Greys is shown as happening at a full gallop. In fact, due to the amount of rain / mud on the field, the speed was nearer to a slow canter.
The concept of volley fire and rows after rows of infantry just standing side by side firing their muskets were just not to simply compensate for the lack of accuracy but also the lack of multi-round firing thus it only took till the onset of the Civil War that we see a change in those tactics at least in the US and prior to WWI during the Boer War when repeating arms became the norm.
So the reason behind line infantry (That's why it's called that cuz you fight, in a line) was that in order to compensate for the lack of accuracy from one soldier with a unrifled musket, you have to compensate it with "fire with volume" thus in theory, more rounds = more targets hit, Think of it as a shotgun. More pellets that could bloom, more targets hit. That's the core logic of it.
However, another element plays a HUGE role and that's reloading. A typical musket takes about 10sec to just reload the whole gun and in battle, 10 second could mean life and death and it's totally impossible for one man to just fire, reload for 10sec hoping the enemy won't charge him with knives, swords or even fire back at him thus again, to compensate it, volley fire with rows of infantry again became the norm.
Best example would be the Anglo-Zulu War or what the movie Zulu portrays. Despite being breach-loaders which significantly increases rate of fire and now with rifled barrels, the gun would effectively hit beyond 300m but still, due to it being single-shot, reloading was a problem for one man so the Redcoats did what they do best, layered firing lines.
In theory, there's 3 layers of line infantry at best where the 1st row would fire, crouch, reload where the 2nd line takes aim, fire then half-knee and reload while the final row fire, reload and rotates back to the 1st row standing up, firing, rinse and repeat till ammunition runs dry or the enemies are all dead.
That's what happened in Zulu. Layered up on a mount, 3 rows of infantry consistently sends out volumes of accurate fire instead of just firing all 3 rows at once and having a lull which allows the enemy to come ever closer. That's how it should be.
It didn't take till the mass introduction of the lever action that such line infantry tactics got phased out rather quickly in the US and the Battle of Little Big Horn comes to mind.
Custer's men were mostly still armed with the standard breach-loading Springfield Model 1873 Trapdoor Carbine whereas Crazy Horse's men were armed with repeaters like the Henry, Winchester 1866, 1873 and even Spencer repeaters. When they charged towards the US Cavalry of Custer's, Custer's men were panicking and made a huge load of errors and despite supposedly having huge boxes of cavalrymen and infantry defending against Crazy Horse's cavalry, they're no match for the round dumps coming from Crazy Horse's forces that's firing back at Custer's men with repeating fire.
Custer's men at best could only muster 8 rounds at best per minute per square box formations but Crazy Horse's single man can fire up to 15-20 rounds per minute and that's HUGE volumes of fire coupled with his hit-and-run tactics, the line infantry soon start to show it's weakness. However, the Europeans were slow to implement repeating firearms and it till till somewhere in the late 1870s where both Mannlicher and Mauser start to make multi-shot rifles that the game starts to change in Europe and the biggest way of change that saw the slow phase of the line infantry would be the Boer War.
I don't see how volley fire arises as a means of compensating for weapon inaccuracy. The rate at which you score hits on a target (in this case, an enemy military formation) does not depend on whether you fire in volleys or a continuous stream of bullets, assuming the two firing modes average same rate of fire.
@@BlurbFish ???? What are you even on about?
A single musket hits hard. IF it hits but due to the lack of rifling, muskets still miss most shots beyond 50m especially with the contemporary British Brown Bess thus the only chance for them to hit anything effectively is "fire thru volume". If you have 10 rifleman and if one person misses, you have 8-9 more that can potentially hit. Even if not all 9 hit, AT LEAST 2 will hit a row of targets in the same time it takes one guy to fire and miss one target. 2 hits from 10 guys still beats having one guy fire and miss and panic reloading.
It's the same concept as a magazine. You have 20-30rnds depending on caliber and if you miss one, there's 19-29 rounds more to fire.
Same concept with volley fire. When your 1st row fires, bunch of people get hit and while they reload, the next row takes up the mantle and shoot and as they reload, the 3rd row fires. Repeat back to 1st row and continue till all ammo depleted.
Now back to the US Civil War. Rifling is now is all rifles and yet they still fired in rows like it's Napoleonic times which turned out to be god damn devastating as now rounds fly more accurately with the pointy and barrel-grabbing grooves of the Minie Ball and rifling.
The "rows" formation just cuts down their reload times as it keeps them in contention of repeating fire without much lull (Till the lever action came about).
What you're forgetting is that long arms of that time, don't have rifling and it's inherently inaccurate beyond at max 75m. Not only that, if you had rifling, it takes ages to load, more than your normal musket due to the extra wadding and as if the musket itself doesn't have a slow reload time already.
@@MrLolx2u It seems you completely misunderstood my question. I am not disputing the (in)accuracy of muskets, I am *solely* disputing the usage of volley fire as a means to deal with this.
The accuracy of a musket does not depend on other nearby muskets firing. If you line up a hundred muskets at a target they will achieve the same number of hits regardless of the time between the shots. Therefore, in terms of hits on target it does not matter whether the men of a musket formation fire on their own time or in volley, assuming the same number of rounds fired.
Volley fire cannot be a means of compensating for weapon inaccuracy, as firing on own time should give same results in this regard. Therefore, volley fire must have arisen out of respect to some other considerations/limitations of the time.
@@BlurbFish It's about command and control. In an early 19th century infantry regiment volley fire was much deadlier than individual firing.
@@BlurbFish just bc its inaccurate doesnt mean if a musket misses the other does.
My condolences to those who have lost loved ones in war/conflicts. Life is just not the same.
If only the United states had not plunged us into 100 years of slaughter so they can sell military equipment lol
Great video and great use of visuals from movies. Other than clips from video games, the movie clips represent the best source of picturing that which occurred before cell phone cameras. I love this overview, and that from a lifetime military historian. Thank you for all your hard work.
Great to see you like this!
4:20 Dude didn't even want to hit the Scotsman, he just wanted to kill the Bagpipe. Homeboy just felt his Scottish ancestors cry out as his bagpipe died in his arms, and he lost the will to live.
I was hoping to find a comment about that part, and I was not disappointed!
not just the minie ball but percussion cap muskets which killed the 50 yard rule with flintlock muskets. These weapons started to increase the damage done on the battlefield.
The 50 yard rule never existed... go to Brandon F, won't explain that. I guess you're saying they were more accurate, and that definitely made defense as deadly as attack.
Actually it is the opposite. Out of all weapons ever invented, the flintlock was by far the most deadly with 1 kill for every 50 shots. As weapons technology improved and fire rates became higher the kill ratio per shots fired started to decrease massively. With the ability to fire more rounds soldiers started to, well, fire more rounds, at the expense of aiming.
Even though muskets aren't exactly known for their accuracy the tactics of the time did result in more accurate fire. When you need half a minute to reload and there's an entire army in front of you, you are going to make damn sure that you're going to hit something when you shoot because you may only get the one shot. That's why the men in line formations would keep standing up and exposing themselves. It's not because they were brave. It's because they knew they had no choice but to stand there until they could fire at the right moment. It was either that or certain death. (to rout is to die)
When weapons improvements allowed for higher rates of fire it became more and more tempting to fire of as many rounds as possible, whether you would hit something or not. The focus changed from doing as much damage in a single volley as possible, to firing so many more rounds then the enemy that you would effectively deny them the opportunity to get to you. In other words, suppresive fire became dominant and that is what really changed the way battles are fought.
By WW1 it took over a thousand rounds to make a single kill. By Vietnam that number had increased to 50.000 bullets fired per kill (for the Americans at least). And currently in Ukraine it takes between 200.000 and a million bullets to get 1 kill. (disclaimer. there aren't reliable numbers yet when it comes to Ukraine but it's a fair estimate which both sides are making. Most kills in Ukraine are actually from indirect fire by mortars, artillery and missiles)
So in summary, better weapons did not increase the amount of damage done. It increased the potential for the amount of damage done and with that, changed the nature of warfare.
@@WolvesValleyFarm 1 kill for every 50 shots? At what range? That's a very specific figure given there's a million variables involved..
Always wondered about how this in particular works. A given soldier in Afghanistan easily may have shot a magazine or two at an enemy before getting a kill, and so did everyone more or less in his platoon, rather than firing hundreds of thousands of rounds before getting a kill.... from here it sounds like a misunderstood average, much in the same way life expectancy of, say, 40 in 1900 in a certain place doesn't mean adults magically die at 40 or not expect to live long beyond that.
@@SStupendous the 1kill/50shots ratio is indifferent of range. It is simply the average grand total of shots fired during any given conflict in which muskets were the predominent infantry weapon vs the average total number of fatalities. Of course, it is not an exact number as there is no way to know exactly how many shots were fired. However, it is a grand average figure which has been calculated by historians. The Royal armories institute in the UK has a whole thing on it.
As for what the kill ratio is at a given range. I've no idea. It would depend on a million factors. Even the most rudimentary matchlock was deadly at 300 yards and by the time percussion caps came around the mettalurgy and manufacturing processes had improved so much that a shot was deadly out to 1000 yards. But sources vary (a lot) as to the effective maximum ranges. What is generally accepted is that point blank (meaning the range at which you would still hit your target with 0 elevation) is the most effective engagement range. But that was different for every weapon and again, i've no idea what the kill ratios were. But the 50/1 is the overall grand average during the line formation era.
As for Afghanistan. There were indeed engagements where soldiers would get a kill with 30-60 rounds fired, or even less. But only in CQB battles though which were relatively rare. But as I said, the overal ratio I talked about is a grand total. So it doesn't apply to singular soldiers or platoons, but for the entire war. I don't honestly know what the ratio is in afghanistan, i'm sure it's documented somewhere. But what I do know is that coalition forces scored the vast majority of kills with air strikes. In fact, that was their MO in most cases. Infantry forces were tasked with flushing out and locating taliban fighters so they could then be targeted with airstrikes. Whereas the Taliban got most of their kills by far with IEDs.
Infantry weapons after the age of line formations are primarily used to supress enemy units, to deny them maneuvrability and to force them into killzones. Of course this doesn't apply to specops or room clearing etc. But on the large scale that is their strategic purpose.
Just think about it. musket armed line formations would engage each other at short range. sometimes barely 30 paces. It's hard to miss at that close a range. But modern infantry engagements happen at 300 yards or more. Hitting a human at 300 yards is hard. Especially if you take into account obscured visability. the fact they are behind cover, exhaustion/battle fatique, stress, heat/cold, moving target, other responsibilities, fear, etc etc. at 300 yards you often can't even see the enemy. You know they are "in the treeline over there" for example. But you can't see them. So what you do is you lay down a base of fire at the enemy position, maneuver, and call in fire support at the enemy position. And then its the arty or air support, whatever the case may be, who does the actual killing bit.
And yes, avg life expectancy in the past was low due to a very sad high infant mortality rate. But of obviously people didn't just drop dead at 40. In fact, during most of the medieval period the average life expectancy for adults was higher than it is today. That is to say, once you reached adulthood you stood a good chance to reach very old age.
@@WolvesValleyFarm May give you a second more developed response, because I know this reply will be pretty small compared to what you've just given me, lol.
It's good to know you've got the understanding I hope you did, you clearly understand life expectancy at least. I was wondering something similar to this, that the kill range ratio doesn't mean that about 1 of every 50 shots is more than likely to be the one hitting in actuality.
On the life expectancy thing, was going to leave it at that but now it reminds me, kinda funny some of the ridiculous historical misinterpretations of data or just misconceptions out there... I'm a tintypist, not taken many photographs but I almost feel like making someone who thinks cameras took "hours" or hell, "minutes" to "take" a picture actually sit for 20 minutes, lol.
The grand total bit makes sense, with that in perspective makes a lot more sense, thank you. About your second paragraph - you may have an interest in Brandon F's videos on volley firing and musket range, he has sources such as official, high-provenance military manuals from the late 1770s which define point-blank range and musket range for instance as being 350 yards or less; definitely much more than the 50 yards often claimed.
It was primarily to counter an enemy only using cavalry, and to protect the artillery. Basically when an infantryman isn't fighting in formation, he's a skirmisher, and they have a lot of advantages against infantry in a line formation. They can flank them more easily, and the army being scattered makes them much harder to hit. But they're more disorganized, are more likely to flee, and are almost impossible to give orders to if the army is large. They're also more easily cut down by cavalry. Cavalry would dominate the battlefield if it weren't for the line formation. Line formation can form a square to prevent being flanked, and are better defensively. This also allows artillery to be protected behind an infantry line. If all infantry were skirmishers, the artillery would have no protection, and would likely get cut down by fast moving cavalry. It's also easier to give orders to an infantry line, officers can more easily keep track of who is under them, and their orders are more easily heard, understood, and followed.
imagine being one of the soldiers that used the last ever line formation, because they're facing a machinegun.
Barry Lyndon is a epic movie… With an epic runtime of 3 hours. Still entertaining and in my opinion, one of Kubrick’s best films.
Seconded
@@eamonnclabby7067 Right on!
Agree!
@@JH-lo9ut Right on!
Facts!
I've subscribed and recently started to binge on your excellent videos, thank you so much
Thanks Matthew! Welcome to the channel
I was already aware about most of the arguments introduced here, but the thought, a place in the line could actually be the most safe or at least the least unsafe place in the chaos of such a battle, never crossed my mind.
From this old Cavalry officer: Great video, well done! And the last clip of " Black Adder Goes Forth" prior to them going over the top and invoking a shot of" Flanders Field", sad but realistic.
Another Banger Johnny, well done.
Yo holy shit
Collab when?
Thanks bro. Great channel you have by the way 👍
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq thanks man. I've been binge watching yours!
DAFAQ RHODESIAN COMRADE!
One thing to remember about the muskets used by line infantry is they were long and heavy, with a great deal of that weight far forward. Holding one of those things steady required more training and range time than most armies gave their soldiers.
That's without the bayonet
Early muskets had a very restricted range, took forever to reload, and often misfired....so you massed your infantry to get off a volley.
Most WW1 guns are just as heavy, hell, the M1 Garand of WW2... a typical civil war full-length musket weighed a good 9 or 10 pounds, not much of a difference 50 years later, or 75 years later.
@@SStupendous soldiers armed with those rifles were also given more range time to be trained how to aim and fire rather than just fire at the opposing ranks when the order to fire was given.
@@fishingthelist4017 Indeed (assuming you are talking about the M1Garand). Though ACW soldiers rarely got a chance to fire their weapons before combat, "drill, drill, drill again, and lastly drill" that made up the day of a soldier in camp meant aiming was definitely a focus, besides it IS the order directly before that to fire.
Another element not mentioned is the psychological element, numbers gave men courage. As well as the need to move and direct the army, a scattered army would be impossible to give orders to.
Sean Bean survived this video oh my god it’s a miracle
My 2 cents. Prior to the US Civil War and the development of the Minnie Ball the bayonet was the most important infantry weapon. Smooth bores were only slightly accurate at about 100 yards. A distance that would only allow a defender one volley before your massed infantry hit the line. Jackson was a great believer in giving the enemy the 'cold steel' of the bayonet. The Civil War ended the massed lines. But not the bayonet charge, took WW 1 for that. Also lack of communication made command and control impossible with a spread out formation. The battlefields of the Civil War were very small areas considering the numbers of troops involved a few miles compared to the huge battlefields of Europe in later wars. Same numbers of troops in a much more manageable area for a commander who has to use runners to relay his orders.
Bayonet charges weren't *that* common in the civil war, and actual contact with a bayonet was even less. Petersburg I guess, with the rebels digging 153 miles and the Union 36-38 miles is an exception, but do remember they travelled much greater distances than European armies did.
@@SStupendous Yes, I agree, they weren't common, and they marched further than European armies, usually. But bayonet charges did occur on occasion. I did say it was rare, most casualties were from bullets, cannon and disease. Can't recall the specific numbers.
@@scottkrater2131 For instance, the 20th Maine's charge at Gettysburg.
About 80% of all dead died of disease, of battle deaths 80-90% were from bullets and between 10-20% from artillery. Less than 0.1% is from bayonets, swords, knives etc.
For the figures - a majority, around 80% of those who died did so of disease, fatigue etc., first war in modern history where more died of combat was the Russo-Japanese War (comparatively much smaller war, but still), and I think WW1 had many, many more killed in disease than combat also. And that's not including the Spanish flu.
That scene 1:34 holy sh!t that looked awesome
Now I really want a video on Trench warfare
I have idea for a tactic that might work, is the use of bows and arrows in combination of musket rifles. Now they seem obsolete since musket balls can reach their target faster but an advantage of the bow to a musket is that they can be reloaded faster.
So my idea is this. The rifle men would unleash their volley and while the rifle men are reloading, the archers can release their volley of arrows, after arrows quickly due to the archers having to reload quicker, causing casualties and injuries due to the enemy not wearing armour or using shields. then the rifle men would be done reloading and then released their volley, rinse and repeat.
Now there might be problems with this tactic like going up against Calvary with the square formation. but as I said earlier it might work.
I've seen another comment here about the grenadier guards, another idea for you could be the Highland units in film.
Anyway great video as always Johnny and its always great to see videos on older tactics.
5:47
"Berry Lyndon" lol
😆
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq next up Mary Berry ( Trifle Rifles regiment) , display lethal pie lobbing techniques, actually I do enjoy persuading Mrs C to utilise Mrs Berry's recipes..
Interresting, but I find that the line formation was also an effective way to keeping men in place, as its harder to withdraw when you are shoulder to shoulder. Morale plays an important part in tactics, if not the most important.
kinda simple lines are used for organisation and to have less casualties also to taunt the enemy.
Nice one Johnny even 'Berry' got a shout lol, anyway seeing as you mentioned cavalry, they often had a major impact on battlefields, but what about the historical background? Is it possible you can cover the rudimentary stuff like the Mongols up to fairly recent history? That would be excellent if possible. Thank you.
Yah I am open to expanding this channel into many different areas in the coming months. I'm still getting the direction of the channel but having fun exploring different topics.
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq That's the spirit , approach , fell deeds with a light heart....in the best bardic tradition, must be that ancient Brythonic ,Brigantes DNA from West Yorkshire ...stunning to note that Brigantes DNA cluster is still there stretching from Leeds across the Pennines to Cumbria and Lancashire...
And another thing my daughter works with a fellow first Responder who is a direct descendant of Urien the King of Rheged ...his surname is...Urien....those ancient Britons are still largely intact...
Thinking critically, line formation was also one of the reasons why WWI was so catastrophic in terms of casualties.
You had generals going in with this mindset, while technology had advanced to the point that weapons were even more accurate, artillery was becoming a thing, and you didn't need to stand for 15 seconds to reload.
Due to this, kinda explains why trench warfare became a thing.
Thinking critically😂you people really sound strange when you copy these stupid internet terms like thinking that thinking needs an extra description added to it to sound like you're doing something exciting
Hey Johnny,
Your video recommendations are really great plus the information is first rate, now that is soldering!
Somehow the author "forgot" to mention when discussing cavalry attacks against infantry in lines or quadrilaterals, squares, behind field fortifications, etc. that the Polish Hussars smashed such formations into dust.
I might have another good video idea, this might not fit into the content that you might do but why don't you do a video about the British Grenadiers or otherwise called the Grenadier Guards.
I like it! Added to my list
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq the song from Sharpe, Over the Hills and far away, is very affecting..I think it is still on RUclips with clips from the Patriot etc,
During the filming of Waterloo, they tried repeatedly to capture a shot of cavalry charging from behind the shoulders of the infantry in the squares. Even though the extras were actual soviet troops and it was marked out where the horses would stop short, being charged was so terryfying the soldiers couldn't stay in formation.
Interesting
If you're going to quote Richard Sharpe, you could at least remember the phrase French BAS'TIDS! in a thick Sheffield accent!
Great video as always Johnny (especially for citing the clips you use and suggesting those worth seeing the subject in action). Out of the few dozen of your videos I've watched, I've not found a dud, and each one has taught me something new.
haha I was afraid I couldn't do the accent justice! Thanks for the kind words :)
if i was to go back in time, i would be the greatest general ever.
Lol
Gladiator had the best intro what a battle scene. And highly recommend watching the series Sharp 👌
LOL love the line dancing at the end from "Berry" Lyndon. Seriously though, your encyclopedic knowledge of war and films is most impressive.
Thanks man! I try to add a bit of silliness in each video to lighten the mood :)
Waterloo 1970 is the best war film ever depending what your cup of tea is
First
One second too slow :)
first
#1
This video taught me that there are a bunch of war movies and shows I have not yet watched
This is a great video for movie suggestions!
Maximice volley fire effect, improve morale and be more effective at charge and melee. And of course to facilitate the movement of troops and the complex maneuvers on the battlefield. It's not easy to move an army without modern comunications tools
Suprised you didn't show clips from Barry Lindon.
Hahaha oh I do like that
@@bongodrumzz should have gone to Specsavers...gave me a laugh too...
@@eamonnclabby7067 lol
Bravo! Well done good Sir! Excellent compilation and accurate information delivered masterfully.
That's interesting, I just noticed that in Zulu dawned they were using the carbine version of theMartini Henry. Which means in theory they were cavalry - which they didn't really look like. I could be mistaken, but they looked distinctly short to me. I tell you what if they were using the same ammunition as the full rifle, they were getting a hell of a kick. The Martini Henry was notorious for it, and although I have fired them, because a friend of mine collected them, he only used a reduced charge. When I was at school during compulsory cadets, the school armoury was full of Martini Henrys. There was always a rush to get the Lee Enfields because the Martini was a prick to drill with. And I think they just scrapped them. Be worth a fortune now. God, that was longer ago than I care to remember TBH.
Might have been a supply issue. I know in Zulu they even have some enfields sprinkled amongst the Martinis.
Some years ago I read that there were only the carbine versions available for Zulu Dawn.
It should be noted that troops still usually fight in a "line", though not in the sense we think of it. Troops take up positions generally parallel to their comrades, though spaced out several meters. Each soldier is relied upon to cover a certain part of the area in front of a given unit, and each soldier can only cover so much efficiently, as technology has improved and modern weapons allow a soldier to cover more because of increased firepower, the spacing between soldiers increases, but the idea is still the same- each man is responsible to cover a given area, with a musket he may only be able to cover a couple yards, while a modern soldier can hold down dozens of yards. In basic US infantry "buddy teams" each man is usually assumed to be able to cover an 120 degree field of view before switching off to the next man.
"After looking through my telescope I have calculated that there is intelligent life on Mars."
"Well why don't they contact us?"
"You're not listening."
1:46 Can you imagine playing Red Rover Red Rover with musketballs?
Muskets load slow and are not very accurate. So the infantry are still primarily pikemen (muskets with bayonets) and so you need to be in a line in case the lines physically clash and to enagage in volley firing. Although you could form 2-3 rows if the soldiers in front kneel and the two rows behind stagger slightly.
Showing a Sharpe clip?
*Now that's soldiering*
NICE
Thanks for doing Line Formations justice
There are sooooo many people who just chalk line formations to chivalry and honor instead of survival & victory
Thank You For The Amazing Video
Can you make a video about how accurate the muskets where and how that cjnaged over time?
A well done accounting of the line formation. Only one extra thought that seems to note mentioning the "why" men could accept standing shoulder to shoulder without wavering under fire. I have read it was due to their courage and resolve that was compounded by the knowledge the men they fought alongside of knew them more often than not. This held them accountable with respect to an honor that was rooted in their hometown relationships.
Thanks for adding that much appreciated
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq your welcome
One side note: some European countries, such as France, at first resisted going from standard musket loading to the new cartridge firing guns because generals feared that if their men could lie down and reload, they would be too scared to stand up again! This also explains why England was late in equipping its WW I pilots with the parachutes the Germans were using, because they thought a pilot with a parachute would be too quick to simply bail out in aerial combat...
Now that's Soldiering
For me, I always think the line formation as the worst formation ever in war...
Because you just get shot by an enemy by doing nothing but marching
Many muskets had no sights or just a top bayonet lug to index on. A volley was necessary to get results.
that was way worse for earlier plug bayonets ,since they have to be attached at the end barrel of the musket or arquebus which means you can't fire your gun for a while or worse for never . also in some cases due to lack of uniform size of the plug, some bayonets slipped out while others would never come out.
Absolutely! You know your stuff
Who mowed the grass
I did.
Cannonballs are excellent because they are strength 10, ignore armour saves, and hit every successive model in the file. ;)
I suppose even if a soldier did survive the initial volley. Seeing the mangled corpse of your buddies dead all around you might be enough to cause the soldier and any other survivors to route.
Could you imagine how dominant a wheel barrow with a stack of sandbags would have been in this era?
I don't think it was the unreliability of muskets quite so much as the lack of a decent bayonet that meant you had to use pikes. Even after the plug bayonet Was invented you couldn't fire a musket with it attached. You needed a socket bayonet, then you could defend yourself against cavalry without pikes. Apologies someone's already said this I'm about to take a nap and didn't read all the commennts. :)
Well I do agree with you. I think both points were a strong factor and I tried to highlight that but I certainly could have given it more detail :)
An interesting and eclectic selection of movies that engaged throughout.
18th century warfare is my favourite out of all because of how organized (and fashionable) they are, especially the drums and the flag holdings too.
I would have hated fighting in close order. Standing up there as a volley was fired toward you would just suck
>Why was the Line Formation Used?
So more people can shoot, how did you manage to make this a 6min video.
people need 6 minutes of explanation, even after loads of explanation people keep stating it’s a bad tactic
Loved that Blackadder popped up right at the end.
Another good one. Keep em coming Johnny
johnny the british line was by far the best and quickest at line fire far quicker than the french, the british practiced fire discipline, the french did not. a good british line could fire of 4 shots just over the minute, the french could not
Good point, even to the present day, fire discipline is paramount, Michael Yonn the American journalist commented about this when he was embedded with a British Army unit in Afghanistan..
Yes we had the best soldiers! Sorry I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise at the end of the video just trying to channel some of Sharpe's energy :)
@@JohnnyJohnsonEsq would be even better with a Yorkshire accent, Leeds or Sheffield..??
Alatriste is such a fantastic movie - recommend it to anyone who is interested in the military history of that period.
The most important thing is the commandment, you cannot command a melee, you cannot use tactics with a melee. Its why the line formations were used, the esprit de corps is also very important in the human behavior psychology to face a threat and prevent routing, all military drills are based on that.
Why the hell didnt they use shields ?????
Those muskets shot little ball bearings that could barely go through a wooden shield let alone a metal one.
Simply have a wooden shield or even body armor. Shields were invented centuries before that.
Musket balls were known to pierce through armor and could also pierce shields
Also it would be too expensive and heavy
Another important reason for the use of line formations was command and control. Before the invention of radios orders would be passed down via either visual signals such as flags, or audible signals such as trumpets. Which you have to be able to see or hear as a soldier in order to know what to do. Something that's impossible when the men are widely dispersed.
Perhaps even more important was the control part. It is vital during any battle to prevent a rout, as that is when most casualties occur. Yet, the conditions soldiers have to face when in battle make them naturally want to run away. Maintaining close formations help officers to keep their men under control and it helps the men feel secure in knowing their mates are with them.
Soldiers often fight for the man next to them. They take courage from their desire not to let their friends down. Keeping them all together boosts their morale. Whereas, if you have individual riflemen hiding behind cover some distance away from the next man, it becomes rather too tempting to simply stay hiding instead of sticking their head out and potentially get shot. Especially if most of the men are drafted and don't want to be there in the first place.
line warfare "died" when the Henry rifle entered the American Civil War
with the War Department refusing to buy the rifle because it "uses too much expensive ammunition", the rifle appeared to be a failure
but then one regiment paid for the rifles and ammunition out of their own pocket
as the rifle had a 15-round tubular magazine +1 round in the chamber with an effective range of 200 yards
the impact on the battlefield was terrifying for southerners
a Union regiment literally massacred a Confederate division or corps in direct combat (I don't remember the exact article)
and there was a major turning point in the war
If only we could all get along