Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wellington employed cover of sorts. He had his forces gather behind the opposite hill ridges which would both protect his army from French artillery and also hide the number and location of his troops from enemy eyes. He also fortified 2 stone farm houses on either flank which proved to be very significant in the battle.
The reverse slope defense was a favorite of Wellington's.
Machine gun fire did away with the traditional line formations. In WWI, a person with a machine gun can single-handedly mow down a whole squad of advancing troops, even mounted ones on horseback. Unlike arrows and musket ammunition, bullets can be mass produced, making replenishing them to be cheaper and quicker.
During one of the first few battles of WWI, British (nor did much of the rest of the world) understand this new paradigm in warfare yet, so their commanders just kept ordering grunts to charge the enemy line, only to be cut down by machine gun fire. Recounts say the Brits lost tens of thousands of soldiers in that battle alone, many of them men in their early 20s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
But every way even during the age of muskets was unique. In the American Revolution the British learned it wasn't enough to capture cities or win battles.
When Philadelphia fell to the British, Ben Franklin actually spun that off as a good thing during his negotiations to the would be French allies, saying that that capture will encumber their overall efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
You are correct however, desease and malnutrition certainly cost more lives then combat, particularly during long campaigns.
Especially so with civil war.
During Napoleonic war, many soldiers froze to death in Russia. One reason cited was their brass buttons become brittle, broke, and with coats that were open, that sped up some of the soldiers' demises.
Despite the furious combat in the Middle East, there was up to 98% non-combat time while the soldiers were deployed there, so it wasn't always that.
During one of the first few battles of WWI, British (nor did much of the rest of the world) understand this new paradigm in warfare yet, so their commanders just kept ordering grunts to charge the enemy line, only to be cut down by machine gun fire. Recounts say the Brits lost tens of thousands of soldiers in that battle alone, many of them men in their early 20s.
Odd that the Brits had not gotten this by 1914, since by then the machine gun was not new, and it was the Brits themselves that had made earlier use of it. The Maxim gun was very effective in the First (1893) and Second (1896-1897) Matabele War, in the Sudan (Omdurman 1898), and the Second Boer War (1899-1902).
Odd that the Brits had not gotten this by 1914, since by then the machine gun was not new, and it was the Brits themselves that had made earlier use of it. The Maxim gun was very effective in the First (1893) and Second (1896-1897) Matabele War, in the Sudan (Omdurman 1898), and the Second Boer War (1899-1902).
Folks are often missing obvious things. After Taranto and Pearl Harbor the British still sent their battleships at Singapore across the ocean because a battleship at sea had never been sank by aircraft.
Might you be referencing John Keegan's observation that in any infantry fight, it is ten percent of the soldiers who do 90 % of the killing? The remainder may be counted on to move about and make noise firing blindly with their weapons, but only ten percent have the instinct and desire to close with the enemy and make kills.
I believe that is exactly what I am referencing. Is it basically true then?
I believe that is exactly what I am referencing. Is it basically true then?
Keegan was expanding on the work of S.L.A. Marshall whose study of WW I combat (interviews with soldiers) concluded that only 15 to 20 % of all front line soldiers discharged their weapons at all.
It was a controversial theory through WW II, but was embraced by the US Army immediately after that war. They hired teams of psychologists to craft new ways of training the soldiers to try and overcome the problem. One manifestation was the replacement of conventional bulls eye targets on the practice range, with human shaped silhouettes.
A post Korean War study indicated that the firing rate had improved to 55 %. By the time of Vietnam, 95 % were blazing away.
Keegan's contribution ("Face of Battle") was to determine that even if 95 % were now firing, most of those were providing unaimed covering fire, and just ten percent were actively seeking and killing the opponents.
I cannot tell that it is true, or basically true, just direct you to the people advancing the claim.
Folks are often missing obvious things. After Taranto and Pearl Harbor the British still sent their battleships at Singapore across the ocean because a battleship at sea had never been sank by aircraft.
There have been many odd ideas in the military. In the 80s, or 90s was it? US Air Force officials said that fighter jets would only be armed with missiles since that's the future of air warfare. The actual AF pilots countered nonsense and said they want guns on their fighter jets.
The Prussians were the first to field an army equipped with breech loading rifles in their war with Austria in 1866, the Dreyse Nadelgewehr. They were more accurate and could fire more rapidly than muskets. But their greatest advantage was that they could be loaded from the prone position, through the breech. Muskets had to loaded while standing or kneeling. Thus, the Prussians soldiers presented much smaller targets than their Austrian counterparts. Some soldiers in the American Civil War were equipped with crank operated Winchester rifles that also loaded through the breech.
In the Franco Prussian war of 1870-1871, the Prussians introduced breech loading, steel artillery. The French still used muzzle loading, brass guns. The Prussian guns were quicker loading, more accurate and had longer range. This more than offset the French advantages of the Chassepot rifle and mitrialeuse gun, a kind of gatling gun.
The upshot of these developments was to make the old musket based system of fighting, ranks or columns of infantry, firing and then advancing on the enemy, not only obsolete but positively suicidal. Casualties sustained by formations fighting in the open were just too high.
But it took the development of the Maxim machine gun and its use in WWI to fully drive home the point. Armies quickly discovered that a relatively few dug in troops, armed with Mauser or Enfield rifles and supported with machine guns could stop the advance of formations many times their own size. After the first month of facing these weapons in the open, both sides dug the trenches for which the war in infamous. For the next few years, each side tried to find ways to overcome the advantages the new weapons (and barbed wire) had given to the defender. The answer was the tank.
There have been many odd ideas in the military. In the 80s, or 90s was it? US Air Force officials said that fighter jets would only be armed with missiles since that's the future of air warfare. The actual AF pilots countered nonsense and said they want guns on their fighter jets.
That was in the 1950s. Then came Viet-Nam and American F-4s armed only with air-to-air missles flown by pilots who had no training in dogfighting met inferior but nimble little MiGs armed with machineguns and flown by dogfight-trained pilots who got too close for our missles to be fired and brought down our otherwise superior birds. We had to add guns to our fighters and train our pilots in dogfighting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
