English army tactics (war, 70s, attack, battle)

[FlashM]

I saw wonderful movie called 'Barry Lyndon' the other day. One thing that still bothers me is why English army didn't shoot at or run towards enemies during that fight with Frenchmen. They just walked slowly when Frenchmen were killing them. It's pretty weird battle tactics imo. Does anybody here know why English army fought that way?

YouTube - Barry Lyndon - First Taste of Battle

[Grandstander]

That clip is of a Hollywood battle and isn't entirely realistic. It depicts the French getting off numerous volleys before the British have closed on them. The range of the 18th Century musket was about 75-100 yards and they were not especially accurate. Consequently they were employed as a giant shotgun, not individually aimed, but collectively pointed at a target so large that a percentage was bound to be hit. At best, French defenders could get off one or two volleys before the bayonets were on them.

And that was the real decider in those days...the bayonet. Very rare was the unit which would stand its ground once the wall of bayonets was in lethal range. Maximum impact was obtained by having all the bayonets arrive together, which is why the walking pace was maintained to the point of contact. Arriving as an intact disciplined formation was more valuable than saving a few casualties by running at the opposition.

The British themselves were much better positioned to turn such an attack away. Unlike the French, they believed in drill, drill and more drill. British units could get off three, sometimes four rounds per minute because they reloaded so quickly. Further, British gunpowder was the best in the world, they had fewer misfires and shots falling short.

[FlashM]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

That clip is of a Hollywood battle and isn't entirely realistic. It depicts the French getting off numerous volleys before the British have closed on them. The range of the 18th Century musket was about 75-100 yards and they were not especially accurate. Consequently they were employed as a giant shotgun, not individually aimed, but collectively pointed at a target so large that a percentage was bound to be hit. At best, French defenders could get off one or two volleys before the bayonets were on them.

And that was the real decider in those days...the bayonet. Very rare was the unit which would stand its ground once the wall of bayonets was in lethal range. Maximum impact was obtained by having all the bayonets arrive together, which is why the walking pace was maintained to the point of contact. Arriving as an intact disciplined formation was more valuable than saving a few casualties by running at the opposition.

The British themselves were much better positioned to turn such an attack away. Unlike the French, they believed in drill, drill and more drill. British units could get off three, sometimes four rounds per minute because they reloaded so quickly. Further, British gunpowder was the best in the world, they had fewer misfires and shots falling short.

Thanks for the detailed answer.
I still have the question. Does that mean English army didn't shoot at all during battles like this one as they used only bayonets?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by FlashM

Thanks for the detailed answer.
I still have the question. Does that mean English army didn't shoot at all during battles like this one as they used only bayonets?

They did shoot. Typical was for the formation to close to within 75 yards, pause, deliver one volley, and then go in with bayonets leveled.

A more realistic depiction of such a battle may be found in the movie "Revolution" which was an otherwise pretty awful film. The battle isn't identfied, but it is obviously based on the British outflanking and routing the Continental Army in Brooklyn, the opening clash of the battles for New York in 1776.

[FlashM]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

A more realistic depiction of such a battle may be found in the movie "Revolution" which was an otherwise pretty awful film. The battle isn't identfied, but it is obviously based on the British outflanking and routing the Continental Army in Brooklyn, the opening clash of the battles for New York in 1776.

Starring Al Pacino? Well, if so I maybe will get the movie one day as I've never seen it before.
Anyway I don't get disappointed about inaccuracies Kubrick made as the movie itself is a masterpiece. Most beautiful cinematography I've seen to date.

[North Beach Person]

In many ways those tactics-slow walk, fire, walk to close with bayonets lasted until and through the US Civil War (War of Northern Aggression, Second American Revolution, War Between the States, the Recent Unpleasantness).

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

In many ways those tactics-slow walk, fire, walk to close with bayonets lasted until and through the US Civil War (War of Northern Aggression, Second American Revolution, War Between the States, the Recent Unpleasantness).

Hell the French thought it was a splendent idea during the first world war!

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Hell the French thought it was a splendent idea during the first world war!

Yeah, that's true.

[Irishtom29]

Note that during the French Indian War and the American Revolution British regulars were very good at light and open order warfare as well---flanking, skirmishing and bushwhacking in the woods for instance. Indeed, despite the myths of American history the Brits bushwhacked us more than we bushwhacked them, even if Mel Gibson doesn't know it. Indeed by the late 1770s your average Redcoat in America was likely to be wearing a short simple shell jacket, canvas duck trousers and a slouch hat, keeping his hair cropped short and carrying a hatchet or tomahawk.

As always the British army adapted to conditions in the field.