This is probably false to some extent because I get this perception mainly from movies and other media, but did soldiers in old wars line up in formations exposing themselves and take turns to fire? If so, why?
Edit: Ty for all the detailed responses guys! I had one more question- wouldn’t it make more sense for them to spread out or take cover while fighting?
In: 2518
Aside what’s already been said, by WWI, this style of warfare was completely over. No modern military still used linear tactics. Throughout the 19th century, as weapons became more accurate, there was a gradual shift toward smaller and smaller independent units, from regiments down to battalions, and so on. The advent of smokeless powder also was a watershed moment. Smokeless powder not only stops the battlefield from being completely obscured by gun smoke, it burns more efficiently and thus propels the bullet farther and faster. By the Second Boer War at the turn of the century, the Dutch South African Boers used repeating rifles, high mobility, and entrenchment, to hold off conventional British assault tactics. The British had preferred to move in formation, with soldiers waiting for officer’s direction when and how to fire their weapons. Individual initiative was low and marksmanship was poor. The British suffered greatly for these retrograde tactics and spent the rest of the war, and the next 14 years until WWI digesting the lessons they learned. The result was an army that was trained to move and use cover, make use of individual marksmanship, and have highly delegated command so unit cohesion could be maintained if officers were killed. They understood perfectly that one should not prefer to frontally charge a machine gun, they knew cavalry should only be used as scouts and mounted riflemen, not to charge into melee, and despite the persistent myth, British soldiers did not walk abreast into machine guns at the Marne. They weren’t perfect. They had fewer machine guns than the Germans who also had better coordination with their heavy artillery. The British and French preferred to use smaller quick fire guns at the war’s start but the shock of massed heavy artillery led to an adoption of more long range, heavy guns. There is a persistent perception that armies in WWI used Napoleonic tactics against machine guns. This is thoroughly untrue. European armies in 1914 were largely aware of the consequence of modern technology and attempted to adapt and organize around those developments. Trench warfare on the western front was an aberration in the war. Most other fronts retained mobility throughout the war, and the west was not bogged down in trenches for the duration. The war was highly maneuverable at the opening and mobility returned at the end as combined arms coordination between infantry, artillery, horse cavalry (which still had a use), tanks, and airplanes was perfected. Why the west got bogged down in the trenches is hard to say but the answer is not that the armies just decided to shoot away at each other. They desperately wanted to maneuver intelligently, but they couldn’t. The trenches stretched form the North Sea to the Swiss Alps. There was no longer any flank to exploit. They fought as intelligently as they could and they did not stand in line taking turns.
One thing that I haven’t seen commented yet is that a large well organized group of soldiers in brightly colored uniforms marching to the beat of a drum not even flinching as you fire into their ranks getting closer to you is absolutely terrifying. We need to remember that war isn’t about killing the most people. It’s about getting the otherside to quit with as little casualties sustained as possible. People are really afraid of a fight 99% of the time. If you have a really well organized regiment that is trained enough to outwardly pretend to not be scared the otherside sees this confidence and it’s terrifying. This is why the British was so adamant that even in ww1 their officers “should never duck” if the enemy thinks you are unwavering they will run first. They will think you’re willing to fight to the death. Why? Because I just shot the guy in front of you and all you did is unflinchingly step over him to the same beat you were marching already. Now I’m reloading and you are closing the distance making your next shot more effective than mine range wise. Plus if you’re that well hardened and organized you’re probably a crack of a shot too. I’m fucked. You’re whole regiment is moving fast enough to halve the distance I shot at first by the time I’m reloaded. Best to just turn tail now.
Expecting 20 some odd 1700 era men to each, independently have good fighting tactics just wasn’t happening. They were taught formation so they could be organized by the one or two head that had a little battlefield knowledge amongst them.
Better artillery and especially the machine gun is what dramatically changed the way battles were fought.
Before modern artillery and the machine gun, the inaccuracy and slow loading of the muskets meant that having large concentrated formations was key. 100 people would win anytime against 10 with less than 10 casualties. So if 100 people had to fight 10 times 10 people, they were sure to win.
With the advent of modern artillery and the machine gun, 10 people could very easily win against 100 people advancing against them in a close formation in open terrain. So cover became very important and battles shifted to capturing key points with small teams.
The examples with given for the last series of battles war is usually the American Civil War and for the first campaign-based war is the Boer Wars.
Latest Answers