Title. I’m really confused about this thing. While I can see how it can improve accuracy and all that, isn’t it better to take cover?
In: Other
Well I think there is two parts to answer that question.
Before the 19th (around that), line battle was a better way to fight a battle. Musket were inaccurate, the battlefield was filled with smoked rather quickly, range was low, the fire rate wasn’t that high, and professional training wasn’t alway possible. All of this together meant that trying to at people was not that efficient. The goal was to maximize your firepower and for that a line was much better as more people could shoot at the same time. The Line wasn’t the only formation used, the column was used in movement or in the flank, and square were good against cavalry charge, but in general the line was the most useful formation to create the highest firepower. There was skirmisher who used cover and harass the ennemy line, but since they were spread out, they simply didn’t have the firepower to protect themselve against an infantry or cavalry charge. So they would retreat to get back with the line infantry when charged.
The second part of the answer is that all of this wasn’t true anymore by the time of the American civil war. Both firearms and artillery were faster and accurate. The lines formation were torned to pieces and bayonnet charges resulted in some of the most infamous battle of the time. Warfare had changed, but you always prepare for the last war. The officer had trained and learned about Napoleonic warfare for their entire life. Decades of tradition is hard to change. It’s easy for us to identify the problems with hindsight, but who at the time had enough confidence to go against the wisdom of the entire army and who was courageous enough to support such a change at the risk of their career. Large organization like armies often need a bloody nose before they realize how much warfare changed. And who can really blamed, line formation were part of war for centuries at that point. Maybe right now new weapons like drone is changing so much warfare that mordern armies are doing something very dumb, but nobody will know until the next large scale war and a lot of people will have to die. It’s just hard to get it right when you only theorize, the problem is that practical experimental of warfare is very costly.
You would need to consider the philosophy and purpose of war at that time. It was basically to show dominance, to settle an issue, like a boxing match today(why stand there in the ring and let someone hit you?). There were/are rules and honor at stake, and the general strategy was to overwhelm the enemy, force a surrender or withdrawal, and win the territory.
If you are defending a fixed position, sure. But if you have guns that aren’t very accurate and have a short effective range, then you don’t have any choice but to advance upon the enemy in straight lines. You took what cover you could and, when it was available, they did.
Most soldiers at the time were using muskets. Muskets were inaccurate and slow to reload. Additionally, ammunition was heavy and expensive, so soldiers were only able to carry a limited number of shots and got very little marksmanship practice. In a battle most soldiers would only get off a few shots and were unlikely to actually hit anything.
The biggest threats to soldiers wasn’t musket fire from other soldiers. It was being ridden down by enemy cavalry, hand to hand combat as a result of an infantry charge, and cannons.
Forming up into lines allowed a group of soldiers to volley fire, which helped to offset the poor accuracy and slow fire speed of their guns. Volley fire like this was the only practical defense against a cavalry charge and significantly reduced the danger of an infantry charge.
Infantry that dispersed into cover on the own were fairly easily killed by cavalry that could literally stomp them to death.
Forming up into a line made infantry more vulnerable to cannon fire, but cannons suffered from the same problems that muskets did – they were inaccurate, fired slowly, and their gunners had a very limited amount of ammo. Cannons were really only effective at point blank range when they could use grapeshot (basically a shotgun shell but for a cannon). As long as the infantry didn’t charge into a cannon line, they were more or less safe from long range cannon fire.
What this all means is that infantry weren’t really an offensive weapon at the time – that was what cavalry were for. Infantry were mostly there to hold ground that cavalry had taken, or to exploit opportunities that cavalry created. But for the most part they were just there to stop enemy cavalry.
That doesn’t mean that infantry didn’t take cover – they did when there was some sort of obstacle that could stop cavalry from getting to them, such as a building or very a heavily wooded area. But if they were fighting on open ground then the only practical way to deal with cavalry was to form up into a line and march out into the open so that they could volley fire at a cavalry charge.
Before modern firearms, there was no accurate way of killing the enemy from a distance. If all the soldiers are taking cover, then no one is actually fighting, they’re all just hiding behind trees waiting for enemies which never arrive.
If you want your soldiers to defeat the enemy, you can’t let them hide behind trees, you have to make them go out and fight. This worked from the days of clubs and spears and swords, and kept working with early firearms and bows, which were not very accurate.
Once you have automatic firearms, anyone standing out in the open is massacred, so taking cover is the only possible action.
Another factor is the weapons, specifically muzzle loaders with ramrods. You can’t reload them effectively in the prone position, and certainly not to achieve the rate of fire of around 20bseconds per shot.Then the inherent inaccuracies of the weapons and battlefield smoke meant you had to be fairly close to the, something like 50 yards or less for Napoleonic War muskets, there would be little cover conveniently in the right places.
In addition to the details of the weapons used, in a well-drilled company, a soldier knew that if he stood in line, he could count on his squad-mates to cover him if an enemy came at him from the left or right. …And that if he shirked, he could count on them to remember afterwards.
Whereas if they were all taking cover behind various bushes, it’d feel like he was all by his lonesome. Which wouldn’t be good for him, or the squad, or the army.
Latest Answers