The whites of their eyes

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

It may well be a myth on both the artillery side (they ran off their time, we fired on ours, and look what happened) or the infantry (we forgot to synchronize) but this example of why the battle runs on our time is used as the shining example of why this is the drill.

It doesn't hurt that we can use a short video clip to drive the point home thanks to the movie.

"Sir, we need to remember that incoming has the right of way."

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

"Sir, we need to remember that incoming has the right of way."

Isn't it the creed of the artillerymen "There are only two things in the world Artillerymen and targets"

[Border Reiver]

It certainly is - that and the phrase "Once a gunner, always a gunner."

Or was it the phrase "Is this your round, or mine?"

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

It certainly is - that and the phrase "Once a gunner, always a gunner."

Or was it the phrase "Is this your round, or mine?"

You would never hear that out of an Australian's mouth lol

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Isn't it the creed of the artillerymen "There are only two things in the world Artillerymen and targets"

But for the ground pounders its a damn good thing to remember.

(It's also a good thing to remember to not make the cannon-cockers mad at your when you hit the bars between fights.)

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Hutch

And this is basically how the Greek, Egyptians, Romans, Ottomans, Byzantines, Europeans and such fought for three millennium--large, organized bodies of men in close formation with archers to skirmish and annoy and cavalry to keep the opponent's cavalry away and await the chance to pursue the routed enemy (or cover their own troops retreat).

Prior to the Roman conquest, most Europeans did fight in disorganized mass charges, typically in loose raiding parties rather than organized units. That's one of the reasons that the Romans were able to conquer so much of Europe so quickly, their organized phalanxes were extremely difficult for the Celtic and Germanic raiders to break through.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Agammamon

Which is pretty weird as a). that spears werren't new even then b). should have been in pretty common use, more common than rushing at each other with swords.

There is almost nothing about that movie which is historically accurate, aside from some of the names. However, I think the key there wasn't the spears, it was that they were exceptionally long pikes, which were hidden in the grass so that the Cavalry would not notice them until it was too late.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

There's a classic battle in the American Revolution where the Rebels stormed up a hill with almost no losses as the Brits leveled on them, "aiming at empty air". Sorry, but I got this info in a class at Purdue many years ago, I don't remember the name.

There's always a few tings like that in all battles. In the early ACW a few Colonels had their soldiers firing up in the air thinking the bullets had to arc down like arrows with gravity. Some commanders outright told their soldiers to aim for the belt to prevent such silliness.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

So, what would the Napoleonic Wars have been like if the Minnie Ball had been invented in, say, 1785?

Not much. Rifles existed its just they were too expensive to equip line regiments with them.

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by MG1962

You would never hear that out of an Australian's mouth lol

All the Aussies I know are willing to stand their rounds. Just don't try to get out of yours.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by geni

Not much. Rifles existed its just they were too expensive to equip line regiments with them.

Thanks, I wasn't sure when the rifling process became cost effective.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

There's always a few tings like that in all battles. In the early ACW a few Colonels had their soldiers firing up in the air thinking the bullets had to arc down like arrows with gravity. Some commanders outright told their soldiers to aim for the belt to prevent such silliness.

.
The Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm rifle designed in the 1890s had its sights set so that aiming at the belt buckle of the enemy up to 300 meters away would cause a hit in the upper torso.
The round had a trajectory that kept the bullet between the chin and the belly at any range less than 300 meters.

[Carnivore]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Thanks, I wasn't sure when the rifling process became cost effective.

It wasn't just a matter of cost. Rate of fire was considered to be a war winner.
Napoleon nixed the idea of rifles because they were too slow to reload. The mark of good infantry was considered three shots a minute. Crack British infantry - who unlike most European armies conducted live fire training - could manage four. A rifle could take a minute or more to reload depending on how careful the shooter was being.

Britain was the first country to field a regular unit of rifleman equipped with a standard infantry rifle. They were called the Experimental Rifle Corps and they were revolutionary. 18th century drill manuals had emphasized the need for clockwork regularity in an infantry unit, with rigid adherence to marching and musket drill.

The Rifles, as they came to be known, were formed in 1800 and operated on the principle of individual initiative and independent action. The soldiers wore dark green uniforms instead of the traditional redcoat. They were taught marksmanship, fieldcraft and skirmishing tactics. They were taught to operate ahead of or away from the line, working in pairs to spot and snipe. Controversially they were trained to target enemy officers. There were fears that promoting such radical ideas could lead to social revolution.

Officially inducted into the Army as the 95th Regiment in 1802 they were issued the Baker Rifle and gained fame in the Peninsular war. They achieved success out of proportion to their numbers.They proved conclusively that a numerically inferior force intelligently using terrain, skirmishing tactics and long range aimed fire could defeat a larger line unit using traditional musket tactics.

The regiment continued to cement it's reputation as a crack unit throughout the 19th and 20th centuries as The Rifle Brigade, the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, the Greenjacket Brigade, the Royal Greenjackets, and since 2007 simply The Rifles.


ETA: Compulsory Sharpe/John Tams vid.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Hutch]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Almost all of them:

http://kokoda.commemoration.gov.au/j...127905-550.jpg

Point taken, albeit I would note that most of the mass charges took place when the Japanese had no other option from a defensive position outside of surrender, and that on the attack they did show an ability to maneuver around and infiltrate opposing positions (ask the British about Malaysia/Singapore campaign).

The Japanese learned mass charges were suicide during the Russo-Japanese War in 1898 and were reminded of that during their 1930"s "skirmishes" with the Russians.

[Hutch]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

There's a classic battle in the American Revolution where the Rebels stormed up a hill with almost no losses as the Brits leveled on them, "aiming at empty air". Sorry, but I got this info in a class at Purdue many years ago, I don't remember the name.

This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Hutch

This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain

That's it, I think. Thanks.


@Carnivore. I was just thinking about the Minnie ball being introduced before Nappy came to power. So the loading objection would be rendered moot, that's why Minnies were produced in the first place. Sorry for any confusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I'm asking about more than that one particular battle.

I decided to make the thread after noticing that ordering troops to hold fire happened twice in Helm's Deep, and at the start of The Mummy, and I think at least once in Braveheart, and as I was already familiar with the trope there must be a dozen others.

Uhm, those battles were fictional. Presumably the author added it because it sounds cool.

Hans

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Carnivore

It wasn't just a matter of cost. Rate of fire was considered to be a war winner.
Napoleon nixed the idea of rifles because they were too slow to reload. The mark of good infantry was considered three shots a minute. Crack British infantry - who unlike most European armies conducted live fire training - could manage four. A rifle could take a minute or more to reload depending on how careful the shooter was being.

Right, but wasn't that exactly the problem that the Minie addressed? It made reloading a rifle almost as fast as a musket.

Quote:

Officially inducted into the Army as the 95th Regiment in 1802 they were issued the Baker Rifle and gained fame in the Peninsular war. They achieved success out of proportion to their numbers.They proved conclusively that a numerically inferior force intelligently using terrain, skirmishing tactics and long range aimed fire could defeat a larger line unit using traditional musket tactics.

Lessons the British Army seemed to have forgotten nearly a hundred years later in South Africa.

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Lessons the British Army seemed to have forgotten nearly a hundred years later in South Africa.

Because, by that time, the British hadn't fought a similarly equipped force in 45 years.

The British experience of war had been mostly colonial occupation forces, and military campaigns were generally against forces with generally much inferior equipment. So that's how the Army developed (heavy on infantry with an emphasis on individual small arms), influenced of course by thestructure of British society (the upper classes viewing leadership as something that is natural to their class, etc.).

The Brits, to their credit, did start to make reforms necessary to change, but changing your doctrine in the middle of a war is challenging to say the least. Not to mention the need to change societal and human expectations of how things are supposed to be. This is why the Brits deployed their artillery in the same manner as they did in the Napoleonic Wars when perfectly acceptable indirect fire systems were available - only a dishonourable poltroon would hide from an honest fight, and dammit, that's how Father and Grandfather did it and it worked for them! That's why at the start of the war, officers went into combat carrying swords - how else does one lead troops if you can't direct them using your sword (hint, by the end of the war, most frontline officers were wearing rankers tunics with subdued rank insignia and carrying rifles). That and the old skirmishing tactics of going prone and using cover were beign used, although the idea prevailing from before was that real men should stand tall and face their opponent's face to face. Colonial forces, such as the Natal, Canadian and Australian units deployed were much quicker to change, very likley because they had much less cultural baggage to discard when they needed to change.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

Because, by that time, the British hadn't fought a similarly equipped force in 45 years.

Oh, I don't disagree, just pointing out the irony that they had their own tactics used against them when they should have known better.

Quote:

(hint, by the end of the war, most frontline officers were wearing rankers tunics with subdued rank insignia and carrying rifles).

Even that wasn't enough in WWI. Captured Germans revealed that they were able to pick out (and pick off) the British officers during an advance by looking for their 'thin legs', as the officers wore better cut trousers (often riding breeches) than the men.

[ElMondoHummus]

Sorry to be a thread latecomer responding to something on the first page , but I feel the desire to start a tangent.

Originally Posted by Hutch

And then came the rifled musket, then the breechloader, multiple-shot rifles, and finally the machine gun, and even generals figured out that mass charges were nothing but suicide (it took WWI to convince the last holdouts).

Well, if Michael Shaara's to be believed (keeping in mind his conceit in The Killer Angels of making up dialogue), Confederate General James Longstreet had figured that out back in the US Civil War. But Lee wouldn't listen to him.

Maybe that's apocryphal. But if it's accurate, it's a little frightening how long it took other generals to catch up in understanding the paradigm change that firearms imposed on battle. It's understandable, but it's still sort of scary and sad. Unfortunately, some things only get worked out empirically.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Sorry to be a thread latecomer responding to something on the first page , but I feel the desire to start a tangent.



Well, if Michael Shaara's to be believed (keeping in mind his conceit in The Killer Angels of making up dialogue), Confederate General James Longstreet had figured that out back in the US Civil War. But Lee wouldn't listen to him.

Maybe that's apocryphal. But if it's accurate, it's a little frightening how long it took other generals to catch up in understanding the paradigm change that firearms imposed on battle. It's understandable, but it's still sort of scary and sad. Unfortunately, some things only get worked out empirically.

The European countries sent observers to the ACW, and they duly reported back to the homeland. It would be interesting to see if those can be found, and if any of the information sent back was ever a factor in changes in the military model for that country.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I decided to make the thread after noticing that ordering troops to hold fire happened twice in Helm's Deep...

Originally Posted by I Ratant

before the use of firearms, the instruction would never be "Fire"...

I was watching The Two Towers just the other day and was struck by the irony of archers being commanded to 'fire' in a battle where the other side's use of gunpowder against them was considered magical.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I was watching The Two Towers just the other day and was struck by the irony of archers being commanded to 'fire' in a battle where the other side's use of gunpowder against them was considered magical.

I think the scriptwriters were weak in Elvish and the Common Tongue, as the command should have been "Hold your water, chaps!"

[Carnivore]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Right, but wasn't that exactly the problem that the Minie addressed? It made reloading a rifle almost as fast as a musket.

Absolutely, I was just referring to the Napoleonic period. During the Napoleonic wars Riflemen used undersize bullets which they wrapped in greased linen or leather pouches in order to grip the rifling.

The first British military rifle designed for use with Minie rounds (BTW I've got a French keyboard, why can't I find an acute accent?) was the 1851 pattern Enfield rifle musket. Longer than previous military rifles, it was the first British rifle issued to line infantry units. It was intended to be used with musket tactics, rather than skirmishing. The American 1855 and 1861 Springfield rifle muskets were similar.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Lessons the British Army seemed to have forgotten nearly a hundred years later in South Africa.

The lessons were relearned in various colonial wars, and often revived to good effect by local militia and irregular forces. In New Zealand for example, the Forest Rangers were formed to fight Maori guerillas in the bush in the 1860s. They were equipped with green uniforms, Calisher-Terry breech loading carbines, Adams revolvers and dirty great Bowie knives. They got good results by adopting the guerilla tactics of patrol and ambush.

I think there was a degree of Not Invented Here syndrome within the Imperial forces, who looked down on Colonial units as poor relations.

[Carnivore]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

@Carnivore. I was just thinking about the Minnie ball being introduced before Nappy came to power. So the loading objection would be rendered moot, that's why Minnies were produced in the first place. Sorry for any confusion.

My poor reading comprehension strikes again! Sorry.

Interestingly, I found this video of some Aussie 95th Rifles reenactors who using cartridges made to contemporary standards and cloth patches are able to get two and a half rounds a minute out of a Baker.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

Because, by that time, the British hadn't fought a similarly equipped force in 45 years.

The British experience of war had been mostly colonial occupation forces, and military campaigns were generally against forces with generally much inferior equipment. So that's how the Army developed (heavy on infantry with an emphasis on individual small arms), influenced of course by thestructure of British society (the upper classes viewing leadership as something that is natural to their class, etc.).

The Brits, to their credit, did start to make reforms necessary to change, but changing your doctrine in the middle of a war is challenging to say the least. Not to mention the need to change societal and human expectations of how things are supposed to be. This is why the Brits deployed their artillery in the same manner as they did in the Napoleonic Wars when perfectly acceptable indirect fire systems were available - only a dishonourable poltroon would hide from an honest fight, and dammit, that's how Father and Grandfather did it and it worked for them! That's why at the start of the war, officers went into combat carrying swords - how else does one lead troops if you can't direct them using your sword (hint, by the end of the war, most frontline officers were wearing rankers tunics with subdued rank insignia and carrying rifles). That and the old skirmishing tactics of going prone and using cover were beign used, although the idea prevailing from before was that real men should stand tall and face their opponent's face to face. Colonial forces, such as the Natal, Canadian and Australian units deployed were much quicker to change, very likley because they had much less cultural baggage to discard when they needed to change.

.
And Lord Trenchard's refusal to permit parachutes in the RAF fighters..
"lacking moral fiber" in jumping from a burning (canvas covered, doped finished) airplane.
Maintain a stiff and charred upper lip all the way to the ground.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

The European countries sent observers to the ACW, and they duly reported back to the homeland. It would be interesting to see if those can be found, and if any of the information sent back was ever a factor in changes in the military model for that country.

You have been described as ill discipline, very poor tacticians, the courage of your soldiers would have been questioned, but your cool toys would have interested them

Why do I make these statements. Because you were not European

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
And Lord Trenchard's refusal to permit parachutes in the RAF fighters..
"lacking moral fiber" in jumping from a burning (canvas covered, doped finished) airplane.
Maintain a stiff and charred upper lip all the way to the ground.

Prince Charles when asked about parachutes said "I will wait for the plane to be about 10 feet off the ground, and jump"

[Border Reiver]

Originally Posted by MG1962

You have been described as ill discipline, very poor tacticians, the courage of your soldiers would have been questioned, but your cool toys would have interested them

Why do I make these statements. Because you were not EuropeanBritish (preferably Englsh or Scotch, you really can't trust those Irishmen...)

ftfy

Please remember these are the same folks who went back to muzzle loaded cannon, after using a breechloader because it was less expensive. Greatly despised the idea of shooting from the prone position or even ducking when under fire as it wasn't manly and during WWI had a general who was of the belief that 2 machine guns/battalion (later 4) was an extravagant waste of resources.

Not to say that they were all bad - the Canadian Corps were the only successful component of the Battle of Arras in 1917 by taking Vimy ridge under the command of General Julian Byng.

Also not to say that colonial officers couldn't be less than competant. Using WWI Canada as an example again, our Minister of Militia (Sir SamHughes) was also a militia Colonel (nowadays we call that "conflict of interest", but then it was par for the course) who insisted on scrapping the mobilization plans made up by the staff in favour of what was nearly a levee en masse and the creation of an entirely new establishment, selected the service rifle because it was designed by a friend of his, gave a patent for an entrenching tool (with a hole in the blade so it could be used to peer from when in the prone) to his secretary! other than seemingly boundless energy, his best contribution to the Canadian military effort was to insist that Canadian troops be kept together in Canadian units rather than broken up to backfill casualties in British units.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by Carnivore

My poor reading comprehension strikes again! Sorry.

Misreading is common. I've never done it, but I've heard of people who have.

Quote:

Interestingly, I found this video of some Aussie 95th Rifles reenactors who using cartridges made to contemporary standards and cloth patches are able to get two and a half rounds a minute out of a Baker.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The increased fire added to the great accuracy was a killing combination.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

ftfy

Please remember these are the same folks who went back to muzzle loaded cannon, after using a breechloader because it was less expensive. Greatly despised the idea of shooting from the prone position or even ducking when under fire as it wasn't manly and during WWI had a general who was of the belief that 2 machine guns/battalion (later 4) was an extravagant waste of resources.

In the Boer War the Boers hit on the idea of killing British cavalry horses. Apparently the British commanders where all out of sorts about it not being gentlemanly conduct.

The next night Australian patrols went out and slaughtered the Boer horses lol

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

ftfy

Please remember these are the same folks who went back to muzzle loaded cannon, after using a breechloader because it was less expensive. Greatly despised the idea of shooting from the prone position or even ducking when under fire as it wasn't manly and during WWI had a general who was of the belief that 2 machine guns/battalion (later 4) was an extravagant waste of resources.

Not to say that they were all bad - the Canadian Corps were the only successful component of the Battle of Arras in 1917 by taking Vimy ridge under the command of General Julian Byng.

Also not to say that colonial officers couldn't be less than competant. Using WWI Canada as an example again, our Minister of Militia (Sir SamHughes) was also a militia Colonel (nowadays we call that "conflict of interest", but then it was par for the course) who insisted on scrapping the mobilization plans made up by the staff in favour of what was nearly a levee en masse and the creation of an entirely new establishment, selected the service rifle because it was designed by a friend of his, gave a patent for an entrenching tool (with a hole in the blade so it could be used to peer from when in the prone) to his secretary! other than seemingly boundless energy, his best contribution to the Canadian military effort was to insist that Canadian troops be kept together in Canadian units rather than broken up to backfill casualties in British units.

He must have done something right, you did end up with Arthur Currie, one of the greatest generals on the Western Front.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by MG1962

In the Boer War the Boers hit on the idea of killing British cavalry horses. Apparently the British commanders where all out of sorts about it not being gentlemanly conduct.

The next night Australian patrols went out and slaughtered the Boer horses lol

The Goose-Gander ratio remained intact?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

The Goose-Gander ratio remained intact?

I am not getting it

[Captain_Swoop]

Japan was still using mass Infantry charges in Burma in 1944. Read up on the 'Battle of the Tennis COurt. It was an action within the bigger Battle of Kohima.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by MG1962

I am not getting it

"What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander."

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

"What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander."

Ah I get it - I have been reviewing old TV westerns all day, brain is a little more soft than usual lol

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Ah I get it - I have been reviewing old TV westerns all day, brain is a little more soft than usual lol

"Keep refrigerated. Four hours before use, place in covered bowl on counter. Work with fork until creamy and ready to spread."

Oh, wait, that's butter. My bad.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Japan was still using mass Infantry charges in Burma in 1944. Read up on the 'Battle of the Tennis COurt. It was an action within the bigger Battle of Kohima.

Iranians were using it v. Iraq as late as the 1980's