Posted by Two Kettles on January 24, 2002 at 19:59:52:
In Reply to: Re: The Art of War, and Yes, there IS such a thing as a dumb question... posted by Lt. Col. John Armstrong on January 24, 2002 at 18:43:56:
: : This question has occurred to me any time that I've seen a movie with Colonial-era soldiers fighting. I know that this will sound like a dumb question to some of you military history buffs, but I'll put the question out there, and wait for you to enlighten me...!
: : OK---in scenes where soldiers are fighting, like the ambush scene in LOTM, the soldiers load their muskets, wait, and fire when ordered to "FIRE!". Then, they reload, kind of standing out there as a sitting target, at which point, some of them are shot and drop dead. Now, I know that armies have strategies and discipline, but I don't get this---standing there reloading and being shot at. It does, however, really make me appreciate the bravery of those soldiers! In a more modern war movie, you'd see soldiers shooting, then taking cover to reload.
: : So, I guess my dumb question is---what was the strategy there? Was that the traditional way that fighting/shooting was done? And when did it change---when weaponry changed? Or when casualties got too high?
: : I recently went to see the re-enactments of the Battles of Trenton, and I saw the same sort of thing---they fire on command, reload, and get shot at while standing out in the open! Firing the muskets all at one time was formidable, but the reloading gets me.....!
: : BTW--the re-enactments were great! Cannons and muskets firing, and soldiers marching through downtown Trenton--what a sight! You could really get a sense of what a battle was like.
: : Anyway, thanks in advance to any of you military-types who care to comment.
: : Nancy
: **************************************************************
: Not an easy question to answer in a short dissertation, but I will attempt to keep it simple...
: Yes, Nancy, in the 18th Century, that IS the way it was done by disciplined, trained armies. It was the tactic of the day...massed troops, massed volleys at close range--25 yards or less,large amounts of lead in the air at once...linear tactics,it is called. It was the European style of fighting. Only after the defeat of Braddock did the British realize that this style of open plains warfare did not work in the forests. Woodland warfare was the way the Indians, French Partizans, to some extent French regulars, and the Provincial troops, such as mine fought. Rogers' Rangers, in the Lake George/Champlain corridor fought woodland style, too. To get into specifics here might only serve to confuse you, so I will let it where it is.
: This linear tactic was used as late as the American Civil War, with "modern" (for that time) weapons which had such terrific killing power that close range exchanges were horribly devastating. Hence, the tremendous numbers of casualties in battles.
: I hope this may help you understand.
: Lt. Col. John Armstrong
: Commanding Officer
: 2nd Battalion Pennsylvania
*****************************************************************
Actually, it was a very good question. Lt. Col. Armstrong's answer is also very good, but I'd like to add one thing to it. One of the main points of multi-rank volley fire tactics is that, unless you have an overwhelming tactical superiority, you never (bold, italics, any other kind of emphasis you want) fire all your muskets at once! That's why you're divided into ranks, platoons, companies, etc. You always keep at least half your muskets loaded so that you can't be overrun while you're reloading. You can fire by ranks (the most common), by files, by companies, by platoons, etc. One common tactic was to alternate your patterns of fire so that the enemy didn't know where the next volley was coming from. On occasion (Wolfe at Quebec, Morgan at Cowpens) a full volley was given, followed by a bayonet charge, but this was so rare as to be the exception that proves the rule.
Actually, the scene in LOTM is basically a steal from Disney's "Davy Crockett, Indian Fighter", and owes more to Disney and Hollywood than it does to 18th century tactics.