Old school fighting

[jkelly1229]

Lots of places. Resorting to clubbing your musket was a tactic through the civil war. Here's another couple from Gettysburg (a place where if you haven't been you NEED to visit):

Must See Gettysburg Monuments: A Local's Guide To The Top 10

Got married there lol

 

[whatluck]

Imagine 300 guys behind a line of muskets firing 10-15 arrows per minute, while the people in front shoot their muskets, at people without shields struggling to reload 3 shots per minute.

I see you've also played a lot of Civilization 4/5.

 

[TrackDayRdr]

Got married there lol

It's a hell of a place and you can feel the weight of what happened there. Similar to other battlefields but somehow more so, maybe because it's been preserved so well unlike the historical sites around here with condo balconies overhanging the history.

 

[jkelly1229]

It's a hell of a place and you can feel the weight of what happened there. Similar to other battlefields but somehow more so, maybe because it's been preserved so well unlike the historical sites around here with condo balconies overhanging the history.

It really is I've been about 5 times. Love it there

 

[Drix]

For context, the M1814 is a hex receiver (extra strength), and the business end looks like below:

This is not a British land pattern musket, you can deflect blows all day with that.

 

[Rockrivr1]

I would not want to be on the receiving end of this in war.

 

[Broc]

It's a hell of a place and you can feel the weight of what happened there. Similar to other battlefields but somehow more so, maybe because it's been preserved so well unlike the historical sites around here with condo balconies overhanging the history.

I went to school in Waterloo.
It is always pretty cool to be in those places.

 

[TrackDayRdr]

Archers in the American revolution, or Napoleonic wars, even during the Civil War could have made a huge difference. Imagine 300 guys behind a line of muskets firing 10-15 arrows per minute, while the people in front shoot their muskets, at people without shields struggling to reload 3 shots per minute.

But training archers takes time. I think it would have been a worthy investment, but fat dudes with mustaches didn't think so.

To skip over the issue of manufacturing and supplying arrows and bows; regiments of archers were obsoleted by artillery and infantry tactics. A mass of archers within 100 yards of a battle line are easily swept away by cannister. Plus, archers would be either too slow to maneuver or in the way of mobile infantry movements that became popular by Napoleon and the norm by the US Civil War.

 

[Broc]

To skip over the issue of manufacturing and supplying arrows and bows; regiments of archers were obsoleted by artillery and infantry tactics. A mass of archers within 100 yards of a battle line are easily swept away by cannister. Plus, archers would be either too slow to maneuver or in the way of mobile infantry movements that became popular by Napoleon and the norm by the US Civil War.

I disagree. They are no more exposed than infantry. Have a line of infantry in front and archers behind. Would have decimated an opposing line of infantrymen.

An archer can move just as fast, if not faster, than infantry. A bow and arrows weight less, or the same, as a musket + powder + musket balls + bayonet. The additional training required for bows means they would have most likely been more professional, and probably more disciplined, than the average kid. But this, of course, is an assumption.

As far as supply and training, I mentioned that.

 

[TrackDayRdr]

I disagree. They are no more exposed than infantry. Have a line of infantry in front and archers behind. Would have decimated an opposing line of infantrymen.

An archer can move just as fast, if not faster, than infantry. A bow and arrows weight less, or the same, as a musket + powder + musket balls + bayonet. The additional training required for bows means they would have most likely been more professional, and probably more disciplined, than the average kid. But this, of course, is an assumption.

As far as supply and training, I mentioned that.

Exposed because they can't be behind the musket carrying infantry and be effective - a musket can range past 100 yards but archery not so much. With that in mind, where are you going to put them? In front of the infantry line?

An archer can carry how many arrows? During the American civil war there was little to no training provided to armed troops on either side other than artillery. If the line didn't get to shoot their muskets when were they going to dedicate time to put bows and arrows in place?

 

[Broc]

Exposed because they can't be behind the musket carrying infantry and be effective - a musket can range past 100 yards but archery not so much. With that in mind, where are you going to put them? In front of the infantry line?

An archer can carry how many arrows? During the American civil war there was little to no training provided to armed troops on either side other than artillery. If the line didn't get to shoot their muskets when were they going to dedicate time to put bows and arrows in place?

A longbow can shoot well past 100 yards. Some stuff I read says 400 yards, but I will assume the draw weight for that is stupid, so let's call it 200 yards.

 

[TrackDayRdr]

A longbow can shoot well past 100 yards. Some stuff I read says 400 yards, but I will assume the draw weight for that is stupid, so let's call it 200 yards.

Still well within the range of civil war musketry and even more inside the danger range of double cannister artillery that can mow down lines of infantry. Once the 1960s infantry fired a round they could rush the artillery batteries with bayonetted muskets. Archers have nothing to use that won't in turn slow them down and remove their fleet footedness in a mobile battle. Carry a sword? Just gets in the way of archers doing archery things.

In a nutshell, tactics and firepower had outranged archery by the time Washington was fighting, let alone Grant and Lee.

 

[Broc]

Still well within the range of civil war musketry and even more inside the danger range of double cannister artillery that can mow down lines of infantry. Once the 1960s infantry fired a round they could rush the artillery batteries with bayonetted muskets. Archers have nothing to use that won't in turn slow them down and remove their fleet footedness in a mobile battle. Carry a sword? Just gets in the way of archers doing archery things.

In a nutshell, tactics and firepower had outranged archery by the time Washington was fighting, let alone Grant and Lee.

Good luck hitting anything with a smoothbore at those ranges. In battle they would sometimes shoot them at 300 yards, but it is hard enough to hit something with a smooth bore at the range at 300 yards, in battle, LOL. Let's also keep in mind back then they sometimes (or always?) used smaller musket balls than what smoothbore shooters use today, to make loading easier. They were probably as accurate as some ghetto gangster holding a Glock sideways.

The archers would have worked and their range would have been superior to the muskets. With no covers and roughly 12 arrows per minute, infantry would have been f*cked.

Your artillery point is invalid, everyone on the field was affected equally.

 

[1sern]

Just seems odd... i know they did it

For some reason though today it just stuck as a good way break your gun

Sure and it happened. I remember reading after a civil war hand to hand fight that a unit involved requested new muskets because so many were damaged. You fight with what you have and being able to shoot tomorrow isn't going to help if you're gutted or have your head smashed in today

 

[MisterHappy]

So, I just googled

file:///C:/Users/15089/Downloads/FM-21-150-Combatives-1992.pdf

and, apparently, it's still taught to use your rifle (now made of aluminum, and plastic) to block and parry an attack.

Use what you got?

 

[Picton]

Good luck hitting anything with a smoothbore at those ranges. In battle they would sometimes shoot them at 300 yards, but it is hard enough to hit something with a smooth bore at the range at 300 yards, in battle, LOL. Let's also keep in mind back then they sometimes (or always?) used smaller musket balls than what smoothbore shooters use today, to make loading easier. They were probably as accurate as some ghetto gangster holding a Glock sideways.

The archers would have worked and their range would have been superior to the muskets. With no covers and roughly 12 arrows per minute, infantry would have been f*cked.

Your artillery point is invalid, everyone on the field was affected equally.

I think it's far, far more difficult (and time-consuming) to train a man to shoot a longbow accurately than it is to train a man to shoot a long gun quickly.

It's not even that "I think" that; it's that late-medieval military thinkers thought that. Take their word for it: they had access to archers and muskets, and they chose muskets. If that was a bad call, it was a bad call echoed by nearly every society that had that same choice. Only Japan rejected guns once they had them. Everyone else put aside their bows and never looked back.

Why? Many reasons, but one was that the calculus "large numbers of inaccurate bullets at close range is better than small numbers of accurate arrows at long range," especially during an era when armor was improving and artillery was coming into play. Even during the high middle ages, ONLY England found it worthwhile to train archers to a battlefield-changing level. Why? Because it took years to produce an experienced and accurate archer, and England had the peace and stability to develop those guys.

Archers might not have been any worse on the battlefield than Civil War riflemen, but once those archers started taking serious losses, replacing them would have been impossible. In contrast, you can crank out an adequate new rifleman in a month.

 

[jkelly1229]

Good luck hitting anything with a smoothbore at those ranges. In battle they would sometimes shoot them at 300 yards, but it is hard enough to hit something with a smooth bore at the range at 300 yards, in battle, LOL. Let's also keep in mind back then they sometimes (or always?) used smaller musket balls than what smoothbore shooters use today, to make loading easier. They were probably as accurate as some ghetto gangster holding a Glock sideways.

The archers would have worked and their range would have been superior to the muskets. With no covers and roughly 12 arrows per minute, infantry would have been f*cked.

Your artillery point is invalid, everyone on the field was affected equally.

I disagree with your first point

Jackson decimated the british at new orleans too with sharp shooters with smooth bores

Granted he did tell his shooters to wait until about 150... 300 would be a bit of a stretch

 

[drgrant]

Not if your main weapon was designed and built to bash into someone and be functional afterward. The design of a Brown Bess is very simple: few moving parts, easy to use, and when it did break, there were only so many things likely to need replacement. Soldiers were trained to troubleshoot, and they carried their own spare flints and mainsprings. Your sergeant would have the vise you needed to install the replacement.

I think you think military muskets were more fragile than they really were. Those things were WAY overbuilt and sturdy as hell. Even nowadays, military shoulder arms are designed to be used hand-to-hand, if necessary. They're built heavier than they need to be because of that.

Funny you mention this, I always thought of most muskets as just being like a technologically shitty version of an SKS or something. Still equally as rugged, just more inconvenient to operate.

 

[Mountain]

It's a hell of a place and you can feel the weight of what happened there. Similar to other battlefields but somehow more so, maybe because it's been preserved so well unlike the historical sites around here with condo balconies overhanging the history.

Shiloh is like that- very well preserved and there are a few spots where there's a very distinct and large depression in the ground for the mass graves. Used to be a great compass course at Shiloh and I'd teach orienteering to our Boy Scout troop.

Interesting fact about Shiloh- Union General Lew Wallace who led troops there is also the author of Ben Hur.

 

[Picton]

Interesting fact about Shiloh- Union General Lew Wallace who led troops there is also the author of Ben Hur.

Also the guy who tried to fix the Billy The Kid fiasco, but that didn't work out so well.

I've never visited the Shiloh battlefield, but I've been to several over the years and they're all special. The worst one is Bunker Hill (because it's so built-over), but even there you can glance around and appreciate just how tiny the scale of the battle really was. Hastings is like that, in England: such a pivotal battle, and it was fought over ground you could walk across in less than ten minutes.

 

[Mountain]

Also the guy who tried to fix the Billy The Kid fiasco, but that didn't work out so well.

I've never visited the Shiloh battlefield, but I've been to several over the years and they're all special. The worst one is Bunker Hill (because it's so built-over), but even there you can glance around and appreciate just how tiny the scale of the battle really was. Hastings is like that, in England: such a pivotal battle, and it was fought over ground you could walk across in less than ten minutes.

Wow, I would have thought Hastings to be larger scale.

Wallace earned his command for his performance at the Battle of Fort Donelson- a huge victory for the Union. He lost his command after Shiloh due to his tardiness to reinforce Grant, though there is some compelling evidence that Wallace had good reason for the delay.

 

[Picton]

Wow, I would have thought Hastings to be larger scale.

Nope. Harold was on a hilltop; it's still there, and there's not much room. It's believed his line extended about 200m or less. William's attack formed up down the hill about 300m away. Nobody moved much further apart than that all afternoon.

Some 14k men were crammed onto that little hillside. It was a busy day. Bunker hill is much smaller than that. It's amazing to me that such inconsequential pinpricks of land become so massively important if the wrong people meet each other on the wrong day.

 

[jkelly1229]

Also the guy who tried to fix the Billy The Kid fiasco, but that didn't work out so well.

I've never visited the Shiloh battlefield, but I've been to several over the years and they're all special. The worst one is Bunker Hill (because it's so built-over), but even there you can glance around and appreciate just how tiny the scale of the battle really was. Hastings is like that, in England: such a pivotal battle, and it was fought over ground you could walk across in less than ten minutes.

The whole western campaign is something I would like to get more into as a whole after reading grants biography

Wilderness is on that list to see as well