 
|
Happy Murcia
 |
Because that`s the way men had faught for hundreds of years,,,it worked at the time,, |
|
rottdog76
|
Open field warfare did not change much from the times of the Romans until after the US Civil war. The concept was to use the formations in mass. The muskets acted like a giant shotgun (poor accuracy and short range) You were not going to hit something 250 yards away with a smooth bore musket so you marched and fired in mass a unit. If you used your artillery and cavalry well you could break the ranks of the enemy infantry, fix bayonets, and run them off or wipe them off the battle field. Once rifle became mass produced one man could be accurate at over 300 yards and could tear these formations to pieces. |
|
Dont get Infected
 |
thats the way they fought they would stand in a line and shoot until the enemy looks weak enough then they would charge and do hand to hand combat. then we started guerrilla warfare which really pissed off our generals |
|
Submariner 1
|
The tactics of the day was based on the weapons of the time.
The muskets of the day were not very accurate. A single shot did little, but a volley had a more devastating effect. This required the line of formations seen. When you add in Artillery and Cavalry this is the best tactic for large armies. Discipline is crucial to maintaining the line. If the line fell, the effect would fall, and would be easier for the opposing force to cause casualties, or to successfully employ a charge.
The Americans fought a Guerrilla style battle. Small numbers hit fast and flee. This does not require the lined up battle lines, since the objective was not to drive the enemy back, but simply to inflict casualties, and help breakdown moral, chip away at the enemy. This tactic would have been ineffective against a large force. |
|
G-Man
 |
Because up to that time that was the accepted norm of fighting. Most other standing armies did the same thing. Muskets weren't the most accurate weapons and when one wave was down and reloading the next would fire and so on. The British had always won because of their soldiers professionalism and training, they had never fought an enemy like the minutemen and US revolutionaries. |
|
Wayne A
|
The stupidity of the era, men were "cannon fodder", even in WW1 they were used to run down machine gun fire, different these days where a soldiers life is valued. Back than they would run entire squadrons in suicide charges, shooting any that turned back themselves....hard days back than! |
|
Davis
|
it wasn't considered, "right" if you didnt line up and walk. when someone hid and fought they were considered cowards |
|
Broomtree
|
I would like to say it was because of bravery but it is closer to stupidity. The bright redcoats came from the days of very limited weapon ranges when it gave a sense of 'presence' on the battlefield. It took the American War of Independence to make us realise it was legalised suicide! |
|
DREW
|
The barrels of their guns werent rifled so they were very inaccurate so you had to get close to the enemy and even still then you may not hit them so they all packed together and walk forward to the enemy to fire a big volley of bullets hoping to kill as many people as they could. It was just the tactic of the time. It wasnt just the british that did it. |
|
imthevoiceofgod
|
Because back then that was the honorable way to fight.
The American Revolution was one of the first major war that Guerrilla tactics were used (We learned them from the Native Americans).
Basically they just didnt know any better. It was thier tradition.
They called the colonists cowards for not fighting in the traditional style.
and William beat me to it. |
|
Glenn T
|
Once again Lillian has stole my thunder. She is correct. Lillian you have to IM me to say HI! |
|
frankturk50
 |
How else could they close with and defeat the enemy? |
|
news hound
 |
The whole idea of in line marching towards the guns was a idiotic way of advancing troops into battle, plus the fact, the red coats they had on provided great target.
It equates to sending our soldiers now, into battle with the wrong equipment.still, vulnerable to the enemy. |
|
Leroy J
|
It was actually a legitimate and effective tactic. Warfare took this form for two reason.
1) Militaries were transitioning from the age of hand weapons to the age of projectile weapons (yes muskets had been around since the 1500's, but not in as great a number). Units marched in formations because the movement of the unit could be controlled easily.
2) Secondly, given the technology (slow muzzle loading muskets), the most effective way to deliver large volumes of fire, was for the ranks to take turns firing and keep constant volleys of fire going toward the enemy. |
|
Lillian
|
Muskets weren't the most accurate gun in the world. There was also reloading time. While the first wave was down the other side was reloading, the 2nd row let them have it and so on and so on.
Sort of like D-Day....they just kept coming in waves....they eventually took the beach. |
|
yacommiehoonazis
 |
The generals didn't understand the weapons they had or the weapons being used against them, and used old tactics that were designed before the guns used in the Revolutionary War were invented. America sometimes used the same tactics as the British, but the Americans also used guerrilla tactics which were better for the guns they had. The strange thing is that to win the war, the Americans had to use the British tactic, but only after guerrilla tactics weakened the British enough for the Americans to beat the British at their own game. |
|
Cautious Norm.
|
Don't believe all you see in the movies. |
|
RayN-is-back
|
The English let "others' march forward for them |
|
artilleryman89
 |
The europeans were all stupid...and they got rewarded by their crappy tatics by getting their *** kicked by a bunch of peasent farmers and yes that movie rocks! |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
