why was it custom to stand in straight lines and shoot the others in straight lines?

Question

we've seen movies (the patriot, ext.) and watch the history channel and we all know that during the revolutionary war and even before time, would stand in straight lines (in the open) and shoot at each other. as i think bout this, i know that one shot is nothing, but this is madness for ppl to just stand there when a .75cal rounded ball is bout to make my head explode. if any one plz tellme y such madness was neccessery?

Answer 1

The notion that it was just "tradtion" is nonsense. It was sound military practice at the time.

Troops were generally armed with the musket, a smooth bore, muzzle loading weapon. This weapon was both inaccurate and short ranged. Further, it was difficult to reload except in a standing position.

The artillery of the day was also relatively short ranged and took even longer to reload and relay (a cannon moves a considerable distance when fired and has to be dragged back to positon and pointed in the right direction).

Both sorts of weapons created huge amounts of thick, eye stinging smoke which obscured the field within a few minutes absent a good breeze blowing.

Infantry tactics therefore called for troops to advance to within range of the enemy, deliever a few volleys as rapidly as possible and then. before they were slaughtered by cannon fire, charge with the bayonet into the (hopefully) disrupted enemy lines.

It is one of the great myths of American history that intrepid colonialists who were both deadly shots and skilled woodsman defeated the British Army. It just wasn't so. The colonists began to win the war only when they began to learn how to fight like regulars.

Answer 2

As idiotic as it may sound, it was 'tradition'. Almost all of the major powers had military schools or academies of some kind, where old generals would teach young generals the exact same tactics they had been using for hundreds of years.

Some people say it was just an outgrowth of infantry lines during the middle ages, they just substituted a sword or spear for a gun. They were a little crazy to stand in lines while men fired bullets right at them, but that was where the British gained their legendary discipline. Redcoats would stand shoulder to shoulder and get mowed down wave after wave without breaking.

This tactic worked for a long time because everyone sort of agreed that they were going to fight this way, as it was considered 'dishonorable' to hide behind cover. American colonists began to change tactics in their battles with the Indians, as they didn't believe in the same rules we did and we were forced to adapt to their tactics. When the Revolution first started, many of our generals tried to engage the Brits on their terms and were slaughtered (if you've seen the Patriot, you know exactly what i'm talking about).

Francis Marion (the Swamp Fox, whom I believe the Patriot was based on) pioneered a new style of warfare, wherein the smaller number of Colonial Soldiers could defeat the larger, better armed, Redcoats. They would ambush columns, firing from behind the cover of trees and rocks while the English stood their ground in an open roadway to be picked off one at a time.

What amazes me is that even though this tactic helped us defeat the British Empire, the most powerful in the world at that point, it was largely ignored until the start of the 20th century. Think of the Civil War, men were still charging enemy lines in straight formations (which is why 600,000 men died). It was only the advent of automatic weapons (the Gatling Gun) that finally drove armies to adapt or die.

Answer 3

Basically it was a carry-over from the tactical dogma of the armies in the Renaissance Period. Keep in mind that up until advent of rifled barrels, the range and accuracy of muskets wasn't very good.

The use of lines was an effective means of maintaining control and discipline of the troops and it ensured a greater volume of firepower no matter how inaccurate it might be. Up until Napoleon, most armies instructed their troops to level their muskets, aim low and fire. They were not instructed to pick out individual targets. The French Army under Napoleon was instructed to aim at the opposing soldiers. After all that was the point of shooting in the first place.

Also remember that with muskets, the enemy line could generally charge and reach you before you could reload after firing. Typically opposing ranks were 75-100 yards apart. So the guys who fired first often lost the tactical advantage, because the opposing line could charge and fire at very close range, while the other guys were frantically reloading or more likely...running away.

The US Civil War introduced the rifled musket and the minie-ball, which increased accuracy and range. Now the opposing lines were much farther apart and it was possible to get off three shots before the enemy line could close the distance.

Amazingly, the concept of lines and massed concentrations of troops persisted until World War 1 with horrible results as machine guns mowed down rows of advancing English at the Somme.

Even, now just turn on the news and you'll see a bunch of our troops bunched together in a line blazing away at some unseen target from an Iraqi Roof.

Some ideas die hard I suppose.

Answer 4

Because those old musket's were wildly inaccurate at over longer range....those big ball's went everywhere except where aimed. The idea of war back then was to just slam it down, fire your round, hope for the best, fix bayonet's and charge in. The bayonet was the real weapon. We did have rifle's that had longer range and much more accuracy. Problem was they would not take a bayonet. So if someone got close with that foot and half pig sticker and knew how to use it. All American riflemen had was a clubbed rifle, tomahawk, and long knife. In spite of the legend's that tended to turn out bad.....

Answer 5

As several others have already mentioned, part of the reason was due to the weapons at the time. Rifles were not very accurate due to the smooth bore and they took a long time to reload. Staying together in lines allowed infantrymen to mass their fire and increase their chances of hitting the enemy.

The other reason, and possibly the most important was as a defense against cavalry. Calvary at that time was still the dominant form of attack, like tanks today. If infantry separated, they would be easily cut down by cavalry charges. Standing in line allowed infantry the ability to face charging cavalry with a mass of bayonets. It couldn't stop a charge, but it could kill so many horses during the initial charge that the cavalry could not charge again. As rifles advanced, a single man could adequately defend himself against cavalry with an increased rate of fire and increased accuracy, beginning the end of the cavalry charge and the end of the need for line formations.

Answer 6

Tactic on battlefields at that time was to stand in squares and shoot at those coming at you. If the enemy wasn't charging you then you didn't shoot, tough for the neighbouring square but battle is tough. It took too long to reload to waste your amno like that.

Why standing? Because the guns of that time where unwieldy, hard to reload, and not many soldiers could shoot and reload lying on the ground.
Why in line? Because to hit what you shot was far from a given and you needed a wide line of fire to make as much damage as possible to the enemy.
You probably heard or read about the order not to shoot until you saw the white of the enemy's eyes. That was the limit of your useful shooting range.
And why not running away? You had sergeants behind you ready to make your day if you ran. Plenty of rope to hang deserters.
Even during the Napoleonic wars most of it still held true. Then guns became easier to fire, to wield, to reload and the soldiers hit the ground. Fast.

Answer 7

So very lyrical. the only lines I stand in by potential of determination are beer lines and the cult/fan club line that at last leads to Marianne not Gingers (pause finding out on phrases intently) door. i've got stood in the ski substitute line that's a marvelous line in case you get there early yet once you previous due not so good. i'm unsure what lines could do with capturing from the hip yet i anticipate it is a few secret code from the yahoo solutions secret pun society. i do in contrast to lines and that i by no potential do something just to tutor i will shoot directly from the hip. i will give up now so i don't regress into greater baser varieties of humor.

Answer 8

Even as of the Civil War, fighting in fairly exposed ranks was just the accepted tactic of the day. Hence, the appalling casualties. Ofcourse, without modern day communications, there were only so many ways to keep control of such large numbers of fighters. Visual contact was still one of the main ways to do that.

Answer 9

The guns of the day were smooth-bore muzzleloaders. They were not using rifled barrels. The guns weren't accurate unless you were very close, hence that phrase " don't shoot til you see the whites of their eyes. " They usually had at least three lines, one line would fire and then fall back and reload, the next line would step up and fire and so on. It was the best way to kept up a steady fire in those days. They usually used a 50 to 55 cal. bullet. Inaccurate or not I sure wouldn't want to face that.

Answer 10

At the time, for most of Europe, they fought with the idea that they were gentlemen, war was glorified and that there were rules and those were the rules. Also they had no one to tell them the true horrors of war, they believed and they followed. Makes you think now, doesn't it? Just think if someone had stepped out of the box and fought what we now call gorilla warfare. They would've won! Oh, and they would also be called cowards.