Doesn't Pass the Common Sense Test:

[Restf]

After 20+ years in the "Profession At Arms" I still cannot wrap my mind around the act of standing in an open field on line facing another line throwing volleys at each other. Why didn't they change battle from lessons learned during the King Phillips/French & Indian and Revolution, course the exception is snipers and cannon/mortar use. Any known reasons?

 

[Irishtom29]

In muzzle loading black powder warfare the need to concentrate firepower meant you needed to concentrate your soldiers. Note too that muzzle loaders are most efficiently loaded when standing. That's it in a nutshell.

The British in our revolution fought in a very open order with at least a yard between files and only two ranks and also used swarms of light infantry. But this was because the British (against us) favored speed, aggression and the intimidation of the bayonet over firepower. Against other enemies they often favored tighter formations with more firepower and greater shock.

Infantry began to fight in more open orders with the development of breech loading rifles and then magazine rifles, then more so when magazine rifles went to smokeless powder. Even so the Germans, no fools, attacked in close formations in the Franco-Prussian War and early in the Great War. Early in the Great War the British, having the benefits of a highly trained (but small) professional army and the lessons learned fighting the Mauser armed Boers in South Africa fought in open order and made excellent use of ground.

 

[major bill]

Didn't American soldiers of the American Revolution fight in three lines?

 

[AUG]

Its easy to ask that question from a modern perspective, but back then that was all they had and knew. Their idea of fighting warfare was not like today's. Battles were fought and won in a day or two with masses of men moving around the field like chess pieces, not like 20th and 21st century warfare with everything mobile and spread out. And no one was able or willing to entirely reinvent the tactical doctrine. There was use of skirmishers and sharpshooter units, but to fight the war entirely in open order would need a major rethinking of tactics before the war even began. That just wasn't feasible with the conventional idea of how war was fought and the technology of the time.

 

[Malingerer]

Didn't American soldiers of the American Revolution fight in three lines?

An earlier generation (seven years war and earlier) - by the time of the Am. Rev. it had shrunk down to two ranks. Interestingly (to me), British troops were trained to March and fight at open order (an arms length apart) and extended open order (something like ten feet apart). Obviously, troops must be well trained to pull off maneuvers at open order and it's believed by most historians of the period, that American troops never attempted this.

 

[Restf]

See that's the burn, Mr. Benjamin Church (later Col Church when he accepted a Position) commanded a militia after the Br. foot soldiers were getting their butts handed to them. The regular foot soldiers fought natives using the same tactics like the checker board pattern and such. Each encounter native warriors took the field, Mr. Church adapted his men to fighting the same was as the natives - the tables changed. French and Indian war same thing, Major Robert Rogers of the Queen's Rangers fought the same way the natives did. Revolutionary war same thing with military leaders such as Marion, Pickins, Sumpter, ect... who didn't fight a "Gentleman's War".

 

[Nathanb1]

See that's the burn, Mr. Benjamin Church (later Col Church when he accepted a Position) commanded a militia after the Br. foot soldiers were getting their butts handed to them. The regular foot soldiers fought natives using the same tactics like the checker board pattern and such. Each encounter native warriors took the field, Mr. Church adapted his men to fighting the same was as the natives - the tables changed. French and Indian war same thing, Major Robert Rogers of the Queen's Rangers fought the same way the natives did. Revolutionary war same thing with military leaders such as Marion, Pickins, Sumpter, ect... who didn't fight a "Gentleman's War".

Thank goodness! I might not be here! Good 'ol Swamp Fox...

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

1. Concentration of mass to have a psychological effect, both intimidating the foe and comforting friend. Charges usually succeeded or failed before anyone was in bayonet range.

Likewise, mass volley fire was needed to compensate for the inaccuracy of most if the weapons.

2. Most of both armies were made mostly of poorly trained volunteers, not professionals or conscripts. Small irregular units and highly trained professionals like the British could accomplish things 99% of Union and Confederate regular troops could not.

This also ties in to #1 i.e. veterans are disciplined and calm where volunteers would panic.

3. Close order operations are necessary for effective communication between large numbers of troops on a large, smoky battlefield full of terrain.

4. It seems more suicidal in retrospect than it actually was because we've all grown up with machine guns, tanks, assault rifles, radios, aircraft, etc as the norm.

5. The worst thing about an ACW rifle was not the accuracy or range, but the projectile. The low muzzle velocity of minie bullets made non-fatal wounds gruesome in a way a modern high velocity FMJ bullets aren't.

6. Muzzleloaders are difficult to reload unless standing and the manual at arms was only taught that way.

It should also be noted that most major battles of the American Revolution and War of 1812 were more or less classic stand up battles.

 

[AUG]

An earlier generation (seven years war and earlier) - by the time of the Am. Rev. it had shrunk down to two ranks. Interestingly (to me), British troops were trained to March and fight at open order (an arms length apart) and extended open order (something like ten feet apart). Obviously, troops must be well trained to pull off maneuvers at open order and it's believed by most historians of the period, that American troops never attempted this.

There were a few regiments in the ACW that were trained in "Zouave drill", based on the French Zouaves which were essentially light infantry who fought in extended open order, were trained to move fast and rush in with the bayonet. As said, that would require very well trained and disciplined troops. Though there were some well drilled units in the ACW, most of the volunteers didn't compare to the standing European armies.

Experienced troops in the ACW quickly learned not to always stand in perfect ranks when under fire and to spread out a bit, sometimes take cover and load kneeling or laying down. They marched into battle in formation, but once the fighting began their ranks turned into more of a thick skirmish line.

 

[Restf]

The command "Fix Bayonet" was a **** good indication things are going to be rough (hand to hand/close qtr. battle) even in modern battle. The Bayonet on a rifle is much like a spike or spear and rightfully scary as hell especially when you have only one round (buck and ball hopefully) would make one wish they were a sniper in the trees. LOL even in the AF we trained with bayonet.....ya, ya I konw you cant put one on a jet.

 

[NedBaldwin]

After 20+ years in the "Profession At Arms" I still cannot wrap my mind around the act of standing in an open field on line facing another line throwing volleys at each other. Why didn't they change battle from lessons learned during the King Phillips/French & Indian and Revolution, course the exception is snipers and cannon/mortar use. Any known reasons?

How many battles were fought in open fields?
Seems like lots of them involved fences, walls, trees, roads, etc that provided some cover.

 

[Restf]

The command "Fix Bayonet" was a **** good indication things are going to be rough (hand to hand/close qtr. battle) even in modern battle. The Bayonet on a rifle is much like a spike or spear and rightfully scary as hell especially when you have only one round (buck and ball hopefully) would make one wish they were a sniper in the trees. LOL even in the AF we trained with bayonet.....ya, ya I konw you cant put one on a jet.

Hmmmmm, not sure what word was *****'ed out

 

[Restf]

How many battles were fought in open fields?
Seems like lots of them involved fences, walls, trees, roads, etc that provided some cover.

They definitely fought from there features and would advance from the cover, probably not every time but they did advance on line and mowed down (both sides)

 

[Irishtom29]

...Mr. Church adapted his men to fighting the same was as the natives - the tables changed. French and Indian war same thing, Major Robert Rogers of the Queen's Rangers fought the same way the natives did. Revolutionary war same thing with military leaders such as Marion, Pickins, Sumpter, ect... who didn't fight a "Gentleman's War".

Methods suited for small and irregular warfare didn't meet the needs of large warfare. Note that the French and Indian War was settled (well somewhat settled) on the Plains of Abraham by a straight up fight between British and French Regulars and the war featured many sieges and conventional fights. Adaptations were made of course, such as the British use of light infantry and both sides using irregular methods for scouting and such. Irregular warfare and tactics were well known to some Europeans, such as to the Hapsburgs and Poles who fought Turks and Tartars in the Balkans and on the Steppes.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Others have already answered, but it comes down to concentration of fires and command and control. Muskets are relatively inaccurate, slow to load and the men are really not very highly trained. So you bunch them together so that when the unit fires, it delivers a wall of lead in its front, rather than scattered individual shots. Think of every UNIT as a machine gun, not every individual soldier. Also, you can't really command men beyond the range of your own voice. Yes, you have musicians, but their commands are easily confused with orders to other commands. So you keep everybody within shouting range because that's really the best communication tool you have. People are also braver in groups, so you keep troops shoulder to shoulder to overcome the shock of what they're about to endure.
The numbers involved in the colonial indian wars were dwarfed by the numbers of men fielded in the Civil War, or even the Revolution for that matter. Think of the chaos when you have 30,000 sports fans heading for the exits after the last buzzer. Now add smoke, gruesome wounds and death and you have some of an idea of the battlefield during the linear period.

 

[kevikens]

An earlier generation (seven years war and earlier) - by the time of the Am. Rev. it had shrunk down to two ranks. Interestingly (to me), British troops were trained to March and fight at open order (an arms length apart) and extended open order (something like ten feet apart). Obviously, troops must be well trained to pull off maneuvers at open order and it's believed by most historians of the period, that American troops never attempted this.

The British had developed a very effective device for throwing lead at an opponent on the battlefields of Europe in the mid 18th century, firing by platoons, sometimes three ranks deep, which kept an enemy force under a constant barrage. The troops had been rigorously trained to load and fire as quickly as possible with individual marksmanship unknown. This so impressed other armies, and later writers, that few seemed to notice that during the French and Indian war the British did quite a bit of reevaluating that tactic. Platoon firing clearly did not work at Braddock's defeat in 1755, though it did work quite well for Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham. But with much fighting taking place in heavily forested regions, the British did some soul searching and under the leadership of the Howe brothers developed light infantry who were trained to fight in open order, as skirmishers, and who were trained to individual marksmanship, such as was possible with the Brown Bess. During the revolution the British made good use of these light companies, often detaching these companies from their regiments and then massing them in battalion strength for special operations. At Lexington and Concord there were several detached companies of light infantry and they gave a very good account of themselves on the retreat back to Boston. Despite much nonsense being written about the British soldier from that period he was better trained, armed and supplied than his Continental counterpart and generally could be expected to defeat anything like equal numbers on any battlefield against anybody's army.

This changed with the year 1778 with better equipment coming out of the French Alliance but also because of the Training of baron Von Steuben, who not only taught the Continentals in how to use their bayonets for something other than roasting potatoes, but also taught them how to march in column (before then the Continental Army often marched in a single line miles long and almost impossible to form into a battle line in a short order). We today sometimes think all that training in how to march and maneuver a senseless preoccupation but the ability to get marching columns into line of battle quickly was essential to massing fire power. At Monmouth Court House in June of 1778 Washington intercepted the British army which had just evacuated Philadelphia and was on its way back to NYC. The number of troops was about even and with Von Steuben's training behind them the Continentals stood their ground and in a fight that seesawed back and forth for hours under a broiling sun (heatstroke killed many of the troops who died there) the battle ended in a tactical draw with casualties almost exactly evenly split. From that point on till the end of the war the Continental soldier was a match for any British soldier and that was saying great deal.

 

[Jamieva]

They did use cover in positions where it was available. However, I always have to remind myself that battlefields today when I visit them typically look much different than they did in the 1860s. The biggest change? most of them are far more wooded than in that era. Go look at the old pictures of these battlefields taken at the time, then go to that site today and look.

There's a lot more trees in general.

So if you're in an open area, getting closer together makes a lot more sense as it greatly increases your chances of actually hitting some of the enemy.

Also this concentration of a unit allows leadership to better keep track of where their men are, and to issue commands in the commotion and noise of battle.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Thank goodness! I might not be here! Good 'ol Swamp Fox...

I have two direct ancestors, two GX4Grandpas who fought under Marion in his Militia. The DAR named one of their chapters in Kansas City after one of them.

 

[PatW]

Even the rifled musket was a new thing. It had a low muzzle velocity. At 300 yards the bullet would drop about 16 feet. At that range soldiers had to accurately estimate range and set their sights. I do not think that many soldiers were taught this. I believe that Pat Cleburne taught his soldiers this but I don't know of anyone else who did.

Another problem was the amount of smoke that black powder generates. After a few shots, troops essentially laid down smoke screens that greatly reduced visibility. I read an account of a soldier at Shiloh being asked why he was not firing. He answered that he could not see anything. Soldiers often fired into a thick cloud of smoke.

Another thing is most soldiers will not intentionally aim at an enemy. The notion in the British army up into the Napoleonic wars was that aiming was murder. If everyone just pretty much fires in the general direction, it is seen as fair. Death is a matter of statistics.

Studies made of front line American soldiers in WWII discovered that most soldiers would not intentionally aim at enemy individuals. Soldiers have to be conditioned to do so. Our soldiers now do this. The problem is that most soldiers believe that killing is wrong. They come back after combat with severe psychological problems like PTSD. Apparently, teaching people to kill is easy. Teaching them how to survive doing so is not. Our military can teach them to kill. But our military has not figured out how to teach their killers how to bear the guilt and trauma of killing.

 

[kevikens]

Even the rifled musket was a new thing. It had a low muzzle velocity. At 300 yards the bullet would drop about 16 feet. At that range soldiers had to accurately estimate range and set their sights. I do not think that many soldiers were taught this. I believe that Pat Cleburne taught his soldiers this but I don't know of anyone else who did.

Another problem was the amount of smoke that black powder generates. After a few shots, troops essentially laid down smoke screens that greatly reduced visibility. I read an account of a soldier at Shiloh being asked why he was not firing. He answered that he could not see anything. Soldiers often fired into a thick cloud of smoke.

Another thing is most soldiers will not intentionally aim at an enemy. The notion in the British army up into the Napoleonic wars was that aiming was murder. If everyone just pretty much fires in the general direction, it is seen as fair. Death is a matter of statistics.

Studies made of front line American soldiers in WWII discovered that most soldiers would not intentionally aim at enemy individuals. Soldiers have to be conditioned to do so. Our soldiers now do this. The problem is that most soldiers believe that killing is wrong. They come back after combat with severe psychological problems like PTSD. Apparently, teaching people to kill is easy. Teaching them how to survive doing so is not. Our military can teach them to kill. But our military has not figured out how to teach their killers how to bear the guilt and trauma of killing.

Well put, Private Pat