How was napolionic/revolutionary line warfare ever efficient??

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think the colors were for easy management of the troops(they didn't have radio or anything for quick communication of position etc) and the line tactic I imagine was due to centuries of use of that tactic and guns being relatively new. Takes time I suppose to develop new strategies.

good call, if everyone wore camp coordination would be hard.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Star for mentioning Rourke's Drift!!

originally posted by: Indigent
Muskets were inaccurate, you really need to be close to the target to hit it, there were usually 3 lines so while one fired the other reload, low rate of fire of muskets were an issue too.

Basically you needed to get in the face of the other side, when you got men beside you it's less likely you chicken out staring a musket to your face, firing all at once give them more chance to do damage to the center of the other line, the first line was a good meat shield for the other lines. Being packed like that worked.

Then rifled guns with higher accuracy and fire rate were introduced, and you didn't need to be right next to your target to hit it, so line infantry became obsolete.

Not so inaccurate they are not used for hunting. If you can shoot a deer, a person is an easy target.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Buy one and try yourself.

The barrel of a musket was usually smooth bore. Rifled barrels were more accurate, but the black powder used at the time quickly fouled the barrel, making reloading slower and more difficult. This was not a problem for hunters, who often used weapons with rifled barrels, but musketeers could not afford to stop firing and clean their barrels in the middle of a battle.

en.wikipedia.org...