LET’S ALL LINE UP TO DIE WHEEEEEEEE

volleyfire was the only way to get kills. meaning you have to mass up

Civilized warfare disappeared the minute the stakes got too high. Nobody cares about the tenets of war enough to actually lose one.

Once flesh melting machineguns and artillery shells the size of a person became common place it was suicide.

Pike and shot tactics used to be squares of rifle infantry with pikemen to handle engagements. Over time people realized that ranged warfare did more damage than the pikes, and you can just put a bayonet on the rifle. So by having as many guns available to shoot at once, you're able to inflict more damage before the other guys can even shoot you. Eventually this evolved into nothing but who can produce the most firepower at once, which eventually turned to Prussian tactics of focusing infantry on a single portion of the enemy line to break through, and then Napoleonic artillery focus firing. Basically the more bullets you can hurl the better, and the more men able to shoot at once the better.

What the others already said about accuracy, and also melee combat was very much still a thing, so you need a dense mass of dudes ready to charge or resist a cavalry charge.

So they can use the people in front of them as cover when they die. Easier than digging a trench

War used to just be a thing bachelors would go do to get a few scars and have stories to tell and most people only died when retreating.

During the opening throes of ww1 the french where still wearing leather caps and standing in formation only for a shell to kill 40+ soldiers outright.

>itt: room temp IQ corpses cant comprehend intimidation warfare tactics

But the Europeans employed those exact same tactics against non-Europeans and they were extremely effective. Kind of implies that given the technology of the day, this was the best way to do it. When the technology changed so did the tactics.

I read an interesting thing somewhere that said rifling and increased accuracy in the ACW didn't actually lead to higher casualty rates. It still took just about as many shots to wound someone as before because everyone was using skirmisher lines and they filled the entire battlefield with smoke which made long-range accuracy a moot point
Only with the invention of smokeless gunpowder did casualty rates start increasing

If you survived the battle in the front line of such a firing squad you were instantly promoted, that's why people did it.

must be american

Attached: thats my purse.jpg (552x475, 28K)

>winning is an American trait
well thats an awfully nice compliment

The tactics hadn’t evolved with the same pace as the weapons. The general strategy of

>Meet in a big area
>Everyone line up
>Walk into each other and fight

was how war had been for as long as anyone could remember. It took people a long time to figure out that you needed fundamentally different tactics to fight a firearms based war. I mean shit even ~85 years later during the civil war they hadn’t figured that shit out. A huge reason why the civil war was so bloody was the weapons has gotten even better, but the tactics were still the same.

Large army vs large army infantry grad strategy didn’t really evolve for modern weapons until WWI. And even then, it was the same strategy just with trenches.

>>It ain't me, it ain't meeeeee, I ain't no Senator's son.

see
The reason the Civil War was so bloody was absolutely shitty hygiene in an era when industry was advanced enough to to rapidly mobilize large amounts of the population
The overwhelming number of casualties were from disease

guns were inaccurate as fuck, you had to get close to ever hope hitting somebody. Also it was considered the gentlemanly thing to do

So would you rather gamble getting hit by a random musket ball, or get point blanked by the CO for cowardice?
Also like other anons have stated, this was the best way to fight with the technology of the time to inflict the most casualties on your enemy.

>ITT: a bunch of fags who never watched Sharpe

>sabotaged by leftwing marxists at home equates to losing
shouldve been a fullscale investigation into commie sympths and then summary executions

and what the fuck would you suggest with all their "advanced weapons"??? I'd say they did their best

Holy fuck is there a stab in the back myth for the Vietnam war? Is /pol/ really that disconnected from reality?

You seriously think its a myth? Why do you think there was so much leftwing anti-nationalism from the colleges? Yuri Bezmenov even said how deep the corruption ran (former KGB) and how we allowed it because we never thought about investigating our own. Sorry it's hard for you to believe the truth but not everything is a myth. You're so one track minded it's really sad, you probably got cheated on a lot by ex-gfs, right? Can't see a bigger picture because you're stupid.

This.
100 spread-out skirmishers might be better at avoiding getting hit than 100 line infantry, but line infantry standing together firing in volley is less likely to break than isolated skirmishers firing at will.

>you probably got cheated on a lot by ex-gfs, right?
>2016 /pol/ster is a normalfag
Why am I not surprised

It still flowed from the shitty tactics.
>Stand in a line getting shot at
>Get hit in the arm
>Giant musket ball pulverizes the bone, only recourse is to amputate the entire arm
>Now you have a giant gaping wound in a world without antibiotics

It's war, your objective is to make the enemy army fuck off. There'd still be casualties even if you used perfect skirmishing tactics. Besides, the soldiers weren't stupid, they used cover on their own whenever they could
>Giant musket ball pulverizes the bone
No, most losses weren't wounded in any way, they shat themselves to death

>Why do you think there was so much leftwing anti-nationalism from the colleges?
Probably because they didn’t like their country napalming a bunch of children and drafting 50,000 people to die in a war they didn’t want to fight.

The US lost in Vietnam because surprisingly our strategy of “bomb the shit out of them until they love us and accept our way of life” didn’t work out. But keep coping.

I've had to explain it too many times, fuck you use google and figure it out your damn self retardo.

yes, only if you people had been there during, for example, the Napoleonic wars. You would've defeated that foolish Corsican with your innovative tactics.
You really think no-one thought "this is fucking dumb and I would like to win this war, so let's try something else"? For a few hundred years? You're not smarter than Napoleon or Wellington. An innovator was someone like Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, and he still used line tactics.
>a few scars

>Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden,
My ancestor :)

my oppressor :(

Attached: a.png (1136x1012, 911K)

If they spread out they'd be easily picked off by cavalry. Line formation was to prevent decimating cavalry charges.

Volley fire compensating for lack of accuracy is also a factor that has already been pointed out in the thread. A line essentially acted as a massive shotgun.
However the weakness dispersed musketmen had to cavalrymen shouldn't be understated.

Attached: 1552164395016.gif (624x656, 955K)

Attached: 1547987921389.png (1074x937, 448K)

Outta work on that reading comprehension there, sport.

To be fair to them, lots of historical military genius looks obvious to a modern mind. Hannibal won Cannae basically by having the sun in his back, winning the cavalry engagement, and encircling the enemy. That's a strategy that would be immediately obvious to anyone today. So it's kind of easy to fall int othe armchair general role and think you could do absolutely everything better

We are the same my brother

Attached: same people my brother.png (1298x692, 498K)

Please get a brief understanding of battle lines and rifle volleys pre-automatic weapons before you make a brainlet tier thread.

tell me which post to read again. I didn't actually read those posts thoroughly, I just meant to reply to the first one and kept adding.
Also this is now a Finland and Sweden thread.

Attached: 1536845577373.png (1196x636, 247K)

fuck line battles, why did they do THIS en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwedentrunk

Attached: 1547988096165.png (1992x1066, 924K)

it was a different time

Attached: 1536846274278.png (1660x964, 508K)

Attached: svensk pepe 6.png (883x719, 407K)

my ancestor :) greatest light cavalry the world has ever seen, the nightmare of the Germans
HAKKAA PÄÄLLE

Attached: 1549390244850.png (1995x1080, 391K)

>Carpet bomb, poison and commit atrocities against stone age, rice farming peasants,
>Enact conscription, ridicule, imprison and blacklist "draft dodgers". Suffer 60,000 US casualties.
>why do you think there was so much leftwing anti-nationalism from the colleges?
Can't think of why people would be upset at that shitheap of a war.

damn it

Attached: svensk pepe 4.png (1054x620, 177K)

Attached: 1549390260896.jpg (1452x900, 310K)

Attached: svensk pepe 3.png (1920x1108, 614K)

Smoothbore muskets have an effective range shorter than most modern handguns. 9 out of 10 guys who fires a volley fails to score a hit.

t. Civil War reenactor/War of Rights dev

Attached: confederate ground attack.jpg (1920x1080, 311K)

Not a cunt one of you mentioned anything about communications and maneuvering on the battlefield. At least a few of you made mention of cavalry, though not near enough.

As for the accuracy of muskets, even an unrifled musket is decently accurate ~100m and under, though the point is bringing all that firepower to bare at once. Though of course, you have to factor in the human element in the middle of a battle, as well as environmental factors such as can't see fuck all with this smoke cloud.

time for revenge...

Attached: 1560831631874.jpg (1920x1080, 677K)

I love how commies always pretend it just poor simpletons getting bullied by the big bad westerners.

this is what life was like whenever the bättre folk weren't around

Attached: 1560637789333.jpg (1280x895, 173K)

Attached: svensk pepe 7.png (2604x1976, 1.1M)

Attached: 1552955950530.jpg (778x944, 193K)

>Civil War
You and I both know the proper term is the War of Northern Aggression.

Ugh...vad som kunde varit...

Attached: 1548767167022.png (488x385, 46K)

>Implying implications.
Nobody cares/cared about the dead Russians or Chinese. The war against communism was right but that doesn't change the fact atrocities against the native population specifically did nothing to help the war effort.

>other side lines up like cattle
>my guys spread out like fuck in a giant horseshoe shape
>???
>profit

>>Carpet bomb, poison and commit atrocities against stone age, rice farming peasants,

Said it yourself faggo, don't back out now.

kek true

Attached: this is actually the closest Anne frank will ever get to a 19th Century passenger car.jpg (3648x2736, 1.85M)

/k/ here.

Before the introduction of repeating firearms, one of the worst threats to infantry was cavalry. To fight cavalry, and not get your entire forces to rout once the cavalry charges, you need to be able to pack them in tight formations that the cavalry can't break.

The line formation also makes it easier for commanders to give orders, and have a better overview over their forces. So they can more easily change movement according to how the battle unfolds.

They did use looser formations too. But that was light infantry used for skirmishing, and they would always be vulnerable to a cavalry charge, or a bayonet charge from a regular infantry formation. So they were used in the lead up to the real bloodbath.

So, abandoning line formations at the time, and relying on skirmishing tactics, would make sense to most people. Loose formation, use more cover, and spread out your forces. You're going to hit the enemy way more than he can hit you. But then we've forgotten the most important aspect. Artillery. A light infantry approach, would always have to retreat once the other guy goes for cavalry or bayonet charges. And then you have nothing to hold the ground and ensure the real king of the battlefield's survivability, the artillery.

No, they weren't idiots back in the day. The tactics were a natural consequence of the available technology.

there's so many of these.
Here's the only one where the Finns are the rightful masters. Rurik (the founder of Kievan Rus', the predecessors of Russia) was a Finn, as everyone knows.

Attached: 1545241141828.png (1920x1108, 210K)

Attached: 1553132338738.png (742x407, 28K)

>Rurik
Was a swede.
All jokes aside it surprises me there are so many of these, all rather well made too. i wonder how many hours went into drawing detailed backgrounds like this all for a joke.

>War used to just be a thing bachelors would go do to get a few scars and have stories to tell and most people only died when retreating.
This is your brain on lindybeige

What's the deal with Sweden and Finland?

Are you seriously asking a basic question about history of warfare on Yea Forums?

Attached: 1547987957597.png (2064x1128, 1.95M)

Atleast in todays warfare you'll most likely get
liquified by artillery without ever seeing it coming, imagine being one of those poor fucks.

We have an old history together. Marked by Swedes bringing us the light of civilization.

Attached: 25b6d439.jpg (1000x700, 100K)

>Killing soldiers is fine
>Killing civilians is not fine
Not exactly difficult to comprehend, mate.

>Finland?
Ahem, that's eastern sweden or Österland for you.

Attached: svensk pepe.jpg (360x360, 19K)

and this is what the thread is about. OP asked a dumb question, that's irrelevant to the thread.

Attached: 1551755531949.png (812x790, 81K)

Here's the actual hidden history and the projected future of Sweden and Finland.

Attached: 1538957893095.jpg (1016x2464, 514K)

Attached: 6523c3fe.jpg (360x360, 15K)

>posts one of the most dominant militaries in world history
>DUHHHH WHY DID DEY DO DIS LOL

in all honesty, I bet I could beat Napoleon. I would just have to drill my troops for a few months in spreading out and wishing cavalry didn't exist.

forgot to post a thread-related picture this time

Attached: 1561249563363.jpg (1024x868, 117K)

Attached: skandinavien.png (1632x743, 85K)

People also forget that spread out lines were ripe for calvery charges that would fuck up the infantry. Dense formation prevent calvery hijinks and kept men from running away after the first volley.

Towards the end of the civil war you saw trench warfare and total war doctrines being produced but those would take hold in till the First World War.

>yes, only if you people had been there during, for example, the Napoleonic wars. You would've defeated that foolish Corsican with your innovative tactics.

Attached: Bagration.jpg (1710x2000, 1.27M)

ITT: Yea Forums in charge of warfare

we were responsible for the French revolution as well

Attached: 1534617933862.jpg (800x658, 161K)

footage of me posting my opinion of the thread

Attached: 4f9ab152.jpg (400x425, 32K)

Is that a giant Silverback Gorilla in bottom right

ok armchair tactical geniuses, tell us a better way to fight

just fucking hide and shit, just go behind a tree lmao!

Attached: 1562068800764.jpg (466x388, 28K)

also why the fuck DIDN'T they use elephants? They used horses already, so just upgrade to elephants.

Attached: 1558564028895.gif (1372x1024, 800K)

What is actually wrong with this? What’s some fucker on a horse gonna do when you have so much maneuverability and stealth over him? He can’t pivot around a tree as fast as you can

An added note, these rifles had shit aim. Muskets is what i should say, but anyway, these muskets had shit range. So it was more like a close range weapon than what we consider guns now. Plus with the bayonets, you just had to get close enough you cant miss and the best way to do this is in a line for maximum damage. And most fights would just end up the dudes with bayonets stabbing each other.

Literally anything else. Infiltrating a city at night, waiting in the woods, setting an ambush. Anything that is not "stand in a big line facing each other"

>attack with cavalry charge
>your thinly spread line of men get flanked, decimated by cavalry, break "ranks" (not that you really have any) and retreat
>you lose the battle
>sipscupoftea.gif

user...
...are you saying more dakka?

Exactly. Also imagine this line coming at you. The charge of the British heavy cavalry at Waterloo would be nothing compared to the majestic sight and sound of these things thundering towards you.
YES. The 400,000 men should just wait in the woods when the 600,000 men army is coming towards them. Then when they get close, each man finds a tree. If they refuse to fight in the forest, then, well just give up your cities and shit lmao! They'll come to you eventually. You're being very stealthy with hundreds of thousands of men living off the land but you can still somehow fool the enemy into coming to your chosen battlefield.

Attached: 1559401363206.png (1960x960, 379K)

God damn i love cavalry
Time to post WAR KINO
youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po

>Let's fight in urban centers, endangering civilians and expensive infrastructure
You people are morons.

>British heavy cavalry
kino timing on the posts

Attached: Scotland_Forever%21.jpg (2995x1516, 2.7M)

god damn youtube wont allow the embed
how about this one
youtube.com/watch?v=RsVziFEWLlM

Exactly, hit them where it hurts. Where are they gonna go when they have nowhere left to go home to?

they changed rapidly too once they saw the results of them and realized they were no longer viable, like in the US civil war and the franco prussian war.

stick 'em with the pointy end

they often did fight in cities or towns during this period, you know.

Attached: 1538957623099.jpg (1446x1920, 1.31M)

>movies like this will never be made
actually they never were after that one, lol

this
weapon at the times had low range, shitty accuracy and slow to reload so you needed to be close to your enemy and getting covered while reloading
so for the weapon it was the best tactic

war was a big game of chicken for a very long time

The tactics actually make sense if you think about the weapon they were using.
As long as warfare meant two armies meeting face to face on a battlefield, the only way you would do so while employing muskets would be to muster together large groups of men and stand JUST OUTSIDE of the effective range of the rifles. That way, yes, you have maybe a percentage chance of dying given the volume of projectiles, but if either side charged the enemy then the effectiveness of the weapons would increase and that would truly be suicide for the charging side. And if either side retreated then that would mean they ceded ground and 'lost' the battle.
So the only solution was to bunch up and hold your ground.

Actually, if sniper rifles didn't exist nor did terrain cover and it was just regular automatic rifles, you'd probably still see the same warfare tactics employed, except the distance between the two forces would be greater to account for the greater effective range of the weapons. Both sides would just bunch up just outside the range of the enemy's weapons and group up so they can focus fire and coordinate to improve their chances of hitting something.

Have sex

More bombs were dropped by the US on Vietnam than all of World War 3 combined. Doesn't take being a commie for the view you mock to be correct for that war.

/out/

>somehow waltz up in emey territory with an entire army completely undetected to their nearest city
>assuming you succeeded in the first part get bogged down fighting urban warfare in the city and have pretty much no supply line
>actual army arrives and mops you up

yeah great idea

the real reason was that the soldiers were peasants and the generals were lords so they didnt care what happened to them just that they did their job like a hammer

WW2*

Of course he is. Just look at WW1, the War of Dakkas. Even the artillery was turned into dakka.

>More bombs were dropped by the US on Vietnam than all of World War 3 combined
That's reassuring to know, time traveler.
Unless... unless you mean a handful of nukes ended the world.

>massive amounts of bullets to account for relative inaccuracy of weapons
>bayonets to aid in possible cqc/cavalry attacks

What is the problem again? Guerilla warfare only works if your gun hits where you aim it

> The Gå–På–method (Literally Go-On) specialized on shock tactics and was the standard combat technique used in the Swedish army at the time. This very aggressive tactic often resulted in short–lived battles in order to counter superior numbers of enemies. According to 1694 and 1701 regulations, the infantry attack operates as follows: In four ranks with gaps, the Swedish battalion would "smooth and slowly" march against enemy fire (which often started at a distance of 100 meters), while making their way to the enemy lines. The Swedish soldiers were first issued to fire when "you could see the whites in the enemies eyes" a range of roughly 50 meters—when the marching drums stopped the two rear ranks would fill the gaps within the two foremost ranks and fire a salvo—and then draw their swords. The two rear ranks would then fall right behind in their previous position and the two foremost would close the gaps after which the battalion would resume their attack. The two foremost ranks then discharged at a range of roughly 20 meters before drawing their swords and the charge began. At this range, the powerful muskets usually felled many enemy troops and was demoralizing to them. Directly after the volley the Swedes charged the enemy ranks with pikes, bayonets and rapiers.[9][10] Note that the pikes were used as an offensive weapon: in close combat they had the advantage over their foes' weapons thanks to their range, it often happened that complete ranks of enemies ran before physical contact, frightened by the long pikes and the fact that the morale of the battalion could calmly withstand their fire.

Balls of steel

Attached: 985px-Battle_of_Düna,_1701.png (985x834, 1.3M)

>Vietnam was a winning battle we just had to stop
holy fuck dude

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 9K)

We had the better k/d. We were slowly taking land. Beating the gooks was inevitable. We literally only lost because of public support at home.

>muh napalmed children
People die in war nigger. There was nothing exceptional about vietnam that didn't happen everywhere else. People were drafted in world war 2. Babies were bombed in world war 2. No one gave a fuck. This muh draft muh warcrimes conveniently only came up for vietnam. Really wonder why.

Along with all that's already been said, the tight formations were also important for communication, discipline & morale.
Men standing side by side are less likely to turn & flee in the face of the enemy than a disorganized rabble.

>"you could see the whites in the enemies eyes

woah just like my sabaton songs

>pair of testicles is a doubles
>checkballs refers to checking double testicles
genius user detected

>be me
>30 yo 60 yo 20 yo boomer
>read that some sperg lanklet won 3 million dollars flossing on niggers
>damn thats crazy ill check out championship replays
>watching
>its literally just constant manifestations of wooden staircases
>every once in a while theyll drink some slurm or change weapons 12 times in two seconds
>combat is just an insane blur vomit of muzzle flash through transparent walls
>ends in .5 seconds, followed up by ten thousand walls and slurm sucking
>eventually 90% of the players get eaten by hurricane
>last ten percent alternate between turning invisible, jumping 100 stories or buckshot assassinating people through walls
>bugha wins, i watched him the whole time and literally never could tell where he was, what he was shooting at or even when he was in combat

the absolute state of zoomers how can you play this without drilling a hole through your head

Attached: download.png (214x236, 6K)

> Beating the gooks was inevitable. We literally only lost because of public support at home.
South Vietnam was a totally fictitious political entity. Essentially it was a colonial government, and like most colonial governments, it couldn't exist without the perpetual treasure & arms of the motherland. America could never "win" Vietnam. The moment American troops were to leave, so goes South Vietnam. You can see the same thing happen today in Afghanistan where the deeply unpopular American propped Afghani Government is in constant danger of getting ousted by the Taliban as soon as America withdraws its military support.

Based old and confused poster

Based /k/ bro

>the British

Conquered one quarter of the planet and all of its oceans.

OK yank.

It's just a fotm pushed and funded by EPIC games to bolster their brand name.
Just like Blizz did with SC2 and Valve did with Dota 2.
It will die just like the previous two.

>your men are wanking it in the wood wondering when will the other guys come
> meanwhile the opposite army avoid the woods and set fire to city raping your wife
>eventually get news that city has been taken
>you and your faggots men head back and get massacred because they have tight formations

>just fucking hide and shit, just go behind a tree lmao!
Imagine an invading British army arriving at your shores and then promptly hiding in trees and waiting. That is super effective.

The defending army then waits too, in comfy houses with near limitless supplies since you are not even putting them under siege, you are just taking the first available cluster of trees hostage.

I bet this is how the British beat napoleon.

>This muh draft muh warcrimes conveniently only came up for vietnam. Really wonder why.
Because people didn't mind being drafted for WWII, it seemed right. Vietnam was an incredibly unpopular war that people didn't want to go to.

A lot cheaper to just line up both armies on the side of a cliff and have them jump one at a time. Whoever still has people remaining wins.

that's not really an accurate depiction. The battles weren't just static standing at maximum range. For example, the Swedish Caroleans would approach slowly in formation until they could see the whites of the enemies' eyes, withstanding fire during all that time with superior training. They would fire a volley, approach even more, do some maneuvers within the lines so that men with loaded rifles could fire another volley at even closer range with devastating effect. Then they charged. They were most efficient army during their time with these tactics.
The French during the Napoleonic Wars would approach in columns instead of lines and would seek to charge a weakened enemy. They wouldn't just hang back in a line at maximum range all the time.
Also you can't forget the cavalry and the cannon, which obviously have an effect the formations and tactics that were developed and used. Cannon fire is more effective against columns, cavalry is more effective against lines.
no
this

Attached: French-Ordre-Mixte.gif (673x391, 62K)

To compound to what you said, the muskets were quite a bit more accurate due to spiral curves being added to the inside of the barrell.

If you guys haven't read it, check out Guns of The Dawn by Adrian Tchaikovsky. Its 18th century warfare mixed with fantasy elements. Wizards, fantastical creatures, magic, etc. A great fucking book.

ahh yes conquered empty land with spear chucking natives, meanwhile literally everyone else in europe was able to build an empire fighting others that were actually a match for them while the british just hid on their island

All the commies that got kicked out of the Government just went into Academia.

Sen. Joe McCarthy was absolutely correct in rooting out Communist infiltrators.

not to glorify the island apes, but the British did come to their full prime after beating Napoleon.

Attached: Arthur_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg (380x500, 25K)

*muskets instead of rifles, I should've written

tfw used to play in battle lines servers in MB: Napoleonic Warfare
It was really cool

Attached: file.png (1024x576, 1.09M)

watch one youtube video you fucking mouthbreather

Warfare tactics are not decided by people, they are decided by the weapons available at the time.

You cant space your men out in loose formation in a field because cavalry will cut them down like they are nothing, this is why the only times this did happen was when forests or very rocky terrain were available where horses could not attack you. If you've ever tried riding a horse over unsteady terrain or a forest you would know how difficult it is. You also could not bunch up too much, because artillery would wipe you out since cannon balls like bouncing around and usually travel hundreds of meters if shot correctly, otherwise a good old explosive mortar could obliterate a wide area. So you were forced into thin lines, spreading sometimes over miles.

I mean there is no doubt this was a really shit and boring era of human warfare. But you didnt really have a choice.

So the only difference is that one got good propaganda and one got bad propaganda. Please explain how this isn't a stab in the back.

same but it was autistic as fuck

Yeah, because no other European powers fought lesser peoples... Yeah of course the majority of the world the world just 'fell' into their hands.

OK yank

Attached: Tbritish empire.jpg (1280x720, 162K)

>Antarctica
wot

what the fark is "informal empire?" part of the empire but you get to dress casual?

>Wypipo

And nogs we're still throwing sharp sticks at each other in loincloths around this time, so shut the fuck up.

>Muh k/d
Was Vietnam a fucking deathmatch? Never talk about history or wars ever again you dumb faggot

The discipline required to stand in line while people around you are dying left and right is amazing.

Attached: vlcsnap-2019-07-31-09h02m44s445.png (1920x1080, 1.32M)

I got in the regiment with some friend, it was good fun, we were the only two foreigners and had special privileges on the server to sort of fuck around
Battles were neat, it was really impressive for an old game

>yeah haha lets just shade in anything we had a minor relationship with red and call it a part of our empire

Firearms were too slow and inaccurate to have men fight with modern tactics. Also

Also the ranks of gunpowder armies were full of the dregs of society. Criminals, penniless peasants, mental invalids, foreigners, etc. Losing soldiers was actually a net benefit for the societies they were from.

No it wasn’t retard

Attached: 91DDD637-3B9B-41F8-9C1E-94DA766A6ABA.png (318x395, 79K)

k/d ratio was literally the American strategy, because territory didn't mean as much. They tried to kill more than the enemy could recruit in a day.
Obviously they lost though.

That was France in the first indochina war numb nuts

Based
Cringe

Yeah it was retard. Vietnam had no objectives, you literally just fried rice until they surrendered.

Better than chimping out and surrounding your victim with 10+ assailants, you honorless cunt.

Attached: 1518309734959.jpg (271x271, 8K)

>see your thinly spread ranks
>line up my cavalry on the right flank
>have my main force advance into your center as normal
>your scattered men inflict a normal and acceptable amount of casualties on my men though much more slowly
>my concentrated mass volleys tear up your center and the few survivours break under my bayonet charge
>your scattered and misaligned left wing can't hold against my simultaneous cavalry charge
>my massed force simply wheels left after scattering your center and left wing
>you become another colony in my empire which I exploit for
>profit

Your stupid Total War tactics have no bearing on reality General Skidmarks

Mate, I'm just gonna send elephants after you faggy cavalry and call it a day, is all.

Attached: war-elephants-pyyrhus.jpg (686x385, 325K)

>I wont look into it! I'll just dismiss it because theirs lots of shaded areas!

OK yank.

B A S E D

Please tell me more about how you invaded the austro-hungarian empire, by all means, Nigel.

Attached: elsa.png (828x811, 593K)

>Cohesion
>Communication
>Maneuver
>Maximizing bullet throw
>Counter against cavalry

>Maximizing bullet throw
damn they were primitive!

>because territory didn't mean as much.
Which is a big reason why vietnam was lost.
You can't win a war by fighting a police action.
Your ignorance is truly astounding.

>Religious
>Racist
>Threw fucking bullets with their hands
God damn people used to be retarded holy shit

it's not my ignorance, I was just stating what the American objective was. That has been my only contribution to that discussion. I agree that the only way to win that retarded war is probably by acting much more brutally and suppressing the population and securing the areas through those means. But these retards shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Attached: 1533341011530.jpg (1349x617, 47K)

That pic reminds me of the scene in contagion where goop get's scalped during her autopsy.

More like DIEscipline, amirite?