I could never understand why the Brits insisted on wearing bright red to battle. Sitting ducks, and yet they had an empire. It boggles the mind, considering in battle you're supposed to blend in with the background; no wait a minute; you're just supposed to stand and shoot at each other. So stupid.
Lovely sense of depth, I'm wondering who the blue guys are. French? At least they were a wee bit more sensible in their blue uniforms.
It was because identification. Bright colours help to recognize friend/enemy in smoke from gunpowder. Battles in 18th and part of 19th century was fought and won with line combat system, when two armies stand face to face in lines and soldiers shoot at the enemies. Rifles in that times was very inaccurate and soldiers needed a lot of time to reaload their rifles to shoot once more. And a lot of shots makes a lot of smoke, which make sometimes recognizing of another soldiers immposible without a bright colours of their uniforms. Cheers and sorry for my bad english.
No worries, man, I understood you perfectly well. Those muskets were more dangerous than useful, but at least they had a spear on them. I still think it's a stupid waste of men, but then, war usually is.
Thanks a lot, the Brits uniform is not actually accurate, just loosly based on memeories, the battle field back then was indeed very different from nowadays, both mentally and physically, formations and spirits are the key for victory.
The dead soldier in blue uniform wasn't based on any historical resource also. It's just a painting,
They didn’t have rifles (musket like guns with rifleing in the barrel) they had muskets which were very inaccurate so fighting in lines and shooting volleys at the enemy was much more effective at that time. Also camouflage wasn’t need either then too, no machine guns, which started the need to blend in with the environment. Hence the reason why at the start of WWI countries easily fell to the Germans/Austrians.
I know about how inefficient, inaccurate and dangerous those muskets were but why hadn't anyone thought of guerilla warfare at the time? Planned properly and conducted in stages, it could have changed the course of a battle or war. When you ambush a convoy, you can shoot volleys at it and then come close with swords, daggers, the spear in the musket, and pistols. When you rely too much on a particular weapon or two, you're a dead man.
So true about the allies falling easily at the start of WW1, it took the Germans/ Austrians to garner some common sense on warfare, but the whole running at each other into machine fire is just as stupid. What a waste of men.
Pictures like this make me feel sad. It's a stupid, stupid waste. A wise chess player does not waste his pawns.
They didn't used guerrilla warfare en masse because it wasn't just infantry versus infantry. Cavarly watched your every move, and whenever you concentrated, artillery would bombard. Having your regiment in a loose formation against an enemy in line might seem brilliant, but you're pretty much fucked when a squadron of cavarly turns up.
Also there are rules in war, even today. for example chemical war fare is outlawed and the use of such a weapon is suicide sense that would start what you would call a "total war". World Wars 1 and 2 were total wars.
Now war back then had three important pieces of "play" infantry or "line infantry" cavalry to flank and protect your flanks, and artillery to weaken stronger positions or the weakest parts to put holes in the enemy's army.
Also you would need to have the environment on your side if you were to engage in guerilla warfare. The battle(s) of Lexington and Concord, specifiably Concord, can be examples of guerilla warfare of the time. But the likeness of that happing was pretty slim sense it was a battle of militia and colonials against a professional military.