Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Free-Don]

Someone talk about swords and sword related topics

For pre-gunpowder warfare how critical was martial training?

I've had this discussion when talking about video games and the common thought is that the better the individual martial artist/practitioner the better they can succeed in a battle. Overcoming issues with formation, terrain, and number disadvantages with general capability. I figure this is sorta true as far as general unit aggression, ability to respond in combat, and general initiative in combat the one of the main deciders rather than swordsmanship and spear play.

[Crookfur]

Someone talk about swords and sword related topics

For pre-gunpowder warfare how critical was martial training?

I've had this discussion when talking about video games and the common thought is that the better the individual martial artist/practitioner the better they can succeed in a battle. Overcoming issues with formation, terrain, and number disadvantages with general capability. I figure this is sorta true as far as general unit aggression, ability to respond in combat, and general initiative in combat the one of the main deciders rather than swordsmanship and spear play.

Once you get the concept of fighting in close order unit drill becomes far more important than any individual skill at arms.

As long as troops know thier own ability to hold position in the formation as it moves and responds and have faith in thier comrades to do the same there isn't much you need to teach them other than "present your pike!", "Advance your pike" and "PUSH your pike!".

Now for units/troop types who didn't fight in close order or stopped doing so after an initial contact is made individual skill at arms is much more important.

Not that general skill at arms training is useless as it helps build muscle, focus and confidence but beyond a basic level the returns drop off very quickly.

[Crookfur]

Speaking of arrows the Uruks at Helm's Deep had superior armour than the Rohirrim, plate armour that protected almost the entire upper body, plate armour that with the steel shield was even more practical than the Gondorian plate. How those poor Gondorian soldiers managed in those single piece full length cuirasses I do not know.

Uruks should have taken Helm's Deep with minimal casualties. Please sign my petition on Change.org for Peter Jackson to go back and fix this.

Ever read the article about helms deep as an illustration on breaching operations:

https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/11/1 ... -to-mosul/

[Theodosiya]

Different ballistic helmet designs have their own pros and cons , right? I only know about MICH vs LWH, where the latter have more coverage. Is there many other things too to note? How about different helmet type too? And would giving all helmet (for all personnels, not only special forces) rails and NVG mount waste of time and money or still a good idea ?

[Fordorsia]

Speaking of arrows the Uruks at Helm's Deep had superior armour than the Rohirrim, plate armour that protected almost the entire upper body, plate armour that with the steel shield was even more practical than the Gondorian plate. How those poor Gondorian soldiers managed in those single piece full length cuirasses I do not know.

Uruks should have taken Helm's Deep with minimal casualties. Please sign my petition on Change.org for Peter Jackson to go back and fix this.

Ever read the article about helms deep as an illustration on breaching operations:

https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/11/1 ... -to-mosul/

Eh, author is being too generous with saying the Uruks suppressed the defenders. At no point did they ever do any such thing. The defenders were perfectly fine standing shoulder to shoulder behind those waist-high merlons

I ca never watch those movies with anywhere close to the same love I used to have, just because I notice all the blunders in the battles.

[Purpelia]

Eh, author is being too generous with saying the Uruks suppressed the defenders. At no point did they ever do any such thing. The defenders were perfectly fine standing shoulder to shoulder behind those waist-high merlons

I ca never watch those movies with anywhere close to the same love I used to have, just because I notice all the blunders in the battles.

It's not blunders. Fortresses of much lesser quality managed to provide such protection to their inhabitants just fine, often resulting in as little as a handful of men holding of and even deterring hundreds of besiegers indefinitively. You just can not suppress the walls of a castle with arrows in any meaningful way.

And overall just I feel that the Uruk force is not being given enough credit among fans. The force attacking the fortress were a newly grown scratch built army that, barring the presence of some advisers from Mordor, would have had little to no actual combat experience and definitively no doctrine or experience in fighting siege battles.
So is it really that surprising that an army raised with no doctrine, no experienced officers and with frankly insufficient numbers for the job proved ineffective at their very first siege battle? If anything it's to their credit that they managed as good as they did through what I imagine must have been a triumph of individual courage and group elan.

What more, and that is the most important part. They won. They took the walls and would have taken the castle. The battle, as conceived in its onset was over. They were only defeated after their rear had been attacked by massed cavalry reinforcements lead by what amounts in universe to an archangel.


So overall I just feel they are being judged too harshly. The forces of Saruman were given every strategic and tactical disadvantage in the book, they were unskilled and inexperienced and lead by commanders who would have newer seen a siege before. And yet they managed to recover, learn from their mistakes, adapted and had both the morale, courage, skill and determination to fight on until ultimate victory. Only to be robbed off it by literal author fiat.

[Fordorsia]

Eh, author is being too generous with saying the Uruks suppressed the defenders. At no point did they ever do any such thing. The defenders were perfectly fine standing shoulder to shoulder behind those waist-high merlons

I ca never watch those movies with anywhere close to the same love I used to have, just because I notice all the blunders in the battles.

It's not blunders. Fortresses of much lesser quality managed to provide such protection to their inhabitants just fine, often resulting in as little as a handful of men holding of and even deterring hundreds of besiegers indefinitively. And conversely the force attacking the fortress were a newly grown scratch built army that, barring the presence of some advisers from Mordor, would have had little to no doctrine or experience in fighting siege battles.

So is it really that surprising that an army raised with no doctrine, no experienced officers and with frankly insufficient numbers for the job proved ineffective at their very first siege battle? If anything it's to their credit that they managed as good as they did through what I imagine must have been a triumph of individual courage and group elan.

It's not the simple fact that they held the fortress for an extended period. It's every single minor mistake and nonsense that I could point out if I watch through the entire battles, which unfortunately I have no interest in doing. Essentially it just boils down to your average badly choreographed battles that in a thing is almost every fantasy or pre-modern movie.

[Purpelia]

It's not blunders. Fortresses of much lesser quality managed to provide such protection to their inhabitants just fine, often resulting in as little as a handful of men holding of and even deterring hundreds of besiegers indefinitively. And conversely the force attacking the fortress were a newly grown scratch built army that, barring the presence of some advisers from Mordor, would have had little to no doctrine or experience in fighting siege battles.

So is it really that surprising that an army raised with no doctrine, no experienced officers and with frankly insufficient numbers for the job proved ineffective at their very first siege battle? If anything it's to their credit that they managed as good as they did through what I imagine must have been a triumph of individual courage and group elan.

It's not the simple fact that they held the fortress for an extended period. It's every single minor mistake and nonsense that I could point out if I watch through the entire battles, which unfortunately I have no interest in doing. Essentially it just boils down to your average badly choreographed battles that in a thing is almost every fantasy or pre-modern movie.

What in particular are those?

In particular I am interested in you pointing out any that can not be explained by one army of novices with no experience fighting another army of basic novices with no experience.

[Fordorsia]

It's not the simple fact that they held the fortress for an extended period. It's every single minor mistake and nonsense that I could point out if I watch through the entire battles, which unfortunately I have no interest in doing. Essentially it just boils down to your average badly choreographed battles that in a thing is almost every fantasy or pre-modern movie.

What in particular are those?

In particular I am interested in you pointing out any that can not be explained by one army of novices with no experience fighting another army of basic novices with no experience.

It's nothing to do with the defenders being made up mostly of civilians. They're not in-lore problems. They're realism problems.

If I can be fucked enough I'll do it at some point.

[Gallia-]

The shocking truth.

It's every single minor mistake and nonsense that I could point out if I watch through the entire battles, which unfortunately I have no interest in doing.

So what you're saying is you can't actually do it. Because if you could do it, it would be trivial, and you would have done it by now.

[Free-Don]

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/175

#darklorddidnothingwrong.

---

It's mostly trivial because it's a piece of fiction and fantasy. But here's some things I can notice:

1. The Urks attack at night and in the rain. Meaning they are going to be cold and miserable during the fight and have limited visibility, utilizing only torches to see properly.

2. That attack occurs in the rain. Where their torches don't have the effective of being able to set the defender's shit on fire.

3. They are attacking when slow and methodical siege and creep up is what is nesscary.

4. They aren't using shields to protect against bows during the approach, they don't use any shields when scaling, and the shields we do see are approaching up a ramp that shouldn't exist.

5. We see the archers shoot through armor.

6. The bows are nooked first and held in place. This is hard to do with a heavy draw bow. Often it was a fluid movement without pauses as you can't aim a bow or arrow beyond general feel and positioning.

7. The undermining attack occured a shallow feet feet under the wall rather than actually mined under the wall which would have allowed for a wider sinking of more of the wall.

8. Almost all the fighting has broken down into single or loose lines with people just running around.

9. There were no secondary walls made to protect against wall breaches or any pockets walls that were made to protect the gates from breaches.

10. A bunch of useless torches are used by the defenders to give the civilians some light. Should have just used a wood fire or something mildly useful.

11. Through out the battle no trench lines or secondary defensive structures are erected.

12. Cavalry charges into a spear/pike line and pushes through without being pulled off their horses or slowing down at all.

[Purpelia]

1. The Urks attack at night and in the rain. Meaning they are going to be cold and miserable during the fight and have limited visibility, utilizing only torches to see properly.

As far as I remember LOTR orks are basically night creatures in that they actually suffer under daylight and are generally worse but are better at night. Don't exactly remember the details but what I do distinctly remember from the books was that a big point was made how Uruks are better in that they don't suffer from the day weakness thing.

So the night attack might actually have been intentional and beneficial to them. And the rain sucks, but it sucks both ways equally.

2. That attack occurs in the rain. Where their torches don't have the effective of being able to set the defender's shit on fire.

True, but frankly that's not really a consideration when you are assaulting a fortified settlement with stone walls. You can't exactly lob a torch over those.

3. They are attacking when slow and methodical siege and creep up is what is nesscary.

This is not movie or storytelling issue but a strategic blunder, the kind that happens in wars. At least that would appear to be the case until we actually take a closer look.

The thing to remember about the whole Rohan campaign is that Saruman was NOT in an advantageous situation. He may look like the big bad in his dark tower. But Isengard was no Mordor. And his forces lacked the sheer numbers or quality required to overwhelm or defeat Rohan conventionally.

That is why he had to put on the whole gambit that he did to slowly poison the mind of the Rohan king and get him to alienate and exile the best of his armed forces. The entire Rohan campaign therefore was a massive gamble. Saruman knew that he had created a moment in time where the main Rohan forces would be unable to resist him. And he was gambling on this moment being long enough for him to destroy their leadership and generally do enough damage to knock Rohan out of the war.

So from that standpoint the whole situation at Helms Deep was on a ticking clock. From the moment his forces laid siege to that fortress Saruman would have known that the main force of the Rohirim would eventually be alerted to what was happening in their homeland. And when they were, they would inevitably turn back and ride to relieve the siege. And he must have known that they would, as they indeed did, destroy his armies when it came to that. So a long protracted siege would simply have been out of the question.

Best case scenario the forces under Eomer would come back too late, see their kingdom burned and lose heart, decide the cause was lost and flee toward Gondor or some other place leaving him unmolested. And they very nearly succeeded to too. If not for a literal demigod riding on the worlds fastest horse (literally) intervening to bring them back in time it is unlikely Eomer would have been informed of the whole thing in time to get there as evidenced by the fact that even with them he literally arrived at the very last moment.


Furthermore, we must consider the political impetus for the campaign. Saruman wasn't doing this because he hated horses. He was doing it in a desperate bid to prove him self as an useful ally to Mordor. And here too a quick decisive victory would have served the purpose where a long and uninteresting siege would have not.


So really, whilst we can say that the whole campaign was a failure it was definitively NOT a blunder or strategically unsound. It just happened to be a gamble too far and even than only due to what amounts to divine intervention.

4. They aren't using shields to protect against bows during the approach, they don't use any shields when scaling, and the shields we do see are approaching up a ramp that shouldn't exist.

I don't follow on the last part. Explain.

5. We see the archers shoot through armor.

6. The bows are nooked first and held in place. This is hard to do with a heavy draw bow. Often it was a fluid movement without pauses as you can't aim a bow or arrow beyond general feel and positioning.

Won't disagree with you there. Sadly that is an all too common trope in movies.

7. The undermining attack occured a shallow feet feet under the wall rather than actually mined under the wall which would have allowed for a wider sinking of more of the wall.

Actually it was aimed at a portcullis which was covering a hole in the wall so that the river that runs out of the fortress could flow out. So it was a ready made structural weakness that they exploited.

8. Almost all the fighting has broken down into single or loose lines with people just running around.

Would fighting in formation really have been a thing in a siege scenario? I doubt either side would wait for the other to move through the hole in the wall and form up neat lines.

9. There were no secondary walls made to protect against wall breaches or any pockets walls that were made to protect the gates from breaches.

Wasn't there a keep inside the castle? I know that in the books there is one.

10. A bunch of useless torches are used by the defenders to give the civilians some light. Should have just used a wood fire or something mildly useful.

I imagine that if you are intending to defend against a siege until your demigod wizard returns with a relief force your priorities are keeping stocks of firewood for cooking and warmth first and light second.

11. Through out the battle no trench lines or secondary defensive structures are erected.

We don't really see much of the battlefield to make any sort of judgment on that. Especially not of the rear of the ork army where these would have made sense given that the plan was always to take the fortress by storm.

12. Cavalry charges into a spear/pike line and pushes through without being pulled off their horses or slowing down at all.

A realism complaint, sure. But given the dramatic nature of that scene I don't really see how it detracts from enjoyment as is the primary postulate of this discussion.

[Fordorsia]

So what you're saying is you can't actually do it. Because if you could do it, it would be trivial, and you would have done it by now.

Watching through a battle and explaining all the things wrong with it isn't hard, but I don't judge others. It would just take ages.

[Gallia-]

So what you're saying is you can't actually do it. Because if you could do it, it would be trivial, and you would have done it by now.

Watching through a battle and explaining all the things wrong with it isn't hard, but I don't judge others. It would just take ages.

Tedious things are usually trivial, though, which means you can do maybe five or ten minutes of work a day and be done in n months.

[Free-Don]

2. That attack occurs in the rain. Where their torches don't have the effective of being able to set the defender's shit on fire.

True, but frankly that's not really a consideration when you are assaulting a fortified settlement with stone walls. You can't exactly lob a torch over those.

That's why you toss them with siege equipment and really big throwing sticks and slings. I've read there are apprently holes and lead bullets from hand sling found inside and on the outside of castle walls and ruins that show them being pelleted with lead bullets so a small torch or similar isn't too much of a stretch to toss over. I believe we see grass and shrubs along with what I thought was a tree and some houses and tents so setting them of fire or assuming there are stuff to burn isn't too far fetched.

4. They aren't using shields to protect against bows during the approach, they don't use any shields when scaling, and the shields we do see are approaching up a ramp that shouldn't exist.

I don't follow on the last part. Explain.

There's a giant stone ramp. Made form what looks like solid stone. That's barely large enough for 2 horses let alone 4-6 horses and the cart they need to pull. It's also the only entrance...other than a hidden exit that not many know about. Literally all food and stuffs need to be moved into the castle by hand and foot from the entrance. When instead they could have just used a drawn bridge or a removable ramp to do the same thing if not better. So the whole ramp fight and assault shouldn't have existed in the first place or at least should have been destroyed before the battle began.

8. Almost all the fighting has broken down into single or loose lines with people just running around.

Would fighting in formation really have been a thing in a siege scenario? I doubt either side would wait for the other to move through the hole in the wall and form up neat lines.

You want to form battle lines and at least some semblance of a group. Otherwise you're going to have a lot of blue on blue and because of the way melee fighting works in groups being outnumbered or surrounded by rushing first will always get you killed. Most of the Urks have spears and similar weapons that can do well on their own but they do better in groups and clusters that can basically cover themselves and each other. Even when piling out of a hole in a wall.

9. There were no secondary walls made to protect against wall breaches or any pockets walls that were made to protect the gates from breaches.

Wasn't there a keep inside the castle? I know that in the books there is one.

Think about a castle as a cake, but the cake is just sweetened bread. Think of extra wooden structures such as: a hoarding, wood machicolation, internal stockade/palisade, and bailey walls as the icing and sugarcoat. These additions are cheap and effective at basically building of the defenses of a castle to make it a layered and bogged down defensive fight with clear lines of defense and posts to fight from. Meaning that the full numbers and weapon skill for the defenders can be brought to bear in constant and consecutive mini sieges.

12. Cavalry charges into a spear/pike line and pushes through without being pulled off their horses or slowing down at all.

A realism complaint, sure. But given the dramatic nature of that scene I don't really see how it detracts from enjoyment-

Never said the problems are bad. Never said any of this detracts from anything with the movie. Just that these quick things I noticed without really trying too hard, I didn't bother researching the background much or the lore. All I know is that Grendolf took one day's ride to get there and the battle lasted less than half a day. Meaning that the riders and the cavalry were probably just waiting for the heroic moment to swoop in and probably never really left to go anywhere as their horses aren't dead from travel or tired from the looks of things.

Protip:

If your enemy has massive reinforcements less than a full day's ride away... Don't start a laborious siege that involves throwing people at a wall, it doesn't end well.

[Purpelia]

That's why you toss them with siege equipment and really big throwing sticks and slings. I've read there are apprently holes and lead bullets from hand sling found inside and on the outside of castle walls and ruins that show them being pelleted with lead bullets so a small torch or similar isn't too much of a stretch to toss over. I believe we see grass and shrubs along with what I thought was a tree and some houses and tents so setting them of fire or assuming there are stuff to burn isn't too far fetched.

Again though, the lack of proper siege equipment can easily be explained by pointing out this was an army with no experience dealing with sieges. And whilst we could argue that maybe they should have gotten some advisers from Mordor to go and teach them how to siege stuff. But really it's a stretch that this would have gone unnoticed.

There's a giant stone ramp. Made form what looks like solid stone. That's barely large enough for 2 horses let alone 4-6 horses and the cart they need to pull. It's also the only entrance...other than a hidden exit that not many know about. Literally all food and stuffs need to be moved into the castle by hand and foot from the entrance. When instead they could have just used a drawn bridge or a removable ramp to do the same thing if not better. So the whole ramp fight and assault shouldn't have existed in the first place or at least should have been destroyed before the battle began.

Not having a proper moat and having the access to your castle be open like that is not terribly uncommon however. Really, the position as it was is very defensible as evidenced by what happened.

You want to form battle lines and at least some semblance of a group. Otherwise you're going to have a lot of blue on blue and because of the way melee fighting works in groups being outnumbered or surrounded by rushing first will always get you killed. Most of the Urks have spears and similar weapons that can do well on their own but they do better in groups and clusters that can basically cover themselves and each other. Even when piling out of a hole in a wall.

I am not saying that this is not something you want. It definitively is. I am saying that given the situation I do not find it implausible that things devolved into a melee as they did. It's regrettable for both sides, but it is something I can definitively see happening given the situation.

It's not like most movie battles where you have lines of infantry facing each other in the open field and than suddenly abandon all formation and tactics once they meet.

Think about a castle as a cake, but the cake is just sweetened bread. Think of extra wooden structures such as: a hoarding, wood machicolation, internal stockade/palisade, and bailey walls as the icing and sugarcoat. These additions are cheap and effective at basically building of the defenses of a castle to make it a layered and bogged down defensive fight with clear lines of defense and posts to fight from. Meaning that the full numbers and weapon skill for the defenders can be brought to bear in constant and consecutive mini sieges.

Those are all fine to have, but there is no reason for them to be a must have for every castle. Not all castles were designed with absolutely all defensive measures. Especially not if you consider that in LOTR there is a heavy emphasis on the old times being better and the world being in a state of decay. At it's prime Helms Deep might well have had all of those but by the time of the movies it is quite possible that even the knowledge of using them had been lost.

After all, when was the last time anyone in Rohan had to defend against a proper siege? Quite possibly not ever. Or at least not in centuries.

Never said the problems are bad. Never said any of this detracts from anything with the movie. Just that these quick things I noticed without really trying too hard, I didn't bother researching the background much or the lore.

However that's is the point of this conversation. That there are glaring errors which detract from the movies.

All I know is that Grendolf took one day's ride to get there and the battle lasted less than half a day. Meaning that the riders and the cavalry were probably just waiting for the heroic moment to swoop in and probably never really left to go anywhere as their horses aren't dead from travel or tired from the looks of things.

It was not one day. You literally have a quote in the books and movies saying: "Look to my coming, at first light, on the fifth day. At dawn, look to the East."
And given the circumstances of that quote it's clear that he is referring not to 5 days from that moment but 5 days after they reach Helms Deep.
So it's 5 days + how ever much time it takes the main Rohan host to reach the castle. Ample time for the Uruks to charge and take the castle by storm.

Protip:

If your enemy has massive reinforcements less than a full day's ride away... Don't start a laborious siege that involves throwing people at a wall, it doesn't end well.

And yet what was the alternative? Meet both armies in the open? We have seen how well that ended.

Bottom line here is that Saruman really only had one way open to him. And that was to gamble on the main force being too late to stop him overwhelming Helms Deep and using the fortress against them. And he would have done it too if not for the worlds fastest rider getting the message through.

[Free-Don]

I didn't read the book or care for the background lore so I'm just going off of what I can see and what I know. I don't care about them basically being too stupid or just not knowing about certain things. Again, never said that any of this detracts anything from movies only that these are things I noticed.

Literally just watched pirated youtube video of it once and that's all I'm writing is from memory.

[Purpelia]

I didn't read the book or care for the background lore so I'm just going off of what I can see and what I know. I don't care about them basically being too stupid or just not knowing about certain things. Again, never said that any of this detracts anything from movies only that these are things I noticed.

Literally just watched pirated youtube video of it once and that's all I'm writing is from memory.

And just when the conversation was starting to be fun. We seriously need more of them like these.

[Free-Don]

I agree conversations here can get stupid and some are nice. I just really don't know jack about the series or the situations presented.

[Purpelia]

It's late 19th century army doctrine time. This time with smokeless powder.

When on the field of battle infantry should, terrain permitting advance in a formation two men deep and fifteen wide. In confined terrain three lines of ten can be formed however this is to be avoided. Formations should newer be more than three lines deep under any conditions. Should you be forced to employ the three depth formation, the first of these should kneel when firing.
When on the march, the formation is to advance in an order with the depth and width reversed so as to facilitate rapid transition for engagement.


On the field effective hits on target are achieved not by individual soldiers against individual soldiers but by units on units. As such, the primary course of fire should in all but the most desperate conditions be based on effective coordinated volleys. However weight of fire on target being the important factor rapidity of fire plays a role equal if not greater to accuracy. As such, accuracy and weight of fire should be adjusted for maximum impact through the procedure described bellow:

When the enemy is first spotted the unit commander is to be informed. Once the commander confirms the target the formation is to rotate to engage it and initiate controlled ranging fire.

Ranging fire is to be executed in volleys of aimed single loaded shots and effect on the target formation observed. After each volley, soldiers are to correct their aim until such a time that the officer in charge decides the volleys are having a significant effect on the target. Once a significant effect (percentage of accurate hits) is confirmed the officer is to issue the order to "rapid fire" and the formation transition to the rapid stage of engagement.

Rapid fire, being the effective part of the engagement is to be executed as rapidly and decisively as possible. Having effectively established the aim angle to their targets in the previous stage soldiers are now to fire rapidly using the pump-loader and without individual aim. Fire in this stage is to be executed individually as quickly as possible and without confirmation or specific order. The magazine is to be used.

Once expended, the magazine is to be reloaded and fire halted. Once the entire unit has expended and reloaded its magazine the commander is to decide if to continue the engagement by returning to a second ranging stage, abort it, charge or

OOC: Basically imagine the equivalent of having a machinegun tied to a ranging rifle. You use the ranging rifle to slowly find your range and than you dump the belt on the rough beaten zone and hope to saturate the enemy Napoleonic line.

In exceptional situations, in particular those dealing with combat under 200m or enemy cavalry commanders are permitted to issue the order to "rapid fire" without prior ranging. In these conditions, the remainder of the procedure is still to be maintained and fire halted after ones magazine is expended. Should the enemy come within 75m this rule is to be waived in favor of expending as many magazines as is carried.


Under any and all conditions the bayonet is to be fixed. During march, the scabbard of the bayonet is to be carried across the blade strapped to the front sight.
OOC: 19th century Purpelian bayonet scabbards were metal and had an extension that made them double as a sight protector and muzzle protector and you just wore that on the end of your rifle at all time. And you just took it off the enter combat.


OOC: Two things to note here.
1. I don't expect these tactics to be effective in WW1. Duh. So I am mainly posting them here as a lore dump to explain my rifle as well as just to get a feel for tactics at the time as it is realistic. And frankly to scratch an itch I've been having about it.
2. My troops would actually have been trained in a special way of firing to keep their face out of the way of the bolt that slams back and forth as you rapid fire with the pump without loosing their sight angle roughly. Remember, it's blocks of men firing at other blocks of men at 1000m.

Opinions? Comments? Ratings?

[Crookfur]

It's late 19th century army doctrine time. This time with smokeless powder.

When on the field of battle infantry should, terrain permitting advance in a formation two men deep and fifteen wide. In confined terrain three lines of ten can be formed however this is to be avoided. Formations should newer be more than three lines deep under any conditions. Should you be forced to employ the three depth formation, the first of these should kneel when firing.
When on the march, the formation is to advance in an order with the depth and width reversed so as to facilitate rapid transition for engagement.


On the field effective hits on target are achieved not by individual soldiers against individual soldiers but by units on units. As such, the primary course of fire should in all but the most desperate conditions be based on effective coordinated volleys. However weight of fire on target being the important factor rapidity of fire plays a role equal if not greater to accuracy. As such, accuracy and weight of fire should be adjusted for maximum impact through the procedure described bellow:

When the enemy is first spotted the unit commander is to be informed. Once the commander confirms the target the formation is to rotate to engage it and initiate controlled ranging fire.

Ranging fire is to be executed in volleys of aimed single loaded shots and effect on the target formation observed. After each volley, soldiers are to correct their aim until such a time that the officer in charge decides the volleys are having a significant effect on the target. Once a significant effect (percentage of accurate hits) is confirmed the officer is to issue the order to "rapid fire" and the formation transition to the rapid stage of engagement.

Rapid fire, being the effective part of the engagement is to be executed as rapidly and decisively as possible. Having effectively established the aim angle to their targets in the previous stage soldiers are now to fire rapidly using the pump-loader and without individual aim. Fire in this stage is to be executed individually as quickly as possible and without confirmation or specific order. The magazine is to be used.

Once expended, the magazine is to be reloaded and fire halted. Once the entire unit has expended and reloaded its magazine the commander is to decide if to continue the engagement by returning to a second ranging stage, abort it, charge or

OOC: Basically imagine the equivalent of having a machinegun tied to a ranging rifle. You use the ranging rifle to slowly find your range and than you dump the belt on the rough beaten zone and hope to saturate the enemy Napoleonic line.

In exceptional situations, in particular those dealing with combat under 200m or enemy cavalry commanders are permitted to issue the order to "rapid fire" without prior ranging. In these conditions, the remainder of the procedure is still to be maintained and fire halted after ones magazine is expended. Should the enemy come within 75m this rule is to be waived in favor of expending as many magazines as is carried.


Under any and all conditions the bayonet is to be fixed. During march, the scabbard of the bayonet is to be carried across the blade strapped to the front sight.
OOC: 19th century Purpelian bayonet scabbards were metal and had an extension that made them double as a sight protector and muzzle protector and you just wore that on the end of your rifle at all time. And you just took it off the enter combat.


OOC: Two things to note here.
1. I don't expect these tactics to be effective in WW1. Duh. So I am mainly posting them here as a lore dump to explain my rifle as well as just to get a feel for tactics at the time as it is realistic. And frankly to scratch an itch I've been having about it.
2. My troops would actually have been trained in a special way of firing to keep their face out of the way of the bolt that slams back and forth as you rapid fire with the pump without loosing their sight angle roughly. Remember, it's blocks of men firing at other blocks of men at 1000m.

Opinions? Comments? Ratings?

Define late 19th century?

Basically post 1870 nobody is deploying blocks of men, the ACW and prussian wars taught everyone that breach loaders meant fighting in open order.

Columns still existed for the march but in action it was effectively all skirmishing and covering fire for short rushs.

[Purpelia]

Columns still existed for the march but in action it was effectively all skirmishing and covering fire for short rushs.

It is my understanding that the early bolt actions were as long as they did not just to serve as pikes but because infantry still expected to fight in rows and you needed a gun long enough to clear the 1st row if you were in the 2nd. And that this wasn't really fixed in western doctrine until basically WW1 even though people knew it was obsolete since at least the Crimean war.

[Crookfur]

Columns still existed for the march but in action it was effectively all skirmishing and covering fire for short rushs.

It is my understanding that the early bolt actions were as long as they did not just to serve as pikes but because infantry still expected to fight in rows and you needed a gun long enough to clear the 1st row if you were in the 2nd. And that this wasn't really fixed in western doctrine until basically WW1 even though people knew it was obsolete since at least the Crimean war.

The long barrels were driven by many factors not limited to maximising the ballistic potential of the sometimes quite slow burning smokeless powders (or because black powder was still being used), concerns over general accuracy and lack of sight radius, bayonnet fighting reach and just plain old "that's how long an infantry gun should be".
Notably when the British army went to the SMLE all the concerns were regarding accuracy and sight radius.

[Purpelia]

It is my understanding that the early bolt actions were as long as they did not just to serve as pikes but because infantry still expected to fight in rows and you needed a gun long enough to clear the 1st row if you were in the 2nd. And that this wasn't really fixed in western doctrine until basically WW1 even though people knew it was obsolete since at least the Crimean war.

The long barrels were driven by many factors not limited to maximising the ballistic potential of the sometimes quite slow burning smokeless powders (or because black powder was still being used), concerns over general accuracy and lack of sight radius, bayonnet fighting reach and just plain old "that's how long an infantry gun should be".
Notably when the British army went to the SMLE all the concerns were regarding accuracy and sight radius.

The british were special though in that they had the Boer war. Which is why they made the revolutionary leap to a universal short rifle. It is my understanding that most continental armies still thought of war in terms of what they saw in the american civil war which is why they had magazine cutoffs, long barrels and such. Is that not true?

[Crookfur]

The long barrels were driven by many factors not limited to maximising the ballistic potential of the sometimes quite slow burning smokeless powders (or because black powder was still being used), concerns over general accuracy and lack of sight radius, bayonnet fighting reach and just plain old "that's how long an infantry gun should be".
Notably when the British army went to the SMLE all the concerns were regarding accuracy and sight radius.

The british were special though in that they had the Boer war. Which is why they made the revolutionary leap to a universal short rifle. It is my understanding that most continental armies still thought of war in terms of what they saw in the american civil war which is why they had magazine cutoffs, long barrels and such. Is that not true?

Europe was primarily influenced by the austro-prussian war (formed infantry with muzzle loaders dies messily when faced with formed infantry with breachloaders) and the franco-prussian war (formed infantry with breachloaders dies messily when faced with open order infantry with better breachloaders).
The franco-prussian war convinced a lot of people that it was flat out impossible to assault a position held with breach loaders and informed the "operationally offensive but tactically defensive " approach that evolved.