Japanese Unit type historical accuracy.

[HuangCaesar]

He i'm playing Shogun 2 and I noticed units like Katana Samurai and Naginata samurai. I was wondering if Samurai in real life accually chose a weapon and went into a unit of fellow samurai carrying the same weapons? Or do they carry all carry diffrent weapons in one unit mixed up. I find it quite strange of all these diffrent samurai units.

Why does Katana samurai beat Spear Samurai? Katana is shorter and has no shield and Spear Samurai have longer weapon and have katana in their belt in case enemy gets too close. Can someone please explain how Japanese actually fight cause I'm just wondering.

[O'Hea]

For your first question, the short answer is no. Every samurai was expected to be competent with the bow, spear, sword, and various other weapons. They would be accompanied into battle by attendants who carried his additional gear and tended his horses (the equivalent of squires for a western knight). In battle, samurai would often be divided up among the ashigaru to serve as officers and reinforce the line, or they would fight basically as individual warriors in loose groups. The naginata was a popular weapon in the timeframe of Rise of the Samurai, but was considered old-fashioned by the Sengoku Jidai and the yari was by far the most popular melee weapon for both samurai and ashigaru.

Katana beats yari purely for gameplay balance. In Total War, spears are always strong against cavalry but weak against sword infantry. In an actual Sengoku battle, no samurai would go into battle with just his sword, because it was a secondary weapon for emergency use. You're right to think that a samurai with a spear and a sword has an advantage over a samurai with just a sword.

For another example of something that's purely for gameplay reasons, warrior monks in-game are elite fighters with low armor. In reality, they were monks first and warriors second and more closely resembled an armed mob than an elite unit. In the Sengoku period, warrior monks mostly caused problems for samurai lords because they entrenched themselves in very defensible areas or because they wielded political power, not because they were especially powerful warriors.

[rekishiotaku]

Samurai were organized according to weapon type. However there were not units of men armed only with a sword (unless that was an oudachi/nodachi). Every warrior both elite Samurai and lowly Ashigaru would carry a sword be that a long tachi or short wakizashi or uchigatana. The naginata was the main weapon of the Ashigaru during the Heian and Kamakura periods, but during the Sengoku-jidai the Ashigaru began to be given the yari. The naginata was prized by the masses of Ashigaru because the were used against cavalry forces, ie higher ranking Samurai which made up a larger portion of those battles. The yari took over because they were cheaper to make, and easier to train with and the nature of warfare had changed, with Ashigaru making up more and more of the armies. However the naginata remained the primarily weapon of the ironic warrior monks, the Sohei and were also given to high ranking women of the Samurai class, who were expected to defend the home front.

In the game the katana beats the yari for tactical reasons, CA wanted to make a rock paper scissors type of battle where each weapon was good at defeating the other. But perhaps you may rationalize it as those warriors who go in with only a katana were so damn confident and well trained they didn't need anything else, although it's not too accurate.

I don't know to what degree of competency each samurai knew each weapon, but I don't imagine it being too great. And then there is also the question of how you define "Samurai" and if that includes Ashigaru.
And then by the time of the Bakumatsu or FOS, many samurai were only competent with a sword, some may not even know that, although they certainty wore them.

[daelin4]

In real life generals would usually have organized samurai according to weapon types: whoever got spears go in the front line, those with archers join the archers, and whoever got horses would serve as cavalry. It would be rare that a samurai would learn to be proficient with just one weapon, although it is unlikely that there would be a large number of polymaths (that is, people who are great in multiple things). Some situations of course a more chaotic mishmash of warriors armed with a variety of weapons would occur as well, usually a skirmish or a raid. The way this game is portrayed is not very realistic, or at the least, does not represent every situation. There will be times where battles are well-organized into neat groups with the same weapons; at other times they may seem no more than a well-armed mob.

Of all the weapons a samurai would use, his sword would be the most personal; other equipment were usually issued. By the time of the Edo period, a time of peace, there would be little use for samurai to regularly access weapons in armouries, so more attention was spent towards their swords, weapons they possessed on themselves at all times. However the average sword produced by Sengoku smiths were usually average to poor quality, and with exception to the more wealthier samurai, most would be left with a weapon they would only want to use in a close-combat, or desperate situation, when their spear shaft breaks, or ammunition arrows or other ammunition were expended.

If Shogun2 was designed from a much more emphasis realism the game would have a far more bland roster than it already is. Typically samurai went into battle carrying spear and sword- a bow if he had one. Spears or whatever polearms were used first due to its longer reach and lower expense- you do NOT want to use your personal sword on a regular basis in battle unless you want to spend a lot of money each time maintaining it. The way CA designed the game allowed for their rock=paper-scissors system: swords excel against infantry but poor against cavalry; spears excel against cavalry but poor against sword infantry. Heavy Infantru (naginata units) were a sort of middle-ground between these two, and No-Dachi served like a sword infantry on steroids. Missile units like archers or gunners were effective against everything unless they get into melee. They designed the units to this system.

In reality someone armed with just a sword would actually be at a disadvantage from one armed with a spear. That other guy poking you with his long stick will also be trained to dodge your attempt to cut down his spear shaft.

If Shogun2 would be realistic, then there wouldn't be a unit known as Katana Samurai, or even Samurai Retainers, and likewise Katana Hero. Simple as that. They might as well created a unit known as "American Generals" for Fall of the Samurai, made them armed with revolvers, and had the best stats in damage and morale. Fun, maybe, but unrealistic.

The practicality of engaging spear-armed infantry with just a sword would be as smart as an army soldier with a machine gun and sidearm pistol, and he first uses his pistol: not smart at all.

[Lord Baal]

In reality you would get something along this lines:
- Samurai unit (A unit of randomly armed and armored guys, the mean quality of equipment depending on how rich your nobility in general is)
- Mounted samurai unit (A unit of randomly armed and armored guys, the mean quality of equipment depending on how rich your nobility in general is, this of course would tend to have way better gear)

- Ashigaru (A bunch of peasants and hasty gathered civilians armed with randomly close combat weapons)
Note that the two first units (specially the foot ones) would not fight in formation, but rather in a really lose, mob like(not square) formation.

If you have the proper organization and wealth you could have also this:
- Yari ashigaru (A bunch of peasants with no armor at all and long spears)
- Bow ashigaru (A bunch of peasants with no armor and Japanese long bows)

And that would be more or less the thing... of course there are people more enlighten at this than me that could complete/correct me.

[Hikaru Genji]

In reality you would get something along this lines:
- Samurai unit (A unit of randomly armed and armored guys, the mean quality of equipment depending on how rich your nobility in general is)
- Mounted samurai unit (A unit of randomly armed and armored guys, the mean quality of equipment depending on how rich your nobility in general is, this of course would tend to have way better gear)

- Ashigaru (A bunch of peasants and hasty gathered civilians armed with randomly close combat weapons)
Note that the two first units (specially the foot ones) would not fight in formation, but rather in a really lose, mob like(not square) formation.

If you have the proper organization and wealth you could have also this:
- Yari ashigaru (A bunch of peasants with no armor at all and long spears)
- Bow ashigaru (A bunch of peasants with no armor and Japanese long bows)

And that would be more or less the thing... of course there are people more enlighten at this than me that could complete/correct me.

That's sort of the idea, although you wouldn't really see samurai "units." Of course depending on which period we're talking about army composition would change. During the Heian period and into the Kamakura (RotS) armies were basically composed of mounted samurai archers who were supported by proto-ashigaru foot soldiers. These soldiers were very much a rabble, and were often called to service by the samurai/provincial landholder (as at this point the samurai were not so well established as a caste). The samurai themselves were very often out for personal glory in these conflicts, and would, after an exchange of arrows and announcement of lineage, seek to find a particularly noteworthy opponent. Once that opponent was found the samurai would ride up beside him, grapple him to the ground, and attempt to decapitate him. It was quite common for warriors to leave the field after gathering their trophy, and some would even stick to the peripheries and attempt to cut the head off of a fallen warrior, thus avoiding combat completely...A bit of a digression, I suppose...

Anyway, in the Sengoku period (Vanilla S2) ashigaru came to be recognized as a more important part of battle, and you would see them organized into groups based on weapons (spear or bow, later gun). During the earlier Sengoku period the ashigaru were often poorly trained, but around the late 16th century they began to receive greater training and began to wear more uniform armor. The samurai themselves would often serve as commanders if they were wealthy and of high birth, sometimes actively participating in battle or other times leading from the rear, while poor samurai were usually indistinguishable from ashigaru and would fight with them. Into the Sengoku period cavalry began to be used less frequently (and would be classified as light), though Takeda Shingen is quite famous for using them to devastating effect in tandem with his ashigaru. In general, though, it was actually more common for samurai to dismount and use a spear than to actually fight from horseback. Cavalry charges also weren't particularly common.

[Lord Baal]

Excellent! Have you read my wall of doom? Oh, never mind, I'll quote it for you to see what do you think about it:

- The recruitment of units should affect not only the population numbers but the balance of the types of populations: A "spear militia" should only need commoners, while a "armored lancer" could need commoners as retainers that does not appear in battle and land owners as the fighting dudes on the battlefield. Other kind of units could require some nobility, more land owners and a lot of commoners... In the case of commoners composed units, since the "buildings" required common labor (see Some buildings requiring labor in the Cities and Towns section) one should be able to put a priority on which population drain first when recruiting units, if you choose farmers the income would not be hindered immediately but on the long run food shortage would be a problem unless enough people moves back to the fields quickly enough. If you choose the other commoners (the city ones) then you will not touch the food production but will hinder the economics of the city immediately and maybe cause more unhappiness. Also the time it takes to "train units" should be a little tweaked, depending on the kind of population a unit requires.

- Really different units?: The difference of units should come from their stats and appearance as it is now, BUT this should apply even between two units of the same type, like two yari ashigaru units having differences, both practical and visual. This should be specially thanked in a game like the current in which units tends to look and be the same since its a civil war? This, as I stated on the battles section would help a lot. The faction, region and buildings available should determinate a lot in the initial appearance like its color, shape of armor and weapons and the stats of the units,.
Here its a edited, more deep analysis of the last two pints, that I made some time ago. Although all this would reflect on the battle map and maybe this point belong to the Battles section, the mechanics behind mostly involve the campaign, so here it is:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

NOTE: I'm using the 12 years per mod now, and also I'm a dreamer about the length of modding that could be applied, so some crazy arguments could come out from this:

I have been thinking about this... all samurai should be recruited in one two turns tops, because they are the land lords that have been training all their lives in the use of weapons. They are "ever ready to fight" guys, only waiting to be called upon service for their overlords, and once recruited they should have some experience right of the bat, not that much but some, and even some extra according to the dojos present on the region they come from. And for the weapons and armor, as they buy it for themselves it should depend on the wealth of the land owner class on the region. A wealthy class in the region means that the samurais (the land owners) are rich and can buy expensive armor and weapons. A poor region should have its samurais with (relative) low quality armor and weapons.

On the other hand the ashigaru should need more turns to be conscripted, since they have to be gathered, and then trained (assuming they have not served before, they where just peasants before recruitment). So a mob of peasants will be ready in one turn. Yari ashigaru, being the most basic weapon should need one month or two, while yumi would need more months of practice, at least 4 I think (unless they where bow hunters), the teppo is even easier so two or one month would do it too. The speed of this can also be influenced by the population numbers on the region. The officers in provinces with excess of population should have no problem finding young people to fill in the ranks, maybe lessing the training time a month, while a scarce populated area will add a month or more to the training. Their experience should always be green as they really are green, having never used a weapon of war before. Their armor and weapons should be relative to the local weapon and armor smith (built by the player) since this is the "government one", that provides armor and weaponry to the conscripted troops, also the stats like melee damage and charging should be increased by the encampment building and it's upgrades, but this obviously would also add some months of training.

So if you want really light and cheap ashigaru, don't make either armory or encampments/barracks/etc on the province and recruit them in a really populated one, you will be filling stacks really soon, they will be fragile but faster to replenish too, so if you have the population and the will to do so, what is stooping you? Or the other way around, you could build professional ashigaru armies by making barracks and armories on the provinces you choose to, but they will be more expensive and slow to muster.

All of this should also reflect on the units you see on the battlefield. Every unit should have a few models, like unarmored poor ashigaru, armored poor ashigaru, armored middle class ashigaru, unarmored middle class ashigaru, poor samurai, middle class samurai, rich samurai. And according to the status of the unit more models of one kind should appear in it on the battlefield. I.e. a samurai unit of 100 man recruited from a poor province would have like 80 poor samurai models, 15 middle samurai and only 5 rich samurai. This would be only aesthetically since the unit stats would be given at the moment of recruitment, but it can help to differentiate and give even more variety to the units on the battlefield. Maybe as they progress in experience they would be able to buy/scavenge better armor and weapons, so they start to look better in the battlefield and have better stats? I don't know, I'm still dreaming.

And not only the ashigaru would be slower to recruit in this system, but also more expensive, since you are the one paying for their equipment and upkeep, while the samurai would pay for most of their stuff and then only will require the upkeep while being mobilized.

This is pretty unbalanced and crazy right? A upside down kinda of world? Well even being faster and cheaper to recruit than the ashigaru, the samurai would not be as viable as the ashigaru, at least in the early game. See, all this is based on the fact that (two types or more of) populations can be added to provinces and then affected by recruitment, so their Achilles' heel would be the fact that you will never be able to mobilize as many samurai as ashigaru.

You wont be able, let's say recruit 12K samurai's in a year and start seeding the terror on your enemies, since this unbalance on the population classes would lead to a revolt, unrest and less income from your provinces (no one is there controlling the peasants). This will cap the quantity of samurai on the battlefields with some true logic and not some arbitrary head count number.

In the end if you perceive that the immediate threat if gone, or that the troops at hand are not needed anymore then you disband them and they numbers go back to a town. Specially good if you are short of labor on the fields or nobles to run and control said fields.

As you progress over the sengoku era and more "tech advances" are made, you can research something like higher mobilization, or laws/edicts(tech) that blur the line between ashigaru and samurai (like it happened in real life), so samurai units would require less land owner population and more common population (common folks with weapon skills). Keeping this trend (if one choose to) by the late game most armies would be composed of "samurai" units, only that this samurai units will not require so much land owner population, having a lot of the ashigaru filling in the ranks like the lower kind of samurai, so we can see a transition from the levy feudal peasant armies to more professional full time armies as it happen in the real Japan.

[Profound]

I question the yari's usefulness after the ranks have clashed. The sword is designed for close-quarters combat, even against longer weapons. The yari is a hindrance when there is a confined space. The naginata is also useful as it's basically a sword on a pole, but not one as long as the yari.

[Hikaru Genji]

Lord Baal - Sorry for not replying sooner. That is an EXCELLENT idea. It would most certainly add a whole new dimension to the game. It would also go a long way in leading to more diverse armies, and would lead to more historical realism what with the "tech developments" you mentioned. I wonder if any of it would be able to be implemented through modding?

Profound - In any case, the yari was indeed the mainstay of combat during the Sengoku Jidai, with swords only being used rather sparingly. From what I've read the naginata was a difficult weapon to learn how to use properly, and so fell out of general favor after the Kamakura period.

[daelin4]

I question the yari's usefulness after the ranks have clashed. The sword is designed for close-quarters combat, even against longer weapons. The yari is a hindrance when there is a confined space. The naginata is also useful as it's basically a sword on a pole, but not one as long as the yari.

I'm not a combat expert, but spears are used mostly in thrusting moves, while a sword would require slashing actions, and thus require more space. Also I doubt Japanese troops clashed in a manner that prevented them from properly using their weapons, most would be trained to fight in optimal distances.

All things equal, a warrior armed with a spear has advantages of reach than one armed with a sword. Arguably more so if in confined space like a crowd or indoors.

[RollingWave]

I question the yari's usefulness after the ranks have clashed. The sword is designed for close-quarters combat, even against longer weapons. The yari is a hindrance when there is a confined space. The naginata is also useful as it's basically a sword on a pole, but not one as long as the yari.

To an extend, though in practice more often than not only during house to house fighting would Sengoku era warriors use the sword as teh primary weapon. though up close melee happen in the field sometimes as well it's not really that common, the odds of you reaching close enough to use your swords effectively and not getting impaled / wacked by all the other spears is usually low, and too risky for most Samurais to attempt.

In real life generals would usually have organized samurai according to weapon types: whoever got spears go in the front line, those with archers join the archers, and whoever got horses would serve as cavalry. It would be rare that a samurai would learn to be proficient with just one weapon, although it is unlikely that there would be a large number of polymaths (that is, people who are great in multiple things). Some situations of course a more chaotic mishmash of warriors armed with a variety of weapons would occur as well, usually a skirmish or a raid. The way this game is portrayed is not very realistic, or at the least, does not represent every situation. There will be times where battles are well-organized into neat groups with the same weapons; at other times they may seem no more than a well-armed mob.

Not really, at least for most of the Sengoku period what really happened was that a Samurai lead his retainers and they fight as a unit, usually with mixed weapons, the most common mix is Long Yari by the Ashigaru + Short Yari by the Samurais. a basic unit is a lead samurai with maybe 4-5 other Samurai retainers (they would be Samurais who have not inherited land or simply capable warriors that the leader recruited while the lead guy is the landed dude). and 20-50 Ashigaru depending on the various clan's rules. (some area have less distinction between the Samurais and Ashigarus but that's another story)

In an Yari formation the Long Yari Ashigarus would usually hold UP their pikes laterally, and then wack down in unison at the enemy. so they were essentially using them as staffs. it should be noted that medieval pikemens actually did the same against other infantries, while the more commonly known foward pointing formation was primarily used against cavalries. the Samurais, usually armed with shorter Yari or occasionally Naginatas , would act as the Halberdiers to the Swiss Pikemen in this sense, where they will try to deal with those that gets too close to the Ashigarus, or in turn try to defeat the enemy formation via flanking.

The other 2 common formation would be the Pavise and Bow fomration, which was later supplmented by the bamboo shield + teppo formation. in the former the Ashigarus usually were in charge of holding the Pavise while the Samurais shoot the bow (though some Ashigarus would also fire bows) and the later the Ashigarus moer often than not took the role of the reloader.

The more land you have, the more retainer you have, and so more complex formation or multiple formation might occur, but the general analogy remains similar, it was only until Oda Nobunaga and crew started showing up that true "unit by type" begin to appear... but that was usually the exception than the norm, in normal operating circumstances units were still based on various landed Samurais and their direct retainers.

As for Cavalry, as far as we know there were no such thing as cavalry "units" in the later Sengoku era, or pretty much the entire history of Samurai Japan, at least if your definition of cavalry unit is "an entire group of men fighting on horseback" and not "a group of men that rides to position on horse then fight dismounted" or "a unit where a couple of men fight mounted while suppoted by many dozen more on foot" some real cavalry unit may have existed in the early Samurai period, but they were usually much more common amongst their non-Samurai enemies.

if you want to know why they use a wacking tactic instead of a poking one, just try to find a long pole, and see if you can hold it horizontally while holding the end of of stick, chances are if that pole is long enough you can't, you have to hold it further up to retain balance, however you CAN hold it at the end if your holding it strait up. which means.. that the guys wacking down will hit you before your horizontal spear can poke at them. and even a really good helmet you'll still have some problem if you get hit by several heavy staff like that.

[Hikaru Genji]

If people are still interested in this topic, here's an article I just stumbled upon that goes into it with some greater detail; It may be interesting for those who have an interest in the period or like to be more "history conscious" in their campaigns.

http://www.samurai-archives.com/military.html

[Lord Baal]

Of course we are! Thanks!

[Kissaki]

One thing to remember about the Japanese cavalry is the size of the horses bred in Japan. From what I've seen in the screenshots in Shogun 2, they are much too large. Japanese horses were rather small, and all horse breeds were actually ponies. I believe Turnbull has speculated that the famous Takeda charge couldn't have been quite as powerful as popularly portrayed on account of this fact, but it is also well to remember that the Mongol's horses were about the same size, and they did alright.

[Kissaki]

if you want to know why they use a wacking tactic instead of a poking one, just try to find a long pole, and see if you can hold it horizontally while holding the end of of stick, chances are if that pole is long enough you can't, you have to hold it further up to retain balance, however you CAN hold it at the end if your holding it strait up. which means.. that the guys wacking down will hit you before your horizontal spear can poke at them. and even a really good helmet you'll still have some problem if you get hit by several heavy staff like that.

Have you tried this out in practice? Spears poke, and they poke very forcefully. Sure, it's easier to hold a long stick horizontally, but after you've "whacked", then what? You have much less control of the pole in this manner, and raising it up again takes much more effort than simply retracting a spear horizontally -- which doesn't require much effort at all. Remember, the spears were wielded two-handed, and whether you whack or you poke, the range is the same, but the thrust is far, far quicker and far more accurate, and far more difficult to respond to. And I can only imagine that whacking would be enormously more tiring than poking, for the reason given above, that you need to raise it up again.

Plus, if you take a mere cursory glance at so-jutsu, you will find no whacking at all. The spear is used as intended, to thrust. And indeed, pointed sticks have been used all over the world. If whacking was so efficient, that's how they would have been used. But they weren't. You can slash (or "whack") with a spear, yes, but that is not its primary function. Spears are, of course, carried laterally when marching, but lowered as they approach the enemy. The phalanx of old did this, the medieval pikemen did this, and the Japanese did this. With the medieval pike formations there were usually men with swords and pollaxes who did the "whacking", as the pikes were meant primarily as a cavalry deterrent, as you said. But a wall of pointed sticks behind another wall of pointed sticks behind another wall of pointed sticks certainly served to deter enemy infantry from coming into range as well.

Any battle-scrolls featuring yari also show them in horizontal use, in the thrust. The one most telling, that I have found, I posted on this thread:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=369516

Of course, like Juggernaut pointed out, that is most likely an Edo painting, but it clearly shows long yari used as one would expect -- horizontally.

[shikken]

If people are still interested in this topic I'd like to contribute.

I read that the Japanese volley fire technique was actually different to the European one. The European Maurice-style involved gunners in the front firing then moving back to the line to reload while those behind them took over. Apparently the Japanese one involved one line of shooters hiding behind cover being passed spare rifles from the back where loaders reloaded spent guns. I don't know about you but that sounds a lot smarter to me . That said the unit ability fire by rank doesn't really resemble either methods used at the time, I think.

I also think some thought should be given to naval units too .

From what I've read atakebune and sekibune the heavy and medium bunes were not equipped with bows but with large matchlocks like those use by the shimazu heavy gunners as well as wall guns which look more like sniper rifles. Or at least they'd have one line of gunners and one line of archers. They could also volley fire too and had sails which incidentally is visible on the campaign map naval unit. Many of them also had cannons though mostly only three to five (I think) bronze breech loading swivel guns that could fire rapidly but were used as anti-personnel weapons. On that note in one of the historical battles you're pitted against o-atakebune with matchlocks which is more accurate but not really fair. As for the o-atakebune I read in one of Turnbull's books that the one you see in the game is actually an Edo period design that may have never actually been built, the sengoku o-atakebune actually looked like the tekkousen unit you can use in one of the Age of Empires games. Basically a really tall ship that looked more like the Nihonmaru but with two small houses on the top. I think it would have been nice if vanilla Shogun2 had a ship upgrade feature like FoTS where you could go from bow bune to gun bune then finally iron bune.

On other ships the cannon bune actually had breech loading guns not muzzle loading ones that could rapidly fired. If you watch the animation closely they muzzle load them very slowly. Then there's the Red Seal Ship. From what I read the real ones were apparently as big as galleons and had 6 to 8 large European style cannons.

Not to mention I believe that all those European ships weren't nearly as big as they're portrayed but I suppose the Christianity conversion feature really needs them as justification for gameplay. Then again I don't think anyone can actually confirm the size of Sengoku ships. Estimates seem to vary from 50 feet to 160 feet for the atakebune. They probably did vary mind you. Most illustrations I've seen lead me to believe that the Nihonmaru was 300 ft. long twice the size of the largest carrack known which was what the Black Ship should've been. If that's true then Nihonmaru was the largest ship in the world at the time.

[Col. Tartleton]

One thing to remember about the Japanese cavalry is the size of the horses bred in Japan. From what I've seen in the screenshots in Shogun 2, they are much too large. Japanese horses were rather small, and all horse breeds were actually ponies. I believe Turnbull has speculated that the famous Takeda charge couldn't have been quite as powerful as popularly portrayed on account of this fact, but it is also well to remember that the Mongol's horses were about the same size, and they did alright.

Don't forget that Samurai were tiny. The Japanese aren't terribly tall now and they certainly were not then. 5'2" would have been the norm. Many were shorter.

[Kissaki]

If people are still interested in this topic I'd like to contribute.

I read that the Japanese volley fire technique was actually different to the European one. The European Maurice-style involved gunners in the front firing then moving back to the line to reload while those behind them took over. Apparently the Japanese one involved one line of shooters hiding behind cover being passed spare rifles from the back where loaders reloaded spent guns. I don't know about you but that sounds a lot smarter to me .

That depends -- cover means you sacrifice mobility. Both methods were used in Europe, but having designated gunners and designated loaders was reserved for defending entrenched/fortified positions. When out in the field, portable defenses hamper mobility (especially with regards to mounting and defending against bayonet charges) and fire by rank is better.

[shikken]

That depends -- cover means you sacrifice mobility. Both methods were used in Europe, but having designated gunners and designated loaders was reserved for defending entrenched/fortified positions. When out in the field, portable defenses hamper mobility (especially with regards to mounting and defending against bayonet charges) and fire by rank is better.

Very true but to me there's something to be said about a battle philosophy built around a slow well protected march of well armored and well guarded troops versus a lightning fast but dexterous advance built upon unarmored and poorly guarded troops.