Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Why not Fire by Rank

  1. #1

    Default Why not Fire by Rank

    Why not rank fire?

    At least 3 good reasons:

    1. As devastating as it may look, it only has a devastating effect on morale. Doesn't really makes any real damage. From the 160 shots fired by the three ranks, only about 20 casualties where inflicted, mainly from the enemy's first rank. This is due to the rapidity of the volleys. In about 5 seconds they unleash 160 bullets, and not always gives time for the hit casualty to fall
    So he can be hit again and again. Makes perfect sense nowadays to shoot somebody with at least 10 bullets, just to make sure, maybe a grenade too , but back than a man would only get ten rounds per campaign, sometimes only three. So it was just a waste of ammo, not really a destroyer.

    2. To allow the rear ranks to fire, the man in front have to kneel and start the reloading process, witch is not how you proceed with a cumbersome smooth-bore. These weapons had long barells compensate to it's low accuracy and where harder to reload in crouched position, so the already slow process of reloading got further longer. All this is fine because even so, a steady handed soldier could fire 3 per minute, but no sound minded CO wold allow his man to kneel in the middle of a firefight. The reason for this is obvious: we go back in high school. I don't know about you guys but I sprinted the 100m in under 13 seconds. That's faster than a reload time, and they would fire at each other from shorter distance. If the enemy starts a well timed charge, it can reach-Them, while the first rank is still wanking their rods, the second rank is aiming the bullet into the barrel, while the third is just bite open the cartridge and trying to pure some powder into the breech and the half cocked firing mechanism or lock. Now this is no way to receive an assault. Not to mention a cavalry attack! They would run circles around the company before they could reload.
    So, no kneeling, no rank fire.

    3. Besides the other flaws of this drill I will depict an in-game flaw, witch is also the flaw of other firing drills, except the volley. The fire sequence starts only when everybody is ready to fire. U can easily mess this up by advancing a unit to just enter their firing radius's extreme flank, this will trigger a response of a small group of 5-7 men to fire upon your unit. Quickly retreat and change them, or just start firing in them. Meanwhile those 5 or 7 will start the reloading process while their comrades wait patiently to be massacred.

    That being said, I'm avoiding the use of this drill.

    Restecpa!

  2. #2
    divilly's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    MG, Brazil
    Posts
    327

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    Fire by Rank is an extremely effective technique. It clearly increases infantry's firepower. You can easily test it in early game, when most factions lack Fire by Rank ability.

    You said "back than a man would only get ten rounds per campaign". Where did you get this information?

  3. #3

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    the swedish caroleans were typically only given 5 bullets before a battle, the rest was expected to be done with the rapier. the caroleans were extreme shock troops of the era tho, other armies were probably given 30 or so bullets. in vietnam war someone took the time to calculate it took over 10.000 rounds for every man shot, and that formed the basis of the spray & pray philosophy behind M-16, it seems soldiers just dont aim like hunters do
    Last edited by poa; April 15, 2017 at 07:43 AM.
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

  4. #4

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    Quote Originally Posted by poa View Post
    the swedish caroleans were typically only given 5 bullets before a battle, the rest was expected to be done with the rapier. the caroleans were extreme shock troops of the era tho, other armies were probably given 30 or so bullets.
    Do you have a source for this? I have a hard time believing it without a source. By the age of the musket, weapons like the rapier had limited usefulness of the battlefield. Cavalry still relied on shock and momentum of their charges (usually carrying swords or lances), but even with them a well-formed, well-practiced infantry unit could withstand and defeat one of their charges (at least those that were head-on). I see no advantage in giving an infantry unit, even a shock unit, less than 30 musket balls...that could be a huge problem for them if they were to get into a prolonged firefight with another unit.


    Quote Originally Posted by poa View Post
    in vietnam war someone took the time to calculate it took over 10.000 rounds for every man shot, and that formed the basis of the spray & pray philosophy behind M-16, it seems soldiers just dont aim like hunters do
    Okay, you definitely need to provide a source for that one. 10k rounds fired for every round shot? That sounds more than a bit exaggerated. Spray & pray isn't a real technique, it's just some slang that someone invented. Soldiers are actually trained to aim; the weapons qualification they go through in basic training consist of a very formalized rifle match course. The difference between a soldier and a hunter is that a solider has to make more than 1 shot at a time, often times with the intent of killing or wounding many enemies at once. So a soldier will inherently have a reason to fire more rounds than a hunter who is just trying to take out one animal.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    i have next to no online material, and the two i have are written in old swedish style so google translate wont cut it. the smaller cut is the written doctrine established 1694 on how to wage war, each soldier only fired a single bullet before they went to business with the rapier, the swedish charge formation was typically 4 men deep, at 70 steps away, the two lines behind fired their volley, before pulling out the rapier and resume running towards enemy, at 30 steps away, the two lines in front fired their volley, after which everyone charged. this was later modified so the front lines would only fire when they were within reach for bayonet. ........ the other cut from 1701 states the front line may not fire until they can reach with bayonet, notes are at jakobstadt they advanced 'in full running', at fraustadt 'in vollen rennen' ( my note, that aint swedish but german was very much a common language within military at this time) at poltava 'fast running' at gadebush 'very fast' ......... on vietnam war, i'm just not good at google but the info is definitely out there .......ed: the carolean principle was to never get into a prolonged fire exchange, being consistently outnumbered, that would be a sure-bet guarantee they would end up with the short stick, since the other side could always fling more bullets by virtue of having more guns, additionally 1/3 of the carolean infantry was made up of pikemen, and on top of that the carolean army was heavy on cavalry, and light on cannons, then the swedes were typically bigger than their opponents, all pointing towards the obvious desire of hand to hand combat. charge with cold steel was the only acceptable principle for the carolean army, the idea was that the infantry would push enemy infantry into retreat, or at least unable to form squares, after which the cavalry could make the mass killing. cavalry charge against infantry in good order was never going to be successfull
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails charge while running p44.jpg   the new doctrine Stockholm apr 21 1694.jpg  
    Last edited by poa; April 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM.
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

  6. #6

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    I think what you're referring to are the last remnants of the Renaissance era of warfare. By the 1700's, frontal charges, by cavalry or by infantry, were largely outdated and easily defeated by well-disciplined volley fire. Pikes were increasingly becoming obsolete by that time as regular musket-armed troops were becoming increasingly capable of defeating opposing charges with either volley fire or by forming defensive formations and using their bayonets as spears.

    Going into the age of musketry and infantry warfare (which arguably reached its zenith in the Napoleonic decades of the early 1800's), infantry charges and melee still played a role and there were units which still had some use as 'shock troops' (grenadiers, which sound similar in function to the caroleans you're describing). But by and large, all infantry units were capable of melee combat. Melee was usually the follow-up to a ranged engagements, and the deciding factor was how fast a unit could put volley fire into the opposition's ranks. This is why European countries were so effective at colonizing and conquering large swaths of foreign lands (often times defeating numerically-superior, but poorly armed indigenous forces).

  7. #7

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    welp, the carolean shock tactics proved to be superior to just standing rooted to the spot like other armies did, there just wasnt time to reload when they came running, note how consistently caroleans won in spite of being outnumbered. the english commander, when facing numerically superior indian troops and was losing in the gun duel, resorted to a charge and thus won the battle. eventually, russians found out the proper way of counter the carolean charge: have massive gun battery, have 5:1 numerical superiority, and it might be possible to quell the charge before they make it to hand to hand combat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...t_Northern_War ...and no, this was not renaissance warfare, the previous swedish king gustav adolf had already developed the line everyone was imitating, the swedes needed a new doctrine as a counter since they fought outnumbered as always. the swedish general stenbock swapped out the pikes in favor of all musket infantry, but Karl XII swapped back on his return, restating that charge was the only acceptable way of battle, and i presume the long pikes had an effect upon the initial contact, causing disarray at the critical moment, just like the point blank volley
    Last edited by poa; April 18, 2017 at 01:10 PM.
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    Quote Originally Posted by poa View Post
    welp, the carolean shock tactics proved to be superior to just standing rooted to the spot like other armies did, there just wasnt time to reload when they came running, note how consistently caroleans won in spite of being outnumbered. the english commander, when facing numerically superior indian troops and was losing in the gun duel, resorted to a charge and thus won the battle. eventually, russians found out the proper way of counter the carolean charge: have massive gun battery, have 5:1 numerical superiority, and it might be possible to quell the charge before they make it to hand to hand combat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...t_Northern_War ...and no, this was not renaissance warfare, the previous swedish king gustav adolf had already developed the line everyone was imitating, the swedes needed a new doctrine as a counter since they fought outnumbered as always. the swedish general stenbock swapped out the pikes in favor of all musket infantry, but Karl XII swapped back on his return, restating that charge was the only acceptable way of battle, and i presume the long pikes had an effect upon the initial contact, causing disarray at the critical moment, just like the point blank volley
    No. Just no. There is so much wrong with this post. "Carolean shock tactics" may have had some success here and there, but those were not the prevalent tactics used by most armies of that time. Go read about the big battles of that time. They were rarely decided by sword-wielding shock troops. Rather they were decided by artillery fire, disciplined infantry formations and well-timed and well-aimed cavalry charges. The caroleans sound to be the same as the grenadier troops of other countries (which were generally picked for their size and physical abilities). And while shock infantry tactics had some applicability to the battlefield, well-timed musket vollley's followed by counter charges were normally enough to dissuade melee-focused infantry.

    You sound like the same sort of fanboy who naively believes that Spartan warriors were some elite, mythical, superior force. They weren't. They reality of their battlefield performance is quite divorced from how some people have fantasized and embellished their reputation, much like it is with your views on carolean shock troops. Everyone got their butt kicked at one point or another in the wars of 1600's and 1700's, including your famed Swedish carolean shock troops.

  9. #9
    divilly's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    MG, Brazil
    Posts
    327

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    In sports, they call it "own-nationality bias". People tend to overvalue their home country's deeds and imagery

  10. #10

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    Quote Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
    No. Just no. There is so much wrong with this post. "Carolean shock tactics" may have had some success here and there, but those were not the prevalent tactics used by most armies of that time. Go read about the big battles of that time. They were rarely decided by sword-wielding shock troops. Rather they were decided by artillery fire, disciplined infantry formations and well-timed and well-aimed cavalry charges. The caroleans sound to be the same as the grenadier troops of other countries (which were generally picked for their size and physical abilities). And while shock infantry tactics had some applicability to the battlefield, well-timed musket vollley's followed by counter charges were normally enough to dissuade melee-focused infantry. You sound like the same sort of fanboy who naively believes that Spartan warriors were some elite, mythical, superior force. They weren't. They reality of their battlefield performance is quite divorced from how some people have fantasized and embellished their reputation, much like it is with your views on carolean shock troops. Everyone got their butt kicked at one point or another in the wars of 1600's and 1700's, including your famed Swedish carolean shock troops.
    yes, its called coalition, every faction north of austria, from england in the west, to russia in the east, ganged up and defeated the carolean army with a 5:1 numerical superiority. that doesnt take away the fact that with a mere double size army, they could not stand their ground, and that is staggering. according to clausewitz & lanchesters laws, which both states that the caroleans defied military wisdom, no army can be expected to win with just half the size is the consensus, aside from defending inside a stronghold. the caroleans just didnt get the meme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws ........... ed: agree it wasnt the common way of battle, the common way was indeed standing rooted to the spot until the larger size army had gotten enough upper hand to charge.
    Last edited by poa; April 23, 2017 at 06:06 PM.
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

  11. #11

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    The point of fire by rank historically was to maintain a continuous fire. The Zulus would never get free dash to the infantry at any time, if they were doing it right.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Why not Fire by Rank

    IIRC, according to relations from battle of fraustadt, the saxons only got off a single volley at 60 meter before caroleans reached them with the rapier, and saxony had one of the best equipped and trained armies of the time. 60 meter was a bit too far to be effective. just like the caroleans, each saxon had a rapier,
    but far less experience using it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fraustadt


    Attached Files Attached Files
    My 6 2nd rates routed in horror from 1 brig + 1 5th rate on auto-resolve....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •