Try issuing orders and directing your regiment in a more efficent way using 18th century tech. >Just hide, use cover
Okay I am going to order a bayonet charge, you can pick off a couple but the rest will flee/get impaled. That is why "US revolutionary war guerilla tactics" are often overblown in importance, the continental army fought in lines too. The brits had separate rifle companies that engaged in similar tactics as well, but the US forces had a clear home advantage and could hide well among civilians who only got more pissed at redcoats as they started getting targeted by them.
>mop the floor with insurgents >they go into hiding >get bored and leave >g-guys we won amirite
Suckstart a shotgun thirdie moron... Oh wait you can't own guns.
>"win the war" (lol) >fail to accomplish any of your principal goals after decades of cowardly, reserved, and indecisive fighting produces no results >decide you "don't care anymore" (lol) and leave
wow it's almost the exact story of the american revolution
>cowardly, reserved, and indecisive fighting >mfw light infantry-centric door to door clearing followed by absolute aviation annihilation is 'cowardly and reserved'
Guerilla warfare is a very effective tactic against occupying empires. It doesn't matter whether the occupiers are French, English, American, or Russian, it works the same.
The only way to truly destroy it would be to go full Paul Audryn and kill and destroy everything related to them...which would piss off more the local population, who will join the guerrilla side more.
What all boils down, is that in order to effectively destroy the guerrilla, logically, you would have to kill all the population. And that is not viable for several reasons
You don't target the population, you target its ability to sustain a wartime economy. Destroy their industry, and a starving population with no bullets will fold at the promise of getting something to eat.
The US didn't lose anything. It failed to establish white democracy in non-white countries. This is not a failure of military doctrine. It is a failure to understand the lie of multiculturalsim.
The final battle of the US Revolutionary War involved less than 15,000 troops a side
Skirmishers were introduced to the US by European mercenaries, and were formally included in the army doctrines of the time by European generals
Americans just can't accept that in 1776 their country was a backwater shithole in the eyes of the world, and their war for independence was about as relevant as the Niger war today
>Americans just can't accept that in 1776 their country was a backwater shithole in the eyes of the world, and their war for independence was about as relevant as the Niger war today
are you nuts?
the 1776 was was a matter of huge interest back on the continent and was a cause of significant debate in the UK
>Stand in a column, and not fire at the enemy?
This was actually done when they had to move more than a few steps in any direction since its easier to keep formation when following the guy in front of you instead of on your side
The reason troops had to be trained so hard and for so long, arguably removing the reason everyone switched to guns in the first place, is because they had to be disciplined enough to go from column to line in an instant without messing up
I dont really understand. Wouldnt the maneuvering part be at a great disadvantage in that kind of warfare? If one side has an advantageous position, what could possess the opponent to march into their line of fire? Did artillery cause lines to move around on both sides, creating more of a game for the generals?
Sort of. Artillery was about as accurate of the rifles of the time, so not very much at all; it was from the continuous volley of the guns that made them so effective. They essentially were to soften and apply pressure on the other army so infantry could actually get close and make actual accurate shots. If I can see you from 700 yards away but I know my riflemen will have to get within 100 yards to actually be able to MAYBE hit you, I'm encouraged to close that gap no matter what. Because the nobility were also the military, you have to remember there was quite a bit of ego to go with this, senior officers in a lot of nations didn't see the rank and file as little more than numbers on a sheet.
Realistically whats your alternative? fan out and attack the enemy piecemeal?
Obviously line formation worked and was the best thing to do or it wouldn't have been standard practice for so long.
Yeah but then there's a good chance your actions prevent Eugene Stoner from being born or if he is born he doesn't go through the American Great Depression and never creates the ar-15 in the first place. You make your own paradox. inb4 >"durr hurr time isn't linear"
multiple wars effective
multiple centuries effective
Biggest empire in the world effective
It worked until it didn't
Like everything?
>Stand in a line
>Hold long, pokey-stick towards the enemy
>Walk forward
Insane how effective this was
hold on a minute lads
wot if we put the pokey stick bit on the shooty gun
and then we stand in a line
Try issuing orders and directing your regiment in a more efficent way using 18th century tech.
>Just hide, use cover
Okay I am going to order a bayonet charge, you can pick off a couple but the rest will flee/get impaled. That is why "US revolutionary war guerilla tactics" are often overblown in importance, the continental army fought in lines too. The brits had separate rifle companies that engaged in similar tactics as well, but the US forces had a clear home advantage and could hide well among civilians who only got more pissed at redcoats as they started getting targeted by them.
>country literally founded on insurgency
>ass kicked by every insurgency since
what did the universe mean by this?
>mop the floor with insurgents
>they go into hiding
>get bored and leave
>g-guys we won amirite
Suckstart a shotgun thirdie moron... Oh wait you can't own guns.
>"win the war" (lol)
>fail to accomplish any of your principal goals after decades of cowardly, reserved, and indecisive fighting produces no results
>decide you "don't care anymore" (lol) and leave
wow it's almost the exact story of the american revolution
>cowardly, reserved, and indecisive fighting
>mfw light infantry-centric door to door clearing followed by absolute aviation annihilation is 'cowardly and reserved'
Thirdies have more gun rights than some states in america now lmao.
Guerilla warfare is a very effective tactic against occupying empires. It doesn't matter whether the occupiers are French, English, American, or Russian, it works the same.
The only way to truly destroy it would be to go full Paul Audryn and kill and destroy everything related to them...which would piss off more the local population, who will join the guerrilla side more.
What all boils down, is that in order to effectively destroy the guerrilla, logically, you would have to kill all the population. And that is not viable for several reasons
You don't target the population, you target its ability to sustain a wartime economy. Destroy their industry, and a starving population with no bullets will fold at the promise of getting something to eat.
The Americans did a good job defeating the insurgencies in Cuba, the Philippines, and Mexico. What are you talking about?
The US didn't lose anything. It failed to establish white democracy in non-white countries. This is not a failure of military doctrine. It is a failure to understand the lie of multiculturalsim.
The final battle of the US Revolutionary War involved less than 15,000 troops a side
Skirmishers were introduced to the US by European mercenaries, and were formally included in the army doctrines of the time by European generals
Americans just can't accept that in 1776 their country was a backwater shithole in the eyes of the world, and their war for independence was about as relevant as the Niger war today
>Americans just can't accept that in 1776 their country was a backwater shithole in the eyes of the world, and their war for independence was about as relevant as the Niger war today
are you nuts?
the 1776 was was a matter of huge interest back on the continent and was a cause of significant debate in the UK
Ye Twitter was absolutely brimming with .mp1 of the event in case, do my say.
Plus dispersing would make you way more vulnerable to cavalry
>guys, line up so we can shoot at you
>ok
It's like a bukake but with bullets.
How did they decide who went in the first rank? That sounds like a suicidal position.
>How did they decide who went in the first rank?
They played backgammon or whist.
What's your alternative?
Stand in a column, and not fire at the enemy?
>Stand in a column, and not fire at the enemy?
This was actually done when they had to move more than a few steps in any direction since its easier to keep formation when following the guy in front of you instead of on your side
The reason troops had to be trained so hard and for so long, arguably removing the reason everyone switched to guns in the first place, is because they had to be disciplined enough to go from column to line in an instant without messing up
>FREEDOOOOMMM!!
>FREEDOOOOMMM!!
>FREEDOOOOMMM!!
>*bayonets other player in the gut*
I dont really understand. Wouldnt the maneuvering part be at a great disadvantage in that kind of warfare? If one side has an advantageous position, what could possess the opponent to march into their line of fire? Did artillery cause lines to move around on both sides, creating more of a game for the generals?
Sort of. Artillery was about as accurate of the rifles of the time, so not very much at all; it was from the continuous volley of the guns that made them so effective. They essentially were to soften and apply pressure on the other army so infantry could actually get close and make actual accurate shots. If I can see you from 700 yards away but I know my riflemen will have to get within 100 yards to actually be able to MAYBE hit you, I'm encouraged to close that gap no matter what. Because the nobility were also the military, you have to remember there was quite a bit of ego to go with this, senior officers in a lot of nations didn't see the rank and file as little more than numbers on a sheet.
It was because the bullets and rifles didn’t have rifling in them yet. So volleys of shots had to be used to hit anything
Realistically whats your alternative? fan out and attack the enemy piecemeal?
Obviously line formation worked and was the best thing to do or it wouldn't have been standard practice for so long.
i think about going back in time and giving the brits ar15s so they could beat the americans
Yeah but then there's a good chance your actions prevent Eugene Stoner from being born or if he is born he doesn't go through the American Great Depression and never creates the ar-15 in the first place. You make your own paradox. inb4
>"durr hurr time isn't linear"
did line infantry ever fire upwards in an arc like archers?