Why did the US invent such a retarded doctrine as "walking fire"?

Why did the US invent such a moronic doctrine as "walking fire"?

>hey guys let's advance slowly in a line across the open ground into the entrenched enemy's artillery, mortars and belt-fed MGs

Did it ever actually work?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No but it worked well as an intermediary between a machine gun and a rifle. Kinda like a, what do you call it, an assault rifle?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >No but it worked well
      Wrong. Look up the meaning of terms before you talk shit, mutt.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's rich that you're telling people to look up definitions when you're too ESL to understand the rest of the post.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Better doctrine than europeans walking into fire instead

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Until WWI it was what everyone was using or very similar. The real change in tactic came with armoured divisions being massed. The armies in WWI were massively made by levies, you cannot give them orders that are too complex. Take the current Mobiks, they give them a rifle, they say run and shoot and that's it. Can't expect initiative

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marching_fire
    >18th century
    >considered it "ill advised", with the line's progress across the field seen as too slow, exposing the troops for too long to defensive fire.
    Old tactic dating back to before WW1. Maybe worked but against a dug in position sounds like suicide.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    We look back at WWI today and think of how much stuff they did that seems stupid to us today, but you have to remember that everything was new back then. The machine gun, among other things, completely changed warfare. Nobody new what worked or what was stupid yet because everything was largely untested, there was no historical precedent to look back to. So they tried all sorts of crazy shit to break the stalemates in trenches--they had to, because nobody knew what worked and what didn't yet.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone knew perectly well what a game-changer MGs and bolt-action rapid-firing magazine rifles were. The tail-end of the colonial wars showed that and the Russo-Japanese war cemented it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >The tail-end of the colonial wars showed that and the Russo-Japanese war cemented it.
        You would be correct but you have to remember that a lot of the top brass in the militaries are fricking old morons that hate change. For fricks sake the very start of WW1 you had British troops marching into battle in columns all because a lot of the old fricks still thought that's how you should fight. Hell look how the US were so fixed on staying with the M1 Garand even though it was showing its age during the Korean war.
        >Everyone knew perectly well what a game-changer MGs and bolt-action rapid-firing magazine rifles were
        You say that but in reality they didn't. British troops and even French troops were still trained to treat their bolt rifles that had magazines as single shot rifles, they weren't allowed to use their magazines unless they had permission from their superiors.
        TLDR: Old people are fricking moronic and always frick up things all because they hate change.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >the very start of WW1 you had British troops marching into battle in columns
          Pretty sure we had that stuff knocked out of us in the Boer War if not before. Examples? It was the vaunted German army that got mown down in open order by rapid, accurate British rifle fire at Mons in 1914.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          They were still doing cavalry charges in WW1 just to further prove your point as well. Anyone else know that story about some old fricking cavalry commander who still thought cavalry was relevant and some other soldier said calvary is pointless because of machine guns, some big argument of disagreement happened so that one soldier took a machine gun, filled it with blank rounds then shot at the amassed cavalry and was like "there you're all dead" to prove that in the face of overwhelming machine gun fire cavalry is fricking useless.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, some people realized the fact that MG's were game-changers. But the underlying point is that nobody knew how to counter them, or even how to most effectively deploy them yet. The *tactics* didn't exist yet, and were developed experimentally during the war. Walking fire was one such experiment.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Walking fire was one such experiment.
          they really should have asked some video game nerds to wargame better tactics

  6. 1 year ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    Found a pic
    Knows the terms
    refused to research

    troll thread

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >refused to research
      He's setting up a discussion, not requesting the information. Whether walking fire worked or not is more a matter of opinion rather than fact if you ask me, since it's a moronic doctrine but the US actually won that war

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >but the US actually won that war

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Did it ever actually work?
    Real Walking Fire has never actually been tried.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The 20 round magazine of the BAR was a CIA plot to prevent disruption of the status quo. If the BAR was belt fed, or even if it had a larger magazine like the lewis gun then walking fire surely would have succeeded.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Fire-and-movement tactics are how to cross open ground. Walking slowly across in a line firing from the hip against an enemy in cover is the most fantastically stupid tactic ever devised.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Walking fire is awesome and it should be the doctrine today.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *