Comments by "" (@jmitterii2) on "American Battlefield Trust" channel.

  1. Well, didn't matter, they generally lined up in battle line formation anyways... they all stuck out like a soar thumb. Actually, maybe beneficial. Was many times in the civil war due to basic uniforms being nearly identical and smoke on the field, it was often that friendly fire took place, was difficult in distinguishing friend from foe. And sometimes they would think a friendly line was advancing when it was the enemy. Not the same type of warfare of the WWI and beyond. And there were hidden unit sharp shooters in this time period like the Austrian air riflemen. Such units were considered dishonorable and would not be taken for prisoner, if captured they were hung. Not the same type of warfare.
    7
  2. I'd have the operate in small 20 to 30 platoon sections using gorilla style tactics.  Coordination would be through runners. But as long as the enemy was fighting Napoleon style; mine would be a entrenched fortified position with trenches and have them attack me.  No standing in the opening. Just flat stupid with those particular weapons. And the cannons at this time are even more deadly than 18th century.  
    2
  3. Brandon Selke They wouldn't be raids or skirmishes. The entire Army's divisions would attack with more heft on evasion. Kind of like they do today. The only difficulty would be coordination, however, it was extremely difficult just to coordinate the large brigades. And the same was true for this type of warfare even in WWII, often the radio was inoperative. When individual brigades face off, if taking the offensive, each regiment and company within the regiment would attack in platoon not to be massed into a battle rank formation. But similar to skirmish lines. More like a tactical march of today. And use wick grenades (not the lousy Ketchum) and small mortars which would have been fairly easily fashioned at the time. I'm only speaking from hindsight that they did eventually find out their weaponry was ahead of their tactics, as their tactics evolved to trench warfare and tactical drill methods. Line formation was not good at all for either side when taking the offensive.  The defensive even in the 1700's and past, always had an advantage of hiding behind walls or building fortifications.  However, at this stage, you had to attack with an aggressive defensive nature. If I could go back in time with hindsight, would introduce these tactics. Instead of 50,000 wounded and dead in a large battle, the results would probably fewer dead at least on one side. Standing in line formation in front of parrot cannons or Napoleon cannons was extremely stupid.  Attacking a cannon position should be treated as we treat attacking a machine gun nest today.  Diversionary fire, movements in sight that can be seen are constantly changing positions, and the goal is to flank rush. For hard to move cannons, this would be a pretty good tactic. And you could use cavalry as a offensive diversion especially countered by defending cavalry near the cannon positions. My other main point, if my opponent insisted on fighting Napoleon style, you could always get him to attack your fortified positions.  Always get your opponent to attack while your strength is well fortified.    The ending fact, the way they fought with the weapons they had was absurd in hindsight.  They slowly adjusted toward the end of the war. 
    1
  4. If people really cared, voting participation on non-November elections or on non-presidential elections in some counties are as small as 12% to 13%... state wide often in the 30%. Last presidential election only 55%. And of course gerrymandering allows the local plutocrats to stack candidates... which drives this lack of participation... candidate A vs A.... they're one in the same hedged by the same set of plutocrats... or even more likely in smaller populated areas just one plutocrat followed by his hired goons and flunkies. People feel powerless. And simply feel voting is dubious. Doesn't help when some of these parties outright cook their "counting" and get caught and attempt to pawn it off on some bogus computer error; yeah that computer error just happened to in every instance draw votes away from THAT particular candidate for these other candidates. Why not just tell me unicorns and leprechauns are to blame. At least they can get whatever its worth from the insanity plea.
    1