Posted by admin | Posted in Nike Air | Posted on 02-09-2007
Tags: bookmark, bookmarks, delicious, save, web2.0
A look at what is currently available on eBay
Where did the red coats get their men?
When the red coats were looking for more cannon fodder where did they keep finding people stupid enough to get shot stabbed slashed or blown up by cannons. I mean they just lined them up to be shot at and said there's a bunch of guys waiting to kill you horribly so march up to them.
I'm surprised that there were any men left alive anywhere on earth after a year of the red coats being around by the stupid way they fought their wars they might have well said who ever marches the most men over a Cliff and to their death in a day wins the war
Many of the answers appear to be a little confused. In answer to your main question, where did the British Army get it's men. They were made up of recruits from the British Isles (England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland). Most regiments were attached to an area (later on tied to a county) for recruitment. Those who joined signed on for a variety of reasons. Many people have been spouting the same rubbish that many commanders said from the era about drunken criminals. However this is merely repeating 18th century snobbishness. Many recruits (up 25%) were private soldiers, they had signed up into the ranks as despite being literate and of a middling class they were unable to afford a commission, they hoped that by showing bravery in battle they could obtain a commission. Many of them volunteered to be part of forlorn hopes' the first wave to attack a breach in fortifications in the hope of obtaining commission on the back of this. The other large group that volunteered and the group that senior officers most valued were the agricultural labourers, these people were flexible and used to long hours of hard work in poor weather. This made them Ideal soldiers. What made the army attractive to them was the regular wages, agricultural work was obviously seasonal and you aren't guaranteed pay. The taking of the shilling was strictly symbolic, it being the first part of your pay, army pay was actually much higher than this.
In answer to your questions of tactics, the tactics were used as they were the most effective way to use the weapons available. They had evolved over the centuries as the firearms had become more important. In traditional warfare (swords and pikes ect) the depth of a formation had a direct influence on how long it could stay fighting (when formations ran away casualties tended to be highest). The reason for this is that if you have a lot of people behind you it is very hard to run away, the people at the back are less likely to run as they are not under a direct threat so the formation fights for longer. This was something that was used in the column attack. This allowed a large unit to exert forces at a small part of the line in an attempt to break it, while those at the front may die the column could still move forward due to impetus from the back and those at the front feeling obliged to carry on. It is important to remember the tactic was not one based on the use of firepower, as the number of men who could actually fire was small, the aim was to close with the enemy and engage in hand to hand combat or simply scare him into running away. The column attack was very successful and was still being used by the French and Germans in 1914 with hideous consequences as technology had by then moved on. However it was very successful in many battles of the era. It is a fair argument to say that the Russian 'human wave' tactic of WW2 was also in truth a column attack and in this case the chinese also used it to great affect in the Korean war as well against modern well suplied fire power doctrine based western armies.
The thin red line system was a defencive tactic, most armies adopted a three rank system the British a two bayonet charges from it were only used in this formation once the enemies attacks had been broken and turned (as at Waterloo). This was used as it enable the most guns of a unit to be fired. However very few would have hit. Tests have shown that a platoon of 50-60 men firing in volley at a target at 40 yards would have registered two hits. Against infantry it was good enough as several volleys could be got off with increasing deadliness while the attackers closed with you. It was also a good way to reduce artillery casualties as when a shot passes through the line it kills only two or three (it being very hard to get a cannon close enough to use grape shot). However against cavalry this tactic was suicidal and a square was the best option, but if artillery could be brought to bare on a square casualties would be high.
When looked at logically these tactics make sense as they provide the best way to use the weapons available, while at the same time keeping formations united (as in under the control of their officers). Without these tactics the chances of men turning and running would have been far higher. Also you appear to have over estimated the chances of death from these tactics, see the references below. In a quick estimate I think the chances of death being around 5-10% in a battle. In this period (and in all wars up to the 20th century) the biggest killers were disease.