Army Combat Vet REACTS to Random Holdfast Nations at War (Sovietwomble)
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 06. 2022
- Get 50% Off My CZcams Creator's Master Class tinyurl.com/CZcams-Referrals
Original Video is Here: • Random Holdfast: Natio...
➧Get Exclusive Content on Patreon.com/combatvetpaul
➧Discord! discord.gg/ZmhCTJmAhW
➧Merch! tinyurl.com/5d8aywze
➧More Reactions! / combatveteranreacts
➧Instagram: combatvetpaul
➧Combat Veteran Breakdown Podcast: / @combatveteranbreakdow...
➧Stream Highlights! / @combatvetlive
➧Twitch: twitch.tv/combatvetpaul
For business inquiries only: cvr.mhgr@intheblackmedia.com
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS
*Disclaimers: all opinions are my own, sponsors are acknowledged. Not financial advice, for entertainment purposes only. - Hry
Get 50% Off My CZcams Creator's Master Class w/Promo code "CombatVet" 20-million-view-creators-masterclass.teachable.com/p/20m-view-creator-s-youtube-masterclass?coupon_code=COMBATVET
react to graystillplays the first video is ( forcing AI to create traumatic news stories )
I will say you make a lot of generalizations, especially regarding medieval warfare. First and foremost the 15 and 1600s are squarely in the "Early Modern" period, with most historians agreeing the medieval period ended with the fall of Constantinople in 1453, though some pushing it later to Columbus' discovery of the new world in 1492. Second of all, the mercenary conflict with minimal casualties you discuss is a somewhat unique phenomenon, unique to Italy, and this phenomenon was largely ended after the Italian Wars between the French and the Spanish brought more serious and deadly conflict to the area. Other battle styles definitely included mass slaughter, for example many battles during the Crusades and 100 years war ended with nearly complete annihilation on one side, with even nearby civilian centers being butchered. The Medieval Period is a massive length of time, generally considered to likely have begun with the fall of rome, though some argue Charlemagne's ascendancy to the position of Holy Roman Emperor is a better start date, Either way, that's a bare minimum of aroundabout 500 years worth of technological, tactical, and political advancement. You're right, though, that usually wars weren't about fighting to destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. Wars were generally fought on two concepts: One, political pressure to end wars by securing disputed territory. Instead of going for the decisive regions of a nation, they generally just secured the desired land and then sued for peace, or two, the total annihilation of the enemy side. This, too, is a generalization, but it's fairly accurate for most places in most times in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Also, Primogeniture (The eldest son inheriting all the land) was far from the standard across Europe. various systems rise and fell throughout times, but you're right that nations that had primogeniture tended to have their nobility become officers so that their younger sons could have the possibility of becoming politically influential and making a name for themselves, but it also has to do with how troops were raised in some nations: Oftentimes, it wasn't the crown in charge of raising and training armies, but local lords and estate-owners, who would levy peasants into service and recruit Knights to work as elite shock troops. These local lords were often expected to lead their own troops, thereby making them commanders by virtue of "owning" the troops themselves.
Also that Black-and-white flag with the eagle on it you called japanese is the flag of Prussia, one of the precursor states to Germany.
The reason you don't see usually fire by rank in Holdfast is because that only works in lines of dozens if not hundreds. These servers have a population of 200, so to make it not 2 single lines facing off against each other, they break up into smaller unit sizes. Also, these are hobbyists enjoying an afternoon online, not national guard or real re-enactors
I love Holdfast, but basically everyone who isn't dedicated to artillery is a skirmisher... there is little value to be gained from line fire in that game, it just makes an easier, broader target.
So, fire by rank was relatively rare. Usually fire by platoon or company was used since regiment on regiment fights were the norm then. This meant it would be easier and have a higher fire rate to just cycle through companies or platoons. Most troops were divided by platoon and company anyway, while ranks were not as well defined in the troops drill. Also, commands would be given from platoon or company commanders, but rank commanders didn't exist meaning instead of each unit having one command to fire from one commander, they would be trying to listen for one commander giving two separate firing orders. Very confusing in the din of battle.
@@sunnyjim1355 having been formerly part of the Mount and Blade: Napoleonic Wars community, if your role is line infantry that battle you're going to fight as line infantry. Meaning you're going to march and fire in lines or else, skirmisher tactics are left to the designated skirmish regiments
I love when the sappers get a sandbagline on one of the grassy plains maps and you end up charging their sandbag pretty epic
You can use a 10 man squad.
Just so people know, because it bothers me: not all infantry fought like Line Infantry. The French had light infantry who excelled at fighting from cover (and even prone, reloading on their backs,) and the British had light infantry who would spread out amongst the terrain and fight in pairs, one reloading, and one shooting. Both might also use camouflage, depending on the time and place, particularly in America.
Line Infantry were just the ones best at launching, and preventing, decisive blows.
And the British riflemen and skirmishes too - British pioneered light infantry tactics in that time
@@milespaxevanos-evans8955 Austria had very good light infantry in the 18th century as well.
@@Fordo007 Austria was terrible at everything in the 18th century
@@sovietunion6598 the Jägers would beg to disagree
@@sovietunion6598 factually wrong tho. They might have not been the best, but they definitely kicked ass when they needed to
8:17, a minor history issue here. The conscription process of the French military machine was already well created by individuals such as Carnot, Dumouriez and others who are sadly forgotten. Napoleon effectively welded the French revolutionary army, but he did not create it.
The key thing Napoleon did wasn't to conscript common soldiers but to professionalize the officer corps. The revolution was an absolute godsend for that purpose as it cleared out most of the utterly useless aristocratic failsons occupying the officer ranks before (and which were still dragging down Napoleon's various enemies, causing more damage than the corsican himself ever could).
At 29:00, that was not them being weird. Due to the bullet drop being such an issue, it is hard to tell how high up you need to aim to hit a target. As such, when someone hits something, he gets asked where he aimed so the rest of the line can adjust their aims accordingly. This is a Holdfast thing, I am not sure if it happened in the real world, though I imagine some sort of equivalent would have happened.
due to the smoke, communications, and the fact that these lines would be a couple hundred men, figuring out who got a hit, let alone managing to track him down and ask him would be virtually impossible
@@Kyuschi, I was thinking more generally, like someone yelling 'Aim higher! None of us hit!' But yeah, the game has some rather special things like asking 'Where did you aim?' which I find hilarious.
@@H.J.Fleischmann i suppose after adjustable sights came in they did add "at 200 yards" and such to the firing commands but i still feel like it would be very difficult to see where your shots actually went at a distance unless you were shooting into sand, it is stupid and funny though
22:12 They're playing as Prussians.
Yes those sneaky German speaking Japanese people infiltrating Napoleonic battles
Hey Paul, hello again. The country and its flag that you failed to guess actually is Prussia. Its the country that we know as Germany for today. Thank you for the reaction.
Well... It was part of what became Germany.
Of course, today, it's part of Poland, Russia and Lithuania.
Yes those sneaky German speaking Japanese people infiltrating Napoleonic battles
I wouldnt say that prussia today is know as germany but i get what youre saying
Prussia may have united Gerrmany but none of Prussia is part of Germany today. The Allies wiped it and it's culture off the map.
@@Fordo007 The Kingdom of Prussia was more than just the region of Prussia, for most of its existence its actual power-base was in Brandenburg.
In the past i've spent almost two years as a regular in a holdfast line regiment (3 dywizja, formerly 12pp, formerly 3pp), so i can answear some of your question.
-Everybody forms in lines, because most of the footage in this video is from line battle events. Those events aim at a more immersive expierience, and scince in-game mechanics and scale do not encourage forming lines, during those events it is mandated by server rules that players may only shoot when they are in a line of at least three people.
-In such enviorment, firing in salvos is a must, because of two reasons (which are actually the same as historical) :
1) When firing continnously, without order, those who would fire first would generate a cloud of smoke (blackpowder and all), that would hide the targets from those who try to fire after them. When firing alltogether by salvo, by the time the entire line reloads, the smoke tends to clear out, so it maximises the available firepower.
2) Correction of fire- Holdfast models bullet drop. The officer in command of the line, is the one who dictates how high or low those in line are to shoot. Officers have scopes, which they use to see how far from the enemy, the spread fired from the line lands, and by how much it has to be corrected. A single, big and easily visible spread of shots, gives the officer in command better idea of where the shots are landing. This is also why at 28:57 the officer asks the man who got a hit, what he was aiming for.
22:16 that's Prussia... ... JAPANESE?!?
Yes those sneaky German speaking Japanese people infiltrating Napoleonic battles
Holdfast is an amusing game with at times a surprising amount of team work. They also have WW1 in Holdfast too so those should make some amusing reaction videos. Specifically from 5uhDude.
Note: Some videos may contain copyrighted music.
4:24 actually, in RTS games like the Cossack series, you will need officers and marching drummer to group your troops into formations and this is important because depending on the type of formations you use, it's gonna make your infantry resistant or vulnerable to certain types of units.
A great demonstration of the volley fire system comes from the movie titled Zulu
As a matter of fact, that isn't how it went. 3-4 ranks behind each other fired AT ONCE, and different segments NEXT TO each other fired after the other has reloaded, or if order was given to return fire. This is called fire by section.
Volley fire also existed, usually to either to start or stop a charge. Since melee ensued afterwards refire delay wasn't an issue.
also unless there was enough sections that they would keep continuous fire if all of them volleyed continuously, they didn't fire by themselves while the other section reloaded, they took aim and held their fire until the other section was finished reloading unless they were charged from somewhere, so that while it didn't increase rate of fire, you did always at least have some of the line loaded in case you needed to quickly react to something
extremely good video and channel: czcams.com/video/EURWwDbKvWY/video.html
23:44 Actually the time requirement for an infantrymen to reload is around 15 seconds, so 3 rounds per minute these men could fire if they were well trained.
Yeah, that's yet another myth people love to push about old weapons and such. Like how they claim medieval knight armor was so heavy they could barely move in it, yet one search on this same website will find videos of people in full-weight replicas literally doing sprints in them. Yes, they're heavy, and no, you would not want to run like that for very far or long, but the suits are not so heavy they turn you into a lurching hunchback that can barely stand up.
@@freedantheeternal The worst has to be then cutting through said plate armor somehow. Plate armor was completely cut- and stab proof, that's the whole reason it was worn, otherwise, why bother? Not that it shouldn't be obvious that a blade can't cut through or puncture a thick plate of steel. Later cuirassier armor was even made to be carbine- and pistol-proof.
@@everfaithful9272 Exactly. Shadiversity has done several good videos on exactly that subject. He also made at least two on the subject of "boob armor" and why the shape is nowhere near as detrimental to the protection as the internet seems to think.
Close 22:20 I'm pretty sure that's Prussia what will eventually become modern Germany.
Two small issues: Viennese were never considered italian. I assume that you were thinking of the Venetians.
The other issue about surgeons, barbers and dentists: IIRC barbers could have the side jobs of being surgeons or dentists. It was only later that you had requirements that separated the latter two from the former.
20:50 To be fair, the british did that to their own people as well. It was called a pressgang. Group of sailors would just go out on the streets of port towns and literally kidnap strong looking men, forcing them to serve in the navy
To add to that it was one of the reasons the war of 1812 happened as Britain was pressganging any American sailors they find in port
@@georgeofazgad2176 This is inaccurate. The British pressganged *British citizens* who they found on American ships, considering them little different from draft dodgers. They didn't generally take Americans native to the former colonies. The United States was pissed about this regardless since they're still stealing people off of American shipping, but considering we were circumventing an enforced embargo of France the British weren't really very remorseful about it, and in all honesty the war of 1812 was largely about trying to take bits of Canada.
So one thing you majorly got wrong, reloading was closer to 20ish seconds during drill sometimes less if they were extremely good, instead of the 2 minutes you said. So a line in the field could expect to fire 2-3 shots a minute depending on the regiment, training, discipline, etc..
In addition to passing orders down, musicians also had the vital function of keeping everybody marching to the same beat, which was kind of a big deal in an era of warfare where everything depended on strict formations.
If you're curious the most popular firing drill used during wars during the 1700s was fire by rank
The drill would be something similar to this (translated through an instrument)
Battalion make ready
First Rank
Ready
Fire
Second Rank
Ready
Fire
Third rank
Ready
Fire
First rank...
So on and so fourth
As popular as it was it was rarely seen outside professional armies as it required the entire unit to have the discipline to not fire until ordered and have an amount of trust that the soldier behind him would not break and potentially shoot him in the back as well as being very vulnerable to the commanding officer or his musician being killed thus breaking the precise timing needed for a continuous stream of fire
I know Empire: Total War likes to portray this as the go to, but fire by rank was almost never used. During the early 1700s, the first rank would kneel and then the first two ranks would fire simultaneously. Then from roughly the French and Indian War/Seven Years' War onward up until the end of the muzzle loader era, platoon fire was the universal firing drill: everybody stands tightly packed shoulder to shoulder, the ranks are offset so that the third rank aims between the heads of the second and the second between the heads of the first, and (once again) all fire simultaneously.
another resident gentleman's war buff here to go into unnessecary detail about recruitment!
Conscription was definitely not invented by napoleon but he was the first to introduce a much more modern, and national, style of it.
Recruitment and unit structure in general was a lot more decentralized, with commanders and regiments being raised and kept by local lords and commanders, who would be responsible for recruiting and training their own forces that would then be called upon to provide their forces when a war was declared.
You can see a lot of this decentralization in the regiments themselves, modern regiments are all using nerly identical gear, and named as a number, followed by their type. 509th airborne, 368 infantry etc.
whereas you go back to napoleonic or even just victorian wars and you see uniforms with varying regiment specific buttons, collars, cuffs, facings, epaulettes, sashes, and even entirely different hats and pants sometimes. Even the names show it, they become the number, follow usually by the place they're from, then the type, 66th berkshire regiment of foot, 88th connaught rangers, 4th massachusets, things like that.
as for the officers you're broadly right for this time period about it being a lot more political and with social status, however if we're talking specifically about the british army it's way more literal than you put it.
The british during the napoleonic wars had a purchase of commissions system(which was even a bit old fasioned by that times standards) for the regular infantry and cavalry, wherein you would very literally buy your rank in order to join as an officer, we even have the documents for this, a major in the infantry would've cost you £3,200(£297,000 for inflation) which would be held as collateral in case you were dishonourably discharged, and if you wanted to be promoted you had to pay the difference
Conscription was initiated during the revolution to fight the various european powers.
I'm not sure Napoleon's losses were that great during most of his carreer, in fact he managed to score many decisive wins with low losses given how fast he could make his troops move. And he was at his best with his regular army.
Technically the conscription law was just a wider reaching version of a pre existing conscription law from bourbon france that was used for militia forces.
Napoleon did suffer defeats, but the majority of his victories were won because he refused to engage the enemy unless he was fighting them on his terms. His most Pyrrhic victory also became one of his most devastating defeats, the march on and capture of Moscow. For weeks the Russian rear guard elements would fight a series of holding actions while the bulk of the army would strip the land bare and burn what they couldn't carry off, essentially denying the French army access to much needed supplies that they could scavenge from the countryside. At the battle of Moscow, Napoleon only encountered a Russian rear guard as the bulk of the military forcibly evacuated, then set fire to the city. When Napoleon took Moscow, he took a city that was already burning. The bulk of his losses were not from Russian buck and ball, but from starvation and the extremely cold winter that year.
Prior to the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon's forces had routed at least three enemy armies, including a Prussian army the day before. At the Battle of Waterloo, Wellington used what was at the time brand new tactic to render Napoleon's advantages against himself, and it bought enough time for the Prussian general who had been routed the day before to march back across the countryside and attack Napoleon's forces on their flank.
@@oldeskul What was the brand new tactic that Wellington used? I never heard of Wellington using a new tactic at Waterloo to win it, as much as compared to a variety of issues from just the lack of Cavalry Napoleon had (Which caused major issues with making the earlier victories be more decisive to actually destroy the opposing army), lower morale of Napoleon's troops, issues with orders and the chain of command, and the much heftier Napoleon himself being less capable than he was previously, up against Wellington who proved himself previously to always have been a fairly competent general who also excelled in defense.
However in terms of specific tactics Wellington used, I am not aware of any that weren't characteristic of Wellington or brand new innovations on the spot, let alone one that used Napoleon's advantages against himself, as vaguely as that is worded.
@@bewawolf19 At the time French cavalry and artillery were the best on the continent and Wellington chose Waterloo as the battle because the terrain was hilly. He kept the bulk of his army behind the crest of the hill so that the French 12-pound cannons couldn't bombard them. He set up his veteran regiments, not in the usual line formations, but in box formations, in the valley between the hill where he was positioned behind and the hill where the French were positioned on, so that when the French 12-ponders would fire they would overshoot, then surrounded their positions with bales of hay and sharpened wooden stakes, so when the French cavalry charged, instead of staying as cohesive units, they were forced to break up into smaller groups and funneled into narrow corridors where they could be fired on from the left, right and front almost constantly.
Wellington then positioned the infamous British Dragoons and sharpshooters on his extreme right flank in a Chateau with the orders that they were to hold it no matter the cost. It worked better than intended as one of Napoleon's sub-commanders mistook the chateau for Wellington's headquarters and ordered a significant number of soldiers to attack it.
Wellington positioned skirmishers to his rear rather than on the flanks, so that when a break formed in the French lines, he'd send the fresh light infantry to push in and further sow chaos.
All of this hinged on the Prussians and Austrians wheeling around and attacking the French from their right flank and rear, the latter of which had opted to limp home. What marks a truly good commander from a forgettable one, is that when things don't always work out into their favor, they adapt and improvise to achieve victory.
Initially the battle seemed to be going in Napoleon's favor. Napoleon was a life-long sufferer of insomnia and when a battle was going in his favor, he would leave to his tent to take a nap so he could be refreshed and clearheaded when it came time to order a decisive strike at the enemy.
At the time no one even considered separating the veteran regiments from the rest of your army, positioning them nearly halfway to the enemy positions, using box formations instead of line formations and surrounding their positions with hay bales and sharpened wooden stakes, placing your elite heavy infantry on you extreme flank and placing your skirmishers to your rear. By today's standards that's such basic tactics that couch commanders like you and I go "No duh!".
Of course winning decisive battles requires a lot of tactical brilliance, knowing what your enemy is going to do before they do it and a little bit of luck. If the Prussian commander had decided to limp home as the Austrian commander did, we may very well have been talking about Napoleon's victory over the 7th coalition forces at Waterloo.
@@oldeskul Fair enough, thanks for the detailed reply!
During the black powder age before cartridges were invented, the standard orders when two opposed military were: First rank ready, first take rank aim, second rank ready, first rank fire, second and third rank advance, then the first rank would become the third rank.
When the muskets became too fouled to fire(the reason why so many countries used such large calibers was that as the guns fouled, they could load smaller and smaller rounds) or they ran out of ammunition or it looked like the soldiers of the other side were about to break, an order of fix bayonets and forward advance at the double might be given. At about the last dozen feet or so the order of charge was given and the men would run while screaming bloody murder, usually when an enemy force was facing a bayonet charge, they broke and ran because facing a wall of men running at you with what were essentially spears was terrifying. Of course at that time most world powers still had pikemen and halberdeers that usually worked to protect artillery position or other positions vulnerable to cavalry and infantry charges would also participate in the charge.
EDIT: During the American Civil War there were some battlefield photos that were taken from hilltops several miles away. We don't know how many battlefield photos were taken didn't survive age,and as such there are only like 2 or 3 known surviving, one being the siege of(I think) Chattanooga. Most of the surviving photos were either of soldiers marching to a battle or of the aftermath of the battle.
Rank fire was abandoned with the development of socket bayonets and volley tactics. Rank fire was used to enhance unit firepower when musketeers relied on pikemen to protect them so the open formation needed for the ranks to move to the front and then rear as they fired was safe. As firepower displaced pikes, the muskets began favoring three rank massed volleys from individual units of 30 to 100 men for the concentration of fire.
You’re describing pike and shot tactics. And then mixing bayonets which were a far later invention. When the bayonet became a thing, pikes and spears and halberd’s were obsolete and no longer used.
29:25 I'm fairly certain there were a few photographs from the American Civil War. I might be wrong but I distinctly remember a picture of the aftermath of Antietam
Yeah the civil war is one of the first wars to have had pictures taken of it
I think there are two Holdfast SovietWomble videos
First you need enough muskets in your line so you have enough firepower to hit the enemy with enough force, then you stack 3 lines behind each other and fire in volleys one after another to always send firepower against the enemy.
I love seeing that in Empire Total war with later military techs or Shogun 2 Total war Fall of the Samurai. The combat system there is SO statisfying!
Edit: Wasnt the first photograth made from combat in the Franco Prussian war of 1870? At the battle of sedan i believe!
From what I recall the first ever photo taken during a military battle was during the French Prussian war, the French soldiers stood and watched the guy with the camera and in the background you can see the Prussians shooting at the French soldiers.
22:18 I'm pretty sure that the Prussians aren't japanese
Yes those sneaky German speaking Japanese people infiltrating Napoleonic battles
@@Kaarl_Mills just how many times have you posted this in the comments section??
There is another part to this. And it's great
"Press the B button!"
at 29:12, the man was asking about crosshair placement i.e. where was the bottom of your reticle relative to the enemy
"Thousands of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
- Napoleon, probably
We need "The ULTIMATE bf4 tactics tier list" reaction on this channel. Ideal topic to talk.
21:08 About the impressment thing, most ships of the time (merchant and military) had multinational crews so any ship might have British citizens on it. Also, any captain worth his salt had the flags of multiple countries that they could fool naval patrols. Finally, there weren’t different accents in English yet, and many British sailors tried to weasel out of impressment by claiming to be US citizens. Plus, service in the Royal Navy was actually the sweetest gig you could get as a sailor at the time. Better pay, better food, and if your crew captured an enemy ship you could become a rich man overnight.
Regarding the "tactics for the time period" thing...the worst disasters in military history all stem from still using older tactics while technology has advanced. It's a major reason why the american civil war and the crimean war were so unbelievably bloody by the standards of the time. Technology (particularly in terms of artillery) had advanced but people were still using older tactics. And it was the same story all over again in WW1 and some parts of WW2.
Basically, after every major technological breakthrough you really need to purge every single officer from before it :P.
I'd say a big thing that people disregard about US Civil War tactics was that the guns were more accurate but were still muzzle loaders. So you couldn't spread out too much cause if you got charged while spread out you'd get swamped before you could shoot them all. Plus it apparently helped keep the morale of men up and following orders better cause if you can't hear or understand orders you could still see what the guy next to you was doing.
13:46 This is only part of the truth, and primarily a reflection of British practices at the time. One thing you forgot to mention is that people of this time were taught by society to treat the nobility with respect and deference, so an officer with a noble title would have a lot less respect to earn than one who was a ‘commoner’. However, in the Royal Navy commissions couldn’t be bought and promotions were much more meritocratic. There were tough examinations and some great royal nave officers were born to the merchant class or, like captain cook, were actually commoners who got started in commercial sailing at a young age.
The instruments in Holdfast give certain buffs to players. Like the drummer would boost reload speed or fifers making you move faster. (I don’t actually remember which does what)
To be fair, reloading does feel like one to three minutes when you are in a group and see another huge group about to smash at you. Reloading a musket takes a lot of care. Sure, there are methods to reload it in 15-20 seconds and even an average soldier could do it in 30 seconds tops but that's in a low intensity situation. In combat when all hell breaks loose we have reports of soldiers shooting their cleaning rods at people. Because in their confusion they didn't realize they are maybe halfway in the process and should not fire their guns alongside the rest of the volley yet.
That being said. Muskets were not just some mass army gimmicks. They were hunting weapons, personal defense weapons and by the 18-19th century if you wanted a weapon you used a firearm. A musket may only hit a person reliably from 50 meters but at the same time if you grabbed a bow or crossbow you'd be lucky to nail somebody from half that distance. Some may go about that a finely made bow with the best archer could have better accuracy but do you know what else does? A rifle, present since the 15th century. Thing is that not everyone is Robin Hood and similarly not everyone could afford or even needed a rifle. And rifles had plenty of drawbacks until the mid 19th century.
I've heard of officers finding muskets loaded with multiple shots stacked on each other like: powder-ball-powder-ball-powder-ball, because soldiers would either not notice that the gun didn't fire, or they forgot to prime it. Lots of confusion.
Also, about the muskets, as far as I know, they used rifled guns for hunting. They shot more accurately, and on bigger distances, but they were slow to reload, since you had to force the ball through the rifling and engrave it as it goes. Smoothbores were used in warfare because whey were much faster to reload. And there were experiments with, basically proto-snipers, who used the rifled guns to more accurately engage priority targets.
@@pirig-gal What you're thinking is Buck & Ball, especially popular with the British. As for rifles... it isn't that simple.
Generally people used whatever they could get for hunting. After firearms this tended to be smoothbore guns since they were the most common. Although by the 18th century rifles were growing in popularity. The difference between military and civilian weapons is also far from clear cut. For most of our history whatever weapons the civilians get were also what the military got. Simple as that.
As for military usage of rifles, it varied. Most armies had more skilled shooters organized into light infantry units which fought in skirmish rather than participating in the line of battle. By the Napoleonic period these type of troops almost always used some kind of rifle. Sharpshooters existed and some people made a good living for essentially being snipers for hire. But it wasn't organized and institutionalized like it'd be in the 20th century onwards.
@@willyvereb I don't mean buck & ball, I meant that a normal musket had multiple charges rammed in. Like somebody rammed a normal shot, and then in confusion did the whole process again.
Searching on Google I found that some people citing reports from the battle of Gettysburg, where soldiers loaded multiple of these buck&ball cartridges, in one example even as many as 20 of them.
In case you did not know the battle between France and the British is on the 17’s so the thumbnail is kinda wrong but it works
If you want to see a "Good" Play through of Holdfast; look up SerWinters video with Captain Grommet.
But who the heck wants to watch a good playthrough of Holdfast? The game is only fun to watch for the memes.
15:23 The method described here was actually sort of an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for the British Light Infantry. However, most large formations had different doctrines, mostly volleys fired by sections (Platoons, Battalions, you get the idea).
To note, line formations had been thought to occur some time earlier in history around the late 15th century to early 16th century or so in some parts of the world like China, but some more definitive ones that could be noted from Japan, with Oda Nobunaga and his three line formations, and a line formation for muskets was also developed separately from Japan, but it really took off in Europe around the 1590s in the netherlands.
How to turn the dumb shit that happens in Holdfast in actual history time, good job.
Hi Paul! First, I love your content! Keep up the good work! Also as some other comments said, Soviet has a 2nd older Holdfast video titled somewhere like "HF - brutal 19 century warfare" or something like that... It may be a nice follow-up video.
22:00 Yeah, the flag seems to have more range than the musket in melee. I've played as the flag bearer class and taken out enemies before they could get close enough to stab me as well, KJ was actually doing a damn good job until they got smart and shot him.
I'm pretty sure there is a second holdfast womble video actually
There’s a second 4 minute video in his random vids playlist. Was hoping you’d do this video, thanks.
SovietWomble did do a previous video of Holdfast, but it's shorter and more silly than this one.
23:52 from memory a good french line man was 3 rounds a minute and the British about 2 and a half also from what i understand close quarter fighting was actually rather rare and one side would usually break and run before impact
Paul: _"Mister"_
me: (raises finger) _"Maester!"_
29:30 the first photo taken on a battlefield dates back to the franco-prussian war of 1870/71
I Think you can get a better idea of how command andcontrol worked by looking T War of rights. While the musketry was better. Acuracy wise tactics had changedvery little during the American Civil war. The major change was in ranges. Muskets could fire zt the same effective range as cannon and cavalry charges against ready infantry became suicidal. Leading to cavalry being used to scout and fighting dismounted for the most part.
There are many videos of WR of rights gameplay.
the american civil war was really about the time that the tactics were getting outdated it had an extremely high casualty rate for the time due in part to their reliance on old tactics and by the end of the war many things had changed many more skirmishers and a lot less cavalry were the norm, cannons in particular were getting much more accurate at longer ranges and had reliable exploding shells so forming big lines was getting to be pretty untenable as well as the fact rifled muskets were also getting a lot more accurate even the first scoped rifle was used in war.
24:02 well no the bayonet way primarily an anti cavalierly thing .. horses maybe daft stupid skitish creaters but even they will refuse to charge into a forest of pointy sticks... normally what you would do is fire your last shot and if it looked like you werent going to be able to reload in time was to club your rifle that is hold it by the barrel and swing it like a mace
i great example for the uniforms was during the War of 1812
the Greycoats of the American regulars would sometimes get shot at by both sides alot because their uniforms couldn't be recognised by either side
even worse when it came to militia and canadian riflemen
If you want to know more about the british officer purchasing system Brandon F's video *Becoming an Officer in the 18-19th Century: The Purchase System in the British Army* is quite fascinating.
The lines are from servers that do linebattle games, rather than the chaos you see on other servers. It makes for a more authentic experience. And the super posh British guy leading the line Soviet's in (later on in the video) is called Dinklebean. Soviet and Dinklebean still regularly play Holdfast on Thursdays (afternoon for us, evening for them). It's really, really fun to watch if anyone's interested.
And the dude with the New Yawk accent (which Soviet keeps mistaking for Boston for some reason) is a fun dude named KJ. He doesn't play Holdfast anymore, but he still can be found hanging out with Dinkle in other games.
Holdfast lives through its wacky communitz and voicechat
That's true of a lot of niche multiplayer games, and it's something that online video games does in a way that truly no other form of entertainment can.
13:08 reading writing and.... arithmetic.... have you EVER met a lieutenant doing land nav? :P
11:33 what it means if you have to find some way to off some of your kids... but in a way that wont get you locked up ... or at the verylest wont get you looked down on by the people above you ...
29:24 I thought the first photograph of combat was in the Franco-Prussian war?
Heck even earlier, the american civil war had some photographs I think
There's actually two Holdfast videos in his channel
For anyone who wants more specific Intel the CZcamsr Brandon F (not to be confused with Brandon Herrera) has some brilliant vids on the subject
22:21 it's the Prussian
Sometimes it's confused for teutonic order as well
There's actually a part 2 to this video
22:30 -when he calls the Prussians Japanese- lmao
You need to watch “sharpe” with Sean Bean. Fantastic series.
Can you reacts to holdfast nations at war experience by pilps
there is a part 2 iirc
Could you react to the first holdfast by Soviet?
Is there something wrong with the sound or is that just on my end?
In regards to impressment, it was started due to the fact that the Napoleonic wars had been ongoing for several years, and was actually becoming far less popular in the British Navy by the time of the War of 1812 started. Also, whenever a British ship boarded an American vessel, they didn't just grab any random people they saw. The people they were after were those that were viewed as "British Citizens", who just so happened to be working on those American ships. Very often, those British Citizens were people who had immigrated to America for one reason or another, and given American citizenship, and it was viewed by the British that they "needed to give back to the land that had raised them," so to speak. But the most common person to be impressed were those that were British Navy deserters, who had jumped their ship, and signed on to American vessels (and claiming American citizenship) in hopes of getting away from the British. The British often had lists of names of the people that they were after, and they only boarded ships that they were reasonably certain had the people they were after on.
22:14 It's the Prussian Flag. They're playing Prussians.
0:15 Actually that's the second Holdfast video
Hey, I think you should check out wendigoon. I’d like to see your commentary on his recently released vids about the north Hollywood shootout and Waco
In the year 1810, the british gouvernment released a law that said, that every american born before the end of the revolution, was in fact a british citizen and thus could be recruited into the british navy or army.
I feel like I’m watching fuckin history buffs god damn
One thing also when it comes to "nepotism" in Armies back in the 18th and 19th centuries is because, these noble families got their noble statuses from fighting for their country, so naturally, if you got into the Army as a noble, it's supposed to be a symbol that you are continuing the reasoning as to why you're a noble. It's inheriting the burden of being a noble, being that, nobles MUST fight to preserve their Noble status
so in a nutshell
"My Father was an officer and I also need to be an Officer"
I know it’s early but like how Christmas preparations start earlier and earlier with each year that passes I already have a Halloween video reaction to watch…. Or I should say videos… there’s this horror series known as Gemini home entertainment… at first it’s not scary but the scares come from Atmosphere, suspense and not knowing. WHAT THE FUCK is happening… after you watch everything on that channel I recommend going to Nexepo’s channel and watch Gemini and the End of the World… as he explains the story in detail and provides incite on something’s you might have missed
10:38, Only the army bought their rank not the navy. You had to know exactly what you were doing in order to achieve your spot in the upper ranks
mic quality is a little janky is this one
>fire by rank
Actually by this time most European armies had long adopted "platoon firing", where the battalion (800~1000) was broken up into smaller groups of ~30 men. These groups would then consecutively fire (all ranks at once), and by the time the platoon at the end of the line fired their volley, the first was ready to fire again.
Random request, i know you mostly react to war/military simulating games but, could you also please react to "Battle of Marawi" the latest Urban warfare in the philippines😇 and also to philippine Scout Ranger training documentary, just interested about your thoughts about it😊
You may not see this comment but when I watched your reaction to Max)r's Ace Combat Zero review, I suggest watching Gizou Gitai take on Ace Combat Zero. It would give you a better perpective for Ace Combat Zero but he has two videos.
Summarize, accuracy by volume
I wish we fight nowadays like in 1800's
Crimean war was 1850s
8:35 I don’t think conscription was anything new. I’m pretty sure the Prussians Russians Swedes Austrians and the French before him did that. The British army was really the only non conscripted force because the most important service for the was the navy so they pressed men into service in the navy
An army marches on it's stomach, a stomatch is filled with food, and food is bought with your wallet.
The talk about napoleon, is 50/50, he didn't realy do that yet did but he was just a better tactician than everyone Welsh bwacuse he didn't see as politics
Bullshit is not a bad word they proved it with bull -shit lol 😂
Could you react to tank fish and scp explained global acoult coalition
According to the rules of this event on this server, infantry may only fire when given the order to fire. The result is volley fire.
If the officers were smart enough to do the rank and file thing, it would be continuous volleys. But they're not.
@MHGR Yes impressment was a bad thing, but the British navy specifically targeted Brits who had signed onto merchantmen. America only got pissed because all the stopping of ships to search for Brits caused disruptions to the American economy. I am saying this as an American.
Secondly, all navies throughout history rarely entrusted running their ships to slaves or any equivelant. The only exception to this being possibly the Russian navy (since everybody that wasn't related to the king was by law a slave). It made no sense to put your slaves in what has always represented the height of human technology. Slaves would have been more liable to burn down the ship (since they would have outnumbered the officers) or take over the ship and escape, neither of which is conducive to winning a war. If the Royal Navy had started to rely on slaves during the Napoleonic Wars, there would have been a drastic decrease in crew quality. Which didn't happen, if anything the Royal Navy was increasing in quality. As I said before, the Royal Navy targeted Brits who had moved to America and worked on American Merchantmen, since at the time they felt that any Brit in any country was subject to the authority of the British Crown.
22:12 That's the Prussian flag.
22:18 that is Prussia.
Awesome
It started off so well but you immediately fell into myth. Muskets were aimed at individual targets. do you think "Take Aim!" was just a little quip British officers used for no reason? a musket could be used at around 150m decently accurately, no sniping here like a rifle but accurate enough to start the skirmish. they had sights, people used them to aim. massed fire was used because line combat was a thing, scattered fire that kills 100 has less effect on moral than 100 of your pals screaming and dying all at once. Line combat was a thing because orders were challenging to give to really small units and really small units would get turned into mince meat by cavalry. it was truly a natural evolution to post-renaissance tactics.
You should check out Max0r's Incorrect Summary of Elden Ring.
22:12 That's a Prussian flag.
The flag with the eagle was for the Prussians
Did you say Japanese wile looking at the PRUSSIAN FLAG
Try to react to these video:
1) Hentai incident - Campfire stories (by mikeburnfire)
2) Evenicle Review | Wholesome Edition™ (by Ssethtzeentach)
3) C&C Generals Zero Hour | RISE OF THE REDS | Freedom in 30 FPS (by UberDanger)