What is the tactical advantage of marching the bulk of your invasion force directly towards American sharpshooters with no cover?

Honour. You wouldn’t get it

>>17845800
>being defeated and humiliated is honorable

>>17845797 (OP)
It's the last thing they'll be expecting - a daylight charge over the minefield.

>>17845797 (OP)
There is no tactical advantage, British forces were just retarded.

They were trained in European-style linear tactics, where disciplined volleys and bayonet charges won battles. In America’s irregular terrain and with militia-style warfare, this was a poor fit.

General Pakenham dismissed intelligence about American defenses and underestimated how deadly their artillery and sharpshooters would be.

>>17845953
>irregular terrain
>militia style warfare

>>17846078
Keep pretending the British weren’t getting rinsed by farmers hiding behind fences and shooting officers off their horses. The only thing "regular” about the terrain was how regularly it killed redcoats trying to fight like it was Flanders.

>>17846089
The fucking state.

>>17846078
>>17846089
At cowpens like 3/4ths of Daniel Morgan's forces were militia. He only had like 550 Continental soldiers out of like 1,912 men.
At New Orleans only 1,000 of the 5,700 Americans were regular soldiers. Most were militia with some french pirates and slaves. There's some weird story about Andrew Jackson having more militia men than guns and that he also had men screened for how good of a shot they were and would assign other men to reload for them so the best shots would do the shooting. There's also a story of some hick from kentucky killing like 30 bongs and turning back a column on his own

>>17846102
The fucking state of what? Your argument? Your coping mechanism? British tactics in 1815? Gotta be more specific, champ.

>>17846118
>There's also a story of some hick from kentucky killing like 30 bongs and turning back a column on his own
Based.

>>17846125
https://ky.ng.mil/News/Article/2615858/the-legend-of-kentuckys-lone-marksman-at-the-battle-of-new-orleans/

>>17845797 (OP)
>BTFO's Burgoyne and his Injuns
>then BTFO's Cornwallis in a way Washington could only dream of because he actually understands his milita
Morgan was simply HIM

>>17845800
>fpbp
This, unironically. Morgan's men fought the way they did because of it.

>>17845805
>doesn't understand how 18th century honour worked
You don't belong here

>>17846429
>18th century honour involved being willfully stupid
This is such a retarded and incorrect view of history, akin to the retards who say "why did they stand in a line and wear bright red? I would have been in a bush wearing camo."

In both battles, British forces were tired and frustrated, thinking they could just finish off the Yanks with a frontal assault. The Americans used their militia well, stationing them in lines backed by regulars at Cowpens and ordering them to feign a panicked retreat, as militia were prone to, to suck in the Brits, and more importantly, Morgan backed himself up to a river so his men knew there was no outlet for a real retreat. At New Orleans , Jackson had his men behind a parapet and deep ditch, setting up a shooting gallery at the open fields in front of them. In both cases, a little patience and maneuver might have flanked the yanks and cut them to shreds but instead the Brits were baited into a turkey shoot.

>>17845953
What makes America's terrain more irregular than Europe?

>>17846506
>hurrrr this is such a retarded and incorrect view of history durrr uh.. uh.... camouflage or something!!!
>has literally no idea what he's talking about
No, seriously, you don't fucking belong here.

>>17845797 (OP)
That isnt what happened.
The British engaged the first row and broke them before they could reform the Second Row engaged the British while the first row reformed and re-engaged, the British were too disorganized and decided to withdraw.
The US had more men and the losses of the battle did not exceed 150 for both sides combined.

>why fight in a line
both sides fought in a line.
>>17845953
except both sides fought using Linear Tactics at cowpens.
>their artillery and sharpshooters
This was a battle of less than 3000 engaged troops that saw a hundred men lost for the British.
This wasnt some stunning American victory, it wasnt even a battle.

>>17846672
American terrain is less conducive to linear tactics due to the topography and dense forests.
However the main problem during the Revolutionary War was the Americans operated in small bands and the British also operated in small bands and the entire war never saw one European scale battle.
Every battle in North America until the civil war had less than 10,000 combatants total.
The British regulars were not light infantry and so had difficulty adjusting to the light infantry tactics that North America demanded, the British regulars did not have the manpower and resources to march 40,000 men into the woods and completely surround and route the Patriot forces.

>>17846695
>the losses of the battle did not exceed 150 for both sides combined.
Retard

>>17846702
American terrain can be broken and rough but neither was true for these battles. Cowpens was named for an open spot for grazing cattle, and Chalmette was pancake flat and open, though bounded by a swamp and the Mississippi River.
The British had light infantry and learned a lot about irregular tactics during the French and Indian War. In the biggest battle of the Revolution, on Long Island, light infantry, including German Jaegers, maneuvered through the woods and hills of Brooklyn to crush the colonials. Both sides in the era relied on standard line infantry tactics but the British had plenty of light companies, skirmishers, sharpshooters and native allies.

>>17846429
>>17846680
>>doesn't understand how 18th century honour worked
>You don't belong here
Tatleton's second in command called him a fucking retard after the battle
seems like bongs are just dumb and bad at war

>>17846672
in the north east you run into the Adirondacks, the Catskills and the start of the Appalachians pretty fast. a lot of yuro battles historically were on plains

>>17846695
>That isnt what happened.
>The British engaged the first row and broke them before they could reform the Second Row engaged the British while the first row reformed and re-engaged, the British were too disorganized and decided to withdraw.
>The US had more men and the losses of the battle did not exceed 150 for both sides combined.
the bongs literally lost 86% of their force at cowpens they had over 300 dead and wounded and 712 surrendered. you don't know what you are talking about
>This was a battle of less than 3000 engaged troops that saw a hundred men lost for the British.
>This wasnt some stunning American victory, it wasnt even a battle.
946 bongs were dead, wounded or captured as a result of the battle, it stopped Cornwallis's southern campaign and started him on his march to Yorktown

>>17846702
there were 5,700 Americans and 8,000 bongs at the battle of new orleans

>>17847244
>t. historically illiterate
Any more retarded quips, retard?

>>17847370
you are the retard here saying there were fewer than 150 total casualties at cowpens. bongs got rocked and humiliated because bonglaoids are surrender monkies, just like they surrendered the suez to egypt and surrendered to india.

bongs are not the smartest when it comes to war

>>17847373
>saying there were fewer than 150 total casualties
LMAO
This nigger doesn't even understand how (you)'s work

>>17847908
sure thing there, you gay retard

>>17847925
Great comeback faggot.

>>17847926
we don't sign our posts here, you gay retarded bong, it's against the rules

>>17846672
It isn't, other than development. The Northern states were well connected and far more similar to what the Brits would be used too. But even today, much of the Carolinas and Virginia backwoods is miserable swamp basically only suited to timber. British garrisons were isolated, inland and surrounded by a hostile population.
For instance, at Cowpens, the British had just finished weeks of rapid back and forth marching over broken and rough terrain including bridging a river. Cowpens is more than twice the distance from Charleston as New York is from Philadelphia. With supplies getting shot up along the way, and troops parceled out to small garrisons, it starts to read more like Napoleon in Russia or Soult in Spain than the average war in Germany. Consider that Marlborough marched a similar distance to the Danube 80 years earlier, but was able to bring what, 40 guns with him? Tarleton managed 2.

>>17847370
>No point
Anon skirmishers and marksmen were well used in European warfare. Nothing at Cowpens or New Orleans were dishonourable by any standards of the time, bongs were just retarded.

>>17848465
they weren't even really using skirmishers at cowpens. Morgan just figured the tarleton was an aggressive retard and out smarted him. he put a river behind him so the militia couldn't completely route and then put the militia in 2 lines in front of him so the bongs would have to engage the militia, the militia would rout, they would engage a second line, that line would route and then everyone would reform by the river with the continentals so the bongs would have to charge really far through musket fire before they could fight.
The bongs were just retards at new orleans. they charged like a km with no cover through a swamp at a fortified American line

>>17848863
Also forgot ladders and other retarded shit. New Orleans is a cool story of one of the most ragtag militias fighting and defeating the vaunted British army, but really it's more that the bongs were stupid than Americans were good.

>17848465
>17848863
>17849192
Could you samefag any more obviously?

>>17845797 (OP)
>let rich but incompetent bongs buy themselves officer positions
the system worked as expected and Britain only got away with it against thirdies who lacked effective weaponry

>>17849192
I think some of the Brits were carrying fascines to fill in the “ditch” in front of the parapet, which turned out to be a canal full of water. Late in the battle, they easily captured a battery on the other side of the river which enfiladed the American line but by then it was too late. You’d think they would have remembered Bunker Hill—just go around the undisciplined yokels and don’t make an autistic banzai charge at their dug in secure position.

>>17846695
>The US had more men and the losses of the battle did not exceed 150 for both sides combined.
most battles of the era didnt

>>17849294
cry more bong, bitch

>>17849483
there wasn't really a
>go around
Jackson's flanks were swamps filled with trees and he did send skirmishers out there to deal with the bongs
the bongs also didn't get the canons until too late because all their boats got washed away by the river

>>17850165
I was thinking of a bigger picture—a city surrounded by water where the British had naval control, but maneuvering small boats through lakes and bayous might have been too precarious.
Too bad they didn’t have steam powered warships. Admiral Farragut took the city in 1862 with no army support in an almost bloodless stroke by steaming past the river forts at night.

>>17850255
the bongaloid navy didn't have steam ships until 1822

>>17846710
>135 killed in total
Looks like that post was correct.

>>17850298
bongs had 229 wounded and over 700 captured. Casualties doesn't only mean dead, ESL

>>17847275
>>17849668
The Thirty Years war, English Civil War, French Imperial Wars all featured many battles with casualties in the tens of thousands.
Less than 150 people died at Cowpens, it wasnt a real battle.
Sorry but Americans have never been in a real war.
Americans arent a fighting race.
They lost 2x the men the British did during the Revolution, their greatest victory was against Meximutts their racial similars, their worst humiliation was to a Germany that was single handedly fighting the entire Red Army.
Americans cant fight.
Southerners cant fight.
Angolems cant fight.
Ultimately, people from the british isles, they are liberal people, they are leftists, they are delusional, they are anti racist, and they are completely incapable of waging war.
America has never won a 1v1 against a peer.
Britian has never won a 1v1 against a peer.
>but muh politics
your lines on a map will not raise the dead. It doesnt matter if everyone other race went extinct, the eternal Angolem will remain a slave like creature wretched, twisted, ugly, ogreish, disgusting!

>>17850308
Only the dead matter, Paco, We Whites dont inflate numbers we count only those admitted to Valhalla.

>>17850314
I'm white, you bong. and the bongs lost over 800 men, that they couldn't afford to lose, and were unable to maintain their offensive without those men and had to go to yorktown where they got btfo'd

>>17850311
lol you are one buck broken bong bitch. the US defeated bongistand twice and put yurop down twice.

>DUDE BONGS
Why are zoomies so unapologetically retarded? Is it because their parents raised on an iPad or what?

>>17850365
bong is a racial slur for british

>>17850367
>racial slur
>British
Pick one

>>17850373
no one wants to be a bong

>>17850365
you are one mad bong

>>17849294
why are you so mad?

>>17845797 (OP)
Daniel Morgan was the goat

we fired our guns and the bongs started running

>>17845797 (OP)
New Orleans was a great example of an already bad battle plan getting further derailed by sheer comedy of error.
There's a certain tragedy in the fact that so many soldiers that served in and survived the Napoelonic Wars ended up being shipped across the ocean to die in the dumbest way possible.

>>17853330
bong's top military planners