British Infantry Square Vs Cavalry 

101st

@@lucabrasi4990 101th

Love this quote, very British!

That's what general Custer said 🤣

“So they have us surrounded. Those poor dumb bastards! Will they never learn?” 101 Airborne Soldier in Bastogne.

Yeah ever man and dog likes to have his little 10 pence worth.. I say 10 pence because it's my generation. Therpney, if that's correct. When you have a mate that's dead good at football, swimming, cricket, good looking, you get what I mean you can't help but be envious/ jealous.. that's what the world are with us.. we shall never surrender

It's called phyrric victory

Chuckles in assaye

This film was not historically accurate. At the beginning of the sudanese war basically all of the soldiers were egyptian or indian with british officers. It was a war to put down rebels in british puppet controlled egypt.

Welcome to Hollywood, Mitch

The history chap does some good vids on this

Now we give them passports and let them form parties and run for office. And we are scared to the bone of being called names for suggesting we act in our interests not theirs.

@@Hereticalablefreedom and open elections IS in our best interest. My people fought for that right all of our lives.

This video ends too soon. The square was broken to engage the retreating forces as British cavalry came in. Unfortunately, the cavalry was not British. The British were deceived into treating their enemy with disdain and underestimating them. That column was all but wiped out by the advancing cavalry! You should see the entire movie!

@@KWY007Who are your people?

They can

@olive Rorkes Drift?

@olive Waterloo?

@@lindaterrell5535 Rorkes Drift

@@SirDrakeFrancis Well yeah

Never let manners and discipline slide!

Englishmen?

@@Fernandwinnie yes it was an English regiment.

Funny how history repeats itself.

They stood their ground 👍👍👍👍👍

Kipling?

Except that the Brits wore Khaki and not Red during the Mahdist war.

​@@jenniferkeates this is set in 1875 the British last fought in red tunics during the battle of Ginnis in 1885 after which they switched to Khaki.

@T.W Charles so?

@@jenniferkeates so they are correct in portraying the British in red tunics.

​@@t.wcharles2171 agree

This is what we’re supposed to see in UK, precisely in London

He was like: Aight f*ck this AND HIS NAME WAS JOHN CENA

Man wasn’t gonna stand around and do nothing he wanted some good old GLORY!

Gunner. He was a gunner. There are no canoneers in the Britsh Army, they are Gunners and the guns are their colours.

​@@davesherry5384 did you have to correct it?

That Gunner said "let me show you some real fuckin' artillery, mate."

It's just a shame that the battle itself is made up.

There have been more than one such film, or variant - the 2002 production is the most recent.

@@ayoungconservative1051 The battle was real, the way it is portrayed in the film is not accurate though.

​@@SwordsmanMercenary What's the name of the battle?

@@nicholasmuro1742 Abu Klea

I've heard it said that a British trooper was more afraid of his sergeant than he was of dying.

@@ericbaillie1098 That's kinda ideal. It's weird. But it's kinda ideal.

@@ericbaillie1098 More afraid of letting down his sergeant...

Well that's what the British army was known for, and maybe still is. Their armies were much smaller than their European counterparts, but they were professional, well trained and disciplined. Many of them were battle hardened. They chose quality over quantity.

If they didn't they would die.

Yes 15000 Red Army troops were used in the film and trained in Napoleonic Era tactics.

1967

We French would get our revenge on the redcoat

Some of the best battle scenes in any movie I’ve ever seen.

It's weird how the Soviet Union made the Waterloo movie during the cold War era, I mean that's impressive Of what they did back then

@@SgtShnackendale damn

@@SgtShnackendale bruh 💀

I would survive easily

Hold!

Yeah, you are right; I'd be scared shitless if I had to attack a british square from all sides.

A one man square would be very unusual. So unusual I doubt we have seen one in previous combats.

@@davesherry5384 Ah yes! The mythical one man square...quite rare indeed sir.

It was only successfully accomplished by one SpongeBob Squarepants. No one else has even tried.

Faced with a situation like this...I would take cover behind the giant mound of doo doo I am certain would appear right behind me

As French. The British Form Square has always been been a success

I know exactly what you're talking about mate. I'm still in the hobby with the 42nd, just back from Waterloo 2020 where finally we've been able to march back on the battlefield aftre two years hyatus. Few horse this yera, to be sincere, but still when they come at you they __do___ come at you!

imagine if you hadnt ever seen modern movie or photos -knew nothing - But then they charged you as they did in 1815. It would be scarier not knowing what was going to happen

What is it then?

The enemy.. dressed as British cavalry.

@@EukalyptusBonBon they got destroyed in that scene.

Shit really? Thought the redcoats were fighting redcoats

@@SStupendous you would think that.

Well theres nothing else they could do besides being brave, you cant surrender to people like that.

@@mickwarnie8707 people like what?

​@@johnharvey3069 The Mahdists. They decapitated their prisoners and routinely massacred settlements they captured. If anyone surrendered to them they'd very likely just get murdered. They were religious fundamentalists following a leader they saw as a form of Messianic figure. They would give absolutely no quarter to the British or Egyptian soldiers. Nor did they treat Ethiopian soldiers very nicely either. The British General Gordon was killed and his severed head sent back to the British, after the fortified city of Khartoum fell. Gordon had no British soldiers at Khartoum, just 2,000 Egyptian soldiers with British training and surplus weapons. The British government were angry with General Gordon for staying there as he refused to leave for Britain when told to. Gordon thought, probably not without reason, that if he went home then he'd never be able to serve in the Empire again in command of soldiers, being forced into early retirement by the politicians in question. However, General Gordon refused to leave. He prepared defences at Khartoum and waited for the Nile waters to rise higher to help form a natural barrier. The Madhists numbered anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 men. Gordon's garrison held off the Mahdists bravely, though they were eventually overrun and the entire garrison and Gordon were killed, along with many of the civilians. It is reasonable to speculate that if a British Army unit suddenly lay down their weapons, and surrendered to the Mahdists, then every last one of them would be executed. It was a kill or be killed situation in any battle with such opponents. Nice try with your fake outrage.

,"Because its us lad ,nobody else, just us "

@@johnharvey3069 Lol hoping to try and be the good guy, calling him racist?

I dont know for sure, but based on my personal use of muzzle loaders and breech loaders I suspect the amount of time it would take to swap rifles one could just reload his breech loader. However having someone loading muzzleloader for you would be a great advantage and was widely practiced here in America when under indian attack.

They were using the Martini-Henry breech loading rifles, same as in Zulu. There was supposed to have been 500 men and four ranks to the square. Reloading the rifles were quick and easy.. as at Waterloo, rear rank fired, dropped to reload, third rank rose to fire then dropped to reload, and so on . The French were unaware of the exact force facing them as Wellington had them lying down hidden behind a hill.

@@TheKira699 Handing back for reloading breech loaders in ranks wasn't uncommon. Standard practice even for single shot breechloaders in the US civil war.

@@Gungho1a True since the Martini Henry Rifles had about a 12 round per minute rate of fire. I guess it reeally depended on which ranks fired, and which reloaded.

@@TheKira699 Part of the problem was engineering, with early breechloaders having issues with case separation and jamming. Granted, not all, but it was common enough to be an issue. The snieders and martini- Henrys both had jamming issues when they got hot. The early woven MH cases would see the brazing soften and the case gunk into the chamber, and both had problems with the case head, either separating or the head pulling out when the case was pulled from the chamber. Durnford was observed at Isandlwana using a knife to dig out cases from his troopers carbines at one point, and Reno's force at the Little Big Horn had a real problem with it.

Or even the British version of the scream. A lot of 60s-80s Bond movies have that scream

How about at 3:17?

Imao

Surely, but they seem to haven't got enough time. It was wiser to shield the guns inside the square as soon as the cavalry was spotted than firing at best two rounds in the open before they were overrun.

Would also depend on what type of cannon ammunition they had available

You noticed that...Me two....Maybe if they had shot rounds, would waiting be a better idea....

It would have been wiser to load canister.

Waterloo 1970 does that

The square was more effective when cavalry only had swords... Unless, of course, artillery was also being used against the square...

@@robbrown4621 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bjnSD1R1ms8h.htmlj

and after 300 years british learnt how to form a circle.

Triangle!

@Ai uehara⬇️🔞 first time I’ve seen Spanish and Russian mixed together… allllllrightttttt

No rifle at the time had an effective range of 1000 yards.

Martini-Henri had an effective range of 400 yards.

@@jonahtaivalkoski322 Effective, no. A 1000 yard range? Yes. Any rifle made in the last 130 years or so had that kind of distance, even if inaccurate. You "volley for effect" and also will take down some of the attackers as well. And the closer they get, the more casualties they'll take.

Bruh you would kill like 2 people in total if you started firing at 1000 yards. 95% of your kills would come from 150 yards and less. Firing at 1000 yards is a huge waste of ammunition and you'd probably run out before the actual fighting even begins

A yank philosophy. Blaze away and you'll hit something.

Well they wanted to show the British in red tunics like they wore in Zulu . Film makers don't care about facts It was mostly modern weapons vs swords and spears. I remember reading about the battle of omdurman around 50 British and Egyptian dead and around 10,000 tribesmen of the Mardi dead . More of a massacre than a battle.

@@leeetchells609 This was the last war in which they used the red coats (albeit in just one battle in an attempt to intimidate the locals by proclaiming the presence of British regulars, rather than the despised Egyptians).

@@leeetchells609 Omdurman was a critical decade or so later. We're talking Maxim guns by then.

@@alexanderhay-whitton4993 Regardless though it's not accurate. Gatling guns saw combat in the US Civil War, but having a random battle like Gettysburg with them is not accurate

@@leeetchells609 I once had to deal with a heckler at a lecture I was giving saying that the use of modern weapons against the Mardi's army was unfair and should not have been used. Well, deary me, the ideal battle is where your own casualties are minimal and the enemy's casualties are huge, the more dead and wounded they suffer the better.

Prob worst nightmare in my life if only me staying there

Shoulda used it more

He just addded them to his existing collection I assume?

Brilliant

I had a similar situation at a workplace. A senior manager displayed all the worst attributes of leadership. The polar opposite of what is illustrated in this kind of drama. He too got white feathers and didn't get it.

Kipling ❤️

@@jimmorrison5493 yes sir!

Name of film please?

The clip you posted - there's a small field piece, but we don't see it firing.@@David_brent

yes they were new and clumsy in the millennia old art of war

We wouldn't have had the empire! Note that the Mahdi also have rifles etc, technology only slightly behind the British. The technology gap would be even thinner today. Technology drives history, breech loaders and cartridges changed the whole organization of human society (along with railways, penicillin, elastic and other stuff.) Put another way.. Samuel Colt made all men equal!

even the zula only won there battle because a stupid general split the british army in two..and the quartermaster would not give out ammo so they ran out. a bit like the stupid americans arguing and not giving the ukrain army ammo..

Read the description - this is set in 1875, during the failed attempt to relieve Gordon. Kitchener's revenge for Gordon at Omdurman came much later, in 1898. During the attempt to relieve Gordon, Martin-Henris and squares were used - the Mahdi's army even broke into a square in an encounter.

On second thoughts, maybe don't read the description - the relief attempt was in 1885, not 1875!

If you look at 2.06 as I did you will see Lee-Metford )or look alikes). They have thrown Martini bayonets on. Others are Martini .303s in use. The Martini-'Enry had a much bigger 'ole up front being a 450/577.......and a significantly more assertive boot on recoil.

@@simonappleton8296 Aye, I know.

And didn't happen quite this way.

@@SStupendous But the anti-British director made a disaster just to spill British blood.

yep, there was a battle between the prussian who had breech loaders and austrians who still had muzzle loaders. the casualties were like 7:1 in favour of the prussians

If you enjoy them I really recommend you watch The movie Zulu, it's free to view on RU-vid and is about how a small troop of British soldiers were surrounded by thousands of Zulu warriors, it's a great movie and the ending is amazing. It's based on actual events and to this day holds the record for the most Victoria crosses won in one single engagement. VCs being the highest medal in the British army.

Here's a link if you are interested, if you do watch it I'd love to know what you think ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fBXDdOlWfTc.html

Last of the Mohicans is kind of similar too.

@@chipsthedog1 'zulu dawn' was also a good film..❤️

Democracy? Colonisation more like 😂😂😂

sounds about white

@@paulwoolerton664 wrong, it was a special military operation to defend Britain from Nazis

@@paulwoolerton664 you don’t actually understand history because the first rule of studying history is to not compare modern social standards against the era you are seeing. Every single nation during this time was imperialist and slavery was rampant all over the globe; especially in Saudi Arabia as they were closest to Africa. African warlords would often take their enemies to be sold as slaves to Europeans and India and China were known for having millions of slaves owned by wealthy groups. To say that the British were colonialists would be a poor insult as every country attempted to do the same; you are only saying it because you were told to by other uneducated individuals. Britain only gets this poor reputation from uneducated people because they do not know about their history, which is ironic because they choose not to even read up on key solutions that made the world what it is now. For example, the British abolition of the slave trade, where the British empire enforced it across every country and declared war on any nation that went against it. But again, the British empire only gets a bad reputation because it is the most victorious empire and people are simply jealous that their own nation were too incompetent to successfully fight back against the might of the empire.

"Democracy" ah yes the 51% deciding what the 49% eat

Smart not crazy

You might be surprised if you read a bit of history. What wouldn't work on today's battlefield was sometimes extremely effective in its day. Don't trust Hollywood as a source.

these are the best possible tactics to use...

Will not if they can possibly avoid it I'd say.

In the Peninsular War, 3 horsemen of the King's German Legion charged their horses as missiles into a French square and broke it.

@@jayglithero524 There are exceptions.

Indeed yes. The Fuzzy Wuzzy (Tommy's words) is rated higher than a Zulu impi or Boer riflemen, and that is high praise.

There has never been such a thing. Nor will be there be.

Well they just weren't.

Yes, British colonial warfare in Africa was well known for being a civil affair. No war crimes here!

@@marcusclaudius266 it was a joke, relax

@@marcusclaudius266 Compared to the French, Germans, Belgians, Dutch, and Portuguese, the British were kindly benefactors...

What’s the movie?

@@ohevisrael8083 I believe it's called "four feathers" or something on those lines

What is the movie ?

​@@ohevisrael8083 can't you read the description

​@@DK-pb7tr can't you read the description

Move name

The nameeeee of the movieeeee

@@salmanjawaad8954 the four feathers

@@alpasopor..passagetrough7032 the four feathers

Yea, they methods by the UK was so effective. Also fuck sex bots

why call them Fuzzies?

@@markusmath3421 Refers to the Sudanese in Kipling's poem, which referred to the very prominent type of hairstyle favoured by the Beja warriors fighting the British. In spite of managing to "break the square" they still ended up shot to pieces by the British rifle fire.

There's real soldiers as extras here, and plenty of practical effects.. Uniforms and location are more accurate, most weapons and tactics seemd not to be. Very little CGI here, this is just as real as the 1939 one.

I will remember not to pause any of those movies.

The 2002 version was the most anti-British of the 7 versions of AEW Mason's book put on film. Absolute schlock. And still that good...

Yes.

webley mk1 was in service since 1887, so it would have been used , the mk iv is probably what your familiar with in regards with ww1 & 2

@@OhioCruffler thanks.

@@a_goblin22 Uh... this is 4 years before. The Webley was not being used...

@@podsmpsg1 Webleys are innacurate.

😆

As a professional musketeer of her majesty I can confirm that you are indeed correct

Form Rectangle!

I was first to like

@@Dessert_all_day Begging for subscribers I think? 😜

From rifled breech-loaders firing explosive shells? Cannister was deadly in its day, but by now it had been left far behind. And I write as a wargamer with a particular fondness for the Seven Years War.

@@alexanderhay-whitton4993 What do you mean, in its day? Canister is certainly still a shot type that is used from tanks to field artillery... definitely saw uses in the Pacific in WW2 and Vietnam as anti-personnel shot. They certainly had and have canister for rifled cannon. Parrott, ordinance and Armstrong cannon of the 1850s and 60s sure did. Most artillery used in the Ango-Zulu War was smoothbore mountain-style howitzer cannon, though this scene shows a rifled piece. Oh also, just some extra stuff - in the late 1870s, the British at least had reverted back to muzzle-loaders. The decade of the 1880s certainly saw muzzle-loading cannon back in fashion. Wasn't until the late 1890s again that breech-loaders were powerful enough and came to stay. At 0:12 you can see the cascable knob at the breech of a cannon - it's a muzzle-loader, and the cannon appears to be smoothbore. At 3:20 this is a rifled muzzle-loader, don't see any sign of it being an RBL. Both cannon are not that different from cannon of 1864.

Thanks for the suggestion, never would have heard of it otherwise

Exactly a dying animal falls onto anything in front.

It is called aiming a rifle. Nothing amazing about it, just takes nerves of steel.

@@jbb9643 rubbish

@@stephenhazeldene7719 Spent a lot of time in the military I see.

Almost like they aimed for the fucking riders