Was the Franco-Prussian war the last major war where soldiers fought in line formations...

Anecdotal accounts by many of British soldiers there said the Germans initially approached their positions in close order formation.

Sure they were quickly broken up.

They advanced in fairly close order at Tannenberg, too. Off the top of my head I think there's two explanations:
>"open order" in 1871 was pretty close order by 1914 standards (the infantry regulations increased spacing overall in the intervening decades)
>due to C2 limitations in the pre-radio comms era, advance to contact was still done in close order because the officers needed to direct operations until the attack went in

>There were numerous small wars like the Russo-Turkish Wars where others did so also in the 70s and 80s.
>The Japanese and Russians also fought in close order in 1904.
uh out of both wars only japs used formations

>Russia didn't use formations
I am pretty sure they did at Mukden and Motien Pass

The German Infantry Drill Regulations of 1906 dictated that infantry should advance in close order to within 1,000 meters of the enemy. The artillery would then attempt to suppress the defenders. If successful, the infantry would cover the last 1km in close formation and storm the position. If the suppression failed, the infantry would disperse and advance by fire and movement using cover.

Doctrine since 1888 was that the Germans would fight in a loose skirmish formation, and conduct fire & maneuver. (Exerzier-Reglement für die Infanterie 1888). My guess is that British troops mistook the bounding movement of the maneuvering platoon as an rush followed by mass casualties when they went prone again.

German accounts contradict this.
The Germans also took far less casualties on the first day of the battle, which would be suspicious if they really were acting like retards.

Which is it?

Both posts seem credible.

This is the Germans' actual doctrine in force in 1914: with the caveat that the 1906 regs also advised that, notwithstanding the part about dispersing, commanders should avoid breaking up formations whenever possible.
It seems entirely likely that the British were describing Germans advancing to contact.

The 1888 regulations were long superseded by the 1906 regulations.

I looked up the part about Germans in close order at mons:
>The Germans [in close order] made easy targets for British riflemen, who hit German soldiers at over 1,000 yards

This is consistent with the 1906 doctrine. The British opened fire at nearly 1km, when the Germans were still moving to contact, beyond the range their doctrine dictated dispersing. Obviously the German doctrine did not account for effective rifle fire at that range.

The Germans did not necessarily take too many losses in that episode given the long distance involved. We can see that both accounts make sense in context.

There's no contradiction. In the attack, loose skirmish order. When moving to the battlefield, close order. 1888 or 1906, there's no difference.

The drill explicitly says attack in close order if the artillery preparation is successful.

Sure...if you're french.

Germans pretty much deployed everyone in skirmish formations.

Attached: Battle of Sedan (German Advance).jpg (1280x754, 328K)

The Germans weren't really doing lineshit anymore since 1860s. What used to be the formation of skirmishers was now applied to the infantry in general since everyone now had fast firing rifles.

Attached: German Empire Field Drills.jpg (4177x1505, 1009K)

Interesting. So it seems like yes, they were in close order because they had not made contact with the BEF and since there was no suppressive artillery barrage they probably didn’t press the attack in close order. So both sides are right. The Brits did accurately report firing on the Germans marching in close order, but probably soon after they opened up into skirmish spacing to press the attack, hence why German casualties were relatively light (combined with the extreme range of the initial engagement).

It basically comes down to the line of contact being a little further out than the German doctrine assumed. By 1914, 1,000 meters was much too close to halt the column and start deploying for action.
Also the 1906 doctrine emphasized direct fires for suppression, which turned out not to work as well as advertised. The Germans had better indirect fire than the French, who really got screwed by their overreliance on the direct fire 75mm, but they had also misjudged its importance.
One of the reasons close order bayonet attacks became reemphasized in the 1900s was that theorists thought modern artillery fires had become so effective that defensive rifles and MGs would be relatively ineffective - essentially modern field guns were a bayonet-enabler.

There's also the russo-japanese war.

You can see two advancing blocks of infantry in that picture, at rifle range.

The last war tight formations were widely used was the Austro - Prussian War. The Austrian used the "Stoßtaktik" to get as close to the enemy lines as possible with their muzzle loaders and after firing a volley they would charge with their bayonets. Problem was the Prussians had breechloading rifles so the "Stoßtaktik" wasn't that inefficient.

Attached: YKMR8eI.jpg (1280x769, 336K)

>The last war tight formations were widely used was the Austro - Prussian War. The Austrian used the "Stoßtaktik" to get as close to the enemy lines as possible with their muzzle loaders and after firing a volley they would charge with their bayonets. Problem was the Prussians had breechloading rifles so the "Stoßtaktik" wasn't that inefficient.
Fixed, i need to work on my english

*The last war line formations were widely used was the Austro - Prussian War. The Austrian used the "Stoßtaktik" to get as close to the enemy lines as possible with their muzzle loaders and after firing a volley they would charge with their bayonets. Problem was the Prussians had breechloading rifles so the "Stoßtaktik" wasn't that efficient.

Attached: dacffb569e180adf0b22c37b90cb8eb3.jpg (1280x720, 341K)