First BP rifle. Alright what should I get first? I'm stuck between a Kentucky Long rifle, or a Hawken...

>maddeningly unreliable
Black powder shooter here, what are you talking about?

probably just bought a cheap India made flintlock
how can something that was the standard infantry weapon for over 200 years possibly be maddeningly unreliable

I'm gonna shit on this topic a bit but, why in the fuck did people walk in line formations with these rifles? Couldnt you get the same volume of fire if shooting from cover? I get the idea of outflanking but, lined up?

Line infantry was more relevant when rifles were almost never used in warfare and muskets were used instead. Muskets are inaccurate compared to rifles so everyone firing at once in a concentrated volley meant that there was a pretty good chance that at least one shot would hit the enemy even at a distance. By the time of, say, the Civil War, most soldiers had muskets so line infantry became outdated but during the 1700s it was absolutely a viable tactic.

Timing is an important aspect of achieving volume of fire when you have slow as fuck muzzleloaders, and you just can't coordinate a company of musketmen well enough when they're spread out in a skirmish formation. Plus you can't pack nearly as many skirmishers in the same space as a line formation, meaning the skirmishers will always be numerically disadvantaged and have a lower volume of fire in that regard as well. As silly as it may seem the line formation still provided the greatest volume of fire. Plus in large-scale warfare a skirmish formation would just be overrun by a charging line formation since they couldn't possible put down enough fire to kill them all and would be hopelessly outnumbered once the enemy formation caught up to them.

Why would, wouldn't it make more sense to just spread out anyway? Like you're all shooting at the same thing, why would hit odds change?

They didn't just stand in one giant line, you had groups of 20 or so people all in separate lines so somewhat spread out in that regard

Did formations change in forest and what not? I just feel like use of cover still would have benefitted the forces.

What if they were in a big line but just went prone? Make your target smaller at least.

There were "spread out" tactics like you're describing but they were a lot less common than line infantry since cover was usually circumstantial. This explains pretty well how it worked youtube.com/watch?v=gWERWBuplJ0

Interdasting, so the line formation was kind of like oldschool, slow and deliberate bounding. You'd more several blocks of tightly grouped people, through the open, in the shortest time possible, all while firing in constant patterns, until the distance was bridged and a charge could be done? Or any other tactic, situation dpenedant? I also assume some of it had to do with combined arms, there were more than just infantry on the battlefield and all that. Just curious to know why it was deemed most effective. Guess like you said, high volume of fire, easier to coordinate, which I guess was super important after you took the shot and suddenly smoke was fucking everwhere.

They were muzzleloaders, even if you went prone you'd have to just stand up again in order to reload so it'd kind of limit the practicality of the prone position

I'm kind of inferring but I'm guessing it had to do with both the situation and the regiment? I heard somewhere that light infantry would usually use "spread out" cover tactics most of the time with standard infantry using line tactics but I'm sure there was a bit of overlap, with infantry being able to adapt with situational cover or light infantry acting more like line infantry
But yeah, if you were close enough they'd usually just bayonet charge (which actually ended with the other side retreating most of the time rather than hundreds of men getting skewered)

>even if you went prone you'd have to just stand up again in order to reload
Not so. Our militia and Minutemen -- and Brit light infantry -- were trained to load prone.

I stand corrected then. I'm curious, how would they have done it?

Yeah, I've heard somewhere, not 100%sure the details or truth of it, but the objective was more to route the enemy than truly stamp them out, that could come later, kind of this weird long game if attrition. Didn't know about lo ight infantry though, that would make a lot more sense to me, establishing some skirmishing movements ahead of the main body while it steamrolls closer. Best of both worlds, one trying to get potshots in while the other drives the enemy to less advantageous positions.