3 ms·

> What advantage would it provide to make it harder to distinguish individual soldiers? Distinguishing individual soldiers is an important step in counting the

> What advantage would it provide to make it harder to distinguish individual soldiers? Distinguishing individual soldiers is an important step in counting the size of a line. Accepting "red coats blend together" as truth, that would make it more difficult for an opposing general to determine which parts of a battle line were stronger or weaker, thus making it more difficult to preposition forces to exploit weak sections. Once the battle was joined the camouflage effect would not have mattered as much, but before the deployment of radio it was also very, very difficult to change battle plans "on the fly."

the_af 4y ago
When determining weaker sections visually, wouldn't you go by "mass" of soldiers? I don't think anybody would count individual soldiers. In any case, given the technology of the time, if you were beyond engagement range, I don't think you would have been able to pick out individual soldiers by sight regardless of which uniforms they were wearing... My theory is that vibrant color uniforms were chosen simply to make identification of different formations easier.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  It helped to identify friend-vs-foe yes, but not formation, as formations were distinguished by the lining of their uniform, which wasn't very visible! Also red was just an easy colour to get hold of and to dye with, and it hid blood. The red mass of undistinguished soldiers created an imposing sight on the battlefield. It's not about wanting to hit individuals (why would you?) it's about the shock factor. This is only infantry as well - where shock action was even more important - cavalry - and distinction didn't apply - you had less uniform more elaborate uniforms.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Wikipedia (I know, I know) seems to imply it was simply that the die was common, that it was a traditional symbol of an English soldier, and for identification of friend vs foe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_coat_(military_uniform) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_coat_(military_uniform): > However, in the days of the musket (a weapon of limited range and accuracy) and black powder, battle field visibility was quickly obscured by clouds of smoke. Bright colours provided a means of distinguishing friend from foe without significantly adding risk. Furthermore, the vegetable dyes used until the 19th century would fade over time to a pink or ruddy-brown, so on a long campaign in a hot climate the colour was less conspicuous than the modern scarlet shade would be. As formal battles of the time commonly involved deployment in columns and lines, the individual soldier was not likely to be a target by himself. and > In his book British Military Uniforms (Hamylyn Publishing Group 1968), the military historian W. Y. Carman traces in considerable detail the slow evolution of red as the English soldier's colour, from the Tudors to the Stuarts. The reasons that emerge are a mixture of financial (cheaper red, russet or crimson dyes), cultural (a growing popular sense that red was the sign of an English soldier),[64] and simple chance (an order of 1594 is that coats "be of such colours as you can best provide"). There is no mention of "dazzle" camouflage or of confounding numbers at all.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  The British had long lines with not too many ranks to maximize delivery of bullets to the enemy. Figuring out how many where there was harder than it may seem.

the_af 4y ago

When determining weaker sections visually, wouldn't you go by "mass" of soldiers? I don't think anybody would count individual soldiers. In any case, given the technology of the time, if you were beyond engagement range, I don't think you would have been able to pick out individual soldiers by sight regardless of which uniforms they were wearing... My theory is that vibrant color uniforms were chosen simply to make identification of different formations easier.

chrisseaton 4y ago
It helped to identify friend-vs-foe yes, but not formation, as formations were distinguished by the lining of their uniform, which wasn't very visible! Also red was just an easy colour to get hold of and to dye with, and it hid blood. The red mass of undistinguished soldiers created an imposing sight on the battlefield. It's not about wanting to hit individuals (why would you?) it's about the shock factor. This is only infantry as well - where shock action was even more important - cavalry - and distinction didn't apply - you had less uniform more elaborate uniforms.
- the_af 4y ago
  Wikipedia (I know, I know) seems to imply it was simply that the die was common, that it was a traditional symbol of an English soldier, and for identification of friend vs foe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_coat_(military_uniform) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_coat_(military_uniform): > However, in the days of the musket (a weapon of limited range and accuracy) and black powder, battle field visibility was quickly obscured by clouds of smoke. Bright colours provided a means of distinguishing friend from foe without significantly adding risk. Furthermore, the vegetable dyes used until the 19th century would fade over time to a pink or ruddy-brown, so on a long campaign in a hot climate the colour was less conspicuous than the modern scarlet shade would be. As formal battles of the time commonly involved deployment in columns and lines, the individual soldier was not likely to be a target by himself. and > In his book British Military Uniforms (Hamylyn Publishing Group 1968), the military historian W. Y. Carman traces in considerable detail the slow evolution of red as the English soldier's colour, from the Tudors to the Stuarts. The reasons that emerge are a mixture of financial (cheaper red, russet or crimson dyes), cultural (a growing popular sense that red was the sign of an English soldier),[64] and simple chance (an order of 1594 is that coats "be of such colours as you can best provide"). There is no mention of "dazzle" camouflage or of confounding numbers at all.
Spooky23 4y ago
The British had long lines with not too many ranks to maximize delivery of bullets to the enemy. Figuring out how many where there was harder than it may seem.