The movies always make it look a bit unrealistic (particularly the soldiers’ indifference to the comrades being killed), but tight formations of infantry firing en-masse did make sense with the technology of the day.

In order to demonstrate why, I will take the case study of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham 1759 outside Quebec City (not quite ‘late’ 18th century, but contemporary to ‘Example 2’ provided in the question). Many of the colonial Canadian soldiers on the French side acted as you suggest; marching in irregular formations, shooting at longer ranges, ducking to reload etc., but this meant slower musket reloading times (compared to standing up) and no psychological blow of a volley wiping out several men simultaneously. The British meanwhile acted in the traditional manner. They marched slowly toward the French, and did not return fire, even as several of their comrades fell around them. When they were closer to the French line, the entire British line opened fire and were reloaded and ready to fire again within 20 seconds. In such a manner, they were able to win the battle with relative ease as the repeated volleys of musket fire were no match for the scattered French irregulars firing at will and out of formation. (Account taken from Dan Snow’s ‘Death or Victory; the Battle of Quebec and the Birth of Empire (2009, London.)

There was certainly a place for irregular ‘skirmishers’ in the 18th and 19th centuries, but when push came to shove it was the side that could get the most muskets firing as may rounds as possible. In order to achieve this, men must be standing and be able to fire disciplined and rapid volleys. In most pitched battles, such tactics would defeat irregular skirmish tactics.

Hi there, while you wait for a newer answer, you may also be interested in these sections of our FAQs:

Military History: The Napoleonic Wars

Military tactics, strategy and equipment in the Revolutionary War