In 18th and early 19th century warfare was it actually common for armies just to march up and trade multiple volleys? I know that was the most devastating kind of fire but it seems like a high risk thing you would need to set up tactically by doing things like distracting or harassing an enemy.

by Independent_Oil_5951

Im asking if it was kind of like a haymaker in boxing. A potentially knock out blow but opens you up for a lot of damage so it only comes when the opponent is in a vulnerable position already so you set them up with jabs and feints. Similarly I think of the way two boxers could just trade haymakers but the bout would end quickly it seems that a unit that actually stood and traded volley after volley would quickly be devastated beyond the point of being effective in combat.

So I picture armies engaging at a distance much farther than what is typically shown in media and slowly finding openings to get infantry up close to deliver more decisive blows like the volley. Is this correct or am I very misinformed?

DanKensington

More can always be said, of course, but I commend to your attention the appropriate section of the FAQ, specifically the headers 'Why did European armies use Linear Tactics?' and 'Mechanics of Linear Tactics'.

Adding onto that section, a few more posts:

u/StoryWonker has an overview of the relevant factors;
u/dandan_noodles looks at the dimensions of combat;
and on the degree of risk and likelihood of lethality;
and in conjunction with u/PartyMoses, the relative risks of being in formation;
PartyMoses also covers the dimensions of combat;
also how the fighting should go, according to one contemporary theory;
and on a common idea, why the troops don't duck/get down/lie down/similar.

Independent_Oil_5951

Wow thank you. I appreciate the other links and sorry to ask such I similar question. I only looked at the search term volley to see if my question was asked.