Talk:Volley fire

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

How useful is the section "depictions"?

Doesn't seem to add anything to the article's topic and the examples are weirdly arbitrarily chosen... Why not Napoleon with the aerial footage of large infantry squares repelling a cavalry attack of THOUSANDS? Why not the SHARPE TV series where drilling to fire in volley is an essential theme throughout the series? And yet both still do not really do the topic a favor and do not really broaden the explanation and illustration of the historical development or tactical value of volley fire... Seems like one of the topics that does not need any trivia section whatsoever, especially not one so poorly chosen. --176.199.184.48 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Crossbow countermarch.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"... requires lines of soldiers to fire on command and march back into a column to reload while the next row ..."

I think I understand some of the logic of this fragment, but can't accept it as user-friendly:

The volley fire, specifically the musketry volley technique, also known as the countermarch, requires lines of soldiers to fire on command and march back into a column to reload while the next row shoots and, hence, repeat fire.

To wit, that logic reflects

[V]olley fire...[, a] technique ... requires lines ... to fire and [to]] march back [in order] to reload [while] the next row shoots] and, hence, [they, the two rows,] repeat fire.

Or else, that's the first of multiple, variously justifying or contradicting, ways one can either explain an excessively complex (and as a result, intolerably demanding) exercise of half consciously winnowing out the absurd but nevertheless grammatically meaningful ways of construing what would be immediately clear, if only stated in two clearly demarcated sentences (or maybe two semicolon-delimited clauses, each easy to correctly construe, without simulanously having the other in mind as an aid to judge whether a different parsing would stretch credibility. Thus, perhaps, instead

The volley fire in general, and specifically the musketry volley-technique (also known as the countermarch), requires a line of soldiers to fire on command; that accomplished, they march [to the] back [of the perhaps three- or 15-row formation],] and commence reload while those in the next row emulate those just completed steps.

You can't write worth a damn, without concentrating on the fact you're handicapped from explaining clearly what the reader doesn't know, by the fact that -- unlike you -- they don't yet know what it is that you're explaining, and you face the metaphorical handicap of stepping on your own feet -- or on your own hands, or on theirfeet perhaps -- bcz the explainer has to hold their attention on both their own knowledge and the listener's more than likely ignorance.

T'was thus that Socrates spake, "There is no royal road to wisdom." Jerzy•t 13:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]