Line vs Column (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great



Message

Jagger2002 -> Line vs Column (7/6/2005 7:40:36 AM)

I recently bought HPS's Eckmuhl and Waterloo. I have enjoyed them. But the more I play, the more I realize there are serious problems with the game in terms of a simulation.

Hopefully this is something we won't see in Black Powder Wars.

In the HPS system, a line will not stop a column. The column approaches, the line defensive fires and then the column melees. To stop the column from winning melee, the line must produce a disrupted result. Unfortunately, morale checks rarely cause morale failure. So typically, the column takes some casualties and then melee occurs between two ordered formations. The column receives a charge bonus and regardless of winner, both sides are disordered.

A line of 600 men with a rate of fire of say 3 rounds a minute produces 1800 shots/minute. This is very comparable to a machinegun ROF. Of course, the fire is not quite as accurate but it is still a lot of firepower.

Hopefully, a line through sheer firepower will be able to halt, disrupt and even rout a column in Black Powder Wars.

Just some thoughts and any comments welcomed.




DavidI -> RE: Line vs Column (7/6/2005 5:47:51 PM)

Jagger,
Hear! Hear! I totally agree with you on this one. In the old "la Battiele" board games and, to a lesser degree HPS's games, THE way to attack a linear defense was to mass up huge columns and just crush the opposing lines. Not only was this historically incorrect but it encouraged players to pursue gamey tactics.
My confidence in Tim and his team is high enough that I don't think this will be a problem. It sounds like morale is going to play a huge part in BPW.
DavidI



Jagger2002 -> RE: Line vs Column (7/6/2005 7:46:50 PM)

My opinion is that the line is a very powerful formation. So why wasn't it used all the time? Why were columns used so extensively within Napoleonics vs the line?

One answer might be that the line requires more training to effectively employ. A 600 man battalion may have a front of 200-300 yds. Regardless of training, officers could probably get any unit into a line when not under fire. But once combat began, unless the troops were well trained, moving a battalion of 200-300 yds in a coordinated fashion has got to be a real challenge if the troops are not well trained. (Imagine the front of a brigade in line and trying to move it in a coordinated fashion.) In addition, once a line began to fire, it was very difficult to get them to move forward-unless they were well trained.

If I were to simulate a Napoleonic line, I would consider allowing any unit to form line if not under fire. If under fire, forming a line would be very iffy. And movement rates, under fire or not, would be dependent on training. Any sort of movement by a line under fire would be very iffy with greater possibilities of actually moving again tied to training. I think of the line as a fairly static and clumsy formation which nevertheless is ideal for putting out massive firepower that could stop attacking units in their tracks.

Also because the line is so static, it is very vulnerable to the flanking capability of a column. That 200-300 yd front becomes a front of 2-3 yds on the flanks with basically zero firepower. A quick and maneuverable column, once on the flank of a line, has both greater firepower and melee capability than a line. If a column assault could break just one battalion in a line and exploit that gap, the line was finished.

Then consider trying to control a line in poor terrain such as woods. You wouldn't even be able to see the entire formation with its great frontage. Again very static situation with extremely poor control.

Columns have ease of use, speed and manueverability. Against other columns, they have equal firepower. When advancing against an enemy defensive position, their speed reduces the time spent in the kill zone of artillery.

Both column and line have their advantages and disadvantages. I am looking forward to Black Powders portrayal.















Tęte de Porc -> RE: Line vs Column (7/7/2005 12:46:38 AM)

quote:


So typically, the column takes some casualties and then melee occurs between two ordered formations.


That sounds terribly wrong.

Melees should be rare to nonexistent since one side should break and run or a close-range firefight should result in 99% of cases.

quote:


A line of 600 men with a rate of fire of say 3 rounds a minute produces 1800 shots/minute. This is very comparable to a machinegun ROF. Of course, the fire is not quite as accurate but it is still a lot of firepower.


I dunno. With the smoke + lack of accuracy + individual mistakes in loading etc I'd say it's a lot less rounds on target than a machinegun.

Plus the effective range of a smoothbore musket is only 100 meters max, so they'd have to be pretty steady troops to get off three aimed volleys if the column keeps going.

quote:


Hopefully, a line through sheer firepower will be able to halt, disrupt and even rout a column in Black Powder Wars.


I think that historically one of three things would happen:

- Fire halts the column and a very confused close-range firefight ensues until one side breaks and retreats.

- Fire fails to halt the column and the defending line runs away.

- Fire alone breaks the column. This was very rare. The British usually delivered a bayonet charge after firing a couple of volleys, since fire alone usually wasn't enough. It took the morale effect of a bayonet charge (which did not make contact in 99% of cases) to actually break the enemy and make them run away.




bstarr -> RE: Line vs Column (7/10/2005 5:18:45 PM)

quote:

My opinion is that the line is a very powerful formation. So why wasn't it used all the time? Why were columns used so extensively within Napoleonics vs the line?


Line vs. column engagements, especially the most the famous "French Column" vs "British Line" in the Peninsular War, were often oversimplified in history. In truth the French advanced in column in order to deploy into line. Quite often the disorder brought on by a powerful volley prevented the column from deploying therefore what was supposed to be line vs. line became line vs. a disorganized mass that closely resembled a column.



Le Tondu -> RE: Line vs Column (7/11/2005 4:43:44 PM)

Right indeed bstarr. Oversimpilification is the bane of our hobby. I've been at it for a long time and the more I read, the more I discover that there is more to learn.





DavidI -> RE: Line vs Column (7/11/2005 8:12:51 PM)

Jagger 2002,
Concerning the manueverability of lines vs columns. While it is true that it is easier to move a column, in any circumstances, rather than a line, lines could and did move on the field of battle all the time. Consider the British advance at Salamanca, long distances were crossed by lines on the offense. The early Prussian Army made a fetish of the line and at Jena-Aurstat and Eylau deployed into line prior to advancing and moved in these lines. Also consider the battles of the American Civil War, THE combat formation was the line (woe be to any commander on either side that got caught in column).
Moving in colum and then deploying into line works great, as long as you don't get caught under fire while deploying. The French fought in line very frequently, but every once in a while would get caught in column or while deploying into line by advancing Enemy lines, much to their chagrin (Coruna comes to mind). Fighting Columns, as opposed to Movement Columns, were suppose to combine the two formations, but as with many compromises didn't work out that well (with notable exceptions). Post 1812 French, Prussian and Russians relied heavier on fighting in column but not, I would add, exclusively.
DavidI



Tęte de Porc -> RE: Line vs Column (7/12/2005 1:28:35 AM)

Well columns are not just easier to move than columns, they are easier by several degrees of magnitude.

Another thing to consider is that the standard Napoleonic attack column, the battalion column by divisions, was quite different from a marching column which is what some people think of when they hear "column". The attack column still had a front that was quite wide. It was basically two companies in line (usually three-deep) with three lines stacked behind each other. So the frontage was maybe 60 men while the depth was six to nine.

Another thing to remember is that a lot of the firefight was performed by the skirmishers which preceeded the column, so the reduced firepower of the column mattered less than it would seem since the skirmishers (and ideally the artillery as well) had already "softened up" the enemy. Wellington was able to overcome the French skirmishers by deploying even more of his own, in fact so many that the French often mistook them for a second line.

quote:


Also consider the battles of the American Civil War, THE combat formation was the line (woe be to any commander on either side that got caught in column).


I was under the impression that the Napoleonic attack column remained in frequent use throughout the 19th century, including the American Civil War. It was still used in 1914 by the French, Germans, and Russians.

quote:


In truth the French advanced in column in order to deploy into line.


Sometimes this was the case, but they often avoided deploying into line since they wanted to avoid prolonged firefights which inevitably led to loss of control and instead tried to "push on through".

But the Peninsula may have been a bit different since the British were skilled in the tactical defensive and often fought from well prepared positions. I can see the French commanders wanting to deploy into line rather than relying on just the skirmishers to soften up the enemy under those circumstances. I think D'Erlon's columns were trying to deploy into line at Waterloo when the British heavy cavalry hit them, which added to the disaster.



Capt Cliff -> RE: Line vs Column (7/12/2005 9:22:24 PM)

D'Erlon's formation was a giant colum of "lines", something he brought with him from Spain. His column at Waterloo was a series of lines and not a bunch of regements or battalions columns. Each battalion was in line formation boxed toegther with other battalions into a column. This was done to facilitate the column going into square, to protect them from cavalry. But D'Erlon was surprised at Waterloo and his grand idea went south!



rich -> RE: Line vs Column (7/13/2005 4:29:19 PM)

Training would play a big part in how effectively troops could operate in line. The British army (including British trained Portuguese units) was a small professional force, whereas the French army was conscripted.

This is why there's a significant difference between the linear tactics of the 18th century and Napoleonic warfare. When an army, like the British, was trained up to the standards of the previous century it could deliver deadly volleys when deployed in line and, perhaps more importantly, could manoeuvre better in line than other armies and stand firm in the face of the enemy. The success of French columns against other opponents is probably mainly psychological - but it was normally safer to pound them with artillery and harass them with skirmishers before sending forward the columns. But perhaps Wellesley's tactic of placing his men on a reverse slope to avoid unnecessary losses from artillery and the fact that British riflemen were superior to the French skirmishers are significant factors.

So perhaps the solution from a wargaming perspective would be to limit the mobility of non-Anglo-Portuguese units in line (or professional 18th century armies) and make them more susceptible to panic when approached by French columns.

But, as others have already pointed out, melee is generally more psychological than physical. Perhaps some "melee" casualties can be attributed to close range fire or troops getting captured or running away, but actual bayonet wounds were pretty rare. Probably the main effect of "melee" should be to cause routing rather than heavy losses.



malcolm_mccallum -> RE: Line vs Column (7/14/2005 12:18:12 AM)

All columns were columns of lines. The only real formation that a company could form was line. When everyone turned right and the command staff moved itself to the right, it was now in 'march' column.

Battalion columns were simply putting the companies one behind the other but depending on the armies, this usually involved actually still being at least two companies wide. What is a column really doing? It is giving moral support to the front ranks (they can glance over their shoulder and see plenty of friends) and decreasing the confidence of their opponents by giving the impression that killing a few in the front ranks of the column won't stop the inevitable impact. A line suffered for the same reasons in that those in line (especially 2 deep lines) would could feel very much alone very quickly and when a column advanced against a line it would encourage the column into thiking there was anot alot of opposition to their front.

Game engines will have to get beyond the simplified column/line/square rock/paper/scissors model before they can start unlocking any sort of real Napoleonic simulations that work at battalion or regimental level.

Column is a trade off in the value of morale for firepower but more importantly the morale factors need to be taken in context. If you were to form up three battalions of lines one behind the other, you'd get all the moral advantages of a column and would lose the firepower. But firepower is limited by available frontage in any case.

As well, games have to dismiss the idea of melees. There are quotes from generals who fought through the entire Napoleonic wars saying that outside of a town melee, they'd never seen a single pitched fight. That includes cavalry. When two units got to bayonet or saber range, one side was ALWAYS fleeing already. It was a very rare thing indeed for cavalry to actually make contact with other formed cavalry and to engage one another.

Napoleonic warfare is a game of chicken where artillery and musketry is the means to taunt your opponent into flinching and cavalry is the threat if they do.

EDIT: reply to Rich. I'd recommend against buying too much into the hype of the British Line. Incidents where the British line held up to french columns advance almost invariably had the british on defensible ground, well supported from behind, and with the french columns having great difficulty getting to grips with them. Even at Waterloo, D'Erlon's columns were driving the British lines back just as they had driven enemy lines back for years. It was only the press of Uxbridge's cavalry that saved the British position.



Tęte de Porc -> RE: Line vs Column (7/14/2005 1:32:45 AM)

Like with all conflicts the events should be understood in the context of the last war that the participants fought, and in the case of the Napoleonic wars this was the Seven Years' War (French + most others) and American War of Independence (British).

After the Seven Years's War, where French performance had been disappointing for a number of reasons, the French army had a huge tactical debate which ended with one camp proposing radical new columnar tactics, one camp proposing old linear tactics, and one camp favouring a mix or the Ordre Mixte. This means the foundations for Napoleonic infantry tactics where in place before the revolution.

The British, meanwhile, had learned to use their infantry a lot more aggressively in the American War of Independence where they usually went in with the bayonet. The British also learned the value of skirmishing tactics, although this received a mixed reception back home. The end result was that the British switched from a three-deep line to two-deep, which they kept throughout the Napoleonic wars. (The other innovation, firing individually and in loose order, was dismissed as "loose rabble and American scramble" and discontinued after the war.)

quote:


...the fact that British riflemen were superior to the French skirmishers are significant factors.


The riflemen were actually only a small part of the British skirmishing line. Most used regular smoothbores, and in the Peninsula most regiments (i.e. the entire regiment and not just the light company) were trained in skirmishing tactics.

What Wellington did was employ a combination of mass use of skirmishers as well as (ideally) broken grund, reverse slope cover, and close range artillery support to stop the French attacks.

quote:


Perhaps some "melee" casualties can be attributed to close range fire or troops getting captured or running away, but actual bayonet wounds were pretty rare.


They were rare indeed. I think something like 70% of casualties in Napoleonic battles came from artillery, 25% from muskets, and 5% from edged weapons with the absolute majority within the last group coming from cavalry weapons and not bayonets.

quote:


Probably the main effect of "melee" should be to cause routing rather than heavy losses.


I agree totally. It may sound contradictory to the statements above, but the bayonet charge was useful. It's just that the enemy almost never remained in place so the bayonets could be used. Most commanders realized that a bayonet charge was preferable to getting stuck in a close range firefight.



9thlegere -> RE: Line vs Column (7/16/2005 3:10:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

It was a very rare thing indeed for cavalry to actually make contact with other formed cavalry and to engage one another.



Malcolm, I agree with all of your last post but have reservations on the above comment. Infantry melee was rare but from my understanding of it, cavalry did melee with cavalry quite frequently but it was normally over very quickly. It is possible(even probable) that you may be right in saying most of the time cav vs cav resulted in one side breaking before contact but I believe that of these two arms, they were the most likely to engage in actual melee.

The cavalry engagements at Austerlitz appear to have instances of formed bodies engaging. Smaller engagments have it as well, numerous scraps between British and French cav in the Peninsular had real melee's.

I would greatly welcome any source you could point to me that indicates cav melee's were very rare and I don't mean that to be arguementitive, more of intrests sake, thanks.


I liked your last comment on the British line. I think it gained a lot of its reputation for invinvibilty due to the extreme care that Wellington took to make sure it always fought in an advantageous situation, on attack or defence. I have never been a fan of Wellington but I cannot hide from the fact that he was a superb tactician, good stragtegist and excellent at logistics making him arguablly the best General of the Napoleonic wars.

Many of the people at the old wargames club I used to attend and all of my friends had the old image (bolstered by historical books like Omans excellent Penisular series or fictional texts like the Sharpe series by Cornwall) that a column was deeper than wider and that its only purpose was to break through the enemy by force of impact or by bayonet fighting!! They sooner this image is detroyed the better!



9thlegere -> RE: Line vs Column (7/16/2005 3:23:17 PM)

http://www.napoleon-series.org/

has an intresting article on line and column.




Tim Coakley -> RE: Line vs Column (7/19/2005 4:11:27 AM)

Just a note on my thoughts for melee...

I have modeled the game so they are not very common. Both sides must test to engage...the attcker to charge home, and the defender to hold ground. Evene when they do, casualties are not that heavy. Most of teh casualties came from broken units that were attacked.

Tim



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Line vs Column (7/19/2005 2:57:52 PM)

If you count prisoners as casualties, then they could be high. Certainly charges were a moral test overall, if game models that, so that low morale units take high casualties from soldiers surrendering, then i think it will be well modelled



Capt Cliff -> RE: Line vs Column (7/19/2005 9:31:37 PM)

One thing I've read about Wellington's assessment of enemy troops was that he could tell as they advanced onto his position; their gate, how erect they stood, whether they meant business or not. He then could decide if it was worthy of his attention.



rich -> RE: Line vs Column (7/20/2005 5:51:25 PM)

In the HPS games, melees are too commonplace - in fact players who don't use ZOC melee elimination tactics invariably lose. I suspect this is probably a common fault of most existing wargames. So I'm really glad that Doubleshot won't be placing too high an emphasis on melee.



Jagger2002 -> RE: Line vs Column (7/20/2005 7:21:35 PM)

DS, I saw your comment on melees and sounds good.

But I am still curious whether lines will commonly halt columns due to their firepower? Sorta like the Brits did in Spain and Waterloo.



Capt Cliff -> RE: Line vs Column (7/20/2005 9:24:14 PM)

Remember the Brit's always had a tactical advantage for their infantry, like at Waterloo hiding behind the low ridge. There is also another theory behind the Middle Guards failure to break the thin red line at Waterloo. Supposedly there were two French columns that were to converge at one point on the Brit line. Friant was coordinating this but he was shoot and went down and the two moving column diverged instead on converged at were cut up piece meal. Now one can also say this is more sop for the French ego but it does make sence.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Line vs Column (7/22/2005 6:16:06 PM)

As always, there were many factors involved, not just firepower, remember that Brtish lines in Spain were always protected by a dense cloud of skirmishers, so that it was not like the column arrived in front of the line and then was stopped by a volley.
Against green Spanish troops without adequate skirmish protection columns were succesful for instance.



Jagger2002 -> RE: Line vs Column (7/22/2005 9:56:04 PM)

quote:

so that it was not like the column arrived in front of the line and then was stopped by a volley


Actually, I think that is exactly what happened many times. Columns often halted when they were hit by a volley from a line or even prior to the volley. Also skirmishers typically could not stop a formed body from advancing.

quote:

Against green Spanish troops without adequate skirmish protection columns were succesful for instance.


I agree columns were successful against green Spanish troops but I wouldn't completely attribute their success due to a lack of Spanish skirmishers. I would credit more to the poor morale and training rather than lack of skirmishers.



9thlegere -> RE: Line vs Column (7/23/2005 12:49:30 PM)

Yeah, for the most part the performance of the Spanish Army in the Peninsular was laughable.

I think at the battle of Tarragon (?) Suchets right wing of about 4,000 men routed about 4 times its number by simply advancing rapidly upon them throwing them into disorder. The Spanish cavalry and infantry often collapased when put under pressure because the discipline, training and morale was very poor- not because they were poorly served by skirmishers (which they often were though!).






Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Line vs Column (7/23/2005 6:20:06 PM)

I am not sure what battle do you refere to, Suchet took Tarragona on June 28 1811, after almost 2 months of siege. He launched 3 columns to take the city, succesfully, but this is not a good example, fight in towns was better for assault columns, and besides it was the French who had superiority in numbers, Suchet had in all about 22.000 men, while the Spanish garrison had 6.500 men.
OTOH Suchet himself was heavily defeated in the battle of Alcaniz (May 25 1809), giving a good example of a bad use of attack columns, in that battle Musnier formed his division in a column of battalions and atacked the center of the Spanish line, but they had to push aside first a screen of skirmishers, then after enduring the fire of 16 guns at close range, and terrible enfilade fire from the Spanish division in the left flank, the men in the column broke ranks before making contact with the enemy and routed. When both sides didnīt have a solid screen of skirmishers, it was a sort of bravado game, the French column advanced at the double, hoping the raw Spanish recruits would flee.
My point is
1) No doubt the Spanish troops were in general poor, but should they be given a good screen of skirmishers they would have better chance
2) No doubt the British skirmish screen was not enough to stop the column, but it helped a lot to disrupt it and slow the advance, so that the following volley was much more effective.



9thlegere -> RE: Line vs Column (7/24/2005 1:52:44 PM)

Apologoies, it was Saguntum that I was refering to!

Alcaniz was one of Suchets first battles with the old 3rd Corps (?) and I think it is fair to say that it was not the best of formations in the french army at that point. Your entirely correct about the poor use of columns there though.

On the whole though the Spanish Army did not perform very well in pitched battles against the French, my point was simply that it was not because of skirmishers that Spanish formations collapsed so frequently but simply poor training/disipline and morale.



Iņaki Harrizabalagatar -> RE: Line vs Column (7/25/2005 8:53:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

Apologoies, it was Saguntum that I was refering to!

Alcaniz was one of Suchets first battles with the old 3rd Corps (?) and I think it is fair to say that it was not the best of formations in the french army at that point. Your entirely correct about the poor use of columns there though.

On the whole though the Spanish Army did not perform very well in pitched battles against the French, my point was simply that it was not because of skirmishers that Spanish formations collapsed so frequently but simply poor training/disipline and morale.

Well, I have to say that Saguntum is not a good example either, because it was the Spaniards who attacked in column that time!
BTW there is a point that should be made about the Spanish armies in the Peninsular War, most of the troops were regional militia, not regular army, they performed well defending their towns and fighting small war in their local region, but they performed very badly in open battles, and more so when they were detached outside of their own region. For instance, at Saguntum, Blakeīs army of 27k, had about 5k from the regular army and the rest were militia.
As for your point, I agree that they collapsed because of those reasons, but also because against advancing columns they didnīt display enough skirmishers most of the time. My point is, should they have deployed skirmishers, they would have had a better chance.




larizona55 -> RE: Line vs Column (7/25/2005 9:47:03 PM)

Just to muddy the waters, there is an article in the April 04 Journal of Military History by James Arnold.

His basic premise is that english speakers conception of French tactics have been influenced too much by Oman, who seemed to think that the French foought mostly in column. But in reality, the French used an entire "toolbox" of formations, based on the tactical situation, and bounded only by occasional dictate, or after 1809 poor training.

A few quotes from the text of the article:

"One of the strengths of the Reglement of 1791 was its flexibility permitting a combat commander a variety of choices in executing a maneuver. Historian John Lynn studied the tactical formations used in 108 engagements fought by the Armee du Nord between April 1792 and July 1794. he found flfty-nve recorded instances of the French deploying into line and cited seven examples of the line in attack and thirty-five cases of column attacks. Lynn concluded that "commanders placed their soldiers ... in ways which exploited terrain and met the tactical challenge. Battalions stood in a full close order repertoire of line, column, and square or dispersed in open order."'^ This conclusion applies to French infantry throughout the Napoleonic Wars.
Consider the 9 june 1800 Battle of Montebello. General Francois AVatrin opens the nght by deploying two battalions of the 6th Legere into line and charging the Casteggio heights. General Claude Victor brings reinforcements. The commander of the 43rd Demi-Brigade places his two flank battalions in open order and keeps his center battalion in column. The 96th Demi-Brigade is the next unit onto the field. It charges Gasteggio in battalion column. Throughout the battle, the French infantry exhibits a well-considered variety of tactical formations, effortlessly deploying from one to another while under artillery Are.16"

Also a quote from the text damning Oman's assesment give some interesting thoughts on line attacks...

"Oman stated that the Emperor's "most celebrated battle strokes seem frequently to have been made by very gross and heavy masses."21 Sir Charles cited Marshal Nicolas Soult's assault on the Pratzen Heights during the battle of Austerlitz in 1805 as an example.22 However, he is wrong.
The tactical details of the attack by Soult's 1st Division are clearly described by a French participant, General Paul Thiebault.23 Nearing the village of Pratzen, the 1st Battalion of the 14th deploys into line and is rebuffed in its attack upon the village. Thiebault leads a counterattack with the regiment's 2nd Battalion which "deployed as it ran."24 Gaining the heights Thiebault is confronted by a heavy Russian counterattack. To respond to this challenge, he orders the 36th to deploy with all speed. The decisive engagement of the battle ensues.
Lest there be any doubt about Soult's maneuvers, the deployment into line was observed and recorded by Karl Stutterheim, an Austrian eyewitness.25 Thus, contrary to Oman, the spearhead of Napoleon's "battle stroke," at the Emperor's most celebrated battle, nghts the decisive action in line.
Another French tactic used by the Grande Armee was to dissolve entire battalions into skirmish order. Oman is also mistaken about this point. Hc wrote: "I do not remember any case in the Peninsular battles where whole battalions were broken up into skirmishers. . . . Nor do I think that it occurred often, if ever, in any of the imperial battles."26
In the Peninsula at the Battle of Busaco, a French participant recounted how an entire brigade in Ney's Corps dispersed into skirmish order as it fought along the ridge slopes.27 Following the Battle of Salamanca, the French under General Joseph Souham engaged in heavy skirmishing with Wellington. At the forefront of the action was Colonel Bechaud, who provided a detailed account: "the two left flank companies fired upon the advancing enemy columns . . . the remainder of the U 5th dispersed into skirmish order . . . after twenty nve minutes . . . the enemy turned our left . . . and our cloud of skirmishers were forced to retreat."28 The 15th then reformed into a two-deep line and opened Are. Later in the day the eight companies of the 15th and 66th again broke into skirmish order.
Similarly, many French units fought in imperial battles while in skirmish order. In 1806 the report of the 16th Legere at Jena described how "the third battalion advanced into the woods in skirmish order. "29 Throughout the Ratisbon phase of the 1809 campaign, the French made extensive use of massed skirmisher tactics.30 Even in 1813 the French were capable of deploying entire units in skirmish order. The Russian general Langeron recounted how the French left at Lutzen launched its counterattack in skirmish order.31 During the retreat from Leipzig, when the French encountered the Austro-Bavarian army at Hanau, Macdonald placed two battalions of Old Guard Chasseurs in skirmish order, supported them with Old Guard Grenadiers, and attacked.32
In and of themselves these examples arc not of surpassing historical importance. Skirmish order was merely one available formation that French commanders could select from the tactical tool box. However, the fact that the French were routinely capable of deploying entire units into skirmish order challenges Oman's expertise in French small-unit tactics."

This should keep things nice and muddy....

Larry



9thlegere -> RE: Line vs Column (7/26/2005 12:54:37 AM)

I don't disagree with you, I don't think I was being all that clear.

I was not stating that the Spanish were beaten by columns at Saguntum but that they were beaten as they were badly trained etc.

Having a stronger skirmish line would ahve helped against French attack columns but could the Spanish have deployed and used this given how poorly trained most of there troops were?





9thlegere -> RE: Line vs Column (7/26/2005 12:57:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: larizona55

Just to muddy the waters, there is an article in the April 04 Journal of Military History by James Arnold.




Yeah, I posted that link earlier on in this topic as I thought it was very relevant.




Waldo_slith -> RE: Line vs Column (7/26/2005 8:15:40 AM)

The line had superior firepower to the attack column. The column was more easily maneuvered and less vulnerable to cav attack. Given the uncertainties of the battlefield the column was the better all-around formation.

From 1809 on all of the major powers save Britain operated in column on the battlefield. The line tended to suit Wellington's style of battle -- essentially defensive with the line protected not only by terrain but also a thick skirmishing line. Without the protection of terrain and skirmishers enemy artillery and skirmishers can degrade the line so that it will not stand against fresh assault columns.

wp



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375