|
Capitaine -> RE: Line vs Column (11/16/2005 6:53:36 PM)
|
A common mistake made in this thread and in the discussion of line vs. column generally is the flawed assertion that the line formation possesses "greater firepower". It does not at all (unless the weapons are different, giving the line a greater rate of fire). A line has a greater FRONTAGE than a column, assuming the formations have the same number of men.
Both line and column may only fire from the first two ranks and both have the same distance between men in line. If the columns on one side outnumber the line on the other such that the frontage of the advancing columns matches the frontage of the defending line, the advantage in firepower would seem to lie with the columns, due to the presence of replacements from the files. In addition, because musketballs would not continue onward after hitting a soldier like cannonballs, the losses sustained frontally by both the column and line would be about the same (depth only resulting in significantly greater losses from artillery fire). One on one, a line's frontage could bring more muskets to bear than a column, obviously, but rarely would a successful attack rely on 1:1 odds, in my estimation.
I have always understood the line, and the 2-deep line in particular, to be a crutch for armies lacking in manpower, as the British were noted for, in order to cover the necessary or desired frontage on the battlefield. As noted above, lines would also tend to minimize losses from artillery fire due to the much shallower ranks, so given the typical advantage in artillery of the French, the British use of line on defense also was advantageous.
To cut to the chase, then, I believe that the success of British against the French had less to do with any innate superiority of the line formation than it did with the tactical context of a given confrontation (tactical defensive, defensive positioning, better quality troops than non-French continental armies, leadership, etc.).
|
|
|
|
