iamspamus
Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline
|
I agree with the thought that the British were the best defensive infantry of the time. HOWEVER, another factor is that the French using the assault columns (for lack of a better term) was "new" in the beginning of the period, but by the end of the period (when the British were perfecting their system), everyone else had learned to some extent what to do to beat the French system. Couple this with the fact of the non-replaceable horseflesh and veteran losses suffered after Russia (Yeah, Kutusov!...and winter and space and Cossacks and the Prussians and Austrians changing sides...) and Napoleon by no means was fighting with the "A" team in the latter years. Finally, I think that Welly was good, especially in defense, even with unreliable allies. All of these things together helped to make the British system better than the French in the late war.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 9thlegere
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sardonic
But something as fundemental as the three rank line being outmoded, simply slipped thru the cracks in the system.
If we conjecture the French simply NOT using the three rank line, and using the two rank line instead....
The whole battle would have been different.
Would have made no difference at all. The French simply did not have the same fire power philosophy as the British. Being famous wasters of ammunition, often firing too soon and aiming too high, two or three ranks would make not a jot of difference.
The British infantry of the period was the best in the world in defence- thorught the Napoleonic wars the French never could deal with a volley or two at close range from British inf followed up with the bayonet.
Well, France virtually conquered all of the European landmass, so I'm not belittling them. But in the end they lost this series of wars. Some to do with, well, fighting the majority of the European landmass, as well as other things.
I agree that 2 vs. 3 lines for the Fr wouldn't have made a difference, not because they were inherently poor shots. That's silly. They did not have the training and in the later years, with basically militia or green troops you just clump them together and charge. And let's be honest, it broke JUST about everyone. The Brits being the obvious exception. But if you have poor cav to hit flanks, then you are missing a critical section to the assault column battle plan.
I do disagree that they were just all bad shots or whatever. The FR Voltigeurs (sp?) were remarkable; no one shot as much in practice as the British; and well, all militia are pants. So, what can you expect of hastily raised troops?
Jason
quote:
ORIGINAL: 9thlegere
They beat the Austrians at Magneta and Solferino under Napoleon the third.
Crimea Campaign anyone?
I seem to recall them being on the winning side in WW1 and 2 as well.
But don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
< Message edited by iamspamus -- 4/20/2007 2:57:05 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread