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.
Line vs Column
Moderators: Sertorius, Tim Coakley
RE: Line vs Column
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
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
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 9:05 pm
RE: Line vs Column
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.
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.
-
Tête de Porc
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:58 pm
RE: Line vs Column
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.
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.
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.
RE: Line vs Column
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.
RE: Line vs Column
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.
Vive l'Empereur!
RE: Line vs Column
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
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
-
Tête de Porc
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:58 pm
RE: Line vs Column
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- Posts: 1713
- Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:48 pm
- Location: Northwest, USA
RE: Line vs Column
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!
Capt. Cliff
RE: Line vs Column
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.
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
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:32 am
RE: Line vs Column
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.
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.
-
Tête de Porc
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:58 pm
RE: Line vs Column
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
...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.
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.
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.
RE: Line vs Column
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!
Heads up by god, those are bullets, not turds!
RE: Line vs Column
Heads up by god, those are bullets, not turds!
-
Tim Coakley
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:32 pm
RE: Line vs Column
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
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
Horse and Musket2---Matrix Games
-
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
- Posts: 785
- Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm
RE: Line vs Column
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
- Posts: 1713
- Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:48 pm
- Location: Northwest, USA
RE: Line vs Column
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.
Capt. Cliff
RE: Line vs Column
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
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 9:05 pm
RE: Line vs Column
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.
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
- Posts: 1713
- Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:48 pm
- Location: Northwest, USA
RE: Line vs Column
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.
Capt. Cliff