"Range at which one could tell enemy was wavering?" Topic

A friend of mine has designed a set of rules in which a general commanding a division can tell – correctly – that an enemy unit's morale is so shaky it will break if attacked/charged. His rules allow this to be observed at a range of 400 metres or less.
I would welcome your opinions as to whether this figure of 400m seems reasonable, or too great/too low, with any historical examples you can offer.
Thanks in anticipation.

Sounds about right I suppose but surely a units condition will be visible through its disorder counters or whatever.

Having a hidden "condition" of troops morale/order would be difficult I would think for a number of reasons.

The rolls that reduce a units condition would need to be in secret, as would the method used to represent it. Not easy in a wargame enviroment.

The unit's condition will NOT be visible on the tabletop, but will be known to an umpire. There will be no die rolls to determine its condition, but the original status will be modified by a few factors depending on situation to arrive at its temporary/current status. The rationale is that the general should have to estimate, through a combination of personal observation and awareness of the situation, whether the moment is right to order a close assault.

Close enough to smell their britches.

Seriously, better and more experienced commanders could tell.

400 meters sounds a little far to me. I would think that you would have to be within effective range, maybe 100 meters.

very good idea but 400 mtrs does sound a bit too far. I give a bonus +30% to charge if the enemy is Shaken or worse but this is usually only when the potential chargers are within charge range which is from 0 to 200yds.

In my opinion 400 meters is way too far. This is due to a number of physical and tactical factors.

First of all 400 meters, you can barely make out enemy troop formations. Modern US rifle practice used 300 meter targets for the longest as a maximum range to engage. Imagine standing on the goalline of a football field or a soccer field. look at someone at the other end, then think about looking at someone for times that distance away. It would be hard to tell if they were reforming for a charge or faltering.

Your thread is listed on Nap and 19th Cen. so I am using those tactical ranges. It was common practice to halt and reform ranks and formations before entering range of artillery. Another halt and reformation would normally hgappen again just outside of effective musketry which in this time period is 50 to 75 meters. Still you would not know for sure if they were going to surge forward or retreat.

The concept of a commander making an operational decision based on intel of a 400 meter range would be irresponsible. In my opinion making even tactical decisions of reinforcing a line or advancing would be possible at 100 yards but more likely at 50 yards or at the point of the enemey actually faltering and failing to make contact.

So if you are going to have an abstract range, I would say 50 or 100 meters and no more.

I'd go with a shorter base range, but allow that to be measured from any functioning command unit. This would be to abstract the numerous dispatch riders flying about taking situation reports and orders to and from the commanding general.

Brian

IRL you wouldn't have a clue about the condition of an enemy formation from 400 yards away unless they either:

a) had suffered such shattering losses that the unit frontage had visibly reduced by a significant amount
b) were falling back

It has to be some really obvious visual cue at that distance.

At 400 metres, one must assume that each engagaement is to be fought on windy days, both sides have low ammunition and/or said armies are paltry in number…….

How otherwise would one see anything but shadows and spectres through the smoke.

I agree, at 400 meters/yards an infantry unit looks like a mere blob. Given open or nearly open terrain about the only thing you could see is whether they are retiring or advancing. Only at 100 yard or so can you begin to see individual forms and their body parts.

I, too, feel that 400 meters is too far to make any kind of decision with much certainty as to the condition of an enemy unit. Very possible at 100 or less.

Some "management indicators" to look for:

1. Frantic movement and shouting from unit leadership. (Verses slow, methodical movements; orders/encouragement from a "controlled" voice.)(Audible sign)

2. Movement within the formation that is not loading or preparing for a formation change. (Visual)

3. Return fire sporatic and with intervals. (Both audio and visual signs)

4. Formation needs attention. (Gaps not being filled, bunching, flags no longer visible being flown, much chatter amongst the men, etc.)

Timing is everything. If you can sucessfully catch a unit with such problems, the additional "pressure" of now having to face an advance from the enemy seemed to have been enough for the "unit" to give ground. How well that unit executes the retrograde will depend upon the amount of remaining control of the officers. If circumstances are totally out of their control, a rout can probably be expected. If a decent amount of control remains in their hands, it could resemble a more orderly retreat and was probably then viewed with much more "respect", and allowed their "space". Most games paint such situations with a very wide brush, without regards to variable conditions within the subject unit.

"MY" question is this: Arthur1815 is focusing upon a "General" making the determination as to when to send the lads in. In reality, this assumes his subordinate units remain under his control, in order to execute such an order. The conditions for that General to make that decision would be more readily available to the "units". If the unit commanders understood their Brigade/Division was operating under "attack" orders, is it not possible they would have the ability to initiate a charge on their own if they felt they had an advantage? Sould such initiave be related to National Tactical Doctrine or individual iniatiave?

Best,
Tom Dye
GFI

I wonder how good the track record for this sort of thing was, given the factors already mentioned that worked against visibility.

Ney certainly screwed things up big time at Waterloo by misinterpretation of what he saw or had reported to him, probably because he was too far away. Given the gap between him and the action could reasonably estimated at 900 meters, or under (knowing his reputation, probably well under) I would say that Arthur's 400 meters needs screwing down a bit, even for front line commanders.

A question I would ask Arthur is why a Divisional General? For the most part Brigadiers would be closer to the action. Are they not represented, or are you considering them to be tied by orders? Or are they going to be part of the upward reporting process?

I would add men leaving the ranks from the rear and/or NCOs trying to prevent them to Tom's list and add a caveat as too how much ‘initiative' should be allowed and at what level.

There's a cross over point between ‘initiative' and recklessness. I think we allow too much of one and fail to punish the other. Either can have fatal consequences if they present the enemy with a counter opportunity.

Given the ability of units at that age to charge friendly units due to misunderstandings, I think 400 metres way too far.

I think range is irrelevant. Commanders have misread situations numerous times; such as at Waterloo as already mentioned, and at Cowpens during the Revolution.

I'm sure even commanders at far shorter ranges have grossly misjudged what they have seen as well.

I agree with Arthur1815 in that only an umpire will truly know what is going on in the minds of the troops. Or, if you see enemy troops running like hell all in disarray away from the battle at full speed, dropping rifles and equipment, then they are probably shaken.

Trajanus – I specified divisional general because that is the lowest level of command taken by players in my friend's rules. Brigadiers have modifiers of -1, 0 or +1 in combat calculations [performed by umpires], but there is currently no rules mechanism – other than umpire decision – as to whether/when they might use their discretion, other than a possibility that a unit ordered to close assault the enemy will not close within 400 yards. The rule writer is not totally clear whether this represents the troops refusing to go foward, or their commander deciding the moment is not right to attack…

The rule, to me, just doesn't make since. You aren't even close to being in effective range at 400 meters.

Post-battle accounts by British soldiers indicate they could tell the enemy was wavering about 100-200 yards off. However it should be remembered that they wrote their accounts with the knowledge that they won the fight. They may have falsely imputed signs of wavering after the fact.

400 meters = 1/4 mile! At that range I doubt if they could even tell which way the enemy was facing.

I always look at it as if I personally was looking out across terrain, it all depends on your field of vision obviously but trying to detect subtle changes in the mood of an enemy at anything over 100 or 200 yds I think is pretty hard to do unless your using a telescope….400yds becomes maybe 100yds, do you think you can tell the mood of and enemy unit at 100yds ?

Much depends on whether the enemy are wearing brown trousers or not