"What Napoleonic tactics are inappropriate for SYW and FIW ?" Topic

I would like to employ my armies (French vs. Anglo-Hanoverian) in a historical manner regardless of what the rules might permit, so I would appreciate some more advice from TMP members experience. In particular, to avoid game tactics that are blatantly ahistorical. I have played more games in the Napoleonic and ACW period, which could cloud my judgment.

What guidance can you give to avoid "Napoleonic" usage of light infantry and light cavalry? In a grand battle, can both light cavalry and light infantry be deployed as skirmishers to the front of the main army to screen deployment of the main lines? Can either light infantry and light cavalry be part of the main line if the terrain is wooded or "difficult" (steep hills, marshy, rocky, villages or ?). Would light cavalry be more likely employed to screen the cavalry or advance guard rather than the infantry brigades in the first line?

In the Kleine Kriege in Europe, would there be some similarities to FIW deployment & tactics? What differences would remain? Could FIW rules be successfully used for a kleine kriege scenario in Europe?

Furthermore, would artillery be deployed differently? How unusual was it for an artillery battery to accompany an infantry brigade during the advance, and to unlimber to support the attack at close range?

Anything having cavalry would be inappropriate for the FIW,
There IS a rumor of a phantom dragoon unit with a very pretty uniform at St Foy, but it is just that, a rumor.

Very little to no skirmishers in SYW. Light infantry primarily were used to occupy rough ground and to forage for the army. Light cavalry were primarily used to scout and forage however they did occasionally play pivitol roles in major battles.

Forming square was in it's infancy. Not used much, if at all. Instead infantry battalions reversed their rear rank when confronted with flanking cavalry.

Artillery was less mobile than in the Napoleonic wars. Almost all batteries were foot batteries and horse batteries were mostly experimental at this time and had not really developed into being effective. They mostly chased the cavalry around. Foot batteries primarily had civilian drovers that fled at the first sign of the enemy. This meant guns were generally pretty immobile once deployed.

Battalion guns would be prolonged along with the infantry battalions.

I'll let others with more knowledge comment more specifically. I'm fairly new to the period but have done a ton of reading. Pick up any of Christopher Duffy's books for a good overview. Nosworthy is also an excellent source.

Regarding the artillery – the carriages were heavier than later and as Leidang said, the limbers were run by civilians who took off when shots were fired. The Prussians had one horse artillery battery, period. I think the Russians had two by the end of the war.

Most guns in Europe were batalion guns, with some position batteries of heavier guns.

I've also read, don't recall where, that canister was less effective in the SYW period than later due to poor ammo and such. A claim is that some of the French canister 'fused' together in the barrel and came out as one large mass.

Would also suggest that 'grand batteries' were a thing of the future in the SYW.

Dan

The rules you use should cover alot of this ground in themselves. Like not allowing light cavalry to charge formed, steady enemy troops from the front in open ground (with the exception of Prussian SYW hussars who were trained regular cavalry by this time like their Napoleonic counterparts); or light infantry being at a large disadvantage against formed infantry in the open (but not in rough ground); and army lists or OBs taking care of how few light troops you'd have.

For the field artillery, it shouldn't be as mobile as Napoleonic artillery because of physical reasons of gun mobility (as Vincent hints at, above) and because of doctrine. The field guns were often spread across a front to support everywhere and not coalesced into grand batteries that would dominate important portions of the battlefield as in Napoleonic times. As an extreme example, some rules, although much more for the WSS than the WAS or SYW, don't allow you to move heavy gun batteries once they're emplaced on the field.

Infantry brigades weren't supported by a single artillery battery of 8-10 guns that stayed together as a battery as in the Napoleonic Era, but by having the supporting artillery as pairs of light battalion guns (4-pdr or less) attached to each battalion and meant to add to the weight of fire and morale of the infantry line. (As contrasted with having a Napoleonic battery meant to defend the brigade with the mass of its fire against the most pressing enemy threat to its front.)

I don't have enough general knowledge to compare and contrast American and European "little war", but the Foundry had a SYW "little war" rule-set that was published in Wargames Illustrated that you might want to look for. (I can't find the issue numbers right now; they also made printed copies available by post, so maybe they have downloads of it at their current web site?)

I think the highly successful French tactic of including Napoleon in Napoleonic battles would generally be inappropriate in SYW battles.

I think the highly successful French tactic of including Napoleon in Napoleonic battles would generally be inappropriate in SYW battles.

Nor, should the French get a +2 for being French. The PRUSSIANS should get a +2 for being French.

And then, of course, just to upset the general picture, you have Frederick's 12lb Brummer and other heavy batteries keeping up with and supporting the flank attack at Leuthen, very like Napoleonic guns. :-)

Not very common, though, admittedly – but it did happen.

David
nba-sywtemplates.blogspot.com

Once.

infantry squares are recorded at Blenheim, attack columns were used at the Plains of Abrahams, Frederick used Free Corps as cannon fodder to screen his 'regulars'. Except as stated above for the artillery (its carriages and drivers actually) weapons did not changed much -the 'professionalism' of some armies changed- between the Laces wars and Napoleonic times. 'Typically Napoleonic' tactics / formations were known but rarely used: mid-18th C. rules would not totally forbide them, but allow them only under special circumstances (attack columns when the from is restricted by the terrain -otherwise you'd never be able to storm a bridge!- or against defended linear obstacles or built-up areas..) or with a high risk of failure (and then troops disordered and demoralized: infantry square?).

As for light troops, there were for sure similarities between (most of) the FIW and the (infantry part) of the Petite Guerre in the European theatre. But in European piched battles light troops were hopeless against steady regulars in the open (or at least felt so), so in 'large' battles light infantry was deployed only in difficult terrain (the Grassin in the Bois de Barry, at Fontenoy), if any; and the light cavalry, if mentioned at all, on the extreme wings, only to prevent interference from their hostile counterparts. A drastic morale / reaction malus to 'light types' (enhanced mobility / allowed to skirmish…) facing steady regulars in the open would suffice to prevent 'inacurate' use. On the other hand regulars in difficult terrain would be greatly disadvantaged, including at the morale / reaction level.
The combination of rules (troop characteristics) and OOB -including for Imagi-Nations- can easily deter any 'abuse'. For instance most of the light artillery scattered as battalion guns (OOb); artillery can only be manhandled once unlimbered (rules) -except horse artillery (max. 1 single 'experimental' battery in a *very large* army): by then was not intended to gallop with cavalry, only to be a mobile reserve keeping its tactical mobility during the entire batle, so would not move faster than cuirassiers / mounted infantry…

Note that the definition of 'light troops' is not that easy: Frederician 'superhussars' allegedly combining the advantages of heavy and light cavalry were mentioned; but French converged grenadiers detached in 'special ops' missions were able to fight in loose order (and were generally supported by an equal number of piquets from the same batalions, ordinary fusiliers displaying the same ability)… Rules disadvantaging troops in loose order against close-order ones in the open should prevent 'misuse' while allowing this characteristic when appropriate.

Maneuverability should be restricted. Column was used to move the soldiers into the position from which they would go into line for the battle; this took time and was rather complicated. Much of the pre-battle time was spent getting the army into line. You should set up your units already deployed in line for battle and allow very little movement along the front.

Also there really wasn't much of a command structure beteen the battalions/regiments and the army leader. The corps and division concept had not been born; this also led to less battle field flexibility and maneuverability since the "wing" commanders didn't have an effective staff or command structure to allow the flexibility to respond to events.

"Forming square was in it's infancy. Not used much, if at all. Instead infantry battalions reversed their rear rank when confronted with flanking cavalry."

Forming Square was a well known, practiced and understood evolution during the SYW (and before).

While it is correct to say it is not used much this isn't because they didn't know how, but because it didn't fit with the overall tactics of the day.

A line of battalions is a strong formation to break, with each battalions flank protected by the one next to it. BUT, if one of those battalions, charged by cavalry, chose to form square then it is actually pulling its flanks away from its neighbors and exposing their flanks, making them very vulnerable (not just to cavalry).

Therefore, if you are part of a larger line and are charged by cavalry you basically stand and take it (more or less) in line – which was considered more than capable of withstanding a charge (and prooved that way in fact).

A lone battalion however does not have to worry about protecting its neighbours flanks so used square more often as can be seen in period writings.

John – there was a sort-of cavalry unit in the FIW, the Corps de Cavalrie, who had a dragoon-style uniform – but, as noted, there were 200 of them, tops, and from what I have read, they spent pretty much the whole war escorting convoys and running dispatches (which, by all accounts, they were good at)

During most of the 18th C. battles in Western Europe were fought between professional armies that were, in composition, almost mirror images of each other: there was no need to depart from 'proven' tactics (infantry squares by brigades rather than battalions?- and cavalry armor were used against the Turks, quite different opponents). Changes in 'routine' tactics, specially for infantry, the bulk of the army, came from changes in recruitement: the masses of French revolutionay volontaires lacked the training and discipline for elaborated linear maneuvres; and even more the 'professionalism' to stay steady and motionless while an enemy line was pouring on them volley after volley from less than 100 paces. Hence the 'furious' charges in column and the more or less uncontrolled screens of skirmishers. Against cavalry, while his men were now veterans of a kind, Bonaparte did not trust them to face the masses of Mameluck horses with 'classical' tactics: the hollow squares at the Pyramids were not an improvisation, but thoughtfully chosen to face the threat (half-pikes to be set in the ground, like the stakes of the English longbowmen of the HYW, were even endvisaged to 'stiffen' the squares). Once successful, these known but 'unconventional' tactics became widespread.

Cavalry will generally attack from a linear formation with all the squadrons of a regiment in one line (3 ranks deep), but Frederick experimented with "columns of squadrons" for cavalry and considered it a state secret (so that the Austrians wouldn't discover it. So no grand Eylau-styled cavalry charges in general.

Generally the cavalry will be organized to have three lines of regiments: cuirassiers in the front line, dragoons in the second line and hussars in the third line or on the flanks.

By the time of the SYW, most armies had uniformed artillery drovers so the civilian drivers running away is somewhat of a myth.

Light troops might screen the advance of the army as it marched towards the battlefield, but they would peel off as the regular infantry formed up. There were certainly no "clouds of skirmishers" operating in front of the battle line as per the Napoleonic period.

Attack columns were sometimes used to assault fortifications, entrenchments or towns.

As to Artillery tactics, the 7YW actually saw the introduction of napoleonic tactics. More precisely Prussia sort of introduced the tactics to be employed by everyone else in the future.
That is it's increased mobility and massive augmentation. By 1760, a brigade of 5 bats would be accompanied by a 10 gun battery of heavy guns (7 or 10 pdr howitzers or 12 pdrs – the letter medium class Austrian-type was near identically dimensioned as the French nap. 12-pdr) in addition there would have been 10 battalion guns. That makes for 20 pieces per 5 bats of the first line. Not sure if many napoleonic orbats could beat these figures.
Truth is that the French were far behind this process. Most of what has being said on 7YW artillery above would fit the French arty, but not so much others. It wasn't missing know-how. The opposite holding true, really. The French problem was that the crown was basically broke. No money to pay for new ordnance being cast in the amount the Prussians did. Also no individual was found to jump in and go to work with his own money instead like this prince of Liechtenstein did for the house of Austria.
The Allied army followed Prussia's doctrines some way, though with a less formidable park.
Light or line brigades of 10 guns were usually formed to be placed 1 at each wing and 1 in the centre, in addition to every battalions 2 pieces. Ontop of this the heavy brigades would be allocated as needed.
Both Prussians and Anglo-Hannoverians enjoyed a superiority in arty firepower over French and Austrian armies for most of the war. Austria did have many guns – true – but the most were light guns. Not so many 12-pdrs. Dauns 1759 main army in Lusatia hardly fielded 50 of them, while opposing Fred had 100+ including the notorious Brummers and 10-pdr howitzers.

Also the massing of guns was develloped by Frederick's arty. First principles worked out his arty colonels Dieskau and Moeller in summer 1758 and deliberately executed 1st time at Zorndorf, and again 1759 at Kunersdorf, both with massed arty concentrated at the attacking wing. However, others did not do that. The massed arty on Ferdinand's right at Minden was for most part the result of pure chance. Upwards 40 heavy pieces within some 500 paces frontage. In fact, it was poor orders or the lack of any. His left was found without a single heavy piece within more then 2.000 paces. He was lucky the French were far from being prepared to take advantage of it.

Christian

Gentlemen, thank you for an informative discussion.

--Matt

Yes, always 'adult' and polite even in disagreement. I always learn something new reading the SYW posts. Thank you, also.

Putting your siblings in charge of all the land you acquire.

A propos squares, the Swiss regiment Diesbach formed square to cover the retreat of the Franco-German army at Rossbach; IIRC a Saxon regiment did something similar in another battle.

The infantry normally formed up in two lines (that's lines of battle, not ranks), forming two long sides of an oblong that was usually "sealed" at each end by one or two elite battalions (FtG used grenadiers) in column. Thus the entire "centre" of an army was one large oblong; that and the less dispersed nature of cavalry – there was no SYW equivalent of the light cavalry divisions attached to the Napoleonic infantry corps – meant that the cavalry threat to the infantry was either minimal, or frontal (from where it could easily be dealt with by firepower.

OFM- pehaps the rule needs to be "+2 for being dressed in blue and fighting everyone else"

Well for one thing, Phasers weren't invented untill 1798 so don't give your infantry phaser muskets, Also the famed french Captain Jean-Luc Picard was a Napoleoinc Captain, not 7TW so you can't have squadrons of ships of the line commanded by him.

So true!
And, sad to say, the authors of the French comics series 'Empires' had to slightly distort historical reality to have Wellington in India enjoying the support of a Babbage tactical computer to counter Napoleon's steamtanks with his steam-powered Puckle machine-guns and Bengal lancers (june 1815).
Now, according to the shakos, *this* is Napoleonic:
YouTube link

*Seriously*, while hydrogen-filled observation balloons were known by Napoleonic times (having been used during the Revolutionary wars, and in Egypt to impress the native), as were steam-powered artillery tractors (Cugnot's fardier link ) and boats (Jouffroy's Pyroscaphe exploralyon.fr/?p=548 ), none were known by the SYW.
Now, by the early 18th C. steam engines were already used to power mine-draining pumps and unmanned hot air balloons had flown; it's only some 'historical accident' (lack of individual curiosity, or perseverance, or funds) that montgolfieres and steam-powered 'war carts' were not experimented during the SYW, or even the WAS…

Oops, forgot you initiated this thread asking for 'strict historical accuracy'! Sorry, I withdraw in shame

"OFM- pehaps the rule needs to be "+2 for being dressed in blue and fighting everyone else"

And -2 for being dressed in white :-)

Specially for the OFM: how could we call 'Napoleonic Sci-Fi'?
Nap-punk?
Bonapunk?