"Which Tactics & Equipment to Win?" Topic

Tactics and equipment to Win

If you had your own Napoleonic army, perhaps some Scandinavian country (so you can't know in advance who'll they'll fight, you just know any battles would probably be in central Europe) then what tactics would you want to drill your men in (attacking in wide columns that then deploy in line, or two-man wide columns that then wheel into a line, for example)?

And which Napoleonic kit would you especially want to emphasise (knowing that the more you have of one thing, the less you probably are going to have of something else)? Rifles? Horse artilley? Lancers?

Jaegers for those Finnish and Norwegian Forests. Dragoons for the compromise between scouts and battle Cavalry. Good mix of Horse, Feild and Heavy Artillery. Infantry in 3 ranks, 4 big companies per battalion.

If I am from a Scandinavian country, I assume a low population base compared to to the big boys. Hence I cannot afford wars of attrition.

I also assume I am more interested in defending my homeland than conquering Europe, unless I am part of some grand alliance.

If the latter I would try to integrate with their way of doing things. If I was likely to be defending on my own or as part of a smaller alliance, I would ideally look at the British model: smaller, slightly more professional and less expendable forces. I would always want to maximize artillery as much as the likely terrain allowed. No good having heavy guns in mountains, forests or swamps.

So if that was my terrain, plenty of light guns, along with light infantry and dragoons trained to dismount, hit and run away.

Infantry trained to fight in open order as well as close order.
Such general purpose troops provide their own support and can face most battle field situations.
For artillery, Id go the Swedish way with mounted gunners for all rather than differentiating between Foot and Horse batteries.
Finally, a decent train to allow the troops to be fed and supplied as needed.

I would go heavy on the bricoles, and victory would follow in their glorious wake.

Good call Jack. Bricoles have destroyed several promising careers here alone.

Tactics B'dammned sir. All that is needed is Pluck.

Equipment? Equipment? As if Equipment were a neccessery? There is no battle that cannot be won by twenty barrels of port or 5 of liquor.

I would say concentrate on a good navy--therefore no army should really be able to land on your shores!!!But if they did I would model my army on the British--Linear tactics, well trained,Regimental pride and limited cavalry…no point in having all that expensive cavalry if its all woody and hilly!! Maybe also have a strong Jaeger Corps armed with imported Baker rifles…

Sounds good in principle Arch, but it just wont work. You would end up facing a weak and incompetant navy backed by a vereran experienced motivated army using flexible mixed order tactics and excellent cavalry and artillery. They would almost certainly beat you.

The only chance you might have is to have buff coloured webbing instead of pipeclayed.

Like I'd tell you!

Saber6,
''Jaegers for those Finnish and Norwegian Forests. Dragoons for the compromise between scouts and battle Cavalry. Good mix of Horse, Feild and Heavy Artillery. Infantry in 3 ranks, 4 big companies per battalion.''

I guess Jaegers make great light troops, especially if they are trained to fight in open order as well as close order(as raducci pointed out) with plenty of target practice. Out of interest, why would you go for a 3-rank line? The British Light Brigade argument was that a 2 rank line can deliver a more shocking volley – and artillery kills less of them.

Beacuse it worked for the Prussians

Jaeger Corps armed with imported Baker rifles…

Scandianvian rifles were on par with british, just not as famous.

I would basicly do what norway realy did Only more of it and better trained.

Norwegian forces could hold their own against the "proffesional" sweeds that had seen atleast some combat on the continent, But just to few soldiers and not the disiplin of napoleinc soldiers, they fought more with their heart then training kinda like ACW infantry.

With a slightly larger force, better consentrated and better training I could get the norwegian military into shape.
First I would do was to get rid of the danish uniforms, make new completeley norwegian as a point of pride.
I would let them hone their skills that they allready knew, like sking and fghting as jegers in open order, but give them more disiplin.
The problem was that they vere basicly milita, not even conscript solders.
Get some moral and disiplin and the army just might do the trick

A professional army entirely armed with Baker style rifles (cav and infantry). Artillery featuring highly mobile medium weight guns. Cavalry to be trained as light dragoons with heavy emphasis on fighting dismounted. Bridging pontoons, and sufficient engineers to conduct a major siege.

You might not conquer Europe but would certainly be a force to recon with.

mjc

Well trained infantry, lots of skirmishers – I would probably not use all rifles (speed of loading), but would certainly have lots of light cavalry, and give all of them rifled carbines; agree with idea about very mobile artillery, a small cadre of heavy cavalry but mostly aggressive mobile troops – hopefully volunteers with little incentive to desert

A professional army entirely armed with Baker style rifles (cav and infantry). Artillery featuring highly mobile medium weight guns. Cavalry to be trained as light dragoons with heavy emphasis on fighting dismounted. Bridging pontoons, and sufficient engineers to conduct a major siege.

You might not conquer Europe but would certainly be a force to recon with.

Why? Just curious

just use british behind a ridge.
And some lucky dice will also be helpfulj

"Why? Just curious"

The original post called for a force that could take on just about any opponent in the Napoleonic Period.

He didn't say anything about money or availability of equipment.

The Baker was capable of providing a high volume of fire if necessary and was perhaps the ideal skirmish weapon of the period.

Professional troops that are highly trained would provide good cohesion -- assumed army would be small because it's some Scandinavian country of no particular description. Not a whole lot of folks in those areas that can be spared for a professional army.

The artillery was a compromise. Highly mobile 6-8 lbers can provide local support when and where needed. A small army has little need of big guns. If you cannot take them on, you must avoid combat and hit their supply and support.

That's where the light dragoons come in -- scouting raiding, and occasionally shooting it out (with their Bakers).

If you cannot beat your foe, given some space, you can wear him down and force him to retreat.

mjc

The original post called for a force that could take on just about any opponent in the Napoleonic Period.

He didn't say anything about money or availability of equipment.

Hmm. Let's do a bit of nitpicking

The Baker was capable of providing a high volume of fire if necessary and was perhaps the ideal skirmish weapon of the period.

In the hands of men who were trained to use it. It was also slow to reload, one of the reasons it remained a marksman's weapon. Not much use having a load of rifles if the enemies heavy cavalry are cutting you to pieces before you can fire a second volley..

Professional troops that are highly trained would provide good cohesion -- assumed army would be small because it's some Scandinavian country of no particular description. Not a whole lot of folks in those areas that can be spared for a professional army.

I'll grant you that. I will however point out that God is on the side of the big battalions :)

The artillery was a compromise. Highly mobile 6-8 lbers can provide local support when and where needed. A small army has little need of big guns. If you cannot take them on, you must avoid combat and hit their supply and support.

No argument there either

That's where the light dragoons come in -- scouting raiding, and occasionally shooting it out (with their Bakers).

Light cavalry are not battlefield cavalry, you need something to stop those cuirassiers. Your rifles won't do it, see above.

If you cannot beat your foe, given some space, you can wear him down and force him to retreat.

Depends if he controls the the ground or you do.

Connard Sage

Nice points. I guess heavy cavalry are useful for stopping the enemy heavy cavalry. You could get away without having them, but it would make it far more risky to maneoeuvre infantry on a battlefield.

''Hmm. Let's do a bit of nitpicking. The Baker was capable of providing a high volume of fire if necessary and was perhaps the ideal skirmish weapon of the period''.
''In the hands of men who were trained to use it. It was also slow to reload, one of the reasons it remained a marksman's weapon. Not much use having a load of rifles if the enemies heavy cavalry are cutting you to pieces before you can fire a second volley''.

I guess you'd give them target practice if you were going to issue rifles. Just a small point: at Tarbes three rifle battalions at the height of their powers took on Clausel's battalions, which were in partial cover, that is formed in line (but not a rigid line), using independant fire. The
destruction they effected was so great that one battalion colonel called Wellington over to have a look. As for cavalry cutting them up, at Fuentes de Onoro they fired, maneouvred and were able to form effective company or platoon squares. But it's true that against the heavy cavalry they were less certain at Waterloo.

Aren't Heavy cavalry on their way out by the end of the Nap Wars?
I know it took a century or so to get the message through to cavalry types but Waterloo, to name but one battle, showed their vulnerability.
I agree with CS's point about slow loading rifles. So, "my" infantry would have every 5th man rifle armed, the rest with a trusty Brown Bess.
I'm also going to throw in a trained, Prussian-style staff.
I'd want a charismatic general who has to listen to trained staff officer.

I'd invest some money in fortifications and survey the countryside very thoroughly for defensive positions – river crossings, built up areas, forests etc. The idea being to pull bits of the enemy off into chasing detachments, masking garrisons, guarding lines of communications and the like. I'd look seriously at brigades on the Prussian model and forego the luxury of a heavy cavaly force. As much light infantry as is conducive to good discipline.

Connard,

You might be surprised at how fast you can load and fire a Baker -- In the hands of a professional the rate of fire would be not too different than a musket. It is not a long barrel rifle -- now if the sword bayonet were affixed this did slow things down. Add an exponential killing power if the solder took the time to aim, and you get an effective fire power that exceeds your average line battalion.

As far as heavy cav is concerned, -- a square formed with sword bayonets attached would do just as well as any other. Perhaps a bit better.

mjc

Effective use of rifles and a militia are some kind of contradiction in itself or as Prussian officers in the 1830th put it, better hardware without improved training is a waste of money. (In addition, the maintenance of rifles is more expensive than of muskets.)

If you have only militia and only few professional soldiers, I would form light bats in the Bavarian or Hanoverian fashion, i.e. most men are equipped with a smoothbore, only one or two platoons are rifle equipped, these men should have a regular rifle training.

Lt-Col Norcott, who served with the 95th Rifles throughout their 15 years considered the 'Baker' Rifle as used during the Peninsular camapigns to be a less effective weapon than the standard infantry firelock. Presumably owing to its use with cartridges rather than with patched ball for most of the wars. Without patched ball, you get fouled rifling, leaving you with a smoothbore musket, shorter than a bess. The inference is that it was the training of the regiment rather than its weapon which accounted for its exceptional record.

The service cartridges for the Baker rifle were supplied in two forms, one with the patch sewed onto the ball for sharpshooting, and the other unpatched for use in emergencies. Up until around 1809 some riflemen were still issued loose balls and patches for accurate fire.

The Baker and sword bayonet combination was also not without problems as it was found that the rifle with fixed bayonet could not be fired without damaging the bayonet catch:

"The rush of fluid from the muzzle catching under the cross guard and grip of the bayonet with such force that the strongest and best springs are broken or bent after 2 or 3 rounds, or the hook in the bar so battered that it will no longer hold."

That sounds dangerous in the face of cavalry.

After Waterloo in 1815, many service Bakers had the sword bar removed, the stock cut back, and a lug fitted under the barrel for a socket bayonet.

The Baker rifle proved to be a useful weapon in the hands of a minority of specialists, but I don't think that anyone at the time considered that it was feasible to equip an entire army with it.

Connard,

You might be surprised at how fast you can load and fire a Baker -- In the hands of a professional the rate of fire would be not too different than a musket. It is not a long barrel rifle -- now if the sword bayonet were affixed this did slow things down. Add an exponential killing power if the solder took the time to aim, and you get an effective fire power that exceeds your average line battalion.

I would, if it were true. Contemporary writers all seem to agree that it had a lesser rate of fire, in part due to have to force a ball and patch down a rifled bore. Black powder also fouled the grooves, that wouldn't improve loading. Loading a bare ball would reduce accuracy.

It wasn't a wonder weapon. In the hands of a proficient marksman it could be deadly. How many proficient marksmen are in your ranks?

<edit> I hadn't read Gertrude's post. Sorry Gertie :)

<edit> Or the Cap'n's. Sorry Snort

I shall now go and fall on my sword

This hypothetical, elite professional army would fail in the face of what the Napoleonic wars evolved into: massive nationalist armies relying on minimal training and massive amounts of artillery.

The semi-professional British army likewise failed in the Napoleonic wars. It was Cossacks, Landwher, and hundreds of 12# cannon that got to Paris.

Well if you take the scandinavian terrain into acount(if we do say you were a scandinavian country) used of massed armies and hundrens of 12pdr cannon would be useless.
Also it would be more or less impossible to invade during winter. as even small cannon would sink in the slush of wet cley.

So you could easly hold up an army of 100 000 with 30 000 pro soldiers with small ski based artillery, jëgers on skies and a core group of pro trained line infantry.

Gunny, who the hell wants to invade Scandinavia? :)

(so you can't know in advance who'll they'll fight, you just know any battles would probably be in central Europe)

The original question was to be able to do battle in Central Europe

The original question referred to battles in central Europe.

So . . . You would be going up against anything from cossacks to the French Old Guard and any thing in between.

We all know there was a force that consistently put a thumpin on all of these guys right!!!! NOT!!!!

Since there is no 'perfect' solution, you just have to do the best you can.

But since you asked -- all my professional infantry are proficient marksmen -- this is the glory of the hypothetical army you know!

mjc

Connard,

You are absolutely right about the Baker. But I don't agree with your conclusions. If you want a high rate of fire at close range you use ball and foul the barrels. If things allow you to fire at longer range or a lesser rate of fire then you can use them in a more traditional setting. It isn't one or the other, you use what is needed at the moment and . . pay the price later if that comes to pass.

But I don't agree with your conclusions. If you want a high rate of fire at close range you use ball and foul the barrels.

Then what is the advantage of a rifle over a musket?

If things allow you to fire at longer range or a lesser rate of fire then you can use them in a more traditional setting.

A battalion of musket armed men with a skirmish screen of riflemen would achieve the same ends surely?

There are some interesting quotes and facts available that deal with the relative merits of Brown Bess and Baker Rifle accuracy.

Surtees, who served in both line and rifle battalions thought that:

"One shot out of 200 from muskets in the field takes effect, while one out of twenty from rifles is average."

He also says in reference to Tarbes:

"Hence the advantage of rifles over the common musket, or else the superior mode of using our arms beyond what is practised in the line."

It is difficult to imagine any huge difference that can be attributed to training here; the rifles were issued 60 rounds per year for practice, the line battalions 30 rounds.

James Campbell, who served throughout the war as Brigade-Major with the Right Brigade of the Third Division and was therefore very familiar with the 5/60th rifles did not agree with Surtees:

"I must beg to say that I often regretted that these fine regiments (60th and 95th) were not armed with superior muskets in place of rifles, for they are seldom to be preferred to muskets, and never but when loaded with great care, and this, in action, takes too long."

Unfortunately there is little or no information available from British army practice sessions that allows us to compare the accuracy of the two weapons. There is, however, a lot of data available from the East India Company's records. Averaging the results from several years' worth of data, it would seem that the following percentage of hits were scored on a 6' by 2' target, the soldiers firing individual aimed fire with paper ball cartridge in the Brown Bess and greased patched ball in the Baker Rifle:

80 yards: Rifle 42% Musket 33%

100 yards: Rifle 48% Musket 27%

120 yards: Rifle 41% Musket 21%

150 yards: Rifle 37% Musket 15%

200 Yards: Rifle 32% Musket 8%

250 Yards: Rifle 22%

All those stats might be great on the range but troops in battle, in smoke, in stress, and firing at moving targets aren't going to get anything like that ratio of hits, especially when they are more not even aiming so much as just putting a ball toward the enemy.

I would trust the anecdotal evidence of a commander more than I would a statistician. If a shooter doesn't get ideal conditions to aim it doesn't matter if the rifle is more accurate since it accurately goes to the wrong place.

What is the disparity between the base accuracy of a modern firearm on the range against the number of rounds expended in combat to obtain hits?

"All those stats might be great on the range but troops in battle, in smoke, in stress, and firing at moving targets aren't going to get anything like that ratio of hits, especially when they are more not even aiming so much as just putting a ball toward the enemy."

Yes, I understand that, but it is the closest that we will come to understanding how accurate the weapons could actually be when fired by soldiers of the time using service ammunition.

If you think that troops just blazed away indiscriminately then the weapon they carried will be irrelevent, so feel free to ignore it if you wish.

I don't think the accuracy of a weapon does matter for rank and file troops. It makes sense to arm skirmish infantry with more accurate weapons but rate of fire is far more important than accuracy for massed volley fire.

I wouldn't favour training all of my troops to both skirmish and fight formed because if you train troops to skirmish, you train them to make personal decisions. You also train them to believe that individual initiative has a place on the battlefield. Training them to do both things is teaching them to do neither thing very well. No, like all other armies of the period other than the French, I'd keep two distinct roles and train some troops as skirmish and some as formed.

The tougher question for the formed troops is between adopting a doctrine of trusting the musket or the bayonet. That would depend on the national character of my nation. A philosophy of war would need to suit the philosophy of life of my soldiers.

I know this may be anathema to bring this up here but . . .

If the rifled musket was such a looser why did they use it in the ACW? Certainly took longer to load didn't it? Some Reb units preferred the musket -- until they got a chance to replace them. You certainly saw cavalry crawling all over infantry formations in that war -- NOT!

Captain Snort's numbers may be somewhat suspect but you cannot ignore the general trend.

Further, if a rifle armed unit opens up at 250 yards, how many volleys will they get before the enemy closes? And what effect compared to a musket?

What effect on the morale of a unit that is dropping like flies when they cannot begin to fire back?

I think I'd take my chances with the rifle armed unit. Not always superior to the musket but at least as good in some situations and better in most.

We can debate this to death but like fairies on pin heads . . . it will never amount to much.

mjc.

If the rifled musket was such a looser why did they use it in the ACW? Certainly took longer to load didn't it? Some Reb units preferred the musket -- until they got a chance to replace them. You certainly saw cavalry crawling all over infantry formations in that war -- NOT!

It was a different type of warfare, on a different continent. There was a distinct lack of charging heavy cavalry for a start, and the terrain was closer than in Europe. And half a century later.

Throw some river monitors into the Danube campaign and see what happens.

QV, I don't know much about the ACW but didnt the Minié ball solve the problem of slow loading time for rifles?
If so, your comparing apples with artichokes.

To win? Be visionary, go steampunk! Napoleonic is early steam era.

Invest just enough in jaegers, dragoons, and horse artillery to fight mobile withdrawal actions if necessary. Then pour everything else into supporting the mad-scientists' R&D and mobile trains that can move their labs if need be.

"If the rifled musket was such a looser why did they use it in the ACW?"

Because the minie rifle solved the problem of slow loading times and fouling of the bore. It was also far more accurate than any Napoleonic era rifle.

"Captain Snort's numbers may be somewhat suspect"

Suspect? These figures represent the only direct comparison between British-made rifles and muskets during the entire era. The data is comprehensive, even recording the rate of misfires. It obviously does not represent battlefield conditions, but does tell us a great deal about the relative accuracy of the two weapons against roughly man-sized targets.

"Further, if a rifle armed unit opens up at 250 yards, how many volleys will they get before the enemy closes?"

With a properly loaded rifle, not many at all. Beaufoy stated that such a rifle could be fired once every minute and a half or two minutes.

"Because the minie rifle solved the problem of slow loading times and fouling of the bore. It was also far more accurate than any Napoleonic era rifle."
Gee, I thought I said that.

"Further, if a rifle armed unit opens up at 250 yards, how many volleys will they get before the enemy closes?"

Infantry moving at a reasonable 120 paces per minute are travelling 100 yards in a minute so count then on 2 volleys before they hit you.

If a Brown Bess is getting off 2-3 rounds per minute and only opens up at 150 yards, they should expect to get off 4 volleys at least (under reasonable conditions).

Gunny, who the hell wants to invade Scandinavia? :)

Bunch of other Scandinavians? The Swedish and Danish have been invading each other since the time immemorial.

And then there are those stubborn Russians that try to invade westwards every now and then.

Griefbringer

The ACW minie bullet was smaller than the diameter of the rifling and could be dropped down the barrell. It had a conial base and a thin flange of lead. When the main charge exploded, the thin lead at the base of the bullet expanded and engaged the rifling. So this part of the loading was as fast as a smoothbore. Just drop the powder and bullet down the spout. It also used a percussion cap. Go to half cock, pry off the old one, put on the new one, go to full cock and fire. For a flintlock, you had to take the hammer to half-cock, swing up the frizzen, pour some powder into the pan, (keeping it from spilling out as well), close the frizzen (all while holding the cartrige in your hand), then load the charge and ball then come back to full cock. It's slower with a flintlock.

We also should recall that several ACW Union regiments never gave up their smoothbore muskets, because they were deadlier at short range (75 yards or less) then the Minie rifled guns. They were slightly faster to load and fired a "buck and a ball" or even no ball but rather 8-10 buckshot. A buckshot would stop a man and putting more pieces of lead (2X to 10X) downrange discouraged the oppposition.

On another note: I seem to remember Denmark is as flat as Kansas and is in Scandinavia.

Try this,

the next game you play rifles get one dice and Mushet armed troops 2.

then as an optional rule if rifles defend they fire firsta nd Casualties are removed then the attker get his.

there are more variations of who fires first.

Lord Ghee