1815Guy | 10 Nov 2013 7:22 a.m. PST |
Hi all, We tried a new set of rules out at the club on Friday, and the French frontally attacked a British line with three attack columns. And of course 3 v 1 had the line decimated in a single round of combat. But how realistic is this ganging up? Did the French ever really fight like that? Ive always thought the French left enough space between columns to deploy their battalions into line. So is this history? Or just wargames convention? How do you handle this sort of thing in your own club? Thanks for replying, |
Edwulf | 10 Nov 2013 7:35 a.m. PST |
yes. Its a fault in many gaming systems. A line can only hit one target and not three even if three are in the zone of fire, one target gets all the hits the others get off scott free. I think it was usual for columns and leave enough space between each so they could deploy or maneuver. Its a bit cheesy and gamey. So either suggest a rule that columns must have a certain amount of space between them OR, be extra cheesy yourself. what rule set are you using? |
1815Guy | 10 Nov 2013 7:58 a.m. PST |
Its a modified version of Shako. Not the best rules out there for the period, and lucky die rolls are too critical, but they play bloody quickly, you don't need a lot of figures, and are fun to play. The optional rules penalise a failed columnar charge if it cannot form a line if staggered on the way in, but with 3 against 1 its academic. We finished to completion a 4 a side 10 x 6 game in 3.5 hours, even allowing for a few rules look-ups. |
M C MonkeyDew | 10 Nov 2013 8:04 a.m. PST |
Sounds suspect. Proper spacing was very important, and such coordinated actions rare. Bob |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 10 Nov 2013 8:14 a.m. PST |
this all brings to mind modifiers in games which relate to the numbers of men in units that are involved in melees
There is in this something to do with a misunderstanding of combat in the Napoleonic period and a lack of recognition as to how forces were arrayed and why proper intervals were important. Bob and Matt are absolutely right on this one! |
Generalstoner49 | 10 Nov 2013 8:16 a.m. PST |
A homespun set of rules we used had a rule to prevent this very tactic. It allowed a line unit to fire in a 4 inch deep box with any unit in that box being hit a lot like cannister. This quickly changed how melee was done. I also think that I read some where
Nosworthy maybe?
that French tactics did rely on the line at break an opponent. It was at Albuera where the British and French engaged in a massive firefight. |
nickinsomerset | 10 Nov 2013 8:16 a.m. PST |
I have to agree with Edwulf and how mad it is that a line attacked by a couple of columns can only shoot at one. We have been playing with the Warhammer Waterloo rules for 1809. A few house rules include all units must have at least 1 base width between them, shooting at columns is at a plus, and the local commander can decide what tgts the Companies fire at, so even though a line has to split it's fire at a couple of targets,it is not going to be out shot by advancing columns. However if a couple of columns make it to melee with a line then they will be at an advantage. Tally Ho! |
Gonsalvo | 10 Nov 2013 8:19 a.m. PST |
One would think it relatively likely that the fire of the line would have been likely to have stopped one of the columns (rules wise), thus reducing the imbalance
|
bgbboogie | 10 Nov 2013 8:37 a.m. PST |
As Generalstoner49 says, split the fire
.Infantry fire dead ahead any target in that zone is hit. |
Rod MacArthur | 10 Nov 2013 9:33 a.m. PST |
General de Brigade makes massed columns (ie those not maintaining proper deployment distances between them) more vulnerable to fire. I rather like rules like that, which do not prohibit such actions, but make players suffer appropriate penalties for such non-historical tactics. In that way players learn why Napoleonic troops used the tactics which they did. Rod |
Caliban | 10 Nov 2013 9:53 a.m. PST |
Our old house rule with Shako put a stop to this sort of thing – basically, the line fires at one column at full effect and at any others at somewhat reduced effect. Any staggers force a column to halt and form a hasty line, and if this gets in the way of another column, the same happens to that as well. Players pretty soon made sure that they left proper deployment intervals between columns, or formed line further back and then advanced into a fire fight against the defenders. |
Martin Rapier | 10 Nov 2013 10:02 a.m. PST |
I thought in Shako lines fired equally at any and all enemy units in the beaten zone to their front? Perhaps I am mis-remembering. |
matthewgreen | 10 Nov 2013 10:23 a.m. PST |
The one time I can think of where this type of massed column was used historically was two or three of d'Erlon's divisions attacking in massed column at Waterloo. The Austrians are sometimes portrayed as using such columns at Marengo (and Novi?). The critical difference was that these were not company/divisional columns attacking abreast but a "stack" of infantry battalions deployed in line. This didn't work so well, though exactly what happened and when is open to several interpretations. Personally I have come to the conclusion the whole business of the firepower superiority of lines over columns is overdone. What is going on with these clashes between British and French is more complicated. On the two occasions that I am aware of where the evidence suggests that the French attacked in line (Maida and one of the attacks at Vimiero) they collapsed even faster than when they were in column. In rules terms, though, I think the approach should be that the French firepower does improve with such massed attacks – but that the French also have to endure the risk that all the units in the combined column collapse at once. If one is "staggered" then all are. You can't separate the fate of one unit from the others. |
1815Guy | 10 Nov 2013 11:19 a.m. PST |
Thanks for such a great set of responses. 1) The house rule had columns fighting disordered if there wasnt an inch between a column and a neighbouring friend. Generals very quickly picked up keeping their columns apart, but the 1" gap still allowed 3 columns to fight a line, albeit with an overlap on columns on each end (badly deployed Line). 2) Rapier, yes, Shako lets you throw an entire attack back (all three columns ) if you can throw a 4,5,6 against regular line troops. The defending Line unit didnt achieve that with his roll, unfortunately for him. 3) Caliban, the 'form line if staggered on the way in' is that optional rule I referred to in my OP. I thought it might be a bit powerful, but now Im not so sure. 4) AFAIK the Brits fought the french columns 1 v 1, and because of terrain managed to fire and charge them as the French were trying to deploy into a firing line. Shako can represent this. 5) But Im also aware of Neys instructions to the army in 1809, when the magnificence of the French 1805 army was diluted by a load of conscripts, who once they stopped for a firefight at long range, tended to stay there ineffectively. He ordered them to forget the firing line and go right in
. but how far apart were these units, that is the question. We had the same problem with Gen de Brig, but a 2" gap between columns seemed to have reduced the problem, and I understand there is a further new mechanism in the recently revised edition. |
DOUGKL | 10 Nov 2013 11:26 a.m. PST |
I'm going to send some people screaming, but we play Empire. When columns attack a line, the fire from the line affects them all. As an example you have 3 columns each with a 4 man front for a total of 12 castings, making a coordinated attack. The line fires and does 4 castings in casualties one column would lose 2 castings the others 1 each. But when checking to see if the columns close 1/3rd of their front just became hors de combat, so if they fail all 3 are stopped. We're trying to simulate a very complex series of events and in the end it depends on what feels right to you. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 10 Nov 2013 12:33 p.m. PST |
These massive formations were used on occasions, but they were not used without risk and so
I just have units in contiguous columns fight enemy units in line as one unit – that`s one die roll for fighting not 3 or 4. I also have a rule for collateral damage from artillery fire and these two rules are generally enough of a deterrent. But the flip-side is that massive formations like columns of battalions in line and contiguous columns do get some (limited) morale bonuses. The rules are here: grandmanoeuvre.co.uk |
Martin Rapier | 10 Nov 2013 12:52 p.m. PST |
The very worst offender for 'massed columns' was the old TTG Micro Napoleonics set. The battalions were represented by counters and a 'column' was simply the counter turned 90 degrees. As they were fairly shallow, you could fit about half a dozen French battalion columns against a single unit in line. Game over, every single time. As we know, 'columns' weren't even columns, just thick lines, apart from march columns. |
1815Guy | 10 Nov 2013 1:39 p.m. PST |
this seems to be something of a perennial problem. Im surprised it hasnt been extensively pikced up and sorted long before now
.. |
Glenn Pearce | 10 Nov 2013 2:15 p.m. PST |
Hello 1815Guy! "But how realistic is this ganging up?" I don't think it's very realistic as I don't recall ever reading about any such event. "Did the French ever really fight like that?" Again, never read it, that I can recall. "Ive always thought the French left enough space between columns to deploy their battalions into line." This is my understanding. They deployed at a distance that would give them room to change formation. Once the forward movement began they would maintain that distance as best as they could. Keep in mind that terrain could at time force them to move closer or drift farther apart. As they approached the enemy I assume they would each identify their respective targets. Remember they are trying to overpower a position not an individual battalion, unless of course there is only one. Even then I understand it would be one column would move on the center and the other two their respective flanks (to outflank). "So is this history?" Not by a long shot. "Or just wargames convention?" It's a stigma of many rule systems, that is generally just one short coming of many. Most rule systems completely ignore what really happened on the battlefield, and simply focus on single unit behavior or what I call "shot gun games", every unit for it's self. You have only identified the behavior of your columns at the point of contact. It appears that they are allowed to do their own thing prior to that as well. Now with photos all over the web I see all kinds of columns packed in like sardines in just about every game out there. I don't think that was very common in real life. It seems that these units are behaving more like a football game then units on a battlefield. "How do you handle this sort of thing in your own club?" We play Polemos designed for 6mm, but can be used for any scale. The basic design is a unit occupies a base with the frontage it would have in line. So simply by default all units are always properly spaced. There is no more cramming or ganging up in small spaces. The units are encouraged to move as brigades. Units can operate on their own, but it's generally to act on an independent mission. Saves tons of time tracking and changing formations or handling multiple little stands for every unit. If it becomes an issue units simply declare their formation. It's assumed that a units formation is of no real concern to the higher command (the players) and that is handled by it's commander. Of course the unit is always in the best formation for the situation at hand. At first this sounds odd to many experienced players, but when you step back and think about it, it's much, much better then the other way around. Best regards, Glenn |
1815Guy | 10 Nov 2013 4:19 p.m. PST |
Yes Glenn, my 6mm Adlers are based for Volley and Bayonet & Grand Armee with that same rationale. Both lovely rule sets, esp GA. I have tried Polemos actually, but didn't get on with it. A bit too DBMish for me. Shako uses the Battalion as the basic unit on the table, so that's what we have to work with. I think its something that will have to be addressed though
. and currently I rather like the idea of making units that dont charge home being compelled to form line
..disordered if there is insufficient space to do so. |
Sparker | 10 Nov 2013 4:27 p.m. PST |
In Black Powder the intention is that only one column should attack a line in its frontal zone – at least thats how we play it! |
Markconz | 10 Nov 2013 4:34 p.m. PST |
Yes, we played one column vs line in Black Powder, though others can support. Rule mods here: link |
LeonAdler | 10 Nov 2013 11:44 p.m. PST |
Its funny with a period so popular with so many good wargamers doing it that on the whole the rules for the period leave lots to be desired. I havent ever played a set for the period that got it right. Mind you I havent tried a set for about 10 years prefering to stick to my own. L |
Keraunos | 11 Nov 2013 12:41 a.m. PST |
the problem is that 'players' now object to rules which prevent you doing stupid things like this because its 'too complicated' or some other silly excuse about adding rules they don't like. the result is rules which allow utter nonsense or 'abstract' things into another dice roll. if you want it solved, you have to start supporting detailed rules, and stop enthusing over simplified fast play rules. in the end though, the vast majority of Napoleonic's players just like the uniforms, everything else is secondary – fine, but you have to accept the consequences. |
Sparta | 11 Nov 2013 3:15 a.m. PST |
We address this in our home rules in a rather simple way. One unit attack one unit. I think this is usually how it went down if you deployed historically. Often attacks degenerate into firefights, then you can either send more units in and have weight of numbers, or you can try to outflank. The wargame tactis of hiiting them at exactly the same time with several units, som of them even ouflanking, is seldomly seen in historical accounts. The advantage of weight of numbers on the Napoleonic battlefield usually came down to the ability to engage frontally while outflanking tactically/operationally or the ability to continue to make attacks that was more or less 1:1, while slowly grinding the enemy down. The simplified apprioach of 3-4 jumping at 1 was almost never done. It is surprising to read accounts of how reserves were kept and units send in a little at a time, wargamers will always get right up front with everything in the first shot. So our two suggestions are 1: One unit attacks one unit. Advantage of numbers is the ability to repeat the attack with fresh troops. 2: Artillery hits everything in a zone equally – this means you die horripbly from overstacking your troops. |
Edwulf | 11 Nov 2013 3:50 a.m. PST |
Well. I think half a battalion in line would or should be able two tackle a single battalion in column. I think "wings" could and often did function like this when facing columns. But I'd prefer, to keep it simple 1 v 1 in a head on charge.. I'd like a rule that splits fire or allows you to hit everything infront of it. Not just one. |
le Grande Quartier General | 11 Nov 2013 7:54 a.m. PST |
Carnage & Glory is one rule sets that addresses this issue well with constructs that dissuade or prevent unlikely historical outcomes. Keranos is quite correct, becaue only detailed rules can come close to preventing non-historical silliness, which is why the computer is so desireable. I think Grande Manoeuver, Valmy to Waterloo, and Revolution & Empire also get it right, but due to the process, are in varying degrees more cumbersome to use. |
Glenn Pearce | 11 Nov 2013 8:15 a.m. PST |
Hello 1815Guy! I agree, V&B and GA are reasonable rule sets. Obviously I think Polemos is better, but I understand why you don't. Since you see the value in V&B and GA, why are you using Shako? I think V&B uses the battalion as the basic unit. Best regards, Glenn |
1968billsfan | 11 Nov 2013 8:37 a.m. PST |
There are two things missing from the discussions above. The first is that the standard tactic was for attacking columns to be preceded by several waves (or a cloud) of skirmishers, which would mask the attackers up to the time of the final approach- be it a volley and charge or a shout and charge. This served to screen the attackers from early fire, forced the defenders to stay in a rigid line without being able to curl around the attacker's flank (actually not a practice at the time) and also partially hid the exact direction of the attackers and where they might hit the defenders. Columns were passably maneavurable and could swerve during the last moments to hit a different and more vulerable area of the defender's line. A second thing missing is a lack of appreciation of the different geometric paragrams between modern and napoleonic firearms, formations and applications. I'll take for modern practice the use of long range crew-served machine guns and fast loading rifles. The depth of the defense line can be a single foxhole/emplacement deep, so there is no impediment to firing directly ahead or right down the line of defense. Indeed oblique criss-crossed beaten zones from machine zones is doctrine and deeply embedded in modern soldiers. You can't do that if you have 2-3 ranks of closely packed musketeers. Another disconnect between the modern-day, seat-of-the-pants feeling about what is right and napoleonic days, is that today an infantry unit can and usually puts down fire into a beaten zone in front of neigboring units. If a platoon covers 50 yards, it can easily put down fire 300 yards to its flank. This could not be done in napoleonic times and the basic unit of maneaver (an infantry battalion) could scarcely cover the edges of the area directly in front of it by fire. Napoleonic artillery, yes, infantry no. Napoleonic cavalry yes (by movement or threat of movement) infantry no.
The combination of these factors is that attacking in column (which was more a narrowed battalion with a company or division front and really not that much depth) would not receive the full fire from the defending battalion in line. The skirmishers would shield and screen it during the approach and even into the killing distance, and during the final approach to contact the defenders away from the direct area being hit, would have their fire attentuated by both range and by the attackers dropping into a shadowed no-fire-at-zone where they are hidden by the defender's own troops. More in next post. |
1968billsfan | 11 Nov 2013 9:21 a.m. PST |
Okay, here is an explanation of some really simple calculations done on an Excel spreadsheet to illustrate the limitations of geometries and ranges for a column approaching a line at the end of the line. The defender is a battalion of 6 companies with 720 men. A company of 120 men has a width of 92 feet. There are 2 sections per company and 12 in the battalion. Each section is about 15 yards wide. The model has defending 12 sections in line, and a section wide column marching directly on the center of the defending section on the far left of the line. Calculations were done with the attacker at the following yard distances from the line. 150 yards, (extreme range), 100 yards (start of effective range), 75, 50 and 25 yards. First, using simple trig the distance between each section and the attackers was calcuated (you know the direct distance to the attacker and how far down the line each section is, so its just sqrt (D*D+L*L)). For each section at specificied ranges the distances are: @ 150yards: 150 151 153 157 162 168 175 183 192 223 234 246 @ 100 yards: 100 101 104 110 117 125 135 145 156 193 206 219 @75 yards: 75 76 81 87 96 106 117 129 142 181 195 209 @ 50 yards: 50 52 58 67 78 90 103 116 130 172 187 201 @ 25 yards 25 29 39 51 65 79 93 108 123 167 182 197 If we consider the maximum effective range to be 100 or 125 yards then we have the following number of defending sections firing effectively (considering only the range factor)at 100 & 125 yards approach range sections @ 100 yards, 125 yards or less 100 yards= 3, 5 75 yards= 4, 6 50 yards= 5, 6 25 yards= 6, 8 out of 12 sections available. (maybe you can see why they liked 3 ranks to pack more guns into the sections that could hit an attacker) But this is only part of the story. As the attacker gets closer to the defender, defending sections away from the point of attack, suffer another problem besides range. The soliders can not point their guns very far to the far left or right because they are packed in close together and are unwilling to blow their friends heads off. This leads to another falloff in shooting- those who are blocked from shooting, which gets worse as the attacker gets closer!. Calculating the angle to hit the head of this section attacking column (arc tangent (distance of attacker / distance down the defending line) gives Number of sections out of 12 who can fire with less then 45 degree oblique" Range of attacker
.number/12 150 yards
..10 100 yards
6 75 yards
.5 50 yards
.3 25 yards
.1 Now if these sections were modern soldiers in foxholes having M60's on tripods with 360 traverse, they all would be able to fire. Recalibrate your thinking to Napoleonics. Combining these two factors, (range and blocked fire), really reduces the amount of fire a battalion in line could effectively issue. There is a lot of range-allowed-fire that is blocked by angle-restricted-fire for sections near the middle of this defending battalion. Okay, now what can we take from this? First, I take that allowing an entire battalion in line to fire at full effectiveness at an attacking column, with multiple bonuses should not be the story. Secondly, any attacking commanding colonel would have to be an idiot to take on the center of an isolated battalion in line. Hitting them on one flank and rolling up that flank would be smart and means that you are not being shot at by the entire battalion. Anything that masked part of the defender should be taken advantage and aimed at. Skirmishers in front of a line would also direct fire at them and divert it from the column. |
1968billsfan | 11 Nov 2013 9:25 a.m. PST |
12 section in line versus 1 section wide attacking column. yards to target coupled with angle to target @100 yards 101 104 110 117 125 135 145 156 193 206 219 -------------------------------------- 81 73 66 59 53 48 42 39 36 33 30 @75 yards 76 81 87 96 106 117 129 142 181 195 209 -------------------------------------- 79 68 59 51 45 40 34 31 28 26 24 @ 50 yards 52 58 67 78 90 103 116 130 172 187 201 ----------------------------------------- 73 59 48 40 34 29 24 22 20 18 16 @25 yards 29 39 51 65 79 93 108 123 167 182 197 ------------------------------------ 59 23 29 23 18 16 13 11 10 9 8 |
1815Guy | 11 Nov 2013 9:43 a.m. PST |
Of course, when you hit the end of that line, you get shot at by the immediately adjacent line instead of the centre of the target line. So it works out pretty much even
!! :) |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 11 Nov 2013 10:27 a.m. PST |
Coming back to this
" "But how realistic is this ganging up?" I don't think it's very realistic as I don't recall ever reading about any such event. "Did the French ever really fight like that?" Again, never read it, that I can recall. "Ive always thought the French left enough space between columns to deploy their battalions into line
"So is this history?" " Yes, this was generally the intention but
Contiguous columns: At Wattinges the French used this divisional formation and suffering from austrian artillery fire, they did not do particularily well with it – there`s a description of it in Paddy Griffith`s Osprey on French Infantry Tactics 1792-1815.
Other formations used were massed "columns" or something similar in effect
MacDonald`s column at Wagram used doubled lines of battalions and suffered from artillery fire. This formation giving potential 2:1 gang-ups along the divisional front of his corps.
and there were divisional columns by deployed battalions famously used at Waterloo. Being a question of probability; there being more wargames fought than there were actual battles in the period, then sooner or later, these formations will be used again, and so we need rules which allow for them; their advantages and their failings too. |
1815Guy | 11 Nov 2013 10:49 a.m. PST |
That's the second time Waterloo divisional columns has been mentioned. I am referring in my OP to several separate battalion units forming battalion columns side by side. Divisional Column at Waterloo was wave after wave of lines using very small divisions – a special anti-Brit formation rehearsed and implemented specifically for the Waterloo campaign. Still one btn wide! Glenn – we are using Shako as one of the club members has a HUGE collection of 28mm minis which is used extensively at the club, looks fantastic, and no-one's rebasing that lot to use another rule set!!! Shako also only needs 18 figures per unit, (in three bases) which helps those just starting out – a box of plastics will get two or three units out of it. :) |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 11 Nov 2013 11:44 a.m. PST |
Yes, but the reason I mentioned it is because the effects may have been similar
simply that it is another massive formation of many units, which some people might still erroneously believe to have a benificial effect in musketry or in a melee. |
forwardmarchstudios | 11 Nov 2013 11:47 a.m. PST |
Jomini's thoughts on the topic begin on page 290 of his book on warfare. link The second paragraph states: "We shall not here introduce those old discussions about the shallow and the deep formations although the question which was supposed decided is far from being settled absolutely ." I wonder if Jomini had any idea that the debate would still be going on two hundred years after the Napoleonic Wars ended? |
nickinsomerset | 11 Nov 2013 12:55 p.m. PST |
"First, I take that allowing an entire battalion in line to
" Going slightly away from the Wargames scenario of multiple columns attacking a single line and if the column was such a good attacking formation bother to change into line? In addition not to forget the skirmishers deployed from the line or the adjacent line adding it's weight of fire, Tally Ho! |
Glenn Pearce | 11 Nov 2013 1:19 p.m. PST |
Hello MichaelCollinsHimself! Good thing I said that I can remember. If I had turned around the book was right on top of my book self! Best regards, Glenn |
Whirlwind | 11 Nov 2013 1:20 p.m. PST |
Is the logical implication of 1968billsfan's posts that a line could stop a column (on the occasions where it did) with about a third of its theoretical firepower anyway? Regards |
Glenn Pearce | 11 Nov 2013 1:39 p.m. PST |
Hello 1815Guy! Well just because your battalions are 3 stands of 6 figures there is no real reason they can't act as a single base is there? The only reason I mention this is I think V&B plays better then Shako. However, if you do continue to use Shako it now seems that ganging up is appropriate. The only dilemma you now face is was your outcome appropriate? It seems that the majority here think it was too easy. This will not be a simple matter to resolve as you really can't use Wattignies as a model for the defense as there was substantial artillery involved. A simple line vs multiple columns will be a hard one to resolve. Let us know what you finally decide to do. Best regards, Glenn |
McLaddie | 11 Nov 2013 2:37 p.m. PST |
The arguments for masses rupturing a firing line were on-going among French military men 1760s through 1790s. In the end, for a variety of reasons, such ideas were abandoned and Guilbert and others prevailed. Often what we know of French tactics is through the eyes of the British and English memiors, AARs etc. The problem is that the British referred to most any body of enemy troops, regardless of formation or number of technical columns as 'enemy columns' or even referred to the entire force as a 'column.' When they talk of 'massive columns' or a single column, the French many time will report several columns or a battle line [of columns] for the same instance. Then again, when the French used moving 'squares' in an attack, [Front and back in line, supporting sides in open columns] such as McDonald's and the Guard's last attacks, the enemy, such as the Austrians and British, will see a column. The British actually thought the Guard squares were a solid columns because they couldn't see then from above. Such massive squares were for protection against cavalry. Bottom line is that there were few times that mulitiple battalions in columns attacked a single battalion in line that I know of, and when they attempted such attacks, they were seldom successful unless the enemy lines were already disrupted, such as McDonald's costly attack at Wagram. Another point is that columns were very rarely ever forced to retreat or routed because of enemy fire. Stopped, yes, disorganized, yes, but something else had to happen before an actual retreat. Albuera is a good example, but there are many more. Bill |
1968billsfan | 11 Nov 2013 4:04 p.m. PST |
1815 guy Yes it is true that if a division or company column hit the edge of a battalion, most likely there would be another battalion in line to the left of the defending battalion. However, much of the same effects which attenuate the fire of the defending line would still take place. Sections of the defenders half a battalion away from the point of impact would still be far away from the attackers and their fire would be at too long a range. Also at shorter ranges, the masking or shadowing effect of limited oblique fire would still reduce the fire the attackers would face. I am concentrating on the amount of effective fire that an attacking column battalion would suffer on its way into contact, (or to "scare & run away range). It is significantly (let me repeat, significantly- enough to make a change in results and procedure) less than would be suffered by a line attacking a line. When a line attacks a line, all defending fire is done at the most effective "base" range and at zero angle of oblique fire. It is all at maximum effectiveness- unaffected by increase range, shadowed (excluded soldiers) and more inaccurate oblique presentation of the musket to the target. Yes it is very true that the advancing attacking column is at a great disadvantage in a fire fight- but that is not the reason why you attack in column. You attack in column in order to concentrate on a small segment of the enemy line and close to contact. Not to set up a firefight scenario. A factor that seldom enters into the wargaming community rule books is the effect of the attacker using terrain to assist the attack. Consider the following real tactical and easily understood and practiced factors. The attacker attacks the edge of a line of battalions, at the flank which is set on a river/cliff/rocky area/woods, where the density of defenders is low, nil or compromised in the ability to issue high volume fire. Pretty much the scenario that was modeled. The attacker attacks an extend point of the defending line. The effect of this is that the distances of fire for defenders down the line, away from the point of attack is greater and the oblique angle of presentation is increased. Less outgoing fire, better attack. The attacker attacks up or down a significant slope. Smoothbore muskets shoot "straight" or level for 50-100 yards or so, but beyond those ranges the balls will be into the ground or, to hit an attacker, will have to drop out of the sky at the exact correct range. Sort of like trying to throw a cricket or soft ball into a bucket at a distance. (A round ball has terrible mass/cross-section ballistic coefficient, slows down quickly and the gravity-induced drop goes up as the square of the time of flight). What this means is that Napoleonic musketry was terrible when shooting up or down hill. An attacker could chose the point of attack to be at the worst defender shooting location. The effect of all these factors is that attack in column could be very effective, if skirmishers and location were carefully selected. I think that some of the British success in defending against column attacks was from selecting defensive positions where the weaknesses of a line didn't exist to a large extent. |
McLaddie | 11 Nov 2013 5:37 p.m. PST |
As I said before, there are few examples of columns simply taking fire from infantry and running away. It took something more. Bill |
Last Hussar | 11 Nov 2013 6:21 p.m. PST |
There is one set of rules that fire at a column may force it to deploy into line. If you don't have the proper spacing this line will interfere with other columns, giving them a negative effect. Columns don't run, but they did try and stop and return fire, thus stopping the attack. |
McLaddie | 11 Nov 2013 11:35 p.m. PST |
Last Hussar: Yes, they would halt, become disorganized, try and deploy into line, begin returning fire, among the most common responses, but they didn't run unless they were charged, hit in flank or some other element was injected into the situation, including reinforcements restarting the attack
or the enemy retreating. ;-7 Those things happened too. And of course, there were the odd exceptions to the rule, but the were few and far inbetween. Bill |
Mac1638 | 12 Nov 2013 4:20 a.m. PST |
This need to be put in to context. Has the line been softened up by light infantry and/or artillery before the columns arrive,this being the Tactics in the Revolutionary War. Line take skill and training to form and use. Depending on the scale of your game (brigade, battalion, company)some rule need to use some different methods to mimic this. If you are not happy with your rules interpretation of this,change your rules or write your own. The people how write rules are human too, and have there own ideas on what is right and what is wrong. |
Mac1638 | 12 Nov 2013 4:41 a.m. PST |
Are there any reports on how the under trained armys of 1813/14, preformed in columns and lines? The Brits in the Napoleonic Wars will all way be a problem as they do not play by the same rules as the rest of Europe,with it's small and relatively well trained Army. |
Flecktarn | 12 Nov 2013 6:37 a.m. PST |
Mac1638, In the spring of 1813, Marechal Ney reported that the new recruits who filled out his battalions were only capable of forming columns and squares. Jurgen |
nickinsomerset | 12 Nov 2013 1:01 p.m. PST |
Of course the trick is in a set of rules that favor the column, don't bother going into line, just stay in column! Tally Ho! |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 13 Nov 2013 4:33 a.m. PST |
Glenn is right to point out that there`s not a lot of data for this. But this is quite a "gamey" problem because some rule sets can make it a beneficial tactic, when in reality it was highly risky and costly because it would commit all of a command`s resources at once. If it were such a good tactic why was it not employed at Waterloo? Instead d`Erlon adpoted sucessive lines, in brigade and divisional columns; these held more of the force in reserve which was intended to extend, turn and take the British allied centre. Initially it was sucessful against allied lines and some doubled lines, but of course was thwarted by cavalry counter-attacks. Rather than the intention of making sledgehammer blows with the massive columns themselves, I think that having trustedin the effectiveness of their artillery, it was the intended subsequent manoeuvre was foremost in the minds of French commanders at the time. I think they saw the point of contact, or of decision being "the line" even when that "line" was comprised of multiple battalions in columns. |