Whirlwind | 07 Apr 2015 7:36 a.m. PST |
What should happen if the regulating battalion of a brigade attack in echelon gets stopped by enemy fire (or threatened by enemy cavalry and its CO wants to re-deploy or form square)? |
Who asked this joker | 07 Apr 2015 7:48 a.m. PST |
Battalions that get halted from fire should be able to return fire at a penalty. Pertaining to the Napoleonic wars, units wanting to form square in reaction to a cavalry threat should be able to do so after passing some sort of "morale test" or "reaction test." I would not allow the reactive squares earlier than the Napoleonic wars. You can always form square as a normal formation change. My 2 cents. |
Whirlwind | 07 Apr 2015 7:53 a.m. PST |
Ah, my fault. I meant "upon the attack as a whole". |
Der Alte Fritz | 07 Apr 2015 7:53 a.m. PST |
"Battalions that get halted from fire should be able to return fire at a penalty." I don't think that the OP was asking a rules question. |
Jcfrog | 07 Apr 2015 7:57 a.m. PST |
Everything else stops as they in cascade follow this one who stopped. Probably only forms up in square if they perceive a cavalry threat. As was said in a very interesting thread about this, units will keep their freedom to react to threats. |
marshalGreg | 07 Apr 2015 8:22 a.m. PST |
@Jcfrog Not sure if that would always be the case!? The brigadier or colonel was with the regulating battalion ( usually one on the right most battalion of the brigade) after assessing the situation with the regulating battalion he would dash off to the the next one (to the left) and possibly lead it "as now the regulating battalion" in order to continue with the brigade's objective. Thus also the big impact to the brigade's assault, once such untimely event occurs and he goes down from fire! MG |
Trajanus | 07 Apr 2015 9:13 a.m. PST |
There were procedures to cover the transfer of Regulating to the next Battalion in the line with associated drum and flag signals of the transfer taking place. More important question would be if the Brigade commander realised what was going to happen and made it to the neighbouring unit in one piece. A messenger from one unit to the next, or relay between battalions, was an alternative. One officer – Battalion Adjutant in a lot of cases – was detailed to observe the Regulating unit and/or the next unit in line to keep the Colonel/Chef de Battalion informed of events so things might not get as out of shape as we imagine. These guys had done this kind of thing before, we tend not to give them credit for having fail-safe in place. Its like replacing a fallen leader. All the officers in a Brigade and a Battalion knew the line of seniority. It may have taken time to find the right man, or the one after him if he was already down but it wasn't a common event for the chain of command to break entirely. |
McLaddie | 07 Apr 2015 10:02 a.m. PST |
What should happen if the regulating battalion of a brigade attack in echelon gets stopped by enemy fire (or threatened by enemy cavalry and its CO wants to re-deploy or form square)?Two of the purposes of echelon was to direct an attack and a small point with further battalions positioned to exploit a success. The other was to cover the flank of the attack with the echeloned battalions. If the directing battalion leading an echelon is stopped, the entire line is stopped. Depending on the distances, if the leading battalion also starts volleying, so will the other battalions. If threatened by cavalry, the other battalions would also form square. If the brigadier wanted to keep the line moving, he would, as Trajanus said, change the directing battalion using the procedures for that process on the battlefield. Obviously, the move would be to hit the enemy line in a succession of battalion attacks as the echelon came up square with the enemy.
|
Jcfrog | 07 Apr 2015 10:37 a.m. PST |
marshalGreg As said in other message, I believe the commander of the " wave/ brigade/ line/ will designate a new regulating unit if needed. Depending on the time and unit scale of the rules, this might take more or less time+ orders or initiative / activations etc. as fits. |
Whirlwind | 07 Apr 2015 2:28 p.m. PST |
If the directing battalion leading an echelon is stopped, the entire line is stopped. Depending on the distances, if the leading battalion also starts volleying, so will the other battalions…If the brigadier wanted to keep the line moving, he would, … change the directing battalion using the procedures for that process on the battlefield I'd be interested in reading a couple of first-hand accounts of it being done in action, if anyone knows of any? |
Mike the Analyst | 07 Apr 2015 3:52 p.m. PST |
There is some analysis of the negative aspects of the use of the regulating battalion in Balck – Tactics Volume 1. (Trans Krueger) pp218 – 220. This was written in 1911 so reflects thinking based on more recent experience, Franco Prussian War and so on. Balck refers to the Base Unit and you regulate the movement of a body of troops by the base unit. Evidently the use of regulation by a base unit is assumed to be a widespread practice which Balck is challenging. By this period the need to cross the zone of fire quickly was becoming recognised as a necessary tactic. I would take the view that this was worthy of comment in 1911 means that it lasted as a technique because many saw merit in the use of regulation even if the negative aspects were becoming more noticeable in "modern" times. Here are the headline comments from Balck (the language is a bit archaic) The possibility of regulating the movement of a body of troops by means of a base unit, depends on a number of preliminary conditions which will seldom be fulfilled in war. 1/ The leader of the base unit would have to remain unharmed to the last. 2/ The fresh organisation which imparts the impetus necessary for a further advance, would have to maintain the direction after the original base unit had ceased to exist on account of the mixing of organisations 3/ The base unit would have to encounter less difficulties during its advance than the other units of the force. If the base unit were to encounter greater difficulties than the other units, this might serve as an excuse for reducing the rate of advance. In attack the organisation nearest the enemy, in other words, the one that is led better and more energetically than the others, is quite naturally charged with maintaining the direction. Moreover this organisation will be able to facilitate by its fire the advance of elements in rear. The designation of a base unit or unit of direction on the battlefield cripples the energy of the entire line and the initiative of the individual in favour of the uniformity of movement. A base unit is only profitable in night operations, in crossing unfavourable ground (woods), and in bringing the fighting line up to the effective zone of hostile fire. "With the entry into action, the importance of the base company gradually decreases as the demands made by the combat increase" (German regulations) Something perhaps we need to think about in the wargame is preventing the enemy forces from concentrating their fire on the regulating battalion in a non-historical fashion. |
Jcfrog | 08 Apr 2015 5:52 a.m. PST |
By 1911 it was different. Even in 1870 different companies of the same German bn would not necessarily move at the same speed and suffer the consequences such as coming out of cover at different moments. It seems here we are in 18 th napo periods. |
Supercilius Maximus | 08 Apr 2015 3:06 p.m. PST |
Something perhaps we need to think about in the wargame is preventing the enemy forces from concentrating their fire on the regulating battalion in a non-historical fashion. Some very interesting information there, Mike. Just one point, though – would it necessarily be "non-historical" to concentrate fire at the regulating/base unit? Wouldn't the enemy have a similar process and be aware of (a) which unit it was, and (b) the consequences of halting/damaging it? |
Trajanus | 08 Apr 2015 3:45 p.m. PST |
I don't think I would fancy being part of an advance using Regulation in the age of smokeless powder, bolt action rifles and machine guns. It was meant for eras of close range fire and melee. Mind you, it was still very much in use in the Civil War but there again that was black powder and nearly all single shot weapons, in common with the Napoleonic period and before. |
Trajanus | 08 Apr 2015 3:57 p.m. PST |
Concentrating fire on the Regulating unit would have been pretty hard to do with the range of musket fire, given it would have been just one battalion at the end of a Brigade front it's unlikey it would have been in range of more than three enemy battalions at anyone time even when at volley distance and for the most part units fired to their front, purely for self protection. By that time it would have been too late anyway. Regulating was designed to get you into engagement, once you got there it ceased to be of use and battalions went into combat mode. Direct Artillery support was designated to slow or break up the enemy advance to their front or on avenues of approach in a crossfire. They just tried to shoot the hell out of anything crossing that zone. Isolating targets with all the smoke and a lack of co-ordinated fire control would be highly unlikely! |
Mike the Analyst | 09 Apr 2015 2:42 p.m. PST |
My concern is that in a wargame it is often possible for the player to focus all the fire from multiple batteries onto a single target unit. This is IMHO non-historical. It does not need to be the regulating unit, any high value (high points value perhaps) target will do. Probably worth a thread of it's own for this!! |
McLaddie | 09 Apr 2015 7:27 p.m. PST |
My concern is that in a wargame it is often possible for the player to focus all the fire from multiple batteries onto a single target unit. This is IMHO non-historical.It does not need to be the regulating unit, any high value (high points value perhaps) target will do. Probably worth a thread of it's own for this!! This is linear warfare we're talking about here. Picking out one battalion in a battleline wasn't particularly productive, let alone possible by more than a battery, if you wanted to stop the entire line. And as the regulating unit could be on the right, middle or left depending on the circumstances, that wouldn't necessarily be an easy thing to determine in an enemy line. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 10 Apr 2015 2:42 a.m. PST |
Re. forming square in response to cavalry threat, the rest of the brigade would follow and adopt the formation of the regulating battalion and the same would be true for deploying. With the threat looming, unsighted in dead ground, or over a hill, or on the opposite flank (the "reverse flank") to the brigade general with the regulating battalion, then the brigade is not so able to "react" to given threats. Although we`re taking about the possible reactions of the brigade, it still seems to worry some folks, but as for discouraging some gamey practices, having some artillery target priority rules in place may prevent artillery being too well-coordinated. Here`s the example I posted in the "Out of command" thread: link plus the missing game photo in the piece:
"Another game example from the battle of Amstetten. Oudinot`s Grenadiers arrayed to attack the Austro-Russian rearguard under the command of Bagration. The brigade generals are at the right of their brigades with each of the lines of brigades in columns of attack. Oudinot is centrally placed, on the division's second line. 5th Corps Commander, Lannes is positioned to the rear, close to Oudinot`s reserve brigade." …I must work out how to get it back on the page ! |