Theophanes | 06 Jun 2016 3:56 a.m. PST |
"… Napoleonic unit" I meant ;) Hi, Lads: That´s my question, but I refine it a little: I´ve an infantry battalion and I send it to attack (firefight, or charge) against the enemy. After a couple of volleys my battalion retreats with not too many casualties, but it retreats. Do you think that these men will attack again during the next, let´s say, one hour of battle? or they will never attack again the rest of the day? I think they can hold the ground but I seriously doubt that this unit can march into the enemy fire again during a while. What are your opinion? |
Garth in the Park | 06 Jun 2016 4:11 a.m. PST |
Memoirs are full of accounts of units attacking repeatedly, sometimes five and six times against the same positions. |
Rich Bliss | 06 Jun 2016 4:45 a.m. PST |
|
Ed Mohrmann | 06 Jun 2016 4:57 a.m. PST |
I'd agree with Garth and Rich, with the caveat that MUCH would depend upon the unit's leadership. |
von Winterfeldt | 06 Jun 2016 5:14 a.m. PST |
A usual battle formation would consist of two lines of battle, if the first line was beaten back, they would reform behind the second line – all this would take a long time and more likley the fromer second line would re new the attack. I don't know of any multiple attacks of beaten back battle lines or battalions |
jeffreyw3 | 06 Jun 2016 5:30 a.m. PST |
|
Lou from BSM | 06 Jun 2016 5:47 a.m. PST |
The main consideration here is leadership, as Ed states above. There are many instances of a unit (Battalion, Regiment, Brigade) going forward to attack, and being beaten back, only to reform and advance again. The time it takes to reform sufficiently to execute a properly delivered attack depends in great part to the leadership at each level. For example, a solid Brigade Commander would be hampered by poor Battalion Commanders, while, on the flip side, excellent Battalion Commanders saddled with an indecisive Brigade Commander would be less effective as well. Units that rout on the other hand, seldom returned. They were usually regrouped after the battle, although there are a few examples of routed units recovering and rejoining the line later in the battle. However, these are few and far between. Once broken, they usually recovered well to the rear. |
TMPWargamerabbit | 06 Jun 2016 6:22 a.m. PST |
Bunker Hill for example for infantry. Would have to read the books if fresh infantry battalions involved to restart the 2nd assault. Cavalry I think commonly regrouped and charged again alongside a fresh unit…. Waterloo for cavalry example. But the same individual unit, without fresh reserves assistance and already battered with losses, is doubtful unless their nearby former enemy is showing signs of breaking. As mentioned. the senior leadership is key to renew the attack. |
C M DODSON | 06 Jun 2016 6:47 a.m. PST |
I would humbly suggest, that given good leadership, time to regroup and the absence of crippling casualties that a non routed unit would return to the fray if sufficiently enthused. They're are many accounts of D'Erlons corp being routed in history books at Waterloo but it continued to function, captured La Haie Sainte and took part in the general advance towards the close of proceedings. Happy modelling. Chris |
vtsaogames | 06 Jun 2016 7:14 a.m. PST |
As stated above, Bunker Hill, D'Erlon's corps at Waterloo. Also Reille's repeated attacks at Hougomont. So it is possible. How likely is another story. Poor morale and leadership would indicate one shot. |
robert piepenbrink | 06 Jun 2016 7:18 a.m. PST |
My first question is "why are they retreating after a couple of volleys and not too many casualties?" Yes, good troops can reform and try again, but the time required is considerable. In a game in which the units were battalions and the "army" was a brigade or a division, I'd hesitate--and I'd write off a battalion when the actual killed and wounded exceeded 25% as no longer capable of offensive action. If my units were brigades, and my army a corps or multiple corps, that would be different, but a battalion under canister fire or close-range musketry didn't have a long lifespan, and a really banged-up unit might not come back for that campaign. The British units worst hit at Chippewa are good examples, or the American ones who fought longest at Lundy's Lane. I think Bunker Hill is an outlier. First, VERY good troops--peacetime regulars and often elites at that. Second, they were fighting troops incapable of taking advantage of the situation and ending the battle. Multiple assaults by the same units on fortifications are a lot more common than multiple assaults in open field battles generally. Napoleon said a corps should be able to fight all day, and a division for an hour or two. If your game is a division or brigade action, how long have you got to get the troops back in order, and how much time do you need? If you're fighting a corps or division battle, the battalions shouldn't even show up. |
138SquadronRAF | 06 Jun 2016 7:23 a.m. PST |
Napoleon said a corps should be able to fight all day, and a division for an hour or two. If your game is a division or brigade action, how long have you got to get the troops back in order, and how much time do you need? If you're fighting a corps or division battle, the battalions shouldn't even show up. That's pretty much the way that Napoleonic Command II from War Artisan operates. warartisan.com/rules Yes, you can rebuild a brigade (basic organisational unit made up of 4-6 battalions) BUT the time taken to pull them out of line and let them rest makes it hard to pull off since the only thing you're never short of is enemy. |
von Winterfeldt | 06 Jun 2016 9:19 a.m. PST |
The Old Guard at Belle Alliance was beaten back – did it reform? No.(despite good leadership and high morale) What unit of Drouet's Corps did assault successfully La Haye Sainte? After beaten back the 1er corps did not funciton any longer in the same potential as before. It has to do with leadership but also with tactical formations, a battalion was an integrap part of a higher tactical formation – a brigade or division and they had a tactical basic principle, like being formed into two lines. Despite good leadership it would be very time costly to re – arranged brigade and divisional tactical formations. |
Ben Avery | 06 Jun 2016 9:32 a.m. PST |
Interesting points von Winterfeldt and Robert. The first game I got a sense of ebb and flow in was Napoleon's Battles, but those second lines are abstracted into the brigade. At the club we're mainly playing General de Brigade and it does seem odd that battalions can fall back a relatively short distance to reform, even when there is little support or cover. It's the same with faltering short distance away after a failed charge. It seems to happen an awful lot and it feels like the normal action would be to do something (whether it's fall back or try a different formation) rather than mill around. |
DeRuyter | 06 Jun 2016 9:52 a.m. PST |
The Old Guard at Belle Alliance was beaten back – did it reform? No.(despite good leadership and high morale)What unit of Drouet's Corps did assault successfully La Haye Sainte? After beaten back the 1er corps did not funciton any longer in the same potential as before. It has to do with leadership but also with tactical formations, a battalion was an integrap part of a higher tactical formation – a brigade or division and they had a tactical basic principle, like being formed into two lines. Despite good leadership it would be very time costly to re – arranged brigade and divisional tactical formations. Curious as to your mention of the OG – do you mean the last stand of the squares at the end of the battle? Not sure if that situation fits the original question as the entire army was routing by that point. As to the 1st Corps – Quiot's division reformed and made several additional attacks on La Haye Sainte. They were not half hearted attempts either but not successful until the defenders ran out of ammo. It did take 1st Corps over an hour to reform – for example Quiot's second attack went in @3:30 pm. But again this was an entire Corps overrun by cavalry so it is an extreme example. |
vtsaogames | 06 Jun 2016 11:06 a.m. PST |
No question that D'Erlon's corps wasn't the same after the Union Brigade had their way with it, but it did return to the attack after 3 of 4 divisions were pretty soundly beaten. I think this meets the OP question. And yes, it took quite a bit of time to reform. And about Bunker Hill, Urban's "Fusiliers" maintains that Gage's troops weren't so elite, that they were deficient in drill and training after being cooped up in Boston. They responded to fire from entrenchments by returning fire rather than pushing on with cold steel. Brave? You bet, going back after being thrashed twice with nearly 50% losses. But these were not the same grade of troops who would be in action at Guilford Courthouse. Those were elite. |
nsolomon99 | 06 Jun 2016 7:58 p.m. PST |
Lots of instances of well trained, well led, veteran troops being repulsed then rallying, resting and coming back again. Lots of instances, Austrian Grenadiers at Essling 1809, French and Austrians at Aspern 1809, French at Teugen-Hausen 1809, Prussians and French at Ligny 1815, Prussians and French at Auerstadt 1806, regular occurrence in fact and frankly it was tactical doctrine. It was expected that attacks would not always succeed at the first attempt and officers were trained to rally their men and come back again. |
von Winterfeldt | 06 Jun 2016 11:40 p.m. PST |
I cannot agree they all needed one day or more time to reform. It as a big surprise that Blücher came back so quickly after his defeat of Ligny – Napoleon discounted his ability to strike back or at least 3 days. It was expected that attacks would not always succeed at the first attempt, yes, but then one would attack again with fresh troops instead of beaten back units. |
von Winterfeldt | 07 Jun 2016 2:02 a.m. PST |
I ment the attack of the Guard to penetrate Wellington's line of defence – depite good leadership and good troops they were in no shape to re – new it. |
vtsaogames | 07 Jun 2016 5:59 a.m. PST |
It as a big surprise that Blücher came back so quickly after his defeat of Ligny It should not have been such a big surprise. In 1814 Blucher refused to stay beaten more than once. I ment the attack of the Guard… depite good leadership and good troops they were in no shape to re – new it. They were pursued right after the repulse. Just about impossible to rally in those circumstances. |
Old Contemptibles | 07 Jun 2016 12:50 p.m. PST |
Sure they can. Depends a little on their morale and experience. It is very possible. |
Brechtel198 | 07 Jun 2016 12:52 p.m. PST |
Ney's first attack at Friedland, which was designated as the French main effort, was defeated. In point of fact, Ney's corps was routed. He rallied it in the Forest of Sortlack and led it back into the attack after Senarmont's de facto main attack had taken place. |
Garth in the Park | 07 Jun 2016 1:42 p.m. PST |
Heinrich von Brandt's memoirs contain at least one reference to a fight his unit had with some Spanish infantry and the position they were fighting over changed hands several times. In one case he was knocked unconscious by an explosion and left for dead and the Spaniards walked right over him. Then his own troops counterattacked and retook the position again and rescued him. Back and forth, attacking and counterattacking for hours. Stories like that aren't particularly extraordinary. |
Brechtel198 | 07 Jun 2016 2:08 p.m. PST |
The fighting in the villages at Essling in 1809 was very similar. |
Mick the Metalsmith | 07 Jun 2016 5:24 p.m. PST |
Scale of the game? Some single turns might encompass multiple small rallies and second attempts. 20 minutes is a long time and most grand tactical games have turns representing this time or longer. |
nsolomon99 | 07 Jun 2016 5:45 p.m. PST |
At Ligny, both French and Prussian forces were repulsed, withdrew, rallied and counter-attacked several times during the fighting for the villages. |
von Winterfeldt | 08 Jun 2016 4:34 a.m. PST |
skirmishers lines certainly would go back and forth, but formed units being a small part in a battle line – I cannot find many examples where an attack was beaten back and precisely the identical units – would reform, re-establish a line of battle and then go to the attack again. |
C M DODSON | 08 Jun 2016 9:12 a.m. PST |
I am currently studying the Battle of Quatre Bras and reading the excellent book by Mark Robinson as part of my research. He has examples, especially cavalry 'probing', accepting casualties, regrouping and trying again. Von Winterfeldt makes a good point that the precise element of a unit might be too smashed to return to fray. With respect to Ligny, the sea saw nature of the village fighting was primarily due to fresh units being injected into the fray. However the original question seemed to suggest light casualties were inflicted as the scenario. With the presence of an inspiring leader especially, it seems reasonable that a unit might well be encouraged to have another go. |
imrael | 08 Jun 2016 12:14 p.m. PST |
I think I've seen accounts of the 95 at Waterloo Running away/back then reforming. Maybe rout need some nuance¿ |
matthewgreen | 09 Jun 2016 11:07 a.m. PST |
What strikes me about Ligny (amongst other battles) is how whole formations seem to disappear, from both sides, after fighting in the villages. Two days later the same formations reappear to take part in Waterloo/Wavre, albeit diminished. I suspect that most cases of units carrying out repeated attacks were led by fresh troops held in reserve. You would expect this to happen quite a bit given that Napoleonic formations were quite deep, and fighting in villages like Ligny or Aspern was in confined spaces allowing only a limited frontages to be engaged at a time. |
MDavout | 07 Jul 2016 12:34 p.m. PST |
I suspect that coming back into action after being repulsed had a lot to do with the nature of how the unit was repulsed. For example, an infantry battalion that was routed and pursued by cavalry would have a very difficult getting itself rallied, reordered and sent back into action. However, that same unit might not have quite the difficulty in reordering itself should it have been replused by an exchange of musketry |
4th Cuirassier | 08 Jul 2016 3:41 a.m. PST |
If the reason for the initial break is circumstances rather than carnage, then yes, a rallied unit can attack again. Once the artillery firing into the flank or whatever is no longer there then they'd recover. An interesting angle to this is what happens when squares get pounded by artillery. There are numerous examples of them holding on ridiculously long if running away was going to get more guys killed than holding on. Urban fighting is interesting because in towns and villages units could get broken up into smaller chunks and the street plan could channel them in unexpected ways. You could be cut off or be flanked or come face to face with an enemy or be taken under fire with little warning. There might be a case for making all troops more brittle, but not for long once out of the built-up area. |
Chad47 | 08 Jul 2016 6:24 a.m. PST |
My current reading of the Revlutionary Wars suggests that it was not uncommon. |