"Breakthrough charges" Topic

Did these happen? And happen a lot?

For context, many rules I own and use (ie BP and Fire & Fury) have breakthrough charges where the winner of the melee can go for the second line unit.

Now, the rules tend to be around 15/30 mins per turn, so my question is – did this happen on the Napoleonic battlefield to a significant extent?

Or where the winners so disordered by the action, smoke, casualties, orders etc that they charged, won and held the ground (or even retired slightly)?

I know the Brits at Waterloo charged the gun line after D'Erlon, but that feels bigger than what the rules are suggesting, where the charge actually takes the supporting unit in.

Thanks all. Appreciated in advance

Thanks guys

I think Murat's big charge at Eylau is the template for this sort of thing.

I think this is a very good example of "time scale is difficult to simulate" in games.

Yes the grenadiers à cheval de la Garde did it at Eylau, and not through one Russian regiment or line, no, a succession of lines, and they came back the same way!

Does anyone read the wonderful books of the campaigns and battles anymore?
I know this one subject was covered well- especially Murats charge at Eylau etc.

MG

One tries to Greg, one tries. But my recent reading didn't really lead me to the breakthrough. Murat's charge seems to be far larger than the rule's idea – I picture it covering a LOT of ground. But it was a one off desperate charge in bad conditions. Most other accounts I read deal with the defeat of one enemy unit, then further action.

So as mentioned above, maybe it's a timescale sort of thing. In my games of BP, Murat's action would be repeated charges over a number of turns across a whole table.

Spanish infantry lines were quickly gobbled up when the line was hit in the flank. Whole divisions evaporated. Can't remember the specific battle

Salamanca? We certainly had whole divisions being demolished in short order, both by infantry and cavalry (mostly French ones, but one Anglo-Portuguese too). Marchant's charge of heavy cvalry possibly fits this quite well.

This wasn't just a question of breakthroughs, but routs being infectious.

Matthew

Spanish infantry lines were quickly gobbled up when the line was hit in the flank. Whole divisions evaporated. Can't remember the specific battle

Happened at Medina de Rio Seco, Medellin, Ocana and the Gebora, amongst others.

Colborne's brigade at Albuera was rolled up in short order by the Vistula lancers. I think that qualifies.

I think the justification would be where the routers are being chased, and merge into a unit behind, thus leading the chargers into a new unit. Some rules don't allow closing fire for these units – too confused?

Salamanca? We certainly had whole divisions being demolished in short order, both by infantry and cavalry (mostly French ones, but one Anglo-Portuguese too). Marchant's charge of heavy cvalry possibly fits this quite well.

This wasn't just a question of breakthroughs, but routs being infectious.

I think that here the term 'breakthrough' might be confusing something that is confusing anyway.

Murat's charge at Eylau and Marchant's charge at Salamanca routed/broke through/penetrated the first line of infantry and attacked the second line. As most armies deployed in depth of at least two lines, it did happen. When units routed or what cavalry did when they routed is another story. The destruction of Colburne's brigade at Albuera wasn't a breakthrough per se. It was taken in flank and destroyed. The cavalry then went on enter between the British second line and the Spanish first line that was on Colburne's left flank, but nothing was 'broken through', though certainly the 'breakthrough' game mechanics could model that. The Union Brigade's charge at Waterloo was a 'breakthough'. The French I Corps was penatrated and the brigade went on to attack the French grand battery, definitely a second line.

Part of the problem is that often the first line routed into the second line, blocking fire and disorganizing them too.

Eylau was a very singular and unique event. Murat's entire 11,000-strong cavalry reserve was used. Waves of dense multiple regiments moving slowly forward in a mass formation.
…………….. That was not a couple of squadrons or a regiment hitting and defeating a battalion or enemy regiment, so it can not be a model for the original poster's query. …………….. I see no problem with allowing a winning cavalry unit to continue to charge before the other slow-moving units can understand what is happening, decide what to do, get approval or not, and move to respond.

And then you have breakthroughs when the original attack failed. The French cavalry at Waterloo got through the second line and beyond when charging the Allied squares…

Eylau was a very singular and unique event. Murat's entire 11,000-strong cavalry reserve was used. Waves of dense multiple regiments moving slowly forward in a mass formation.
…………….. That was not a couple of squadrons or a regiment hitting and defeating a battalion or enemy regiment, so it can not be a model for the original poster's query. ……………

1968billsfan:

Well, the original query included both BP and F&F as rules examples, so brigade-sized charges are included. Eylau might be unique in the size of the operation, but the dynamics aren't, nor the number of cavalrymen that could be brought to bear on a line.

Shako 2 allows cavalry to breakthrough, although movement is restricted to 12" from the normal 18". The cavalry also must rally in place unless it loses the breakthrough melee.

Was Eylau even a "charge" ??? My memory of reading about this event from multiple sources is that this advance (I think that is what is was) was done through mid-thigh deep snow and never got beyond the walk stage (of the walk/trot/gallop) gaits of the squadron/regiment charge in clear terrain. An entirely different animal and it shouldn't be the basis of this discussion.

Breakthrough is often a game artifice, abeit useful, to have penetrating cavalry act faster than infantry, especially one in disaray. In real life there nothing like a game turn, all is continuous.
Contrary to most game game rules cavalry when can go fast ( even trot!) is significantly faster than formations of foot troops.
Game breakthrough give then this sort of different speed for a short time. Otherwise second line, broken troops etc. Would act coherently at the same moment ( next turn) as the victorious cavalry.
Cavalry can easily do a km in 3-4 minutes or less. Not many can recover confusion, organize a response etc. In that time.

Was Eylau even a "charge" ??? My memory of reading about this event from multiple sources is that this advance (I think that is what is was) was done through mid-thigh deep snow and never got beyond the walk stage (of the walk/trot/gallop) gaits of the squadron/regiment charge in clear terrain. An entirely different animal and it shouldn't be the basis of this discussion.

1968billsfan:

I don't think that there is a speed requirement for a 'charge'. When you have 10,000 cavalry advancing, that is a wide-wide front and all sorts of speeds were probably achieved. And the heavies would not have gone faster than a trot. Even infantry 'charges' were more of a quick march advance during the period.

Be that as it may, the French cavalry at Eylau did break through the Russian first lines, so regardless of how fast they were going, it was a 'breakthrough.'

Thanks guys. Som useful discussion, including the difference between rout and pursuit, and a breakthrough charge per the rules