"Infantry deployment distance WSS" Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Sparta | 18 Sep 2020 5:18 a.m. PST |
Having mainly studied the SYW and Napoleonic wars, I am somewhat mystified by the deployment of infantry during the SYW. From whjat I gather deployment distances between batallions in line was often quite wide, even up to a full batallion distance. As I understand it, it was gradually evolving from the checkerboard of the previous wars towards til full linear order with minimal deployment distance which is almost in place in teh WAS and dominant by the SYW. What I do not understand is why the linear formations of the WSS, which were usually 3-4 ranks, was not more vulnerable to cavalry than what seems the case. In the SYW you would religiously cover the flank of a line with another line or cavalry, whereas in the WSS wholes are left. Why was this possible? I am personally inclined to believe that the much less aggressive handling of cavalry (with pistol fring and slow trot rather than all out charge) made the infantry less vulnerable – any other explanations? |
Dye4minis | 18 Sep 2020 9:01 a.m. PST |
Hi, Sparta. Not an easy question to answer, but a good one to spark conversation! With the advent of enhanced firepower (from matchlocks to flintlocks) combined with the cavalry advancing at a slow trot, (to maintain formation cohesion which effectively presents the image that the enemy's fire is not stopping the cav),enabled the infantry to deter the cav. The amount of time to close the distance to the infantry exposed the cav to longer periods of fire at ever decreasing ranges. This did not go unnoticed by leaders at the time. In France, the tactic of how the cav would attack infantry, was left up to the unit leadership as national doctrine was yet to be agreed upon. That approach can be appaluded as it was the local leader that was on the scene and could choose which appoach/tactic he felt provided him with the best chances for success and not hamstrung by "regulated direction/doctrine". Based upon reflections of successful engagements, a Doctrine was eventually established based upon "What Worked". Additionally, those leaders enjoyed the trust of their higher-ups (generally) than other nations. The French cav had demonstrated their martial prowess consistantly up to this period. (Jump to the beginning of the SYW, Frederick did not have a lot of confidence in his cavalry based upon their performance up thru that point in time). There's a start. Most of this impression comes from various sources like Nosworthy's "Anatomy of Glory", Frederick's "Instructions to his Generals", Lawford's "Cavalry", etc. |
rxpjks1 | 18 Sep 2020 1:28 p.m. PST |
Most cavalry in the WSS operated in squadrons. So 100 cavalry charging 500 infantry was not effective. Most cavalry charged at the Trot not the gallop. Infantry was also 4-5 ranks deep. Very solid lines. |
ReallySameSeneffeAsBefore | 18 Sep 2020 4:09 p.m. PST |
Sparta- there may be a difference between how military treatises suggest infantry should be formed (with wide spaces) and how they were actually formed. I was was on the field of Ramillies a couple of years ago, pacing around, and thought that the French/allied infantry certainly must have been close together to all fit in. I think that the actual deploymentof WSS infantry might have been more like SYW to be frank. rxpjks1- the squadron wasn't the key tactical denomination in major battles- they were just a sub-unit. In major battles the most important cavalry grouping was the 4-10 (mostly 6-8) squadron brigade. Regiments were not so significant because they varied so much in number of squadrons at this time. Anglo-Dutch infantry was 3 ranks from the outset, with more and more of the allied/hired Germans adopting 3 ranks progressively. Dye4minis- re Frederick's cavalry- I think you might be referring to the 2nd Silesian war (1744-5) rather the SYW (3rd Silesian War). Fred had been training his cavalry intensively from 1745-56 and knew by then it was good. |
AussieAndy | 19 Sep 2020 2:23 a.m. PST |
In the WSS, cavalry tended to fight cavalry, at least initially. They also fought en masse, rather than individual regiments or squadrons being employed tactically, so you're not so worried about an opportunistic cavalry charge. At Ramillies, for example, there is a vast cavalry melee on the southern flank. Until the allies win that melee, cavalry versus infantry isn't such an issue. Once the allied cavalry do win, then the position of the French infantry is irretrievably compromised. So, in most cases, you deploy your infantry to best oppose the enemy's infantry and hope that your cavalry win the struggles on the wings. Ok, I'm generalising (a lot), but I think that it makes sense. There seems to be plenty of evidence that checkerboard type deployments were fairly usual, so why assume that the deployments were more like those in the SYW unless there is evidence for that? Ramillies is a fascinating place to visit, I can certainly recommend it if you get the chance. |
McLaddie | 19 Sep 2020 12:50 p.m. PST |
The spacing had to do with the transition from matchlock to flintlock. The matchlock required more space between musketeers because of the matchlock operation and the uncontrolled flash [in all directions]. So after marching into the battleline required the infantry to 'spread out', which required more lateral spacing between battalions. Also involved was the general method for firing, which had whole ranks fire and then step back into the space between files and travel to the back of the four ranks to load again, gradually coming to the front again. The transition to flintlock saw this weapon change, but not the methodology for a while, only gradually seeing battalions close up when it was realized that the flintlock didn't require as much distance between firers. It didn't happen all at once or all the nations together. France was a stubborn holdout near to the SYW. |
AussieAndy | 19 Sep 2020 6:44 p.m. PST |
McLaddie That makes sense for spacing within battalions, but why would it impact on spacing between battalions? |
Sparta | 20 Sep 2020 1:51 a.m. PST |
Thanks for all the interesting viewpoints and explanations. I think it is fascinating how a concept, namely that of both intra and inter batallion dispersion, which would be seen as suicide in the SYW and in linear deployment during the Napoleonic wars, is a standard concept. I still struggle to see why the infantry was not more vulnerable than it appears. The four deep line was condemned by SYW officers as giving no protection against cavalry. I guess the WSS is a transitional period between the independent pike blocks of earlier periods and the true linear order of the WAS/SYW. But I have a nagging feeling that the cavalry of the SYW would have made mincemeat of the WSS infantry – placing the blame on impotent cavalry charges in the WSS, which did not attain nearly the same terror effect as in later periods.
|
Jcfrog | 20 Sep 2020 4:42 a.m. PST |
The line if steady is not inherently unstable. After all most napo squares( hollow) are 3-4 ranks deep. What makes the inf. Vulnerable is fear and flanks. A platoon of cav trtting in a gap turns and gets after the chaps on the flanks then the 3 flak files 18-12 foot face 14-20 big shashing horsemen with a bit of velocity. The early XVIII th cty has compact continuous slow lines, little gaps (or then see the controversy about "en muraille" or not when fighting Turks…) and as said little wish to use decentralized cav, to exploit ( maybe). We gamers think in game terms, often from napo traditionnal acquired ideas. |
Sparta | 21 Sep 2020 2:32 a.m. PST |
jcfrog – I absolutely agree, which is why I find it so strange that the impenetrable lines of the SYW is open in the WSS, making for excellent cavalry targets – best explanation I have seen is Mcladdies – that is basically the marched towards their intended deployment with distance between units, but spread out for combat/fire – but that would also make for an inheritably less stable unit when attacked frontally. |
dogtail | 23 Sep 2020 6:00 a.m. PST |
What was the distance between the lines? Could the second line protect the intervalls of the first line? |
|