"Reverse slope vs Modern military crest - when did it change?" 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.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the General Historical Discussion Message Board
Action Log
17 Mar 2025 12:23 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "Reverse slop v Moder military crest - when did it change?" to "Reverse slope vs Modern military crest - when did it change?"
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Showcase Article More exotic landscape items from the dollar store!
Featured Profile Article We build an outhouse.
|
| Korvessa | 17 Mar 2025 10:26 a.m. PST |
Wellington famously used the reverse slope of a hill to shield his troops from enemy artillery fire.
In more modern times (at least as far back as 1984 when I was in ROTC) the "Military crest" is on the forward slope of a hill, just below the actual crest.
Anybody know when this change took place?
Do we know which general tried it first?
What was the reasoning? I imagine it had something to do with high trajectory artillery being able to hitb the reverse slope anyway – although seems spotting would be a problem. |
Shagnasty  | 17 Mar 2025 11:55 a.m. PST |
Wellington wanted to shield his troops, as much as possible, from the effective French artillery and conceal their location till the crucial moment. I think the "military " crest has to do with the best firing position for modern high capacity weapons.s |
| TimePortal | 17 Mar 2025 1:24 p.m. PST |
I was n ROTC in the 1970s. We had reverse slope and military creat then as well. They are two different concepts.
As you pointed out the military crest is on the slope between the spotter and the target. It does not offer protection from fire. Technically you are on the forward slope when you, the target doe ot give a silhouette against the skyline. You can see the spotter. The reverse slope indicates that the position can offer some protection from fires. As a Cavalry officer I used this term more with my vehicles. Protected but about to fire MG or main gun. Than I did with my infantry squad. |
| robert piepenbrink | 17 Mar 2025 1:29 p.m. PST |
Strictly a guess, but percussion fuses, so between The FPW and WWI, which agrees with my limited knowledge. Reverse slope tends to assume artillery is a direct fire weapon. And Shagnasty's quite right: a skirmish line of men with breechloaders or better kicks out more firepower and is much less vulnerable to artillery fire than a horse & musket line. Also the increased range of improved small arms can't be exploited on the reverse slope position. I generally figure new tech needs two years or the next war to generate new tactics, so if the tactical pieces are in play by 1870, look for the new tactics somewhere around the Second Anglo-Boer War or the Russo-Japanese War. Of course, someone has to be paying attention. So it could be as late as early in WWI. |
 ColCampbell | 17 Mar 2025 1:31 p.m. PST |
I don't think it ever actually "changed" from one tactic to the other. A "reverse slope" defense (to little avail) was used as late as at the Battle of 73 Easting in 1991 by an Iraqi tank unit. link A lot depends on the tactical situation at the time. Jim |
| Wackmole9 | 17 Mar 2025 1:45 p.m. PST |
|
| Grelber | 17 Mar 2025 8:10 p.m. PST |
November, 1863. The Confederate defenses on Missionary Ridge, opposite Chattanooga were on the physical (topographic) crest of the ridge. They were able to make life miserable for the Union troops who had just captured the rifle pits near the bottom of the ridge. So, the boys in blue moved forward, and quickly entered dead ground where the Confederates couldn't see or shoot them. They could look to the left or right, out of range of their rifles, and see Union troops scrambling up the ridge, and knew that the same thing must be happening in front of them, where they couldn't see it. When the Union troops finally appeared in front of them again, the defenders did not have time to stop the attack, and the Union forces knocked a five or six-kilometer hole in the Confederate line. The usual assessment is that the Confederate troops should have dug in further forward on the military crest where they had a good field of fire. The implications of the accounts I've read are that this was something taught at West Point. Grelber |
| Martin Rapier | 18 Mar 2025 12:41 a.m. PST |
Reverse slope positions were pretty common in WW1 and WW2. Provide cover from observation, high velocity (typically field gun) fire and give defiladed positions to fire MGs and AT guns to the flanks. An infantry line 50m back from the crest can blast any assault over the ridge line at point blank range. Depends on the tactical situation really. The Germans went for a forward slope defence of Bourgebous Ridge as it completely dominate the Falaise Plain, but a reverse slope defence of Hill 112. Take your pick. In WW1 the line of resistance for the Hindenburg Line was sited on reverse slopes as far as possible with the outpost line on the forward slope. Not sure how much of this stuff still applies in a world of satellites and drones. |
| Stoppage | 18 Mar 2025 9:29 a.m. PST |
I thought the military crest was the highest point from where you could engage any targets coming up the hill. (Thus precluding that Missionary Ridge situation). This, of course, is difficult with muzzle-loading cannon as they can't be overly depressed. Also uphill troops tend to overshoot downhill targets, whereas those shooting uphill tend to hit more often. You can appreciate why Welly put his firing line of light infantry at the bottom of the hill and then hid his heavy infantry on the reverse slope as a nasty surprise for the attackers to discover. |
| UshCha | 18 Mar 2025 3:23 p.m. PST |
As I understand it, the military crest is where as a walker on many UK hills, not crags, you see the top of the hill only to realise the actual weather is very top in the distance. Fundamentally many hills have convex slopes, so there is a lot of dead ground if you are at the top. As I understand it the military crest is where you can just see the bottom of the hill. By definition troops in such a position can be spotted but can fire. Reverse slope positions means that enemy not on the crest can have no direct line of sight or be shot at by high velocity weapons (flat trajectory weapons). This can be advantageous to a defender with short range weapons as the enemy cannot exploit any long range direct fire weapons. Obviously since the balloon age there is a possibility to see behind the crest from a suitable high vantage point. |
| Mark J Wilson | 22 Mar 2025 8:00 a.m. PST |
Defending from the forward slope gives you a long field of fire so if you don't have long field of fire weapons, Napoleonic muskets or Iraqi inferior tanks, you don't want to be there.
Reverse slope protects you from low angle artillery and gives an element of an 'ambush' so was very good for Wellington. Today when most artillery can also fire high angle it offers little advantage and with any form of arial surveillance it's 'hidden' aspects are also lost, however it does avoid you begin picked off by an opponent with longer range direct fire weapons.
Generally in high intensity warfare the British have not needed or benefitted from a reverse slope since the 1960's-70's, hence the forward slope just below the crest is the preferred option. |
|
