"Attacking in Echelon" Topic

I am beginning another wargaming period, the horse and musket era, which is completely new for this old-hand WWII gaming veteran. I am reading up on several battles from this period, mainly Napoleonic and ACW battles, and I am coming across the phrase "attacking in echelon". Now I know what it means but I don't understand the advantages and disadvantages of using such a tactic. Any strategy and tactics buffs out there on the TMP care to enlighten the rest of us?

What were the advantages of this type of attack?

What were its disadvantages?

Thanks again!

The main purpose was to try and pull the enemy out of position by decieving them as to where the main blow of the attack will fall. The perfect example of this is Longstreet's attack on July 2nd. The initial assault hit the Union's extreme left. The Union responded by rushing reserves in that direction. They managed to shore up the line On Little Round Top and eventually fight the Confederates to a standstill around Devil's Den and the Wheatfield, but then as the attack spread further along the line to the Peach Orchard and along the Emittsburg Road, there were no more reserves to help out there. And when the III Corps was finally forced to fall back, there was a gaping hole in the center of the Union line because Caldwell's Division, which had been holding that section, had already been sent south into the Wheatfield. If the Confederates had had more strength (Pickett's Division, say) to support the drive on the Union center, they might have broken through. As it was, they weren't quite strong enough to do it and a few Union units like Williard's Brigade and the 1st Minnesota were able to delay the attack until more reserves arrived to stabilize the situation.

Cavalry attacks in echelon is a different thing than and infantry attack in echelon. For Cavalry the formation is used to attack squares the hope is that the infantry will be tricked into firing to soon and thus allow the squadrons to assault the square without taking fire. If the first squadron can not force a hole the second squadron can push in and tangle up and so forth. Also if the formation attacks in echelon it can quickly make a half turn to the right and be in line and thus disguise its true axis of advance.

The main disadvantage of an echelon attack is that, by necessity, the attacker's forces are spread out over a large area rather than concentrated. Thus if the enemy is not deceived (or has enough reserves to compensate even if he is) then the attacker will never mass enough force at any one point to achieve a decisive breakthrough. This is essentially what happened on the 2nd day at Gettysburg.

An attack en echelon does allow the attacker to concentrate his forces at the point of attack, while having a weaker or less mobile element of his army occupy the refused flank. Or is a flank refusal different than attacking en echelon?

I remember Alexander the Great's attacks were often in this manner, especially the decisive battle of Guagemela.

Steve

Unless you have hidden set up or unit movement restrictions which freeze the defender in place, attacking in echelon does not translate well to the tabletop. Most gamers will have a "God's eye-view" of all troop dispositions and will see the misdirection coming.

One advantage of attack or defense en echelon is that it protects the echeloned flank while still providing support for the front unit(s).

The echelon attack shown on a table top is one where the unit (units) are spread out over a frontage. eg. if you are using a Cavalry regiment the break down would be at squadron level; each squadron is shown basically with the lead squadron in front with the second, third, squadrons etc. placed to the left or right flank depending on which way you decided to attack. They are refused back like a run of stairs either connected by touching bases or so refused as to have visible gaps (set distances).

Now the reason for this is as follows.

If a regiment for instance decided to attack as one formation they would suffer morale effects as one, however attacking in echelon allows each sub-unit (squadron) to roll morale checks individually to the next in line etc. so if the lead squadron breaks the next squadron can take its place and continue the charge, assault etc.

This is a fantastic tactic that I have used many times successfully but I will admit it does not work all the time. The reason I use it is to try to punch a hole in the enemy somewhere along the line of the enemy. but you must be sure to follow any advantage up quickly with supports ready to take advantage of the break through. If this does not happen the hole is usually quickly patched up and you are back to square one.

Now in the bigger picture with multiple units attacking in echelon the exact same principles apply, instead of squadrons you attack with btlns/regiments or brigades. Really depends on the size of your forces available and how large your attack is going to be.

Consider each separate squadron (unit) as a wave on the beach where each following squadron or unit is another wave coming in behind it. It can become a relentless task for the enemy to have to content with each proceeding attack one after the other battering their line. While you are sending in unit after unit on one small area of ground the enemy is usually facing this with the same unit(s) in defence. Their strength and morale dropping over time. The only way for the defender to counter this is to keep sending in reinforcements to shore up the line thus depleting other parts of his line.

This is where you then proceed to begin your next attack, if you time things well you can force your opponent off balance running back and forth spreading his forces until he has none left. You then take advantage of this and force the day,

sounds good if it works but if it does not you are sometimes forced into a world of hurt, if the player is good he will take advantage of another area and form his own attack which can upset you own plans.

Just think of echelon attacks as wave attacks in one small area or along a section of the enemies' line that are like waves of the beach constantly battering the enemy on that part of the field until he breaks.

Regards
Shane

Btw the advantage of the echelon attack is the proceeding squadron (unit) of each wave bares the brunt of casualties allowing the next in line to continue the charge, assault or attack relatively unscathed. Basically sacrificing themselves for the next wave to continue.

great stuff it if works !

Regards
Shane.

I think some are conflating attack in echelon with oblique advance.

In echelon, the units are just stair-stepped, usually with an overstrength flank forward and a proportionately weaker flank refused, counting on the overstrength flank to break the opponent before the weakened flank even has to engage.

In oblique advance, the units start out spread evenly, but some units continue straight ahead while others wheel and then counterwheel behind them. By so doing, a line of units can be rendered almost into a column which then fall one after the other onto a single chosen spot of the enemy line.

Epamonindas attacked in echelon at Leuctra; Lee attempted an oblique advance at Gettysburg.

PVO

I should say specifically: Lee attempted an oblique advance at Gettysburg with Pickett's Charge.

PVO

Longstreet's attack on Day 2 of Gettysburg was an echelon attack, but its failure was due to its particular variation on the core concept.

Longstreet wanted the initial attack to tie down enemy reserves while his right wing swung around. The initial attack from Longstreet's left wing (actually on the right-center of the overall Confederate position) was not meant to break through, so there was no concentration of force on that initial attack—Longstreet chose not to mass his forces in this attack; it was not forced on him by the echelon concept itself.

When the Union defenders rushed onto Little Round Top ran into Longstreet's right wing, Longstreet's plan failed because it presumed no opposition to the extreme right of the Confederate line, not because echelon attacks necessarily require the dispersion of the attacker's forces.

Echelon attacks were initially conceived to produce concentration at a single point, not to avoid it.

Forodin: I think you misunderstand the echelon attack. Each unit coming up does NOT hit the same part of the enemy line, it hits an adjacent part.

Say you echelon to the left: the unit on the right end of your attack is farthest front. The next unit to the left is somewhat farther back (but not directly behind); then the next unit to the left a little father back than that; as someone here said, its a stair-step arrangement. Each unit will hit the enemy directly to its front, but not simultaneously.

Normally you would want your best unit on the flank that is farthest forward, so that when it breaks through or drives off the enemy unit to its front it then threatens the flank of the next enemy unit over (to your left in this case), even as that enemy unit is being hit from the front by your second unit. If all goes well, you roll up the enemy line like a sheet of paper. (But all things seldom go well for long. Longstreet's attack on July 2 broke down mostly because units of Hill's 3rd Corps, to Longstreet's left, failed to advance and keep the ball rolling.)

Longstreet's attack was really only incidentally an echelon attack. It's main objective was to be reached by simple envelopment of the Union left to be accomplished by commencing the attack further towards the center of the enemy—tying up reinforcements, and then allowing the echelon attack to travel down toward the enemy flank—ideally arriving at the Union left at the same time as the enveloping Alabamians, and after the Union reserves had already been committed to the initial attack.

But the enveloping march took too long, Union reinforcements arrived at the Round Tops and the planned roll-up therefore never occurred.

PVO

donlowry,

No I did not say they hit one behind the other, but then ofcourse this still can happen. to be more clear about what I said is that once the forward unit(s) of an echelon attack hit, the proceeding unit(s) following are following paralel like runs or steps. These unit(s) thus engage the enemy line as they contact them next to the more forward unit(s)….is this clear enough for you ?

p.s. it is much easier to draw a diagram which I cannot.

Regards
Shane

When I said, "Like a Wave attack" I meant waves do not hit the shore at an exaxct 90 degrees, waves run along a shore first hitting at one point and rolling in at an angle where the end of the wave might hit the shore 20-30 seconds later down the beach. Same concept in echelon attacks. the last unit(s) at the end of the line (units further back)) will hit the enemy line further down the line at later intervals.

But….I have used successfully attacked an enemy in battles before where the attacking units were one behind the other. Not saying they charge one after the other but more that each unit hits the enemy line at a pre determined section causing as much damage as it can one way or another then retiring once it itself has been depleted. Another fresh unit takes its place and continues the attack and so on until I break thru. This is a long drawn out process whaich I use when short of space (width) It also forces the enemy player to shift forces to face the threat thus thinning other parts of his line that allows me to then order a major attack along that thinner section and cuasing a break through.

like I said it does not always work as any attack might not work but it certainly gives the other guy a headache trying to plug the holes it creates.

Regards
Forodin (Shane)