Russian human wave - in action (pic)

[leakyD]

From john keegan's book: "The Face of Battle" c.1976

Though this pic is from 1914, it gives you an idea of what a large "wave" attack looked like from the defenders view.

What's the frontage here? 200meters. 300meters max? for a batallion?

Yikes!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

BTW - great book. especially interesting are the sections on The will to combat and The trend of Battle.

[Captain Wacky]

They're all bunched up. A few mg-42's or some well-placed artillery ruins their day big time

[Firefly]

Attacking in column, as I recall, was an innovation of Napoleon, but was rapidly made very expensive in terms of human life by the introduction of repeating rifles, never mind machine guns, as the American civil war proved. Even in Napoleon's time it could be less than effective against well trained musketry, hence Wellington's famous quote after Waterloo, 'They came on in the same old way and we beat them in the same old way.'

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Firefly:

Attacking in column, as I recall, was an innovation of Napoleon, but was rapidly made very expensive in terms of human life by the introduction of repeating rifles, never mind machine guns, as the American civil war proved. Even in Napoleon's time it could be less than effective against well trained musketry, hence Wellington's famous quote after Waterloo, 'They came on in the same old way and we beat them in the same old way.'

Is that a column? Looks like a line to me.

[leakyD]

They're all bunched up. A few mg-42's or some well-placed artillery ruins their day big time

Quite true (provided you have the '42's and arty). The poor german grunts at yelnia didn't seem to have much of either.

I would think vet troops and up would have no problem dealing w/ this type of attack (provided they had the manpower and sufficient ammo).

However, reg troops and below, would probably need a moral check (please don't tell me hundreds of people rushing your position isn't intimidating, unless, of course, you've done it a few times). This type of attack on green axis troops would seem to be highly effective, no?

Though the russians get raised moral from using human wave, does anyone know if axis troops take a moral check as well when confronted w/ wave attacks?

Would be *quite* interesing if they did.

[ September 16, 2002, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: leakyD ]

[KEEF888]

Kinda looks like a rush for the stage at a "Red Hot Chili Peppers" concert! Mosh pit!!!!

[Firefly]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Is that a column? Looks like a line to me.

I was going by the text that reads 'These Russians, in battalion column... '.

[busboy]

Line? Colomn? Boys, that is a HORDE. The last command they heard was GO THATAWAY and KILL!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Is that a column? Looks like a line to me.

That was my thought.

Also, the photos I've seen that were taken during the Second Big Mistake show them more dispersed than that. Still a lot of guys, though...

Michael

[Speedy]

As for the frontage to me it looks to be only about 50 meters - 100 at most.

[Guest Mike]

Germany used formations like that in 1914 on hte Western Frotn to!!

Who'd be a grunt eh??!!

I remember reading a description by an officer in the BEF in 1914 about the Germans advancing in columns. the closing remark was somethign like "Our rifles had a flat trajectory out to 600 yards and fired at 20 rounds per minute"

Ugh - and no Columns weer not an invention of Napoleon, tho' his army was perhaps the most famous user of them. French doctrinal arguments about column (l'order profound) and line (I forget l'order that this was) date back to before the 7 years war.

[Michael Dorosh]

Okay, so someone define "column" and "line" for me. That photo shows a line, as we do drill today in Canada.

[Speedy]

A line is a thin line, a coloumn is a fat line.

edit- a very, very fat line

[ September 15, 2002, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Speedy ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Speedy:

A line is a thin line, a coloumn is a fat line.

edit- a very, very fat line

A line is distributed across a front or the line of advance. A column is distributed perpendicular to a front or along a line of advance.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Line

x x x x x x x x x x x x

Column

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Direction of enemy

|

|

|

v

We still use the commands "Advance into line" and "Will march past in column of route"

That "fat line" and "thin line" stuff makes no sense whatsoever.

[Cribtop Gamer]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Speedy:

A line is a thin line, a coloumn is a fat line.

edit- a very, very fat line

A line is distributed across a front or the line of advance. A column is distributed perpendicular to a front or along a line of advance.

Michael</font>

[Speedy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Line

x x x x x x x x x x x x

Column

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Direction of enemy

|

|

|

v

We still use the commands "Advance into line" and "Will march past in column of route"

That "fat line" and "thin line" stuff makes no sense whatsoever.

If you think about it going from left to right your first diagram is a line and your second diagram is a very, very fat line.

[Michael Emrys]

Speedy, a wise general knows when to cut his losses and retreat quietly.

Michael

[ September 15, 2002, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[leakyD]

Well, it is possible that this particular column is *so* thick that it looks like a line!

Too bad the pic wasn't better quality to see how deep it was.

Considering it *is* a battalion, across such a short frontage (100m looks to be right, in retrospect...damn, that's nuts!), it doens't surprise me that's it's hard to determine their formation.

Now, where the *@#%!!! is that canister round when you need it!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Firefly:

Even in Napoleon's time it could be less than effective against well trained musketry, hence Wellington's famous quote after Waterloo, 'They came on in the same old way and we beat them in the same old way.'

They were most likely beaten by cannon firing grape or cannister. The musketry of the line regiments was almost useless beyond 50 meters. Skirmishers armed with rifles could do quite a bit better, but they were few and at Waterloo were given specialized roles to play.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Speedy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Line

x x x x x x x x x x x x

Column

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Direction of enemy

|

|

|

v

We still use the commands "Advance into line" and "Will march past in column of route"

That "fat line" and "thin line" stuff makes no sense whatsoever.

If you think about it going from left to right your first diagram is a line and your second diagram is a very, very fat line.</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pillar:

An "Attack Column" is entirely different than a marching column. Napoleon would have "Attack Columns" three men deep and wide like a 'line'.

Adam

I suspected it might be a problem with terminology.

You mean

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

|

|

|

v line of march

was an attack column, with each X being a man?

Silly Frenchmen.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Pillar:

An "Attack Column" is entirely different than a marching column. Napoleon would have "Attack Columns" three men deep and wide like a 'line'.

This is news to me. My impression was that they were at least a dozen ranks deep. The idea was to get a maximum of momentum crashing into a very focussed point of a line. Doesn't sound like the formation you are describing would achieve that.

Michael

[PiggDogg]

Mike,

Okay, so someone define "column" and "line" for me. That photo shows a line, as we do drill today in Canada.

During the Napoleanic Wars (and all of the following applies to the Napoleanic Wars specifically and somewhat more generally to other nearby wars, such as 7 Years War, US War Between The States, Franco-Prussian, etc.), a line formation for most all countries was usually three ranks deep. The Brits were the exception, and they used two rank lines.

During that period, there were some peculiar and very little used formations that used four ranks. Squares (used very effectively to defeat cavalry) had three, four, and infrequently more ranks depth. There was an Ordre d'Mixtre (if my I remember my French spelling correct) which was a column in the middle with 3 rank lines appended on to each side of the column.

Of course, in all of these formations the men were shoulder to shoulder. The three rank lines had 3 men per 2 feet of front. The two rank lines had 2 men per 2 feet of front. All the lines were much more difficult to manuver than columns because of the much longer length of the lines when compared to columns (which we shall get to in a moment)

Columns were usually only 6 to 10 ranks deep, but could be even deeper. They were pretty good for manuvering less trained or less stout troops. Usually, the intent of using columns was to advance quickly somewhat near (100 to 200 yards) to the enemy and then switch into line to gunfight with one's opponent.

Remember that the effective range of the Napoleanic Brown Bess type smooth bore musket was 75-100 yards. Firing these muskets at 200 yards was nearly a waste of ammo. In fact, there was a saying that at 100 yards a man was never hit by the opponent firing at him.

However, generally the French using this switch formation tactic did not really work well at least against the Brits. The Brits, because their well disciplined two rank lines, would wreak havoc upon the French as they moved from column to line causing the French to rout away. The French using this switching of formations against other nationalities had much, much better success.

It was pretty well generally conceded that the two rank lines had better battlefield effect than three rank lines. Generally, the third rank had difficulty firing because their muzzles were quite close to the heads and ears of the first rank. The two rank lines had larger frontages than three rank lines and their fire was unimpeded by their depth. Thus with regular troops, two rank lines generally produced more firepower per man than three rank lines.

During the US Civil War, the rifled musket made columns suicide and this was pretty well realized after First Manassas and Shiloh. Eventually during that war, the rifled musket made even the two and three rank lines suicide (Fredericksberg, Malvern Hill, Pickett's silly but brave Charge). Ultimately, the rolling skirmish line (a thick skirmish line using fire & cover) became the less suicidal tactic (used frequently during 1864-65).

In CMBB, I guess that a Napoleanic column "might" be all of the Yelnia Stare Russian infantry battalion having a one company (9 squad) front with three ranks of platoons depth. Wow, that would be an arty target. :eek:

Cheers, Richard

[ September 15, 2002, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Chad Harrison]

Um, yeah. Sucks for them if the defenders have machine guns. Hard to miss with targets like that! :eek: