Russian human wave - in action (pic)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

Mike,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pillar:

The picture does look quite like an "Attack Column", though not a marching column.

So by column, you mean line, and by cool, you mean totally sweet, right?

[PiggDogg]

Pillar & Mike,

Sorry that I did not distinguish between march & combat column. The march column is the 3 or 4 rank formation used to march. This is what all of us use when we are in 'formation' in the military.

The combat column is in essence a real, real deep line, 6 to 10, maybe 12 ranks deep. Of course, the frontage is 1/2 to 1/3 or even less of the same unit in line.

As an aside, as was stated in "The Face Of Battle", generally when combat columns would rout, the rear ranks routed first subsequently taking the more forward ranks with them. :eek:

The psychology was that the rear rank fellows could not, except for walking over the broken bodies of their more forward comrades, see the brew ha ha, death, and destruction going on in and to the front ranks. After a while of only hearing the destruction going on ahead of them, the rear ranks would break and run. The foward guys who had been taking the beating would see their rearward fellows rout. Then, mostly because of the rear rot, the forward guys would join the rush to the rear.

I would say that Leaky's picture is a modern (WWI) combat cloumn. Indeed, it might be substantially less dense than a Napoleonic combat column, but it is quite dense for the WWI or WWII battlefield. Indeed, considering the lethality of the weapons of each era (Nappy & WWII), the WWII column is probably more vulnerable to WWII firepower than the Nappy combat column was to Nappy firepower. :eek:

In each case, a combat column is one effective way to have many casulaties inflicted quite quickly.

Cheers, Richard

[ September 16, 2002, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by leakyD:

This type of attack on green axis troops in '45 would seem to be highly effective, no?

I don't think the Russians did human waves in '45. Am I correct at saying they did employ this type of attack because the troops were ill-trained for any other types of attack ? It doesn't require much training to understand the basics of human wave, but advancing under enemy fire and using cover etc. is a whole different issue. Also, the Russians did learn from their experiences over time, and towards the end of they performed much more effectively.

[leakyD]

Also, the Russians did learn from their experiences over time, and towards the end of they performed much more effectively.

Fair enough, but were ALL russian infantry vet or better in '45? There must have been green/'script russian troops still in '45. Heck, i think many (most?) countries fielded green troops in the final months of the war. They're called replacements. Wouldn't the concept of a "vet-replacement" be quite a rarity in any army in WWII?

The point of my original statement was that although early war axis inf may have been able to "stand to" human wave attacks, i doubt late war troops were able to do so (thus, the greater effetiveness of a late war wave attack). This would be especially true should the game have defenders make moral checks upon "receiving" a wave attack. Vet troops can hold steady, greenies go running home to mamma!

I'm not up on Eastern front actions, but it would *seem* reasonable that inexperienced russian units had to attack german defenders in '45, and, if so, would use human wave attacks (not all replacement units have the luxury of "getting up to speed" with tactics in a combat zone).

If anyone has any info otherwise, please let me know so i can promptly shut my hole!

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by Prinz Eugen:

Also, the Russians did learn from their experiences over time, and towards the end of they performed much more effectively.

Look, I'm quoting myself ! :eek:

As I said, any nation that wages war will get experience while doing so. The human wave - type of attack will make sure that the attacker receives the maximum amount of casualties in the offense. Now, seeing as the Russians fought on a timescale of 1941-45, you would expect that they learn from their experiences and change the troops' training accordingly ? There are bound to be changes into the doctrine in a timescale of five years ! Also I would think the overall standard of the Russian troops improved towards the war, as opposed to the Germans, who, by Berlin, only had very, very few combatworthy veterans left.

[Edited, because...I felt like it]

[ September 16, 2002, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Prinz Eugen ]

[dumbo2]

I guess I am the only one who gets scared looking at that photo?

If I was a defender I really would be quaking in my boots. Shooting at that mass just seems pointless and the idea of immediate bayoneting would indeed make me consider a sensible retreat at full sprint.

I guess as the token coward here in the forum I am evidence that these human waves attacks could indeed work. A few of me in your trench and that wave might break through

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by dumbo2:

I guess I am the only one who gets scared looking at that photo?

If I was a defender I really would be quaking in my boots. Shooting at that mass just seems pointless

With a couple of MG 42's to support the line...Why not ?

[Pacestick]

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.

"Column of Route" and "Column" have different meanings. Column of Route has the formation facing to either the right or left and is used for getting from one place to another.

Column means the formation is facing the front with the next formation to its rear also facing the front and is used to advance.

In parade terms, you would march onto and off a parade in "column of route" but would march past in "column" of companies

[Soddball]

That ain't no bleedin column. That's a bleedin orde!

[winkelried]

As I remember my history lessons, the main reason for the Revolutionary army in France to introduce columns was the deployment of conscripts. All other armies relied heavily on professionals where the line tactic developed in the 18th century was applied. A similiar thinking which pushed the Soviets to use Human Waves.

[leakyD]

Also I would think the overall standard of the Russian troops improved towards the war, as opposed to the Germans, who, by Berlin, only had very, very few combatworthy veterans left.

Ok, to save endless hair splitting, I'll edit out the "in '45" part.

Does that help?

[Spook]

This "line/column" argument is just one of a typical example, here at the BF forums, of taking things down to such a trivial level of minutiae.

Anyway, my own contribution to the trivia is that I sought out the "frontage" in the photo. Perhaps not all of the battalion is portrayed, but taking one of the soldiers and assuming a 6-foot height (perhaps a bit off), the foreground scale of the group in the picture seems to be on the order of 35-40 meters.

And if you visualize the size of US football players on a 100-yard field, the above estimate for the picture is not that incomprehensible. The next "grog" thing to do would be to estimate what the headcount is of the Russian assault group.

[420]

Originally posted by KEEF888:

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

Fight Like A Brave ! :mad:

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Pillar:

I do not agree with the "crashing into a very focussed point of a line" bit, it was rather a matter of melee volley exchange I believe that motivated an attack-column formation -- the deeper formation having a number of advantages in terms of morale and the depth giving it rotational endurance. The "bayonet charge", which seems more akin to the "crashing into" bit was not quite as common from what I remember. I am to some degree ignorant of Napoleonics and am reading much, so please correct me if you think I'm in error on that.

Okay, first of all I need to make very clear that I am NOT an expert on Napoleonics. It is an era that interests me, but I haven't been able to devote enough time to its study to claim any degree of real expertise. That said, I have a definite impression from what I have read that a typical battle would develop somewhat along these lines (assuming it was fought on more or less clear terrain; forest or urban changes everything): The artillery would focus on the part of the enemy's line that was thought to be the most vulnerable. It was the artillery that inflicted the most casualties through firepower. When it was felt that the decisive moment might have been reached, the infantry was sent forward to close with the enemy. Skirmishers/sharpshooters may have preceded the main body in extended line in order to engage the enemy with aimed fire to cover the approach of the main body which marched in the column formation that has been described. While in column, it is of course very vulnerable to any enemy artillery that has not been suppressed, so it moves quickly. At a range of about 50 meters, it pauses to fire a volley into the enemy line to create casualties and (hopefully) demoralization. But it doesn't pause for long because, as stated, it is very vulnerable to return fire. It resumes the charge until it physically collides with the defenders. Bayonet and clubbed muskets are the order of the day at this point. General melee ensues until either the defender's line is penetrated, which allows the attacker to envelop the flanks of the broken line, or the morale of the attacker breaks and he flees back to his own lines or is mowed down.

Note that there is relatively little exchange of musketry fire here. That's because its effectiveness was very limited due both to the poor accuracy of the smoothbore musket and its slow reloading time.

All of this goes out the window when fighting occurs in close terrain though, as mentioned earlier. But not many major battles occurred in close terrain. In fact, armies appear to have tried to avoid such fighting whenever they could.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Pacestick - I think I am getting a headache but am sure you are correct!

The Americans used Human Waves also - they called it "Marching Fire", and the semi-auto Garand made it a little more useful.

[PiggDogg]

Michael,

It resumes the charge until it physically collides with the defenders. Bayonet and clubbed muskets are the order of the day at this point. General melee ensues until either the defender's line is penetrated, which allows the attacker to envelop the flanks of the broken line, or the morale of the attacker breaks and he flees back to his own lines or is mowed down.

Actually, Napoleonic attacks hardly ever came to actual physical contact, that being bayonet to bayonet, clubbed musket to clubbed musket, fist to fist.

Usually except for some rare occasions, either the defender or attacker will have retreated or will have broken and run at least when the range closed to approximately 20 to 30 yards if not at some longer range.

The psychology was for both sides is: "Oh, my god (oh, mon dieu), there are a large bunch of other guys up ahead with muskets and pointy bayonets. I and my buddies don't want to be impaled." People have a real fear of having a sharp metal stake driven into their body. The continuation of the pshchology is:

The defenders would think: those attacking guys look pretty determined, we are getting the crappe beaten out of us by those supporting arms, & it looks like they are going to make it to us. We are getting out of here. :eek:

The attackers would think: those defending guys look pretty determined, they & their supporting arms are beating the crappe out of us, & it looks like they are not going to break. We are getting out of here. :eek:

Of course in the Nappy days (& for that matter in American Civil War days), one can certainly find some rare occasions where attackers & defender actually crossed bayonets. However, such occasions were the small minority. :eek:

Cheers, Richard :cool:

[Spook]

What Richard has just related is concurrent with my present understanding of Napoleonic history too. Melee contacts did happen, but it was more often the case of one side or the other backing down.

For that matter, per Paddy Griffith's recent studies, the notion of the "firefight" -- delivering repeated volleys at each other at very close range (<100 meters) -- was pretty uncommon too, even for the British. A more typical defense tactic for a British infantry line was to wait until near point-blank range, deliver a full volley, and then counter-charge. "Volley & Charge," in effect, with the intent to hasten the repulse of a French infantry column.

[dfgardner1]

Bn Column:

Company A

Company B

Company C

Bn Line:

Company A Company B Company C

Now within each company the platoons can be 'in line' or 'in column'.

To me, the picture looks like either:

Bn Column, Companies in Line; or

Simply Bn Mass (look at the front, looks like all the officers are upfront).

In the formations I describe above, the offices would be at the head of each of their respective units.

[ September 16, 2002, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: dfgardner1 ]

[fridericus]

there is enormous nonsense

definitions:

LINE: simple more men left and right of you than behind and before of you.

(ENEMY)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Column: the other case. simply more men behind and before you than left and right of you.

(ENEMY)

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

the column is the normal military formation for marching around. prussia in seven years war used column only for march and in front of enemy they turned to a line to attack the enemy. napoleon in other case, used a column for attacking. they were upto 50 men side by side and up to 12000 men in ONLY ONE column! sense was, that enemy on every position hasnt enough ammo.

looked like that:

-------d-e-f-e-n-d-e-r-s--i-n--l-i-n-e-----------

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

PS: the first 50 rows were volunters

[dfgardner1]

Originally posted by fridericus:

there is enormous nonsense

definitions:

LINE: simple more men left and right of you than behind and before of you.

(ENEMY)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Column: the other case. simply more men behind and before you than left and right of you.

(ENEMY)

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

the column is the normal military formation for marching around. prussia in seven years war used column only for march and in front of enemy they turned to a line to attack the enemy. napoleon in other case, used a column for attacking. they were upto 50 men side by side and up to 12000 men in ONLY ONE column! sense was, that enemy on every position hasnt enough ammo.

looked like that:

-------d-e-f-e-n-d-e-r-s--i-n--l-i-n-e-----------

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

ATTACKERS

PS: the first 50 rows were volunters

Not quite. Napoleon used a 'mixed order', in which the front units (ie closest to enemy) were in line, while the remaining units were in column (used since the French had a large number of 'draftees' who needed the best of both as cited below).

Being 'in column' simplifies command and control (ie follow the guy in front of you) but minimizes firepower (the guys in back can't shoot because they are covered by the guys in front of you).

However, being in line maximizes firepower (guys standing shoulder to shoulder shooting) but minimizes control and mass shock effect.

So, there was a trade off with each formation.

[gunnergoz]

LeakyD-

IRT the issue of late war Russian experience levels, I just wanted to mention that by then, the Russans were actually feeling a manpower pinch, and were no more eager to sustain unnecessary large losses than anyone else.

There was a lot more experienced leadership to go around, and this is what might have enabled a green unit to avoid bloodbaths like the first years. Even a newly committed division would likely have a cadre of experienced senior officers commanding battalions and perhaps companies. They would be able to manouver troops to good effect on the battlefield without having to resort to human wave tactics.

The battle for Berlin cost the Russians a lot more than they planned to pay, BTW, but they seemed to feel it was worth it.

[Spook]

Originally posted by dfgardner1:

In the formations I describe above, the offices would be at the head of each of their respective units.

"Offices" in front? So the Russians in the picture are racing to get to their cubicles?

(couldn't resist)

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Michael,

I'm sorry but if that's a line as you do drill today in Canada then something has gone very badly wrong with foot drill in the CDF. Horde springs to mind.

But this discussion of Napoleonics is a very welcome diversion from CMBB. I was always surprised as a young thing to learn that French Napoleonic columns were broader than they were deep. Doesn't seem very columnular, but there you go, that's what they did, and they probably looked much like the crowd at a football match pictured above. Musketry could stop a column. A musket is wildly inaccurate unless your target is a horde. Banjos hitting cows' arses comes to mind.

But deviating very slightly back to human waves in the Great Patriotic War. I have read something somewhere about Korea to the effect that the ChiCom human wave there was a bit of a UN myth. What was actually happening was large scale infiltration by hordes of men around the flanks of a defensive position. More 'rising tide' than 'crashing surf'. Crowds of men working forward along re-entrants and covered approachs in cover of dead ground to get into firing positions. I wonder if that is not the real key to the 'human wave' phenomenon?

[dumbo2]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

LeakyD-

The battle for Berlin cost the Russians a lot more than they planned to pay, BTW, but they seemed to feel it was worth it.

Hmm which reminds me to pick up that new battle for berlin book thats out.

Was it purley political reasons for assaulting Berlin rather than sieging it out or was there a military reason as well?