Russian human wave - in action (pic)

[PiggDogg]

Fredericus,

there is enormous nonsense, definitions: LINE: simple more men left and right of you than behind and before of you.

True, but possibly a bit oversimplified. The Napoleonic line formation was 3 (for most everyone) or 2 (for the Brits, Kings German Legion, and a very few other Brit allies) ranks (except for the very, very rare four rank line) shoulder to shoulder. These ranks were the unit's front facing toward the enemy. This was quite good for shooting at the enemy.

Certainly in line, there are more men to the right & left than behind and before one. However, there were a "lot" more men to the right and left than there were behind and in front.

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

True for marching column. However, much less than true for combat column.

The Nappy march column certainly had many more men behind and before one than to the left and right. It was 3 to 6 ranks wide as its front with the rest of the unit stretched behind. It was generally used when the men were not under fire.

In contrast, the Nappy combat column 'usually' had 6 to 10 ranks depth. Sometimes but less frequently, they might have 12 or more ranks. It was generally used to move men quickly when under fire while presenting at least some firepower toward the enemy.

Assuming a somewhat small batallion of 250 men in a 12 rank column (unusual), the resultant combat column would have a front of 20 men by a depth of 12 men. A regiment of 900 men in a 15 rank column (quite unusual) would have a 60 man front by a 15 man depth. [One would love to shoot at such a target. ]

Taking these just above examples (which were not the norm) and without getting into symantics quibbling, in both of these cases, there are more men right and left than there are behind and in front.

the column is the normal military formation for marching around.

True, for the marching column out of the fire area. True for the combat column in the fire area.

napoleon in other case, used a column for attacking.

True, but not fully. In the Nappy area, the march column was used for marching out of the fire area. The combat column was used for marching in the fire area and for attacking.

they were up to 50 men side by side and up to 12000 men in ONLY ONE column! sense was, that enemy on every position hasnt enough ammo.

I don't fully understand what is meant here, but I shall comment. I know of no Napoleanic case of a 50 front by 240 deep combat column (12000 men). However, I would be happy to be enlightened.

Further, as set forth in my second post in this thread, 12000 plus striking rounds would not be needed to rout such a combat column. All that is required is 'enough' (and that may be many rounds more than 12000) effectively fired rounds (obviously from enough stout, resolute troops) to harm the front few ranks of the combat column.

This causes destruction to the front ranks and causes the rear ranks to freak out. The rear ranks freak out (lose heart, panic, etc) because they can't participate in the fighting, and they don't know what is happening in front of them except that they can hear death & destruction. When the rear ranks rout, the forward ranks follow. :eek:

In Nappy times, in normal battle, a 50 front by 240 deep combat column just would and did not work.

Cheers, Richard

[ September 16, 2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Guest Mike]

there are very few accounts of the French using "l'ordre Mixte" in combat.

There weer 2 variants of it for a 3-battlaion regiment - one had 2 battalions in column, with a battalion in line between them, the other had one battalion in column with a battalion in line on either flank.

Columns back in those days were NOT like the one in the pic.

Consider a French battalion of 6 companies - each company say 100 men.

Each company would form in line, 3 ranks deep. IIRC spacing between men was 2 feet (front to rear).

The column was then formed by placing these companies one behind another, with a spacing (IIRC) of 9 paces from the rear rank of 1 company to the front rank of the next. So the formatino has a frontage of one company and is 6 companies deep.

In some cases they would form "column of divisions" - a Division being 2 companies. This would have a frontage of 2 companies and be 3 companies deep.

So they were quite open compared to the photo!!

D'Erlon's infamous columns at Waterloo were a little bit different. They consisted of whole battlaions formed into line, and then placed once behind another, again with an interval - how on earth he expected to be able to deploy out of that remains a mystery to this day - it's one of the worst formations ever seen on a battlefield!!

And of course in Napoleonic times the NCO's main task was to ensure that the troops stayed in those foramtions, at the proper intervals, etc., precisely so they did not degenerate into "column of mob" like the photo.

[Ales Dvorak]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Whose turn is it?

[PiggDogg]

Ales & Mike,

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Is that a column? Looks like a line to me.

Whose turn is it?

It is a combat column. AND It is my turn. ... maybe.

Only a few days more before we can have Russian combat columns.

Cheers, Richard

[Spook]

Given your demonstrated interest in Napoleonics, Richard, have you ever given the Breakaway Napoleonic sequels to Sid's Gettysburg! (Waterloo & Austerlitz) a try, or visited the Breakaway forums also?

[Holdit]

Originally posted by Spook:

[QB]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.

[QB]

It seems that those occasions where hand-to-hand combat did happen was when one side was defending and obstacle, building or fortification e.g. La Haye Sainte at Waterloo or the Grand Redoubt at Borodino. The reason seems to be that there was something to fight over: the attackers would be motivated to gain the protection of the obstacle and get out of the open, while the defenders would be motiviated to keep posession of the obstacle and not get pushed out into the open.

On the other hand, where there was no obstacle, troops probably had it in the backs of their minds that one piece of open ground was as good as another, and the less determined side would flinch before contact. A number of experienced Napoleonic commentators are quoted as saying that it was unknown for opposing infantry units to cross bayonets in open ground.

________________________

[Holdit]

Originally posted by Mike:

D'Erlon's infamous columns at Waterloo were a little bit different. They consisted of whole battlaions formed into line, and then placed once behind another, again with an interval - how on earth he expected to be able to deploy out of that remains a mystery to this day - it's one of the worst formations ever seen on a battlefield!!

D'Erlons formations have indeed been the subject of some discussion along the lines of "what the hell was he thinking of?". I've heard it claimed a couple of times that it was intended that the columns would deploy into a line that would match the breadth of the British one, and thus be at less of a disadvantage in the ensuing firefight.

The best explanation of how this was to come about is offered by Jac Weller in "Wellington at Waterloo". Apparently the comumns were effectively three battalions in line, one behind the other. Like so:

______________xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

______________xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

______________xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(The underscores are just to stop the rows aligning to the left)

The idea was that the foremost battalion would stay put, while the second and third would make quarter-turns alternately to the left and right, and move so that their (now) rearmost men came level with those on the extreme left and right of the front batalion respectively. Like so:

______________xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

________________________________xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Then the left and right battalions face to the front again and step up level with the front battalion and end up with...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

...thus matching the frontage of the British formation. The reason for this system seems to be that it was actually less complicated than the usual method of deploying a battalion into line. As Weller hinmself says, the system was unlikely to have been tried out on spec on the day of battle, and was more than likely practised beforehand, so the whole thing may not have been as stupid as it looks at first sight.

As far as I know, the columns were still in the process of carrying out this deployment when Uxbridge's heavy cavalry hit them, and that was the end of that. Now we'll never know for sure how effective it would have been.

And of course in Napoleonic times the NCO's main task was to ensure that the troops stayed in those foramtions, at the proper intervals, etc., precisely so they did not degenerate into "column of mob" like the photo.

Quite right. If a Napoleonic battalion in such a formation would be because it was badly disordered.

Note to Napoleonics fans:

1. If you haven't done so already, check out my Napoleonic CMBO maps at the Combat Mission Scenario Depot.

2. BBC2 7.30 tonight: War Walks - Waterloo with Prof. Richard Holmes.

[gunnersman]

It's a cluster. As in Charlie Foxtrot.

[PiggDogg]

Spook,

You evil, evil guy. :mad:

I don't have enough time in my life to play CMBB & CMBO. Now, you entice me to play a Napoleanics game (which I certainly would love)!!

You are a bad, bad boy by trying to insure that I get no sleep at all.

However, I only have one body, & I want to preserve it. Thus, I shall concentrate on CMBB for now and maybe do some Napoleanics in between CMBB & CMBO games.

Indeed, thanks for the recommendation. I shall take it.

Cheers, Richard

[Brian Rock]

I've obviously missed the launch of CMBW (Combat Mission: Before Waterloo). Where can I download the demo?

(Actually the Napoleanic digressions are interesting, but I wonder whether they belong in the General Forum.)

[KEEF888]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wake me when this is over.

[Holdit]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

I've obviously missed the launch of CMBW (Combat Mission: Before Waterloo). Where can I download the demo?

*Sigh*...if only.

(Actually the Napoleanic digressions are interesting, but I wonder whether they belong in the General Forum.)

Good point. I didn't realise there were people here with an interest in it. I'll post something in the general forum to take a straw poll and see if there are many others.

_______________________

[Spook]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

Spook,

You evil, evil guy. :mad:

I don't have enough time in my life to play CMBB & CMBO. Now, you entice me to play a Napoleanics game (which I certainly would love)!!

You are a bad, bad boy by trying to insure that I get no sleep at all.

Wow. I feel like I've become a CM Peng Cesspool resident by being called bad & evil.

But it must be true. Otherwise, what else has fed my recent inclination to playing Grand Theft Auto III?

Indeed, thanks for the recommendation. I shall take it.

Cheers, Richard

Just for bookmarking's sake, Richard, when time will avail you later on, the game's distributor is Shrapnel:

Shrapnel Games

And the discussion forum is:

BAG forums

It's worth looking at, although my own recommendations on the game system are a bit mixed. It's continuous real-time (like Close Combat) in play, although one can pause anytime. It's also evolved, as a game system, in giving a reasonable treatment of Napoleonic combined arms (infantry/cavalry/artillery) on the tactical level. The command & control element, however, is notionally covered IMO, but fans of that game system don't mind that so much.

In the meantime....I stake out the door waiting on the CMBB order to arrive.....