What Battle Tactics work for you?

[Fisherking]

Hannibal did indeed use pincer movements a little while before there were US Marines.

The Zulu used something like it too and called it the horns of the bull, but there were was a Marine Corps by then.

Also those defensive V formations are a kind of variant of the same theme.

Today it is known as drawing the enemy into a kill sack. It is envelopment by fire.

It works best if the flanking forces are hidden and the force at the base is basically bait.

To attack that formation I would try to envelope one of the wings to the rear and attack the flank. Hold back a maneuver force to take advantage of developments.

In all likelihood the enemy would bring other forces up to support the flank and disrupt his battle plan. Then the reserve force can be committed to best effect, or you can withdraw and spring your own trap when he is in disarray.

Of course the axiom goes: No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy....

[Prussian to the Iron]

ah, but that saying is wrong. it should go:

No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy....unless it is semi-retarded a.i. that falls right for your traps.

The Zulu used something like it too and called it the horns of the bull,

looks like someone watched history channel....

Also those defensive V formations are a kind of variant of the same theme.

not in the least. the formation i am talking about is almost exclusively a way to incorporate artillery into your line, unless using howitzers, mortars, or rockets. it has nothing to do with flanking, but the way i do it (with a unit of infantry facing straight at each end of every 'V', i suppose you could flank. but unless your arty has already retreated behind your lines, the canister would kill your own men.

basically, they just walk in. thats as simple as it gets. what i think you're not getting is just how shallow the 'V's are. they are too shallow to flank effectively, but te crossfire is very effective.

[Fisherking]

Much has been said about the French Tactic of Attacking Columns. Breaking the line and flooding the rear. It worked against the Armies of Europe but the British used massed fires to defeat it.

The preparatory barrage was defeated by reverse slope defense. While most anything will work vs. the AI some work better than others.

I have never had the opportunity to use most of the field fortifications in the game. Just simple entrenchments and stakes.

Has anyone had opportunity to use the mines? Are they effective?


@ Prussian Iron,

I wish I was watching the History Channel!

Did they have something good on this?

I’ve been in upper Bavaria for the last 5 years or so and we don’t get much TV in English here.

I’ve got to look into Sky TV soon...

[Didz]

Much has been said about the French Tactic of Attacking Columns. Breaking the line and flooding the rear. It worked against the Armies of Europe but the British used massed fires to defeat it.

Whether this was actually the French intention, and whether it worked is still a matter of quite heated debate amongst both historians and wargamers alike. It actually dove tails with the other major controversy of the Napoleonic period which centres on whether troops really tried to use their bayonets for anything other than cooking, and finishing off the wounded after the battle.

The alternative view, which I actually beleive to be more plausible, is that the French used columns to close with the enemy battle line as rapidly as possible, with the intention of forming line if they met with serious opposition.

Letters written by French soldiers and officers suggest that there was an explicit intention to make these rapid column movements as intimidating as possible with the intention of causing a similar morale effect on the enemy as that imposed by the advance of cavalry. Therefore, there was a lot of noise and drumming involved which usually induced the enemy to fire on the column far to early and the resulting lack of effect merely compounded the morale effect, such that the vast majority of european infantry began to give ground long before the column got to the point that it needed to deploy into line. Under those circumstances the columns would indeed keep advancing and pursue the retreating infantry line which could not escape fast enough and thus just fell apart.

The problems for the French column arose mainly on occassions when their intimidation tactic's failed to result in a panicked response. If the defending line was disciplined and it officers experienced enough to ignore the column until it was close enough for musketry to be effective, the usual result was disasterous for the column. It would usually try to deploy into line, however, if this was left too late as was normally the case the fire being poured into it would render any such manoeuvre extremely difficult, and the British often added to the problems by making a sudden rush at the column whilst it was still trying to deploy catching it in a semi-confused state and panicing the men into spontaneous rout.

However, it didn't always fail. At Waterloo D'Erlons right hand column actually managed to weather the fire of the Scottish Regiment it faced and was in the process of pursuing it across the line of the Chemin d'Ohain still in column, so that Ponsonby's Cavalry Brigade were forced to advance to stablise the line and give the British infantry a chance to regroup and reform.

[Fisherking]

Intimidation is a good place to start. The mass of troops looking unstoppable and the pounding of the drums would have a definite effect on most anyone.

If you can make the rank and file fear you then you have likely already won.

As to the vaunted bayonet charge, it must have been used in much the same way, as there were seldom defenders standing stalwart to receive it.

On the other hand, I have read more than one example of troops running out of ammunition and rather than resort to the bayonet they preferred to throw stones.

No tactic works all of the time in every situation, nor do they fail always. They are all situational.

A good commander has to be good a guessing what to use when.

Thank goodness this is a game free of the constraints of wrote doctrine and tactical shackles.

[pevergreen]

In a completely realistic situation, i would do the same as didz in the second post, but since this is a game, pound them with arty then charge with line inf. You take less casualties in melee.

[Didz]

I think the most telling example of the reluctance to resort to cold steel was the one I found in Mark Urbans book on the rifles, where one of the riflemen relates an incident that occurred whilst he was looting the dead after a battle.

He was bending over a corpse going through its pockets when a Frenchman less than ten yards away who was doing likewise suddenly decided to take a shot at him. The shot missed and the Frenchman started hurriedly trying to reload his musket. The Rifleman's rifle was not loaded and all logic would have suggested that he ought to attack the Frenchman with his bayonet. Instead, a bizarre race ensued as to who could reload the fastest and several shots later the Frenchman finally gave up and ran off.

[antisocialmunky]

I would have chalked that up to not really trying hard. Who really wants to fight to the death over a corpse?