|
Post by bruce on Jul 31, 2019 0:19:57 GMT
Our discussion on the future of the forum evolved into a discussion about the evolution of tactics during the horse and musket era. As such, John124 suggested creating a new thread where such discussions can continue.
How important was cavalry during a big battle? Several battles were marked by effective cavalry actions including Eylau, where Murat's huge charge saved the French line, and Albuera, where the French and Polish lancers and hussars caused horrible losses for the British. I am sure there are other examples. But for the most part, I think that cavalry in the horse and musket era played a minor role. Many ACW gamers don't even paint up much cavalry as it has little value in a big battle scenario. And, ACW cavalry preferred to fight dismounted, as Reynolds did at Gettysburg, holding up Heth's infantry division on the first day.
Cavalry had its moments, but I think John124 is right that it was a weapon of opportunity, at its best exploiting weaknesses or following up to destroy a routed force. These opportunities were rare in the ACW, where battles were often indecisive and armies remained intact. In the AWI, cavalry was neither numerous, nor suited to the terrain much of the time. Only during the Napoleonic era did cavalry shine as an offensive weapon. But I have limited understanding of the earlier conflicts in the horse and musket era and may be wrong.
I love the idea of launching a big cavalry charge in a game, but my recent replay of Eylau (see the post) found me reluctant to send all those troopers to their likely doom even in a game - unless the odds were at least reasonable. Some gamers follow the old adage of not doing anything in a game that would not happen in real life. Regardless of the era, my troopers hang around a lot. Like Washington, I believe that the first rule of a big battle is to get through it with your force intact or the war is over. Even if your are not playing a campaign, this should be a rules consideration. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Aug 4, 2019 20:26:55 GMT
Generally I think cavalry was a one use weapon which had devastating potential but was fragile. I'm talking about battlefield use rather than pursuits, reconnaissance and picket screens. My own gaming experience is that it takes a while to set up an effective cavalry attack and once they're off then anything can happen. But Often the threat of massed cavalry has a pinning effect on the oppositoon which is as useful as a major charge. And I think that both effects replicate history. We know about cavalry charges at Waterloo but I think that analysing many battles will show that movement was compromised when there were cavalry around even when they weren't used. As for Fighting dismounted I think the first army really to understand how that worked were the Russians in the 1877 Russo-Turkish war (so post ACW) where they seemed to have really got the principle of applying mobile fire power- and that's especially interesting given the tradition of Russian cavalry as fine horsemen. Before that (eg 7 years war) battlefield cavalry were, it seems to me, about securing and threatening flanks although there were famous encounters - the Marquess of Granby's charge for example or even more spectacular the French Household Guards being caught static, charged and routed by particularly feisty British and Hanoverian infantry at Minden and the fact that they were apparently just standing around tells you something. The British army never saw North America as cavalry country which might also tell us something about what they thought cavalry were for.
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Aug 4, 2019 20:45:24 GMT
I noticed John124's post regarding 7YW squares in the original version of this thread. He's right: broadly speaking infantry used firepower rather than square to repel cavalry. Squares were not unknown but they were used when there was a fear of flanking attacks. The retreating Prussian infantry formed squares at Rossbach for just this reason. But otherwise they reckoned they could stand behind musketry. This tells you about 7YW cavalry tactics generally - cavalry conventionally secured flanks and pinned each other. Cavalry to cavalry charges were much more common than attacks on infantry because of this and it was only if one side managed to rout the opposing cavalry that a flank opened up. However, the effort of that usually meant they were too blown to do much more. Coming back to fire power - the Highland brigade at one of the big Crimean battles (forget which)
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Aug 4, 2019 20:51:36 GMT
Went too soon! did NOT form square when menaced by Russian cavalry and depended on musketry. This tells me that they thought they could see off cavalry to the front. If the Russians had appeared on the flank they would have formed square. And I wonder if this was actually a determining factor about the use of squares on the Napoleonic battlefield where the larger armies and more fluid, less linear deployments increased the danger of cavalry appearing on the flank - or being able to wrap round an infantry formation - and so mandated the square as more or less standard. I now wonder if infantry - even in the open - who had secured flanks would have been confident that they could stay in line and shoot down cavalry advancing from the front.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Aug 5, 2019 1:06:17 GMT
I recently used some Union cavalry as a threatening force to cause an infantry formation to slow up or change direction. Also had them holding a bridge briefly while the opposing infantry formed line to sweep them away, then pulled them back. Gave the Union infantry a little time to come up.
ACW cavalry was famous for its grand sweeps behind enemy lines, guerrilla raids, supply and railroad disruption. And of course they were the screen and eyes of the armies. I think they did become proficient fighters dismounted, especially Union cavalry armed with repeating rifles, the first use of these, I believe.
I think you are right about menacing flanks and the rear. I also wonder re game rules if armies should have to defend both a designated line of communication area and a designated supply/baggage area. This might bring cavalry into play. Bruce
Napoleonic cavalry had a mystique like no other era - I would not want to play a game without this ace up my sleeve! Bruce
|
|
|
Post by john124 on Aug 8, 2019 18:54:28 GMT
when I paint enough. I shall add artillery ammunition supply to ITGM rules I use. I will give each battery 8 rounds to fire offensively, they can still defend themselves againest charges. This may force you to use artillery reserves properly and ammunition. That lone sniper on the hill behind the tree 400 yards away wont be a priority anymore. Batteries can be replenished say, without firing after 2 two moves. But I will also include a line or lines of communication rule whereby if it is broken you cant resupply. This is were your cavalry can excel! How many times did Napoleon base a battle plan on forcing his enemy off of his line of communication, loads! Longstreet wanted to get around Meads lines at Gettyesburg ect. Any thoughts on the above will be greatly appreciated. John.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Aug 9, 2019 0:10:33 GMT
Exactly John! Commanders had to plan and protect communications ammo, baggage or suffer major consequences. I think you are on the right track with 8 rounds and two turns to resupply, or maybe one depending on location. Wagons and accessories like Perfect Six crates, sacks, etc can be used to make ammo and baggage bases. Designated road or roads exiting the table for lines of retreat, communication and support determined by scenario, or player choice, die roll etc.
Defending against roaming cavalry or wide flank marches becomes relevant and important. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by twr on Sept 19, 2019 8:16:17 GMT
I love the idea of launching a big cavalry charge in a game, but my recent replay of Eylau (see the post) found me reluctant to send all those troopers to their likely doom even in a game - unless the odds were at least reasonable. Some gamers follow the old adage of not doing anything in a game that would not happen in real life. Regardless of the era, my troopers hang around a lot. Like Washington, I believe that the first rule of a big battle is to get through it with your force intact or the war is over. Even if your are not playing a campaign, this should be a rules consideration. I think the strategic situation, and the situation within a battle, are important here. For example Napoleon was prepared to use his Guard at Waterloo and Lee his remains troops on the final day on what too many would be considered hopeless attacks. But if successful the situation could well have changed. That said wargamers are often tempted to make attacks with little chance of success, perhaps too often, knowing the troops lost will not impact anything other than the current game. One aspect of the rules I use is casualty recovery in multi-day battles. When refighting a battle that will run over two days a division that ends the first day exhausted will start the second day fresh, though weaker. A division that collapses on the first day will start the second day exhausted. Given that an exhausted division can not charge this is significant. Suddenly players start thinking of the long game, but sometimes pressing hard with cavalry or infantry can have long term benefits.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Sept 20, 2019 1:43:58 GMT
Yes there are some worthy high risk gambles sometimes, but perhaps the qualities of the commander should be considered in an historical game. It is not realistic to think that McClellan would gamble much with the lives of his soldiers, attached to his troops as he was. His proclivity for taking big risks would be quite low.
I like your idea of having units not fully recovered the next day after they have been in combat. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by twr on Sept 20, 2019 2:05:02 GMT
Poor old McClellan...
|
|
|
Post by davidsh on Sept 20, 2019 6:24:20 GMT
I too have used the idea of unit recovery. If a unit is removed in a game, it means they have ceased to be any use as a functioning unit, not that they are all casualties. This helps thinking when in a campaign. Your army may get thumped one day, but be sufficiently resilient to fight another day (witness the Prussians in 1813 plus 1815). If you insist in constantly launching your troops in hopeless attacks however, then it really will be game over, since recovery will be that more difficult (or at least it should be).
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Sept 20, 2019 15:47:17 GMT
Yes, as it should be. As gamers, we ask our toys to do the impossible sometimes and that's part of the fun, but if you want to be in the commander's boots, there should be a lot to consider, along with realistic consequences.
I want other consequences to include at least protecting an area for lines of communication and/or supplies and ammo. Getting cut off and losing your baggage/supply train should also reduce unit recovery and effectiveness. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by john124 on Oct 3, 2019 1:50:20 GMT
Well there is some hearty discussion here on tactics and the like which is wonderful. Reminds me of some of the thoughts and ideas of yonder days wargame mags. One of which, (miniature wargames number 24), had an excellent article entitled a bigger wargames table. In it the author drew a gridded map on paper around his wargame table. The size of the grids represented the move distance of a infantry formation. The players would have a number of chits to represent formations not deployed on the actual tabletop, (cavalry, guns, etc,) and also a number of blinds. There was a chart, which gave combat results for actions on the grid when chits bumped into each other. I thought it an excellent idea to give more meaning to your tabletop encounters. You could have flanking attacks, use of scouting, (when does that happen on the tabletop?), reserves, defense in depth and faint attacks, the fog of war, (use of blinds). Just a thought. John.
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Oct 3, 2019 21:25:17 GMT
These are excellent points John. I'll run them past my fellow gamers here and see if we might have a trial game with the extended table concept. We frequently have units which enter the table at predetermined points or times - sometimes in the flank or rear - but the idea that you might have a whole corps out there is fascinating and, as you rightly say, it opens up the option for cavalry screens and reconnaissance.
|
|
|
Post by john124 on Oct 4, 2019 2:02:51 GMT
Profjohn, I shall endeavour to get you some more substantial information and facts. I have to be careful though of copyrights. John.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 4, 2019 13:34:12 GMT
That would be good John. I am having trouble envisioning the actual set up. Is the map attached to the edges of the table somehow? The Scharnhorst system from Blucher sounds very similar. It's a gridded campaign map, where the grand strategy plays out like a simple board game. When units come in contact, they move to the table. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by john124 on Oct 4, 2019 17:49:25 GMT
Sorry Bruce my explanation was very brief and incomplete. Its all done on a paper, draw your wargames table in the centre of your paper,(a sheet of A4 for instance, does not really matter the size of the paper so long as you can put counters or such like in the grids.)Then draw a series of grids around this plain rectangle, each the size of an infantry units move distance. So if your have a table that is 3 feet x 3 feet and your infantry move 6 inches you would have a grid 8 boxes along the top and 8 in total along the sides this includes the corners. You can extend this area away from the table as much as you like, but remember your really trying to simulate the area around the battlefield for flanking attacks or the introduction of troops/commands from different quarters. Set up your figures on the table as per normal depending on your rules. I have a small Russian force. So for instance I may decided to form my infantry and guns on the table and have a flanking force of cavalry off table on my right. these are then noted down and are represented by counters on the grids on the A4 piece of paper. I also have a number my blinds, (counters which have no troops attached). I can use these as a faint attack on my left flank for instance, bolster my perceived strength with my flank attack on my right,(possibly drawing off troops from his centre?) Or I could place them on the grid(s) behind my deployed troops on the table. My opponent will be doing exactly the same. As you can see from the above,without moving or firing a shot, key decisions are having to be made. There is a chart to go with this that gives the outcome of fighting between counters that meet each other in the gridded area or if you wish you could set this up on an other table and fight it out. Blinds are taken off when they meet real troops. I shall try and post more substantial information when I get my multi-media player working again, something I managed to delete! If you can, try and get hold of miniature wargames number 24 (I think), they did do a disk of numbers 1-25. I hope my ramblings make sense. John.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 4, 2019 20:31:36 GMT
Yes! This makes perfect sense now and is a fantastic idea! Especially for a group in a club game. Imagine cavalry suddenly appearing on the table after making a wide sweep and slipping through the enemy chits somehow. I am thinking each side has a map, there are blinds, and some mechanism for recon, but however it works, I can see great possibilities! Will look for 24, that one must be 30 years ago! Thanks, John. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by john124 on Oct 5, 2019 7:09:04 GMT
If I can Bruce, and the same goes for Profjohn, I will try and post you the complete article as I have it on disk. It makes alot more sense then the way I have explained it and you get to see the charts for off board combat. I have managed somehow to delete my cd player on my laptop. I will let you know when I have sorted this out. I must admit it is one of the best ideas I have read in the wargaming press. John.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 5, 2019 17:22:07 GMT
That would be great! I have tried to find the CDs, the home web site for MW is not working. They have been through a lot of changes, but still very much alive. The CDs were around about 10 years ago from WarFever, but can't seem to find them now.
This is whole idea is very interesting indeed. Not really a campaign tool, but a much better way to represent all the things going on tactically in a battle area instead of ignoring them or bathtubbing in some way. The blinds create more fog of war, and the idea that the game does not end at the edge of the table is a whole new dimension. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by davidsh on Oct 6, 2019 21:47:06 GMT
This is a great way of adding some more uncertainty to a game, and emphasises the importance of reserves if you are anticipating the arrival of more opposing forces. So many actual battles featured this (Austerlitz, Eylau, Wagram, Ligny etc) that it is important to try and replicate. I use an amended version of Horse, Foot and Guns, and the arrival of reinforcements is a great feature of these rules - can cause mayhem if not prepared!
|
|
|
Post by davidsh on Oct 6, 2019 21:47:31 GMT
This is a great way of adding some more uncertainty to a game, and emphasises the importance of reserves if you are anticipating the arrival of more opposing forces. So many actual battles featured this (Austerlitz, Eylau, Wagram, Ligny etc) that it is important to try and replicate. I use an amended version of Horse, Foot and Guns, and the arrival of reinforcements is a great feature of these rules - can cause mayhem if not prepared!
|
|