Road to Wargram and Peninsular Mod - Updated 1.6

[RebBugler]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the Infantry Square that quickly led to the demise of cavalry charges against infantry. So, our efforts to perfect the Inf Square's invulnerably will do the same, and in my way of thinking, would not be good for coding the AI with auto Inf Square formation as this would make the cavalry obsolete except for capturing guns, since this Nap mod has them only with sabers. I see this as kind of a dilemma for SP and CoOp MP play.

However, as Jack pointed out, this use of Inf Squares should make for some good competitive gameplay in MP play. It will be up to the player to react to cavalry charges. This will make for interesting confrontations as the Inf Square is weak against the Inf Line, so when attacked by both, quick decisions must be made, chess matches if you will. Some may call it a click fest or micromanaging...I call it GAMING.

[Jack ONeill]

RB,

The rifle-musket really led to the demise of the cavalry charge. A smoothbore could get off one round before the cavalry closed with steel. The rifle-musket could do two things - 1) open effective fire at longer range. 2) hit two or three times with a more or less aimed shot into the charging horsemen. Massed rifle fire would bring down (or the threat thereof) men and horses much farther away than previously.

The square was a reaction to cavalry, but the cavalrys main objective was to force infantry into square so the following could happen 1) reduce the volume of fire from the infantry 2) horse batteries would close to short range and blast the squares with cannister, causing huge holes in the squares 3) supporting Infantry columns could hustle forward and charge the much-reduced infantry squares. This was the theory anyway. 4) Once the squares were broken, the Horse would ride down the fleeing Foot. Didn't always happen that way though. But, Infantry cought out of square generally were butchered savagely.

With squares in MP, the commanders will really have to watch their infantry. With the solidity of the square set AND the vulnerability of the Infantry line, timing will be everything, as well as combined arms support. Better keep your own Horse around to drive off the Enemies. Also, there was A LOT of Cav during the Nap Wars, up to 25% in some armies, depending on the year, of course.

Jack B)

[Destraex]

Exactly. Once infantry were in square they were immobile and massive targets for everything else.
The problem napoleon had at waterloo though was that his cavalry attacked the infantry even once in squares seemingly unsupported. Apparently it was a subordinate general that did this and it is part of what cost him the battle.

Another form of the square was also present in that early in the Nappy Wars the Austrians did not use hollow square but were trained to create a solid square that kept on moving. This was the earlier form of square used by the prussians and others in the 18c. They found to their surprise that musketeers could indeed stand ground and repulse cavalry soundly this way. From this evolved the more efficient hollow square I would think. A type of all round defence. Squares were still used much later for instance I believe at Lake Victoria where an infantry square held out for two days until help arrived.
The US civil war even has a couple of instances of using the square iirc.

Actually here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square

"During the American Civil War the infantry square was only used on a few occasions, the most notable of these being the Thirty-Second Indiana Volunteer Infantry at the Battle of Rowlett's Station, December 17, 1861 against Terry's Texas Rangers; a Colorado Volunteer company formed square when charged by lancers of the 5th Texas Mounted Rifles at the Battle of Valverde on February 21, 1862.[7]
On other occasions such as at the Battles of Gettysburg and Chickamauga cavalry units feinted as if preparing to charge to force advancing infantry to halt their advance and form square.[7]"

[mitra76]

Cavalry successful charges were very rare in any case also in Napoleonic warfare, I remember only three of major cases, Marengo, Borodino, Eylau and Waterloo and in the last three cases the losses were terrific. They are charges dictated by desperate situation or misunderstanding of situation or enemy taken by surprise. Napoleon avoids as far as possible to use his heavy cavalry in battle, for the same reason he avoids to use the guards: he consider it his reserve, a very expensive reserve to preserve just to the last. Usually the charges are more aimed to a specific target, with single regiments charging infantry or cavalry. We can tell the danger of being charged was more important that the charge himself, usually because morally strong infantry in good order can repel cavalry also in line or column formation, but sure the danger force them to stop or slow. The cavalry successes usually were on enemies taken by surprise. And also the ground rarely permitted a cinematic charge. So at the end also during the napoleonic wars the main role of cavalry was recon, support, pursuit, with very specific instances of charges against infantry.

We can consider the case of Piedmontese army after First Indipendence war (still fought with smoothbore muskets), part of the heavy cavalry regiments were transformed in light cavalry because the war displayed the recon and small actions were more important than charges.

[mitra76]

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/the-am ... -civil-war

[Destraex]

I wonder how many times squares were formed in these small actions by cavalry.
I too think cavalry were often more feared outside the battlefield. The dragoons and light cavalry contributing to their fearfull reputation in a real battle more than their effectiveness in a set piece action.

I would venture to say that cavalry was a much greater threat in the napoleonic era due to both its greater availability and the fact that smoothbores were the primary weapon of the day compared to the US civil war.

Correct me if I am wrong as I am no expert on the US civil war.

[mitra76]

Also if the theoretical range of rifled musket was bigger, the statistical data of battlefield gives that the average distance of fire was on 140 yards, because of battlefield conditions and because riflemen are not trained to use aiming tools. Rifled musket bullets have a parabolic trajectory respect the smootbore so if you correctly shoot at a target to 300 yards the bullet goes over the head of all the targets between 100 and 225 yards. Soldiers needed training to learn to use of correct aiming, but in general men in line formation never aimed also in smoothmore time (they shoot more rapidly they can). So at the end they use the eye for aim and so long distance correct shoot was impossible.

I think the main difference was organization, training and equipment: revolutionary and first period napoelonic cavalry was bad, Union cavalry improve and outclass confederate cavalry in late part of war, using also more the sabre and we saw bigger cavalry actions. Also ground and situations have their part.

[Jack ONeill]

All,

Mitras' post (3 up from this one), has an excellent point. The fear of the Cavalry charge was often more important than the charge itself. That being said, No infantry commander wanted to be cought out of square if enemy cavalry were about. Almost always, if infantry were caught in line, with rare exception, they would be ridden down.

Mitra make a good point which I will take further - as I posted earlier, Cavalry had one main task, pestering the infantry. I should say they had two - Destruction of the enemy's cavalry. Horse on Horse combat was a constant issue. If you can drive off theirs, you have the field. Napoleon said "Cavalry is useful before, (Recon), during, (Combat) and after, (Pursuit) the battle." He is spot-on there.

On the use of rifle-muskets I must differ somewhat with other posts. I am sorry to say mathmatical analysis falls short of real-time experience. I own a 1853 Enfield Rifle-Musket and a Brown Bess smoothbore. I understand the parabolic curve aspect, but it doesn't hold up under firing conditions. A Enfield/springfield rifle-musket, firing a military 60 grain load, fired parallel to the ground, will send the rifled minie ball in a roughly flat, straight line for approximately 300 yards before dropping down.

A Cavalry charge was supposed to operate like this - at 400 yards, the squadron took up its formation, then started walking forward. At 300 yards, they took up a canter. At 200 yards, speed was increased some more, a slight gallop perhaps. Only the last hundred yards was the charge sounded and a full-on run was engaged. AT ALL TIMES was the unit to remain knee-to-knee on the approach. (The movies and TV have wildly distorted the cavalry charge.) This how they were trained, daily.

So, what you have is a smoothbore firing one round as the horsemen closed, and maybe not hitting very many, the smoothbore being wildly inaccurate. Then you have the Rifle-musket, yes, loaded under pressure by somewhat trained troops, but firing a RIFLED round out to maybe 300 yards, AND dropping rounds into horsemen as they are trying to form up. Rather disconcerting for them, eh?

I think the thing to remember, the horesmen were just as worried about the new weapons as the infantrymen were of the Cav charge. When you are trained to fight against weapons which can barely hit you farther than a rock being thrown and now they are wanging people and horses quite farther out, it's a bit of a problem. Better to go around and dismount, fight on foot. I like it.

But, I digress.

Jack B)

Mitra has it right about American Cav. Our history here has been Cavalry as Dragoons, rather thatn Battle Cavalry, per se. Towards the end of the ACW, there WERE more Cav on Cav fights with pistol and Sabre, as everyone got better in the saddle. It takes A LONG TIME to train a proper Cavalryman. Takes 20 minutes to teach someone how to load and fire a musket.

[mitra76]

Hi Jack

YOur calculation about rifled musket is correct and in reality th theoretical distance of a rifled musket bullet is over the 1000 yards, but, already before the civil war, the idea of long range fighting because of new weapons was contested, because the real combat conditions were different from the theoretical experiments.

The statistical calculation done by the various authors of battlefield records give a average range under the 140 (Hess gives 94). This because the ground doesn't permit to identify the enemy to long distance, officers thought long range shooting was a waste of ammunition, soldiers are not trained to aim at long distance, the fear to waste the single shoot because is complex operation and they feel more sure with a bullet in the rifle, etc. The true revolution was the breachloaders and the repeaters which raise the rate of fire.

In general cavalry cannot win against morally strong and well ordered infantry, and this was true also in the middle ages. Square formation are strong because raise the sensation of confidence of infantry because cover all the flanks, as already told by DuPicq:

"
Squares sometimes are broken by cavalry which pursues the skirmishers into the square. Instead of lying down, they rush blindly to their refuge which they render untenable and destroy. No square can hold out against determined troops…. But!

The infantry square is not a thing of mechanics, of mathematical reasoning; it is a thing of morale. A platoon in four ranks, two facing the front, two the rear, its flanks guarded by the extreme files that face to the flank, and conducted, supported by the non-commissioned officers placed in a fifth rank, in the interior of the rectangle, powerful in its compactness and its fire, cannot be dislodged by cavalry. However, this platoon will prefer to form a part of a large square, it will consider itself stronger, because of numbers, and indeed it will be, since the feeling of force pervades this whole force. This feeling is power in war.

People who calculate only according to the fire delivered, according to the destructive power of infantry, would have it fight deployed against cavalry. They do not consider that although supported and maintained, although such a formation seem to prevent flight, the very impetus of the charge, if led resolutely, will break the deployment before the shock arrives. It is clear that if the charge is badly conducted, whether the infantry be solid or not, it will never reach its objective. Why? Moral reasons and no others make the soldier in a square feel himself stronger than when in line. He feels himself watched from behind and has nowhere to flee.
"

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7294/pg7294.html

[Jack ONeill]

Mitra,

Spot on all counts.

I would deviate only slightly in two instances -
1) Paddy Griffith calculates average ACW firefight ranges at no more than 40 yards, this in accordance with the heavily forested and hilly terrain of eastern North America.
2) No infantry, charged from flank or rear will withstand any cavalry charge, no matter how weakly delivered. The Square, feelings of support, etc, included, offers no flanks for the enemy to exploit, thus enhancing the feelings of secuirty for the PBIs therein.

Yes, squares can be broken, generally along the lines you describe. Within all the studying of the Napoleonic wars I have done, I can recall only three recorded times a square was broken, and these were because the cavalry was charging before the squares were finished forming. (I do recall one in Spain where a dead french horse crashed down on the infantry, opening a hole allowing the cavalry to enter and cut up the British Foot.) I'm sure there were others overrun for one reason or another and not reported on due to the heat of battle.

Jack B)