Scourge of War Boards

"The same old way" referred to the French general tactics - artillery prep, infantry assault, cavalry breakthrough. Wellington was not referring to actual formations with that comment.

D'Erlon's Corps attacked at 2:30 pm with battalions in 3-deep lines but arranged one behind the other in a dense formation. Its possible the Allies on their ridge could not tell through the smoke exactly what the formation was. It probably looked columnar to them.

at waterloo thinks are a little confused.
latest historians have a somewhat new theory.

the first attack made by d'erlons corps, was made
in the same fashion french made almost every assault.
in collumns. this failed as they could not form a square
when needed, and the british cavalry broke their lines.
however it is said that the far left division (donzelot's?) that was also in
the attack had a slightly different formation. (i always confuse those :pinch: ).
and thus was able to form squares and thus avoid annihilation.
that is supported by the fact that later they managed to take la haye sainte.

but the tricky part is the final assault. that of the guard.
before the most common theory was that they attacked regularly like all
french attacks, in collumns.
that does not seem to be the case. the new thesis is that the guard attacked
in the formation of squares.
that is backed up by some facts like:

the casualties suffered during the advance by the artillery:
the middle guard, which was leading the assault, was recorded to have
about 60% casualties. which can not be explained only by the volley
fires achieved by the british guards. the larger percentage of casualties
was made as the guard covered the distance to the allies.

an incident that disordered a british regiment who was trying to flank the french guard,
reported that when we flanked the ennemy, they were already in line and we were
dealt a volley.

personally i think that nap, was afraid of sending the guard in a battle of
such significance in the traditional way.
what if there was cavalry on the reverse slope?






very long post, i'll try more next time :cheer:

Well, I am still under the impression that attacks were made with SKIRMISHERS out front of a Line followed up by Attack Columns in the back ranks. Used for the melee/threat as the enemy line satrted to faulter.
If the Friendly line fell back one of the Attack Columns would form line to take its place......

at waterloo thinks are a little confused.
latest historians have a somewhat new theory.

the first attack made by d'erlons corps, was made
in the same fashion french made almost every assault.
in collumns. this failed as they could not form a square
when needed, and the british cavalry broke their lines.
however it is said that the far left division (donzelot's?) that was also in
the attack had a slightly different formation. (i always confuse those :pinch: ).
and thus was able to form squares and thus avoid annihilation.
that is supported by the fact that later they managed to take la haye sainte.

but the tricky part is the final assault. that of the guard.
before the most common theory was that they attacked regularly like all
french attacks, in collumns.
that does not seem to be the case. the new thesis is that the guard attacked
in the formation of squares.
that is backed up by some facts like:

the casualties suffered during the advance by the artillery:
the middle guard, which was leading the assault, was recorded to have
about 60% casualties. which can not be explained only by the volley
fires achieved by the british guards. the larger percentage of casualties
was made as the guard covered the distance to the allies.

an incident that disordered a british regiment who was trying to flank the french guard,
reported that when we flanked the ennemy, they were already in line and we were
dealt a volley.

personally i think that nap, was afraid of sending the guard in a battle of
such significance in the traditional way.
what if there was cavalry on the reverse slope?






very long post, i'll try more next time :cheer:

You are correct about the Middle Guard's attack. It was in square formation, which is very unusual. It was because they had no support and there might be cavalry, like you said.

But, I don't believe that Napoleon had anything to do with that formation. He was involved at an arm's length from the battle anyways, and I believe he directed the assault to be made further east, but it veered off to the left.

Also we should distinguish between guards.
Young Guard - Plancenoit
Middle Guard - Made the assault on the center
Old Guard - Reserve

It has also been suggested that the Middle Guard were deployed in Column by Division at quarter distance or fully closed up. This would look like a square formation from any significant distance. It also does not require anything more than normal drill which the veterans in the MG could easily handle.

-Jim

ok for some reason I can not get Attack columns to work...correctly ?
I have a firing line upfront......in the 2nd/3rd line i give the units orders/manually set Attack column
I set a unit to Attack Column..(Column by Div) move to the next unit to set it to attack column..i look back and the first unit is in line again ? ? ? what gives ???


As it is now every time units come close to enemy they go into Line....makes the game feel way to ACW style....

Column of division was not an attack column. It was a manouver formation. The attack be it with musketballs or cold steel would always be in line.

The whole french columns vs british lines comes from Oman and his books on the peninsular war. While it did happen once or twice that columns impacted lines ( in a six year long war)

It was by mistake, french officers stumbling into british lines, as they didn't exactly know were the British were.

Gunfreak what you say is not completely accurate. Attack Column was certainly an attack formation intended to send the battalion into Melee in a formation with depth.

The Attack Column became less effective in Spain's rough terrain and in 1814-1815 due to the lesser quality of the French infantry, but, during the period of 1805 to 1809, the Attack Column was aptly named because it was a battalion melee attack formation, as well as a battlefield maneuver formation.

During the 1814 campaign, the inexperienced French infantry battalions preferred Attack Column over Line formation because they were not well drilled enough to deploy and ploy from Attack Column to Line and vice versa.

The Grande Armee of 1805 and 1806 had battalions that were very well drilled and could ploy and deploy from Atk column to Line to Square etc with expert smartness. The part where you are right is because, during the 1805 to 1806 time period, there does seem to be a preference for using attack column for maneuver and advance, and deploying into line as musket range approached.

There may be more shades of gray here. In the Peninsular campaign the French advanced with some frequency in attack column against British infantry standing in line often on a reverse slope. As the British line would then advance into firing range before the French could deploy from attack column into line this usually resulted in a bad outcome for the French. See for example the battles of Bussaco and Sorauren. Given d'Erlon's extensive experience in the Peninsular campaign, one suspects that the attack formation of a column of battalions in line was a reaction to the failures in Spain.

In contrast the attack column could be effective against troops less well disciplined and less well commanded. There the psychological threat could cause the defenders to rout before any serious firefight occurred.

-Jim

Jim, on level ground, not the rough terrain of Spain, the idea was to attack an enemy battalion in line formation with more than one Attack Column battalion. You would not attack each enemy battalion with a single battalion, that's a 1:1 attack.

Put a regiment in two battalion Attack Columns then attack the enemy battalion in line. The enemy battalion won't get off enough volleys to stop the two determined battalion Attack Columns.

Spain's terrain was rough and the French Attack Columns were disorganized as they approached the enemy. The British battalions in Spain were better than the French ones, and it probably didn't matter which formation an attacking French battalion used.

But if were were to take the Grande Armee of 1805 on a level battlefield in Central Europe, and if we would put two French battalions in Attack Column vs each British battalion defending in Line, I doubt that the Attackers would be repulsed as often as the French attacking in Spain were repulsed.

Attack Column was an important battlefield maneuver and melee formation. Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets emphasize this as well as Nosworthy's "With Musket Cannon and Sword"

Everyone is familiar with the "pop history" story of British Lines defeating French Columns. This story has value but is an over simplification. Everyone tends to think that the British Line would simply overlap the French attack column and defeat it by shooting it's front and flanks at the same time.

But the attack idea would be to use TWO battalions in attack column vs each enemy battalion in line. That way the frontages would be equal but the attackers would have much more depth.

In any event, the preferred method would be for French Arty to gain some dominance of the field to allow the Fr Cavalry to threaten the enemy infantry and force them into square.

Then the French battalions advance in Attack Column to within 100 meters of the enemy squares, deploy into Line and blast the enemy Squares.

These methods didn't work in Spain because the terrain was often too rough and the British infantry was way superior to the tired and second rate French infantry in Spain.

With regard to the quality of the French infantry at Waterloo, really, much of it was conscript-level, I mean, how much training and drill could they have had between being home on the couch in March 1815 to being at Waterloo in mid June 1815? Not much.

The above is according to my best recollection of my studies of Nappy war.

In 2007, Osprey Publishing printed Paddy Griffith's "French Napoleonic Infantry Tactics 1792-1815"

Page 24 has a chart called Analysis of French Infantry Attacks 1792-1815. Mr. Griffith analyzed a sample of 226 attacks. Here's the breakdown of formations used in all of these attacks:

78 percent of all attacks completed in Attack Column

13 percent of all attacks completed in Line

8 percent of all attacks completed in Ordre Mixte

1 percent of all attacks completed in Skrimish Order

In 2007, Osprey Publishing printed Paddy Griffith's "French Napoleonic Infantry Tactics 1792-1815"

Page 24 has a chart called Analysis of French Infantry Attacks 1792-1815. Mr. Griffith analyzed a sample of 226 attacks. Here's the breakdown of formations used in all of these attacks:

78 percent of all attacks completed in Attack Column

13 percent of all attacks completed in Line

8 percent of all attacks completed in Ordre Mixte

1 percent of all attacks completed in Skrimish Order

I am very skeptical of those numbers, but your general points still stand. Assault columns were used to quickly get up close and personal and maneuver on the battlefield quickly.