Tactics against the cannons ?

[Greni]

Hey Guys,

boah i hate it to run as last against the cannon-batterys of the enemy. My guys dies to each time much faster like the flies :p.

So whats the best way with and without cavalry ?

[Garnier]

If you're playing without any modified scenario or OOB, and have 160 yard musket range, then the best thing to do is avoid being near enemy cannons. Stay outside 200 yards of them.

You can try:

Shooting your cannons at their cannons from a distance, it sometimes works.

Put your cannons in front of your infantry, so if they bring their cannons up you can hit them first, perhaps.

If you have cavalry, try running your cavalry in column around to the cannons from the side or from behind, so they can't shoot you. When you get very close, click to change into line and then charge.

[JC Edwards]

Best use of Cavalry in taking enemy guns is "TC" them and set them in Skirmish Formation - They move/maneuver much quicker. As soon as you're close enough, charge the guns.

Battle columns are best for Infantry.

[con20or]

You would think in rela life skirmishers should be best against cannon, hard to hit with cannon, but can do damage when in close against the crew. But in game they are probably the worst. When a regiment is in skirmish mode and gets hit with canister in game, say goodbye. One or two hits and they regiment is gone.

[Garnier]

Yeah skirmish formation is only good in one situation, and that's when you have a regiment far away from the enemies, but getting hit by artillery fire. It may save a few men then. But if you are anywhere close to the enemy, you want to be in maneuver column 100% of the time that you are not actually shooting.

[Kerflumoxed]

From the "For What Its Worth & Little Known" department, a short essay on how to attack artillery from the experts. First, however, a brief history of William Gilham, known as the Drillmaster of the South.

In 1859, Virginia Governor Henry Wise directed the writing of a comprehensive manual for the use of the various militia units being organized in the state. Gilham, a West Point graduate as well as instructor, had served in the 3rd U.S. Artillery, had served in both the Seminole War and the Mexican War, had been serving at Virginia Military Institute since 1946 and had led a group of cadets to the hanging of John Brown. In response to Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, Wise directed VMI to prepare a manual to train state volunteers and militia. The task was assigned to Gilham (not to his fellow instructor Thomas J. Jackson). Gilham completed his assignment in less then a year and by the fall of 1860, the new manual, entitled Manual of Instruction for the Volunteers and Militia of the United States and was published in Philadelphia. At the beginning of the war, Gilham was appointed commandant of Camp Lee in Richmond and, with his upperclassmen from VMI, led the instruction of thousands of volunteers that would form the nucleus of the ANV. (Later in the war, he served as a regimental colonel in the field, but returned to VMI under a "gray cloud" and served out the war in his old role of instructor.)

In Article XV, Battles, Gilham details the various offensive and defensive manuevers necessary to "win the day". In Section 808, page 695-6,Gilham addresses the issue of attacking artillery:

"Whenever it is found necessary to carry a battery by the bayonet, the troops for this duty are divided into two detachments; one of which is charged with capturing the battery, and the other with attacking the supports of the battery.
"The dispositions made the detachment which moves against the guns will be the usual one of skirmishers; the line surrounding the battery, and opening their fire within about 250 paces, taking advantage for this purpose of any covers, to screen the men. The supports of the line of skirmishers should be kept well to the rear, to be ready against a flank mover on the line. If this manuever succeeds in drawing the fire of the guns, and any confusion is observed amon the men, then a rush must be made immediately upon them with the bayonet.
"The detachment against the supports of the battery will make its dispositions according to the kind of troops which compose the supports. If of infantry, the detachment to seize the guns, divided into two portions, will advance either in line or columns, as may be best, on the flanks of the line of skirmishers; gradually getting in advance of it, and closing on the flanks of the battery, so as to attack supports in flank; or else they may keep to the rear of the line of skirmishers, in order to tempt the supports to move forward and thus mask the fire of the their guns."

Mr. con20or's appraisal is the correct one but, as he noted, probably wouldn't work in the game. Interestingly, in one of last night's MP games, Mr. Little of the Confederate forces (and probably a "graduate" of Camp Lee, advance a line of skirmishers on one of my batteries and inflicted a "few" casualties on the crews.

Jack

(Footnote: In my library I have an original copy that has several sketches by what I presume to be the original owner as well as a reprint from several years ago. It is also, I believe, available on-line.)

[Kerflumoxed]

In my never-ending quest to have CW artillery receive its due recognition in the game, here is an interesting quote from one of the more "prominent" Civil War generals and one that most historians recognize as, at the very least, being a competent judge of such matters (No, he was not a member of the North-South Skirmish Association, a target shooter, nor any reenactment group - ):

"A battery of field artillery is worth a thousand muskets." ... General William Tecumseh Sherman

Jack - Firing with Double Cannister!

[Willard]

Greni -

All the suggestions listed in this thread are good.
Unfortunately artillery could be better modeled in the game than the current version allows.

First, it was hell to take out batteries - especially those dug in during the Civil War.
Your frustration is understood by all of us, but in reality, it is actually easier in game to take out batteries than it would have been during the CW. Players can TC brigades and move them forward in situations when in all likelyhood they would not have attacked. More importantly, the ability to TC and quickly change back/forth from different formations was simply not possible in a battlefield environment.

That being said, IF you need to take that position, there are a couple of things you can do to minimize casualties.

#1- Try not to attack the guns straight on. If you do you will get murdered and that is how it really was.

#2 - If you are going to attack a battery, when at all possible attempt to flank it.

#3 - Use cover and concealment to help minimize casaulties. Attacking through a forest will minimize canister effectiveness by 30%-50% so that is a big plus.

#4 - Bring overwhelming force at the point of attack. Remember, it is simply about math when trying to take a battery. If the battery in question has six 12pd guns, at 200 yards, canister will take out approximately 30 per shot. A battery can be expected to fire off two salvos - which will result in approximately 360 casualties. If the third round of fire gets off - it will most likely be double canister and you are looking at another 360 casualties to bring your total to 720 for the assault +/- a hundred depending upon circumstances. So if you are attempting to take a position with a brigade of 1000 men, expect to have about 300 men left if you take the battery. That certainly want garner a battlefield promotion!!!

Hopefully in the near future, Norb will be tweaking the arty modeling to improve longer range and counter-battery fire effects. This should serve the purpose of pushing the guns back and the engagement distances. Additionally, I would expect a change to 200 yard rifles which will give infantry at least a fighting chances which they currently don't have in the 160-200yard gap between canister and infantry ranges.

*S*

Willard

[NY Cavalry]

Lets not forget the advantages that the game gives to the artillery.

1) In the game artillery can be set anywhere regardless of terrain. In the civil war artillery had to be set up on somewhat level ground with plenty of room for the recoil. At Devils Den Smith could only find room for 4 of his guns and getting ammunition to them was difficult. In the game you could put multiple batteries on Devils Den. This would also be true elsewhere on the battlefield.

The guns needed to recoil on somewhat level ground or in the recoil the gun would sort of jerk. This would make targeting the gun almost impossible with any accuracy.

2) Normal rifle ranges cannot effect artillery until 160 yards (except in Garnier's campaign). The artillery crews have no moral loss or any adverse affects from infantry fire beyond 160 yards. Historically this was inaccurate. Artillery crews would take some small arms fire and losses from beyond 160 yards. The losses may have been light and were easily replaced, but there would have been a moral loss.

3) Front line resupply of ammunition. Need I say more?

These are a few examples. I think I have mentioned about 6 before.

Infantry commanders need options in dealing with artillery or the game becomes very static. Who would ever launch an attack if their troops have no possibility of success. I am speaking of tactics mainly and not lowering artillery effectiveness. 200 yard rifle range would be very beneficial.

[Kerflumoxed]

Lets not forget the advantages that the game gives to the artillery.

1) In the game artillery can be set anywhere regardless of terrain. In the civil war artillery had to be set up on somewhat level ground with plenty of room for the recoil. At Devils Den Smith could only find room for 4 of his guns and getting ammunition to them was difficult. In the game you could put multiple batteries on Devils Den. This would also be true elsewhere on the battlefield.

The guns needed to recoil on somewhat level ground or in the recoil the gun would sort of jerk. This would make targeting the gun almost impossible with any accuracy.

2) Normal rifle ranges cannot effect artillery until 160 yards (except in Garnier's campaign). The artillery crews have no moral loss or any adverse affects from infantry fire beyond 160 yards. Historically this was inaccurate. Artillery crews would take some small arms fire and losses from beyond 160 yards. The losses may have been light and were easily replaced, but there would have been a moral loss.

3) Front line resupply of ammunition. Need I say more?

These are a few examples. I think I have mentioned about 6 before.

Infantry commanders need options in dealing with artillery or the game becomes very static. Who would ever launch an attack if their troops have no possibility of success. I am speaking of tactics mainly and not lowering artillery effectiveness. 200 yard rifle range would be very beneficial.

....as would realistic cannister range of at least 300 yards as is contemporarily correct...but will never happen in the game!

J;)