Attack Columns

[BOSTON]

NSD

Attack column formations were being used around the time of Cold Harbor June 3, 1864. Could a Attack Column formation be included at Gettysburg? I know it's getting late in the day for such a formation to go into the GB game, but maybe utilitized for other period battles of the CW.

Attack columns were used in SMWaterloo June of 1815 (?) by Napoleon. The front of these columns were somewhat wider than a marching column, making it easier for infantry force (unit) to penetrate strong positions and still have some firepower.

Hoistingman4

[Armchair General]

hoistingman4 wrote:

NSD

Attack column formations were being used around the time of Cold Harbor June 3, 1864. Could a Attack Column formation be included at Gettysburg? I know it's getting late in the day for such a formation to go into the GB game, but maybe utilitized for other period battles of the CW.

Attack columns were used in SMWaterloo June of 1815 (?) by Napoleon. The front of these columns were somewhat wider than a marching column, making it easier for infantry force (unit) to penetrate strong positions and still have some firepower.

Hoistingman4

Attack columns also diminished the firepower of the unit as a whole, allowing only the first few ranks to fire. This is how the British managed to defeat the French over and over again..and again..and again.

[BOSTON]

Attack Columns would'nt be to stand and fight so much, as they would be for the use of storming positions or capturing artillery and alike.

[BOSTON]

hoistingman4 wrote:

Attack Columns would'nt be to stand and fight so much, as they would be for the use of storming positions or capturing artillery and alike.

I should also say that in Napoleonic battles the square formation was frequently used, so if in Attack Column it took less time to form squares, than other formatioms, with cavalry threatening to charge.

[Armchair General]

hoistingman4 wrote:

hoistingman4 wrote:

Attack Columns would'nt be to stand and fight so much, as they would be for the use of storming positions or capturing artillery and alike.

I should also say that in Napoleonic battles the square formation was frequently used, so if in Attack Column it took less time to form squares, than other formatioms, with cavalry threatening to charge.

The French didn't use the Attack Column because it formed square faster. They used it because vast majorities of their armies were conscripts, and like you said, it was good for storming a position. The columns were relatively easy to learn and drill, and with their thousands of comrades, the raw recruits weren't as likely to break under the fire. It worked for the most part against other armies, except the British and some times the Russians.

[BOSTON]

My experience with Attack Columns has been in the Sid Mierer Games, namely Waterloo, the last stand. In that game when selecting a unit already in Attack Column to go into Square formation it would get done faster, than getting done from any other formation choice (ie. line, column, skirmish). Now, if historically that isn't true, I would'nt know. Regardless, the technique using Attack Columns was being developed during the CW and as far as I know not to go into squares or for that matter there was no training for CW troops to go into squares IIRC. Unless I'm mistaken most of the Russian and English armies were conscripts with less morale than the French.

[Armchair General]

hoistingman4 wrote:

My experience with Attack Columns has been in the Sid Mierer Games, namely Waterloo, the last stand. In that game when selecting a unit already in Attack Column to go into Square formation it would get done faster, than getting done from any other formation choice (ie. line, column, skirmish). Now, if historically that isn't true, I would'nt know. Regardless, the technique using Attack Columns was being developed during the CW and as far as I know not to go into squares or for that matter there was no training for CW troops to go into squares IIRC. Unless I'm mistaken most of the Russian and English armies were conscripts with less morale than the French.

I've never played SM Waterloo, so I can't relate, and I'm no expert on the Russian Army, but as England went, it was made-up of many people: A small number were volunteers, others were convicts who were given the choice of army service or gallows, others were drunkards who were tricked into service. As for morale, I don't know if it's correct to assume the French had a higher one than its English counterpart

[BOSTON]

You wouldn't be of English heritage would you?

[Armchair General]

hoistingman4 wrote:

You wouldn't be of English heritage would you?

Irish and Scottish

Besides the Civil War I study the Napoleonic Wars the most, centered around the Peninsula War and the invasions of France. Reading Bernard Cornwell's Richard Sharpe series helps a little too

[BOSTON]

You had me worried that you were an English pedigree. :laugh: The English army has an excellant reputation, it wasn't till when SM Waterloo came out that, and read that Napoleon had a different view, with less respect for the English Army, for the reasons you are quoted as saying. Are you keeping an eye on what Histwar is doing?

One other thing,
do you know if the French were using the Attack Column on the English field fortification with any success during the Peninsula Camgpain?