Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Jomini's Art of War
Godofgamblers    7/15/2009 3:33:08 AM
I recently stumbled upon this work on the net. You can read the book online here: h*tp://www.gutenberg.org/files/13549/13549-h/13549-h.htm#ARTICLE_XVI It is a great primer for understanding Napoleonic war. I have never really understood the secrets to Napoleon's success; perhaps this book will enlighten me.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
Herald12345    Its more applicable to the US Civil War, GoG.   7/15/2009 3:53:31 AM
Especially Robert E Lee's  and George B. McClellan's generalship.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       7/15/2009 5:40:59 AM
I've just started reading up on the US Civil War. As I understand it, they started engaging in trench warefare near the end of the civil war because of the dire losses caused on the battlefield by artillery and small arms. Why did Napoleonic era soldiers not employ trench warfare I wonder?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/15/2009 7:11:49 AM

I've just started reading up on the US Civil War. As I understand it, they started engaging in trench warefare near the end of the civil war because of the dire losses caused on the battlefield by artillery and small arms. Why did Napoleonic era soldiers not employ trench warfare I wonder?
 



Smooth-bore musket. Beyond 75 meters you couldn't hit anything. If you run  then you can be on them in twenty seconds or less. They are caught in the middle of reload and you just stick them with the bayonet.
 
In the Civil War, the aimed rifles started killing you at 500 meters. I don't care how fast you run, he still gets three free unanswered shots at you and you will be hit.  
 
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       7/15/2009 7:20:45 AM
I see. But if you are first to the battlefield, wouldn't it make sense to dig in? I'm also thinking of cannonballs which did horrific damage when they careened thru lines of troops. Having the men in trenches would negate cannonballs completely!
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       7/15/2009 7:26:12 AM
Just a quick question while i have you here, H: who was the best general of the Civil War and why? I read somewhere that the apotheosis of Lee was the work of Southern historians and that in fact he was not markedly superior to Northern ones. Have you read that?
thx
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus    GoG   7/15/2009 9:21:21 AM
Well, Wellington was a big fan of using reverse slopse on hills, both to portect his troops from unecessary fire and to hide his troop numbers. However....
 
Even at their best the rate of fire from cannons was not particularly high, nor was their aiming particularly accurate. recall also that most armies used a majority of solid shot that required a direct hit to be damaging. Colonel Shrapnel had just perfected the shell that would bear his name through the generations, even then his spherical case fragmentation device required great skill to cut the fuse to the correct length for it to explode over the hea dof advancing troops in order to spread the pellets below.
 
So really, the chief performance meter for napoleonic armies was rate of fire. The French developed the large phalanxed coloumn with supporting horse artillery which they betted could advance on, and break, any two file deep firing line before taking an unnacceptable number of casualties that would force the coloumn back.They were right for the most part.
 
At this point the success of British redcoats where others had previously failed becomes apparent. Draconian discipline and hour of drill had combined to produce in the british infantry a formidable firing line. The standard practice was to hold fire until within sixty yards, any further out was useless (as herald states)... other less disciplined european forces would have fired one volley uselessly by this point and would be reloading while the french advanced. Thus the British regiment would make their first volley count, their second volley would be discharged form the second file, and then the real trick of British musketry drill would come into play.... platoon fire. Firing by platoons allowed the British to relaod in quicker times, sicne they weren't constrained to the average pace of a regiment, or by the slowest man available, it was a less clumsy drill and thus afforded greater speed. As such a redcoat regiment could maintain firing rates of between 4-5 shots to the minute... more than double that of a Spanish regiment (for example).
 
Such a tactic required good judgement and nerves of steels form the commanding officer as well as very tight discipline form the redcoats in order to keep the rate of fire up. At the first signs of French wavering the British line would bayonet charge the french coloumn, which was usually enough to break the will of the coloumn and force the retreat. It was an incredibly succesful tactic. The French army's best hope wa salways to use it's vaslty superior cavalry to push line sinto squares, but even thent ehy were rarely succsesful.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/15/2009 9:48:52 PM
Godofgamblers       7/15/2009 7:20:45 AM
I see. But if you are first to the battlefield, wouldn't it make sense to dig in? I'm also thinking of cannonballs which did horrific damage when they careened thru lines of troops. Having the men in trenches would negate cannonballs completely!

Coehorn Mortar. Europeans thought about this problem and solved it.

 


Godofgamblers       7/15/2009 7:26:12 AM
Just a quick question while I have you here, H: Who was the best general of the Civil War and why? I read somewhere that the apotheosis of Lee was the work of Southern historians and that in fact he was not markedly superior to Northern ones. Have you read that?
 
Yes. Best strategist was General Winfield Scott. His plan (Anaconda) was the warplan the Union (Lincoln) eventually used.  
 
Best operational artist was probably Stonewall Jackson early and probably Grant late.

Well, Wellington was a big fan of using reverse slopse on hills, both to portect his troops from unecessary fire and to hide his troop numbers. However....

Agreed. He did try to hide his mass de maneuver.  

Even at their best the rate of fire from cannons was not particularly high, nor was their aiming particularly accurate. recall also that most armies used a majority of solid shot that required a direct hit to be damaging. Colonel Shrapnel had just perfected the shell that would bear his name through the generations, even then his spherical case fragment
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/15/2009 10:15:30 PM
Maybe because the underrated British artillery and the presence of British sharpshooters (they shot French officers) alos acted as disruptors?

There's an excellent book by Mark Urban (The Rifles) which goes into the history of the 95th Rifles (greenjackets) as sharpshooters during the peninsular wars.  well worth getting IMO.



 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       7/15/2009 10:54:33 PM

Well, Wellington was a big fan of using reverse slopse on hills, both to portect his troops from unecessary fire and to hide his troop numbers. However....

 

Even at their best the rate of fire from cannons was not particularly high, nor was their aiming particularly accurate. recall also that most armies used a majority of solid shot that required a direct hit to be damaging. Colonel Shrapnel had just perfected the shell that would bear his name through the generations, even then his spherical case fragmentation device required great skill to cut the fuse to the correct length for it to explode over the hea dof advancing troops in order to spread the pellets below.

 

So really, the chief performance meter for napoleonic armies was rate of fire. The French developed the large phalanxed coloumn with supporting horse artillery which they betted could advance on, and break, any two file deep firing line before taking an unnacceptable number of casualties that would force the coloumn back.They were right for the most part.

 

At this point the success of British redcoats where others had previously failed becomes apparent. Draconian discipline and hour of drill had combined to produce in the british infantry a formidable firing line. The standard practice was to hold fire until within sixty yards, any further out was useless (as herald states)... other less disciplined european forces would have fired one volley uselessly by this point and would be reloading while the french advanced. Thus the British regiment would make their first volley count, their second volley would be discharged form the second file, and then the real trick of British musketry drill would come into play.... platoon fire. Firing by platoons allowed the British to relaod in quicker times, sicne they weren't constrained to the average pace of a regiment, or by the slowest man available, it was a less clumsy drill and thus afforded greater speed. As such a redcoat regiment could maintain firing rates of between 4-5 shots to the minute... more than double that of a Spanish regiment (for example).

 

Such a tactic required good judgement and nerves of steels form the commanding officer as well as very tight discipline form the redcoats in order to keep the rate of fire up. At the first signs of French wavering the British line would bayonet charge the french coloumn, which was usually enough to break the will of the coloumn and force the retreat. It was an incredibly succesful tactic. The French army's best hope wa salways to use it's vaslty superior cavalry to push line sinto squares, but even thent ehy were rarely succsesful.


Thanks for taking the time to type that out, Prometheus. One question though: how do you explain the victories of the French then. If the Redcoats had the best discipline, the best firerate, how is it that they and the Prussians and every other army in Europe was defeated by Napoleon often using raw conscripts. After the Russian campaign his army was made up of almost entirely raw recruits and Poles.... yet he still won consistently.....!
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    herald   7/15/2009 10:56:17 PM
   And the saber was used as much as the gun, I understand. This is very interesting. Strangely reminiscent of WW2 Japanese troops who often preferred the Katana in close combat.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics