Cavalry v Infantry « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Optional Rules

Cavalry v Infantry

(44 posts) (12 voices)

Started 9 months ago by Ratisbon
Latest reply from Mycenius

Tags:

« Previous 12

Nick the Lemming
Member

It was over about 6 turns, with 3 valiant Hussar units attacking a single square, with artillery being brought up in support and a large infantry unit moving to charge distance too. In the mean time, my other infantry swept over the right flank and only had an artillery unit between them and taking the defender's objective.

I'd quite happily lose 2 infantry units to a large proportion of my opponent's forces and take his objective. I also think that quite a few turns of concerted attack by 3 times the number of cavalry as well as artillery fire on a square should be enough to run one over.

Posted 8 months ago #
Mycenius
Member

It was over about 6 turns, with 3 valiant Hussar units attacking a single square...

Well I think that kinda says something to start with, right... ;-)

I also think that quite a few turns of concerted attack by 3 times the number of cavalry as well as artillery fire on a square should be enough to run one over.

.
Given that Lasalle represents a snapshot of one part of a battle and for effectively a short period of time I'd disagree (to a certain extent) - under the above logic the whole Allied line at Waterloo for example should have been expected to progressively collapsed in just 30-60 minutes or so - in fact it held for several hours with only a couple of units collapsing or being overrun...

:-)

Posted 8 months ago #
Erzherzog Karl
Member

I seem to remember Captain Nolan in his book on cavalry documenting a whole raft of historical examples of cavalry breaking squares. It's decades since I read it, but he had the experience and the knowledge. Nosworthy says that infantry in line needed to start making their move into square when the cavalry was at least a kilometre away, and a couple of hundred yards distance were needed for third ranks to have the time in a dense column to reach the flanks and face outwards to the cavalry. Since in Lasalle they can change formation in their manoeuvre phase without penalty even if the cavalry are breathing down their necks (but haven't charged home) and have a very good chance of forming square in their reaction phase even if caught totally wrong-footed, perhaps we should just view the cavalry successes as representing those times when the infantry left things a little late?

Posted 8 months ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

I am not sure that Captain Louis Nolan "had the experience and the knowledge"!

Posted 8 months ago #
Erzherzog Karl
Member

He had 20+ years service experience in the Austrian and British armies in Hungary, Poland, India and Britain. Trained, unlike most British officers of the period, in an Austrian cadet school, experience as a riding master in Britain and India, experience as an ADC and galloper, wrote a book (based on personal experience) on the training of remounts, experience in the selection and purchase of horses for the British army, experience as a captain on service in India, choosing service with a regiment rather than 'just' to continue as an ADC. He spent time travelling in Europe researching the book for which he is mainly otherwise remembered. No-one is suggesting that his character was without flaws, but I don't think the statement that he had both experience and knowledge is unjustified?

Posted 8 months ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

Given that Nolan was born in 1818, I am not sure that one can claim he had much experience of the Napoleonic wars. I am not sure that many of Nolan's supposed examples of cavalry riding down squares are reliable. And, let's be honest, Nolan's proposed tactic for riding down a square is rather hopeful (and I wonder if Nolan's rather optimistic belief about the bulletproofness of horses would have been maintained had he survived the charge of the Light Brigade!)

Posted 8 months ago #
Nick the Lemming
Member

I am not sure that Captain Louis Nolan "had the experience and the knowledge"!

Well, of course, you know a lot better than him, so you must have vastly more experience, right?

Posted 8 months ago #
Mycenius
Member

...infantry in line needed to start making their move into square when the cavalry was at least a kilometre away, and a couple of hundred yards distance were needed for third ranks to have the time in a dense column to reach the flanks and face outwards ... ...Since in Lasalle they can change formation in their manoeuvre phase without penalty even if the cavalry are breathing down their necks (but haven't charged home) and have a very good chance of forming square in their reaction phase even if caught totally wrong-footed, perhaps we should just view the cavalry successes as representing those times when the infantry left things a little late?

I think that just highlights that in Lasalle Infantry who are already in square, as opposed to those who form square as a reaction, should really get some benefit (e.g. such as can't take more than 2 DISR if they lose - no auto-destroyed, etc). Lasalle already models the "not formed square in time" thing by you failing the reaction roll and having to fight in line or column instead... ...but allows single cavalry charges against fresh Infantry pre-formed in steady undamaged squares to be surprisingly effective...

Posted 8 months ago #
heybetty
Member

I think squares were a fix that came about from a lack of training/confidence personally. Why did they not bother with them during the SYW ?.......more professional better traind armies. Squares were just a way to give the poor buggers a fighting chance.

Posted 8 months ago #
Mycenius
Member

Actually as I understand they came about more because of an improvement in cavalry not because of the deterioration of Infantry. At the start of the SYW Cavalry still (mostly?) didn't always charge home, etc, so it was much easier for Infantry to fend them off... My SYW knowledge is a little thin but didn't some Infantry start to resort to squares later on during the SYW and in the subsequent conflicts, well BEFORE the Revolutionary Wars of 1789 onwards (which saw the appearance of the mass conscript armies and the 'training' claim)... I don't think you can just haul out the old cliché about Infantry Training - its much more complex than that and I'd argue that's only perhaps 1 of at least 3 main factors, the third probably being the changes in generalship and how battles were fought tactically... :-)

Posted 8 months ago #
heybetty
Member

The thing about a square is it's much harder to run away from..........sheer fear made sure you stayed in it.....sometimes. But I think your right Mycenius Napoleonic cavalry was a lot more aggressive than their predecessors, and the consquences of running from it was suicide. The biggest improvements were artillery, medical and logistics. The rise of the citizen army and conscription made it necessary to simplify training, the square was a simple defensive formation designed for such armies. Large numbers of men fed into the machine as quickly as possible was the call of the day, and for the French... even more so.

Posted 8 months ago #
Erzherzog Karl
Member

For what it's worth: Last Friday my opponent's French dragoons countercharged my infantry attack against his infantry (my Austrians in attack column). My immediate response is unprintable, but so was his when I threw two 6s against his fistful of 1s, 2s and 3s and went on to break his infantry before my cuirassiers arrived in support. When dice decide, anything can happen, and frequently does. Seems at least as unjust as cavalry breaking a square?
I think it's a cracking set of rules - Napoleonics is fun again after a very long time looking!

Posted 8 months ago #
heybetty
Member

@ Karl- "I think it's a cracking set of rules - Napoleonics is fun again after a very long time looking!"

Yes I agree Karl, and it's been a long time between drinks here as well.

Posted 8 months ago #
Mycenius
Member

@ Karl: I think it's a cracking set of rules - Napoleonics is fun again after a very long time looking!

@ HeyBetty: Yes I agree Karl, and it's been a long time between drinks here as well.

+1 here too guys - don't let the fact I regularly ramble on about the Cav vs. Inf thing or the Brits 3-stand arty give you the idea I'm not happy with the rules - they play great and its the first time in my entire life I've really enjoyed Nappies and the games actually feel "Napoleonic"! I just get tired of Cam running over all my British Infantry first cavalry charge of every game with those damn Cuirassiers & Carabiniers... ;-)

Posted 8 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 12

Reply

You must log in to post.