MORE ON CHANDLER'S CONCEPT OF COMBINED ARMS
I recently read the article in Vol. VII, No. 1 by Mr. Steenrod entitled "Chandler's Cocnept of Combined Arms". Though I must agree with Mr. Steenrod in a general sense, the fact of the matter is that there is considerable reason to believe that combined arm attacks were regularly utilized.
Having done considerable reading on tactical topics, not only in English, but French, German and Spanish, I have to agree that the recorded instances of combined arms attacks are almost non-existent, but they do exist. You simply have to dig in the right, obscure source documents to find them.
I believe that combined arms attacks were far more common than might be suggested by the imited detailed accounts available. Only an incredibly small number of battle accounts truly get i nto the nuts and bolts details. Indeed, try to find a source that describes in detail the types of Immanon used. The word column is common, but not specific. Even if you find a source that says the unit was in colonne d'attaque, colonne par division or colonne par peloton, there is still the question of the interval. Fundamental details are invariably missing. The period historians ignored this detail regularly and even the commanding officers seldom included this type of detail in their reports. As a result, just because it isn't discussed, one shouldn't assume that it didn't occur, particulary if one is using very general texts as the reference source such as Chandler. If you want this type of detail the reference source document has to be entirely focused on a single engagement. Trying to evaluate this type of combat using a book that covers more than one battle, i.e., Chandler, practically guarantees that the reader will not find any significant detail on any given battle.
It is possible to cite examples of combined arms attack, but again it requires a lot of careful digging. During the early stages of the Battle of Borodino one excellent example of a combined arms attack occurred. I quote from my unpublished 1812 manuscript:
"The French attack on the center of the Russian position aroundSemenovskaya was led byFoant's 2ndDivision He was flanked by the heavy cavalry of the Iand IV Reserve Cavalry C.rps. Thisforce advanced directly on fhe rubble that had been Semenovskaya, The assault was heralded by a tremendous artillery barrage that furthered the destruction of the already ravaged village. "
Here we have French infantry advancing with cavalry on the flanks supported by an artillery barrage. It would certainly seem to fill the bill as a combined arms attack.
However, one quotation doesn't support that this occurred all of the time, but there is more evidence to support the general use of combined arms attacks. The enclosed illustrations show such a maneuver and are drawn from:
Prussian Grossen Generalstalb, (Jany) Urkondliche Beitrige und Forsuchungen sur Geschichle des Preussichen Herres, Heft 21-25: Das Prussiche Heer im Jahre 1812 Berlin, 1909.
However, the source documents that jany used to obtain these illustrations was one of the following regulations:
- Exerzir-Reglement for die Kavallerie der Koniglich Preussischen Armee, Berlin, 1812
Exerzir-Reglement for die Infanterie der Koniglich Preussischen Armee, Berlin, 1812
Exerzir-Reglement for die Arrillerie der Koniglich Preussischen Armee, Berlin, 1812
Both in Jany's discussion as well as in all three 1812 regulations the Prussians go into great depth on the process by which a combined arms attack is to be conducted. Indeed, if you study the generalized organization of the Prussian "brigade", which was in fact more like a division, it was structured with combined arms attacks in mind. In a general sense the description of the French effort at Semenovskaya fits the illustrations found in the Prussian regulations.
As I said earlier, documented examples of infantry and cavalry advancing side by side into the enemy are rare, but there is evidence that exists to support that this was done on a regular basis, long before the Napoleonic Wars began. An examination of Revolutionary orders of battle vvill show the casual observerthat thereare no massive cavalry divisions likethosefound in Napoleon's Grand Armee. Indeed, every nation regularly mixed light and heavy cavalry regiments into their infantry formations. There are modest reserve corps which do contain a larger percentage of cavalry than the other corps, but they are still mixed infantry and cavalry corps. Pure cavalry formations rarely exist above the brigade level.
The cavalry in the Revolutionary period was not structured like the Napoleonic corps cavalry brigade which was assigned for pickets and scouting duty. Those brigades were universally composed of light cavalry. These pre-1800 cavalry brigades had both scouting units and "battle cavalry". It is obvious from this structure that they were intended to operate in close conjunction with the infantry and there is insufficient cavalry present to block the advance of infantry. There were rarely more than 3-4 regiments assigned per infantry division.
Furthermore, Mr. Steenrod's comments about the "passage of lines", or the passing of one formed unit through another, are not completely accurate. The Reglement de 1791 devotes two pages to the entire process. Indeed, every one of the operations that the passage of lines entails is quite basic. It was a quick wheeling of the maneuvering elements of the line to permit a similarly restructured line to pass through the openings. It was definitely not the tedious and difficult maneuver as Mr. Steenrod suggests.
If this maneuver was used solely for the purpose of passing fatigued infantry formations through other infantry formationsor if it could be used to permit cavalryto pass through is notspecified in the regulation. The regulations do not address that question, unfortunately.
In his article Mr. Steenrod strikes at the heart of Napoleonic warfare and brings up some valid questions that will probably remain unanswerable. As few of the actions are documented in sufficient detail, we will probably never ever fully comprehend why infantry apparently stood motionless in square afterthecavalry passed and the infantry or artillery closed. For one, I suspect that we will have to rely on the generalized accounts of reputable authors, such as Chandler, or period tacticians and strategists such as Jomini and Clauswitz, which state that this is how it happened.
A WARGAMER'S CHRISTMAS
When you live with a wargamer, it's always easy to tell when Christmas is coming - in fact, you get plenty of warning.
September: the conversation frequently and repeatedly turns to interesting ads in the latest issues of wargaming magazines. Photographs are brought over to be admired and noted. Mdgazinesare pressed open so that when they are moved or tidied they "naturally" fall open to the desired pages.
October: It's hard to tell if subtlety is working. Magazines are now left obviously open to indicate Christmas items. Conversation slowly turns to discussion of delays in postal service. Around this time it's amazing what "the guys at work" talk about.
November: it's time for serious hints. overseas ordering needs to be done now if any iterns are to appear under the tree. Holly berries now appear beside certain items in thead section. Discussion turns to the daily currency exchange rate (you can learn a lot in November). Stamps and IRC's conveniently appear.
December: it's too late to expect it for Christmas but at this point even an IOU under the tree is beginning to look good. Complete orders are found written and addressed. When pressed for ideas for Christmas the gamer will reluctantly come up with "other" ideas.
ChnstmasDay If the spouse has been on her toes (experience with the routine helps) some of the long anticipated items will indeed be under the tree. Usually there is an IOU as well (after all, no one's perfect).
You have to admire the man who can say with a straight face, "How did you ever guess?"
January: This month is usually spent racing after the mail to check on the status of outstanding IOU's.
February to August: Time to plan the strategy for next year.
ANOTHER LOOK AT WRG 7TH
Having read Kruse Smith's article about the recently released WRG 7th Edition Ancients Rules, I felt I'd like to respond.
Let me begin by stating that I have a lot of respect for the opinions of Mr. Smith; if I hadn't read some of his articles I doubt if I'd have become interested in WRG Ancients at all. His word carries a lot of weight in the hobby and that is why I'm writing. I don't want readers to become turned off to a very enjoyable set of rules because Mr. Smith expressed some doubts about the set (honest as those doubts, no doubt, are).
I'm sure that the delays in printing the 7th Edition have piqued curiosity to such an extent that it was thought worthwhile to hurry up a critique to at least give the readers some gauge to go by. I'm only sorry that Mr. Smith didn't have time enough to delve more deeply into the many differences between 7th Edition and its predecessors and perhaps playtest it a few times.
Our wargaming group has been playing with 7th Edition almost exclusively from the first moment we could get our hands on it; about six months, give or take In that time we've played at least 15-20 games using most of the troop types and combinations possible. When we first got a look at the new rules (we had been playing 6th for a while), we had the same general impression as Kruse Smith had - namely that missile fire was too powerful and the lack of casualty removal and morale checks left us, well skeptical.
However we have now had an almost total change of heart. While agreeing that the organization of the rules leaves a lot to be desired (it's a little better than 6th...not saying much), we still find that the whole feeling of these rules leaves the player feeling that they're sitting down to a more plavable, faster moving and at the same firnea more "real" battle. To achieve this realism many of the normally complex factors which go into both a real battle and most sets of rules are here abstracted or simplified, with a resulting loss of "local" nitty-gritty realism. You don't see a unit losing men: elapsed time has to be thought of on a couple of different levels: uncrale questionsare built into various other aspects of the rules and (rather arbitrarily) decided without you having to give it a second thought. However, what's happening to the army as a whole feels right.
I'm not saying that we were completely happy. With this new set we've wound up adding a few house rules forour own peace of mind. We added some categories and modifiers to the wavering test (through a curious omission hitting an enemy unit in the flank or rear seemed to have no morale effect at all); and allowed irregular troops a chance (with a risk of disorder) to increase their maneuverability. We also added a few modifiers hased on morale type at key places and madethe chance, ie, kill a general fighting with a unit a pure percentage roll rather than the bizarre rule included in the 7th Edition. Most of these additions were designed to soften the somewhat hard to swallow aspects of the rules which have been made purposely arbitrary in the interests of simplicity. Our house rules additions are only minor, personal and rather picky changes to a basically sound system.
I'd like to respond to a couple of points that Kruse Smith raised in his review. He says that 1500 point armies will not work well under these rules. To the contrary. we've found that a 1500 point dumv is the optimum for a single player for ease of play and enjoyment in a single evening's game. Elsewhere he states that missile fire is verv powerful even devastating in 7th Edition. While it can be quite damaging to smaller cavalry units, we have been a little disappointed in its lack of effect on larger infantry units: it is very difficult to get 2 casualties per figure on a 24 man unit with missile fire alone. In general though his statements had validity in so far as he had had little time to appraise the system.
My own opinion is that 7th Edition marks not a turning point, but a diverging point in our hobby. It allows those players who wish to fight a battle and not a skirmish to do so. With this system you can refight Cannae, inaccurate scale. You won't know exactly what's happening in the 2nd century of the 3rd maniple of Hastati of the 5th Legio as you would in most other systems, but you'll probably get a better idea of how the various troop types in the 5thLegio work together (not to mention that you'll be able to have the whole Legio on the playing table, as well as several others !).
In terms of Tournament play this means that battles will be lost or won more on players'skill and strategy rather than depending on a particular unit ("gimmick" type units will never comprise enough of an army to exert more than local influence) or rules loopholes (the rules are simple enough that there are few loopholes and what we've found are minor and could only rarely be used).
In conclusion I just hope that sometime in the near future we'll see 7th Edition used at a tournament, I dare say that 7th Edition battles could be fotight in one part of the hall while 6th Edition was being fought in another.
KUDOS!
There comes a time when one must have his say. I find your magazine the best in print. The varied periods covered, the articles, the points of view, rebuttals and most of all your unbiased reviews, make great reading. Being from an area that has no gaming hobby shops within 100 miles, your publication is our "window" to the gaming world. Figures are purchased based on your reviews. Before "discovering" The Courier, I had no idea of the huge gaming community in the U.S.
There are four of us who game together in Victoria; before The Courier, we knew nothing of conventions, various rules and research materials available and had never imagined the vast periods and scales. WW H was the only period we played. We now play Napoleonics, Ancients, ACW and Colonials. Friends have been made in Houston and Austin TX and we play on a regular basis with our friends in Houston.
Because of your efforts four gamers have grown and matured to fun loving gamers!! Thanks again.
Thank you. This is just the effect we want The Courier to have. More people enjoying the hobby, more gaming in many periods and trying new ideas. - DICK BRYANT
POSSIBLE ADDENDUM TO THE SECOND DAY (VOL VII, NO. 1)
I would like to think a more skillful commander would lose less units in the first day. Apply the chart of earthworks to that of Infantry and Cavalry stands lost, but treat elite as veteran in both instances. No justification exists between distinguishing elites and veterans in either instance.
I would also think with the numerous OTR variants, it is time to compile the best of them from MWAN, Courier, PW, etc., as the 'Best of OTR' perhaps.
A very good idea, Stuart; we will start a compilation to see ifthere is enough fora separate booklet. - DICK BRYANT
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VII #3
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1986 by The Courier Publishing Company.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com