[OOC] Battle of the Nations

[Jamesyco]

Something like that look good for a start, added contour lines.

[TJByrum]

If you guys want to use that as reference, I am okay with it.

[Landain]

I should be able to post tonight. I have two other threads I am in and was able to post to both of them this morning. I have started working on a post for this thread and should have it up this evening. (Time Zone: EST)

[Andreyich]

I will be posting Monday.

[TJByrum]

I see the posts, and I shall get a reply up within the week.

[TJByrum]

@jamesyco @andreyich @landain

I've posted, although it is a short one. Jamesyco suggests building entrenchments. It will be up to the commanders where they deploy their units in the morning before the battle. But Jamesyco brings up a good point. If you want to build entrenchments on your side of the hill, you may explain where and so forth. I think once that's out of the way we can advance to morning, where you will then explain where your units are posted and the battle may begin.

[Landain]

Assuming the prone position is good enough for Friedrich. we don't have a Pioneer battalion (Engineers) which have entrenching tools; i.e.: picks and shovels. I'll try to get a post up later today or no later than Monday attesting to this opinion.

[Landain]

Using smoothbore muskets a battalion of ~1000 infantry is terribly ineffective at 100 yards. Infantry formations in this time period rely on the volley of musket fire to encourage the enemy, at least green formations to break and run. Maybe the hope of intimidation alone could get the enemy to leave. The bayonet affixed to the muzzle is still the primary. Once you start seeing rifled muskets and breeach loading weapons used in military formations, the accuracy of musket or rifle fire improves. Then, the use of entrenchments serves a true purpose. With inaccurate smoothbore musket fire, a trench would only mean the infantry have to charge up out of their own holes in order to meet the enemy with the bayonet.

This Roleplay is a prime example of why professional armies employ a "Unity of Command" or "Single Vision" when it come to the Commander's intent. Having a democratically chosen method of determining a strategy or tactic is such a grossly inefficient method.

[Jamesyco]

To be honest, most muskets and rifles of the time weren't that inaccurate, most of the time it is user error in where the shot goes as well people don't really want to shoot each other. Most people aim higher or lower than the men that they are supposed to be aiming, and during target practice, people usually hit targets regularly. But in battle, if you have two lines of regulars fighting, then it's only a quarter of the accuracy because of that reason. Yes, against untrained troops a few of the rank will fall and everyone will route, but they see a wall of smoke and the lack of enemies and decided its best to run when they aren't visible.

Also entrenchments have always been used, even in the field of battle. During this age of revolution, they were really put into full potential. Waterloo, the different riots in Paris, Yorktown, Borodino. Most of the time, the two armies would entrench and fight over several days while marching troops across an open field littered with bodies of previous waves of men while being fired upon. Sometimes they would meet the enemy out in the open if both armies sent out men at the same time or sometimes as a quick counterattack if their line won the skirmish.

[Andreyich]

It depends on the infantry. In the Russian Empire it was indeed as you describe it, infantry only given a few balls and powder charges every so often to practice their firing for leaders like Kutuzov preferred to use only a volley or two to disorient the foe before charging. However this was not the case for all European militaries at the time, much less their elites.

[Landain]

Also entrenchments have always been used, even in the field of battle. During this age of revolution, they were really put into full potential. Waterloo, the different riots in Paris, Yorktown, Borodino. Most of the time, the two armies would entrench and fight over several days while marching troops across an open field littered with bodies of previous waves of men while being fired upon. Sometimes they would meet the enemy out in the open if both armies sent out men at the same time or sometimes as a quick counterattack if their line won the skirmish.

@Jamesyco

You are correct about the accuracy. A lot of soldiers in the line did not want to kill another human and would aim high or low. When You read historical data on the subject, the empiricist does not state why the units miss, just that they miss. There was an experiment done in the UK using smooth bore muskets. They found that a battalion (~1000 men) would hit roughly 60% of their targets when firing at hay bales. But as described during the conduct of battle when there was the potential for shooting at humans, committing a sinful act or placing oneself in harm's way, the accuracy dropped to about 3-6%. The bayonet was the primary weapon on the battlefield.

Building a redoubt with a trench circling a built up area surrounded by wooden pikes or palisade was more common than fighting in an actual trench. This forced the enemy to climb the banking of the redoubt from the trench up the wall and past the pikes.

[Jamesyco]

When I say trench, I don't mean an actual modern trench-like what you see appearing in the 1860s, those were around, but usually only for artillery batteries, I mean like one of those trenches where you dig up behind you and place the dirt in front of you with either spikes/twigs/extra stuff to form a little embankment, which was usually enturned with redoubts, rountles, barrettes, and spikes. Which is usually when there is little to no time to create anything.

But going on about Elite troops, most elite soldiers are just shock troops or used as reserves in the last resort effort of a failing battle/something where a little bit of scare tactics could break the enemy. Napoleons three-guard units were rarely seen in battle fighting, most of the times they fired shots just out of viable range and marched forward in the smoke to scare the various troops on the other side. The two times I know they fought were Borodino and Waterloo where they were as effective as a better regulars unit. Well except waterloo when they were watered down a bit.

[Andreyich]

My post will be Tuesday.

[Andreyich]

sorry for the great delay, but its here

[TJByrum]

Checking in. I've noted the posts and will try to reply within a week or so.