Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Colin Knox</i>
<br />That is by maneuvering to the flank the decisive blow is able to be delivered at the joint or hinge created by the flank attack and this was done by the right or left centre. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This works pretty well in Talonsoft (must be the same at HPS). The trick is to force a defender to create an angle shape deployment on his flank, which can be attacked from two directions simultaneously. Then, +2 Flank fire modifier does the job. In addition, this deployment requires concentration of the defender, as a result routing units take with them many others and disorder the second line.



Major Alexey Tartyshev
Moscow Grenadiers Regiment
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Infantry Corps
2nd Army of the West (NWC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Philbert</i>
Then again, Nappy wasn't operating on North American terrain either. The topography had a very large part to play in that war...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And yet, even on more or less open ground, Civil War generals generally adhered to a more linear, frontal style of assault along a single axis of advance compared to the more flexible, multi-directional approach developed by Napoleon. E. g., Gettysburg, Antietam, Franklin, to name some of the worst. Array all your divisions in a single line and hit the enemy more or less in front. You disagree?

<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter, Maréchal d'Empire
Duc des Pyramides, Comte de Normandie
Commandant la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3e Division Bavaroise[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/EdM_start.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant les Grenadiers à Pied de la Vieille Garde, "les Grognards"
</center>

Bon jour Mes amis,

Firstly - <u>Hauptmann Ola Berli </u>I must take issue with your mention of fleeing Frenchmen (especially against fellow Kiwis!![:(!]), for YOU my friend fled from my last challenge to YOU! Enough of your public rantings and ravings about cowards! It is YOU who wear the white coat Sir...and it's back is now visible for all to see!![:p][:0][^]. I have all BG and Talonsoft games should you wish to turn and face real men who fight in any season, weather or terrain! [:)]

Secondly - Manouevre on the battlefield is tactics (the minutia of detailed moves of units). Manouevre around the battlefield can be tactical or operational (more to do with small to large formations on or just off the battlefield). Manourvre prior to battle can be operational or strategic(again formations) generally, and initially, sepereated from the field of action prior to movement into the action.

How it is done, with what and to what ends is <b>The Art of War</b>. We all paint but not always can it be seen to produce a work of art!

So my friends let us say that the proof is in the pudding, and how it tastes at the end. May we all taste good pudding this coming week [:D]

<b>Merry Xmas one and all</b>

Mike Ellwood
Inf Regt Konig
VII Saxon Corps
ADR

Good on you Mike good to see someone else understands the various levels of activity from tactical through to strategic.

As for the French being cowards it is not us who defends in most games[:D]

Merry xmas to all
Colin Knox

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Philbert</i>
Then again, Nappy wasn't operating on North American terrain either. The topography had a very large part to play in that war...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And yet, even on more or less open ground, Civil War generals generally adhered to a more linear, frontal style of assault along a single axis of advance compared to the more flexible, multi-directional approach developed by Napoleon. E. g., Gettysburg, Antietam, Franklin, to name some of the worst. Array all your divisions in a single line and hit the enemy more or less in front. You disagree?

<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter, Maréchal d'Empire
Duc des Pyramides, Comte de Normandie
Commandant la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3e Division Bavaroise[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/EdM_start.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant les Grenadiers à Pied de la Vieille Garde, "les Grognards"
</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In some respects yes. [:)]

First those aren't the worst.[:o)] Malvern Hill, Cold Harbor and Fredricksburg-now we are talking worst.[;)]
George B McClellan never in his life <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Arrayed all his divisions in a single line and hit the enemy more or less in front.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">.[}:)] If he had the war most likely would have been over on the Peninsula and if not there at Antietam. I do not see how you can include Gettysburg Campaign in this either-which was a maneuver for advantage. As far as the battle, first day involved Confederate attacks along the Chambersburg Pike from the west(A.P. Hill's Corps) and from the north(Ewell's Corps). The second day uncoordinated attacks on both flanks and on the 3rd day Longstreet's proposal to move around the Union left in oposition to Lee's up the middle.
Most of Grant's campaigns were based on maneuver as were Sherman's, as well most of Jackson's and those of Lee. Grant intended the final campaign to be one of a simultaneous and coordinated movement of all his armies. Yes there was Cold Harbor but there was also Waterloo. The resort to the frontal attack when all your attempts at maneuver are frustrated by both your enemy and your own generals.

But it is hard to make comparisions like this. The telegraph, the railroad, and the rifled musket did much to change the landscape of war. I think to make comparisons between the two is unfair to both. [:I]

But if we want to talk about <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">generals generally adhered to a more linear, frontal style of assault along a single axis of advance compared to the more flexible, multi-directional approach developed by Napoleon<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">let's talk about WWI[:p] JMHO



Colonel Phil Driscoll
12e Legere of the 7th Division
II Corps
ADN

Vive L'Empereur!

The American Civil War is a good comparison.

However, expecially in the realm of tactics, we need to be careful. (1) cavalry was no longer a battlefield arm.
(2) Artillery and musket fire was much stronger. I have read that when the French looked back at the ACW, the Franco-Prussian War and the Austrian -Prussian War, they concluded that the best thing to do in early WWI was to charge really fast into the enemy line to close the distance and rely on elan. But I digress into areas I know little about.

What I am getting at is that the armies, not just the leaders, in the Nappy period and the ACW period were different. Different tools have different uses. All of the trained officers had studied the Napoleonic Wars.

Operationally, there are boundless examples of manouver warfare-the Atlanta Campaign, Grants Overland Campaign, Peninsula Campaign, Lee's two invasions of MAryland, Jckson in the Valley.

Tactically, I am less familiar here but there are a lot of instrances of flanking and flank attacks. And plenty of wasteful frontal attacks.

As far as attack in one big line, I think this may be an oversimplification. Picket's charge had several lines. And that attack was flanked by the union similar to the British at Waterloo against the Old Guard.

I think that this type of battlefield manouver is under-appreciated in our study of the ACW. At a quick glance, Eylau,Borodino or Wagram or Dresden appear very similar to a ACW battle--Fredericksubrg, , Franklin, etc. The movement by Thomas at Nashville was very "Napoleonic," as was JAckson in the valley or at Chancerlersville.

regards,
Baron Jim P

But again, we need to be careful to compare because the weapons were so different. Similar, but different.

Sirs,

and especially Mike. I am on holiday I will be back 28 Dec.
I will e- mail You so we can meet on the battlefield.
I want that we use the MOE III rules not more or less [:)]

Mike I look forward for it this will be Great!


Merry Christmas!
Hauptmann
Ola Berli
IR 18 d'Aspre
The Imperial Austrian Army.

I believe the French infantry was often quoted as saying that Napoleon relied on their legs to win his battles before a shot was ever fired. I don't really think that "breaking the hinge" was his primary goal but was rather more of a tool he used. His goal was to surprise his opponent and hit him at the point of attack with all the force he could concentrate (much as R.E. Lee did later). This is why the French army was divided in corps, so that each could fight as an independent army to hold the enemy while the others concentrated for the killing blow. He used deception and surprise when at his best as others have noted. Sometimes he was just lucky, but I would rather follow a lucky commander than an unlucky one. Napoleon had many stratagems for accomplishing his goal, the "move to the rear", "breaking the hinge", and even using the weather as at Austerlitz but the goal was always surprise and concentrated force IMO.

A word about the comparison to the ACW, I think the rifled Minnie ball had a severe dampening effect on using maneuver effectively. Obviously the linear tactics were a complete disaster. Later in the war the armies went to entrenching whenever possible and even began the use of fire and movement type rushes using cover when available. Certainly Lee and Sherman understood the use of maneuver whenever possible and produced some classic maneuver victories. Grant understood that numbers were on his side but had to learn that even numbers could be used up in costly frontal assaults. I have often heard of the ACW referred to a transitory war from the maneuver of Nappy times to the stagnation of emplacements of WW1.

Happy holidays everyone.[;)]


Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

Hi Ed
Nice post I agree about the goal being surprise etc.
I guess it was all about reading the terrain and conditions really which Napoleon was the master of. The flank attack is not always on my post really refers to when it was and from a 'lined up in front' position (such as a Waterloo historical layout at move 1). Also I think it is nice to have some posts about the theories and debate around them. Certainly the response to this stimulus has been good. [:)]

I also think ACW was different due to the increase in firepower in all the arms and in particular the removal of cavalry as a shock arm, although I am no expert on ACW. I like your statement about the transitory nature.

Anyhow Seasons greeting to you
Colin Knox

Colin,


Probably the greatest manuever of entire ACW was Sherman's March to the sea. This classic is still taught at all three US Service Academies.

General de Division Doug Fuller
Duc de Montmorail et Comte de Hainaut
2e' Grenadiers a' Pied de la Vielle Garde
I Corp Commander
AdN

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ola Berli</i>
<br />
Bill,

in the last weeks I have got my hands on alot of great mods. I was
therefore thinking of not purchasing HPS Jena-Auerstadt. But I have
now decided to purchase it. Not least to support your great work
for our society.

Merry Christmas too You Sir!!!

Hauptmann
Ola Berli
IR 18 d'Aspre
The Imperial Austrian Army.



<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I appreciate your kind words sir. Not only am I honored but I speak for the rest of the team when I say thank you.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by buffpilot</i>
Probably the greatest manuever of entire ACW was Sherman's March to the sea. This classic is still taught at all three US Service Academies.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Doug,

With all due respect, I would suggest that Grant's Vicksburg Campaign was much more significant. Aside from his daring decision to sever his line of supply and cross the Mississippi SOUTH of Vicksburg, Grant masterfully fended off the Confederate forces under Johnston while trapping Pemberton's garrison in Vicksburg where they ultimately were forced to capitulate.

Sherman's decision, a year later, to cut loose from his supply line to march to Savanah, was based largely on the fact that Grant had already proved that an army could "live off the land". Moreover, since Hood foolishly pursued the chimera of yet another attempt to "liberate" Kentucky, Sherman faced little more than token opposition from various militia formations on his march to the sea.[:p]

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et
Comte de Marseille
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i>