Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: Newbie question about infantry tactics.
Well, in films about WWI and WWII, you often see soldiers grouped to fight, especially in trenches. So the distance between two men must be one meter or so.
contrary to this, in a TV program about a mission of the french army in Afrika, where the french soldiers tried to train voluntary ex-militia men into real soldiers to form the new army of the country now at peace, a french instructor told the Afrikan men to place at least each one a few meters far from each other (something like 10 meters or so), to avoid being killed all at once with the blast of a grenade or another exploding weapon.
I guess the tactics evolve as time pass, but wasn't this true back then? Or is it useful only in certain situations (the Afrikan guys were training in open terrain, with mostly cover from high grass or little fences)?
nope nope nope, the tactics of maintaining intervals were back in WW2 (as far as I know). It was used for infantry under mortar fire so like you said, not to lose more than one man from one mortar shell. It worked really well as I know.
What would H Jones do?
Last edited by king_tiger_tank on Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
Infantry tactics is failry largish area of study, and your best bet is to start reading a few decent books on the subject.
Suffice to say that tactics rely on a few key features:
Terrain
Doctrine
Technology
You can't use the same tactics in close country (like the Jungle) that you would use in ope terrain. 10 meters or so in the Jungle is a long way, while standing shoulder to shoulder in open terrain is a great way to lose a whole section fast.
Also two nations with the same level of technology will not follow the same doctrine, nor for that matter will services under one nation. The Brits and Yanks do things differently to each other, and the US Marines do things differently to the US Army.
Here's some quick numbers to think about too (all numbers are rough and ready).
Wellington's Army at Waterloo fielded 20000 men per mile
The US civil war saw this decline to 12000 men per mile, with confederate armies repelling attacks with as few as 5000 men per mile.
The Boers held a line of some 7 miles with around 4500 men (around 650 men per mile)
The Great War saw the number push back up as the main sectors were defended by the Germans with between 3000 - 4500 men per mile including local reserves, excluding logistics personnel and strategic reserves.
The great war also featured the battalion as the basic unit, however by the end of the war the basic unit became the company as more sophisticated tactics were employed.
In Africa in 1940 the numbers again plummeted with Tobruk's 30 mile perimeter being held by approxamately 800 men per mile.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: Thats interesting indeed
The numbers of men per mile at Waterloo might have had something to do with bunching because of the terrain of course, but surprisingly large number of men per mile anyway.
Always been of great interest to me, that whole battle, what a spectacle it must have been, so much happened and unlike lots of battles where formations could be left out of the fun, EVERYONE got their turn on that day, to ""Hard pounding this, gentlemen. Let us see who can pound the longest."".
Civilians who had ridden out to see the battle, were pressed into service as runners for Wellington. There was one diary I read somewhere, of an officer recieving new orders from the regiments civiliain tailor who had been "Only too proud to be of service" when Wellington had spotted him hanging about. And the officer was disgusted to see how excited the bloke was, basically said in his diary he would have been sitting in the town sowing quite happily at that point, if he had of had the chance.
And Toburk really was a special case. The defenders were AUSSIES. Taught to fight by Kiwis, don't you know, so you need less of them per mile, 'natch.
The number of men per suare mile at Waterloo , was due for entirely different reason. The English army under the Iron Duke, at least the majority of them and the entire French army, were using muskets ( shoulder to shoulder, fire when the enemy is massed, on my order, front rank down, back rank step forward, fire on my order ) all of this was close range stuff, with cannon fire from both sides bowling thru the ranks of massed men. However it also marked the begining of a new era of soldier that still exists today.The 95th Regiment, known as the Green jackets, which was formed 6 years earlier and trained with the first rifle used in modern warfare. The Baker rifle, the men where also trained in a new method of offence. It was called skirmishing, where they were to attack in single formation
and gain cover, crouch and actually aim their rifles (unheard of before this war) . Thought to be prone because cavalry would be able to cut them down. As compared to the musket and bayonet. formed into the "English square", used to defend the horse charge. They were used sparingly at the begining of the campaign. However their commander Black Bob Crawford and indeed Wellington were soon to realise that they had a Regiment that where not only capable of "thinning the attack" but where more than capable of routing the stand and deliver style of warfair previously used . This was the begining of using accurate fire from a distance to decimate the enemy line, no longer did the majority win, and the French that day probably felt like the Mahdi's hordes when they charged into the first MG fire with horses and swords at Khartoum and the Sudan.... and BTW the only thing an Aussie has learned from a Kiwi in warfare is how not to wear a hat... wtf are those lemon squeezers anyway...
Hahaha. Till we told you guys about toilet paper, you were still using LEAVES, mate.
=]
The sad thing about the Lemon Squeezer, is the "1, 2, 3, 4's" think they invented it. That and the fact that they only make civilian copies in teal blue.
Aussies are good for the odd thing, like giving our ugly shelias potential males, taking our dole bludgers off our hands for us, giving us a standard to aim at in cricket . . well, rugby league too .. . . . and tennis. . . swimming, netball, . . . . .
At least we always have it over yah in the Touch Footie.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: Re: Thats interesting indeed
Badger-Bag wrote:
The numbers of men per mile at Waterloo might have had something to do with bunching because of the terrain of course, but surprisingly large number of men per mile anyway.
Always been of great interest to me, that whole battle, what a spectacle it must have been, so much happened and unlike lots of battles where formations could be left out of the fun, EVERYONE got their turn on that day, to ""Hard pounding this, gentlemen. Let us see who can pound the longest."".
Civilians who had ridden out to see the battle, were pressed into service as runners for Wellington. There was one diary I read somewhere, of an officer recieving new orders from the regiments civiliain tailor who had been "Only too proud to be of service" when Wellington had spotted him hanging about. And the officer was disgusted to see how excited the bloke was, basically said in his diary he would have been sitting in the town sowing quite happily at that point, if he had of had the chance.
And Toburk really was a special case. The defenders were AUSSIES. Taught to fight by Kiwis, don't you know, so you need less of them per mile, 'natch.
:p
In the excellent book 'Redcoat' there is an account, among many, of a British officer getting his leg sawn off in the middle of a square, still directing his men!
In the same battle, the colonel of the Scots Greys got both his arms shot off and rode into the charge with the reins between his teeth.
Champion stiff upper lip winners of all time in my book.....
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
) by 9 30. Sad, eh?
