Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question about strategy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    There were 2 reasons for that:one was that the musket was a very inaccurate weapon,thus the need to get as close as possible for the salvo to really damage the enemy line.The other was the psychological effect of a line that advanced without seemingly being affected by the defenders fire.The Swedes during Karl XII were particularly good at this,advancing up until 5-10m,firing,then charging.It worked damn well in nearly all battles,even at Poltava.Arthur Wellesley did the same at Assaye and he destroyed 15000 natives trained in European fashion with 7 battalions of Highlanders.The other 50000 Marathas fled once they saw what happened to their elite force.
    Marshal Aleksandr Suvorov used to say that the bullet was a fool,the bayonet a hero.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

    Comment


    • #17
      What Mihais said.

      Also, you can consider another example:

      Consider the M-16. It has an effective range of about 300 meters. Users get trained up to that range. But the sight of the weapon are normally set so you can fire at 100 meters without having to correct for distance. The closer the enemy is, the more effective you'll be with the ammo you have, it's simply easier to hit stuff.

      Also, these days with camouflage and cover instead bright uniforms and blocks of infantry, the full extent of your position might not be known by the enemy. Unleashing fire will give away that info. If you can let the advancing enemy think your numbers are less than they actually are, the sudden burst of fire will be quite a psychological shock. Possibly, if you quickly gain the upper hand, you might be able to prevent the enemy breaking away, the range is shorter so a counterattack as harder to flee from.
      Last edited by Nightowl; 22 Apr 11,, 12:58.
      "Football is war."

      -Rinus Michels

      Comment


      • #18
        Musket reloading time is long, especially with green troops.

        If you fire at 100 meters (you'll probably miss) then enemy will be on you before you're ready to fire again. If you fire at 15 meters, you'll probably hit somebody, and the survivors (if they continue) will meet massed bayonets.

        It's simply a matter of increasing the likelihood of a hit. The range of the M-61 cannon is 3,000 feet, but hits are much less likely, thus we were trained to bore in to 1,000' or less.

        Comment


        • #19
          Just a little background.

          The famous lines were delivered by Israel Putnam behind the rail fence on the American far left flank:

          "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes, then fire low. Take aim at their waistbands. You are all marksmen, men, and there's not a one of you that can't kill a squirrel at a hundred yards. Reserve your fire and we will destroy every one of them. Aim at the handsome coats. Pick off the commanders."

          Robert Roger's most trusted captain, John Stark, then hammered a stake into the ground 40 yards in front of the American line and said, "Not a man is to fire until the first Regular crosses that stake. Watch their gaiters. When you can see their gaiters clear, that's when to shoot."

          The orders to fire low were given to compensate for the musket's heavy recoil. When the Welsh Fusiliers reached the stake they were blasted by an enormous volley. The regiment behind them, the King's Own, advanced 15 yards more and were staggered by a second volley....And then the Tenth Regiment stepping over the bodies of the first two were hit by a third incredible volley.

          That's because Rogers had adopted for his Rangers a tactic taken from the Battle of Culloden, in which the front rank kneels, the second rank stoops and the third rank stands, firing successive volleys, the front rank reloaded by the time the third rank has fired. In Roger's words, "...the front fire whilst the rear reserves theirs until the front has discharged."

          The volleys at the rail fence were even more destructive because Stark's men were firing "buck and ball"...four pieces of buckshot for every bullet.
          Last edited by Red Seven; 22 Apr 11,, 14:27.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Doktor View Post
            I guess his question was is it strategy, tactics or operations.

            To my poor warfare knowledge that would be operations.

            On the funnier side I admire Canadian ability to explain everything through hockey. And there is no sarcasm in that line.
            Hahaha, I must say that actually made me laugh! No offence OOE.

            I think I understand why they did it now, Redseven: I had never heard that much of the story before, but once you explained it something in my head just clicked.
            Thank you all!
            -marx
            -MARX

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by marx View Post
              Hahaha, I must say that actually made me laugh! No offence OOE.

              I think I understand why they did it now, Redseven: I had never heard that much of the story before, but once you explained it something in my head just clicked.
              Thank you all!
              -marx
              Isreal Putnam's words not withstanding it is unlikely all his men were marksmen. Many of the colonials where city and towm dwellers, not frontiersmen. most likely had muskets not rifles. If they were marksmen then yhe order would have been suicide: the speech was a pep talk and morale booster.

              Keeping the non-frontiersmen from firing saved ammo, as it the British had more men to spend than the colonials had powder and bullets. It also magnified the effect and let the colonials facing the dreaded lobsterbacks feel like they had a couple of aces up thier sleeve.

              1 shock effect of massed fire
              2 even if someone knew he could not hit a squirrel at 100 yards, the guys next to him could.
              Last edited by zraver; 22 Apr 11,, 22:30.

              Comment


              • #22
                A few questions regarding strategy, tactics and operations.

                What is the official distinction between the three, and the official definition of the three?

                Are operations actions carried out to fulfill strategy utilizing tactics over a wide array of units?

                Cheers, wayfarer.
                "Who says organization, says oligarchy"

                Comment


                • #23
                  Wayfarer, like the Colonel said before, use words an 8 year old can understand

                  We were taught that you have a goal and a mission, and the unit's mission is always derived from the goal of the level above it. If the battalion's goal is to keep the peace in the region, the company's mission is to keep the road safe from stone-throwers. If the company's goal is to keep the road safe from stone-throwers, the platoon's mission will be to cover a certain stretch of road. If the platoon's goal is to cover a certain stretch of road, the patrol crew's mission is an 8 hour mounted patrol on an HMMWV.

                  Another example: Division 162's goal is to breakthrough the Syrian border, 401st Armored's mission is to act as a base, covering force and pivot point for the breakthrough forces.
                  401st Armored's goal is to act as a base, covering force and pivot point for the breakthrough forces, 46th/401st Armored's mission is to act as the middle battalion and provide effective fire on Syrian forces, cover the engineers' approach and allow the engineers to break through the barrier.
                  46th/401st Armored's goal is to act as the middle battalion and provide effective fire on Syrian forces, cover the engineers' approach and allow the engineers to break through the barrier, B Company's mission is to cover a certain sector and provide effective fire at the Syrians while directing artillery effectively onto Syrian positions.
                  B Company's goal is to cover a certain sector and provide effective fire at the Syrians while directing artillery effectively onto Syrian positions, 2nd Platoon's mission will be to cover a certain part of B Company's sector, provide effective fire at the Syrians while directing artillery effectively onto Syrian positions.
                  2nd Platoon's goal will be to cover a certain part of B Company's sector, provide effective fire at the Syrians while directing artillery effectively onto Syrian positions, 2-1's mission will be to provide effective fire, 2-2's mission will be to direct artillery, and 2-3's mission will be to provide effective fire.

                  (This is a hypothetical situation, but I used real unit names to keep thing in order. Coincidentally, or not, I used my old unit's names and numbers)

                  The promise of this system is that each level knows not only what it is meant to be doing, but also how they fit into the level above them and how they all are supposed to fit into the bigger picture. This also allows initiative on the parts of officers if they see the original mission isn't going well, they can adapt their mission to still fit into the goal of the level above them.
                  Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                  Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Wayfarer View Post
                    A few questions regarding strategy, tactics and operations.

                    What is the official distinction between the three, and the official definition of the three?

                    Are operations actions carried out to fulfill strategy utilizing tactics over a wide array of units?

                    Cheers, wayfarer.
                    Just remember, you asked for it.

                    Army Field Manuals

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      Isreal Putnam's words not withstanding it is unlikely all his men were marksmen. Many of the colonials where city and towm dwellers, not frontiersmen.
                      That's certainly true about the majority of the American force at the battle, but the group behind the rail fence to which I'm referring were on the far left flank of the American line, their left flank against the Mystic River and many, if not most, were New Hampshire frontiersman and Roger's Rangers led by John Stark. Arguably, this force probably had the steadiest and most dependable marksmen among all the Americans that day. Having said that, there was also some very effective American sniping going on from Charlestown against the British left.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X