Napoleon Bonaparte

[Moonglow]

He went into Russia with 600,000 men and came out with 40,000.

Same as Adolf Hitler.

God has always protected the Russians with Russian winters.

The US knows, the Russians are Only intimidated, by us having an Army Group, in reserve.

The Russian weakness has always been their manufacturing capacity, and quality(except for tanks and artillery), and financial organization...

 

[yiostheoy]

depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.

You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.

Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.

Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.

But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.

The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.

Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.

The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.

In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).

You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?

I am a former military officer and you are not.

That is probably the main reason why you and I disagree.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I do.

Q.E.D.

 

[Moonglow]

depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.

You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.

Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.

Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.

But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.

The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.

Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.

The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.

In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).

You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?

Normally the squares had bayonets attached...and could fire volleys...Not a good match up..

 

[yiostheoy]

He went into Russia with 600,000 men and came out with 40,000.

Same as Adolf Hitler.

God has always protected the Russians with Russian winters.

The US knows, the Russians are Only intimidated, by us having an Army Group, in reserve.

The Russian weakness has always been their manufacturing capacity, and quality(except for tanks and artillery), and financial organization...

Personally I do not believe the Russians have any weaknesses.

Other than once by the Japanese at sea, the Russians have never been defeated in battle.

They are still a regional superpower, and their region is Europe.

They have more tanks and arty than any other nation.

In Europe they are invincible.

 

[danielpalos]

depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.

You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.

Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.

Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.

But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.

The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.

Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.

The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.

In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).

You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?

I am a former military officer and you are not.

That is probably the main reason why you and I disagree.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I do.

Q.E.D.

You say that; but this is not, one of those, twice a day moments. You need an actual argument. And, you should review the battle on YouTube.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...

The Brit's have never had enough guys to be able to mass infantry like the French, the Russian, or the Prussians had.

So the Brit's could only go about 3 lines deep.

That however worked quite well for them since that is about how long it takes to reload a muzzle loading rifle.

 

[yiostheoy]

depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.

You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.

Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.

Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.

But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.

The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.

Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.

The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.

In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).

You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?

I am a former military officer and you are not.

That is probably the main reason why you and I disagree.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I do.

Q.E.D.

You say that; but this is not, one of those, twice a day moments. You need an actual argument. And, you should review the battle on YouTube.

My argument is that you are inexperienced and do not have any idea what you are talking about.

My argument is supported by my explanation of infantry versus horse.

My argument is verified by your failure to understand it.

 

[Moonglow]

He went into Russia with 600,000 men and came out with 40,000.

Same as Adolf Hitler.

God has always protected the Russians with Russian winters.

The US knows, the Russians are Only intimidated, by us having an Army Group, in reserve.

The Russian weakness has always been their manufacturing capacity, and quality(except for tanks and artillery), and financial organization...

Personally I do not believe the Russians have any weaknesses.

Other than once by the Japanese at sea, the Russians have never been defeated in battle.

They are still a regional superpower, and their region is Europe.

They have more tanks and arty than any other nation.

In Europe they are invincible.

The Germans beat the Russians in WWI at the battle of Tannenberg...

 

[danielpalos]

depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.

You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.

Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.

Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.

But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.

The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.

Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.

The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.

In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).

You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?

Normally the squares had bayonets attached...and could fire volleys...Not a good match up..

It is why traditional cavalry could not break infantry squares. Lancers could have a lance longer than a musket with baynet, and could "lance them" at the infantry square at a charge. Sufficient break in the square could enable cavalry to jump over breaks in the formation and melee at close range from within the square.

 

[danielpalos]

depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.

You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.

Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.

Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.

But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.

The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.

Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.

The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.

In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).

You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?

I am a former military officer and you are not.

That is probably the main reason why you and I disagree.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I do.

Q.E.D.

You say that; but this is not, one of those, twice a day moments. You need an actual argument. And, you should review the battle on YouTube.

My argument is that you are inexperienced and do not have any idea what you are talking about.

My argument is supported by my explanation of infantry versus horse.

My argument is verified by your failure to understand it.

Dude; argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy; you already lost the logic and reason, "wargame".

 

[yiostheoy]

An astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.

Bull sh!t.

Napoleon was just unlucky at Waterloo.

God was not with him that day.

 

[yiostheoy]

You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.

Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.

Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.

But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.

The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.

Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.

The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.

In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).

You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?

I am a former military officer and you are not.

That is probably the main reason why you and I disagree.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I do.

Q.E.D.

You say that; but this is not, one of those, twice a day moments. You need an actual argument. And, you should review the battle on YouTube.

My argument is that you are inexperienced and do not have any idea what you are talking about.

My argument is supported by my explanation of infantry versus horse.

My argument is verified by your failure to understand it.

Dude; argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy; you already lost the logic and reason, "wargame".

Normally ad hom is a fallacy however in your case the ad hom is supported by your lack of understanding of the purpose of horse and the purpose of infantry and the strength of each.

 

[yiostheoy]

depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.

You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.

Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.

Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.

But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.

The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.

Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.

The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.

In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).

You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?

Normally the squares had bayonets attached...and could fire volleys...Not a good match up..

It is why traditional cavalry could not break infantry squares. Lancers could have a lance longer than a musket with baynet, and could "lance them" at the infantry square at a charge. Sufficient break in the square could enable cavalry to jump over breaks in the formation and melee at close range from within the square.

A lance is not longer than a bullet can fly.

Plus horses are nice big targets.

This became even more apparent during WW1.

 

[yiostheoy]

An astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.

At the end he was sick not the same Napoléon did not have the same skills

In Dresden he suffered several days of hepatic colic. During the Battle of Leipzig, he again had extremely violent gastric and hepatic pains at the limit of the bearable. His health did not improve during the campaign of France.
From March to May 1815: Astreint permanently sat in his office to reorganize his army and government, under considerable stress and overwork, he was constantly beset by new gastric crises.

June 16-17, 1815: On the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, he was resumed by pains similar to those felt at Leipzig in 1813. He did not sleep that night (Boigey, 1930).

June 18, 1815: On the morning of the battle, he is treated for hemorrhoids very frequent among the great horsemen (Masson, 2010).

In spite of all those illnesses of Napoleon (because he was an old man by then) the fight with Wellington would have ultimately resulted in a draw of two approximately equal forces.

When Blucher showed up it was just bad luck for Napoleon and good luck for Wellington.

Lots of battles in history were simply good luck for one side and bad luck for the other. Sort of like a crap shoot. You roll the dice and you take your chances.

 

[Moonglow]

The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...

The Brit's have never had enough guys to be able to mass infantry like the French, the Russian, or the Prussians had.

So the Brit's could only go about 3 lines deep.

That however worked quite well for them since that is about how long it takes to reload a muzzle loading rifle.

Yes, when I play, I always concentrate artillery against the English center and use cavalry for screening and matched attacks against cavalry...Plus, I don't do like Napoleon and do a center attack, I outflank the weaker units on the right French flank...or English left flank..Much like Alexander did...But that is the advantage of having a battle done over and over...

 

[yiostheoy]

Should have developed flying artillery, as the U.S. used against Mexico, and Frederich the Great had started to develop, among others.

When the Wright Brothers invented aviation they created one of the most powerful violent military platforms.

The rocket however, invented by the Chinese and perfected by the Germans, Russians, and Americans, remains the most powerful and violent weapon on this Earth.

 

[Moonglow]

An astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.

At the end he was sick not the same Napoléon did not have the same skills

In Dresden he suffered several days of hepatic colic. During the Battle of Leipzig, he again had extremely violent gastric and hepatic pains at the limit of the bearable. His health did not improve during the campaign of France.
From March to May 1815: Astreint permanently sat in his office to reorganize his army and government, under considerable stress and overwork, he was constantly beset by new gastric crises.

June 16-17, 1815: On the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, he was resumed by pains similar to those felt at Leipzig in 1813. He did not sleep that night (Boigey, 1930).

June 18, 1815: On the morning of the battle, he is treated for hemorrhoids very frequent among the great horsemen (Masson, 2010).

In spite of all those illnesses of Napoleon (because he was an old man by then) the fight with Wellington would have ultimately resulted in a draw of two approximately equal forces.

When Blucher showed up it was just bad luck for Napoleon and good luck for Wellington.

Lots of battles in history were simply good luck for one side and bad luck for the other. Sort of like a crap shoot. You roll the dice and you take your chances.

Let's face it, The allies knew how to beat napoleon at his own game by the Battles of the Nations or Battle of Leipzig....

 

[yiostheoy]

The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...

The Brit's have never had enough guys to be able to mass infantry like the French, the Russian, or the Prussians had.

So the Brit's could only go about 3 lines deep.

That however worked quite well for them since that is about how long it takes to reload a muzzle loading rifle.

Yes, when I play, I always concentrate artillery against the English center and use cavalry for screening and matched attacks against cavalry...Plus, I don't do like Napoleon and do a center attack, I outflank the weaker units on the right French flank...or English left flank..Much like Alexander did...But that is the advantage of having a battle done over and over...

When you think about it, size always matters.

Cannon are really big guns. They still are. But until the tank was invented by the British in WW1 these big guns were slow.

So cavalry was superior to cannons back in those times because cannon was slow while cavalry was fast.

Cannons are superior to infantry at a distance however.

Infantry then and now can only be beaten by other infantry. This lesson was most recently learned during the Iraq wars -- both against the Persians and also against the USA.

Infantry now have rockets and missiles that can defeat tanks.

Tanks can defeat other tanks and any other mechanized vehicle.

But tanks are easy meat against modern aircraft.

Modern aircraft cannot always remain on station -- they need to refuel and reload. And bad weather can keep them complete out of the fray.

In pre-modern warfare, you moved your infantry in massive columns which were irresistible.

You used your cavalry to protect their flanks and to gather info on the enemy.

You use your cannon to engage first at a distance.

The infantry would disperse so as not to avail the cannons of easy targets.

But cannons cannot fire forever because eventually they run out of ammo that way.

You need a long supply chain behind your armies and columns to feed them and supply them.

Cavalry are the best attacking force against cannons.

But cavalry could never defeat infantry. They tried a few times in WW1 but it was a disaster.

 

[danielpalos]

You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?

I am a former military officer and you are not.

That is probably the main reason why you and I disagree.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I do.

Q.E.D.

You say that; but this is not, one of those, twice a day moments. You need an actual argument. And, you should review the battle on YouTube.

My argument is that you are inexperienced and do not have any idea what you are talking about.

My argument is supported by my explanation of infantry versus horse.

My argument is verified by your failure to understand it.

Dude; argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy; you already lost the logic and reason, "wargame".

Normally ad hom is a fallacy however in your case the ad hom is supported by your lack of understanding of the purpose of horse and the purpose of infantry and the strength of each.

yet, all you have is fallacy, and no reasoning to justify your simple and merely, inferior, bigotry.

 

[danielpalos]

depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.

You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.

Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.

Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.

But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.

The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.

Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.

The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.

In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).

You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?

Normally the squares had bayonets attached...and could fire volleys...Not a good match up..

It is why traditional cavalry could not break infantry squares. Lancers could have a lance longer than a musket with baynet, and could "lance them" at the infantry square at a charge. Sufficient break in the square could enable cavalry to jump over breaks in the formation and melee at close range from within the square.

A lance is not longer than a bullet can fly.

Plus horses are nice big targets.

This became even more apparent during WW1.

We are discussing Waterloo. You need to pay better attention to the argument; because, any corporal could do better.