'Cosmetic' Suggestions

[Randall C. Reed]

I love the explosions and smoke, what I don't enjoy that much are the units. Why? It's because as I said before they make the game quite confusing, also for example on a cannon unit you can see the number "71" when there are only 3 cannons and more or less 10 men, same thing for the 300+ units, also blood is missing and you can't really see when some are dead or not.

 

 

The history of warfare is one of confusion, chaos, and uncertainty. The smoke should be heavier, if anything. When you are the CinC, you are not omniscient. You are being bombarded with fragmentary, garbled, and contradictoy reports and sightings. That is what Lee and Meade had to contend with. The publishers would like you to be able to enjoy the same experience. It is not a game defect; it is a deliberate game feature. Enjoy!

[Silen]

The history of warfare is one of confusion, chaos, and uncertainty. The smoke should be heavier, if anything. When you are the CinC, you are not omniscient. You are being bombarded with fragmentary, garbled, and contradictoy reports and sightings. That is what Lee and Meade had to contend with. The publishers would like you to be able to enjoy the same experience. It is not a game defect; it is a deliberate game feature. Enjoy!

 

I'm not talking about that kind of confusion, to be more clear, I am talking about not SEEING an absolute shit, which is not caused by any battle stuff or detail, but by graphical issues.

[sinceresinceresincere]

love the game.

 

1.Can you add a revolutionary war theme to this game? red coats vs 13 colonies a mod is well needed cant find themed rts game like this anywhere!

2. map editor is needed we should be able to create our own custom maps for multilayer,

3. when micromanage units can you PLEASE add column and line formations as if i were to send my soldiers to a destination thats far on the map they should be able to march there in column formation to move fast on the map. It is UNREALISTIC to march units all over the map in a line formation. when there is no units to encounter or they are away from the fight. Its not traditional

4.Make artillery more devastating A shell shot should be able to knock 20 sprints at a time realistically

5 want to be able to combine smaller routed units with the general to make a new regiment

6.general gives faster morale and condition booster in los when units have been routed

[David Fair]

sinceresincersinsersinceresincersinsersinceresincersinsersinceresincersinser,

 

It's great you love the game but it looks like you need some feedback regarding your history.

 

Specifically regarding your point #4 above.  American Civil War artillery inflicted less than 8% of all battlefield casualties (about 6% of Union casualties, about 8% of CSA casualties captured by Union forces according to the medical records of the AoP).

 

These casualty rate tie very closely to the ordnance and resupply records of the AoP & ANV.  

 

The Union fired 32,781 artillery rounds at Gettysburg, the CSA fired about 22,000.  By comparison there were more than 7 to 8 million minie balls discharged on the field at Gettysburg.  

 

You simply don't know what you are talking about by stating "a shell shot should be about to knock 20 sprints (sprites?) at a time realistically".

 

If you do the math of the projectiles statistically an optimal shot by a single gun could inflict about 16 casualties.  The chance of such an impact was such a rare occurrence that these shots can be cross-referenced in letters and AAR's, 

 

The actual rate of an artillery round causing a single casualty during the ACW was 1 round in about 35 beyond canister range.  There is a great study done by a Naval Academy Graduate who researched artillery shots that hit more than 2 casualties at Gettysburg.  At the entire battle of Gettysburg there were only about 7 rounds per side that inflicted multiple casualties of note.  

 

The real work of the artillery was up close and personal with canister.  General Hunt compares the effect of a 12lb model 1857 smoothbore battery of 6 guns to be the equivalent of a 200 man regiment.  Rifled artillery were less effective at delivering canister - due to smaller bore size and rifling impacts the range and pattern of canister.  Howitzers were more devastating with canister - the CSA's 24lb howitzers were the most effective gun for canister rounds due to the number of projectiles that could be spewed from the larger bore size of the gun.

 

Note that artillery at Gettysburg did not rout a single regiment on either side with long range artillery fire.  

 

You advocate "realism" yet your point #4 above would introduce "fantasyism" to the UGG implementation of Gettysburg. 

 

Finally note that I ran the numbers of a 6 gun battery inflicting 20 casualties per gun for a total of 120 casualties per battery salvo.  In order to get the number above a fraction you would need to include all of the artillery ammunition expended at Gettysburg, Antietam, and the 7 Days Battle around Richmond.  In these combined battles it is statistically possible that it might have happened once.  Note that if such an impact had occurred during the ACW such an event would have been documented in numerous accounts including news paper articles.  No such source exists - because it never happened IMHO.

 

If you are interested in more about Civil War artillery I'd be happy to provide a list of credible sources for your consideration.

 

You might want to take a look at information from Ft. Sill the U.S. Army's Artillery School.  They have some great information stating that ACW artillery was actually 50% less effective than the artillery of the Napoleonic Wars.  Primarily this drop in artillery performance was due to longer range and more accurate small arms fire which dominated the ACW.  Secondarily, the introduction of rifled artillery dramatically reduced artillery effectiveness.  This was due to pointed projectiles which buried themselves in the dirt prior to detonation, poor fuze technology, nonstandard manufacturing techniques for both powder and hence fuzes.  Note that all artillery manuals prior to the ACW were exclusively written for smoothbore artillery.  For example the Patent on the Parrott Rifle was not issued until 1861.  These guns were in the field before the art of using the guns had evolved.  While rifled artillery could fire along the path of trajectory, without the effects of windage associated with smoothbores, timing the round to detonate when it was precisely over the target was a haphazard guess in the best case.  

 

PS - loved your suggestion on the American Revolution.  Why not include the entire Lace Wars which would open hundreds of years of horse and musket games to the mix!

[David Fair]

Regarding the speed of the game.  

 

Given the small team working on UGG it might be better to wait until the game can be modded to address the game play speed issues.

 

While I agree one size does not fit all - you don't want to fragment the game into multiple iterations.  

 

It is unfortunate the game architecture did not include settings for a couple of temporal ratios for game play (1 minute of game time = 2, 3, 4, 5, or 8 minutes) to allow players to choose the speed of their game.

 

This would really have helped players decide the game experience they find most interesting from leisurely to frenetic clickfest.

 

Modders should be able to address these issues without burdening the dev team.

 

When will modding be available?

 

Wink at Tormidal.

[GShock]

I agree time is just too fast.

With this time settings, CSA is compelled to rush for the objectives without any chance of alternative strategies. Considering the player may not select his initial deployment, the result is that every battle looks almost always the same. You basically don't have time to get to an objective in any but the most straightforward and predictable of the ways. The only apparent freedom you have is when you select your artillery targets.

 

If time was slowed down (which means everything is slowed down: reload/fire rates, movement, rally/rest, etc.) it wouldn't change much but you can't simply give extra minutes to fight the battle because that messes up the current balance, based on unlimited ammunition.

 

Increasing the time limit by 5 minutes and, consequently applying the reduction *in proportion* to time lapsing seems a good idea but there will finally be a limit that can't be pushed without implementing a system of limited ammunition and resupply (both of which would be most welcome).

[David Fair]

GShock,

 

I appreciate your concern on the battles all looking similar due to time constraints.

 

But I don't follow your logic that this impacts ammunition and resupply.

 

Both sides manages ammunition supply reasonably well at Gettysburg.  Where there were shortages these were at the regimental level.  Given UGG is a brigade-level game the ammunition issues appear to me to be below the radar.

 

Keep in mind that an individual supply wagon transported 20,000 rounds of small arms ammunition.  The entire Iron Brigade was resupplied with ammo by 3 wagons in dramatic fashion - which dropped off 70,000 rounds into McPherson's Wood.

 

While the charge of the 20th Maine and the 137th New York (Culp's Hill) are famous examples of ammunition shortages for the most part at the brigade level ammunition was a constant; but well managed concern.

[GShock]

I am more concerned about artillery barrages that had to be cut short because of low ammo. That kind of ammo, I mean.

We're building a game that portraits the battle of Gettysburg but, obviously, after the 1st day with the historical setting, the rest should be "What if" and evolve dynamically.

This historical beginning, however, should portrait the lower supply levels of CSA but it can't with unlimited ammo... in fact, the confederate guns (which were both less supplied, less numerous and less technologically proficient) shoot exactly the same number of rounds that USA does... this is why I'd like time to be slowed down, let more options come to strategy of the players and, of course, this means they can't have unlimited ammo.

 

This about ammo is a big change from the initial game philosophy I would welcome and I explained why I think time has to be tied to it.

[David Fair]

GShock,

 

Got it.  Limiting artillery ammunition sounds much more practical than rushing ammunition wagons around to brigades.  

 

The normal sequence was rotating the batteries as ammunition ran low/limiting the rate of fire to ensure batteries could stay in the field through the day.  

 

The barrage preceding Longstreet's Charge (aka Pickett's Charge) demonstrates batteries could expend all of their ammunition in about 90 minutes of intense firing.  Resupply required about 2 hours as the limbers had to be moved to the ammunition supply rather than putting the ammunition supply in harm's way. Limbers blowing up was not that unusual - but a wagon full of 600 rounds of artillery ammunition was much less frequent.  I'm not certain I've seen any references to artillery ammunition wagons blowing up.  I do know that some of the wagons were hit during the battle of Gettysburg - I'd need to check into how the ammunition was packaged to avoid chain reaction detonations - if such a thing happened.

 

If anyone has better information/references I'd be interested.

 

One option to think about would be having an absolute number of artillery rounds per side and each battery salvo would reduce the number.  My hunch is you'd need to tie the supply to the reloading mechanism and the time scale to make this work but it certainly sounds possible.

[GShock]

Perhaps the easiest way is to change the ratio between real time and game time.

If a battle lasts 5' in real time, AKA the day of battle of 5 hours shrunk into 5' of real time, making the day last 10 minutes would be possible and that means if you let things run at the standard game time, there'll be double the ammunition for any unit.

However, judging that it's important to keep the reloading times accurate, a good soldier can fire 3 shots per minute and 5 hours in real time is many shots... there has to be a counterbalance and there actually is. It's called the routed state (in TW gaming terms "shattered". Units should be routing away from the enemy (much away!) and, in doing so, turn exhausted it means they'll have to rest then cover more distance to come back into the fight. That cuts down this double time of the example in which that unit can fire.

 

The problem of cannons is that their effectiveness is good now against the crew but it doesn't allow that critical shot that knocks out the gun itself and ALL of its crew.

 

There's a reported instance at Antietam (IIRC) where a direct hit knocked out the gun, causing 20 casualties. Those poor fellows were littering the ground all over the place. By knocking out more guns you make the arty ineffective without needing to limit its ammunition (which, however, is still the best choice to take). Problem here is that superior training of CSA was shadowed by a superior firepower for USA. With "same-ammo" this kind of advantage is neglected so, even without a reloading mechanism, limiting ammo seems the only logical choice.

 

Perhaps a simulated, scripted, reload, would do. Something that works like the reinforcements that appear on the field at given time... now at given time, ammo is reinstated. You get the message but you don't see supply carts or anything of the sort. Since scripts can be taylored, USA could be resupplied more often, even indefinitely (which means as soon as it's over, 5' later the ammo is back), while CSA could run out at some point in time.

[cblart]

Suggestions

Im missing zoom in on units to make it feel more Like youre there.

Also tapping on units make them bigger to see info

Units with different style on uniforms Like in Real

The units retreats to Quick unlike in reality

And What about in Real life a commander Can die and the next takes over. That Should be implemented in the game.

Like Archer gets caught and his subordinates takes command

More Music when on marching

Tapping on enemy units to see info

[Calvinic]

A long smoke effect would be awesome.

[davidgcox]

i think i finally figured out how to get my units to move from line to column.  if i order a unit to make a wide sweeping movement before coming to a specific point, they seem to move in line once they are in a position to clear all obstacles.  not exactly sure, but it seems to coincide with their "field of fire" black sweeping thing that moves in front of them before the unit itself begins to move.  once in line it's more efficient to move.  so maybe some form of indication on the unit's page (the one with the stars and morale and condition etc) showing whether they are in line or column?

[davidgcox]

a nice touch would be to add to each unit's inherent intelligence that they always halt facing the sound of the guns.  too many times while playing the union i am forced to withdraw so i withdraw units to a specific point and when they get there they stand still!  they don't about face and then front.  or face the fire.  they stand with their backs to the fire.  other than moving in column there doesn't seem to be any way to correct this.

[JaM]

David Fair: regarding aritllery casualties - medical records are a bit flawed, because artillery also used shrapnell and canisters, while for a doctor these wounds were similar to musket wounds therefore were not counted as caused by artillery. (doctor would not know what caused them until bullet is removed). so 10% is casualties caused by solid shots and percusion grenades, but not for all aritllery projectiles used.

[David Fair]

Hi JaM,

 

I'm certain the medical records are flawed.  But, the wounds were not similar - in fact they were quite distinct.

 

The small arms projectiles were made of soft lead which fragmented on impact and most often left shards of musket ball in the wound.  This was true even when the wound was in the extremities.

 

The wounds from shot and shell had to stand up to the rigors of being blasted out of a cannon barrel - and were thus made of steel.  Artillery projectiles did not fragment on impact and thus had very different wound characteristics.  

 

The notion that a doctor serving in either army could not tell the difference is not credible.  A Minie Ball pulverized flesh and bone into pulp - a steel projectile simply does not. 

 

There are many artillery enthusiasts (including myself) that discounted the medical data collected.  However, over the past years I've been looking at this closely and trying to understand the data.  The deeper I dig the more skeptical I am about discounting the medical records.  There are many reasons why artillery casualties as a percentage of total casualties dropped significantly from the Napoleonic Wars to the ACW.  

 

Perhaps I'll post some of my findings as this topic is much more complex than simply discounting the medical data.

Edited March 19, 2015 by David Fair

[David Fair]

JaM,

 

The basic problem faced by timed fuzes in the ACW was technological imbalance between the muzzle velocity of projectiles vs the precision of the timed fuzes available:

 

Time over target is a fundamental ballistics metric because it determines if a fuze will detonate over its intended target; thus inflicting casualties.  The muzzle velocity of a Model 1857 12 lb Napoleon is 1,485 feet per second.  Shells exploded with a 25 meter, roughly elliptical, pattern, distributing about 75 projectiles over this area.  For a shell to inflict casualties it needed to detonate while it was over the target.  Let's assume an ACW regiment in 2 lines is our target which occupies about 6 feet of depth.  We add 2X the shell's threat zone of 25 meters and we now have a 52 meter potential killing zone.  A shell firing at a regiment will be over the 52 meter target for 0.035 seconds.  Anyone who has ever looked at a Bormann fuze should instantly recognize that the fuze precision was woefully inadequate for the muzzle velocity of the ACW guns.  http://www.civilwarartillery.com/fuzes/bormannfuze.htm

 

Statistically, for every 35 rounds fired by Civil War artillery it inflicted a single casualty.  This sounds really awful - but when you consider that the Union army fired over 3.5 million small arms rounds at Gettysburg and another 37,281 artillery rounds to inflict roughly 20,000 CSA casualties the numbers of casualties per projectile kinda line up with the facts as reported by the medical data.

 

This surprised me - but the more data I've collected the more convincing the statistics seem to be.  The ordnance reports, casualty reports, and data from the physics of the guns and their projectiles all line up consistently around the 6% artillery casualty rate.

 

Sorry mate - but you just can't discount the data without a more inspired (and less cursory) argument.

 

Also I've seen the argument that the data isn't correct because when artillery hit a target the kill rate was higher.  I've looked at dozens of reports from batteries and regiments exclusively under artillery fire and the casualty rates align with the casualty rates from units under combined or small arms fire.

 

To keep this post short see the Calef's Battery Stone Sentinel at Gettysburg.  These guns served with Buford and were fired upon by 32 different CSA guns on the morning of July 1.  The battery suffered 12 men wounded and 13 horses killed.  If artillery was killing an extraordinary number of men it is not true for Calef's Battery or any of the other cases I've examined.

 

http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/US/2USartA.php

Edited March 19, 2015 by David Fair

[David Fair]

JaM,

 

Here is a typical report from a Surgeon.  I've researched dozens of these primary data sources and none of the doctors appear to have any confusion regarding the source of the wound that they saw:

 

Medical/Surgical History--Part I, Volume I
LXVI. Extract from a Narrative of his Services in the Medical Staff,
from April 24th, 1861, to June 17th, 1863.
By Assistant Surgeon H. E. BROWN, U. S. Army.

 

On May 31st, occurred the battle of the Seven Pines....

 

The medical stores of our regiment furnished a sufficiency of whiskey and other stimulants, and I believe this was the case with the other regiments. The only articles deficient were chloroform and ether; and this, I think, was not due to any neglect, but to the fact of the unusually large number of wounded, we having to attend not only to those of our own division, but to all of those wounded in the battle of May 31st, the ground of which was occupied by the enemy until Saturday afternoon. Nearly all of our men brought in were wounded with the conoidal or minié ball; I saw but one by cannon or round balls. There was one case of bayonet wound, and this man had two wounds from gunshot and five bayonet wounds; and these last, he asserted, he received while lying on the field, after, being wounded. The rebels captured by us were wounded with the bayonet, with round ball and buckshot, and with the conoidal ball, and some few had shell wounds, the conoidal ball, however, preponderating. 

[David Fair]

JaM,

 

Finally, even the NPS service has embraced the research the DoD did at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1961 on the centennial of the ACW.  That data demonstrated persuasively (at least in my mind) that 95% of the battlefield casualties during the ACW were inflicted by small arms and that the major role played by artillery was "moral rather than physical" as stated by John Gibbon in his "Artillerists Manual 1861".

 

http://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=261

 

You are welcome to believe whatever you'd like to regarding artillery performance during the ACW - but please let's try to keep the discussion factually based.  

 

I'd be interested to know where you are getting your information if you have a factually based argument for your position.

 

Thanks,

 

David

Edited March 19, 2015 by David Fair

[JaM]

I was not talking about solid shot or shell wounds. those are definitely quite distinctive. But about Shrapnell wounds.  these contained multiple small lead balls and were quite undistinguishable from musket balls unless removed from wound. (shrapnell balls were round, musket ball werent.)

 

 

and btw, quite interesting essay about this topic can be found here:

 

http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html

 

 

btw, i dont claim to have some ultimate knowledge about Civil war, it is not my area of expertize, so far i have focused myself more on Napoleonic era or 18.century. Anyway a lot of things are quite similar, Artillery was underestimated in those times as well, yet again, canister casualty effect was also greatly overlooked back then,as again, medical sources didnt differentiated musket wounds from canister wounds, and counted them towards musket casualties..

 

 

Despite all this, many historians still believe that artillery wasn't important during the war.  Casualties caused by artillery fire were negligible - or so they say.  A frequently cited example is the Wilderness, where artillery was said to account for only about 6% of all casualties.  Paddy Griffith points out that many casualties attributed to small arms fire may in fact have been caused by artillery, specifically by the small round balls in Shrapnel rounds.  Griffith suggests that the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in this battle were probably in proportion to the percentage of artillerymen in the armies.  Because of the terrain, this battle, and this result, represent an extreme case.  Lee knew that he was deficient in artillery, and he fought in the Wilderness in order to negate the Union advantage.  The relative ineffectiveness of artillery in this battle is clearly an aberration.  Chancellorsville was also fought in the Wilderness.  In this battle, perhaps only the Confederate guns at Hazel Grove allowed Lee to capture Fairview Heights and defeat the Union army.  Look at Spotsylvania a year later, also fought in the Wilderness.  The massive Union attack on the Mule Shoe broke through because Lee had withdrawn his artillery the night before.  Several days later, a Union attack on the base of the salient failed quickly and decisively due to Confederate artillery fire.  And we must remember that most ground was NOT as unfavorable as the Wilderness.  Take a look at Malvern Hill, Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Gettysburg and the importance of artillery is obvious.  Clearly artillery was important or army commanders wouldn't have eagerly added to their stocks of guns up until the last year of the war.  In fact, Paddy Griffith suggests that in some battles, artillery accounted for 20 to 50% of casualties.  Those who over-estimate the advantages of the rifled musket say that it threatened to make the artilleryman obsolete, but perhaps the opposite was more true.  Although many historians do not stress this point, or even acknowledge it, advances in the artillery arm had made Napoleonic combined arms tactics difficult to impossible.

 

[David Fair]

Hi JaM,

 

I took at look at johnsmilitaryhistory.com.  Its an interesting mix of fact, fiction, and falsehood.

 

I'll offer a couple of quick examples in a series of posts.  This forum times out on long posts so I'll break up my answers to save time.  Send me your email if you want a more complete word document analysis.  My comments are too long for the forum.

 

John's comments are in bold my responses follow:

 

Despite all this, many historians still believe that artillery wasn't important during the war.  

 

I don't know any historians that believe artillery wasn't important.  The tactical role of artillery had changed to make it most effective defensively.  The artillery is why ACW battles were largely inconclusive.  Guns slowed the advance by firing a few shots and rapidly withdrawing by section.  This gave the infantry time to reform.  XI Corps at both Chancellorsville and Gettysburg was saved by artillery and Dilger was awarded the metal of honor for his contributions at Chancellorville.

[David Fair]

JaM #2

 

Griffith suggests that the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in this battle were probably in proportion to the percentage of artillerymen in the armies.  

 

If this is true the Union army had 7,353 men serving 356 guns.  The AoP had 94,000 men at Gettysburg.  Thus 8% of casualties would be inflicted by artillery in Paddy's algorithm.

Similarly, the ANV had 6,096 men serving 275 guns at Gettysburg.  The ANV had 72,000 men,  Thus 8% of would be inflicted by artillery in Paddy's algorithm.

[David Fair]

JaM #3

 

This is my favorite quote because johnshistory presents a table of battles that show his statement is precisely 88% wrong.  

 

In only 1 of the 8 examples he gives in his post are the cavalry deployed on exclusively on both flanks.  The cavalry generals of the 18th century were not robots.  They were thinking, and in cases like Seydiltz, bold tacticians who deployed creatively based on the situation.  Further, they did not shy away from charging up the gut.

 

The johnshistory site is not well researched and not very credible.  Below Johns incorrect statements are maps for each of the battles he references on his site.  John states:

 

18th century cavalry was placed exclusively on the flanks  

 

Here are maps for each of the battles:

 

Marlburina – early 1700s

 

Battle of Blenheim – Cavalry deployed along the entire front for both armies.  Battle featured massive cavalry battle in the center of the line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blenheim#/media/File:Battle_of_Blenhiem_-_Situation_about_noon,_13_August_1704.png

 

Ramillies – Cavalry deployed in the rear along the entire line.  Cavalry battle on the south center of the line.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1410&bih=957&q=battle+of+Ramillies&oq=battle+of+Ramillies&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24.1301.5885.0.7469.19.11.0.8.8.0.80.485.11.11.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.62.img..0.19.512.wnSXhWh5-lU#imgdii=_&imgrc=V4NSMMyrfYK1mM%253A%3BaYeVaVzEAmqjQM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fb%252Fbe%252FRamillies_1706%252C_initial_attack.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FBattle_of_Ramillies%3B1026%3B1042

 

Oudenarde – Cavalry on both flanks for Marlborough, Center and left flank for French & Bavarians

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1410&bih=957&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=battle+of+Oudenarde&oq=battle+of+Oudenarde&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24.90597.93573.0.95029.9.5.0.4.4.0.85.370.5.5.0.msedr...0...1c.1.62.img..0.9.380.PzcX7E2Rl-A#imgdii=_&imgrc=WiVGe3P0pYDLKM%253A%3B564nZimyvaJV2M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.britishbattles.com%252Fspanish-succession%252Foudenarde%252Fmap-l.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.britishbattles.com%252Fspanish-succession%252Fbattle-oudenarde.htm%3B1200%3B847

 

Malplaquet – Again Marlborough Plan of Attach a charge through the French Center.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1410&bih=957&q=battle+of+malplaquet&oq=battle+of+malplaquet&gs_l=img.3..0.3007.8733.0.9712.20.11.0.9.9.0.89.805.11.11.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.62.img..0.20.830.i52Huz9Upnc#imgdii=_&imgrc=pV-R7YoFfIbDMM%253A%3BNeq5Y_qtibL-lM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fiactaaleaest.files.wordpress.com%252F2009%252F09%252Fmalplaquet-111.jpg%253Fw%253D500%2526h%253D375%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fiactaaleaest.wordpress.com%252Fcategory%252F1709-the-battle-of-malplaquet%252F%3B500%3B375

 

Frederican – mid 1700s

Battle of Kolin – Cavalry deployed along the entire line

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1410&bih=957&q=battle+of+kolin+1757&oq=battle+of+kolin&gs_l=img.1.1.0j0i24.4479.7943.0.11362.17.12.1.4.4.0.73.471.12.12.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.62.img..0.17.499.yJjmaqtFXkw#imgdii=_&imgrc=eIqfYUXnJASHCM%253A%3BFQ4Bp5idI-Su0M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.edinburghwargames.com%252FHorse%252520%2526%252520Musket%252520Images%252FSYW%252FKolin-Map.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.edinburghwargames.com%252FKolin%252520Orbat.htm%3B3976%3B2968

 

Rossbach – Cavalry initially deployed behind infantry line then fought dynamically on the  flanks, etc…

https://www.google.com/search?q=battle+of+rossbach+1757&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nHIQVfSnDYHEgwSPiIHIBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1410&bih=957#imgdii=_&imgrc=ThEVWw2JU5EEUM%253A%3BFWoxNzqj26jEVM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.emersonkent.com%252Fimages%252Fbattle_rossbach_trap.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.emersonkent.com%252Fmap_archive%252Fbattle_of_rossbach_02.htm%3B921%3B716

 

Leuthen – Positioned on both flanks per johnsmilitaryhistory.com

https://www.google.com/search?q=battle+of+leuthen+1757&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=aHMQVcC9MIuVNq7ygegH&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=1410&bih=957#imgdii=_&imgrc=OF5wfW81w6blsM%253A%3BSIJPrrDnqtAcGM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fe%252Fec%252FBattle_leuthen_shift.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FBattle_of_Leuthen%3B921%3B705

 

Zorndorf – Cavalry along the entire line.

https://www.google.com/search?q=battle+of+zorndorf&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=u3MQVcDDFMu0ggSrn4OoAQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1410&bih=957#imgdii=_&imgrc=98T_kQa47bziUM%253A%3BPRM7sVZcPIxtcM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.kronoskaf.com%252Fsyw%252Fimages%252Fthumb%252F6%252F63%252FBattle_of_Zorndorf3.jpg%252F500px-Battle_of_Zorndorf3.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.kronoskaf.com%252Fsyw%252Findex.php%253Ftitle%253D1758-08-25_-_Battle_of_Zorndorf%3B500%3B375

[David Fair]

JaM #4

 

There are more than 14 points that are false on this site relating to the ACW.  Everything from when repeating rifles were issued, to tactical issues, force composition etc...

 

My favorite is that Paddy Griffith "suggests" 20% to 50%" of the casualties in a particular battle were inflicted by artillery.  This is utter nonsense.  My guess is this is yet another quote out of context.  

 

Please name the battle and I'll research the hospital records.  

[David Fair]

JaM #5

 

Those who over-estimate the advantages of the rifled musket say that it threatened to make the artilleryman obsolete, but perhaps the opposite was more true.  

 

Simply because artillery was less effective during the ACW it doesn’t mean anyone is suggesting the artillery was obsolete.  Quite the contrary – the technology of the ACW was in transition and the invention of the percussion fuze, followed by the invention of high explosive made artillery the queen of the battle by 1914.  It is unfortunate that this author can’t accept that technology introduction is not always linear and that the dominant weapons of one era may be outclassed in a different epoch.  

 

Keep in mind that the patent on the 3" Ordnance Rifle was dated 1861.  The gun was redesigned by a committee and put into action without manuals or field test of how to use a rifled gun.  The war was fought by amateurs with new technology.  

 

American torpedoes at the start of WWII had similar problems that weren't resolved for about 2 years.