Counter-skirmisher tactic/strategy during Napoleonic War?

[Maklodes]

I'm not very familiar with Napoleonic battles, but it seems to me that if heavy cavalry was tactically useful at all, I have a hard time seeing it not being useful against skirmishers. In many respects, the factors that make a wavering line vulnerable to cavalry -- lack of dense, coherent formation, inability to present a bayonet wall -- are inherent to skirmishers. Skirmishers seem like a pre-broken line to me.

If heavy cavalry was ineffectual against skirmishers, it seems like this would be because increasing firepower was rendering cavalry tactically obsolete in general, not because cavalry was useful against line infantry while being weak against skirmishers. (If heavy cavalry was generally nearing obsolescence, then line infantry was too, since without the threat of cavalry, lines as a whole just got people shot faster, leading to a sort of "all skirmisher + artillery" army from the mid-19th century until the arrival of tanks and aircraft.)

As I said, I'm not very familiar with the details of Napoleonic battles, so I'd welcome any corrections.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'm not very familiar with Napoleonic battles, but it seems to me that if heavy cavalry was tactically useful at all, I have a hard time seeing it not being useful against skirmishers. In many respects, the factors that make a wavering line vulnerable to cavalry -- lack of dense, coherent formation, inability to present a bayonet wall -- are inherent to skirmishers. Skirmishers seem like a pre-broken line to me.

If heavy cavalry was ineffectual against skirmishers, it seems like this would be because increasing firepower was rendering cavalry tactically obsolete in general, not because cavalry was useful against line infantry while being weak against skirmishers. (If heavy cavalry was generally nearing obsolescence, then line infantry was too, since without the threat of cavalry, lines as a whole just got people shot faster, leading to a sort of "all skirmisher + artillery" army from the mid-19th century until the arrival of tanks and aircraft.)

As I said, I'm not very familiar with the details of Napoleonic battles, so I'd welcome any corrections.

Napoleonic forces were maneuvering in Battalions and Platoons. Attack in line with skirmishers looks vaguely like this if I'm not mistaken, albeit after 1805? when the infantry took their final shape:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
______*_____*_____*_____*_____*_____*

******______******______******
______******______******______******
****_________****_________****

* Platoon (120-140 Men at full strength)
^ Skirmishers
****** Battalion (840-900 Men at full strength)
_ Empty Space

That's 9 Battalions, so about a division. Normally the third line would form the skirmish with the grenadiers and voltigeurs deployed for the purpose. Skirmishing Platoons were divided of an anchor component and the skirmishing component. Men would advance to firing range with their muskets, firing in a continuous rotation to the point of contact with the enemy and lay into them with some shots. The anchor would remain in reserve to give the skirmishers shelter for a fighting retreat behind the line in case the enemy attempted to shock them.

The advantage of the skirmish is that you commit fewer men to harm and in their loose formation and these hardened veterans can use their superior marksmanship and reduced smoke to provide lethal fire with their smooth bores (Napoleon didn't like Rifles they were too fiddly and slow for his tastes.) The vast weight of the formation is dedicated to hammering the enemy to death. Line infantry can usually be counted to get off a few devastating volleys and then the survivors on both sides will hurl themselves into melee or withdraw depending on the severity and morale.

Light Infantry are identical to line infantry except broad terms, but are committed to low intensity conflicts away from the main body. So Grenadiers, Fusiliers, and Voltigeurs would be used in the mainstay while Carabiniers, Chasseurs, and Voltigeurs would be deployed in COIN and more "modern" techniques of petite guerre. So in the Peninsula Chasseur Battalions would be deployed against the local Cazadores in their brown and grey uniforms and partisans dressed as civilians. Thought line and light infantry could serve in both roles given their similar makeup but obviously doctrine and training needed adjustment. Alternatively light infantry might be used to harass larger formations such as divisions or corps while they are in transit. Moreover some specialist light infantry were dedicated to alpine warfare, going where the line infantry (and their artillery trains and equine support) could not and should not venture.

[Maklodes]

Col. Tartleton, I wasn't able to understand why the deployment of skirmishers you discuss would make heavy cavalry poor against skirmishers. Could you clarify that?

[KEA]

Col. Tartleton, I wasn't able to understand why the deployment of skirmishers you discuss would make heavy cavalry poor against skirmishers. Could you clarify that?

Heavy cavalry would be extremely usefull against skirmishers - but only if the enemy had nothing but skirmishers. As soon as he deploys anything else than skirmishers (and he always does) sending the most powerful assault force you have against a handful of spread shooters would be a serious waste of resources.

Different to TW games, historical cavalry not was able to execute endless numbers of attacks against all enemies around. Usually you could expect heavy cavalry to make one formed proper charge (Seydlitz's men charging twice at Rossbach was seen as a masterpiece of 18th Century horsemanship for example). After that the cavalry was spent, disorganized and exhausted. Ney's successive "charges" at Waterloo in fact finally were made by unorganized groups of horsemen at a walk.

And that's the reason why sending in the cuirassiers not was a considered a proper counter-move for the enemy sending forward a line of skirmishers: not because the cavalry would not have been able to ride them down but because it would have been a complete waste of the (potentially) strongest force in the army.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Those "cavalry units all over the place" was heavy cavalry held in reserve. Their task was to break through the enemy line once it showed signs of weakness or otherwise became softened up. This has absolutely nothing to do with skirmishing.

I didn't say it did. I was just pointing out a flaw with your argument.

[KEA]

I didn't say it did. I was just pointing out a flaw with your argument.

My bad, somehow I got the Impression you wished to add something to the question of counter-skirmisher tactics during the Napoleonic Wars.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I am, I am undermining your reasoning based on oversimplified ideas about warfare at the time.

[Condottiere 40K]

Light cavalry is supposed to screen your columns, unless the enemy really commits.

[KEA]

I am, I am undermining your reasoning based on oversimplified ideas about warfare at the time.

As long as I have to discuss the usage of heavy cavalry as a proper tactic against skirmishers during the Napoleonic Wars I am assuming that I am not talking to experts and try to keep thing as simple as needed. We can also go through various deployments of true battles of that periode to check if either light cavalry was deployed where (the mass of) enemy skirmishers was to be found or whether or not charges of heavy cavalry was seen as a proper instrument against enemy skirmisher - but always coming to the same result

[pietjan]

most of the time light infantry was used to pick of men and then joined with the line, and were beaten by the same kind of combination, of when they were alone they could get ridden down by cav, or cav could ride them down while charging on a line/cav/art

[Maklodes]

Heavy cavalry would be extremely usefull against skirmishers - but only if the enemy had nothing but skirmishers. As soon as he deploys anything else than skirmishers (and he always does) sending the most powerful assault force you have against a handful of spread shooters would be a serious waste of resources.

Different to TW games, historical cavalry not was able to execute endless numbers of attacks against all enemies around. Usually you could expect heavy cavalry to make one formed proper charge (Seydlitz's men charging twice at Rossbach was seen as a masterpiece of 18th Century horsemanship for example). After that the cavalry was spent, disorganized and exhausted. Ney's successive "charges" at Waterloo in fact finally were made by unorganized groups of horsemen at a walk.

And that's the reason why sending in the cuirassiers not was a considered a proper counter-move for the enemy sending forward a line of skirmishers: not because the cavalry would not have been able to ride them down but because it would have been a complete waste of the (potentially) strongest force in the army.

Hmm… I’m not sure I get this. Ultimately, whether a weapon system is effective against another seems like it should be assessed by effectiveness vs. cost. Using made up numbers, if a skirmisher costs 1.5 times as much to field as a line infantry soldier, and a cavalry trooper costs 3 times as much to field as a line infantryman, and on average cavalrymen attacking skirmishers inflict 4 casualties for every 1 they receive, then sending cavalry against skirmishers effectively defeats six line infantry (in terms of resources) for the price of three. On the other hand, if a heavy cavalryman costs, say, 6 times as much as a line infantryman, skirmishers and line infantry have equivalent costs for fielding, and sending cavalry against skirmishers only causes three skirmisher casualties for every cavalry casualty, then sending a horseman against skirmishers only effectively defeats three line infantry for the price of six. From my perspective, either fighting skirmishers with cavalry is efficient, or it isn’t.

What about other uses of cavalry -- charging the main battle line after it has become disorganized? That may be an efficient deployment of resources as well, and maybe cavalry used against skirmishers can’t subsequently reform and redeploy fast enough to attack the main line, but if these two uses of cavalry are both efficient in terms of resource deployment then the solution is to field more cavalry. After all, the alternative that I’ve seen mentioned on this thread is to fight enemy skirmishers with your own skirmishers -- but that is unlikely to do much better than inflicting 1:1 casualty ratios, unless one side is entrenched (of course, the entrenched side is unlikely to be very vulnerable to cavalry charges either).

Naturally, generals can’t just exchange skirmishers for cavalry in any given battle, but overall national armies can deploy resources toward developing different arms as they see fit.

Is defeating skirmishers really important though? If that’s the question, then you have to ask: can skirmishers, in conjunction with other types of units, change the outcome of a battle? If they can, it's sometimes worth expending some of your resources to defeat them, so that you don’t lose the battle. If they can't, then they're actually not worth having: resources going to skirmishers would be better expended on units that can actually change the course of a battle, like artillery, cavalry, or line infantry.

Incidentally, it seems to me that for fighting skirmishers a well-formed charge isn't really necessary, or perhaps even desirable: a cavalry trooper fighting against line infantry or against enemy cavalry might risk being cut down in the melee if he's not in a formation that keeps him from being surrounded, but against skirmishers the risk seems to be a one-on-one duel between a saber or lance-armed horseman and a skirmisher. In fact, a looser formation might reduce vulnerability to gunfire, which is probably a bigger risk than the (existent, but small) possibility that a skirmisher will defeat a horseman in close combat.

[Condottiere 40K]

If you view it as a wargame, costs differ depending on the effectiveness of the individual units, including accuracy, morale and coherence.

[Hazzard]

Thing is though, troops have value in more than the ability to kill and it's hard to boil this into maths.
My cavalry camping on a hill will prevent other forces climbing because they can charge down the hill at people climbing. This would devastate a force if the force couldn't fire during the charge.
With the skirmishers though, would they have been used the same as light infantry? I treat them as the same thing in Napoleon, only skirmishers will get priority if I am placing them in either cavalry protected spots of solitary spots.

[KEA]

Hmm… I’m not sure I get this. Ultimately, whether a weapon system is effective against another seems like it should be assessed by effectiveness vs. cost.

We are still talking about real live battlefields here, not TW games. Costs (how?) of a unit is the absolutely last thing a generals bothers about when facing the enemy on the field. He has to work with what is present; and during the 18th and 19th Century this means he is facing a enemy army that is as good as identical to his own following he has to use all arms to their highest potential effectiveness. As that is, again, wasting cuirassiers on skirmishers will lead him a good way down the road of defeat.

[pietjan]

agree, light inf/cav or just a collum, or an accidental engagement when cav is charging on inf, is the most logical solution

[Col. Tartleton]

Hmm… I’m not sure I get this. Ultimately, whether a weapon system is effective against another seems like it should be assessed by effectiveness vs. cost. Using made up numbers, if a skirmisher costs 1.5 times as much to field as a line infantry soldier, and a cavalry trooper costs 3 times as much to field as a line infantryman, and on average cavalrymen attacking skirmishers inflict 4 casualties for every 1 they receive, then sending cavalry against skirmishers effectively defeats six line infantry (in terms of resources) for the price of three. On the other hand, if a heavy cavalryman costs, say, 6 times as much as a line infantryman, skirmishers and line infantry have equivalent costs for fielding, and sending cavalry against skirmishers only causes three skirmisher casualties for every cavalry casualty, then sending a horseman against skirmishers only effectively defeats three line infantry for the price of six. From my perspective, either fighting skirmishers with cavalry is efficient, or it isn’t.

It isn't worth committing shock cavalry against skirmishers. Shock cavalry are the strongest melee weapon in the Napoleonic arsenal. But if you want to sweep away skirmishers across the battlefield using cavalry, we're talking about a Pellenor fields sized cavalry charge into what amounts to a negligible resistance, thus wasting the charge and leaving an enormous number of men stranded in front of the lines of battle.

You take the entire morning getting your cavalry into proper position across the field and then when the enemy puts forward skirmishers you order the charge. Thousands of horsemen surge forward in a glorious wave, stormed at with shot and shell, howitzer bombs and cannonballs tearing bloody chunks from them. The disemboweled dying horses writhing around crushing concussed riders and disrupting the neat lines, but on they ride, into a hail of skirmisher shot. Mists of blood and wounded horses and men, struggling forward, falling down, tripping others, more howitzer bombs, more cannon balls, more skirmisher fire as they beat a hasty retreat at the heaving wave of horses and men. The line meets the skirmishers, who fall like wheat beneath their scything sabers, and the cavalry carry on through them into the anchor platoons, and some break, others hold on, in a tiny infantry square, those who rout meet the same fate as the skirmishers, but those who hold thrust bayonets into horse and man, and the charge begins to lose momentum, some troops and squadrons carry on forwards, others become bogged down frantically slashing at these survivors. The forerunners surge on to the front of the line infantry, their momentum carrying them forwards, but the line does not waver and more bombs and cannonballs tear into the cavalry. By now the skirmishers are dead or dying, but the cavalry has spent it's energy, and as they come to the realization they are now stranded in front of the enemy lines they feel volleys of line infantry who are now revealed to be formed into squares. Artillery continues it's grisly work and the entire force begins to break off, slowly at first, but with increasing speed and chaos.The retreat becomes a rout as men paint their comrades crimson and the cavalry disengage to behind their lines. They will not be usable again that day, and will be decreased in effectiveness thereafter.

What about other uses of cavalry -- charging the main battle line after it has become disorganized? That may be an efficient deployment of resources as well, and maybe cavalry used against skirmishers can’t subsequently reform and redeploy fast enough to attack the main line, but if these two uses of cavalry are both efficient in terms of resource deployment then the solution is to field more cavalry. After all, the alternative that I’ve seen mentioned on this thread is to fight enemy skirmishers with your own skirmishers -- but that is unlikely to do much better than inflicting 1:1 casualty ratios, unless one side is entrenched (of course, the entrenched side is unlikely to be very vulnerable to cavalry charges either).

Naturally, generals can’t just exchange skirmishers for cavalry in any given battle, but overall national armies can deploy resources toward developing different arms as they see fit.

You have to understand that horses are a diminishing resource over the course of a 23 year conflict like the seven coalition wars. You can't just magically get more of them while they're being killed or dying of illness in large numbers as a result of campaigns. Moreover it's hard to pay for the horses and equip men for them. It's hard to train men for them. You can always have cavalry, but there are limits to what you can provide.

Is defeating skirmishers really important though? If that’s the question, then you have to ask: can skirmishers, in conjunction with other types of units, change the outcome of a battle? If they can, it's sometimes worth expending some of your resources to defeat them, so that you don’t lose the battle. If they can't, then they're actually not worth having: resources going to skirmishers would be better expended on units that can actually change the course of a battle, like artillery, cavalry, or line infantry.

I'd wager they aren't that important. No, skirmishers are line infantry. They're performing a special duty as a vanguard of the line. Grenadiers lead the way. Whether they're storming a position or forming the skirmish, that's why the grenadiers are special. Same with Voltigeurs who were initially supposed to be used in conjunction with dragoons or cavalry as mounted infantry but it was rarely attempted to ferry skirmishers in with cavalry (think of how chariots were used by the Celts to deploy skirmishing nobles).

Incidentally, it seems to me that for fighting skirmishers a well-formed charge isn't really necessary, or perhaps even desirable: a cavalry trooper fighting against line infantry or against enemy cavalry might risk being cut down in the melee if he's not in a formation that keeps him from being surrounded, but against skirmishers the risk seems to be a one-on-one duel between a saber or lance-armed horseman and a skirmisher. In fact, a looser formation might reduce vulnerability to gunfire, which is probably a bigger risk than the (existent, but small) possibility that a skirmisher will defeat a horseman in close combat.

It ultimately comes down to "Could I use my Light Horse, my Hussars for something better?" The answer is usually yes.

Best way to kill skirmishers is skirmishers. We send out infantry to fight infantry now, same idea. Infantry are the default, and infantry who are capable of thinking for themselves and fighting intelligently should be used as skirmishers. In practice these were the most experienced men in each battalion. Remember that the masses of the line are struggling to keep their guns loading and firing while someone is explicitly yelling instructions to them because they're getting shot up with 12 pounders.

I mean in more modern times people have semi automatic or automatic rifles that you just pull a trigger, and sometimes the artillery and volume of incoming fire is so much men don't remember their training and can't shoot, they just go to ground and try to survive. Good luck trying to ready and fire a musket with it's seventeen steps or whatever.

[pietjan]

normally the skirmishers formed a screen in front of a regular line, wshen the enemy cav or inf pushed too hard they would join with the line, so cav would be useless because the line can form square, art is good if you have time, so the best is to send out your skirmisher (preferably better than the opponent) and than start a skirmish, and when your line is in range force the enemy skirmishers into the main line and fight them in that way, or kill them ''acidentally'' when your cav is charging something and there are skirmishers on the route

[pietjan]

normally the skirmishers formed a screen in front of a regular line, wshen the enemy cav or inf pushed too hard they would join with the line, so cav would be useless because the line can form square, art is good if you have time, so the best is to send out your skirmisher (preferably better than the opponent) and than start a skirmish, and when your line is in range force the enemy skirmishers into the main line and fight them in that way, or kill them ''acidentally'' when your cav is charging something and there are skirmishers on the route

[King of the Ring]

The best way to counter skirmishers is long range spread out attacks on a very large area(depending on how much these skirmishers are spread out).This way they cant get close enough to actually do something.