Quote:
Originally Posted by Snestorm
Your point is well taken in modern warfare, but USA's civil war was the beginning of the end of linear tactics, and restrictions.
Let's luck at muzzleloaders (Springfield / Enfield).
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity.
Attacker: Fix bayonette. Advance. Usualy 1 shot, if one lives to fire it.
Artillary.
Attacker: Pre-advance barage.
Defender: Fire, reload, fire, at capacity. Final round = grapeshot.
That's where that 3 to 1 pretext came from. However, in the end, you are correct. Nothing is even close to being written in stone, and there are infinate possabilities that can have a minor, or major effect.
An often overlooked handicap of the attacker is logistics. It's a whole discussion in itself.
And a very complex one at that.
|
Or it could go like this:
Defender: Fire. Reload as fast as possible under heavy rifled artillery barrage. Fire again, but you're blinded by your own smoke so you can't aim well.
Attacker: Close range, fire massed volley. Fix bayonets and charge the disoriented and shocked enemy, breaking and dispersing them while taking negligable casualties.
As I said, it all depends on a huge number of factors regardless of the era the battle takes place in.
I can even think of cases in WWI, where defensive technology far outpaced offensive doctrine, in which outnumbered but properly led and handled troops could attack strong defensive positions while taking far fewer casualties than the defenders.
And logistics can effect the defender just as much as the attacker.