Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've had this conversation at several jobs. The dress code is actually horribly bias towards women. Who can wear flip flops (they call them sandals...), skirts, and short pants that end just below the knee and I can only wear pants and dress shoes.....

If the USA had good sex discrimination legislation you could wear all those things too, without any worry.

The utilikilt is rather nice actually. It reminds me of highland infantry combat kilts.

I've actually considered getting a kilt to wear to work, citing that there's nothing in the dress code expressly forbidding it.

It's particularly bad during winter as there is a particular manager who I'm fairly certain is actually a space-lizard who goes full drama queen until he gets the facilities people to get the temperature turned up to about 85 across the floor. When being the guy surrounded by running computers, that doesn't make it difficult for the temperature to get to 90+.

I can be sitting at my desk, literally sweating while at rest sometimes.

400-800 Russian Heavy Cavalry versus 400 blokes in kilts.

The kilts won. It's clear what is the manlier apparel.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
400-800 Russian Heavy Cavalry versus 400 blokes in kilts.

The kilts won. It's clear what is the manlier apparel.

Never send cavalry against a heavy infantry formation.
Inversely didn't the Russians wipe out a certain british cavalry formation? I'd proffer the Russians hurt the British pretty badly and it was the French (yes THE FRENCH) who were the real hitters in that war because the Brits were stuck in line abreast Brown Bess mode and not up to the Minie Ball age.

The Crimean War is just wacky and not in the good way-reasons for it and actual conflicts. Its like they all got bored and looked for a reason to fight each other and the Ottomans in a brush war.

You're thinking of the Charge of the Light Brigade, which was a disaster because they attacked the wrong guns.

There was a cavalry action involving the Heavy Brigade in which they diced up a much larger Russian cavalry force a treat.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You're thinking of the Charge of the Light Brigade, which was a disaster because they attacked the wrong guns.

There was a cavalry action involving the Heavy Brigade in which they diced up a much larger Russian cavalry force a treat.

Yep. At the time the commanders wanted the Heavy Brigade to follow and support the Light Brigade. "No ing way" (in british of course) was the response.

Russian heavy cav charging a low strength battalion of infantry generally means one or two volleys followed by lots of chopped up men. Apparently the Russian commander could not possibly believe a small battalion would form line against him unless it was a trap with a much larger force hidden to a flank or behind the line. It wasn't a trap, they were just Scottish. The commander actually had to shout at his men not to chase after the fleeing Russians: "93rd, damn all that eagerness!"

The Charge of the Light Brigade was a colossal feth up. They were supposed to be sent after a forward Russian battery that was retreating to harry/capture/kill/maim/inconvenience them, and somehow this order turned into "Charge the Russian battery at the end of a valley, where both sides of the valley are lined with more batteries and infantry. Have fun"



That they not only managed to reach the battery, but cleared it, before being forced to retreat, is amazing by itself. The Russian commanders were certain they were mad with drink, and the French commander said "It is magnificent, but it is not war. It is madness."

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Russian heavy cav charging a low strength battalion of infantry generally means one or two volleys followed by lots of chopped up men. Apparently the Russian commander could not possibly believe a small battalion would form line against him unless it was a trap with a much larger force hidden to a flank or behind the line. It wasn't a trap, they were just Scottish. The commander actually had to shout at his men not to chase after the fleeing Russians: "93rd, damn all that eagerness!"
"

The bolded section pretty much sums up everything you need to know about that particular engagement.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Russian heavy cav charging a low strength battalion of infantry generally means one or two volleys followed by lots of chopped up men. Apparently the Russian commander could not possibly believe a small battalion would form line against him unless it was a trap with a much larger force hidden to a flank or behind the line. It wasn't a trap, they were just Scottish. The commander actually had to shout at his men not to chase after the fleeing Russians: "93rd, damn all that eagerness!"

The Charge of the Light Brigade was a colossal feth up. They were supposed to be sent after a forward Russian battery that was retreating to harry/capture/kill/maim/inconvenience them, and somehow this order turned into "Charge the Russian battery at the end of a valley, where both sides of the valley are lined with more batteries and infantry. Have fun"

Spoiler:

That they not only managed to reach the battery, but cleared it, before being forced to retreat, is amazing by itself. The Russian commanders were certain they were mad with drink, and the French commander said "It is magnificent, but it is not war. It is madness."

Er, horses won't charge a line of men with pointy sticks in formation. It just doesn't happen.
Ask Ney...

A thin line is vastly different to a thick square. A square has depth, and no vulnerable flanks and no autolose rear.

To further add, the only things cavalry like more were probably skirmish formation or column.

To further add a quote:

In addition, the line formation was extremely vulnerable to cavalry charges, from the flanks and rear, and these attacks usually resulted in the complete breakdown of cohesion and even destruction of the unit unless it was able to "form square".

Combined attacks by infantry and cavalry would also have the same effect - the defending infantry unit would be placed in the difficult position of either forming square and being shot to pieces by the attacking infantry (which would usually be in line formation), or being ridden down by the cavalry if it decided to remain in line while trading volleys with the attacking infantry.

Not even going into the fact the Scottish had formed in 2 ranks instead of 3, because it still would not have mattered had the Russians pressed home. Unless they formed square, they would've been cut down from encircling cavalry, and frankly, if they kept line until the cavalry were that close, they wouldn't have been able to make square in time by a long way.

A head on charge by cavalry against an infantry line was usually a game of chicken, that cavalry had a good chance of winning. And if they didn't win it, no matter, just go around to the side/rear and back in.

A two rank is enough. Now as you note they could have been flanked easily, but a frontal charge - no.

Any evidence they didn't form squares?

Campbell is said to have told his men, "There is no retreat from here, men. You must die where you stand."[3] Sir Colin's aide John Scott is said to have replied, "Aye, Sir Colin. If needs be, we'll do that." (Campbell's relationship with his men was almost family-like.) Campbell formed the 93rd into a line two deep — the "thin red line". Convention dictated that the line should be four deep. However, Campbell, a grizzled veteran of 41 years military service, had such a low opinion of the Russian cavalry that he did not bother to form four lines, let alone a square, but met the charge head on with the 2-deep firing line.

It doesn't help that the Russian cavalry seemed to be poorly led and unsupported, and only tried to flank them once before giving up, after a small unit of Turks alongside the Scots fled, and even then they only attacked the one flank, not both flanks and the front (which they clearly had the number to do). So the 93rd just had to wheel a little to maintain line volleys. It was still somewhat foolish, as a competently led and well disciplined infantry unit should quite easily deal with cavalry, by forming square. Cavalry weren't really meant to deal with infantry that did that, the accepted tactic was to send in cavalry alongside infantry to force them into squares so that the infantry can then volley a really big fat target. Even better would be for artillery to get in on it.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

Campbell is said to have told his men, "There is no retreat from here, men. You must die where you stand."[3] Sir Colin's aide John Scott is said to have replied, "Aye, Sir Colin. If needs be, we'll do that." (Campbell's relationship with his men was almost family-like.) Campbell formed the 93rd into a line two deep — the "thin red line". Convention dictated that the line should be four deep. However, Campbell, a grizzled veteran of 41 years military service, had such a low opinion of the Russian cavalry that he did not bother to form four lines, let alone a square, but met the charge head on with the 2-deep firing line.

It doesn't help that the Russian cavalry seemed to be poorly led and unsupported, and only tried to flank them once before giving up, after a small unit of Turks alongside the Scots fled, and even then they only attacked the one flank, not both flanks and the front (which they clearly had the number to do). So the 93rd just had to wheel a little to maintain line volleys. It was still somewhat foolish, as a competently led and well disciplined infantry unit should quite easily deal with cavalry, by forming square. Cavalry weren't really meant to deal with infantry that did that, the accepted tactic was to send in cavalry alongside infantry to force them into squares so that the infantry can then volley a really big fat target. Even better would be for artillery to get in on it.

Indeed by the tie of the Crimean War rifles were in play. Charging cavalry into a line of riflemen is pure stupid. inversely standing in square when another infantry unit comes at you is stupid too. The age of lines and squares was ending fast. The age of trenches had begun. For reference see Fredericksburg, Pickett's Charge, Cold Harbor, and the trenchworks outside Richmond.

Rifles were just being brought in as a mainstay weapon, and not all units had them, some still had smoothbore muskets. That's also besides the point, these were still guns that were as slow to load as a musket, and as such couldn't maintain rapid fire into fast advancing cavalry to the volume that would be required to drive them off. The regiment reportedly managed three volleys before the Russians withdrew, and the volleys were not the reason the Russians withdrew. They withdrew because their leader became convinced as the charge went on, that this was a diversion and a much larger force was going to ambush him, simply because, as has been said repeatedly, infantry in line with exposed flanks are so horribly vulnerable to cavalry.

It was either standing in square and being shot, hoping for support before the volleys forced surrender/rout, or staying in line and being cut to pieces. It wasn't stupid, it was the only options available. Other than flee, which is what cavalry loved infantry to do for reasons that I don't need to state.

Pickett's Charge would've failed if both sides only had smoothbore muskets (which units in the ACW still had). It was a charge over mostly open terrain into the teeth of an army. Whoever thought that up was a complete idiot. Probably someone who spent half the war building trenches for no reason.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Rifles were just being brought in as a mainstay weapon

Maybe in Britain. France made widespread use of them. but the French army always was superior...

Actually this says the majority of British troops had rifles as well.
http://historicalfirearms.tumblr.com/post/46428681027/rifles-of-the-crimean-war-hostilities-between

I did mention that, which if you read my post you'll see.