在滑铁卢是否有榴弹炮的应用？

装甲掷弹熊

把Elting评论全文发出来好了
Author(s): John R. Elting

Reviewed work(s):Napoleon as Military Commander by James Marshall-Cornwall

Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Apr., 1968), pp. 1168-1169

NAPOLEON AS MILITARY COMMANDER. By Sir James Marshall-Corn- wall. ([Princeton, N. J.:] D. Van Nostrand Company. I967. PP. 308. $8.95.)

SIR James proposes to cover Napoleon's entire career as a military commander, with proper attention to his interwined activities as a statesman. He also reviews Napoleon's formative years and the legacy he drew from such military theorists as Bourcet and the Du Teils. There are a good chronological table, a bobtailed bib- liography, and eighteen maps-most of them good. At the end of each chapter the author attempts an analysis of the events described therein.

The tone is stuffy: Napoleon contributed nothing new to the art of war, in strategy, tactics, or weapons; Liddell Hart so pontificated, and that suffices. He was a sort of expert military plumber, supremely skillful in using existing tools. This is the Napoleon of pre-194o English historians, devoid of personal virtues, if an admitted military genius. The author's coverage of the Napoleonic Wars is quite complete, especially if the relatively short length of his text is considered. Allowing for the author's built-in bias, it is roughly impartial. No words are wasted, but room is found to wedge in an occasional detail of interest. Taken as a whole, the book develops considerable drive, something like a falling brick wall. It is unfortunate that most of the individual bricks are chipped, cracked, broken, or completely pulverized. There is hardly one really complete and ac- curate battle description in the whole book, and some are ridiculous. The author frequently seems ignorant of what troops were engaged and who was in com- mand. The tactics involved get hashed, and the casualties become astronomical. (For Aspern and Essling, Sir James claims 44,ooo French casualties out of the approximate 55,ooo engaged and invents the statement that they "had to abandon most of their wounded.")

The whole book is studded with such chunks of nonsense: at Marengo, Kel- lermann charges with "two squadrons of the Consular Guard"; the Russians "recaptured Eylan" during that battle; one day's fighting disappears from the Battle of Leipzig; the separate 1814 battles of Brienne and La Rothiere mysteriously become one affair; at Waterloo French infantry columns attack British infantry squares. The strategical "analysis" likewise contains nothing new, much that is dubious, and some flat errors. The whole effect is one of hasty writing and com- plete carelessness as to the results.

In sum, the book cannot be recommended for either pleasure or profit.

Falls Church, Virginia JOHN R. ELTING

高守业

回复 9# iron duke
    法军的十二磅炮炮连编制不是六门加农炮一门榴弹炮么?
     在游戏《决战滑铁卢》中,一点时的那个大炮阵左侧的几个炮连来自近卫军.米豪德的骑兵主力以及骑炮连还处在近卫军所在毫姆角的右侧位置.

iron duke

法军野战火炮连应该一直是6+2 或4+2。
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.co ... _strength_and_types
...
Divisional Artillery: CdB Reisser (174 gunners, 120 train-drivers)
- - - - - Foot Battery (6 x 6pdr cannons, 2 x 5,7-inch howitzers)
- - - - - Foot Battery (6 x 6pdr cannons, 2 x 5,7-inch howitzers)

Divisional Artillery: CdB Grosset (190 gunners, 197 train-drivers)
- - - - - Foot Battery (6 x 6pdr cannons, 2 x 5,7-inch howitzers)


Divisional Artillery: CdB ?????? (209 gunners, 195 train-drivers)
- - - - - Foot Battery (6 x 6pdr cannons, 2 x 5,7-inch howitzers)
- - - - - Foot Battery (6 x 6pdr cannons, 2 x 5,7-inch howitzers)

Corps Reserve Artillery: GdB Mongenet (202 gunners, 225 train-drivers)
- - - - - Horse Battery (4 x 6pdr cannons, 2 x 5,7-inch howitzers)
- - - - - Position Battery (8 x 12pdr cannons)

80门炮最后那20多门虽有争议，但是米豪德的骑兵在炮击时应该就在第一军后面不远。他们是前晚就追到前面的，18日早晨布鲁塞尔大道是唯一一条好路，往前开还嫌不够用，应该不会把前沿布置好好的部队向回撤的。

装甲掷弹熊

回复  iron duke
    法军的十二磅炮炮连编制不是六门加农炮一门榴弹炮么?
     在游戏《决战滑铁卢》中 ...
高守业 发表于 2011-3-4 23:27

The regulation company of foot artillery had six guns, either 6- or 12- pounders, and two howitzers; a horse artillery company had six 6-pounders or sometimes four of those and two howitzers.——Elting《Swords Around A Throne》

最后的尼采

回复  tblzd
    康沃尔关于元帅们的“木偶庸才论”算是全书中最大的败笔了,富勒似乎也不太待见拿破仑的元 ...
高守业 发表于 2011-3-4 23:10

    同意这个观点，“木偶庸才论”跟史学界很多想当然、文学化、先入为主的观念一样，跟评价德意志第三帝国“将星荟萃、元首不济”的理论虽然相反，但性质一样——都是孤立、片面地看问题，确切的来说，是文学化、感情化、主观化地看历史，缺乏实证和对比，强调超级英雄的影响力而忽略客观的决定因素。持这类理论的人，压根就没有把分析对象跟相对应的元素做比较，没有在大环境中分析具体人物

     比方说，他们说“拿破仑太强，他的元帅们很少能独当一面”，站在实证的角度，这显然扯淡：达武横扫普鲁士，马塞纳前期力克西班牙本土驻军，絮歇再多几个现在西班牙就说法语了，德赛在埃及的卓越表现，又挽救了几近失败的马伦哥战役，达武不用说，拉纳后期可以独当一面，但关键时候死了。。。。。。事实上，随便列举一下，都能发现法军指挥部中一大堆能“独当一面”的将领，任何时候，他们都是称职的、优秀的独立指挥官。但你要看跟谁比，在什么敌我实力对比和战场具体环境的制约下，单个元帅及其军队的力量就相当有限。马塞纳未必不如威灵顿，只是当时铁公爵占尽天时、地利、人和，西班牙游击队对补给线的打击让法军没有选择，英军让人羡慕嫉妒恨的补给和装备让荣耀满身、军服稀烂的法军相形见拙，在这个大背景下，马塞纳运气好可以取得战术胜利，但是不可能赢的，在战略上，威灵顿就是屡战屡败也不会输给劳师远征的法军。
     站在对比的角度，这一观点更是不攻自破。我感觉（没统计过），当时法军优秀军事指挥官的数量，几乎是世界其他地区的总和。

    “二战德国将领很猛，可惜元首太弱”，又是一扯淡言论：事实证明，纳粹三杰：隆美尔、曼施坦因、古德里安，除了曼施坦因以外，其他两个都只是战役级人才，而不是战略级人才，无论你怎样争辩，历史只给了他们战役级的指挥权限。而纳粹的战略指挥官，隆德施泰特、戈林之流，比起朱可夫、崔可夫，实在差太远；至于元首的个人能力，对比斯大林，至少平手，甚至只强不弱——你看1934-1938短短4年的德国经济腾飞速度和战争准备情况，再看看元首对新老人才的合理运用和包容，再看看苏联的剿灭指挥部似的大清洗，就知道了。

所以说，去他的“将领和统帅强弱论”，这是不好好研究历史的2流史学家和1流文学家的托辞。

iron duke

布萨库正是在马塞纳军需补给发了笔横财后打的。

我们的小伍长

希特勒在战争晚期时非常偏执，听不进正确的意见。
斯大林正好相反，能吸取早期由于刚愎自用造成灾难的教训，后期越发能接受正确的建议。
唉，此消彼长了。

我们的小伍长

既然诸位提到希特勒，我手头正好有两个恶搞元首的视频，发在沙龙那儿了。