I'd like to make a few comments if I may?
Firstly, it's quite a common misconception that the British army beat the french because of their superior musketry, namely their speed. In reality british officers trained their men to hold their fire for as long as possible, and high training/harsh treatments ensured this. The french would often fire at longer ranges, or to frighten the enemy, but the british would not. One close, the British would fire one volley into the french ranks, then perhaps a second, and finally charge the shattered column whilst they attempted to form line.
French battle tactics were not to charge in column anyway, it was something forced on them. They adopted these due to it being the easiest form of unit to train their revolutionary armies to march in. Later on though after training the "grand army" in the channel area the french adapted their tactics to approaching the enemy in column, but deploying into line when close, I think 200 yards. This tended to work against the european armies, but not the british, for these reasons:
Napoleon's tactics were usually simplistic (with rare spouts of genius such as flank marches).
A) Gather artillery together
B) Smash large whole in enemy front with guns
C) Send in forces in column, enemy will by now be disordered and shaken by artillery, causing them to either flee from the columns, or give the column time to deploy into line before reinforcements can arrive, crush enemy's front
D) Send in cavalry to drive them from the field
Simple, but as usual, effective.
The british didn't play ball though. Wellington tended to site his men behind hills rather than on them (the reverse slope theory) thus negating the artillery advantage of the french. When french attacks were launched, the lack of disorder in the British ranks stopped the columns dead in their tracks, and counter charges swept them away normally. When they could form line they tended to do well, if it looked like they wouldn't they'd usually try an assault in column to avoid the disorder it would cause.
So musketry wasn't as important really. Yes we fired faster than the enemy, though it would be rare that this was ever tested in battle. By the same token, french attacks against formed european infantry often failed. The column won because the enemy were already beaten, the enemy would usually withdraw before melee ensued.
Another interesting british tactic was to use company volleys. Basically this equated to one company (british battalions contained 10 in theory) at the end of the line firing, the next following in say 5 seconds and so on down the line. By the time the 10th company fired, the first and second would have reloaded. This took great discipline, but when pulled off, created something akin to a machine gun like affect. This wasn't often used though due to it being rare for musketry duels to actually last long enough to enact the system.
Here it is : are any of you specially familiar with the Napoleonic formations (columns, lines, numbers abreast) for the different categories, countries (if any difference at all BTW).
I could probably help you out there
what do you need specifically and I'll try for you
Why were the English so fast at reloading ? A better rifle or just harsher drilling ?
Quick note, all armies used Muskets as standard issue weapons. British, Austrian and some other specific formations/countries used the rifle, but only within certain types of light infantry formations. The rifle itself was more accurate, but slower to load overall.
Other armies involved in this massive conflict were- Prussia, Britain, Spain, Russia, Austria, and the puppet government of the Confederation of the Rhine
There was also Poland, portugal (though largely under British army command), Ottomans (though hardly involved, they did fight some armies at this time), Italians also served under napoleon, and in 1815 it's best to add the dutch-belgians. Sweden fought in the 1813 campaign, under the rulership of Bernadotte, a former marshal of france!
Denmark briefly fought Britain in 1806 I think. India was also fought over and the States, but I'm betting it would be a europe map....
Also, near the end of each battle, Napoleon's Elite Guard, literally, would march out to dismay the broken armies after the amateurs were done with them. The Elite Guard would be the most disciplined of the whole army and would strike fear in the minds of the enemy, tactics wise, Napoleon would use one strong column of troops to divide the enemy in half. Then attack with full strength. So, you could add promotions or different types of units representing elite troops
Hmmm some of this is not strictly true. The imperial gaurd was only used from 1813 onwards with the exception of the young gaurd (russia) and cavalry (russia and briefly spain). It's first real introduction to battle outside of the young guard came through the middle gaurd at Lutzen/Bauden/Dresden/Leipzig. They were again used with their younger comrades in the 1814 battle for france. The old gaurd didn't see action in battle in any real scale until the 1815 were they fought in the last assault of Waterloo (and even then 2 or 3 out of the 8 battalions didn't join the attack). Napoleon simply valued them WAY to highly to throw them about lightly. At Borodino, he refused to use them to drive the russians from the field and shatter them because he feared loosing his last reserve so far from home... So really, the gaurd stayed out of most of the wars depending on their seniority*. I don't think the middle and old between them fought in action on more than a dozen major battlefields.
Something about gaurds hard to simulate I guess was that when driven from the field, such as at Waterloo, the french army literally collapsed into rout. The shout of "La Garde recule!" in almost disbelief turned the once proud french imperial army into a scattering mob within minutes. At the other end though, at Waterloo, Plancenoit fell to a prussian corps surrounding the Young Gaurd and anhialating them. Napoleon sent just two battalions of middle gaurd in, and at bayonet point they drove the disorganised prussians back out again and held for a while longer. These weren't just pretty troops, there to scare the enemy they could really kick butt when needed
*The Imp. Gaurd was for the main part of the wars in 5 main parts, the young, middle, old gaurd which were infantry, and literally based on age/legnth of service and then the cavalry, then finally the artillery. There was surgeons and engineers, but that's kinda a side thing really.
Sorry to ramble anyway, napoloeonics is kinda a wargame period for me
Be happy to help/advise anyone though
