Your opinion on British (colonial) infantry tactics used in the Subcontinent?

[Aepsilons]

Your opinion on British (colonial) infantry tactics used in the Subcontinent? Was it effective ? What was the weakness ?

@AUSTERLITZ , @FaujHistorian

 

[KalaGhoda]

very old school..for sure..

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

What weakness.. when all the powerful clans,kingdoms/states allied with them for their own benefit againt their rivals...

 

[MastanKhan]

Your opinion on British (colonial) infantry tactics used in the Subcontinent? Was it effective ? What was the weakness ?

@AUSTERLITZ , @FaujHistorian

Hi,

That was tactically the most advaced usage of military strategy and deployment troops. You have to remember that the british soldier was coming out of the 100 years war in europe---the battle scene had changed----from a mounted horse cavalry attack----the focus had shifted to flanks / squares of infantry moving in unison.

The soldiers marching in ranks of three----on facing the enemy---turning the row towards the enemy---with their hand loaded rifles---the front row of soldiers would fire in a very disciplinary manner at the enemy once they were in range---the second row would move forward and let the load off---then the third ow would move foward and let the load off---in the meantine the other rows were reloading their weapons---& this phenomenon repeated over and over.

The english were using 'grapeshot' in their cannons----while the locals were still using ball shots----. The slaughter was one sided

A well trained soldier would let off 3 rounds in a minute----. British soldiers coming to india were battle hardened troops---they were extremely discipline as well----plus the fire power they displayed---totally decimated the opposing armies. Then they were also hungry for bounty ---loot and plunder---.

Bottomline---the british had better technology in the form of latest weapons---better trained soldiers and officers---a better focused fighting and conquering machine.

The armies of sub continent had no answer for that after their allies---the french lost the war in europe.

Here is a book I recommend---shocking in description---so knowledgeable about the inner doings of he subcontinent---. First time read it---I threw the book away---like someone had stabbed me in the heart---the truth was extremely painful and shocking---the more shocking truth was finding how impotent the local militaries were in front of the british armies.

Talwar - Kindle edition by Robert Carter. Literature & Fiction Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

 

[third eye]

Your opinion on British (colonial) infantry tactics used in the Subcontinent? Was it effective ? What was the weakness ?

@AUSTERLITZ , @FaujHistorian

Tactics are essentially dictated by three things - Terrain, Troops ( Numbers) and Technology.

Back then as Mast Khan has brought out the weapons used back then were the best available and under the circumstances they took advantage & evolved tactics based on the weapons they had.

Once the enemy came in range he was exposed to a blistering volley . The Cannons meanwhile had done the ' softening up' of the enemy and were used to effectively break up reinforcements or assaults.

Given what was available then, the tactics used were sound.

 

[jammersat]

The british obviously (by your picture) overestimated the local populace

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Its essentially same common european tactic used by all armies-based on line,column and square.U can find them on my ongoing austerlitz battle report.
British redcoats were excellent infantry because as britain had a small army but huge funds it could provide them with much better fire training which gave them an advantage in firefights.Meaning more live musket rounds fired by infantryman in training..much higher than the mass armies of europe's continental forces.
Subcontinental infantry were rabble,levies without common equipment..a few musketeers(except the marathas in some cases).Used no formations.
Subcontinental cavalry was very good,but fought as individuals..not in formation.
Artillery was very weak..lacked standardization and depended on hired europeans..british claibres were stnadrdized and mobile.

 

[Aepsilons]

Hi,

That was tactically the most advaced usage of military strategy and deployment troops. You have to remember that the british soldier was coming out of the 100 years war in europe---the battle scene had changed----from a mounted horse cavalry attack----the focus had shifted to flanks / squares of infantry moving in unison.

The soldiers marching in ranks of three----on facing the enemy---turning the row towards the enemy---with their hand loaded rifles---the front row of soldiers would fire in a very disciplinary manner at the enemy once they were in range---the second row would move forward and let the load off---then the third ow would move foward and let the load off---in the meantine the other rows were reloading their weapons---& this phenomenon repeated over and over.

The english were using 'grapeshot' in their cannons----while the locals were still using ball shots----. The slaughter was one sided

A well trained soldier would let off 3 rounds in a minute----. British soldiers coming to india were battle hardened troops---they were extremely discipline as well----plus the fire power they displayed---totally decimated the opposing armies. Then they were also hungry for bounty ---loot and plunder---.

Bottomline---the british had better technology in the form of latest weapons---better trained soldiers and officers---a better focused fighting and conquering machine.

The armies of sub continent had no answer for that after their allies---the french lost the war in europe.

Here is a book I recommend---shocking in description---so knowledgeable about the inner doings of he subcontinent---. First time read it---I threw the book away---like someone had stabbed me in the heart---the truth was extremely painful and shocking---the more shocking truth was finding how impotent the local militaries were in front of the british armies.

Talwar - Kindle edition by Robert Carter. Literature & Fiction Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Brilliantly said, my good Sir!

Its essentially same common european tactic used by all armies-based on line,column and square.U can find them on my ongoing austerlitz battle report.
British redcoats were excellent infantry because as britain had a small army but huge funds it could provide them with much better fire training which gave them an advantage in firefights.Meaning more live musket rounds fired by infantryman in training..much higher than the mass armies of europe's continental forces.
Subcontinental infantry were rabble,levies without common equipment..a few musketeers(except the marathas in some cases).Used no formations.
Subcontinental cavalry was very good,but fought as individuals..not in formation.
Artillery was very weak..lacked standardization and depended on hired europeans..british claibres were stnadrdized and mobile.

Thank you, my Sir.

Do you happen to know if the Kingdoms in the subcontinent implemented hit and run tactics / guerrilla warefare tactics -- quite similar to the ones used by American colonials during the American Revolution ?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Brilliantly said, my good Sir!



Thank you, my Sir.

Do you happen to know if the Kingdoms in the subcontinent implemented hit and run tactics / guerrilla warefare tactics -- quite similar to the ones used by American colonials during the American Revolution ?

Hit and run tactics..not really.Diff with USA is on 3 counts..every us fighter knew he was fighting for free democratic nation..here footsoldiers had little to gain..local kings selfish interests,who were often prepared to make backroom deals with brits.
Second here predominance was given to cavalry...but age of cavalry had past,hit and run tactics were attempted locally with cavalry..unlike in usa by infantry.Here expert musketeers were very rare.Gunpowder weaponry was less developed and widespread.
Finally USA independence owes a alot to european support,particularly french regulars and european officers and instructors.French army and navy were crucial.

 

[Zhukov]

Well they thwarted every force in there way exept some resistance from Meysore and Pashtuun Tribes.
So they were ofcourse successfull.

I believe that it was more of the organisation and technological advancement of the british as a power. And not primarily Military tactics.

There Navy, There communication resources, There intelligence networks, There political and administrative organisation, There manuvaring of local folk to work with them, There weapons, There strong and government back home and there economic might of almost unlimited resources All of these factors compounded to form the ultimate war machine of the 19th century

 

[Foot12]

The british obviously (by your picture) overestimated the local populace

This is doubtful considering the fact that the British were defeated by the Marathas in the first Anglo-Maratha War
and by the Mysore kingdom in the Battle of Pollilur.

 

[scorpionx]

During the second half of the eighteenth century, when East India Company had just started to hold its grip tighter in an unprecedented manner over the neck of different principalities in Northern and Southern India, new gun powder revolution completely changed the shape of warfare (conventional) throughout the world. And India was just not out of it.

Earlier Mughals in Delhi or Deccan Sultanate in South essentially depended upon cavalries and horsemen consisting of Turks and Afghan mercenaries. But about this time the new flintlock mechanism was enhancing the firing capabilities of European Infantry Units. It was lighter than the earlier matchlocks, easy to fire, more accurate and the pre-packaged paper cartridges had doubled its rate of firing. Gradually, the Europeans (mostly napoleonic war veterans) started being appointed by the principalities all over India and cavalry warfare lost its importance to the increasingly overpowering infantry warfare. Another major cause behind the success of East India Company was they successfully combined their infantry units with the mobile field artillery which were more accurate than any of their opponents.

As far as their battle formation and infantry tactics are concerned Gen.Sir David Dundas’ Principles of Military movements (1788) might give us a vivid idea how it was done. Dundas’ eighteen manoeuvres and his advocacy of three rank deep lines, though thoroughly criticized by his contemporaries were followed with minor improvisation by the British Army. The following book is a good read and with good effect gives a fair idea about the British Infantry tactics through this period.

Osprey Publishing - British Napoleonic Infantry Tactics 1792–1815

 

[Fahad Khan 2]

Hit and run tactics..not really.Diff with USA is on 3 counts..every us fighter knew he was fighting for free democratic nation..here footsoldiers had little to gain..local kings selfish interests,who were often prepared to make backroom deals with brits.
Second here predominance was given to cavalry...but age of cavalry had past,hit and run tactics were attempted locally with cavalry..unlike in usa by infantry.Here expert musketeers were very rare.Gunpowder weaponry was less developed and widespread.
Finally USA independence owes a alot to european support,particularly french regulars and european officers and instructors.French army and navy were crucial.

hit and run was used by pashtoons of triable area..

 

[MastanKhan]

Brilliantly said, my good Sir!

Hi,

If you are in the U S---spend 3 dollars---buy this book----it is an eye opener---. The writer is so deep into the hindustan's culture, psyche & thinking----that alone would be a surprise.

 

[Aepsilons]

Hi,

If you are in the U S---spend 3 dollars---buy this book----it is an eye opener---. The writer is so deep into the hindustan's culture, psyche & thinking----that alone would be a surprise.

Hi @MastanKhan , What's the name of the book ?