rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Form A Square ? Or Form A Circle ?

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:33 pm

Not meant to be on too serious a note, but of the two defences, which is the better ?

Squares - 4 solid sides, but are the corners vulnerable ?

Circle - All round defence, no corners, but lacking elsewhere ?

In British war movies we tend to see soldiers 'Form Square'.

In American Westerns, we tend to see circular defence techniques, for instance in Custer's Last Stand (although dismounted cavalry not infantrymen), or pioneers circling their wagons, both, according to Hollywood, appearing to be quickly-formed defences.

So, what are the advantages/disadvantages of each defence formation ?

Coll

Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:20 pm

Coll:

I hope you don't mind this answer from a lady who's _never_ been close to any battle, but I think that the answer to your question depends on what one thinks one's enemy will be doing on the offense.

Remember in the movie "Zulu" Addendorf describes "the horns of the buffalo." Chard and Bromhead worked out a strategy to attempt to defeat that particular tactical strategy.

Perhaps in Europe of the 1800s the "square" was favored; but that was long before the days of "guerilla warfare." Now, in Iraq for example, I suspect (but cannot prove) that neither the circle nor the square are of much account, given the house-to-house nature of much of the fighting.

Again, all this from a lady who's never been close to combat...so if I'm talking nonsense, please disregard.

Best,

Barbara

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:50 pm

Coll,

A square is much easier to control in both movement and firepower.

Imagine trying to form a circle of rank under pressure...."In a bit out a bit - ever done "New York, New York" at the end of a wedding or office party - uncontrollable?"

Imagine trying to control the fire - "middle rank between two o'clock and four o'clock - fire!"

The movement of ranks from line to square was well practiced.

You are correct that the corners are vulnerable and this is indeed where cavalry would try to break it. They are also very vulneable to artillery fire being such a concentrated target. However, if they enemy's cavalry are attacking, their artilley will not be firing.

One other factor favour square in that they can be mutually supporting as a series of circles cannot be. A circle firing outward sprays fire in all directions. Handy if you are the only friendlies on the battlefiled eg Blood River. A series of squares have the ranks facing into the gaps between adjacent squares.

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:22 pm

Barbara

Thanks. You tried that's the main thing. Smile

Simon

Good answer.

There is, what is meant to be a witty comment, made in another site, which says -

'Custer Manouevre - When overwhelmed by enemy forces, form a circle and die in it.' Shocked

Apparently, a circle formation can also be known as 'All Around Defence', which can be used for numbers of soldiers from the size of a squad upwards. If I'm correct, it is usually created after an enemy attack when groups are reforming/rallying, perhaps when numbers are lessened, and still need to cover as much area as possible being a full 360 degrees, when a square isn't practical.

I can understand in the case of Custer's Last Stand, with his cavalrymen dismounted, he could have used them in this way (in Hollywood anyway), almost like a circular skirmish line (is there such a thing ?) to cover all areas when surrounded, but not have his men too close together, crowding in on each other for security.

As for the wagons in Westerns, they are usually on the move, therefore having horses already hitched and it would be easier for the lead wagon to arc round (with the others following) to the last wagon forming a circle, if already under attack, which happens regularly in these type of films.

I can imagine though, if a circle was formed with several companies, men with bayonets fixed, officers, etc., in the centre, it would look extremely impressive as well as deadly!

Coll

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:39 pm

It's jolly deadly old boy!

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:02 pm

Coll,

Apolgies for the speeling mistakes - my 'r' key keeps sticking - the perils of eating over the keyboard.

All round defence tends to be used in section/squad units to provide defence when embarking/diembarking a vehicle or helicopter or when crossing through a pinch point.

Geometrically, it is difficult to say whether eight men all facing outward are a circle, square or an octagon as they can be on the perimeter of each. Squares are battalion sized Napoleonic affairs with men standing shoulder to shoulder three or four ranks deep. Not recommended for the modern age.

If a section/squad of eight men gathers round in a gaggle when crossing over a fence or wall etc. it gives the enemy an easy concetrated target to zero in on. Likewise when boarding/ de-bussing a vehicle - better to shoot you up when you are all nice and concentrated and can't fire back.

Sections are trained to defend a small perimeter and cross individually (or with one or two assisting where necessary) and then form a defence on the other side until all have crossed and further progress made.

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:17 pm

Simon

Yes. I have seen such deployments, including the mention of it happening during the 'Mad Minute' ?! Confused

It states that there are distances between each soldier, in order to lessen casualties during such a period, which means the initial tremendous amount of enemy firepower aimed at this kind of target.

Coll

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:49 pm

I would imagine that you would use a circle against fast moving enemy armed with some sort of projectile weapon for example American indians, Square would be suited to a densely packed mass with less projectile weapons

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:36 pm

Coll, Form Square is and always has been the accepted defence movement of the British Army and was only broken once and the Fuzzy Wuzzies in the Sudan where the boys who did it ( see Rudyard Kiplings Poem) it is also used on the square as a drill movement. So I would think that has it was only broken once speaks for it'self
Clive

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:49 pm

Thanks Flawed Hero/Clive

Yes. I understand what you mean. If there is a tried and tested formation, then that will be the one used.

However, when does a square become a circle ?

When a square (or line) has been broken, soldiers can become isolated groups, all well and good if the numbers of the group still can form a suitable defensive square, but what if numbers are scarce ?

There is a cracking painting, although I've not seen it for a while, called 'Pride of the 24th' (?) which shows a couple of very small groups numbering about 3 or four men, each man pointing their rifle in different directions, obviously surrounded or in the process of being surrounded.

Now I know an individual soldier alone using a single shot rifle on open ground can't hold back a mass of attacking enemy, but enough of these small groups can still cover each other in broken, but in many ways, still organised miniature formations.

If I remember correctly, again in the above mentioned painting, a soldier is pointing his finger as if giving orders, direction of fire, etc., so even at the dramatic final stages of Isandlwana, a very few men can still be organised enough to give the enemy hell.

So, although seemingly scattered, either alone or in small groups, a somewhat circular formation, not necessarily 'visible' to the untrained eye, is created, as these remaining men try to cover all ground with their depleted force.

Therefore, a circular formation may not be ordered, but could be created due to the situation unfolding, rather than initial contact with the enemy.

Coll

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:22 pm

Further to the above.

The painting 'Pride of the 24th' is by Bud Bradshaw.

There is an image of it on the Cranston Fine Arts site.

A black-and-white image is in the Campaign No.14 title by Osprey.

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:46 pm

Coll,
in the context you mentioned I would imagine a square may well become a circle due to losses or retreating more etc, when there are only a few troops left an ordered square is probbaly out of the question but a rough circle could be formed with a lot smaller number still giving all round defence

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:07 pm

The vital factor is the ground. Where the square did fail, it did so because the ground upon which the formation was formed was ill suited to it.

AMB

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:53 pm

And to supplement AMB's comment on the ground, I would also add in 'steadiness'. I've had a good look at Abu Klea for the new book and it is clear that with a low knoll in front of the square the front face company commanders advanced suddenly to gain the top of it and so improve their fields of fire. This amounted to a sudden lurch and a disruptive ripple effect down the left and right faces. The disruption was worst at the back where in addition to the lurch you have Adeni camel handlers edging the baggage camels away from incoming fire from the British right, and Lord Charles Beresford mucking about with the Gardner MG at a supremely inopportune moment. You also have skirmishers messing about with a firefight at the rear and unaware that a massed attack has been launched from the left front. To cap it all Major Gough of the Heavy Camel Regiment decides that it would be a good idea to wheel his company out of the rear face to extend the left face. (A possible alternative which I can't really get to the bottom of for sure , is that his blokes just ran out to the left in excitement and that it turned into an impromptu company deployment.) Burnaby also appears to have supported Gough's men with a second company, leaving a ruddy great whole in the back of the square. It is clear that the Foot Guards and line infantry officers at the front and left faces blamed the cavalry officers at the back for making such a stupid manoeuvre and so disruprting the integrity of the square. They were also hopping mad about the use of skirmishers at all, though as I read it the mahdist fire was both heavy and protracted ahead of the main assault, so I can see why Sir Herbert Stewart chose to use them.

It is clear that although it was always intended that the HCR should fight on foot, they were next to untrained in infantry drills - not surprising therefore that it all went horribly wrong. A command failure to train for role. So here you get ground and faffing about (unsteadiness) as the causes of failure in the square.

Regards
Mike

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:20 pm

Of course, overwhelming firepower could also add to one�s �steadiness�.
Sheer weight of fire was critical; the aim being to keep the natives/cavalry as far away from the square as possible.
Of course, to form square with a Gatling or Gardner at the corner or in the centre was slightly better than the much slower [rate of firing] muzzle-loading or even breech-loading cannon. However, if one had a Maxim or even a Pom-Pom (a 1 inch Maxim)......
As someone once sung; 'the bravest of the brave can never match the Maxim Gun.'

AMB