Some quotes regarding, guerilla and cavalry raids. Cavalry raiding / guerilla assaults were extremely common before the 18th century.
'The Poles also devised the idea of operating in divisions since this gave them all-important mobility and ability to live off the land (this was at a time when most European armies marched in a great mass). Another tradition was that of the deep cavalry raid sweeping ahead of the main army, sometimes covering a thousand miles in a great arc behind enemy lines'
'The Polish Way', by Zamoyski.
Such as the 8,000 man cavalry GUERILLA RAIDING force operating around Smolensk. One can call the 8,000 men as a whole, an army, however they operated in divisions when surpising the enemy.
I don't know how you guys can deny that artillery was never lost during marches unless it wasn't during 'normal circumstances'
what normal circumstances...when they were taking tea in a park?
War is war, there's the weather, there's the enemy, there's the terrain .. it always causes attrition, and at times severe attrition.
Podohorodecki says regarding the Moldavian and Wallachian campaigns of Sobieski after 1683..in his 'Great Polish Battles of History' (Polish text)
'.. Polish losses during the march were substantially higher than incurred during the siege of Vienna. At the siege some 500 Poles were killed, during the march back which took over a month, harrassed by the enemy (Moldavians, Tartars, Turks), they lost almost 1/3rd of their army including transports, artillery and other matierial.'
There was never any 'normal circumstances' especially in eastern Europe where mobility and the tactics of surprise played a major part in warfare. Taking cities was of MINOR importance because the enemy could quite easily slice of your routes of contact and retreat, although possession of some vital cities was of significance; Danzig, Smolensk, Riga, Chocim.
One can never give accurate statistics. As I said before, so what If I find you exact statistics .. i.e. 'Russians lost 5% of artillery per month, yadda yadda'. So what? As you said, such statistics are usually erronous and corrupted or biased. One cannot just take hard core statistics to mind, ESPECIALLY from historians writing now about events 300 years ago. One has to make logical judgements and base ones theories on the information that IS available.
.. therefore from the information I've gathered and from what I've read I can _logically_ conclude that artillery losses did reach (at times) high % per month. It was not the norm in every operation, but it did happen. Failing to SEE that, just because one doesn't have hard facts about every single quotable battle is lunacy. Hard facts and statistics matter, however they are usually shrouded over or 'edited' creatively. If you demand these sorts of statistics, then good luck, but I'm not going to make an assumption based purely on some 'definite' or what one might percieve 'correct' statistics from ANY source. ALL sources are biased in some way, ALL have been tainted over the course of centuries.
Now, this is the final post I'm going to make on this topic.
Sapura
[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 13-12-2000).]
'The Poles also devised the idea of operating in divisions since this gave them all-important mobility and ability to live off the land (this was at a time when most European armies marched in a great mass). Another tradition was that of the deep cavalry raid sweeping ahead of the main army, sometimes covering a thousand miles in a great arc behind enemy lines'
'The Polish Way', by Zamoyski.
Such as the 8,000 man cavalry GUERILLA RAIDING force operating around Smolensk. One can call the 8,000 men as a whole, an army, however they operated in divisions when surpising the enemy.
I don't know how you guys can deny that artillery was never lost during marches unless it wasn't during 'normal circumstances'
what normal circumstances...when they were taking tea in a park?
War is war, there's the weather, there's the enemy, there's the terrain .. it always causes attrition, and at times severe attrition.
Podohorodecki says regarding the Moldavian and Wallachian campaigns of Sobieski after 1683..in his 'Great Polish Battles of History' (Polish text)
'.. Polish losses during the march were substantially higher than incurred during the siege of Vienna. At the siege some 500 Poles were killed, during the march back which took over a month, harrassed by the enemy (Moldavians, Tartars, Turks), they lost almost 1/3rd of their army including transports, artillery and other matierial.'
There was never any 'normal circumstances' especially in eastern Europe where mobility and the tactics of surprise played a major part in warfare. Taking cities was of MINOR importance because the enemy could quite easily slice of your routes of contact and retreat, although possession of some vital cities was of significance; Danzig, Smolensk, Riga, Chocim.
One can never give accurate statistics. As I said before, so what If I find you exact statistics .. i.e. 'Russians lost 5% of artillery per month, yadda yadda'. So what? As you said, such statistics are usually erronous and corrupted or biased. One cannot just take hard core statistics to mind, ESPECIALLY from historians writing now about events 300 years ago. One has to make logical judgements and base ones theories on the information that IS available.
.. therefore from the information I've gathered and from what I've read I can _logically_ conclude that artillery losses did reach (at times) high % per month. It was not the norm in every operation, but it did happen. Failing to SEE that, just because one doesn't have hard facts about every single quotable battle is lunacy. Hard facts and statistics matter, however they are usually shrouded over or 'edited' creatively. If you demand these sorts of statistics, then good luck, but I'm not going to make an assumption based purely on some 'definite' or what one might percieve 'correct' statistics from ANY source. ALL sources are biased in some way, ALL have been tainted over the course of centuries.
Now, this is the final post I'm going to make on this topic.
Sapura
[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 13-12-2000).]
