Which was the last pitched battle fought by Western powers?

Upvote:2

For the British army the Zulu wars (1879) may be the last campaign where the standard practise was to line up and face the enemy. Entering into the Zulu wars the British had the newly developed martini Henry rifle, this had the advantage of comparatively rapid rates of fire and the ability to suppress large advancing forces. The British's first pitched battle with the Zulus was at Isandlwana. They followed their training perfectly, lining up in ranks and volley firing into the Zulu hoards. However the superior tactics of the Zulus (what we would call today "flanking") proved too much. It was the single greatest defeat of the British army to date. (There are numerous reasons why Isandlwana was a defeat for the British so if interested it's definitely an interesting battle). Through the ensuing conquest of Zululand the British had to adapt their tactics from the "stand and advance" methods of the previous centuries to "take cover behind defences and suppress the enemy with superior fire power".

The next major conflict of the British army was the Boer war, again in South Africa around 1890. The Boers were not a traditional force, today we might call them a militia group. The Boers would try and avoid direct conflict with the British simply because they knew they would lose. Instead they approached their battle with intellect, they hid in grasses, attacked supply lines and scuppered communication lines. The British in their dazzling redcoats stood out against the grasses of The African countryside and were easily picked off. We see the first trend of officers starting to dress like any other troops to avoid being targeted by sharpshooters.

By the end of the Boar war the British army had major revolutions in camouflage technologies and the pitched battle was no longer the standard approach. This, along with the more advanced S.M.L.E rifle (which held 10 rounds as opposed to the martini's 1 breech loading mechanism) meant that the individual soldier was able to put more firepower downrange) the need to bunch soldiers up to have superior firepower was nullified. We haven't even mentioned technologies such as rockets or Gatling guns, whose maximum effect is seen on groups of soldiers.

I truly don't know about other European countries and their fighting styles. Maybe the Sudan/Afghan campaign or the French-Africa wars would be another example of the paradigm shift to an evolved fighting style. I would imagine though most would follow due to the technology advancements of that time.

Upvote:4

How big would a battle have to count? And how determined would both sides have to be? Often one side is less motivated than the other, but the battle can still have a few pitched hours or days.

  • Basra? The Iraqis mostly retreated.
  • 73 Easting? The Iraqis were smashed, but they didn't all run.
  • Goose Green? The Argentine surrendered at the end.

More post

Search Posts

Related post