The allied battlefield tactics employed in the Crimean war were, surprisingly effective and appropriate, given the weakness of the leadership. The British infantrymen advanced in two deep lines, thus maximising the firepower of the new Enfield rifle which they were armed with. These tactics worked very well against the Russian infantry who had not changed there battlefield tactics for many years, they were still relying on the force of numbers in a dense, Napoleonic, column style attack to overwhelm their opponents. The British infantry tactics used the increased range and rate of fire of the new rifles to cut down the leading ranks of the Russian columns long before they could engage them hand to hand. This demoralised and weakened the Russians before they even got close to the enemy. At the battle of Alma the British were outnumbered and in a state of disarray, but on Kourgane Hill they used these tactics to great effect. Struggling up the hill they were faced by a densely packed mass of Russian infantry, the British troops stopped and opened fire on their opponents, line after line of soldiers firing off a volley of aimed shots which devastated the Russians forcing them to fall back.
Another tactical advantage the British had in the Crimean war was the level of training of its troops. They were seasoned professionals who had been disciplined and trained to the highest level, this meant that they were much more efficient on the battlefield, using their weapons well and rarely if ever, backing down and fleeing. At the battle of Alma a ludicrously thin line of the Highland Brigade was faced by hordes of Russian, superbly disciplined the Highland Brigade advanced firing; at the time an extremely difficult manoeuvre, this was too much for the Russian troops who were forced to retreat. The heroic failure of the charge of the Light brigade also serves to show just how disciplined and committed the British soldiers were, willing to charge in to an almost certain death if ordered to. The use of effective battlefield tactics that utilised the technological advances of the time in the appropriate manner was a fairly important factor in the eventual victory of the allies, since it often gave them the upper hand in close battles. However it is important to remember that these tactics relied on the technological advantages that the allies had over the relatively primitive weapon systems of the Russian army.
The war strategy of the British in the Crimean war was, in parts, predictably poor given the poor leadership qualities of Raglan. The allied troops tried attacking in the Balkans and in the Baltic Sea around St. Petersburg, both of which were bad strategic plans since the capital was heavily fortified and they were rapidly driven away. Eventually the Russian troops were chased to Sebastopol where the British laid siege, this was a much better plan, a siege upon the trapped Russians with supplies for the British being shipped straight to troops just outside the coastal town, a coastal railway was even built to bring supplies to the front line. However the plan was badly executed, it was done much too slowly and the supplies, as I previously described, were very slow to reach the troops, which hampered the siege greatly. It seems that the main problem with the strategy of the allies was that it was a fairly slow moving strategy, the basic plan was fairly sound but it was done at such a pace that it allowed the Russians time to build their strength. It was this slowness that meant that the conflict was still not resolved by the winter of 1854, which caused great problems for the troops.
The new weapons technology employed by the allied troops in the war had a great effect on the battles fought and therefore the eventual outcome. The British troops were well armed, they carried the Enfield rifle, a very advanced weapon system at the time. The rifle could be reloaded much quicker than the old muskets still being used by the Russians, allowing the British troops, who, as I previously mentioned, were very well trained in the use of the weapon, to rapidly fire off volley after volley of aimed shots before the enemy got close to them. The barrels of the weapons were rifled, the spiral grooves giving the Minié bullets a spin which gave them a greater accuracy. The Minié bullets also expanded on firing, fitting the barrel snugly, thus increasing the power and range of the bullets. All these new features of the weapons, combined with the aforementioned expertise of the soldiers handling them, meant that the allied troops had a huge advantage over the Russians on every battlefield in the Crimea. At Balaclava for example the 93rd highlanders were deployed only in a ‘thin red line’ but they still managed to defeat a Russian cavalry attack with their superior firepower. This demonstrated that the infantrymen now were so well armed that they could defeat a head on cavalry attack, once the strongest form of assault. Other technological improvements such as the telegraph were being used, which meant that communication was much quicker, allowing better organisation and positioning of troops. However the Enfield rifle was the most significant technological advancement and had the biggest effect on the outcome of the Crimean war.
In conclusion it seems that the advance in weaponry was the most significant factor in the allied victory of the Crimean war. However we need to acknowledge that battlefield tactics were almost equally important: without the high quality of troops and the tactics to use these weapons effectively the British may not have had such an advantage over the enemy on the field of battle. With such sophisticated weaponry being put to such skilled use it was very difficult for the Russians to get the upper hand in battle
