"Loose and tight order formations in the AWI." Topic

I have some questions regarding tight and loose formations in the AWI. When did the British adopt the loose two rank formations during the AWI? Was it only during the Southern Campaign? Did the Grenadiers adopt loose formations? Did Continental regiments ever adopt tight three rank formations? What about the Germans?

Thanks,

David

When Howe replaced Gage he instituted the new formation. So pretty much after Bunker Hill everyone used the 'loose files'.

Don't know what the Germans did. Sticking with 3-ranks might explain why they were so slow.

Even at Bunker Hill, many of the units seem to have worked in two ranks. The origin of the two rank line in America dates to the French and Indian Wars, and Gage had been one of its strongest proponents. Howe's order may have made it official, but it had probably been habitual under "Light Infantry" Gage, too.

The Osprey Monmouth Courthouse book states that in "1776 Howe had encouraged all German infantry to adopt two-rank formations; most did, but retained "close" order, believing the "open" order used by the British was too weak." That seems a little contradictory. They adopted two-rank formations while retaining close order. Isn't close order and three rank formation the same thing?

David

I think "close" order refers to the spacing between files of men, so the Germans dropped down to two ranks but didn't space the files as far apart as the British did (in their "open" order).

SM will know the answer….

As I understand it the loose files adopted by the British were not adopted by the majority of the German regiments. They adopted two ranks as a compromise but still manouvered 'shoulder to shoulder'at the stately pace of the European theatre. (Thye criticised the British for 'rushing about'.) This would give them a wider frontage and a bit more flexibility. However, some German units with Burgoyne did adopt loose files and did well at it.

The two main German units – Hesse Cassel in the main theatre and the Brunswick/Hesse Hanau troops in the north – did different things. The HC units adopted two ranks from their arrival, but retained close order:

link

The troops under Riedesel adopted "tree fighting" tactics to some extent (we're not sure how much or how often); there are quotes for this on the Perry AWI Articles site:

link

Whilst researching his book "Fusiliers", Mark Urban came across several references to the British using two ranks at Bunker Hill (the light infantry pretty much did all the time in the field, anyway – again, there is a reference for this [de Berniere, I think) on the Concord raid).

It was only when the army withdrew from Boston to Halifax that the entire army was trained in the "light infantry" formations Howe had developed in the camp on Salisbury Plain in 1774. Other units picked it up when they arrived on Staten Island in the summer of 1776. The transfer of the 47th to Canada, the presence of some of Howe's 1774 units, and the dissemination of his teachings amongst the regments of the Dublin garrison (who provided the bulk of Burgoyne's reinforcement of 1776) ensured some commonality of tactical philosophy across both British armies.

In simplistic terms, think of "close order" as elbows touching (in the 1764 Manual it's actually six inches between files); "order" as the 18 inch standard gap introduced by Howe in 1775/6; "open order", or "extended order", as anything from a double gap (ie 36 inches) up to several feet.

"In simplistic terms, think of "close order" as elbows touching (in the 1764 Manual it's actually six inches between files); "order" as the 18 inch standard gap introduced by Howe in 1775/6; "open order", or "extended order", as anything from a double gap (ie 36 inches) up to several feet."

actually, perhaps the easiest way to think about it is close order = half-arm apart, your left elbow touching your neighbor, open order = arm apart, your extended arm's fingertips touching your neighbor. On me, the distance is 10" and 24" or so. Due to the variable arm length of people, the taller people would actually be farther apart then the shorter people.

Since a sculptor's figures are nearly all the same height, it's hard to model this.
:)

Troops in loose (extended) order take twice the frontage (or more) of troops in close order.

British in loose order were still in two ranks, though they had as many troops per yard as a single close-order rank.

Since I posted this question, I found a great article on MagWeb (gotta love MagWeb.) by Mark Nichipor "William Howes Light Infantry Discipline "Loose Files and Open Order"

Apparently Howe is sort of the father of the British Light Infantry. Drawing upon his experience with Jaegers during the SYW, he wrote a light infantry manual and set up a school in Ireland trainng elite companies as light infantry.

When he was transferred to North America just after Bunker Hill, he set up school in Canada and proceede to train select companies as he did in Ireland.

This time he had these now light companies, when they rejoined there units, to train all the other companies. Before long all the Brits were operating in two-rank files (still not sure about the Grenadiers.

You guys are right about the Germans, still rather hard to get a handle on them. Clinton who opposed the loose formations, said after the war he tried whenever he could to have German Grenadiers back up the loose formations. Which tells me the Grenadiers were still old school. I still can't imagine the Germans being in three-rank during the Saratoga and Southern Campaigns.

I have always thought the French during the AWI used three-rank, close order. In the article, Mark quotes French Officers as being eager to confront the British with their loose files, because they believed there dense formations would overrun them. Any other comments or sources to back all this up or not?

David

Some things to ponder;

There is order (18 inches), open order (36 inches?) and extended order (whatever is required). Order was the most commonly used, I believe.

The two rank formation came from previous manuals and use when a battalion was reduced, in order (not the formation) to maintain a usual frontage.

In the F&I Amherst's army went to the two rank formations in 1759, but there is no reason to believe that Wolfe did, and instead kept the standard three rank system – perhaps as the terrain he was fighting over was more like Europe.

In regards to the British Army of 1776, while Howe's men that served at Halifax might have trained in the "order" formations, I must wonder what the other troops arriving at NY had trained for, especially those from Ireland. I wonder if they stayed with closed files and trained in open ones, once there for a while.

It is also my understanding that once in the "order" formation that upon closing (charge bayonets) with the enemy, the men moved into a single rank, and that support was supplied by units behind the now single rank battalion.

historygamer,

Order was the standard parade/field formation under Howe; Clinton didn't like it, but kept it anyway as the army was used to it and the enemy had no cavalry. You are right about the open/extended difference I think; both of these appear to have been used more by the light infantry.

Yes, the 1764 mentions reverting to two ranks if the company falls below 10 files in three. I believe that F&I historians think Knox's reference to two ranks refers only to one of the battalion of the 60th at Quebec, suggesting that the rest of Wolfe's force was still in three, as you say.

Cornwallis commanded the Dublin garrison; as a fellow Whig, as well as a very professional soldier, Cornwallis would probably have been aware of Howe's training and several of his battalions included the light companies that took part in the original trial.

I wasn't aware of the single rank formation for the charge; I had read (I think in one of Novak's orbat books) that the rear rank "covered" the gaps in the front rank, but that always struck me as maximising the target for the enemy as well as flying in the face of comments about "covering" the front rank men (which always suggested standing behind him).

Phillips wrote a memo proposing various combinations of close order and order formations (both multi-unit and using the two wings of individual battalions) with the order troops in the front line and close order guys in support. Again, it seems likely that he and Cornwallis corresponded on various matters including tactics, and Cornwallis later attacks Wayne in this way at Green Springs.

"In regards to the British Army of 1776, while Howe's men that served at Halifax might have trained in the "order" formations, I must wonder what the other troops arriving at NY had trained for, especially those from Ireland. I wonder if they stayed with closed files and trained in open ones, once there for a while."

From the Nichipor Article:

"General Thomas Gage in command at Boston had possibly encouraged some training of the Lights based on his experiences with the Old 80th Light Armed Foot. Dr. Robert Honeymoon, visiting from Virginia wrote on March 22, 1775 that he observed what sounds like Light Infantry at practice.

"Every Regiment here," wrote Honeyman, "has a company of light infantry, young active fellows; & they are trained in the regular manner, & likewise in a peculiar discipline of irregular & bush fighting; they run out in parties on the wings of the Regiment where they keep up a constant & irregular fire; they secure the retreat; & they defend their front while they are forming; in one part of their exercise they ly (sic) on their backs & charge their pieces & fire lying on their bellies. They have powder horns & no cartridge boxes." [19]

But no move was made to brigade the various Light Infantry and Grenadier companies into composite battalions. This prevented the different company commanders from working together, and gave no individual any experience in handling these unusual commands. The Companies stayed attached to their parent battalion and operated with them. [20] They were brigade and operated together for the first time on April 19.

Adding to the confusion, Howe's Light Infantry Discipline possibly arrived in Boston just prior to April 19, 1775. "The Grenadiers and Light Infantry Companies," recorded Adjutant Frederick McKenzie of the 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers on April 15th, "were this day Ordered to be off duty 'till further orders, as they will be ordered out to learn the Grenadier Exercise, and some New Evolutions for the Light Infantry." [21] This order was repeated on April 16. At the fight at Concord's Old North Bridge the confusion among the British officers might be attributed to a poor understanding of the new drill; or confusion about old vs new commands."

Great responses! So how do you express all of this in game terms? Most rules seem to have all units in loose formation. One set of rules "Sons of Liberty" by Wes Rogers gives European units the option of being in tight or loose formation. Should everyone in including Germans and French always be in loose formation or just Grenadiers? Should it be determined by the campaign or a paticular date?

the most inconvenient thing to do is to try and represent various 'orders' in a game. Furthermore, there's no way to know what difference all this actually made, so how does one express it in game terms? Finally, a regimental game – one that's using a regiment as a building block for a game – is using the groups of figs on stands to represent a regiment in general, not to actually depict every single drill order they might be in and use. Most troops would be familiar with more than one order – it isn't rocket science, and if one has just normal athletic ability it can be taught to you in just a few weeks.

I'd say that if you want to represent in with the basing of the troops, go ahead and put some on slightly wider bases. If you use a regimental game, you can always just say that troops in closer order get a slight bonus in melee, but are easier to hit. You might want to give them a fire bonus as they've a third rank firing on the same frontage. Or not, depending on what you determine the effects of the various formations to be.

A real pain in the derrier, eh?

The confusion at the North Bridge on April 19 was due to an attempt by one officer to employ "street firing" – a tactic used to defend narrow passages by firing in sections, or platoons (according to available space) and then either falling back to the rear of the formation to reload, or standing firm and reloading whilst the troops behind advanced. This was a general tactic to be used by any troops, and not a specific element of Howe's evolutions. The problem on the day was that one company knew how to do it; the second was led by an officer who knew the tactic, but had never practised it with his men; and the third was commanded by someone who knew nothing about it (although in his defence, I think he may have been a junior subaltern, rather than a company commander).

aa19003,

Perhaps the solution to your problem is to base your figures individually (something just big enough to increase stability – eg pennies) and then mount them on movement trays according to the formation needed. Some base manufacturers will make you trays with regularly-spaced holes to insert the figures; if you vary the spacings of the holes, each tray can depict a different formation.

Hi

The solution I chose may not work for you.

I put the figs on individual stands with the frontage of the tightest formation. Basic combat fireing goes up when firing front to front…more guns shooing a given enemy unit.

However, the game is played with movement trays, and spreading your troops reduces the casualties taken.

As an example, I use 2d6 for combat(all have at least 6 pairs of differntly colored in pairs dice), and might need to roll a 9 to score a hit on an enemy, a 10 in loose order or a 12 in skirmish order. This is balenced that 10 companies in closest order will only be facing perhaps 4 or 5 in skirmish.

Lets the player decide if he knows "Howe" or not. Grin.

Rocky