"skirmishers in games" Topic

We`ve had a lot of discussion about various nation`s abilities and methods of skirmishing in the past, but for those of us who game at a battalion level and want to see them in our games (and are not content with adding a modifier and an extended range to formed unit bases) …are there any particular aspects of or types of skirmishing which you feel should be represented in an historical wargame?

We had a thread recently on whether it was acceptable for a unit to fire at a juicier target rather than the nearest or most immediate threat.

In the same way, infantry facing a skirmish screen and a formed unit behind it should NOT be allowed to ignore the skirmish screen and "fire through" it. The skirmishers were there to be a distraction.

agreed on the not being able to fire through skirmiskers. the exception we made was that artillery may fire at targets beyond skirmishers.

I disagree on that point.

There is nothing inherent to the skirmsih screen that would prevent formed infantry from firing on another formed infantry unit beyond.

It's the ranges involved that count. If your skirmishers are only 50 yards ahead of your line they aren't going to screen much of anything.

Skirmishers disrupting line units by targeting key personel and generally unnerving the men is their main effect. A possiblity should exist that the battlaion commander decides to fire a volley at the skirmishers to try and drive them off, or perhaps the fire of a unit pestered by the skirmishers should be of a reduced quality.

M C has it right: skirmishers are effective because they can't be ignored. If they are so few and/or close to the main formed line then they are effectively non existent….

Skirmishers were not an impenetrable wall of men, in real life it was for the light company or rifles to deal with.

The main body are there to fire into the other main body, if a few skirmishers get in the way of a musket ball to bad!

If troops had the discipline to receive a volley from the enemy main body without returning fire until ordered as the British did on many occasions then why would they loose it because of skirmishers?

I think Shako 2 deals with skirmishers in a very good way.

that may be another thread wrgmr1… In my original question, I really had games in mind in which individual battlaions will have skirmishers to deploy.

Doug Larsen 08 Nov 2009 8:18 a.m. PST
''M C has it right: skirmishers are effective because they can't be ignored. If they are so few and/or close to the main formed line then they are effectively non existent….''

M C LeSingeDew has it right. The decision about whether or not to shoot through them at the formed battalion beyond is a matter for the commander, not a rules restriction. Skirmishers can be a 'distraction', but that's more to do with the danger for the facing battalion that they will waste their first volley on them. If you have some decent rules, where the first volley counts for more, then there's no problem in shooting through skrimshers.

I'd like to see rifles more involved in rules. Most of the objections to including them at battalion-level games is said to be that their effect was negligable or that is was offset by 'slowness of loading'. Actually it seems to me that this is more due to rules writers not knowing much about them: their ability to take out offers and artilleryists for example.

Also, the British formed brigade- and even divisional-level skirmishers from their light companies. The ability for some countries to co-ordinate their fire needs recognicion, I reckon.

The British could re-form their light battalions from 100% skirmishers into a line. Be nice to see that ability (which Shako disallows) in rules.

It is fascinating how different rules perceive the operations of skirmishers, particularly compared to other infantry formations.

The things I think should be represented with skirmishing combat:

1. The ability to reform. Where designers got the idea that skirmish units couldn't reform, I don't know. "Reform" is one of the few calls that could be done with all three: drum, whistle and horn, and certainly one of the major actions practiced. The only units that had difficulty reforming were raw recruits, like the san colettes during the French Revolution. Certainly time was involved as with all formation changes, but it could and was done by all nations.

2. The basic Battlefield dynamic of skirmish combat. The one thing that all military men discuss concerning skirmish combat was 'how many' were necessary. The basic dynamic was throwing out enough to do the job but not too many. For instance, at Bussaco, Craufurd response to the French skimrishers from the light companies by deploying half his light division, 1500 men. The French skirmishers now substantially outnumbered, the French division stops to deploy another two battalions as skirmishers.

The whole dynamic is one of arms escalation. The dynamic is present in 1793, at Jena and Waterloo. If that is missing, the whole process has been missed. Most all games, like Shako and AOE, all limit the number to a set amount, usually only the specialist troops, where they were almost always reinforced with line troops--when 'needed'.

3. The issue of firing through skirmishers. One of the major components of a Napoleonic battlefield is completely absent from most miniatures rules: Smoke. Black Powder threw out huge quantities. That is a major reason the first vollies were the most important. After that, you couldn't see the opponent. Skirmishers created smoke, which masked the troops behind them. It is a major reason the French could mistake a thick skirmish line for a British formed line.

And the contemporary military men knew this and used it. Here is a comment in Maxims: Advice and Instructions on the Art of War, page 123 In discussing ineffective fire, the author says:

If,however, you wish to mask by smoke a flank movement of part of the second line or the reserve, or to await a force coming to your support, make a tremendous and uninterrupted fusilade to your front, even if you should suffer losses, until the movement is competed or the force has arrived.

First published in 1850, it was written by a British veteran of the Napoleonic wars and seems to have first seen print during that period under another title.

However there are any number of comments in period books not only on how smoke masked opposing sides and degraded musket and artillery fire, but how it was used purposely as a smoke screen.

If the enemy can't see the formed troops behind a skirmish screen, would they shoot at it?

Once you have deployed enough skirmishers for their smoke to completely obscure vision you have deployed something more than what most rules consider "skirmishers".

A target more akin to an loose line formation than the proper dispersion for skirmishers.

Indeed most rules do fall afoul of "only x may skirmish" as anyone could, and did, although they may not have done it well.

It's very easy to see how a skirmish screen could be thought to be the main line if the screen is "thick" enough.

McLaddie wrote:

"Skirmishers created smoke, which masked the troops behind them. It is a major reason the French could mistake a thick skirmish line for a British formed line."

McLaddie

I shoot black powder rifles and muskets on a regular basis. I have been on the range on several occasions where the density of black powder shooters probably replicates a fairly close line of skirmishers. The powder smoke, even on a calm day, perhaps obscures the target for a couple of seconds, but nothing more. Maybe a close order line firing a volley, or several volleys, would obscure the view for a longer period, but I am sure that smoke from a skirmish line would not obscure anything.

As to the French mistaking skirmish lines for close order lines, this seems to be a myth found in secondary sources only, although I would be very interested if you had an actual primary reference for this.

Maybe a close order line firing a volley, or several volleys, would obscure the view for a longer period, but I am sure that smoke from a skirmish line would not obscure anything.

Captain:
How many shooters are we talking about? And the quality of powder? two men every five yards or less across 100 or more yards?

Of course, the real issue is whether that is how the contemporaries saw the issue. I will dig up the quotes. And some from primary sources for the mistaking of skirmish lines for the main line.

Bill H.

I do believe that much of the hoopla over skirmishing has to do with the very nature of the thing itself.

If you have 50 men skirmishing out on front of 550 its quite a different beast than if you have 200 skirmishing out in front of 400.

Also you can have quite a strong skirmish line (the 200 above) but they won't stop a determined advance by a strong enemy body but could involve them in firefight. Once that happens you have two bodies trading shots until someone decides they have had enough.

Conversely the more men on the skirmish line the greater the time required to reform, which can be a problem if your skirmish line does not force the enemy into a firefight or even if they do and now you want to take the initiative.

It's more a question of resource management then special training. Sure your light company will be more efficient at it but any troops can be sent ahead to skirmish or reinforce the skirmish line as needed.

Skirmishers created smoke, which masked the troops behind them. It is a major reason the French could mistake a thick skirmish line for a British formed line.

I also don't believe that a skirmish line's fire is going to generate enough smoke to obscure the formed formations behind them by any stretch of the imagination. If the skirmish line is set to regulation frontage i.e. spread out they simply cannot generate enough smoke… However,

I would be more inclined to believe what Nafziger explained in his book on the British use of skirmishers. He explained that the British tendency to spread their light troops out in a thicker frontage often fooled the French into believing that the skirmish line was indeed the first line of defense. This makes MUCH more sense to me. If this is what you are eluding to Bill, I would agree with you.

Basically, the British skirmish regulations had their light troops in a thicker number of bodies than their French counter-parts for every yard of ground.

However, I do believe that a skirmish line will still obscure a formed formation behind it on level ground provided it is further back than say, 50yds or more. The enemy will tend to see the skirmish line much more clearly with the formed troop formations further back being obscured by a combination of several factors, not the propensity of one factor to dominate.

These factors could be:
- Incoming distractive fire from the skirmishers themselves which draws and focuses attention of the enemy shot at on them.
- Skirmishers themselves and their movements obscuring sight behind thus reducing clarity of what maybe there.
- The formed reserve components of the skirmishers which are situated behind the skirmish line itself.
- Typical undulations of the ground itself and any ground cover.
- Smoke, yes smoke from any causes.
- Distance to the main formed line behind, the further back they are the less able to be discerned or even worried about.

Shane

Captain Snort wrote:

McLaddie

I shoot black powder rifles and muskets on a regular basis. I have been on the range on several occasions where the density of black powder shooters probably replicates a fairly close line of skirmishers. The powder smoke, even on a calm day, perhaps obscures the target for a couple of seconds, but nothing more. Maybe a close order line firing a volley, or several volleys, would obscure the view for a longer period, but I am sure that smoke from a skirmish line would not obscure anything.

As to the French mistaking skirmish lines for close order lines, this seems to be a myth found in secondary sources only, although I would be very interested if you had an actual primary reference for this.

A typical line would have at least two ranks firing with the third rank perhaps passing up loaded muskets. A typical line had spacings of ca. 27 inches between files so if two ranks (only) fired and reloaded, and if the firing rate was a slow 2 rounds per minute, you would have 1 round being fired per minute at a spacing of six and a half inches. I will maintain that after 3-4 minutes of such fire, you couldn't see very much. I doubt if your target shooting ever got up to this density. ….Even scirmishers firing one round every 30 seconds, every 15 yards for 10 minutes would put out more smoke then you have every seen on the target range. It was not uncommon for Napoleonic and ACW soliders to recount that they couldn't even see the sky for the clouds of smoke.

Billsfan,

I am not disputing that smoke from cannon and close order lines could obscure the battlefield, but smoke from a skirmish line would normally not. I have seen our range pretty much filled with re-enactors (I am not one of them) in an open order line, including a replica cannon. The smoke from their firing line obscures nothing for any length of time, and if there is the mildest of breezes blowing there is no trace of smoke at all after a couple of seconds.

In all the memoirs that I have read, apart from Rifleman Harris, I cannot recall one that mentions skirmish fire obscuring visibility, although several mention the view being impaired by close order fire.

To directly answer Michael's question, I agree if you are playing at btln level. I play at btln/coy level and skirmishers at this level become very important as to what they can do and how they are reacted to. I could not play a rules system that does not incorporate them as they should be depicted in the context of a battle.

We play them to the highest level of detail we can achieve, harassment fire, masking, officer/nco aimed fire to reduce enemy unit cohesion, defensive position occupation, morale effects and so on. Without this the group I play with would feel cheated as to the utilization of the full potential of skirmishers and their affects on a battlefield.

Not only that but it was not just companies that skirmished, whole btlns, regiments, brigades and even divisions sometimes skirmished during that 23 year period so even the high end rules systems that deal with divisions as the base element should incorporate skirmish rules into their systems. Or if not, the players should design house rules to account for them.

IMHO
Shane

In terms of smoke cutting down visibility or not, unfortunately our opinions count for nothing in this case as none of us have seen the reality of a napoleonic battel-field. In this case you siply have to accept what the primary sources of the period have to say.

Hopefully someone can quote something as I'm very interested in this.

Cheers,

TW.

I'd have thought that the intervening skirmishers would get in the eye of the shooters and throw out their perception of distance, or prove sufficient distraction, especially if shooting, to become the actual target. I'm not sure what orders officers would give that would make it clear that they were to shoot past those fellows in front and concentrate on those other chaps off in the distance minding their own business. Did officers call out the range when ordering their troops to give fire?

SR wrote:

I'm not sure what orders officers would give that would make it clear that they were to shoot past those fellows in front and concentrate on those other chaps off in the distance minding their own business. Did officers call out the range when ordering their troops to give fire?

I think that's a good question. Are there accounts of formed troops shooting 'through' skirmishers to hit formed troops behind them? This, of course, would depend on how close the skirmishers and formed troops were to each other, but that is the question.

We are talking about purposely doing it, not just that fire would pass through the skirmish line a perhaps hit the formed troops behind them.

In our games we say that a skirmish screen within 50yds of the formed troops behind do not stop fire penetrating to the formed troops. However, if the screen is over 50yds in front then all fire must be aimed at the screen unless firers are on a contour.

Captain Snort 08 Nov 2009 1:01 p.m. PST

''I shoot black powder rifles and muskets on a regular basis….The powder smoke, even on a calm day, perhaps obscures the target for a couple of seconds, but nothing more.''

Try it on a cold wet day. I guarentee you'll have a dense cloud that never seems to dispirse.

Cacadores…
Yes I remember a chap letting off some blanks at Colours (Hexagon) a while ago … It was cool and still that day and the smoke did seem to hang there for quite a while.

Thanks gents, for all your points.

After working on my own skirmish rules for a while I just wanted to see if I had missed anything out and so I asked the question.

The points I`ve noted are:
1. Engaged and unengaged skirmisher`s screening effect (although we seem to have some difference in opinion as to how effective the smoke screening effect was).
2. Disorder and loss of controlling officers to skirmish fire.
3. Goading and "first volley".
4. Effects of rifles (better range).
5. Skirmisher organisation "flanking battalions/brigades".
6. Escalation of skirmishing.
7. Ability of Light Battalions to reform.
8. Using skirmishers to defend positions.
9. Whole commands skirmishing.

The issue of firing through the enemy`s skirmishers is something I had not covered, but this is because of the way I have separated skirmisher and formed unit combat (which is to say, usually firing) in separate parts of the phase; if formed units engage one another, then a battalion`s or a division`s skirmishers are withdrawn.

MichaelCollinsHimself

Excellent