"How many files to 10 paces?" Topic

I am trying to create some small scale wargames rules. as usual with this hobby, even the most straightforward of questions aren't that easy in practice.

If I have a base with 10 paces frontage, how many files does it represent? If I understand my von Reisswitz Kreigspiel correctly, a battalion of 300 files takes up 250 paces, giving the answer of 12 files. This seems clear but I have a bit of difficulty reconciling it with other accounts.

This would give 25 inches per file, if you take 30 in per pace. But I can't find any references to what length a Prussian pace was at this time. 25in looks a bit on the high side, suggesting that there might be more than 12 files.

I'm sure that some of you out that can solve this for me very quickly without me doing too much more digging!

Thanks

I usually reckon on 27in per file, so in 10 paces you will get 11 files.

Depends on whose paces we are talking about!

Take your pick:

Austria -- 24.25"
Britain -- 30"
France -- 25.5"
Prussia (to 1812) -- 24.75"
Prussia (from 1812) -- 29"
Russia (to 1797 & from 1803) -- 21.33"
Russia (1797-1803) -- 27.66"
United States -- 24"

10?

27" per file is what Bowden and Getz use in Chef de Bataillon rules. If you us 29" pace for the Prussians, this gives the implied interval in Kriegspiel of 24". Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets suggests that 22" was pretty standard so far as drill books are concerned. But I guess that is parade ground stuff, plus you have to allow a bit extra for intervals etc.
Is there any evidence for what intervals were in real life on the field?

One base is about half a platoon?
That is seriously small scale where the differences between each army and troop type is going to be noticeable. The battalion command going to be a base itself at that size.
I think you'd need to be looking carefully at diagrams from each armies infantry regs of a battalion in line and column

The basic distance between files for formed regular infantry was 'elbows touching'; anything less was too cramped, anything more lost the most essential guide to keeping formation while moving. (Whether on parade or not.)
Exactly how many pouces, imperial inches, or whatever that was exactly, its unlikely to have varied much between armies.

The 22" dimension for file width comes from British regulations, and represents elbow touching elbow file width. Imagine standing that close during combat, when attempting to load and discharge your musket. During the earlier American War of Independence, the regulation spacing was 22" plus 6" between elbows, when troops were in close order. This was increased to 22" plus 18" when in two-rank open order. Considering the close order spacing, it seems that 28" is far more practical under combat conditions [22" probably worked on the parade ground].
The question of how long is a pace is equally as complex. It shouldn't be forgotten that the inch itself was measured differently by one nation to another. However, 24" seems a bit short, whilst 30" seems a bit too long [guys were shorter back then on average], so 27" seems to be a reasonable compromise. Therefore if ten paces is 270" and each file is 28" wide, you'd have just under ten files. Don't forget that this only includes the rank and file, the officers, senior NCO's and musicians would be in a supernumerary rank [fourth or third], and these should be added into the total number represented, perhaps an additional seven or eight men for every 100 rank and file.

npm

For the British army, the 1792 Regulations state that the distance a file occupied was "about 22 inches", while the 1824 Regulations, which were based on experience during the Napoleonic Wars state the distance each file occupied was "about 21 inches". There would probably be 14 files in 10 British 30" paces.

There were no intervals between companies and a 6 pace interval between battalions. No extra interval was necessary between brigades.

I think that it would be wrong to assume that this only applied to the parade ground as frontage and length of pace were very important.

A couple of participants confirm that such close frontages were indeed used in action:

James Shaw Kennedy described the frontage of deployed troops in the field:

"The non-military reader should be informed, so as to be able to judge the manner in which Wellington and Napoleon occupied their respective positions at Waterloo, that 3000 infantry, or 1760 cavalry, drawn up in a single rank, occupy one English mile of front; that is, each infantry soldier occupies 21 inches of front, and each horse 36 inches."

George Cathcart wrote to Siborne detailing infantry frontages for his model:

"In think that you should allow for a little opening out of files as well as ranks in a large advancing column, for of course, even with better drilled people than Napoleon's troops ever had time to be, that is unavoidable, and 23 inches per man I would think in such wet and slippery ground for troops in motion not too much, but the troops formed four deep to receive them have no business with more than 21 inches per file."

JeffsaysHi – yes this is no easy proposition for rules writing. The only published attempt I know of is Chef de Bataillon, and that's an unplayable train-wreck. I may not have the time and patience to succeed.

The manoeuvre unit will be the French peleton or equivalent in other armies. At 30 odd to men to a base (in three ranks) there will be two to four bases to a peleton. And yes, field officers would need to be represented separately. Since there will be a need to double up the peleton on occasion, there should be an even number of bases. You can see the design issues piling up – but it would be good to explore how combat worked at this level.

We use about 24 inches per file frontage (2 feet) we did this out of convenience and it works for our scale.

Our scale is 1mm = 1 yard

The figure scale is 40 men per figure so for 3 rank formations this would give a frontage 13.3 men in three ranks.

The frontage of each figure base is 9mm so you have 13.3 men per 9mm of ground frontage which is also 9 yards.

I have always felt that troops on the move open up both in depth and laterally, this is a given. However, when stationary and time is quickly spent dressing the ranks the intervals rapidly close up. This might be only a matter of several inches between each man but it is clearly noticeable.

Shane

There were no intervals between companies and a 6 pace interval between battalions. No extra interval was necessary between brigades.

And therein lies the answer.

A full strength British battalion of 1,000 in two ranks (500 files) had 180" between battalions when deployed in line. That gives 90" per flank per battalion, which gives one third of an inch per file to open out during movement. I would suggest that 22" per file was maintained whether stationary or moving, or else the flank platoons would overlap during movement.

- Allan

It's interesting to compare these intervals with basing fashions for minitiatures. Three 15mm figures should fit comfortably into 20mm (actually 18mm or less)base width; the fashion seems to be 30mm – practically skirmish order! So much time is spent on some aspects of realism, but this one is neglected, albeit for understandable reasons.

It's interesting to compare these intervals with basing fashions for minitiatures. Three 15mm figures should fit comfortably into 20mm (actually 18mm or less)base width; the fashion seems to be 30mm – practically skirmish order! So much time is spent on some aspects of realism, but this one is neglected, albeit for understandable reasons.

Gaming figures generally occupy twice the frontage of their historical counterparts. Siborne found this when putting together his Waterloo models and opted for a figure to man scale of 1:2.

- Allan

It's interesting to compare these intervals with basing fashions for minitiatures. Three 15mm figures should fit comfortably into 20mm (actually 18mm or less)base width; the fashion seems to be 30mm – practically skirmish order! So much time is spent on some aspects of realism, but this one is neglected, albeit for understandable reasons.

Not so with the ground scale and figure frontages I use, I can boast that mine is spot on.