"Unit frontage and rifle-musket engagement ranges?" Topic

Bill,

The point I was trying to make was that while Upton acknowledges the old method of ordering companies or battalions, he doesn't let it straight-jacket the drill anymore. Scott or Hardee or Casey went to great lengths to keep the companies in the proper order. Upton doesn't seem to care. If a column can be deployed more quickly by reversing the normal order of the companies he does it. (Granted, the older tactics manuals allowed this, too, but highly discouraged it.) By dropping all this unnecessary complication, Upton managed to condense the tactics from three volumes to just one.

Scott

Bill,

In Casey the ten companies, in terms of seniority, are lined up (when viewed from behind) as 2,7,10,5,8,3,9,4,6,1 "according to the rank of captains"

Does that mean the pairs for "divisions" are (2-7)(10-5)(8-3)(9-4)(6-1) with the lowest number being the senior captain for that division?

Just trying to square this in my head with the more complex British Naploeonic practice, where the "divisions" only applied to the eight Center Companies and they paired up (7-2)(6-3)(5-4)(8-1)in terms of seniority but numbered off by company – 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 when viewed from behind. That's to say the captain's seniority and the number of company he commanded were not the same.

This being completely at odds with Casey's original idea for eight companies of 2,6,7,3,8,4,5,1 with two "Skirmish companies" formed behind the battle line.

You will note that in the ten company line the 3rd and 8th companies are transposed from the above, which gives the the third captain the right centre which would not have been so with Casey's original.

Does this mean that in US practice the formation position and seniority coincided?

Scott wrote:

If a column can be deployed more quickly by reversing the normal order of the companies he does it. (Granted, the older tactics manuals allowed this, too, but highly discouraged it.) By dropping all this unnecessary complication, Upton managed to condense the tactics from three volumes to just one.

Scott:
I am not clear on what you mean by 'reversing the normal order', where does he say that? How does he discourage keeping the numbered battle array? It wasn't an unnecessary complication, and it still seems to exist if he is saying the senior captain is on the right. How does that fit with interchangable companies?

And as I said, it wasn't an unnecessary complication, which is why Upton still has first company on the right, etc. I can explain, but I'm more interested in understanding what you are saying.

Bill

Trajanus wrote:

In Casey the ten companies, in terms of seniority, are lined up (when viewed from behind) as 2,7,10,5,8,3,9,4,6,1 "according to the rank of captains"

Does that mean the pairs for "divisions" are (2-7)(10-5)(8-3)(9-4)(6-1) with the lowest number being the senior captain for that division?

That's the way I read it, yes.

Just trying to square this in my head with the more complex British Naploeonic practice, where the "divisions" only applied to the eight Center Companies and they paired up (7-2)(6-3)(5-4)(8-1)in terms of seniority but numbered off by company – 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 when viewed from behind. That's to say the captain's seniority and the number of company he commanded were not the same.

Actually the British used both. In Reide's 1795 Treatise p. 107 explanation of drill describes the pairing "The beight battalion companies form four grand divisions to be commanded by the four eldest captains." The purose of the distribution was to spread the benefits of exprienced officers throughout the battalion's line.

Now, this arrangement is distinct from the tactical arrangement which numbered the SAME arrangement 1 through 8 starting on the right. Sooo…as the War Office, Rules and Regulations puts it: [Part III, p.66

The companies will draw up as follows from right to left:--Grenadiers,--ist captain and [8th]hmajor--4th and 5th Captain--3rd and 6th Captains--2d captain and [7th]lt. colonel--light company--The colonel's company takes place according to the rank of its captain:--the four eldest captains are on the right of the grand divisions;…

A great book, Inside Wellington's Army has an entire chapter on this: "Order of Battle: Customary Battle Array in Wellington's Army". Page 95 explains all your questions well.

Upton does very much the same thing. He has the senior captains spread out among the divsions in a company, BUT in that order, tactically they are simply numbered not by seniority 7-2)(6-3)(5-4)(8-1) but simply 8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 with two flank/skirmish companies instead of a light and grenadier company.

So, specifically like the British, Upton has the grand division arrangement distinct from the numbering of the *tactical* numbering where the first company is numbered one, the 8th company in senority is numbered 2, etc.

This being completely at odds with Casey's original idea for eight companies of 2,6,7,3,8,4,5,1 with two "Skirmish companies" formed behind the battle line.

I hope I explained it…With the caveat that Casey's original idea is simply a variation on a theme, one which was also used by the British and European armies during the Napoleonic wars. The senior captain is still on the right of each divisioin Accept for the left flank, where the senior captain is on the left…it was at times felt that the second senior company should be anchoring the left as the senior company did the right.

You will note that in the ten company line the 3rd and 8th companies are transposed from the above, which gives the the third captain the right centre which would not have been so with Casey's original.

As I said it is a variation on a theme, the idea I believe was to simplify going from column to line, but don't quote me…

In the French Napoleonic army the companies were simply numbered 1 through 9 with the senior companies in sequence from right to left, with the light company on the left flank…

Does this mean that in US practice the formation position and seniority coincided?

I believe it does--as explained above. If Upton did make companies interchangable maneuvering and on the battlefield, that would negate any sense of 2 company divisions outlined by Upton or captain seniority on the battlefield. The British made the numbers interchangable, not the company position in line, and the company numbers by position remained constant. At least that's the way it looks. I can't imagine that being simpler overall, just in some ways. In others, it requires another level of awareness on the part of the men and officers as well as negating some major benefits of the permanent positioning of each company. Whew!

Bill

Whew!

Indeed! As we speak gamers reading this are throwing themselves out of windows.

Good job its not cross posted to the Naps Board or we would be being burnt in effigy by now! :o)

Forgot to say, I have "Inside Wellington's Army"

"Order of Battle: Customary Battle Array in Wellington's Army" has been read several times.

As you may have gathered, I'm now wondering how much of those practices crossed the Atlantic, along with the 10 company structure!

Well, I'm not going to inflict long quotations from the manuals here :) but just one example of how Upton simplifies things. If you have a column of companies, right in front (this means that the rightmost company when in line of battle is at the front of the column) and you want to form the line of battle facing in the same direction as the column is facing. Hardee has a maneuver called "Forward into Line". The leading company moves forward slightly to establish the right end of the line. All the other companies do a 45 degree wheel to the left and then advance and align themselves on the leading company. The result is the normal line of battle with the companies in the 'normal' order from right to left. Upton has a similar maneuver, "Left Front into Line" which leads to the same result. However if you wanted to form the line stretched out to the right from the head of the column it gets a lot more complicated with the ACW manuals and takes more time and would be rather dangerous to attempt under fire. But Upton also has "Right Front into Line" Where the deployment swings the line out to the right rather than to the left in a mirror image of the "Left Front into Line". The result is a line of battle where the 'normal' ordering of the companies is exactly reversed. That is, the rightmost company is now on the left and the leftmost is on the right. Upton does a lot of this both at the battalion and the company level and in doing so he manages to reduce the size of the manual by over half.

Scott:

That "Left Front into Line". What you describe is simply inversion, or 'clubbing' in the British, Napoleonic vernacular. How does adding that officially to the mix reduce the manual instructions? Dundas speaks of it in his 1798 on in his Rules and Regulations: [Part IV, para. 14.]

"Although in general the inversion of all bodies in line is to be avoided, yet there are situations where this rule must be dispensed with, and the quickest formation to a particular front thereby obtained.—The battalion or line may be obliged to face to the right about, the more readily to oppose a danger, in stead of changing its position by a countermarch; it may even be under the necessity of forming to a flank with its rear rank front.

The column with its right in front may arrive on the left of its ground, and be obliged immediately to form up and support that point, so that the right of the line will become the left.

What I am saying is that Upton isn't adding anything new to the formation changes with his 'Right front into line" as Dundas notes. Dundas's book wasn't all that thick, certainly not twice as thick as Upton's. If fact, Upton follows much the same content organization in the schools as Dundas.

I still don't understand how or why Upton forms divisions of two companies, senior captain on the right if companies are now interchangable in line and column formation. I feel I'm missing something here.

Bill

Trajanus wrote:

As you may have gathered, I'm now wondering how much of those practices crossed the Atlantic, along with the 10 company structure!

Quite a bit. Hardee's and earlier American manuals were based on French manuals including the 1791 version. von Steuben created a mix of European manuals for the Revolutionary War army. The ten companies was carried through from the British. Obviously there were minor changes, but basically the same formation and maneuver methods used by the Revolutionary French were being used by the French in 1870. There are just so many ways to move men around efficiently and once established and proven over the years, why change it? It's same kind of think with, say the Tank. There have been many improvements and changes, but the army tanks of 2010 have very much the same configuation, turret, body and treads, as the 1930s tanks.

Bill

HAPPY NEW YEAR! with lots of gaming!

Dont forget the argueing right here on TMP!

Or should that be impasioned discusions? either way, happy new year.

Owen

It should be a national tragedy the way history is swept under the carpet in the USA. Of course, we probably have too many Republican "free market capitalists" who don't give a rat's ass for the past or the future… they chase the "Holy Dollar". Yeah, right, good luck boys.

… to listen to the TV political bobbleheads spout off as if the USA "invented" capitalism and is therefore somehow God's gift to the global markets. LoL. Oh, boy… get ready for a rough ride boys. The piper is a callin' now.

Jim

Actually, 'who invented capitalism?' is a good question! I think that it depends on the definition (historic or economic) of what is 'capitalism', at any given point in time.

I have to confess I've always considered 'modern' capitalism a British invention of the late 18th/early 19th Century but that's not like 'American' capitalism of the 2nd half of the 20th Century or for that matter China in the past decade!

I guess from my point of view 'capitalism' fell off the cliff when it became purely about making money not goods! To the extent that profit acquisition became the only end in itself and the world of buying and selling money and debt took over!

The state we are in today where financial organizations like Blackwater are worth more on paper than a number of European countries is insane!

Hi

Jim, provocative political statements? Look, republicans are way more likly to be historians as well. Arguably, it is the Left that dismisses history. There was a segment on MSNBC a bit ago where a lefty indicated that the constitution was irrelevent, obsolete, and besides over 100 years old!

As for the evils of captialism, it is counter intuitive, being "nice" and loving your fellow man would make us all socialists. But in the real world, socialism always fails because the effort of "make things" is an effort that fails without a payoff.

WE as wargamers might game for the fun of it, but the people who supply our paints and figs only do so for the profit. The old Soviet Union didn't make a lot of 25mm figs.

Rocky

Wow, I thought *I* was drifting off topic with my comments on Upton…

Isn't this stuff for the Blue Fez, gentlemen?

Glad some one else noticed. Cause the basic thread, including Upton, has been great.

WE as wargamers might game for the fun of it, but the people who supply our paints and figs only do so for the profit

Well that's true but the door swings both ways.

I got some serious flack on TMP a while back for owning the fact that whenever possible I use Amazon, rather than specialist book stores. Even if that means checking the books out first, then walking away to buy on line!

As I said at the time – I didn't invent Capitalism, I just use what it puts out there!

I try to support my FLGS as much as possible, but they dont carry Old Glory, so all those purchases are online. If they would carry them i would buy them even if it meant a few more bucks a bag.

Mind, I understand why they dont carry them, a huge line of wehich few buy from any one period. So they could sink most of thier stock budget in one company and move almost none of it. Just cant pass up the OG Army card, especially as it seems I now have to start basing figures for a heavy skirmish line.

Owen.

Rocky,

You make my point. People have been making things to sell for profit for what ? The last 5 thousand years ? But somehow many Americans seem to think that we invented the concept of "profit making Goodness" in 1776 or something.

And the Soviet Union was communist, not socialist, but I agree communism was/is the great rip off, maybe better stated as the "the great systemic Theft".

Jim

Jim,

"the great systemic Theft"

Hey, wasn't that one of the 'Five Year Plans'? :o)

Oh and your quite right, the Soviet Union was communist, not socialist.

But as a high proportion of the US electorate think their current President is a Socialist, I wouldn't even consider the waste of time in trying to explain the difference!

Meanwhile, back at the War!

Hardee's and earlier American manuals were based on French manuals including the 1791 version. von Steuben created a mix of European manuals for the Revolutionary War army. The ten companies was carried through from the British

This I knew. However, I've always wondered why 10 companies when the French manuals would have been based on 6 or 9?

Just to add to the fun I note in Scott's 1821 he goes with:

8,4,6,2,7,3,5,1 (viewed from behind) Senior Light company to the Right of #1 and Junior Light company to the Left of #8

Divisions running in pairs from right to left with Light companies excluded.

The cynical amongst I might start to think these guys just pulled numbers out of a hat! :o)

BD,

"the great systemic Theft"

Hey, wasn't that one of the 'Five Year Plans'? :o)

Oh and your quite right, the Soviet Union was communist, not socialist.

But as a high proportion of the US electorate think their current President is a Socialist, I wouldn't even consider the waste of time in trying to explain the difference!

Trajanus,

Yes, Stalin was a master of those. The Russian and Ukrainian peasants "loved" farm collectivization. However, I'm of the opinion that this country has become in large part a socialist country, regardless of what anyone thinks of the president. "Generational Socialism", the Baby Boomers get it all and pretty much everyone after them gets screwed :) I once saw an interview with I think John Glenn and some other older WWII military type guys and there were a couple of younger, post-WWII 50 something military guys. One of the younger guys said something about how the Baby Boomers were as good as the "Greatest Generation". You should've seen the look on the faces of the older guys. They practically burst out laughing.

Jim

Anwyay, I know, way off topic.

This I knew. However, I've always wondered why 10 companies when the French manuals would have been based on 6 or 9?

Trajanus,

Because for over one hundred years, until 1776:
1. The British organization had been used and it was continued.
2. Until well into the Napoleonic wars, the 'Prussian' manual was followed, by the British, French, Austrians even. So, French influence really started with the War of 1812 and after, but the number of companies wasn't a major issue. W. Sherman thought 12 companies was better.

Just to add to the fun I note in Scott's 1821 he goes with:
8,4,6,2,7,3,5,1 (viewed from behind) Senior Light company to the Right of #1 and Junior Light company to the Left of #8 Divisions running in pairs from right to left with Light companies excluded.

The cynical amongst I might start to think these guys just pulled numbers out of a hat! :o)

The three major issues concerning company positions were to have the most experienced company commanders on the flanks, or in the lead of a column for both security and direction, to have inexperience spread throughout the line and to have specific places for each company. There were several reasons for the variety of distributions:

1. Symmetry: The British and others had the companies positioned so: 7,2,6,3,5,4,8,1 so that every division had company seniority ranks equaling '9' with the senior on the right.
2. Unlike the British, other nations wanted it simple, like the French, so the companies were numbered 8 through 1 left to right in order of seniority and divisions with senior companies was ignored. All Scott was doing was taking this this heirachial arrangement and adding divisions with senior officers on the right, 8,4,6,2,7,3,5,1.
3. The arrangement of companies had an impact on the arrangement of a battalion column and who was in front and how the battalion would 'unfold' into a line. So, that could influence the battalion array.
4. Simply to avoid being 'like the other guy.' I know that ran through American military thought, trying not to look like any particular European nation… where they could, as there are just so many ways to do this.

So, while there are some cynical, or 'we know best' elements to the differences, they did have some method to their madness. Some had distinct battlefield advantages and some not either way.

Bill H.

Scott:

You asked about the closed line forming an 'extended line' in Upton and Hardee etc. That it was absent. From what I understand the formation changes outlined just before the skrimish section of the manuals is the answer. The description of how to form a single rank line from a double rank line uses the very same routine [and the same language] as the British line and Light infantry 1798 instructions for forming an extended line. I don't think it is an accident that those are the last instructions given before the skirmish section.

To extend a line of battle, particularly a brigad-sized line would be difficult, but between the forming one rank from two and the skirmish section, it could be done rather quickly. The difference between a closed line and a skirmish line was fluid, with at least two intermediate steps between the two, extended and open, for Napoleonic troops. For ACW, the specific differences were ignored, making the manual simpler, the commanders being able to form any density of line from closed tight to skirmish changes 20 or more paces apart.

Seen as a whole, the ACW manuals provided the ability to create an extended line of any interval was possible. What I need to show is that ACW regiments/brigades did indeed form extended lines. I have seen this described. I'll have to find the narratives that describe this.

Bill H.

Bill,

1. Symmetry: The British and others had the companies positioned so: 7,2,6,3,5,4,8,1 so that every division had company seniority ranks equaling '9' with the senior on the right

I've always liked that adding up to '9' thing. I guess it made it easy to remember as well as giving the balance. If you knew you were #2 at least you knew it was no good looking for #5! :o)

2. Unlike the British, other nations wanted it simple, like the French, so the companies were numbered 8 through 1 left to right in order of seniority and divisions with senior companies was ignored. All Scott was doing was taking this this heirachial arrangement and adding divisions with senior officers on the right, 8,4,6,2,7,3,5,1.

Ah well, we never do things the simple way! I have to admit in looking for a non existent pattern between the various layouts I missed the obvious fact that the senior number was always on the Right!

3. The arrangement of companies had an impact on the arrangement of a battalion column and who was in front and how the battalion would 'unfold' into a line. So, that could influence the battalion array.

Yes, I understand that. I wonder (your remarks on Upton and inversions noted) if there was a tendency to move 'Right In Front' as 'natural order' reinforced by the fact that in some of these arrays it would lead to a balance of relative inexperience moving under 'Left In Front'?

4. Simply to avoid being 'like the other guy.' I know that ran through American military thought, trying not to look like any particular European nation… where they could, as there are just so many ways to do this

Have to say that had crossed my mind, hence my comment. I would love to see the original thinking behind the various methods of combining relative permutations of seniority.

At least the British had a mathematical consistency!

The killing joke is that you could still end up with a Captain who had just shipped in from a depot battalion, having never seen action in his life, who was 'senior' to everyone else and a liability into the bargain!

Can't recall the details but I think it was at Waterloo, where some guy in his late forties/early fifties turned up due to circumstances and was a total disaster!

To return my discussion to the original theme of this thread… I came across this example of what a few "shooters" armed with rifle muskets could do by August, 1862 and thought I would post it. I think we established in previous posts that the RM was accurate with level aimed fire out to 200 yards… I see that as developing into the standard engagement range given open ground by the 2nd half of the war, if not sooner. In these examples the 40 or so men involved were obviously expert at aiming RM's beyond 200 yards by raising their weapons to account for the parabolic flight of the minie ball. In addition, according to the Reports the entire action seems to be a skirmish action for the most part and supports the notion that by the second half of the war--if not earlier--the officers and troops wanted RM's over smoothbores due to their greater long range accuracy and the therefore increased utility on the skirmish line-- a formation which was, IMO, in great use by the 2nd half.

Jim

Reports of Col. Henry L. Benning, Seventeenth Georgia Infantry, commanding Tombs brigade, of engagement at Thoroughfare Gap, and battle of Manassas.

"In a short time they observed the enemy endeavoring to place a battery on the right of the outlet of the Gap, at a point from which it would have commanded the south side of the Gap as entirely as the batteries already established commanded the north side. This movement of the enemy was reported to me by Major Waddell, who at the same time suggested the propriety of sending forward the men of the regiment who were armed with long-range guns to fire on the enemy's party engaged in planting this battery. At once I adopted the suggestion. These men, numbering, I think, not more than 30, immediately took such positions in front as they could find from which the enemy's party was visible, and at about 400 or 500 yards opened fire on it. Just at this time Colonel Holmes, with the Second [GA], came up, he having received the directions he halted for from General Jones, and I ordered those of his men who were armed with long-range guns, about 10 or 12, to join the others so armed. The enemy withstood the fire from these guns with much obstinacy, the position being evidently one of the very highest value to him. Finally, however, he gave up the attempt to establish the battery and carried off his guns; but in a short time the attempt was renewed. This time it was soon abandoned under our stinging fire."

Report of Maj. J. D. Waddell, Twentieth Georgia Infantry, of the engagement at Thoroughfare Gap and battle of Manassas. SEPTEMBER 29, 1862.

"They, however, soon attempted to plant a battery of two guns on an eminence slightly to our left, distant between 400 and 500 yards. My sharpshooters were seasonably directed to prevent the movement, which they did in admirable style and spirit in the space of less than five minutes, killing and wounding, many men, among them a captain, and all the horses attached to their gun-carriages, which they succeeded in carrying off the field by hand. A second effort was made to plant another battery upon a height just to our right, from which they in like manner were speedily driven. The gallant and lamented Lieutenant-Colonel Holmes, commanding Second Georgia Regiment, led his command to our support at this juncture and gave us valuable assistance in thwarting the enemy's purposes and plans in directing a battery upon the latter eminence, by readily sending forward, on request, to my aid all the men with long range guns of his regiment, consisting of some 30."

Trajanus:

:-7 No one said the seriority system was 'fool proof.' In general, it did work well enough that it was adhered to over the entire 19th Century. Even the Ancient Greeks and Romans used the system [Or did they invent it?] Even Homer has Achilles' troops on the right of the battle line in the Iliad, the place of honor.

I think the numbering came from what each nation or manual writer felt was more important:

1. Equal distribution of experience
2. Best on the right and/or left
3. Best on the flanks, worst in the middle
4. simplicity.

Without being in a 19th Century battle, it is hard to understand why such ordering was important:

1. It is the order they trained in, knew best
2. It provided every single soldier, from the rank and file, right up to corps commanders a way to know where everyone was. If a private was lost and found himself with the 2nd division, 1st brigade, 3rd regiment, 5th company. He knew exactly where he had to go and how far to get to his company in the first division, second brigad, 5th regiment, 1st company.
3. A general looking at the field of battle from a vantage point could determine who he was seeing simply by counting flags and distance, right to left.

Did it work all the time? Nope. But it did work most of the time and generals found it an important aspect of command. As I think you pointed out, [Or was it Scott?] generals went to a great deal of trouble to maintain that order in their battle array.

Grant deployed a heavy skirmish line--or most of his attacking force as skirmishers-- at Belmont, MO, Nov. 1861, IMHO. Rough to broken terrain, and they did quite well.

PS They planted corn in rows back then too.

Two companies from each regiment.

"As we approached by the right flank, before the line could be formed at right angles we received a heavy fire of muskery, which killed and wounded some of my men… The nature of the ground, the obstacles, and the heavy cannonading which was reaching us caused each company to take up the best position it could, and all kept up a constant fire, which soon drove the enemy from his camp." N. B. BUFORD, Golonet Twenty-seventh Regiment Illinois Volunteers. Brig

And then from Grant's Memoirs, "…we started…marching by the flank. After moving in this war for a mile or a mile and a half, I halted where there was marshy ground covered with a heavy growth of timber in our front, and deployed a large part of my force as skirmishers."

McClernand, the brigade commander, writes like he gave that order… All the same, an interesting early war fight.