"Formations and Regulating Battalions" Topic

My question is this: could a French brigade (for example) have a first line of battle with battalions in line, and a second line or battle with battalions in column?

If there was one regulating battalion per brigade, would it be in the first line? How would it get the second line of battalions to deploy, since if already in line it can't lead by example?

Thanks.

? huh? You don't 'lead by example' (follow the example) when doing close-order drill, you follow the commands of the officer.

He means basically: how does the model of a 'regulating battalion' work when you want half the brigade to do something different from the other half? The point of the 'regulating battalion' is that it does lead the other battalions by example (so the Brigadier only has to issue one order rather than a separate one to each individual commander).

Regards

In simple terms, as I see it, orders 'cascade' down to the individual in the ranks and dressing 'cascades' up from the individual in the ranks.

The command element in some battalions in a brigade might not be able to see the regulating battalion but their battalion markers will dress on the battalion on their immediate flank of direction.

The individual in the ranks will almost certainly not be able to see the regulating battalion, he won't even be able to see beyond the few soldiers around him even if in the regulating battalion itself. He will react to the orders given him by his platoon commander and will dress on the man to his right (or left) depending on the flank of direction.

The command elements of a regiment/battalion/platoon were fundamentally important and without them the unit was like a ship without a helmsman.

If a brigade was split into two parts as suggested, doing different things, I think each part would be a separate entity with its own regulating battalion and it is perfectly possible for different battalions to be doing different things at different times during an advance to contact, in the same way as it is possible for different platoons to be doing different things as battalion deployed and 'ployed' from one conversion to another.

In wargame terms, what happens if you have a largish brigade of, say, 6 BNs, and the enemy does something that results in one or two of those BNs having an involuntary formation change (like being charged by CAV and forming square)? What if some BNs are in close proximity to enemy INF, some are close to enemy CAV, and others are close to both? (With half the brigade in one kind of terrain, and half in another, and one BN in a bit of both.)

What if the regulating BN got charged and formed square, but the other BNs are facing enemy INF? Can those other BNs move? Can they stay in their lines? Can they do whatever they want?

What happens when some BNs in the brigade begin to advance after combat, while others fall back? (And due to the presence of the enemy, fell back at different angles and in different directions, and thus now have different facing?)

"it is perfectly possible for different battalions to be doing different things at different times during an advance to contact,"

At what point does the regulating battalion no longer regulate? Whenever the player feels like it? Whenever circumstances require? I have a feeling that this will become the next "Variable-Length Bound" : looks great in theory, but once applied it turns out to mean rather little that wasn't already happening anyway.

To clarify, I'm not concerned with the rank and file's experience here, Lion et al.

If a brigade was split into two parts as suggested, doing different things, I think each part would be a separate entity with its own regulating battalion. . .

This is what I suspected may be the case. But from what I've read, it was SOP for a French brigade to form two lines of battle, usually each formed by a regiment.

So would it be true to say that normally each regiment needed its own regulating battalion, rather than one RB per brigade?

<<"What if the regulating BN got charged and formed square, but the other BNs are facing enemy INF? Can those other BNs move?">>

No.

<<Can they stay in their lines?>>

No.

<<Can they do whatever they want?>>

No.

<<What happens when some BNs in the brigade begin to advance after combat, while others fall back?>>

They all fall back or disintegrate immediately due to lack of regulation.

<<And due to the presence of the enemy, fell back at different angles and in different directions, and thus now have different facing?>>

As stated previously, they either spend half the game re-regulating themselves or they disintegrate immediately.

<<At what point does the regulating battalion no longer regulate?>>

It never stops regulating.

<<Whenever the player feels like it?>>

When the player sleeps, the regulating battalion continues to regulate.

<<Whenever circumstances require? I have a feeling that this will become the next "Variable-Length Bound" : looks great in theory, but once applied it turns out to mean rather little that wasn't already happening anyway.>>

May be the case, but if you don't use regulating battalions in your game, it's definitely not a simulation.

I don't see how, if everything claimed for regulating battalions was true without qualification, then certain occurrences in several battles during the Napoleonic Wars were possible. Think of the wrap-around attacks carried out by the 52nd at Bussaco and at Waterloo or the attack of the 29th at Rolica.

Regards

PS Is all this in Nafziger BTW?

"When the player sleeps, the regulating battalion continues to regulate."

The Regulating Battalion is God!

It's all so clear to me now.

The Regulating Battalion is God!

All I know is that our games currently leave too much freedom of action for individual battalions. But I can't find good information on how RB helped accomplish some basic brigade formations that I've seen diagrammed in many a battle, such as a mixture of lines and columns within a brigade. Perhaps nobody knows.

"All I know is that our games currently leave too much freedom of action for individual battalions. "

What I was trying to point out is that many of the situations that wargame units find themselves in, are not the result of deliberate or voluntary actions on the part of the owning player. They're the result of incidental or involuntary actions that are deemed necessary by the rules: mandatory formation changes when attacked… 'squaring up' to your enemy in combat… advancing after combat… countercharges or opportunity charges… falling back after combat… turning to face a nearby enemy…. breaking and rallying somewhere else….

You can regulate the voluntary actions of the active player. But unless you radically rethink all of that involuntary movement, there will be no way to do something like a "regulating battalion" concept, without it breaking down as soon as opposing units come into contact.

DTK,

I grant that translating this to rules takes real thought, but in the meantime, I'm just trying to establish what was done 200 years ago on real battlefields.

I'm still at the stage of wanting to know specifically what having a regulating battalion prevented a brigadier from doing. What precisely do wargames rules allow a battalion to do that could not have been done by its real counterpart?

Regards

I suspect that there is a degree of over-interpretation going on here with regard to the role of the regulating battalion. They were certainly used during movement to ensure that the entire formation was working in synch but it seems that, once contact was reached, their role virtually disappeared as the pressures of combat led to battalions within the formation doing different things.

There are plenty of examples of component battalions of a brigade or division being in, or moving into, different formations depending on their immediate tactical requirements.

Not sure what is meant by "In wargame terms".

The battalion of direction simply regulated direction of march onto a objective, to which other battalions in the brigade would conform, maintain intervals and cadence etc, so long as it was visible to them and they were able to. It was the brigade equivalent of a platoon flank marker.

I think of it as the replacement for a compass and it remained the battalion of direction until the brigade arrived on and took its objective.

>What if the regulating BN got charged and formed square, but the other BNs are facing enemy INF?<

Q1. Can those other BNs move?

Yes. They will keep moving until the battalion commander orders them to halt. There is nothing to make them to form square which would be entirely inappropriate if threatened by enemy infantry. A battalion would adopt whatever formation was appropriate for the changed tactical circumstances, and when the order was given by the battalion commander. That is what he is there for. The battalion commander will, however, if he can, ensure that his battalion conforms to the movements of the battalion of direction so that the entire brigade arrives on its objective as a whole and not piecemeal.

Q2. Can they stay in their lines?

Yes. A battalion commander would not make his battalion form a tactically unsuitable and potentially dangerous formation just for the sake of pedantry. The individual formation of each battalion is not dictated by the battalion of direction but the orders of the battalion commander.

Q3. Can they do whatever they want?

Well, Yes and no. A battalion will do what the battalion commander orders it to do and will execute the last order it received until something makes it stop. The battalion commander can order the battalion to do what he believes is appropriate for the tactical circumstances but will conform to the movement of the battalion of direction so long as it is possible to do so.

>"it is perfectly possible for different battalions to be doing different things at different times during an advance to contact,"<

What I meant by that was that individual battalions might need to split into wings to move round obstacles, or reduce frontages to pass a defile. They might also need to change formations in accordance with the tactical circumstances. The notion that a battalion commander would not order a square simply because 500 meters away the battalion of direction was still in column, line or whatever, and not yet under a similar threat, is not likely in my view. Though his order could be countermanded by the brigade commander ‘a la' Prince of Orange IIRC at Waterloo.

I don't know what individual rules say and perhaps different authors have different perceptions/knowledge of the intricacies of Napoleonic warfare.

Regulating should work on all levels from battalions to as high as deemed necessary; it's not only a brigade tool. To the original question I'd say both lines (regiments?) had their own regulating battalions and the second one was simply under orders to follow the first at certain distance.

To other questions: of course a regiment or a battalion can be ordered to brake the brigade formation and do something else by sending them an order to do so. It just takes more time than simply moving the whole brigade by regulating. I've understood regulating is really a tool for manoeuvring divisions, brigades and regiments before contact with the enemy. Regulating ends when subunits come under sufficient threat forcing them to act on their own initiative to protect themselves.

"Regulating ends when subunits come under sufficient threat forcing them to act on their own initiative to protect themselves."

That's what I meant when I said it reminded me of the Variable-Length Bound.

The whole raison d'ętre of wargaming is to get into combats. So in very short order, the concept of "regulating" goes out the window, as each unit gets into a "sufficient threat."

And since our mini armies are not commanded by hundreds of different brains, but rather all by our one brain, who controls every battalion, then each battalion "acting on its own initiative" actually means: "we can do whatever we want with each battalion."

All you have to do to rid yourself of the "regulating" limitation, is to get into a scrap with the enemy… which was the whole reason we play the game in the first place.

JR3's Command and Control rules do a nice job of "regulating" without having to designate a specific unit. Basically, units have to maintain a certain interval, depending on the terrain. If a unit is beyond the required interval and not within a command radius--all are the same 12'' regardless of rank--the unit is not in C'n'C and cannot advance. Keeps individual units from just going wherever they please and if you want to try a flanking move with a couple of units, you need to dedicate an officer to lead them.

der tolle Knolle:

The whole raison d'ętre of wargaming is to get into combats.

There is very little command decisions to be made when an actual combat starts. I really like the manoeuvring part of the game. I prefer scenarios which start well before the actual battle and involve lots of marching back and forth. Not everyone plays these games for the same reasons.

each battalion "acting on its own initiative" actually means: "we can do whatever we want with each battalion."

What the commander dares and is able to do with his own initiative depends on his rank and his situational awareness. I wouldn't allow a battalion commander to do much more than change formation and facing. You win if you can keep few regiments or brigades as a coherent force and your opponents army has become a bunch of individually acting battalions. Not the other way around.

How often did a Napoleonic brigade commander entrust part of his line to the overall direction of a subordinate, like a senior battalion or regimental commander? These might've been people the brigade commander could trust to take the tactical initiative in combat when it might be impossible for him to immediately see or know and be everywhere during a battle. Shouldn't command mechanics, whether they use a single brigade commander or not, account for this to a certain degree? I think there were plenty of command decisions to be made once a combat started, but it's a question of having the flexibility in the chain of command to close the gap between "seeing what needs to be done" and then being able to "get it done". I suspect the French had this flexibility and trust throughout their chain of command to a greater degree than most during the Napoleonic Wars, and this in part accounts for their perceived tactical, grand tactical and strategic "speed" in delivering military decision.

When the brigadier, or his aide, show up and tell the battalion commander to do something, it better be done, regulating battalion be damned!

Okay, I see that once engaged the regulating unit wouldn't be as effective in the smoke and confusion, perhaps not as necessary, either. But I certainly agree with this:

You win if you can keep few regiments or brigades as a coherent force and your opponents army has become a bunch of individually acting battalions. Not the other way around.

"My question is this: could a French brigade (for example) have a first line of battle with battalions in line, and a second line or battle with battalions in column?"

Yes, it could.
But, perhaps more likely would be that each brigade is arrayed in one line.
The control of each line is then easier – much would depend upon the circumstances and what each line is expected to achieve – a second line might well be held in columns to replace the first if it is shaken or beaten. It may well be part of the French game plan of using it as a reserve, other armies did the same kind of thing.
For a while the French intended the skirmisher line to be the first line proper to engage and tire the enemy, and the first line of formed troops to finally break a weakened enemy line. I think the problem was that it sometimes took longer for them to do this in 1805 against the Austrians and perhaps a little more often the Prussians in 1806 and so they learnt from this!

Yes there would be smoke and some confusion in battle perhaps, but the means of control were still the same. Noting what goes on in wargames (where players have control of individual units), is not evidence of there being no command and control on the periods` battlefields.

I think I see now that all battaliom formation changes were not strictly conformed to the actions of the regulating battalion, just movement was.

In which case battalions in the second line could form columns while those in the first were deployed.

thanks.

You may want to have a look at the translations of the Prussian Brigade orders of 1812.
The basics are on the Napoleon Series website, with the update of 1813 on Geerts.

In reality the Prussian Brigade was a mixed arms Division, but the mixing of units and the separate, yet coordinated, command of each of the 4 lines should be of assistance.

The 500 foot high general in telepathic contact with every battalion commander does of course wish to do whatever he likes with every unit, but the frustrating reality was that in real combat things were just too difficult to do much more than try to follow a simple plan and hopefully react to events favourably.