"Attack columns for four company battalions?" Topic

When the subject of attacking in column is discussed the French post-1806 organisation is generally used as an example, so you get a column two companies wide and three deep. However, I was wondering how armies whose battalions consisted of four companies formed attack columns?

Did the Russians, Prussians and French Guard form attack columns two companies wide by two companies deep?

Also, when the French battalions were organised in nine companies did they use a two-company frontage for attack columns?

Thanks for any help you can give.

Russians and Prussians formed up one company wide, 4 deep. I believe the Old Guard did the same, though for the attack on Plancenoit they formed into half battalion columns (2 per battalion), each one peleton wide.

The 9-company battalions often formed in columns of divisions, 2 companies (1 division) wide by 4 deep. The extra company could bring up the rear or be out ahead in skirmish order.

And none of the formations are deeper than they are wide, so strictly speaking aren't 'columns' at all, but thick lines.

To avoid problems it is best to consider the battalions in battle as combat platoons. Although generally the case with the French that company==platoon this was certainly not the case in most other armies and can lead to needless confusion.
a division is two platoons – this might be one company, two companies, or even 8/5ths of a company depending on army, year, and current battalion strength.
It is also the way most regulations and their diagrams are drawn up.

Supporting what Jeff says, in the British Army one of the tasks on the day of battle was for the adjutant to divide the battalion into equal platoons for manouevering purposes. If the battalion was at full strength, then a platoon generally equalled a half company (I think, must check sources) and therefore contained only men from one company. As war took its toll and the battalion shrank then men would be moved accordingly to even things up. The company was basically an administrative unit while the battalion fought by platoons. Other armies must have done something similar if manouevers and formations were to work.

Thanks for the replies guys. I asked the question because I am currently re-basing my figures for some rules I am trying to develop myself (they're based loosely upon GHQ's ACW system). I like the look of big battalions and I also wanted to base my British 2-deep and my Continental armies 3-deep so the system I am using is as follows:

British battalion 5 x 3" wide bases (2 companies to a base)

French battalion (1808 on) 6 x 2" wide bases. (1 company to a base)

Russians, Prussians etc 4 X 3" wide bases (1 company to a base)

This means that a full-strength British battalion deployed in line has a 15" frontage while the Continental armies typically have a 12" frontage.

I mount some of the figures on half-bases to facilitate casualty removal and to represent things like British flank companies. This also allows me to vary the size of battalions to show when units are under-strength.

I don't use a figure ratio as such, I just put as many figures on a base as will happily fit. I plan to base the firepower of each unit on its relative frontage.

Any suggestions on how this might or might not work are more than welcome.

All the best

Stephen

@Artilleryman, taking this further, at Waterloo some weakend British battalions formed into 6 companies rather than the establishment 10.

As to attack columns, there is always a question of definition. I take this to mean column formed on the centre of the line so that if it deploys it can do so to left and right of the head of the column.

v.Decker Die Taktik der drei Waffen is worth a look for the Prussians.

A Prussian company was divided into two zug (half companies). The use of half companies was widespread, not just Prussian.

A column formed on the centres can mean on zug 4 and 5. This keeps a frontage of a full company (ie two half companies) The depth is 4 zug in three ranks each so it looks like a battalion in column of companies but the head of the column forms the centre of the line.

One of the issues for all nations was how they formed square from columns. For nations that formed three rank squares from companies in three ranks they needed at least three complete rows (whether half-companies, companies or double companies) in the column in order to form square. Front row stops and forms front of square, back row closes up, about faces and forms rear of square, middle row (or rows) split in two and wheel outwards to form sides of square.

This works for a French 6 company battalion "par division" (ie with 2 companies in each row. If the voltigeurs were detached in a skirmish line then the battalion had to form on a front of a single company in order to carry out this drill.

French Guard, Prussian and Russian columns did the same drill by half companies (8 per battalion).

The British had the additional problem that they were forming 4 rank squares from 2 rank companies. They normally therefore operated in columns on a single company front, so that the first two companies formed the 4 ranks at the front of the square, the last two companies formed the 4 ranks at the rear of the square, and the middle companies split into quarters, the outer quarters wheeling to make the first 2 ranks of the sides and the inner quarters wheeling to make the rear 2 ranks of the sides. In theory a British battalion could do this from Grand Divisions (ie double companies) but in practice the light companies were almost always detached into temporary small light battalions (one per brigade) in accordance with Wellington's General Orders. With only 9 companies in the battalion they could not form square from Grand Divisions, so hardly ever used that formation.

Rod

The forming of a double company column can be handled by two means.
The first is to form a column of divisions on one of the divisions of the battalion. This was generally used when the column was to be formed to one flank or the other of the battalion. For example if on the first division – the first and second companies stand fast and the other divisions would maneuver in behind.
The other is called Double Columns on the Center this is used to form on the center. Here the center two companies stand fast on line, while the companies on each of their flanks move in behind them, until the whole line is in place. All the left flank (of the line) companies are on the left of the column and the right flank companies are on the right.

The order of the companies for a 10 company battalion would be:
Column of divisions on the first division
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10
For a Double column on the center:
5-6
4-7
3-8
2-9
1-10

People would have less trouble getting their heads around "columns", if they looked at them as a two company wide line formation with 2 or 3 supporting lines following them at either a close seperation or a seperation which would allow them to wheel to one side and form a line perperdicular to the original line of advance.

They had the supports close at hand. When the first line was 100 yards away from an enemy (3 rank) line, they were at a firefight disadvantage, but it was not major. Enemy units which overlapped their front were firing at an angle and importantly were further away. As the attackers approached, they "disappeared" to defenders who could only fire at a limited angle to the side, so you had fewer defenders able to fire. If the column attackers (who were trying to live and not as stupid as armchair generals at a distance of 200 years think), could direct their attack at the edge of a battlion in line, or at a place where it was thin, or at a point where it stuck out in a point (note that defenders on the other side of the "point" would be screened from firing by their own troops), they would take even less fire coming in on an attack. Remember that defenders might be able to fire 4 rounds against an determined attacking infantry attack. A lot of volleys went high or low and missed completely and after smoking and obscuring the front, later volleys probably hurt nobody except low flying birds.

Gee, in the SYW it was all line v.line if the generals had a choice. In the Napolonic era it was bigger armies over bigger widths of battlefield and a lot of nooks and crannies, as to where to send an independant division or corp on an attack.

I have a lot of spreadsheets and calcuations on this, I'll be tacking onto Chris Maine's threads with this in the next few days.

Yes, 'supported lines' is perhaps a better description (which is what I was inadequately trying to convey).

One of the big problems with trying to represent columns on the tabletop is that the depth of the bases means they really do look like columns and not at all like supported lines.

I'm not sure there is a way around this.

One of the big problems with trying to represent columns on the tabletop is that the depth of the bases means they really do look like columns and not at all like supported lines.

I'm not sure there is a way around this

IIRC GW Jeffrey's "Napoleonic Wargame" link made a stab at dealing with this. He used generic 4-company units I think, 10-company British battalions being a bit tricky. The problem is that you do end up needing "big battalions", especially if you use 25/28mm figures. 15mm and 6mm weren't too bad, especially if you file/cut the bases to the minimum.

In principle, just work out the distance one model will cover depth-wise, then use that as the basis for working out how many models should be in a unit, rather than working from the frontage.

Regards

Another eyeopener is to, just for grins, take out a lot of your figures and lay out a 1:1 battalion in line. The width would be about 150 yards and the depth maybe 1-2 yards. It was about a 100 times wider than deep. On our tabletop, if we use a single rank stand for a battalion, it looks like a 100 wide and 25 deep. If a two rank stand, then a line is not 100 to 1 but 1:1 in shape.

It shouldn't be a wonder that then our emotional expectations stray from what probably happened back then.

Also have a look at this site

voltigeurs.populus.org

Line – only four peletons but still impressive

voltigeurs.populus.org/rub/6

and columns voltigeurs.populus.org/rub/7

I just realized that I numbered he companies left to right, sorry. It should have been right to left, but the idea is the same.

Here is a picture of two battalions in line. There are about 240 files, so there are about 720 men. They are 4 company battalions, so 80 files/ company, 40 files/section and 20 files per half-section. It looks like the two battalions have a spacing of ?? 12 of so file distances between them, so I'll guess the battalions are at quarter distance spacing. ….. They could also have been set up as two adjacent battalions in a column of divisions- one division wide and two divisions deep. An advantage of that is that the commander is closer to all his men. In line formation, he is ~75 yards away from the end his line AND his commands have to be distinguished from those of the other battalion. The other colonel is about 20 yards away. (!!!). If he is in a column of divisions, he is 37 yards away from the end of his battalion and 75 yards away from that other loudmouthed colonel…………..ALSO he can respond to the events happening over 75 yards of the front, rather than having a dual command over 150 yards of the front. I don't see many of our posters considering these effects.

By the way, imagine trying to form square or any other formation from those two lines so close together.

@ Whirlwind

That's my intended approach for ancients should I ever get around to, well, owning and painting any. A 28mm figure is usually on a base about 15mm square. So if you deem that to be 2 files wide by 2 ranks deep, or 3 by 3, or 4 by 4, width and depth are going to be relatively correct.

If you went for 4 by 4, your figure is 16 men, meaning you have a 1:16 ratio. A Roman century would then be five figures, and a cohort would be 30 figures. Deployed fifteen figures wide by two ranks of figures deep – two rows of three five-figure centuries – it would then be both the correct width and depth (well, correctly proportioned at least), though it's not obvious how barbarians should be based.

I don't see how else to reflect depth correctly and I only mention Romans because some sources have them forming up eight deep. This means that correct depth is achievable, because the formations are deep enough to allow it, but of course you're bu99ered if you want to depict any depth that's not a multiple of 4.

@4th Cuirassier,

That sounds pretty workable. I think the pre-1660 pike & shot formations would work quite well also, for the same reason. A 10-deep c.1600-1630 formation could be accurately represented by 10 figures very accurately.

1968, there is a description in Ney's tactics show two lines forming square (more like a lozenge). The centre of the first line advances and the centre of the rear line goes backwards. The ends of the lines close up.

Yes, they could do that but it would take a lot more movement and time to accomplish. Also, the terrain would need to not get in the way. ……. I wonder what the trade off was in going to small solid squares (formed from 2 companies) versus the very big ones, such as the 8 company (e.g. 4 companies/battalion type).

The French infantry reorganization from a nine company battalion to a six company battalion occurred in 1808.

In that reorganization the grenadier/carabinier companies were enlarged to the same size as the other companies.