"Attack column in the ACW" Topic

Greetings,
I admit my knowledge of the era is a little hazy but what I wanted to know was was it common for regiments to form attack column style formations in the ACW? To the inexperienced we always see the units in line formation. Did they use the attack column or a line to attack?

Generally units at all organizational levels….regiment, brigade, division, were deployed into lines for attacks. There were exceptions. Upton's attack at Spotsylvania was in column and very successful in reaching the Confederate lines. There were however no real plans made to exploit the breakthrough….probably because its success was unanticipated.

When you do see them they tend to be regiments stacked up, or brigades.

Here a good example of how a giant column could go very wrong….

link

I don't have any good evidence of this, but I suspect that columns were used sometimes, e.g. at Chickamauga, when dense woods limited visibility and made control of a battle line very difficult -- in many places the commander wouldn't even be able to see either end of his line formation, if the regiment was of average size. And you wouldn't be under fire all that long when the enemy can't see more than 20 or 30 yards.

I agree columns may have been used, the officer though they were napoleon after all, but as forwardmarchstudios said.

Columns (columns of companies, columns of divisions, double columns) were used for units in reserve or for moving about, but rarely as an attack formation. Even Upton's 'column' at Spotsylvania was a series of regiments in line (a column of regiments, basically) rather than a bunch of regiments, each one in column. The only ACW action I've found with an actual attack by regiments in columns was First Kernstown in 1862. Tyler's Brigade attacked Jackson's line with five regiments, all in columns of divisions (one regiment was in a double column). There's some debate about whether this was Tyler's intention or if the reduced visibility of the wooded terrain caused him to crash into the Confederates before he had time to deploy into line. Confederate fire stopped the columns in their tracks, but they managed to deploy into a jumbled line and eventually (with the help of other Union troops) eventually broke and routed Jackson's forces.

Scott, where did you find such detailed account of first Kernstown?

The main reason the attack at Pickett's Mill didn't succeed was because they didn't attack in column after they spent 90 minutes to 2 hours deployed into it. Instead of Wood's whole division advancing at once, 6 lines one behind the other, they (Howard or Wood, take your pick) sent in only one brigade at a time. Now, attacking through the ravine was stupid, but if all six lines had advanced at once there is a good chance the attack could have succeeded. Even unsupported, half of Hazen's brigade got around the Confederate flank at the beginning of the battle. Two more brigades to charge up the ravine after the Confederates had spent their initial volleys, or around the flank, could have been a game-changer.

Had both Wood and Johnson's divisions advanced at the same time, it probably would have been a crushing Union victory. It might not have changed the outcome of the Dallas-New Hope-Pickett's Mill line, but it certainly would have overwhelmed Cleburne's Division and turned the Confederate right flank. Johnson would have then needed to deploy more units to the right to counter the threat. Again, I'm not saying the Union would have forced the entire Confederate line to retreat, but the Union would have "won" the Battle of Pickett's Mill.

As Scott says, columns were used primarily as maneuvering units to get from point A to point B. Mostly columns of companies and divisions. Once at their destination, they deployed into line. Deployment was very quick, BTW. Once troops are even moderately drilled, it is an easy thing to deploy from company to line and I am, at times, surprised by how some rules sets punish units for changing formation by using severe movement penalties, etc.

Units held in reserve would also be formed in a columns so as to be able to move quickly to wherever they were needed.

I think many wargamers tend to confuse the terminology of "column." When most people say column, they are thinking of road column, or in game mechanics, one stand behind the other in march column.

Reading the official reports, drill manuals, and the soldiers themselves, "column" can mean any unit formed one behind the other. Columns of companies, columns of divisions, double columns, as Scott points out. Also, while the regiments themselves are in line of battle, a brigade formed in two lines was often referred to as a brigade column. Likewise a division with its brigades lines up one behind the other was called a column.

I'm not saying its technically correct, just that its what soldiers and officers called them. Throw in modern day wargamers trying to play a game with game mechanics trying to simulate the formations of the period, and you can get some confusion as to what "column" actually means.

A company in column:

A column of companies:

Bede,

I did my master's thesis on tactics in the ACW and I used Kernstown as an example. Using the Official Records and quite a few other primary sources I put together what I believe is the most detailed analysis of the action at First Kernstown ever done (including to-scale maps of the troop movements). I suppose one of these days I ought to dust it off and publish it somewhere (or at least post it--no Internet when I first wrote it).

Scott

I did my master's thesis on tactics in the ACW and I used Kernstown as an example. Using the Official Records and quite a few other primary sources I put together what I believe is the most detailed analysis of the action at First Kernstown ever done (including to-scale maps of the troop movements). I suppose one of these days I ought to dust it off and publish it somewhere (or at least post it--no Internet when I first wrote it).

I'd love to read it. Hope you find a way to share it with others.

I am hoping to "recreate" the battle this March on the 150th anniversary and your analysis would be very helpful.

Scott Washburn, please shop that thing around for publication so we can all see it.

@ScottWashburn: You DEFINITELY should publish it. LSU Press has a special fondness for all things ACW

Scott, please do publish it. How does it compare to Ecelbarger's "We Are in For It!" ?

Well, the problem with my paper is that it was strictly on the tactics used at the battle. There is no context, no background, no human interest stories. Just: "this regiment was here and then it went there and it was in this formation and then changed to that formation". While it would be very useful to wargamers trying to build a scenario, it would not be all that interesting for most readers (or publishers). Still, considering the amount of interest I'm seeing here, I will try to dig it up and see what I can do.

Perhaps "Charge!" the JRIII newsletter would publish it the focus on scenarios.

Personally I think that sounds great but I am tactics wonk as well.

firstvarty1979,

Technically, that first image you show is what was referred to as "marching by the flank". As in, we marched by the right flank until we reached the woods, where we deployed into column", etc.

Reenactors often say a "column of fours", etc, but that's really a "reenactorism" rather than a real command from the manual.

In period accounts, when we read of a "column", it's as pointed out above, some version of companies in column, a column of regiments in line, etc.

V/R

Jason – come along to HoH on Saturday the 18th and throw some columns about, we'll see how you go!

(My bdes will be firmly in line…..)

Nosworthy's "Bloody Crucible" has accounts of Confederate attacks in column at Corinth, and some other column attacks in 1862. Then there are the massive columns the Union resorted to in 1864, in imitation of Upton.

A sketch by AR Waud of action at 2nd Bull Run appears to show some Union units attacking in column.

Scott, I'd like to see your thesis too.

Without knowing the battalion level tactics, it makes it very difficult to interpret what actually transpired. Congratulations on your study. I would love to see a copy of it.

Sparker I think I will take you up on that one mate! see you then!

TKindred,

I wasn't trying to show examples of contemporary commands/formations, though perhaps I should have, but rather to portray the difference between what a "column" would like on a road (in wargamers' terms) versus an actual column would have appeared.

Without diagrams and more explanatory text, a lot the drill is difficult to convey, especially to people who've never experienced linear tactics personally.

I believe they also used columns to back up positions and be able to maneuver quickly into support. They also used them of varying sizes to my knowledge throughout the war and in different theaters to actually "attack". But I think they learned early on doing so without surprise or cover… like in the open with a long advance… was generally a bad idea.