"What goals for skirmishers at the Grand Tactical level?" Topic

" why would any line NOT operate with the 6" spacing?"

…because in line, the normal order was close, and the space taken up by each battalion would be understood by the commanding officer and other battalions in the line would have to know their parts too – varying intervals would throw the line into possible confusion and disorder.
An intermixing of firing lines was experienced by the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian War which in general they seem to have come to terms with but even then it had it`s critics (Henderson for one, in his "Science of War").

As for firepower in general, I`m not so sure that it mattered too much. I think there may only have been opportunity in the first firings anyhow to gain some slight oblique fire advantage on an advancing column.
What I think did matter was the order and discipline that resulted from the performance of troops and their self-awareness of all this and it`s morale effect on their opponents.

The frontage of a battalion in skirmish is not just (or even mainly) a function of the spacing of the men in the firing chain at the front. It also depended on reserves. These reserves would replace the men in the front chain after they had used up their ammunition, or suffered losses. In normal, disciplined skirmish screens, these reserves would amount to at least half the troops deployed. In deeper formations (e.g. Prussians deploying the full third rank) it could be as much as 75%.

There might be several lines of these. When writers talk of whole battalions being thrown into skirmish, it is not generally clear what they meant. We have a mental picture of a great confused mass – but that doesn't sound to be a militarily effective practice.

I think that when they used the term "skirmishing" they did not meant only the sending out of a skirmish chain with pairs, who were backed up by a reserve and by formed troops.

I wonder if the loose order and open order formations were also described this way- as skirmishing. In addition, I wonder if many of the battle descriptions (diagrams or written description) of actions, where it is assumed were in close order, were actual some form of open or loose order. This might have been commanded at a lower level of command than those were the battles were recorded, and thereby missed our knowledge.

I have to wonder how close-order troop could move through woods, fields with bushes, ditches and scattered structures. Imagine a field with 5 volkswagen sized rocks on it. Wouldn't that make an advance by a closer order line almost impossibly slow? In giving "battlefire" why would the soldiers still remain in the packed formation? Something here does just not feel right.

" why would any line NOT operate with the 6" spacing?"

Just to add to what Mike said, the SOP was for close order troops to march with elbows touching and only 20-24 inches for each man. Touching elbows marching in unison allowed the men to 'sense' and keep their position in line. It is the way troops were trained in all countries.

I wonder if the loose order and open order formations were also described this way- as skirmishing. In addition, I wonder if many of the battle descriptions (diagrams or written description) of actions, where it is assumed were in close order, were actual some form of open or loose order. This might have been commanded at a lower level of command than those were the battles were recorded, and thereby missed our knowledge.

There were all sorts of reasons troops wnet to open or loose order. There are histories that identify those kinds of actions. Moving through woods though was almost always done in skirmish order or column, never in any sort of line in close formation, loose or otherwise. This was true in the ACW too.