marshalGreg | 16 Sep 2014 9:35 a.m. PST |
There has been some indication in some rules sets that the Allies with the British fought in 2 rank. So the question I have is…. is this true or was it the fact the the 3rd rank was detached for skirmishing, since the French were pushing so hard with their's? I do not know the best way to search for this in the TMP ( struck out several times now) nor have found any other evidence supporting the true formations used by theses Hanoverian, Belgians, Dutch and Brunswickers/Nassau troops. Hope to have good replies to answer this! Thanks in advance MG |
Ligniere | 16 Sep 2014 10:35 a.m. PST |
From memory, Mark Adkin claims the use of two-rank formations by the allied contingents in his work the 'Waterloo Companion'. I'm not sure what his precise source was. It's probably hidden away in some General Orders for each national contingent, based on something Wellington suggested at some council of war. Of course, many of these allied contingents would have been largely new recruits, NCO'd and officered by Napoleonic French veterans, so the doctrine of three-ranks would have been second nature. However, most, if not all, nations would adopt two-ranks as campaign losses grew. But that would not have been necessary after only three days of active campaign, in 1815. And, as far as I'm aware, only the Prussians, in 1815, were using third-rankers for the skirmish component of their battalions. And, as far as I'm aware, it wouldn't, necessarily, be the entire third-rank, but men would be fed in and out of the skirmish line from contingents drawn from the third rank. |
JimDuncanUK | 16 Sep 2014 10:56 a.m. PST |
It is well reported in many publications that British line infantry at Waterloo fought in 4 ranks due to the cavalry threat. Allied brigades would have followed the British lead in this matter. It would take only a matter of minutes of referring to some of my library to find references and I'm sure online would not be a lot different. |
JimDuncanUK | 16 Sep 2014 11:05 a.m. PST |
Some references here: link During the late 18th century there was disagreement in the British army as to whether 2 or 3 ranks were better. After the mauling they took from French cavalry at Quadre Bras however, many British infantry were in formations of 4 ranks or more during the battle of Waterloo. More here: TMP link |
MajorB | 16 Sep 2014 11:08 a.m. PST |
It is well reported in many publications that British line infantry at Waterloo fought in 4 ranks due to the cavalry threat. 4 ranks when formed in square. 2 ranks when in line. The British fought in 2 ranks in the Peninsular too. TMP link |
KaweWeissiZadeh | 16 Sep 2014 11:35 a.m. PST |
It all depends on the army – Braunschweiger and Englaender were having 2 ranks when in line. Things were very different when in square. I think 4 ranks was the standard here. Prussian were 3 rangs and their squares weren't hollow. |
marshalGreg | 16 Sep 2014 12:57 p.m. PST |
Thanks Guys What I am looking for is not that of the British, which 2 or 4 is well documented nor the prussian which is also well documented but that of the small Ally contingents. I have not seen any period paintings nor eye witness accounts supporting such action and that it was in wide spread use. MG |
TMPWargamerabbit | 16 Sep 2014 1:23 p.m. PST |
2 ranks in general. Waterloo was a very dense narrow battle so many Allied units formed 4 ranks due to the limited battle frontage to form a 2 rank line. Plus a 4 rank formation holds well against frontal cavalry charges if their open flanks are protected by similar formed units, squares, or anti-cavalry defensive terrain. Late in the battle the 52nd Light swiped the French from the ridge by changed from the column or 4 rank formation out to the normal two ranks and wheeled left clearing the frontage of the ridge. Their 2 rank formation extended "well down" into the valley floor as they moved along the slope of the ridge. Also the 52nd was a large unit at Waterloo compared to other Allied units. They had the room to deploy out in 2 ranks. As for the Brunswick and Dutch-Belgian units they drilled in 2 rank formation. Going to 4 rank is doubling the 2 rank formation so not beyond trained regimental control. My only open question are the Nassau battalions. The Nassau regiment in Dutch service used the Dutch method of 2 ranks per Dutch recent sources. The other two Nassau regiments I cannot confirm if 2 or 3 rank formation. But knowing Wellington's sharp eye…. they used 2 rank and learned fast because otherwise they were the only Allied units using 3 rank (French styled) formation at Waterloo. Considering their use and placement, they spent the day in broken ground and loose open order formations so the 2 vs 3 rank question for Nassau may be moot. |
marshalGreg | 16 Sep 2014 1:33 p.m. PST |
"As for the Brunswick and Dutch-Belgian units they drilled in 2 rank formation. Going to 4 rank is doubling the 2 rank formation so not beyond trained regimental control." @ TMP Wargamerrabbit where does this come from in regards to supporting source? thanks MG |
Ligniere | 16 Sep 2014 1:35 p.m. PST |
The best source for eyewitness accounts for the Dutch Belgians and Hanoverians has to be the works produced by Erwin Muilwijk and/or John Franklin – you might find references to two-ranks there |
frostydog | 16 Sep 2014 8:55 p.m. PST |
And at the start of the battle many British units were deployed in column. |
SJDonovan | 17 Sep 2014 2:36 a.m. PST |
There is another TMP discussion on the subject here: TMP link I try to base by figures differently depending on whether they generally formed in two or three ranks so I have been putting off painting my Nassauers because I'm not sure what to do with them. However, I'm inclined to think that 2 ranks is the way to go. |
marshalGreg | 17 Sep 2014 6:31 a.m. PST |
@ SJDonovan, Great Link! So with the 3rd ranker German formations- does one mount them as 2 and throw the 3rd rankers into a skirmish line formation as an amalgamated unit? That is a pondering I am struggling with now. Then there is the French- stay in a thicker formation than the rest? Hmmm what to do! MG |
marshalGreg | 17 Sep 2014 11:57 a.m. PST |
found this link regarding Brunswickers- this one item now seems closed. TMP link MG
|
marshalGreg | 17 Sep 2014 12:21 p.m. PST |
SOme good stuff on Dutch/Belgians. My googling has hit some results now. link MG |
SJDonovan | 17 Sep 2014 3:01 p.m. PST |
@marshalGreg With troops that can deploy part or all of the third rank as skirmishers I still mount them as three ranks because even when the skirmishers are deployed the battalion frontage remains the same. Figuring battalions of the same size, troops that deploy in two ranks should have 50 per cent wider frontage than those deploy in three ranks. For example, 600 men in three ranks would have a frontage of 200 men; while 600 men in two ranks would have a frontage of 300 men (and if the three rank formation decides to deploy skirmishers from the third rank its frontage remains as 200 men but if the two rank formation decides to deploy its flank companies as skirmishers then it frontage contracts by half the number of men it deploys. So if it sends a sixty man flank company out as skirmishers, the battalion frontage contracts to 270 men) |
Widowson | 17 Sep 2014 5:44 p.m. PST |
All AA infantry fought in 2 ranks in the 100 Days campaign. This did not provide enough depth in square vs. cavalry, so they doubled the line. This is not a 4 rank formation. It is a double line of 2 rank formations. There IS a difference. Note that this should make artillery casualties higher in British squares than French or Prussian. |
marshalGreg | 18 Sep 2014 5:13 a.m. PST |
All thanks for your help! @ SJDonovan, That is my dilemma now! How to handle the 2 VS 3 in mounting, especially for 3 rank units who had/could put the third rank forward but only when the designated skirmish unit was needing support or not present at that local(The larger formation was perhaps covering more ground than in a standard 3 lines of battalion formation- and typical of most wargames [ where to cover the ends of the table top was typical]). Do I mount these as if 2 rank( with 3 rank frontage) of bat 2/3 strength or keep at 3 full strength and use additional figures for the screen? This is important at tactical level (but not so when I go to grand tactical play)? So to summarize: British, Hanoverian, Brunswick, Belgian/Dutch, Prussian Fusilier/Jager, Austrian jager/Grenz, Russian Jager- 2 rank mounting (The Prussian, Austrian, Russian Jagers/Fusilier/Grenz already formed to skirmish and have 3rd ranks forward). French- 3 rank? Prussian line, Ex-res and landwehr, Austrian Line, Russian Line- ? what to do? MG |
Rod MacArthur | 18 Sep 2014 7:11 a.m. PST |
I did experiment with an idea suggested to me by a guy at the Reading & Newbury Wargames Club back in the early 1900s. We all used single rank basing back then and had the same frontage for two British (or close allies) or three French etc. We then mounted Prussians in threes, but with the central figure loose, so they could be in the normal close order formation, or deploy their central figures to represent the third rank, either extending the width of the formation or as skirmishers. If is accurate as far as frontages, but does not look very good, since when the central figures are deployed the spacing of those remaining is not even. I am not sure what the best solution is, but offer this up as one possibility. As alternative for Prussians is to assume they are in two ranks and the third ranks are always deployed as separate platoons, either to skirmish or extend the line. For Hanoverians and Brunswick, I assume their sharpshooters (several flies per company) are always detached as skirmishers at the start of any combat. Rod |
matthewgreen | 18 Sep 2014 7:39 a.m. PST |
Most wargames designers have started with representing the British army for their basing, and then assumed that the French are simply the British in three ranks (in particular the assumption that skirmishers always come from whole companies, usually elite). And then scratch their heads about he Prussians and Austrians. (And as for the Russiana…) In fact it would be better to start by working out how to represent the Prussian system, where the third rank can be deployed as skirmishers, and then working out how to translate the representation into other nations. Once you've cracked the Prussians, you can deal with the rest much more easily. The French deployed their third rank from time to time too – and are in fact somewhere between the British and Prussian systems. I think the best way to look at it is that all nations deployed in two ranks. The third rankers make up extra sub-units – but these should not be used to extend the line. The can be deployed as skirmishers, detachments or replacements. That's the theory – but I haven't yet tried putting this into practice! |
marshalGreg | 19 Sep 2014 2:06 p.m. PST |
@Matthewgreen, "I think the best way to look at it is that all nations deployed in two ranks. The third rankers make up extra sub-units – but these should not be used to extend the line. The can be deployed as skirmishers, detachments or replacements. That's the theory – but I haven't yet tried putting this into practice!" I have a similar view. I was coming to think that way too with exception of French and 3rd rank. I have never heard of this until recently among gamers but no definitive source backing it ( French in 2 since 3rd is forward). Currently, I sort of fallen into this and was looking to deviate (make French/Allies thicker). I have everyone mounted as if 2 rank ( Ina single line mounting), but the French and Prussian are presented extended. This still seem not right? MG |
von Winterfeldt | 19 Sep 2014 11:25 p.m. PST |
A Prussian battalion would maintain the same width if in 3 ranks or in two and skirmishers in skirmish line, a 900 men strong battalion would cover 300 files, about 150 m in line, regardless. |
marshalGreg | 22 Sep 2014 1:15 p.m. PST |
@ von Winterfeldt yes it is understood a 840 typical Prussian unit will retain the frontage of ~174 m that a 3 rank would cover while in line. The equivalent to two additional companies ( 4 platoons in 2 rank), formed from the 3rd rank, has 1 platoon forward and 1 behind (one ea. behind the 1st and 8th platoon forming the battalion flanks at 4 ranks) to be ready to be sent out, when not already needed forward. That would be 2 platoons forward and 2 back formed ea behind platoons at the flanks. So to model this with a 30-32 fig unit in single mounting representing 2 rank @ 4 figs per base; 5 bases in the main battalion, 2 x 1/2 bases (one each behind the 1 and 4 co, and one full base forward (representing the skirmish line reserve). For 32 fig unit, the missing 2 figs are considered in the skirmish line, too thin and small to be represented with any stands or 2 figs on a 3" wide base. But then how do I do the French/F-Allies, typically at 3 rank?what evidence is there they were many times functioning in 2 rank? Which my impression was only during exceptional circumstances. Thus still have a problem. The need to be 6 figs with same 4 man base frontage @ 3 ranks? MG |
Dexter Ward | 26 Sep 2014 2:13 a.m. PST |
Surely the simplest solution is not to worry about how many men each figure represents. Just get the frontage of the battalion right for your ground scale, and base as many figures in that frontage as looks good to you. The depth will be wrong no matter what you do (even if you only use a single line of figures), so don't worry about that. |
Sparta | 26 Sep 2014 6:17 a.m. PST |
|