"ACW Unit Frontages" Topic

Guys – here is a link to an interesting blogpost by John Hill on ACW frontages.

link

Thank you for that, very interesting. So, essentially, it is one yard frontage per man in each line. That seems eminently sensible to me.

Mollinary

Well, yes, but since there are 2 lines, it averages a half-yard per man. So a 400-man unit would have 600-foot (200-yard) front.

Yes, Don has it correctly.

Hate to be a pain, but did his experiment include file closers? That is to say, the NCOs and junior officers who formed a loose third rank behind the line? I recall a letter where a Union soldier told his sister he had been promoted to Sergeant, telling her they had to shoot two privates to get to him.

Does that mean at 1 inch = 50 yards, those 400 men would take up 4 inches?

Matthew

"Does that mean at 1 inch = 50 yards"

Where did you get that?

"Does that mean at 1 inch = 50 yards"

Where did you get that?

Think he means that the 400 men would be in two ranks-- thus 200 yards, 4" at 1" =50 yards.

The manuals call for 24"/man frontage.

Thus, in two lines, a 400 man regiment would take up 400 feet of frontage. I believe that the 24"/man frontage includes the loss of file closers, officers, etc in the equation.

If you walk many of the monuments at Gettysburg, you will find that the 24"/man frontage fits very well from regimental flank marker to flank marker.

V/R

Sorry Guys, but I am not sure you are correct. The Cadet Captain's notes state that the frontage for a unit of 1000 men in two ranks is 1500ft. That is 500yds. As each of the two ranks would have 500 men, the actual frontage, according to the Cadet captain's experiment, is one yard per man. What part of this calculation have I got wrong?

Mollinary

I have to agree that a 24"/man frontage is correct. I don't have my manual in front of me, but I did it as a re-enacter for over 20 years. The file closers are behind the line. We were drilled to slightly touch our elbow to the person next to us. A yard between each man is too much.
I was with the Stonewall Brigade during the 125th cycle and beyond to 2009. I won awards for "most authentic" twice (1999 and 2007) and "professional soldier" (1998). We were real sticklers on following the manual. The Stonewall Brigade used "Gillams" (not sure I spelled that right) and thats what we followed.

yesh, 24 inches (ish)

But does the manual reflect reality? Also you probably drilled more than any ACW soldier – you were doing it for longer.

But does the manual reflect reality? Also you probably drilled more than any ACW soldier – you were doing it for longer.

Gentlemen,

My point has nothing to do with what the regulations say, but only with what the Cadet Captain's experiments showed. I think the point of John Hill, posting the Cadet Captain's findings is probably precisely because they do not agree with the well known regulations. Ironicon, I think you make an interesting point when you say "a yard between each man is too much" .i would agree entirely, and I think so would the Cadet Captain. He is not saying that each man has a yard between him and the next man, but that a yard covers the man's own width (mine seems to be just shy of 23" and I am no giant) and his share of the gap on either side. That would be about 6", so he seems to be proposing a gap of about 1ft between soldiers. An interesting debate.

Mollinary

I assume you mean in a battle. Yes for the most part it does. You are dealing with a large number of troops moving and changing formations. If you didn't your
unit won't function as a unit in battle.
I do remember the Wilderness though and the back and forth fighting did scramble us around some. The soldier of the time drilled more unless you add up all the hours over all those years that I drilled.

Think about a line of men wheeling. If they have a gap of 6inches or more that line is going to stretch so much that when you get done you will have to stop and dress the line. This is one of the reasons for being well drilled.This is also the reason for lightly touching the man next to you

While 24" per man in Close Order is fairly universal in the "horse and musket" era, and certainly is the spacing desired for maximum concentration of firepower, I ask the re-enactors here for their observations regarding movement.

In order to keep that interval (as well as that between lines) while advancing in line, which tends to happen more often over uneven ground: The interval varies as each man's step becomes uneven, or does the entire advance slow--at the Officers' and file closers' commands--to keep the line and intervals as straight as possible?

Partly I'm curious generally, and mostly because as a rules designer, I find the number of men in a given formation, with a given frontage for each, and the space they occupy, is far more important and valuable than arbitrary Man-to-Figure ratios (1:20, 1:30, 1:60, etc).

If an Infantry line's width is "elastic" while maneuvering, but coalesce to deliver fire, it stands to reason that for gaming, figure base frontages can be determined strictly by the ground scale, but movement distances be somewhat variable (depending on formation and the nature of the ground). Open Order formations, and Skirmish Order can then be represented by doubling or tripling the interval between Bases, thus simulating the increase frontages of the unit itself in these type formations.

Of course, the spacing between Bases would truly have to be doubled, trebled, etc, on the table top, otherwise the same number of men would magically occupy less space while claiming greater dispersion. "Bases not touching," would hardly represent what's actually going on when coming out of Close Order--except perhaps when a unit has become so disorganized as to pretty much become a mob instead.

And while Last Hussar raises a good point about the amount and quality of drill a long time re-enactor can claim compared to many of the actual combatants, I would say that the Manual was reasonably realistic.

As stated, keeping to the letter of the Manual with every step may not be possible, but the intervals and maneuvers are attainable and largely maintainable minimum standards to keep the whole parade from becoming a cluster ----.

TVAG

Coincidentally, I was reading Casey this morning – I found nothing about 24 inches, but plenty about touching elbows with arms held casually at the sides.
In earlier European manuals, a file width was noted as 22", and again elbow to elbow.

So I think 24 inches makes sense.

The problem with the original link, is that it's unclear about the parameters. Does it refer to 1000 files, or 1000 men in two-ranks, which would be 500 files? And, does the number include or exclude file closers.

Ironic on,

I take your point, but we are still left with the good Captain's practical experiment. Interestingly, he is, it appears, describing forming up his men in a static line, not concerning himself with the difficulty of moving them around. Does this make a difference?

Mollinary

If you are spread out in any formation your unit is going to be a mess, moving or not.

Ligniere,

This seems to me to be quite clear. At the top it states "Men in Two Ranks". At the left side it states "No of Men". This clearly implies that the frontage of, say, 1,000 men, would be, in two ranks, 500yards. Equally, it is stated that the Cadet Captain experimented with between 10 and 1,000 men. Given the potential variations of regimental size, why should we take as an assumption that he experimented with 2,000 men? All in all, I think this is presented as an interesting practical example of a piece of information which differs from the regulation, and should be taken as such – no more, no less. But fun to discuss, nevertheless!

Mollinary

Aloting a yard per man is just PLAIN WRONG!This is a good example of misinformation passed along. I also take exception to the idea that the firing line becomes confused as the unit is firing.

Ironicon,

Just to clarify, are you saying the Cadet Captain was wrong, or that I have misinterpreted what he set out in his table?

Amicably,

Mollinary

I hate to disagree with a man from VMI (which I revere). My experience tells me that a yard per man is not right. It also doesn't say that in the manual or does it bear out in reality. This discission has really gotten me fired up because I did it. It's like someone useing statistics to prove somthing that in reality isn't so.

You did what?

The manuals do not specify a specific frontage per man. The men simply line up with their elbows lightly touching the men on either side of them. So a big man will take up more room than a small man. But 36" per man is clearly far too much and must be dismissed.

Last Hussars' question: "does the manual reflect reality?" is an important one. After many years of serious research I can confidently answer: "Yes, it does." That's the way the men trained and from examining hundreds (thousands?) of reports from the Official Records I believe that this was also the way they fought. At least in general :) There are always exceptions.

But as a reenactor I can state from experience that the best way to maintain a formation (and thus control) is by the touch of elbows. Later drill regulations DID open up a gap between the men, but that is how those men were trained. The Civil War soldiers were trained to maneuver by the touch of elbows and that is what they used. They were trained to keep together and their officers and NCOs were trained to keep them together.

I'm afraid I must also dismiss John Hill's statement: "However, once the command of, "fire at will" was given all those neat double lines would almost certainly simply disintegrate into a ragged scramble of men simply trying to load and fire as fast as they could."

While it is true that any attempt by officers to maintain volley fire during battle would quickly degenerate into independent fire, to say that the lines would disintegrate, is not. No doubt there would be some loss of perfect alignment, but the file closers would do everything in their power to rectify any problems. As a reenactor, I know that for the rear rank to fire safely past the front rank, the ranks MUST be maintained. Otherwise the rear rank men are going to shoot the front rank men. And keep in mind that any given regiment will be part of a larger formation. It will have other regiments to either side. The regiments will not have the luxury of spreading out to allow everyone to be able to fire from the front. Will the lines get raggedy? Sure. But raggedy is not disintegrated.

The drill regulations were the way they were for good reasons. And they worked.

In reading what John Hill posted, I find two phrases indicating more information is needed to properly assess the frontages given. Those phrases are:
"In a postwar experiment…" – what year was this? Postwar covers a lot of time. Saying it was late 1865 would make things different than if it was in 187o due to changes in the drill regulations.
"… formed up regulation battle lines…" – which regulations were being used? The official drill manual written by Upton immediately after the ACW was not the drill followed during the war.
As provided by John Hill, it's interesting data, but relatively meaningless without additional information to place it into the proper context.

Reenactors drill far less than the original soldiers did, yet most can maintain, reasonably well, their alignments and discipline in the field.

Although wheeling by battalion/regiment was practiced, there were other methods to get from point "A" to point "B" without wheeling, and those were often done.

Scott knows what he's talking about. I have had the privilege of commanding a 60 man company, as well as an 800 man battalion. I've also acted s Adjutant, and major of the same large battalion. If the officers and file closers know what they are doing, then even reasonably green troops like reenactors can (and do) perform well upon the field.

I still stand by the 24"/man for frontage. When figuring frontages, I use 12"/man, which, when the ranks are doubles, gives 24"/man frontage for the regiment in line. After some 40 years in ACW reenacting, I still believe that that is what should be used.

As an English Civil War reenactor I know of 2 or 3 drill manuals that give the spacing and the frontage of companys and regiments, they are used as a bedrock for our drill and maneuverings.

The books I have read on armies organisation on the ACW and the horse and musket priod all have referenced to drill and frontages.

I have to say over the 30+ years I have wargammed, I have played a number of set of rules and periods that have used correct ground sales, to frontages, to ranges, to movements none of them have worked out to the players satisfaction.

Greetings

As far as I can tell the Benjamin Allison Colonna referred to was born 12 Nov 1894 and graduated from the VMI before going to do law at Columbia before being called up in 1917 (source History of Company B, 311th Infantry). According to the library of congress maps he undertook the survey of the New Market battlefield in 1910-12 under the supervision of BA Colonna (his father) who ended up commanding Coy D of the VMI on the battlefield at New Market . The final map was prepared in 1914 but the topographical survey with the frontage chart is copyright 1912 from a survey done in summer 1910. link

So the experiment (which is not referred to on the topographical map so I am not sure of the source) was probably conducted 1910-12. This would mean that the 1891 or 1911 drill regulations were probably being used.

Underr 1911 regulations close order was formed by a soldier placing left hand on hip and gently touching the right arm of his fellow. No specific frontage is given. In article 125 the frontage for skirmish order is given as a yard per man because there is expected to be half a pace between men. So even under these regulations there is something skewed with the diagram/experiment.

Regards

Edward

I'm not a reenactor. However, I have certainly visited enough battlefields and surveyed enough unit frontages and unit positions during battles. What always surprises me is how small many unit frontages are. How tightly they can pack units into one space. I know you cannot always trust unit markers and memorials at battlefield parks, but I think the preponderance of evidence shows that most units fit into a far smaller space than you might think. Take away the file closers, coffee coolers, and skirkers. I just think 1 yard per man is too much. 24" sounds about right and fits with what we know of unit positions and frontages on the battlefield. Other, more learned among you may disagree and prove me wrong.

One yard per file sounds more plausible as an average tactical frontage taking into account movement, terrain, and combat considerations. Seeing the study sited above considers a battlefield [environment] of mixed terrain (and when units engaged in mock combat exercises), it may indeed be reflecting average results. Of course frontages had be elastic, with open order being used to traverse wooded terrain. I can imagine why John Hill may have spot-lighted this study, as from a rules designer's perspective, it indicates 'field tested results'…..unless a ruleset were to require a different amount of figs per stand per terrain encountered, or to maintain certain stand spacing requirements when traversing through/over different types of rough ground……

"Frontages had to be elastic"

Well, not really. Or not very much. Going from a 24" per man frontage to a 36" per man frontage is an expansion of 50%. While it might be possible under certain circumstances for an individual regiment to do this, the army as a whole cannot.

I've marched many a battalion of reenactors through rough terrain like woods and yes, there is an expansion, but it is from front to back, not side to side. The men whose path is blocked have to fall out of ranks and follow through the passible areas and then try to regain their spot when they can. The battalion does not expand its frontage.

Officers are going to make every effort to not allow their units to stretch out to a greater frontage. There are long sections in the manual describing methods to avoid it happening. And there are good reasons for this. A stretched out battalion is going to be harder to control and less responsive to orders. It will have less firepower per yard of front (and any lessening in vulnerability to enemy fire is going to be negligible) so it will not be a good thing for combat.

As Tim said, 24"/man is a good number. In fact for that era it was probably closer to 22" per man.

My 1863 U.S. Infantry Tactical Manual makes it clear that all training, drills, manual of arms, and maneuver is to be done "at the touch of elbows" in rank. A man my size (6'2" and 230lbs) takes up 24". A typical soldier in the ACW was probably 4 to 6" shorter and 60-80 lbs (or more!) lighter. Measuring a couple of guys with that approximant build I found a range from 20" to 24".

While I never re-enacted, I know from my days at military school that when marching in line or wide columns men tended to close in on the middle of the formation and instead of spreading out actually would often push shoulder to shoulder. Sometimes men would even get pushed out of the line!

I think the link was an attempt to try to justify the ground scales-figure scales for John's new game. 5 figures at 1:60 scale (300 men in 2 rank line) should occupy a 1" (100 yards per the game) frontage at 24" a man.

Also, officers and NCO's, color guard, file closers and guides would not be part of the frontage. Many gamers have only 3 or 4 figures mounted on a 1" frontage for ACW. At 1:60, that's 180 to 240 men and at 24" per man you're looking at 60 to 80 yards of actual frontage, not 100 yards (so 5/8" to 13/16" of table frontage).

The markers at Gettysburg referenced are very good indicators of real life frontages of units as we know the regiment strengths and the actual ground they occupied.

The bottom line really is, does correct (or not) frontage make or break a game? As previously said by Mac1638, rules with accurate ranges and scales may still be less enjoyable to play then games with incorrect ground and time scales. If you can't enjoy a game that is not scale correct, then that is you're choice. If scales are off, but the game flows well, you probably won't even worry about it.

I would say many will fall somewhere in-between and that is why there's constantly gamer's trying out new rules on a regular basis each year.

Kim

Yes, I've always thought 24" per man to be about right (so that when in 2 ranks the average is 12").

Really apreciate the additional comments from all the knowledgable people out there, another good example why I like TMP.

Kim;

"At 1:60, that's 180 to 240 men and at 24" per man you're looking at 60 to 80 yards of actual frontage, not 100 yards"

Even though the rules say that the ground scale for 15mm is 80-100yds per inch, I always assume it is 80 yds/in – That way my 5' by 8' tabletop battlefields for JRIII can now go on a 4' by 6' tabletop.
At 80yds/in, your example of most people having 3 or 4 figures on 1" square bases comes out correctly scaled.

Well, there you go! Makes sense then.

Another issue in most games is the time/distance ratio. How long is a turn? How far can men march in a turn? The majority of rules over the years rarely get this right. My personal test for this is "Pickets Charge"

From the time the Confederates stepped of to reach Cemetary Ridge marching in line and making adjustments, took them right about 20 minutes. The fight and retreat all the way back to their start point maybe another 20 to 25 minutes.

So if a rules set says "15 minutes/Turn", then I should be able to make Picketts charge..start to finish, in 3 turns! 20 to 30 minute/turn..2 turns for the attack and retreat"

In most rule sets the march alone takes WAY to long! At 80 yards per inch the ground covered should be around 16 to 18 inches. What's the line move rate? 6" per turn (assuming level open ground) that's 3 turns to close with the enemy which is 3 or 4 times longer then it actually took!

Yet most just shrug their shoulders and say 'Oh well', but my rules are very "Realistic!". Really? Not so much.

Kim

The Time/Turn Length-vs- Distance problem is one that plagues every wargame and which can never be solved.

The Time/Turn Length-vs- Distance problem is one that plagues every wargame and which can never be solved

I wouldn't say never, but it's been elusive.

Kim

That's another can of worms.

36" per man is clearly far too much and must be dismissed.

My immediate reaction also.

Again, is this only considering tactical considerations, or everything that's involved in quasi-battlefield conditions?

The cadet captain gives frontage for men in two ranks starting with 10 men taking up a frontage of 15 feet. I am assuming that is a 5 man front. A yard per man is neither close formation or extended line, but a typical 'loose' formation.

The fact that the cadets would do this is actually rather odd for several reasons.

1. They would drill every day, so distances had to be calculated.
2. The frontage calculations found in the various US regulations and treatises, depending on who you read at what time, actually give 24 to 28 inches per man and touching elbows gives you that range of distance.
3. The cadets didn't have to actually stand around to do the calculations given on that page. Simple math would get you there.
4. As Scott can tell you, the touching of elbows was important in maneuvering in line. It told each soldier where they were without looking and what they had to do to maintain their place.

So I have to imagine the VMI calculations were more a learning exercise than a discovery exercise.

The other thing is John's statement:

However, once the command of, "fire at will" was given all those neat double lines would almost certainly simply disintegrate into a ragged scramble of men simply trying to load and fire as fast as they could.

Where he gets this idea I don't know, but 'almost certainly simply disintegrate into a ragged scramble' is hyperbole at best, and not indicative of what happened except in extreme cases or with poorly trained troops. Men were trained to fire in formation, so firing at will doesn't disintegrate their formation.

Certainly close fighting can see a formation become a scramble as well as fighting through rough terrain such as the end of Pickett's Charge and fighting in the Wilderness.

Again, is this only considering tactical considerations, or everything that's involved in quasi-battlefield conditions?

Not sure what this means.

Not sure what this means.

That was addressing the Time/Turn Length-vs- Distance question forwarded above, that is, if battlefield friction isn't considered, then movement rates will seem inordinately sluggish.

Certainly close fighting can see a formation become a scramble as well as fighting through rough terrain such as the end of Pickett's Charge and fighting in the Wilderness.

Yes, but this isn't illustrated in the manuals, it's an observation of tactical realities which occurred, and supported by the historical record (John Hill may be doing the same).

When I was in military school, we dressed ranks in open order at the command "dress right – dress" with eyes to the right to align in a straight line and left arm extended with palm placed on the next mans right shoulder. At the command "ready – front" the arm went down and eyes front. This gave an interval of just about one yard per man.

Knowing this, I would suspect that at the time the VMI Cadets did the same thing to also give them the same interval of 36".
This was parade ground drill, it has nothing to do with men trying to fight in the chaos of battle.

In an actual battle, officers and NCO's would constantly strive to keep the ranks in as good an order as possible for as long as possible. Once order disintegrated, then the unit would usually break up and head for the rear.

The bottom line is soldiers in the ACW DID NOT go into combat combat with an interval of 1 yard per man. You don't mount figures representing men in a "scrambled formation"

Kim

Once again I am extremely appreciative of the insights that reenactors like Scott Washburn, ironicon, and many other guys who regularly chime in on TMP are able to bring to these discussions. Who else can truly understand what it means to maneuver a battalion of 400 men around a battlefield "a la" 1863. I wish I had the same experiance and expertise. Thanks, John Miller

The bottom line is soldiers in the ACW DID NOT go into combat combat with an interval of 1 yard per man. You don't mount figures representing men in a "scrambled formation"

A flexible or element-based rules system could solve the issue when gaming units are actually seeing the elephant.

This quote has been often sited, but it bears on the subject of battlefield realities (David L. Thompson, Co. G, 9th N. Y. Vols):

"It is astonishing how soon, and by what slight causes, regularity of formation and movement are lost in actual battle. Disintegration begins with the first shot. To the book-soldier all order seems destroyed, months of drill apparently going for nothing in a few minutes. Next after the most powerful factor in this derangement---the enemy --- come natural obstacles and the inequalities of the ground. One of the commonest is a patch of trees. An advancing line lags there inevitably, the rest of the line swinging around insensibly, with the view of keeping the alignment, and so losing direction."

nycivilwar.us/antwit.html

Certainly in the greater, smothering forest on many Civil War battlefields this "derangement" regularly occurred, and formations became flexible as a breakdown in text-book drill was inevitable. Now reactions of men and units under fire – who here has fought in the Civil War and seen that elephant?

Pickett's Charge is one of the better documented timing of a large advance under fire. It took the three divisions twenty minutes to move 1400 to 1600 yards, stopping 200 yards from the Union lines to begin firing.

In that time they crossed two fence lines and stopped twice to dress lines by division, changing direction twice to concentrate the attack as dictated by Lee, all the while under serious artillery fire.

They did this moving 70-80 yards per minute-- which is about what was practiced at quick time, which was the speed Lee ordered the divisions to march at the entire time.

So, when Union officer David Thompson writes "It is astonishing how soon, and by what slight causes, regularity of formation and movement are lost in actual battle. Disintegration begins with the first shot. To the book-soldier all order seems destroyed,…months of drill apparently going for nothing in a few minutes", that should be compared to what troops actually accomplished in battle compared to what was practiced because that can be only his experience, the behavior of the 9th NY in their first battle, all battles or a generalization based on several engagements. It could be just his personal feelings or even hyperbole.

It all comes down to what was accomplished on the ground in battle compared to what the soldiers practiced.