"Field columns in Across a deadly field" Topic

I've just received my copy of Across a deadly field and was surprised to find rules for attacking in field column. I was under the impression that, in the ACW units only maneuvered in field column and attacked in line. Were attacks in field column a common occurrence and can anyone point me to where I can get more information on the subject?

I don't have the book in front of me, but I can't remember any reference to "Field Column" in there.
One formation is "Road" or "March" column, which is a column of 4 abreast, used for traveling, and 1 formation is "Attack" or "Assault" column- a compressed formation in (I think) a column of companies. This was used in the 2nd half of the war, notably at Cold Harbor and Spotsylvania, to give a "Mass" attack effect. Search on "Emory Upton" for more info.

do the rules allow for inter penetrating, and charging through friendly lines? What are the linear formations allowed? (See the other post)

An "Attack Column" would usually be a column of divisions (or a double column which was similar) two companies wide by 5 divisions deep. I have only found a couple of references to them being used for an actual attack.

Upton's "attack column" was actually a formation of multiple regiments stacked up one behind the other, but each regiment was in a line of battle rather than a column.

Scott,

In a lot of these issues and questions come up (and they come up all the time) because gamers might be more familiar with Nappy-war and NOT so much ACW. Some think it's the exact same thing or that the tactics and drill books were just the same. It can also be that the gamers did not properly understand even though it sounds like a good idea to do this or that it just might never have happened back then. The reasons for NOT doing what we think they ‘should' have done is because the lack of knowledge about their drill manuals and the way the war was really fought. Once you drill by the period ACW manuals with 200+ men you see the wisdom.

I can remember an argument I had with someone about wheeling a regiment and how it should have been very simple if modern marching bands can do it easily. *sigh* A Lack of appreciation of skill what wheeling a 200+ regiment would need, especially under fire!

An "Attack Column" would usually be a column of divisions (or a double column which was similar) two companies wide by 5 divisions deep. I have only found a couple of references to them being used for an actual attack.

Upton's "attack column" was actually a formation of multiple regiments stacked up one behind the other, but each regiment was in a line of battle rather than a column.

Scott, I belive it was Barlow at Spotsylvania that formed in Column of Divisions for the attack on the Mule Shoe. I know at least one (2?) of the Heavy Artillery units at Cold Harbor did also (possibly due to there lack of training and size of 2,000 man regiments). And during the final assualts on Petersburg several units attacked in this formation too.

Kim

So it seems the tactic was used very rarely, over short distances and not very successfully. Hardly a good reason to add it into the book although I've just read on a blog that it had been rarely used in games so maybe realistic there. One gamer did have a tactic that used the column in support so maybe some other hardly ever used formations could have been added for us to be inventive with.

This doesn't speak directly to field columns, but it does touch upon how difficult it can be to properly understand the intent of the drill manual. I had a fascinating chat with some Rhode Island field artillery re-enactors who had a beautiful James rifle field artillery piece + limber + caisson (all hand-built to original specs) who said that, while they would religiously follow the original official drill regulations in every respect, there were aspects thereof which were logically incomprehensible to them ….. until one of the members had trained up and added a team of horses. Only then, for example, did the strictures about keeping one's feet inside the track of the wheels come to make sense. Sometimes, the horse team would inadvertently and unpredictably lurch a step or two backwards and anyone standing immediately behind a wheel ran the risk of having it run over his foot with obviously unhappy consequences.

In the same vein, the utility of field columns may not truly become evident to us until we have had the opportunity to maneuver a brigade of few thousand men back and forth across some Virginia countryside for a month or two. The devil is always in the details.

B

I haven't read the rules but there were many types of columns used on the battlefield throughout the ACW. A clear definition of Attack column or Field column would be essential to understand the rules purpose.

My go to reference is "The Bloody Crucible Of Courage – Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the ACW" by Brent Nosworthy – an excellent read for the theory and reality of tactics throughout the 19th century.

In the same vein, the utility of field columns may not truly become evident to us until we have had the opportunity to maneuver a brigade of few thousand men back and forth across some Virginia countryside for a month or two. The devil is always in the details.

It think this is why treatises, drill manuals and personal accounts don't make sense at times… we haven't working with the same elements… which is why it is often a good idea to simply believe the practical instructions of 'how to do it' even when it doesn't make complete sense until we can try it in the same circumstances.

I've just noticed a piece from the excellent Regimental fire and fury rules. It involves a discussion of attacks with field columns.
Field column – very miss-understood, an idea that came from the early days of game rules – Field Column as Attack Column.
At the Regimental level, yes the regiment could move with a two company front on the field, with the balance of the Regiment behind in two Company lines, but this was not a 'Battle formation'.
Spotsylvania is often mentioned as an example, the column attack lead by Upton into history…
The problem is there is no column as we think of in the hobby, the column was made up from 12 selected Regiments from a number of Brigades that were trusted Veteran units, Upton created 'three regiment' Adhoc units, each of these groups/units of three Regiments formed up in line abreast, so in game terms one long line. What Upton then did was to place another line of 'three Regiments' in line right behind the first, then the second, then the third-- to bring mass to the point of attack.
Each line in the larger formation had a different tactical mission, with each line or wave under the leadership of a senior regimental officer who was chosen for this temporary role.
These formations were difficult to almost impossible to manage – they went "Forward" and even this would and in use cause disorder within the ranks.

The second example used is the larger mass attack by Hancock's II Corp just two days after the attack lead by Upton, the idea was 'Well that almost worked so we will just use more men', here again to look at the details we find lines stacked, but not the formation of an attack column we think of when gaming.

Also from the same discussion

And the Field Columns get a +1 as a target, and are easily enfiladed for fire (another +1), and easily outflanked for movement (-2). And they are great targets for a charge with a devastating -3

So it looks like in RF&F it's difficult but can be made to work in certain situations.
If Rich Hasenauer allows it then chances are its right.

At the Regimental level, yes the regiment could move with a two company front on the field, with the balance of the Regiment behind in two Company lines, but this was not a 'Battle formation'.

That is incorrect, it in fact WAS used as a Battle Formation at Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and Petersburg.

here again to look at the details we find lines stacked, but not the formation of an attack column we think of when gaming.

Yes primarily they adopted Upton's formation, but Barlow's Division DID use the Column of Divisions for their regiments (two company front) for the attack on May 12th.

The success or failure of these formations had more to do with the amount of cover and distance in which these attacks were made more so then the formation itself. At Spotsylvania they worked. At Cold Harbor they failed. At Petersburg they would work in the final assault that broke the line.

Remember that the it was the Union that was using these and excessive casualties was not a consideration for them, it was all about winning.

Kim

And by Harker's brigade at Kennesaw Mountain, though without success.

I read Earl J Hess' book on Kennesaw and completely missed that one. It was probably used for either lack of room or to cut down disruption when passing through their own lines prior to the attack.

Maybe a rule for columns of lines should have been added as it seems to have been more popular.