"ACW Attack Columns and inter penetrating friendly line" Topic

Setting aside the wisdom of such moves and ignoring firepower for the moment, I'd like to know how rules cover such eventualities and what this might look like from a bird's eye view.

I'm not an ACW player and do not know a whole lot about the period, so please keep that in mind if this sounds overly simplistic.

Our club is experimenting with charges and countercharges. I'm wondering what a regiment in extended line would look like.

I'm picturing two ranks, with the individuals at one arm's length apart. I am not sure what an attack column would like, but I'm picturing a phalanx of men, roughly shoulder to shoulder.

Second question, would such a column move forward through a friendly regiment which is on line, counter -charging an opposing line and causie NO havoc to the friendly regiment. This is all academic, ignoring the wisdom or historic accuracy of the move.

The "Extended Line" formation is a wargamer's myth that has no relation to reality. On very rare occaisions, like defending a fixed posiiton like a trench or fence line a regiment might thin down to a single rank, but you are not going to find them doing that in the open field.

An "attack column" would usually be a column of divisions, which is a formation two companies wide by 5 divisions deep. It could a 'closed column' with the distance between the divisions (front to back) only a few paces. This would creater an almost solid block of troops. Or it could be a column 'at half distance' or 'full distance' which had a one or two company-length distance between the divisions.

For such a formation to interpentrate a battle line would be difficult, but not impossible. The best way would be for two of the companies in the line to move out of the way, opening up a gap for the column to pass through. Alternately, the men in the line could lie down and let the column march over them (ouch!), Or, the column could just bull its way through, which would cause some amount of disorder in both units.

I think I would have to ask what circumstances you would envisage such a move in the first place.

"Attack Columns" were not unknown in the period but more often than not were employed against fortified or entrenched positions, in an attempt to maximise the impact at a given point.

Their use in the open field was not that common and really belongs in the Napoleonic era due to a different appreciation of tactics, terrain and a big jump in firepower.

Of course that didn't stop them being used in the Franco Prussian War but that was under a completely different military tradition.

Didn't Upton use open columns in his attack at Spotsylvania? And then At Cold Harbor weren't columns used?

Battalion attack columns were seen early in the war, 1861-62. The Union used some at Kernstown, the Confederates at Corinth. Waud's sketches of the fighting at Second Bull Run indicate some use of columns there.

A battalion in "attack column" or column of divisions (a pair of companies) would be 10 ranks deep, each pair of ranks with a partial third rank of officers and NCOs, file closers. So a 400 strong regimnet in this formation would have a frontage of less than 40 men, 10 or 15 deep depending on how you count it. Such columns were more linear than we usually show with our tin soldiers.

One thing to remember is that there was no cult of column attacks in the US military. Without this being stressed in training, soldiers would not gain much in the way of a morale boost from the formation. If you are told such a formation will break the enemy, you might believe it. Otherwise you might wonder why you are under fire in such a formation.

Upton's column was 12 battalions in 4 waves, with an interval between and specified roles for each wave. This inspired the later massed columns at Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor, which rather than well conceived were massive.

It is worth noting that many talk about infantry formations loosening up during the war. Yet regiments were crowded in close order at Gettysburg. The flank markers at the high tide are mighty close together. Upton went on to write the US Army drill manual after the war. It said close order 2-rank line was the standard.

Don't know about columns going through lines but I read about two passages of line through lines. At Corinth, officers of two brigades conferred first. The lead brigade lay down and the fresh brigade walked over them. No confusion. The second case (I forget the battle) saw one brigade march through another. No conference before, both standing: confusion the result.

Scott is correct on both points.

"Extended Line" is a total myth that is high on my ACW Myth busters List and as Scott says at best troops fought in single line, not shoulder to shoulder defending entrenchments as did the Confederates at Petersburg.

The attack column as Scott described was used in limited fashion at 2nd Bull Run by some troops. At Spotsylvania one of Hancock's divisions adopted the column of divisions for the attack on the Mule Shoe. At Cold Harbor several divisions and brigades employed this formation for the attack, specifically two of the Heavy Artillery regiments. Finally this formation was used during several of the final assaults at Petersburg.

In game terms, you will take horrific casualties if you are under fire for an extended period of time, but if you can close in on the object of the attack, weight of numbers will often push through.

At Spotsylvania troops attacked at dawn from cover at close range to minimize the enemy fire and broke through the line. At Cold Harbor, too much open ground to cover and Union units took excessive casualties and the attack was halted without making very much headway.

Assault Column formations should have a penalty for taking fire and a bonus if they can actually close on the enemy (which should be VERY difficult).

"Extended Line" should just be ignored as troops were not in anyway trained to employ it.

Kim

These comments are from my reading of The Maps of Chickamauga. TMP link

By that battle the Union army (at least the Army of the Cumberland) was both attacking and defending with the regiments of a brigade in two lines (the second reinforcing the first) and the individual regiments deployed in line. It was only when the defensive lines got stretched out on the second day that all of the regiments of certain brigades were in the same line without a brigade reserve.

But the Confederates (both Army of Tennessee and its Army of Northern Virginia reinforcements) were still attacking and defending with the regiments of the brigade all in a single line. These tactics resulted in unwieldy long lines that were difficult to control, even by the regimental commanders, and hard to keep the regiments tied together. There were a number of instances of one or more regiments of a brigade wandering off while trying to keep closed up with the brigade to their flank, thus splitting the parent brigade and reducing its combat power. At no point in that battle did the Confederates adopt an attack column, even at the end of the second day when they were assaulting Thomas' line along the Snodgrass Ridge/hill chain.

As far as the "extended line," the only time something like this is mentioned at Chickamauga was when a single regiment was deployed "in skirmish order" to protect a division's flank or cover a long gap in the Confederate line. the rest of the time the regiment's (both Union and Confederate) were, as others have said, deployed in the standard 2-rank deep line with file closers.

Jim

Tyler's Brigade at 1st Kernstown also attacked in columns of divisions, although reading the reports, I strongly suspect that he had not INTENDED to attack in columns :) Tyler simply came upon the Confederates on Sandy Ridge sooner than he had expected and didn't have time to deploy.

I believe columns of battalions would have been more common, that is, each battalion (regiment) in normal line, but one behind the other. Especially after regiments had dwindled in strength to half or less of the original 1,000 men.

I am quite surprised to hear the comments related to extended line, which I would consider skirmish or open order.
I am just finishing reading 'Shock Troops of the Confederacy – The Sharpshooter Battalions of the Army of the Confederacy' by Fred Ray. The whole premise of the book is that the Confederacy, particularly in the East, and to some extent the Union, had specialized battalions, whose purpose on the field of battle was to operate in anything but a close order formation.

link

Very interesting.

For Trajanus:
The specific situation went something like this.
The union advanced south, in 'extended line'. The lead regiment was screening regiments in attack column directly behind their line.
.
A Confederate regiment charged north in extended line.
.
One of the Union regiments in attack column then reacted and countercharged through the lead Union regiment with no penalty. Generals were nearby so there was no command issue.
.
A yellow flag was thrown and we withdrew that part of the move. It's a relatively simplistic fast-play set of rules, we are developing. All of a sudden attack columns are being used frequently passing through friendly lines which seems very strange for ACW.

From my reading of some memoirs of Union soldiers from the Army of the Tennessee in 1864 the passage of lines of formed troops thru skirmishers was done, but only if the participating regiments were veterans / experienced. If the soldiers found that there were to be green / inexperienced troops involved in the maneuver, they would refuse to have any interpenetration of lines, as the green troops always screwed up resulting in disorder and chaos. It was safer to reform the units than to interpenetrate lines in those situations.

Ligniere, if 'extended line' is supposed to be a line of skirmishers, I have no problem with that. But many rules sets seem to have both extended line and skirmish formations in them. Usually the extended line has the regiment taking up about twice as much frontage as normal which would indicate thinning down to a single rank. Skirmishers, on the other hand, should only have about 1/10th the density of troops in line.

I believe JR2 has both formations.

Yes, JR2 has both skirmish and extended line. I would make a house rule that regiments can only use that formation behind earthworks.

I know several regiments in Newton's division attacked in column of divisions at Kennesaw Mountain, but I'm not sure at the moment from which brigade or brigades.

Col. Campbell is correct in his observation about the different deployment of Union and Confederate brigades. These differences appear to have had their origins in the different drill manuals used in the Civil War. The Confederates largely used Hardee's Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics, which in terms of the evolutions of brigades offered no changes from Scott's earlier work. In Vol. 3 of Scott's Infantry Tactics he assumes a division would be made up of two brigades totaling eight battalions (regiments). Each brigade would always deploy in a single line. If a brigade was to be supported this would be done by a second brigade deployed in line to the rear of the first.

In contrast, Union forces adopted Casey's Infantry Tactics in 1862. Casey advocated that if a brigade needed to be supported it would deploy in two lines, the front regiments being supported by the balance of the brigade in line to the rear of the front line.

This is not to say that the Confederates did not at times adopt a similar deployment. I believe the difference is that the Federals had a doctrinal reason to do so, whereas the Confederates had to learn such a deployment based on battlefield experience.

For the background of the adoption of the different manuals I would suggest Michael Bonura, Under the Shadow of Napoleon: French Influence on the American Way of Warfare from the War of 1812 to the Outbreak of WWII (2012).

Cleburne is correct, it was Newton's Division where you find this. Harker drew up his Brigade with his four regiments in column of divisions (each regiment with two companies in line, followed by two more in line, etc., etc.) The men were closed up – (not much space between lines, no opportunity to maneuver). Each regiment was in this deployment, each regiment following, a very narrow and a very long formation.
When the advance started, Harker's Brigade had to cross the "Skirmish Line" which was dug in, this caused a level of delay and disorder. As each line of column of divisions would pass over, the time the following lines had to wait was increasing, the net effect is like the "toy dog Slinky". As the head of this formation was hitting the rebels the tail was just crossing their own skirmish line.
Not the hard hitting Field or Attack Column we see on the table.

It is useful to note that a Column can be deployed in one of 3 ways which effects it's depth.

1.) Closed

2.) Half-Distane

3.) Full-Distance

A column closed means that there is basically 18" to 24" between each line of companies.

A column formed at half distance means that between each line of companies there is an interval equal to half of the frontage.

A column formed at full distance means that there is an interval between each line of companies equal to the frontage of the column.

Thus, a battalion deployed in columns of divisions and formed at half-distance would have an interval between each division equal to half of the division frontage.

Also, when talking about Upton's charge at Spotsylvania, it is important to remember that although the men had their weapons loaded, the weapons were uncapped. That is to say that there was no percussion cap placed upon the cone, and the hammer rested upon the cone. Their bayonets were fixed. What Upton wanted to prevent was anyone stopping to fire along the way.

It was a simple matter to prime your weapon if you needed to fire. Just a few seconds, vice the 30 or more required to fully load one.

V/R

In Vol. 3 of Scott's Infantry Tactics he assumes a division would be made up of two brigades totaling eight battalions (regiments). Each brigade would always deploy in a single line. If a brigade was to be supported this would be done by a second brigade deployed in line to the rear of the first.

I'm sure that Michael Bonura would have noted that the eight battalions in two brigades was typical of the examples given in both French and British Napoleonic regulations and treatises.

Scott gives the methods for the passage of lines on page 192 and plate XII. I get the impression that most folks don't believe it was used during the War, though I believe Hardee and Casey also describe that method.

Bonura is quite clear on the fact that Scott (and in turn Hardee) was drawing on European precedents. The big difference was Casey allowed for a brigade to be drawn up in two lines. Scott and Hardee favoured a single line. And considering that the vast majority of officers were learning on the job they would tend to fall back on what was in their textbook.