"Ordre en échelon" Topic

G'Day Gents,

I have noticed that in quite a few Napoleonic wargames, and with photos provided to us by those on this forum and others, hardly any player has his formations en échelon.

For those who actually use them in a game, to what advantage does échelon par bataillon, échelon par regiment, échelon par brigade give players in their game?

Best Regards
Art

Unless there is a specific rule that gives the formations some extra zing, the only thing that I have seen is that the echeloned units help protect those to the front from being flanked. They would then flank the flankers.

But that only helps on one side, or flank, not the other.

Tom

The attack in echelon is one of the biggest victims of helicopter view point in war games. There was a huge discussion on it a year or two back. I don't think anyone came up with any fixes. It's almost like an inborn fault.

The intent of an echelon attack is that it first strikes one end of an enemy's line and then spreads along it as more and more troops are committed. The enemy, not knowing it is an echelon attack will send his reserves to the threatened flank and thus weaken the rest of his line, leaving it vulnerable to the attack when it spreads to the center. The classic example of this is the Confederate attack on the 2nd day of Gettysburg (which very nearly worked).

The problem with replicating this on a wargames table is that all the troops are in plain view and you can see what your opponent is up to. Some sort of hidden movement system would probably be needed.

The attack in echelon is one of the biggest victims of helicopter view point in war games. There was a huge discussion on it a year or two back. I don't think anyone came up with any fixes. It's almost like an inborn fault.

I'm not sure whether this is true or not unless you are speaking of a large formation such as a corps or an entire army Frederick-style.

The intent of an echelon attack is that it first strikes one end of an enemy's line and then spreads along it as more and more troops are committed. The enemy, not knowing it is an echelon attack will send his reserves to the threatened flank and thus weaken the rest of his line, leaving it vulnerable to the attack when it spreads to the center. The classic example of this is the Confederate attack on the 2nd day of Gettysburg (which very nearly worked).

The problem with replicating this on a wargames table is that all the troops are in plain view and you can see what your opponent is up to. Some sort of hidden movement system would probably be needed.

Is there an historical example? It was an attempted echelon attack by the Confederates on the second day of Gettysburg. It didn't seem to surprise anyone… the Confederates weren't hidden.

I thought one of the advantages of an echelon attack was that it allowed a force to focus an attack on a specific point while protecting the attack's flank, keeping a good portion of the force unengaged, in a position to flank the enemy line if possible. Often the echelon was pointed at an enemy flank.

The mechanics of those benefits aren't that difficult to reproduce.

I think this was discussed earlier…
It makes a difference if:
The leading unit/s at the point of the attack is/are strong.
The enemy is at a disadvantage at the point of the attack (flanked perhaps?)
The advancing troops are refusing a relatively weak flank or it has limited supports (perhaps no cavalry to guard the flank?).

Of course, a prepared assault on weakened/softened positions/enemy line made be followed by an attack with both flanks refused.

It makes sense to refuse a "reverse flank" and this is the weakest in terms of the command not being able to respond quite so readily to enemy threats. And Art himself, of course, can give a more full explanation about this ;-)

And so, if your rules include something of the functioning of leading, regulating and directing units then, this will be accounted for.

I've enjoyed both of Art's threads very much… I think the answer is that if our games forced unit bases to match ground scale and the unit of maneuver was the battalion and then within the battalion, the peleton, and you had to follow drill--at least to the extent that Chef de Bataillon does…then you could pick up Ney's "Military Studies" and use it to successfully execute a flanking attack on the table. Defending in lines would make complete sense, and the tabletop would start looking much more like the events being modelled. Otoh, quite a bit too much for a couple, three hours every other Thursday night at Jim's house. :-) Unless you're willing to go to this level, I think you just have to accept that the abstractions being made (even for say, 1:20) make it unlikely that things will unfold in anything but a quasi-historical way, which seems fine.

I have noticed that in quite a few Napoleonic wargames, and with photos provided to us by those on this forum and others, hardly any player has his formations en échelon.

For those who actually use them in a game, to what advantage does échelon par bataillon, échelon par regiment, échelon par brigade give players in their game?

Sure, I use them all the time. In my favoured Polemos rules, defending infantry gets a +1 for each secure flank. Therefore, it is standard practice to try and hit the opposing infantry units sequentially to strip away those secure flanks (the attacker gets to choose the sequence of the attacks, so they can all happen in single turn, if you like; so in my games anyway, photos might not show the echeloned attack – I usually take pictures at the end of a turn). Naturally, the logic works for a "wedge" too, but generally it will be in echelon, as hopefully at least the end unit of the opposing infantry will only have a single secure flank.

I have used "Ordre en échelon" attach at the Division/Brigade level in may of my games (per the logic mentioned per Whirlwind's post except the rules may handle a little differently).
The rules were/are Empire III/V and Shako.
Once the initial success by the lead battalion ( best unit and lead by a leader, the overload of each sequential attack is tough to stop with out a second line in support to address.

Greg R

Right so, the Prussians were extremely keen on doing it in 1806 – didn`t seem to do them much good though !

I think there's a sort of Jomini vs Clausewitz thing going on here. Jomini favoured "art of war" with cunning deployments and clever manoeuvres. There's a suggestion that he wrote Ney's Military Studies (unless I'm muddling it).

Clausewitz suggested that such neat practices break down in the incomplete information and friction of war. He favoured depth and brute force – with attritional tactics (skirmishers and artillery) dominating the earlier stages (and not parade ground lines and columns exchanging drill-book volleys). Battles can be portrayed as trials of materiel and willpower – with the management of chance being a key command skill.

Wargamers' preferences seem to divide along similar lines. Most prefer the Jomini idea. Neat manoeuvres of lines and columns with short, sharp volley and bayonet combat. (I'm caricaturing both Jomini and gamers of course). It makes for a good short game and a test of skill.

Others (including me) have a more Clausewitzian outlook, with the friction of war and chance playing a big role, and giving attritional tactics their due (which means rules that make them less tedious).

Echelon tactics at the level of battalions moving in echelon with each other, rather than whole divisions, is in the former playbook, but much less so in the latter – though it may have something to commend it when pushing into the unknown without committing your whole force.

Apologies for overdoing the philosophy, but it strikes me more and more as I observe the way people play out battles.

G'Day Gents

I would like to thank everyone for their responses, with that said, let me ask a second question.

In the game design you use, is there a modifier for overlapping / full / partial when contact is made?

Such as a defending unit 6 inches wide and the attacking unit 3 inches wide?

Best Regards
Art

BTW: Mathew, the entire French Army was being trained on the general principles, and general rules that are found in Neys Military Studies from 1803 to 1805.

"Right so, the Prussians were extremely keen on doing it in 1806 – didn`t seem to do them much good though !"

Where did they do it – in 1806 – on the actual battle field?

Hi Art,

Yes, I do have modifiers for overlapping and wider units – that is to say for lines over columns.

The Line v. Column modifier is for the second turn of combat and thereafter. This is to account for a line`s firepower advantage.
A columnar attack will succeed if there is a disparity between defender and attacker, but if a column has not beaten the line in the initial turn of combat it tends to get held up and may then find itself in some trouble.
This is because the modifier that is applied is a strong one and equates to a "disorder" effect.

My overlapping modifier (which I think I mentioned earlier) was maybe inspired by DBA rules… I`ve taken it a little further in that the modifier applies only if the overlapping unit is not engaged with another enemy unit or skirmishers

This modifier is not so powerful as the Line v. Column one; and overlapping only modifies the die roll rather than the end effect.

In my combat rules, each side`s unit die roll may give an extra point which again, has a disorder effect.

The overlapping modifier may be applied to large v smaller units too, but again, it is no more important than potential unit class, morale or order factors.

Mike.

I`m sorry vW, am I mistaken that they did this at Jena?

can you tell me who – when and where on the battle field a classic attack en échelon did take place – at Jena?

Yes, before I couldn`t quite recall where I`d read it but it was from an article on the Prussian & Saxon armies at Jena by Peter Hofschroer:

"Ruechel's infantry marched through Kapellendorf and formed up for the attack in echelons by regiment. It must have been about 1pm by the time all this had happened. Hohenlohe arrived and about 1.30pm led these troops along with part of his own cavalry in a futile attack to gain time for his broken divisions to fall back. A defensive posture would have achieved a similar result without such losses. The front echelon reached the peak of the Sperlingberg to the south of Gross-Romstedt and decided to attack Soult's artillery when Guyot's light cavalry brigade and one of Murat's dragoon brigades charged."

It was also mentioned more briefly in Chandler`s Osprey: "Jena 1806"

"…he [Ruechel] chose to advance over the stream, and take post in echelon order upon the plain between the two villages mentioned [Gross Romstedt & Kotschau] with two flanks unsecured."

Petre has it in echelons on page 142 also …

Using echelon is one thing, using echelon for an oblique attack is another but this requires space that is often only available on a larger table or where the figure scale gives enough space for this. Where you have wall to wall figures there is no potential for this and unless overlap mechanisms give more benefit than "friendly units providing flank support" then what advantage is there.

I suspect that the battalion leading the echelon would be targeted by every battery and oblique musket fire that could be brought to bear given that few rules prevent unrealistic artillery target control.

Bugeaud mentions this on P173.

Bugeaud, Ney and Jomini mention the need for echelon to be practised as it was considered to be a complex manouvre. Perhaps this should only be permitted to experienced brigades or have a risk of confusion for less trained troops.

"Right so, the Prussians were extremely keen on doing it in 1806 – didn`t seem to do them much good though !"

Where did they do it – in 1806 – on the actual battle field?

At Jena Garwart's Division advanced en echelon angled towards the village of Vierzehnheiligen. However, it flattened out and became a line when Hohenlohe hesitated to carry out the attack.

Lannes first attack against Vierzehnheiligen was also done en echelon.

Overlapping.

Where is was this done to any extent? When I see it done, it is whole battalions moving against the flank of an enemy rather than say a battalion overlapping another with a shorter front. Were lines 'bent' in to fire or attack a flank of a smalle unit?

Yes, here at Bussaco: link

Paddy Griffith details the 50th performing a similar manoeuvre at Vimiero in Forward Into Battle.

I`m not sure what you`re asking here Bill.

Art, I guess Clausewitz was reacting against the idea of "general principles", which remained the way of things in most armies well into the mid 19th Century. Clausewitz's ideas did not become common currency until later.

My source on all this is Gat's book on the development of military thought.

Sorry the Gremlins struck!

Bill,

"Overlapping" in DBA terms is different to "flanking".

It`s all done very neatly in DBA rules because elements are obliged to engage in hand-to-hand combat perfectly aligned parallel to one another.
With units of varying sizes and frontages in the real world, I should think that it happened fairly frequently.

I`ll attempt a very rough diagram below to illustrate:

AAAAABBBBCCCCCDDDD
XXXXXYYYYZZZZZ

Two lines in combat A,B,C & D verses X,Y & Z.
In my rules A,B,C,D overlaps X,Y,Z.
There are 3 combats to be resolved here.
Unit D has no enemy within "combat range" and so overlapping unit "Z", it adds a +1 to unit "C`s". unit die roll.

You`ll notice that the units in the diagram above vary in size.

Hello Art!

I use it and I think nobody else in my group realizes the advantages. In the attack I use it to stagger the impact if I think the defender might be able to withstand my crushing assault. On the defense I also use it to refuse a flank which allows me to respond faster to a flank attack.

I've been doing it successfully for years and I don't think anybody has even noticed. They just think I didn't have the movement or points or forgot about them.

Our basing is all the same so overlaps don't mean anything unless it's two units against one. In that case the second base is considered to be supporting.

Best regards,

Glenn

G'Day Gents

Therefore a modifier for overlapping / full / partial when there is contact, is due to musketry or morale?

If it is due to musketry, is it due to oblique fire or advancing the wing(s)?

If it is due to oblique fire, then perhaps everyone should read the thread on arc of fire

TMP link

If the game design uses a modifier for musketry, but the mechanics uses a "black box"…meaning there is no need to move the overlapping elements for the bonus, is this not defeating one reason that the ordre en echelon was used for?

Best Regards
Art

BTW:

Mike – "Bugeaud mentions this on P173" but which book and is it in an English translation or French, for I have 7 books ;-)

Mathew – one has to be careful when reading such authors as Clausewitz, Chambray, Bugeaud, Jomini, Foucart and others. Because they use military history (and for some their experience) to explain general principles and how it may be applied to new general rules, with the intent of promoting a new military system to an audience with a different military set of regulations. Remember the book they are writing is not intended for us today.

In other words, look at the date of when the author is writing, then just take care to what are his past examples, his present examples, and his proposals that should be applied to the current military system.

Michael:

Whirlwind gave good examples. I was looking for examples of a single battalion throwing companies against enemy flanks when 'overlapping' them as opposed to whole battalions moving against an enemy flank… and there are Bussaco examples of that too.

In the end 'outflanking' the enemy can be done several different ways…

Art asked;

Therefore a modifier for overlapping / full / partial when there is contact, is due to musketry or morale?

If it is due to musketry, is it due to oblique fire or advancing the wing(s)?

I was looking at 'advancing the wings, whether for fire or close combat. Personally, oblique fire has very limited possible angles, particular when within fifty yards of the enemy.

Best Regards

Art,… and Bill,

Yes, it`s musketry (my diagram was a little too rough and unit "Z" should extend to oppose unit "C" partially) as "combat range" is directly ahead of the unit – perpendicular. This is without involving oblique fire.

Advancing a wing is a manoeuvre which, in my rules anyhow, requires both initiative and a test of the performance of the unit involved, so this is also possible, but it is not easy and it is not without obvious risks.

Art, my source is the Nosworthy – Writings on the French Napoleonic art of war. The Practice of War appears to be a translation of "Maxims, Counsels and instructions on the art of war." 4th ed 1857 Paris. I cannot be sure if the page numbers in the side margins refer to the translation or the original.

These appear to have been based on the document written for the 56th Regiment.

An attack by Ordre en échelon has the following significant advantages which seems to have been missed.

{ 1}
Each successive attack after the first suffers a lesser amount of defending fire because the defender has depleted part of its fire against the previous unit. This is illustrated in the diagram below.

west <<===>> east

xxxxx%%%%%UUUUUUUUUUUUUU&&&&&oooooZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
                             AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA            
          BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB    
CCCCCCCCCC

This diagram (admittedly pretty poor stuff) shows an attack en enchelon by 20 letter wide battalions "A", "B" and "C" moving northward against a line of infantry. For purposes of illustration, let us say that battalion A has already occurred and they have either fled, come to grips or are standing off and shooting at the enemy directly to their front.

Let us consider the situation of attacking battalion B. Some of the fire that "normally" would be done at "B" is not fired at "B". ("normally" is "B" attacking by itself in line).

• The troops at "O" have already fired at "A" and are now reloading or engaged with "A" or using muskets that have started to foul.
  
• The troops at "&" may have already fired at "A" and have unloaded muskets. (Note that skirmishers may have masked the plan and approach of "B")
  
• The troops at "U" fire in the usual fashion at "B".
  The troops at "%" may fire at "B" as did those at "&". (A gift to attacking battalion "C".)
  

So from the start, each battalion is taking less fire by the amount represented by "&" and "O" compared to an isolated battalion attack and by "O" compared to a line attack.

{2}
The en echelon attack has created a weak spot in the defending line at the "&" section. For one, they are sitting there with empty muskets. They have less to defend themselves and another enemy unit is charging them again. Also, they have seen an attack to their side and have had rising anticipation and fear of the future for when their turn comes. Morale might break and a panic result.

{3}
In the example above, the defending line is one continuous unit for ease of explanation of the different zones. Actually, there would be a number of breaks between battalions, an factor that would favor the attackers. For example, If a defending battalion was "straddled" by an attacking battalion, several things might happen. In one case, the entire battalion might fire at "B". Some of the fire from the "west" side of that battalion(in figure above) would be wasted as at long range and poor angle to hurt "B" very much. It would also give empty muskets to them to oppose en echelon attacking battalion "C". It would be unlikely that the colonel could control fire down to the company level every time.

{4}
The attackers would not necessarily be unset by the failure of prior single battalion attacks as they would be busy marching forward, expecting some repulses and the repulsed units would probably have reverted to some mid-range firefight. Note that if the weak hinge ("&") was to fail in "B's" attack, "A" could take advantage of it and advance. I would expect that this possibility was known to the attackers and they would be looking for it and take advantage of it as part of the understanding of the nature of the attack method. It would also be nice to have a backup battalion in a division column to exploit such a hole.

{5} Note that most of the time successful attacks never came to physical contact but were due to morale failures. By breaking what might have been a single line attack into multiple attacks, you provide many more "morale die rolls" to break the defender. Once broken at one point, the effect would be expected to spread.

{6} Unless your battle is on a level, featureless plain, there are going to be some tactical features that will discomfort the defender. A "line on line" attack would make little use of these. An en echelon attack might have each sub-attack exploiting one of them.

G'Day Alex,

Thank you for your posting, but if I may ask you to rethink your example, because it goes against the general principles.

I agree that it is normally thought by contemporaries today that battalions always fired all muskets at once…and indeed there are examples when battalion fire was executed. -with examples of the results due to this execution.

But we must also take into account if early or late fire was executed, and more than likely we must account for the proper use of the general rules, as to whether or not they were used correctly.

Meaning that a body of troops would only fire at one time with 50% of its firepower, by even and odd pelotons / demi bataillons or even or odd bataillons.

One thing is important, only the chef de bataillon could order the execution of fire by demi bataillon or bataillon.

General principles also prescribe that once the execution of musketry fire begun, it was expected to continue and the volleys were repeated as often as circumstances permitted, as long as there was a reserve volley for the enemy as he drew within 30 to 40 paces.

Artillery batteries were also expected to have a reserve for this very reason as well.

TMP link

Best Regards
Art

one maybe advantage, when you attack in a complete line – and one battalion stops, to return fire, the whole line will be imobilised otherwise they would brake up formation.

In case you attack en écholon, parts of the échlons may still advance while others stopped to fire.

Art,
Thank you for your rely and, yes, I agree (after a second's remembering) that firing was broken down to various controlled sub-units of the battalion and not by entire battalion (except rarely). However, the several points advanced about potential advantages of an en echolon attack still remain. There is the potential to draw extra fire onto the first attacker that will make the second attacker less shot at and more successful. There is also the increase in the odds that one of the separate attacks, might cause a wavering or loss of morale of the defender. There is also the morale effect of the defender awaiting a series of attacks and the attacker of giving them. There is also the ability of each attacker selecting a different weak point in the line, which might not be the case of a general line attacking another. ………Just adding things to think about in evaluating rule sets and in examining historical accounts from a different inquisitive perspective.

Alex,
Most of the advantages you list are dependent upon the defenders misjudging the situation – things could develop in a contrary manner, favouring the defender – as you point out having an advantage in the position/ground held, with skirmisher covering the line, fire is with-held – "late fire" as Art mentions, an effective fire may cause the attacker to be checked, or waver hesitantly, etc… These are advantages and disadvantages to both sides in all attacks, not just those made in echelon.

G'Day Gents,

According to the Reglement there are two directions that a body of troops may execute musketry:

1…feu direct / direct fire which is directly to the front

2…feu oblique (feu de flanc) / oblique fire which is broken down to feu oblique a droite (right) and feu oblique a gauche (left)

With the execution of feu oblique it can only be executed with feu de bataillon or feu de demi-bataillon, and never by a sub-tactical faction as a peloton.

It is also stated that a bataillon can never combine / mix feu direct with feu oblique (all this is straight out of l' ordonnance). A bataillon may only fire direct or oblique.

The French state that the execution of the feu oblique with bataillon fire was seldom used, as do the British, because the feu oblique was too dangerous, and it requires the enemy to be attacking at a perfect angle for both demi-bataillons musketry to be effective.

It is for this reason that it was more effective to advance a peloton(s) or wing to execute a direct fire on the assailing enemy.

Therefore, if a defending body of troops, even with an overlapping / full / partial width over the assailing body, if the defender cannot advance a peloton(s) / wing to execute a direct fire on the assailing enemy, due to the enemy body of troops being supported en echelon (as an example) there should be no modifier for the defender.

Best Regards
Art