"Question about "open order" in the AWI..." Topic

I've seen several folks on the boards make reference to both the Continentals and the British adopting a "more open order" during the war vs. the closer elbow to elbow tight formations.

I've done a fair amount of reading on the war and know the general tactics and drill of the period, but this business of open order intrigues me.

Can anyone point me towards references to this?

How open was "open"? Are we talking that they doubled the space between men? Something less than that?

When people say it was adopted as the war went on, does this mean that it happened only gradually and wasn't seen much until later on in the war, or did it happen at the outset? Was this something done more in one theater vs. another, or one campaign vs. another?

Finally, what was the reason? To lessen casualties? I can't imagine it would have helped logistically because it would have expanded the frontages of units and caused them to be longer and take up more space along the line.

Just looking for some context and perspective on this.

Thanks in advance.

The best modern reference is "With Zeal and Bayonets Only" by Matthew Spring (ISBN-10: 0806141522). He discusses the British army's tactics throughout the war and the adoption of two rank open order formations in particular. This was adopted by the British in 1776 on Howe's order – two rank order was practiced at Halifax after Boston and two rank open order at Staten Island – and by the Rebels more gradually as the war progressed.

The British were using two rank open order in both Burgoyne's and Howe's campaigns of 1777.

33rdfoot.org/open-files.html

Good information here.

"With Zeal and Bayonets Only" is indeed the business.

The principal advantage of an extended, two-deep line was maximisation of available firepower on a wider front. This was made the most of the British army's advantages of strong discipline and accumulated experience while being handicapped by limited and, at any given time, fairly finite manpower.

The two-deep line had been introduced during the Seven Years War in America (F&IW) when it was concluded that fighting irregulars with a small core of French Royal troops and no cavalry, rendered unnecessary the solid formations deemed necessary on European battlefields.

William Howe learned his trade in the earlier war and together with his brother George, killed in the advance on Ticonderoga in 1759, was an enthusiastic proponent of light infantry skill in America, which he believed provided a basis for more flexible tactics to be employed by infantry in general.

As mentioned by 22nd Foot above, Howe put this into practice when preparing for the campaign against New York in 1776. As well as looser battle formations, simplified clothing, minimal personal loads and reduced baggage also reflected his 'American' approach. Unfortunately for the British this apparent dynamism did not extend to his generalship at a higher level.

The late Greg Novak addresses this issue on page (25) of Volume I of his books 'The American War of Independence'.
The 1764 (36) man Platoon fought in three ranks. They would hold a frontage of (8 to 10) yards in this formation.
Howe's 'loose' reorganization had the same (36) man Platoon fighting in two ranks (everybody could fire). The platoon would cover a larger frontage of (20 to 24) yards.

One more good reason to own this set of Very Excellent Books!

Tom Semian
Avalon, PA. 15202

Baranovich, Gen. Howe had commanded light infantry during the French & Indian War, and experienced fighting in the denser terrain of North America. He experimented with his ideas subsequently, and when given command of the King's forces in 1775 in America, began to transition the British infantry from their European Continental 3-rank line, into two ranks, and specified looser distance between troops with order, open order, and extended order spacing between files. This was done to enhance the maneuverability of infantry battalions when traversing broken ground in the denser terrain of the American theater of operations. Because N. America's terrain was unsuitable for heavy impact cavalry, and the movement of large bodies of formed cavalry in general, the change in depth of the line could be achieved without fear of losing an infantry battalion's defensive strength.

With Zeal is so good I have bought it and sold it twice.
Best reference for AWI.

Concur on Zeal. It's pretty much the gold standard.

The 33d Foot website info is very good, also.