DisasterWargamer | 19 Jan 2016 3:57 p.m. PST |
Any recommended good books on them or scenarios? |
paperbattles | 19 Jan 2016 4:04 p.m. PST |
I read on a lot of books that usually a battalion during the SYW had a strength of about 550 men (average) on three rows. This means about 160 men per row (plus drummers, NCO's etc). Now I also read that a man occupied a space of about 70 cm so for a total width for a battalion of 112 m as a front. I think that during a battle, advancing in between the fog of the shots, avoiding trees and bushes, overtaking different little slopes of the ground, or simply marching with a musket would increase the space for every man to 1 meter, so a front of 160 m wide
|
Legion 4 | 19 Jan 2016 4:24 p.m. PST |
Ah … the TMP gremlins have struck again … |
79thPA | 19 Jan 2016 6:35 p.m. PST |
According to Charles Grant in "The War Game" a Prussian battalion occupied 125 yards |
DisasterWargamer | 19 Jan 2016 6:39 p.m. PST |
|
paperbattles | 19 Jan 2016 11:42 p.m. PST |
"According to Charles Grant in "The War Game" a Prussian battalion occupied 125 yards" 79th PA. I know, just I find really hard to putr together in reality while marching on a battlefield 160 men in 125 yards, i.e. 1 man every 0,78 yard. Try to measure shoulder to shoulder, consider the uniform and the rest. it's simply impossible, maybe on a football field.. well but a battlefield is quite different; hence my doubts. thanks |
steamingdave47 | 20 Jan 2016 12:58 a.m. PST |
This has been useful when I have been planning battles and organising units: link |
daler240D | 20 Jan 2016 4:40 a.m. PST |
makes sense that moving would be wider than stationary. |
jeffreyw3 | 20 Jan 2016 6:00 a.m. PST |
Slightly later, but the figures I've seen from the Napoleonic era are around 0.7m or 27 or so inches. I would be having personal spaces issues, but that's the way they rolled. Spacing and alignment were both key. |
paperbattles | 20 Jan 2016 6:36 a.m. PST |
staemingdave47 really a good link. Actually it agrees with the theory of widening the front when moving. This is quite important for my wargaming purposes because once determined the width a moving battalion I will decide the scale (one battalion of mine at 1:1 ratio is 60 cm i.e. about 160/200 yards then). thanks |
Snowcat | 20 Jan 2016 7:10 a.m. PST |
Christopher Duffy, The Army of Frederick Great (2nd ed, 1996, The Emperor's Press) Infantry: p.119 – "Drawn up in three ranks, with a consequence 200 men in each rank, and making space for the intervening officers and NCOs, the battalion at full strength had a frontage of about 428 feet (143 yards or 130 metres), and a depth of 6 feet 8inches." |
79thPA | 20 Jan 2016 7:24 a.m. PST |
@paperbattles: Valid points. I would just round it to 150 yds. |
paperbattles | 20 Jan 2016 11:44 a.m. PST |
Thanks all. Actually I started from the statement of Duffy and I cannot believe that it's possible to stick together 200 men plus space for officers and NCO in 130 meters, (whose 10 I think for the above mentioned officers and NCO). it would mean 1 msn every 0,65 cm (!!) or with NCO spaces 1man/0,65 m. Sincerly impossible. I always thought that the measures of Duffy's book were wrong! So if I keep 170 meters as a width for a battalion and 70 cm wide for a papersoldiers battalion 1:1 ratio, it makes 1 Km = 411 cm, therefore a 2 km front a 8,22 m !! |
79thPA | 20 Jan 2016 1:51 p.m. PST |
I imagine the average soldier was probably be around 5' 5" or 5' 6", and fairly thin. You certainly couldn't get present day Americans into a frontage like that. |
dbf1676 | 20 Jan 2016 2:37 p.m. PST |
Paper battles, Remember, the NCOs and drummers were behind the line. The officers would usually be in front behind and the flanks. |
paperbattles | 20 Jan 2016 3:30 p.m. PST |
ok so do you think that an average of 160 m (how many yards???) could be good? |
thehawk | 22 Jan 2016 4:17 a.m. PST |
Data on average soldier heights: PDF link Note that average male height for those born in 1735's was around 5'5" in Europe. These are the men fighting in the SYW. Bigger men went to the cavalry. So the average infantryman was shorter than 5'5" (which agrees AWI data I have seen). And walking everywhere probably meant they were thin. So 24" inches frontage per man is plausible. 160 metres is 175 yards (add 10%). Duffy is 130/160 or 80%. So either ignore the difference or just change the ground scale. Some armies had regulations on heights. I found a paper written by 2 German academics about 10 years ago stating the Saxon army had a minimum height regulation, which was 5'10" if my memory is correct. |
paperbattles | 22 Jan 2016 8:06 a.m. PST |
thanks thehawk.. your attached file was really very interesting. So I will keep my 160 m/175yards wide fornt for the battalion i.e. 70 cm with my papersoldiers i.e. 160:70=1000:x makes 1km=437 cm ! to make a battlefield of 2 km wide I need then 875 cm long table! |
paperbattles | 22 Jan 2016 8:26 a.m. PST |
or I can increase to 165m the witdh for a proportion of 424 cm = 1km |
crogge1757 | 22 Jan 2016 10:32 a.m. PST |
Regarding unit frontages I would employ the very same figures that were used in the military world, then. These can be found in the writings of contemporary military authors. A recommended read is link It is mostly an English translation of material found in the most widely read "Continental Experts" on the subject. You account 2 foot for a file of infantry in close order and 3 foot for a horseman. Prussians actually calculated with a somewhat tighter 1 foot 10 inches for infantry. The issue had been discussed here earlier. I recall one post – from a retired British officer, that 1 foot 10 inches is used in the British army to the present day when they perform at Buckingham Palace at Queens Birthday. By the SYW, the 1st lines battalion intervals of Austrians as well as of the Prussians was no more then 10 to 12 paces allowing for the space to fit in a pair of battalion guns. Earlier during the 18th Century the intervals had often been much bigger. Cheers, Christian crogges7ywarmies.blogspot.de |
paperbattles | 22 Jan 2016 11:12 a.m. PST |
thank you very much Christian! |
spontoon | 22 Jan 2016 9:34 p.m. PST |
Just wanting to remind you all that yds./metres/paces would vary from country to country at the time. 1 inch or pouce in France was equal to 1"1/8 Old English, for example. |
Musketier | 26 Jan 2016 2:12 p.m. PST |
"I think that during a battle, advancing … would increase the space for every man to 1 m" - not if the flanking sergeants had anything to say about it: "close up!", "serrez les rangs!", "aufschliessen!" … Infantry tactics of the time, both offensive and defensive, relied on keeping the men as close together as possible, elbows touching – and as others have pointed out, they were unlikely to be overfed. |
paperbattles | 27 Jan 2016 5:33 a.m. PST |
thanks musketier… I agree. So I kept a space of 70 cm for man |
von Winterfeldt | 08 Feb 2016 5:00 a.m. PST |
70 cm – too much, you had to be in elbow touch otherwise the unit would loose cohesion, training was paramount to keep formation, 50 cm a man was the usual norm |