"About Face - how common? How Easy?" Topic

Very easy, but to leave it that way would result in an inversion (the companies would be in a reverse order) and the troops, NCO`s etc., were accustomed to changing formations when in proper order.

So when withdrawing, the thing to do was to about turn again when they reached their positions in line.

If they were to face front they would need to counter-march the whole battalion – this sounds odd perhaps, but this was done.

Maceady tells of the combined 73rd and 30th Foot at Waterloo mistaking an order of "right face" for "right about face" causing some confusion. We all know of the 28th turning their rear rank around to receive cavalry in Egypt, with similar events at Quatre Bras years later.

I always use this as an excuse for having the flank companies or the Regt/King's colours the wrong way round in displays. The regiment has just turned about!

Yes, it would prove quite disastrous to attempt to manoeuvre when units inverted…
The Napoleonic example that I can recall was at Albuera where Colbourne`s brigade was deployed with the grenadiers on the left, they were made to counter-march before engaging.

Even as late as the Civil War (American) the drill manuals were still obsessed with maintaining the proper order of the companies in the line (as set by the seniority of the captains) and inversion was to be avoided if at all possible.

Emory Upton's post-war drill manual is praised as being such an advance over what came before, but honestly, the biggest change was that he threw out all that company order business and didn't worry about inversions and such. By doing so he reduced the drill instructions from three volumes to just one.

Having been a drill instructor in the past, an about face took a few seconds. It took longer to give the order than for company to actually accomplish.

Counter marching a company took 2 to 3 minutes. Our companies were only 30 men. Imagine a battalion of 400 to 800 men counter marching. That could take 10 to 15 mins, which is a lot of time on a battlefield.

In battle anything is improbable and in effect possible. Tit would have been done if a unit found itself attacked in the rear.There may not have been an exact drill move to do an about face

Any unit in line knows how to about turn and reverse directions as a simple movement order. Fire and retire by section or company is an accepted drill movement involving about and front about turns. It was always common for columns to about turn and reverse direction say on a narrow road where a further advance was impossible

Yes, the heat of battle produced all sorts of interesting situations. On the 2nd day at Gettysburg Cross' entire brigade attacked into the Wheatfield faced by the rear rank (and thus also inverted).

about face, a fiasco, in case you have to manoeuvre – just for firing it might be ok, but then the front rank hast to remember that they are third rank now and shed off all drilled in moves of legs and body – would be taken for emergency situations, when there is realy now times to do inversions or counter marches.

The problems with inversion were three fold:

1. Units practiced with left-right orientation remaining intact. Inverted would be like playing baseball after someone switched third and first base in the middle of a game. It could be done, but even the most veteran baseball players would find having to remember to run left to right around the diamond disconcerting, [and throw to the right base] to say the least.

2. To maneuver, with the rear rank in front could be a problem when the taller men were placed in the rear rank.

3. To become inverted, meant that at least initially, all the officers normally behind the ranks, were now in front. Hess speaks about this in his book on Civil War Tactics. The Perryville example is a good one. The new regiment was disconcerted, but still held.

4. Part of the reason for the company through divisional organization with numbered units was the chaos on the battlefield. With a known arrangement any soldier in the army could figure out where his unit was. Commanders could look at a line of regiments or brigades and know which ones were where by counting spaces in between units or flags. Humphrey's entire division was inverted on the 2nd Day of Gettysburg and it was a problem for Humphrey of 'who was where?'

All the manuals from 1700 to after the Civil War mention inversion. Upton didn't 'throw out' the company order business.

From Upton's Tactics: page 137

373
For manoeuvers the battalion is generally divided into an even number of companies.
Two companies constitute a division.
In forming the line the companies are so posted that the senior captains may command divisions, having under them the junior captains of corresponding in rank. The senior captain commands the right company, the second captain the left company, the third captain the right center, or color company, (a) the color-bearer of which is a sergeant, and this post is No. 2 of the left four of his company; the left four is the color-guard. The color-guard does not fix bayonets.

Companies are designated numerically from right to left when in line, and from front to rear when in column, first company, second company, and so one. The numbers of companies change when the left is in front.

The placement of senior captains, right, left and then center is Civil War procedure. It was also the procedure for most armies during the Napoleonic wars. The only difference was that unlike ACW companies, Upton did not have companies keep the tactical numbering permanently, but rather being established when in formation as the senior officers could and did change during a campaign. [at least one reason for that difference.]

Oh, and the about face was pretty common--Maneuvering inverted was not so much…

The 42nd and another regiment, whose name I can't remember. Both had their rear ranks about face and fire on French Cavalry during one battle in Egypt 1801. The regiment I can't remember was given a plate to wear on the rear of their shakos as well as front to commemorate their action during the battle. Perhaps someone else does remember…

28th Foot got the rear shako plate.

What was done on the drill field was not always the way it was done on the battlefield. Many times in the Seven Years War when infantry was attacked from the rear by cavalry the rear ranks just about faced and saw off the "ornamental gentleman" with a volley or two. There was no command for this, I imagine the officers just said "Turn about you scum and fire like hell!

Interesting idea. I like GdB, which does involve a level of play where this might actually be a factor. The game rules say it cost 5cm in movement points (with a line movement of 10cm adn column of 15cm).

I agree that most evolutions were dependent upon the placement of the NCO, officers, who was in what rank and which company was where. At this level, I think I would allow a line to about face and march backwards. (Do any of our experts have info an this? The tall guys in the back, the small ones in the front and maybe the officers, file-closers and such scrambling to change their positions?). I would not allow them to charge from this to the rear, form square or column from the inverted (if that is the right term) formation or double ranks.. They could stop and issue fire at full value and melee at full value. But ANYTHING other than this would put them as DOUBLE UNFORMED- two turns to become formed and a -2 then -1 modifiers in playing with the enemy, on successive turns.

To get back to full ability to maneavure they would have to turn around again and then precess in some fashion to the other facing. (A U-turn march type of action).

Maybe elite troops might be given a chance to do this with no penalty. The French after a full year of training ….maybe.

There should be BIG advantages if you get BEHIND the other sides line of battle, (Did panzer blitz tactics work in WWII?), and disarray and breakdown should be the reward.

The 42nd and another regiment, whose name I can't remember. Both had their rear ranks about face and fire on French Cavalry during one battle in Egypt 1801. The regiment I can't remember was given a plate to wear on the rear of their shakos as well as front to commemorate their action during the battle.

The 42nd and the 28th; the two regiments singled out in Hutchinson's despatch (and the source of considerable bad feeling). On the return from Egypt he 28th adopted a numeral '28' on a silver lozenge for the rear of their caps on their own initiative, to commemorate the regiment fighting back to back.

Apparently the second in command, Lt Col Chambers gave the order "28th, rear rank only, right about face!". Paget, the CO, had been wounded in the throat.

The custom wasn't acknowledged until 1824, when the 28th were granted permission to retain the 'Back Number' (described as 'a badge of honour'). By this stage it was no longer made of silver. The temptation to sell the original for drink had proved too great.

G'Day Gents

If I may add my two cents…

For the French…they may execute the general principle of "Marche en Retraite"…

Though le Reglement de 1791 was only used for l'ecole and never applied as l'ordre tactique, the general principles from Section 378 are solid: Battalions execute a demi-tour a droite and the third rank conforms to l'Ecole de Bataillon and acts as the first rank. If needed, the battalions may then execute "Feu En Retraite" found in Section 397.

"…Le feu de bataillon en retraite n'est pas plus praticable que le feu de bataillon en avançant. Si l'on est près, il ne s'exécutera pas; si l'on est loin, il ne sert à rien qu'à retarder votre marche. II faut laisser les grenadiers et les chasseurs faire la tiraillerie, se retirer en bon ordre et le plus promptement que les circonstances le permettent…"

'The battalion executing musketry…in retirement is not feasible, in the same manner that executing musketry with a battalion advancing. If one is near, he will not run, if we are far, there is no point in delaying your walk. It is necessary let grenadiers and Chasseurs skirmish so as to retire in good order and as promptly as circumstances allows…'

It is also found in the French instruction that the rear rank may do a demi-tour a droite and execute fire, as at the Battle of Marengo and taught from 1803 to 1805 for l'ordre perpendiculaire.

For the Russians and French there was also the Colonne de Retraite. If a ligne that needed to retire or retreat and form another defensive ligne, the best formation was the colonne de retraite which would ploy in this manner.

Direction of Retreat with the 1er and 8eme peloton leading.

1st – 8th
2nd – 7th
3rd – 6th
4th – 5th

This particular column was very useful and had an deliberate role which only by per happenstance had the two elite pelotons for the Russians leading, while the French preferred that the grenadier compagnie act as skirmishers.

What was important was that it was able to deploy and form on the first rank facing the enemy, or be used to counter cavalry.

Like the colonne d'attaque it was designed as a double column so as to be able to separate in two columns and when necessary to be able to form both an open and closed square. When forming an open square; unlike the colonne d'attaque, it would have six ranks facing the threatening cavalry, whereas the Russian colonne d'attaque would only have three ranks facing the enemy when hit in the rear.

If there were detached tirallieurs protecting the colonne de retraite, they were expected to form square on their own or in the various methods that a grenadier peloton would separate to form with its parent battalion when forming square.

The column found in the Russian ordonnnance is from the French ordonnance de 1776, and was called a Colonne de Retraite, and was formed when a battalion in line was retreating in bounds, as well as for countering cavalry while retreating. This column was first used in l'ordonnance de 1755, and was formed by plesions which made it too complicated and massive to manoeuvre in embarrassing terrain.

The colonne de retraite was formed while a battalion was in line facing the enemy like a colonne d'attaque, but unlike the colonne d'attaque when finally formed it was in reverse order.

The execution for the battalion to ploy in retreat, began by retreating by both wings on their flank, with each peloton following the movement of either the eighth or first flanking pelotons. The seventh peloton, sixth peloton, and the fifth peloton followed the eighth peloton, while the second peloton, third peloton, and the fourth peloton followed the first peloton.

The new position to form the colonne de retraite was marked prior to execution of the movement, and each peloton then took its own position facing away or in the new direction of march, yet behind the original position of the fourth and fifth pelotons while the battalion was in bataille.

The colonne de retraite was practical for defiles and passage of lines when retreating. The colonne de retraite could execute the following means of musketry when retreating:

Feu en retraite
Feu de chaussie par pelotons en retraite
Feu de troisieme ranq

But the fire of a retreating battalion was no more practical than the fire executed from a battalion advancing; therefore if the distance was not far for the battalion to re-deploy, it would not execute any fire, since it would retard the battalions movement, the battalion would only execute musketry if the bound was of considerable distance.

It was later discovered for the French that the best means of fire was to have the third rank protect the rear of the colonne de retraite, or have the grenadier peloton or light peloton screen the battalion so as to retire in good order and in a more prompt manner.

According to Colins; we find this application of employment of the chasseurs, and grenadiers en tirailleurs the most common method for screening both attacks and retreats.

Finally according to Colins once more; although l'ordonnance de 1791 makes no mention of the colonne d'attaque (meaning proper use of, other than the role of a colonne de manoeuvre) or colonne de retraite, we find that it was maintained in l'ordonnance de tactique and more than probable used by the 85eme during the retreat at Waterloo. But it is found in the Russian ordonnance which mirrored the French military system.

Best Regards
Art

I was always frustrated by the seemingly pointless restrictions on formation changes until I started to read "The Background of Napoleonic Warfare," (Quimby). You quickly begin to realize the difficulties (and potential chaos) officers had to contend with in 18th century before the standard pace and other seemingly obvious innovations were introduced. The situation was vastly improved by our period but the risk of becoming disorganised was still very real and I can imagine that many senior officers were loath to risk any movement they were not 100% confident their rank and file could cope with, especially under fire. And after all, the military has always been a very conservative institution, highly resistant to change.

I relied much on Quimby and Colin when writing my Tricorne rules in 1971.