"British Line Formation?" Topic

I have recently delved, hard, into the study of the Battle of Brandywine as my Senior Seminar paper and project (University). While going through the mountain of both primary and secondary sources, I have read interesting things about battalion level tactics (regiment). What I have been reading, in several locations, is the commonality for British line to maneuver by file rather than Rank and to keep a wider spacing between rank members. At least by 1777 where my research is most prominent.

Do you find this true throughout the whole war? How does this affect tabletop play? Is there really a difference to be represented in a loose line, or should both sides' line formations be treated the same?

I have come across how the teachings of General Howe were not always practiced, which may suggest that there were a loose and solid formation of line used throughout the war. I of course chose the topic out of interest in a period I know little of and I can start to apply my knowledge on the table top.

I apologize if this question is a bit of a mess. It is late and I have been writing and researching for a long time each day (16 week course dropped to 5 weeks for the summer so you can imagine :) ).

The gamer "historiography" that TMP so often musters can be very useful for gaming endeavors!

My British infantry and continental are on "semi open line" this is American miliy and hessians are close order line.

Has no effect on gameplay. Only for the esthetics

From my readings of AWI tactics is Howe trained his army in the use of "open order" tactics. this being when in battle a battalion would form two lines of men with enough space between each man to allow for easier movement.

Now my understanding is that some German units followed this but over all they continued with the "close order" formations of three ranks deep or more.

For the gaming rules our group use to play AWI, it takes into consideration for open order and close order units when shooting and being shot at. Also when the units are moving on the tabletop.

'Loose files and American scramble.'

Ted Spring, "With Zeal and Bayonets Only"

Order (18 inches between files), open order, extended order. Did not worry about keeping in step. Could move more easily across terrain. Command and control was always the problem in the 18th century, from battalion on up to army level.

British movement was faster in this formation as they were not worried about aligning perfectly (unlike the Germans). Open files would also tend to reduce casualties as well since it was not as dense a target as closed files or ranks of three.

You may also want to look at Houlding's "Fit for Service" – though it primarily concentrates on the SYW/FIW time periods, with some info on periods after.

Of course you also want to look at the McGuire's works on Brandywine and Micheal Harris' book as well, though his chapter on the British army is not particularly good – his details of the battle are.

"the commonality for British line to maneuver by file…."

Moving by files was common for the period. You would move from files into a wider column or deploy into line. Nothing new there.

"… rather than Rank and to keep a wider spacing between rank members."

Not sure what you mean by moving by rank, not keep wider spacings between rank (members???). They would not do this. The ranks would be kept close, even in open order (order). The reason being, if your ranks are far apart then the second rank can't shoot – unless it is okay with hitting members in the first rank. The files (of one man behind the other) need to be close for safety reasons.

thanks guys! I did not consider the Germans. I should have realized that as that very description was cited by civilian, British, and american notes, accounts, and letters.

historygamer: I do indeed own both books, and almost finished with them. I think it was Harris's book on the British army portion that confused me the most.

My apologies, what I meant was each man being an arms length apart from each other thus maintaining the front and rear rank cohesion, but just open.

Now I have to rush out the door! Apologies for any mistakes in my message.

The British army portion of Michael's book has some rather suspect parts. I would depend more on Spring's work.

Houlding is a heavy read and primarily geared toward an earlier period.

Yes I would agree. I am keeping towards more general information from him if I cite it, or just to build the narrative. A 20-30 page paper does not allow for too much detail in many areas, especially subtle ones that most readers and professors won't be as interested in. Leaves any of the detailed formation and battalion level tactics briefly mentioned :)

Now, if my good professor was a 10 year West Point veteran like my favorite Military History professor, she would sure love these details.

For my leisurely study following my seminar, what works of Spring and Houlding are you recommending?

Is the Spring work "With Zeal" that is cited in the British army portion of Harris what you are referring to?

The closer formation would be to maximise the number of muskets brought to bear on the target.

As for difference in the rules, look for rules that count the number of figures firing, rather than assigning a number of die per base.

I seem to recall that Harris' chapter on the British Army was rather inaccurate. I'd have to go back to look at it for specific examples.

thecrazycaptain,
Historygamer is very knowledgeable on the subject so you can't go wrong with his recommendations.

I've read a lot on the AWI but after reading Spring's "With Zeal and Bayonets Only." It changed my entire view on how battles were fought during the AWI.

@VVV I have been thinking about that actually. I typically don't move towards sets that model attrition through figure removal or marking, but AWI is almost begging an exception for me. By base just seems too abstracted for me in this period.

Plus I have just read of 3 skirmishes the light infantry had with some of the militia on the right flank and it was mostly 6 killed and 10 wounded sort of affair. I think a detailed study of Monmouth may produce even better results for these differences.

British Grenadiers is the rules set I use. Low casualties, friction of war, can't do everything you want to with your battalions. Love it.

I highly recommend the new book on Monmouth – Fatal Sunday – by the (retired) park historian. Just outstanding. I have just reached the battle portion. Well written, great to read. Have to revise my game of that battle.

Ironwolf: Thank you for the kind words. :-)

BG also models the whole open files thing. Easier to move, a bit harder to hit--but can be trickier to go on with the bayonet.

What HG said.

thecrazycaptain I was not thinking about the casualties as the firepower. If more figures are firing in a given area, you expect that they inflict more damage.

Now that a more open formation suffers less damage would also be true – given that the fire is not really aimed at people but rather an area effect.

"Now that a more open formation suffers less damage would also be true – given that the fire is not really aimed at people but rather an area effect."

Well, they were aiming at marks as best the could but the result was more as you describe.

In Howe's orderly book you find that he orders the army into open order, shortly after "Bunker" Hill.

It's a silly war, but that uniform oh it so pretty

In our house rules the Hessian 3 rank line disorders more easily, me lees a little better, & is more vulnerable to fire. Minor differences but there are die roll modifiers.

According to Rodney Atwood ("The Hessians") the Hesse Kassel contingent adopted two ranks – but retained close order – almost as soon as they arrived in North America. According to Riedesel's own journal, the Brunswickers appear to have adopted British tactics more fully – two ranks and open order – prior to the Saratoga campaign at the very least.

I'm not sure about the minor contingents, but since most of them were attached to one or other of the above, I would say they did the same – sooner or later.

So SM, does this undermine the three rank basing in BG? Should we be remounting our figures?

Is there 3-rank basing in BG for the Germans? I think I must have missed that – been running all my units as 2-rank, but 8 figures to a base instead of 6 (6 instead of 4 for grenadiers) to replicate the retention of close order.

Yes, the rules suggest basing Germans six to a stand in close order to represent the close order three rank system, and allows adding 1/3 more points when firing.

I don't think that 3 ranks shoots 50% better than 2 ranks. The 3rd rank was not equally efficient as the first 2 ranks. A single rank could fire 3 to 4 times a minute. That is fast enough that 2 ranks will give you as much as 3, since fire would be coordinated between the ranks. I don't think that 3 ranks would give a line 9 to 12 rounds of fire per minute (5 to 6 seconds between shots).

JPK

Its a rules thing. The increase represents figures that are not present. It is a notional thing, it does not represent a superior fire power by being in two ranks, it represents a third rank even though the figures are only in two ranks, but tightly packed.

"The 3rd rank was not equally efficient as the first 2 ranks."

Why not?

It sure was when firing in ranks of three.

Originally musketeers were 12 ranks deep. This decreased over the years because fewer ranks worked as well. With 3 ranks the front rank had to kneel to fire but stand to load. The Britsh, I suppose, demonstrated that for whatever reason, 2 ranks could stand up to 3.

In one of Duffy's books ("Warfare in the Age of Reason"???), he quotes a couple of officers from the 1740s saying that once troops knelt to fire, getting them to stand up again and move on was a devil of a job and halted any advance. One of the advantages of two ranks was that everyone could fire whilst standing; when the French came to America, Rochambeau ordered that only the front two ranks would fire (whilst remaining standing) and the third rank would re-load for them.

So did the French continue to use three ranks throughout the war?

I need to dig them out of storage but I believe John Elting's book (Swords around a Throne), BP Hughes book (Firepower), & one of Brent Nosworthy's books address the 2 vs 3 rank musket lines.

JPK

General Philips ordered the British back into 3 rank formations in Virgina in 1781. That said, two ranks for the British seem to be the norm.

Another subtle thing that isn't talked about much is that I am sure that the British were using their companies as firing platoons--no telling off of firing platoons intermixing men from different companies as had been done earlier--The Hessians may have been doing something similar, although there I suspect that they may have just been dealing with a reduced number of effectives.

The Hessians as early as the battle of Long Island in 1776, were pulling off 'volunteers' to beat the bush in front of their battalions and probably were using peletons of shutzen the entire war. Certainly drafted companies of "light" infantry were used around New York, NY and Providence, RI.

As I recall, Phillips issued a memorandum on formations in the year before his death, recommending different formations according to need. He even advocated mixing them up within an individual unit – eg splitting a battalion into two wings with one forward, in open order, and the other behind in close order to provide a support in the event of the forward wing being repulsed or falling back in the face of cavalry. He also recommended two-, three- and four-rank line, again according to tactical need.

The British had gone to the company as both a firing element of two platoons and an administrative element (which it was prior) during the F&I/SYW period. In fact, Braddock was one of the first to institute that in 1755, later picked up by reformist within the army as the war progressed.

Interesting that Phillips wrote so much about infantry tactics since he was an artillery officer.

And the only one allowed to command non-artillery troops in the field.

Just noticed this thread..
I have adopted my Tricorne SYW rules to the AWI a couple decades ago. For most of the war, the British were in extended order; the Continentals, some Loyalist and Germans were in close order, all in two ranks. The British move faster and do not check morale in launching an immediate bayonet charge. If the Continentals stand they can get off a decent first volley, which may stop the British. If not, the Continentals usually skedaddle. It really depends on the theater of operations and the year which I try to model in my rules.