"Line and Column widths" Topic

I am always interested in exactly much space unit formations took on the field relative to each other.

For example, how many yards would a French battalion occupy when deployed in line and how wide would it be deployed in attack column?

Would this differ between nationalities and how about 6 gun batteries?

I have some ACW data from Paddy Griffiths reference books but nothing specific to the Napoleonic wars.

I always base my calculations on average field strengths for battalions, as opposed to theoretical established strengths. I therefore assume that French line battalions were 540 men, which is the average for the Waterloo Campaign.

I also assume that battalions, of any nation, would occupy about 2 feet (24 inches) per file. I know they were supposed to be a bit tighter than that, but I think that is what they would need to move.

The French used a 3 rank formation, so a battalion in line would have a frontage of 180 men, 360 feet. The same battalion in an attack column formation would be two companies wide,so a frontage of 60 men, 120 feet.

By way of comparison the average British battalion was 600 men in two ranks, therefore in line would have a frontage of 300 men, 600 feet. The British normal battlefield movement formation was a quarter distance column, ie on a frontage of a single company but closed up so there was only 6 paces between the front man of one company and the front one of the following company. This single company frontage would be 30 men, 60 feet.

I base my 1:72 French at 10 mm per man and British at 15 mm per man to represent this correct frontage.

I assume cavalry regardless of nationality are at 40 inch (1 metre) per file, and are all in two ranks. That gives 25mm per figure on my basing system.

All of my figures are based on a 1:30 ratio in single ranks.

I assume guns are spaced at 40 feet per real gun, so a six gun battery 240 feet, or an eight gun battery 320 feet, represented by deployed bases of 120 mm or 160 mm respectively.

Rod

I was trying to figure this out and I researched some of my books. Of course, it would depend on the number of men in each company and companies in a battalion. Also, there was a dimension of space that one man was to occupy and that varied a little from country to country. At best, you will end up with an average or approximate dimension. One thing I did do when I came up with my numbers was to compare them to the size of the house in our subdivision for perspective. I hope that helps you. Sorry, I pitched the actual numbers I came up with and bought some dominoes to use as battalions/regiments/brigades.

Always worth a look at this site to get a perspective of single battalion deployments.

voltigeurs.populus.org/rub/7

thank you for your analysis.

Most rules dont account for the significant differences in formation widths between even the French and British.

I conclude that because the rules allow multiple columns to melee single columns without taking different widths into account, the rules cannot be taken to seriously.

Generalised, educational but definitely just a game.

That was discussed here

TMP link

There was also another thread about musketry with (IIRC) the conclusion that a portion of the line would be expected to defend its own frontage as flanking fire is unlikely to be effective.

Thanks Mike, going to read that now

Personally, I'd be interested in any examples of multiple columns attacking a single column or vice versa. Did it ever happen?

I think the flexibility and need for room to maneuver and change formations is forgotten in efforts to determine frontages and… depth.

For instance, it required more room around a battalion so it could move from column to line, regardless of the actual column formation. The French battalions would approach an enemy line in open column, only close ranks to a closed attack column when within about 100-150 yards, so the depth of a column, let alone the frontage could change rapidly. Battalions generally were separated by 10 or more yards. Has that been taken into account?

So, the issues and actual distances of frontage and depth change depending on the scale of the wargame and the units being represented. The same is true of Cavalry and artillery.

"The French battalions would approach an enemy line in open column, only close ranks to a closed attack column when within about 100-150 yards, so the depth of a column, let alone the frontage could change rapidly."

Yes.

Not to toot my own horn, but if you go to my blog I have a LOT on this topic

1809in3mm.blogspot.com

In really brief summation:

Most battalions were understrength when on campaign. I assume 450-550 for as an average from which to make calculations. Anyways, you can always figure this out by conducting the following formula

Number of men total
Divided by 3 ranks
Multiplied by 2 (I grant 24 inches on files- some will probably debate this)
Divide by 3 (~3 feet to a meter)
= Frontage of a battalion in 3 ranks

Obviously some of those numbers are fudged but as far as table-top representation goes they are close enough.

With this calculation a 500 man French battalion in three ranks is about 100m in frontage after you subtract the NCOs and officers (who would be deployed in front of or behind the rank-and-file troops).

A column of divisions formed form the same battalion would be 1/3 that frontage and of variable depth, although I rather suspect that it was usually almost as deep as it's breath in line (or, 100 meters deep)

For artillery, I think the golden rule is 8 meters per gun… (not quite sure but I think that's right. Someone else on here will know.) Thus a 6 gun battery would cover 48m, or half the frontage of a battalion. Ideally you would base so that you can contract your batteries to make them more dense. At Gettysburg they had guns almost wheel to wheel. A dense battery is obviously a much better target but it could also deliver more concentrated fire.

And not to hijack the thread, but I'm curious: I haven't been blogging like I was this summer and so my page views had dropped down to 30-60 a day (which is still pretty cool for not doing anything) but then yesterday they spiked up to 350. Did someone link to them somewhere? I'm not complaining :)

It gets worse with squares. British squares take up only a fraction of the space a line or column but I am not aware of any game that uses a smaller footprint for them.

IMO the problem with two columns attacking one line, is the attacking commanders' despair of sorting their men out again once the two friendly battalions intermingle.

Bob

I put my French battalions at a slightly higher average of about 800 men so that in the peninsula the French are generally about the same frontage as the British when in line. I admit that I may be unduly influenced by Quarrie though.

BTW @ Rod & forward march. One of the rule sets I use for Napoleonics is Carnage & Glory II which measures accurate frontages. Have you ever tried it?

I allow battalions to be deployed in two or three ranks. Individual basing. Makes the difference obvious but with 36 figure battalions French column of division is unsightly long.

It's worse with the battalions paired down to 18 figures. A 2 x 9 column of divisions looks absurd.

The depths are all out of whack but the frontages are correct.

And the squares…always trouble with the squares.

Paddy Griffith's rules have you base British elements on wider bases. That is one way to do it.

Bob

In 15/18mm I think you could get along well with 6 x 20mm square bases. Use the figures in shooting positions so that you can justify the two lines being packed so close together. You should be able to fit 24 figures into each battalion that way.

In line each battalion will be 120mm in frontage, and in column 40mm in frontage and 120mm in depth. This should be about right. The 20mm base depth at this scale is only 15m- not enough to really effect the playing of the game.

Artillery may give you some issues here. Not because of base sizes (you can squeeze some cannon into the footprint at this scale) but because of the range of artillery. If 100m=120cm (~6") then a 6' wide table will only be 1200m across. Which means that from the half-way point of the table you'll almost be in canister range already.

A 2 x 9 column of divisions looks absurd.

Wouldn't it be 6 wide and 3 deep?

4th,

When one keeps width true to ground scale, but depth, true to figure scale, an 18 figure unit in three ranks is 6x3. For a six company battalion that makes one file = one company.

With individual figure basing the question of two ranks vs. three becomes quite interesting. I only allow the fist two ranks to fire or depending on whim, half the third rank.

Either way a battalion in two ranks puts out more lead than the same in three. However the two rank battalion frontage "shrinks" quite a bit more than its three rank counterpart and obviously the three rank sidet has more figures per given length of front.

It is an interesting dynamic. Will the extra firepower up front allow the thin line to repel its enemy? It had better because otherwise the thin line will wither away while the thicker line endures.

The two rank line needs to be protected before the moment of decision more so than its three rank counterpart for the same reason. It what it provides in greater firepower it surrenders in ability to hold ground.

Using individual figures also allows for experimenting with using the third rank as skirmishers and that sort of thing while keeping the battalion frontage intact.

For all of that esthetically speaking columns look wrong and squares odd at best.