"musket fire by 4-rank deep infantry" Topic

Hi Friends,

Some infantry was formed on 2 ranks (British and some German) for delivering musket volleys. And they formed squares 4-ranks deep against cavalry.

Do you know examples of the 4-rank deep infantry fighting other infantry (not cavalry) with musket volleys ? I ask this because already with the 3-rank deep infantry there was a problem with 3rd rankers.

British at Waterloo?

It was British/German inf. squares vs CAVALRY.

And I'm interested in battalion vs battalion.
Especially how did the 4th rankers did the firing.

My understanding at Waterloo several forward Allied units, (British trained I expect) formed into the four rank formation…. basically a doubled two rank line. This was due to the very dense front lines at Waterloo, denser than many other battles of the period, as noted by several at the battle, especially late in the battle. With secured flanks… another battalion formed and ready, the front was basically unassailable by cavalry. The formation had the same solid firepower of a square and still kept the front 1st rank as "reserve firepower" or solid bayonet wall to detour the later weak French cavalry charges. Officers controlled the volley fire just like a square formation… holding till the cavalry committed itself to charging then drop the leading horsemen.

Now, a battalion independent of other support…. they would form square since the battlefield denseness aspect wouldn't apply. At Waterloo, the Allied infantry front line early in the French cavalry charging period had more depth… the squares staged themselves (offset) further back with fire zones around them to channel the French horsemen. Therefore the four rank formation wasn't used.

As for fighting Infantry…. I would think just like a column's face against the enemy infantry. Only the first two ranks would fire and present bayonets. To advance…. the battalion just steps forwards as the companies are doubled up. If seen from above, the formation would have similar aspects to a battalion masse formation, except the companies are not three companies deep by two wide, but only two companies deep and, for the British, 4 center companies wide (excluding the elites).

G'Day Jan

Michael is correct in that it's possible to double a body of troops or even a great body of troops.

This can be executed through various means…by wings…by sections…ect…

This is not something that only the British did…all counties were capable of doubling…the French did it quite often, from three ranks to six ranks.

At Wagram Marshal Macdonald formed a colonne vuide or square by having the front of the colonne vuide / square form 6 ranks by doubling battalions in line…and the flanks were battalions formed en colonne par divisions.

But as Michael mentioned…only two ranks fire…

For the French a battalion doubled is a line formation because it lacks mass…nine ranks are need for mass for the French to be considered a colonne.

Best Regards
Art

It seems pretty clear that at Waterloo the lines that repulsed the Guard were four deep; there is also good reason to think the Guard advanced in square. In this instance the halving of fire output from the line must have been compensated before by the corresponding lack from the attacking squares, which themselves were likely as good as or a better target than columns.

Even as late as the ACW the regulation had provisions for a 4-rank square. (I never had enough men to try it with my battalion.)

Note that the Austrian tactical manual called for four (or even six) ranks wen facing the Turks.

Thanks Michael and Art, I will remember "only two ranks fired" ! Have a nice day.

You wrote: "This is not something that only the British did…all counties were capable of doubling…the French did it quite often, from three ranks to six ranks. (…)
But as Michael mentioned … only two ranks fire…"

hm – at the feu de chaque range, at least in the French infantry each rank could fire seperately – so it would be each rank in sequence.

At the usual feu de bataillon, effectively only the frist two ranks did fire, the third either did not or did fire in the air.

Yes and you also had feu par ranq, feu de quatre rangs, feu de cing ranq, feu de six ranq…ect

But here is a question…have you ever read of a French battalion…in square (alone) in six ranks…lets say 1800 onward…

I always thought the regulations mentioned 3 ranks…except a carre egyptienne of multiple battalions…

To form such a square it would require a doubling of sections…and why would you do it…?

I think the author is confused…I also think this is a "after 1865" thing ;-)

Best Regards
Art

But, in square, the front two ranks just sat kneeling, with bayonets in rows, butt grounded in the front row, slightly less acute angle second rank, pointing, rather threateningly, to discourage the horses.

Personally, I am convinced they would have fired first and then just knelt there, without reloading, until the enemy withdrew. The rear two ranks did all the firing.

Loads of evidence for infantry vs infantry in the same formation …but very different system for firing

The French infantry did not kneel when being in square

"Personally, I am convinced they would have fired first and then just knelt there, without reloading, until the enemy withdrew. The rear two ranks did all the firing."

Doesn't the front rank(s) kneeling with musket loaded to provide a reserve firing make more sense? A row of men with empty musketsm, whose posture prevents swift reloading, doesn't seem like very good housekeeping.

Two interesting points……never knew that French Infantry did not kneel in square. Cannot help but feel they were missing a trick there. Bayonets and two firing lines seems a really good use of four ranks, especially in allowing the two rear ranks a major role.

Yes, the kneelers holding fire indeed makes sense. The doubt must have been when was their time to fire. Otherwise their whole potential volley contribution might have been missed, if the cavalry threat suddenly abated.

But if the cavalry threat has abated, the fire of the standing ranks was evidently sufficient, and the front ranks reserving the fire hadn't detracted from an effective defence. It was there for when it was needed.

One British ranker at Waterloo recounts how a French trooper rode up to him and cut down at his head, whilst he was in the front of the two kneeling ranks. Apparently he closed his eyes whilst awaiting a blow he could not avoid, but when he opened them again, the Frenchman was lying dead on the ground, having been shot by someone in the two rear (standing) ranks. Not sure what this proves, except that the author's lack of firing suggests he was unloaded.

Good point and I do like the logic of 42flanker…..but if the front two rows had fired and then grounded their butts to present bayonets, there would be fewer of the cavalry to withdraw and return!

On balance I think, as a battalion commander, I would like to know I did have a loaded reserve….just in case. So you lads in front, hold your fire for now….