Korvessa | 29 Jul 2018 9:11 a.m. PST |
So you have your battalion out in the firing line – 2 or 3 ranks deep depending on nationality, how to they adjust for casualties? 1) Try to keep the same frontage. So men in the rear ranks step forward to fill the holes, leaving your rear line(s) thinner than the first. 2) Try to keep the same depth. So men in all ranks close in on the center to fill holes, keeping the depth the same but the frontage shrinks. If this is the case wouldn't you end up with the rear ranks having more men than the front? 3) sort of a combination of the two. |
McLaddie | 29 Jul 2018 9:27 a.m. PST |
|
Korvessa | 29 Jul 2018 9:34 a.m. PST |
Also, I presume they practiced this – that would be "chilling" (searching for right word but not finding it) |
IronDuke596 | 29 Jul 2018 9:51 a.m. PST |
|
Dave Gamer | 29 Jul 2018 9:53 a.m. PST |
You're making an assumption that only the men in the front rank get killed – I'm pretty sure the men in ranks 2 and 3 are getting taken out of action almost as fast. Although not Nap's, in John Michael Priest's book on Antietam (ACW), which is based on diary entries from soldiers who were there, several times they remarked on how quickly their lines were contracting during a firefight. |
von Winterfeldt | 29 Jul 2018 10:04 a.m. PST |
frontage, 3rd ranks will fill casualties to maintain frontage, 2 ranks will shrink |
Saber6 | 29 Jul 2018 10:48 a.m. PST |
Frontage for fire, depth for assaults So #3 |
Stoppage | 29 Jul 2018 10:49 a.m. PST |
@vw – raises an interesting observation: You wouldn't be able to see the impact of your fire against a three-rank foe – not until they'd suffered 30% casualties. So you'd have to keep on firing no matter what as you'd not know how effective your fire was. You would be able to see the shrinkage in a two-rank foe though – almost immediately.
So you would be heartened that your fire was taking effect and the enemy suffering. |
Jcfrog | 29 Jul 2018 11:09 a.m. PST |
Third rank replaces, frontage in a fight is of utmost importance. Either the unit is part of a line, if it shrinks too much it leave holes which forfeit mutual protection ( flanks, cavalry infiltration) or it is alone and it might get flanked. Don't trust a few guys on the end of the line to stand to a lot more coming after them. It is just human and comon sense. Talking about a line formation. |
GildasFacit | 29 Jul 2018 12:28 p.m. PST |
Effect on the enemy will be nil – after 2 rounds you could barely see your own sergeant for the smoke, never mind the enemy. It is general belief that almost any unit in fire combat will 'huddle' and reduce frontage once it starts to take casualties. In the smoke it may not be possible for officers and NCOs to see that it is happening, never mind do anything about it. |
robert piepenbrink | 29 Jul 2018 12:59 p.m. PST |
I think von Winterfeldt is generally right. Dave, I'd have to disagree to an extent. You can be killed in the rear ranks, of course--especially under artillery fire. But losses in the front rank were enough worse I've actually seen references to mild scrambles to avoid it. I agree with Gildas about the tendency to huddle, but, even with smoke, it seems to be a function of unit training and discipline. The mark of a well-drilled properly disciplined horse and musket infantry unit is how fast people step into a space where someone just got killed. |
Esquire | 29 Jul 2018 2:51 p.m. PST |
I cannot suppress the immature child within -- ergo, the answer: according to my wife, both. |
evilgong | 29 Jul 2018 5:26 p.m. PST |
I haven't played a figure-removal game for decades. (OK N@W with element-removal). DB |
Kevin in Albuquerque | 29 Jul 2018 6:23 p.m. PST |
|
AICUSV | 29 Jul 2018 8:59 p.m. PST |
In actuality they tried to maintain the frontage of a unit as stated before. I too have stopped playing with figure removal. Generally, I try to play with combat resulting in a reduction in the unit's combat effectiveness, this is marked by means of chips. |
Timmo uk | 30 Jul 2018 1:15 a.m. PST |
As has been stated above my understanding is that units would endeavour to maintain their frontage. I'm fairly sure Brent Nosworthy has covered the subject in his book Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies. |
Major Snort | 30 Jul 2018 2:10 a.m. PST |
During the Napoleonic era, British battalions normally closed to the centre to fill up gaps caused by casualties. There are so many eyewitness descriptions of this happening that there should be little doubt it was standard practice. Regarding infantry who formed three deep, the theory was that gaps would be filled from the third rank, however, I have never seen anyone offer an eyewitness description of this actually happening during a battle, whereas there are descriptions of troops huddling together as casualties occurred, thereby decreasing the frontage.
|
Jcfrog | 30 Jul 2018 3:32 a.m. PST |
2 ranks close up on center. Pretty sure the Ncos and officers in the rear would not, in a reasonably trained and disciplined European army, allow for huddling and messing around. They don't need to tell you all the time what is for those of the profession and others, at that time, known and obvious. Nothing like ACW where 99% are new and at best militia. ( at start). |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 30 Jul 2018 1:24 p.m. PST |
For gaming, frontage as depth of bases is always far more than the actual units… As for not being able to see the effects of your fire upon a 3 rank line until 30% losses…not so, the bodies are still laying there, unless obscured by smoke! Don't disregard the third rank's loading assistance. the passing of a loaded musket forward by the third rank was not a trivial effect. The third rank might not be firing but the total rate of fire between two opposing lines of equal frontage might well have produced a higher rate of fire in the 3 rank line if the firefight lasted more than a few volleys. It wasn't just for assaulting, even if Napoleon regretted in his St. Helena days of not making 2 ranks the default line for his battalions. |
1968billsfan | 30 Jul 2018 2:00 p.m. PST |
I would like to see some of our experts (I am not being scarcstic) say what they find from period drill manuals and the like. What I think is the following. In Napoleonic times the 3rd rank was used to dispatch skirmishers (ocasionaly) and fill in casualties in the first 2 ranks. So in a firefight they kept the same battalion frontage and maintained contact with the units on their flank and continued to block the open terrain that might have been exposed to the enemy's advance. …. When the unit had to change formation and move a problem arose. The drill was all for evolutions to be done with 3 ranks. They would form into 3 ranks (how and who would decide if they should be in 2 or 3 ranks or where they would be in 2 ranks or where in 3 ranks? ) and would work with 3 ranks. When they redeployed into line, they might not cover the same width and would occupy a shorter front. Maybe, they could move to a looser order or (more likely) leave a bigger gap between companies). ………….. I would be unusual(I think) to go into a mixed 3 rank/2 rank line- maybe a 3 rank with a bigger spacing might be used…………………. Remember that a unit that suffered 40% casulaties (lost the 3rd rank and part of the 2nd rank) might be pretty shaky and might not still be around or might need reorganization) In the case of the ACW or British napoleonic, which were used to the 2 rank line, I think the units just shrank in width and left gaps between battalions/regiments.
|
von Winterfeldt | 30 Jul 2018 10:45 p.m. PST |
it is not only during battle, but how to replace sick – deserters etc? Also here the 3rd rank was used to keep up a frontage – so that the general would know what amount of space a battalion would cover, for 1806 the Prussians tried to maintain for the line regiments a frontage of 200 files. |
von Winterfeldt | 31 Jul 2018 10:02 a.m. PST |
ment 200 files per batallion |
von Schwartz | 01 Aug 2018 5:59 p.m. PST |
Slap me if you must but aren't we talking wargames? That being the case depth seems to me to be largely irrelevant, frontage being what is emphasized. Typically in most, if not all, rule systems only the front one or two ranks can fire or fight anyway. All of this lively discussion is very exhilarating and enlightening on an academic level but really if we are discussing this as it pertains to the wargame table I would not be worry about the depth of my units. I do not profess to be an expert on rule systems but I have yet to see rules that puts any real significance on unit depth, but ALL are fairly strict on unit frontage |
McLaddie | 01 Aug 2018 7:26 p.m. PST |
Frontage, in general is more important than depth, but to a certain extent, depth dictates how much and how fast units behind can support the ones up front. If the depth of a unit is 3Xs normal, that ends up being 2/3s less units you can have behind the ones up front. And I am not talking about the stacking of units many stands deep on the table side, though that is one outcome. There are things that mitigated the depth issue, but it can't be totally ignored. |