"Troops first adopting prone positions, in which war?" Topic

Obviously this was largely dictated by the introduction of breech loading weapons, but when did it become tactical doctrine to fire from prone, or to take cover in a prone position? Did it happen on an ad hoc basis as troops decided it was more prudent to lie down and present a smaller target, or did armies decide to train their infantry to fire from a prone position once they realised the breech loader made this possible?
I'm assuming the FPW was the first conflict where this firing position was adopted, and if you want to represent it during a game how do you go about this with your particular ruleset of choice?

I think the Baler rifle could be fired from a prone position, so that makes it the Peninsular War.

In the US Civil War troops often went prone to avoid taking casualties but obviously could not fire so.

I'm assuming you're talking skirmish games here? Or small unit actions?

If a unit is a battalion, I would simply assume the commander of the unit is using prone as appropriate, and it should be reflected in the combat system.

You can find some skirmishers reloading prone in the 18th Century, Volleyfire, and more in the ACW, but of course it got a lot easier with breechloaders. I doubt it was necessary to train troops to fire prone, but there was debate about permitting it, since skirmishers are harder to control and prone troops have to be made to get up to advance. I remember that in some of the fighting during the Siege of Paris there were comments by senior German officers that it was causing less trouble than had been anticipated. I'd take a close look at Sadowa before I went dogmatic, but the FPW might be the first time whole battalions went prone, and had to be gotten to their feet to advance. Ordered prone I'm not so sure about.

If I had to guess on when it became "doctrine" to go prone in skirmish order in anticipation of an enemy attack, I'd look later and overseas--the Anglo-Boer War, perhaps.

In a game of that period, I violate my usual policies, and stick a marker reading "PRONE" next to the unit. It's ugly, but it works.

I have been in a reenactment (ACW) in which we PRACTICED loading and firing prone with muzzle loaders. Three ranks. First rank fired then passed rifle to rear. Rear guy reloads but does not prime, passes to second guy, who exchanges primed for just-fired empty with first rank guy. It is physically hard as hell, but the front rank guys are getting off about three rounds a minute.

Far as I know, what we were doing was from a contemporary drill book.

I remember reading about troops going prone at Sadowa in 1866 but I don't recall Greek or Ottoman troops going prone in the 1897 war.
It strikes me that, except for one Turkish brigade, which was committed late in the war, both sides had black powder, breechloading rifles in 1897. Use of smokeless powder rifles (first introduced by the French in 1886) made it more difficult to spot the shooter and may have been a contributory factor to encourage the use of prone firing.

Grelber

Yes, going prone can also restrict your line of sight significantly, depending on the terrain. As a tactic it certainly as cons as well as pros.

The Prussians regularly went prone to fire in 1866, but they were armed with breechloaders. Needleguns were also used in 1848 and 1864, but I've not come across any accounts of prone firing in either of those wars/revolutions.

In the French and Indian war I seem to remember Rangers being trained to load and fire prone, though I may be wrong!

Sharpshooters definitely fired prone during the Peninsular war. It was also common practice by Wellington to have his men deployed prone behind a ridge line to shelter them from French artillery and observation and only stand when the French got within musket range of the ridge, which the French found very disconcerting.

Robert

I had a similar experience as doc mcb when reenacting.

There are photographs from the ACW showing Union troops drilling with a skirmish line in front that is in the prone position.

I have a US militia manual from 1829 that details how to fire and load from the prone postion. You have flintlock musket at your side to prime, roll on your back with the barrel side up and the butt between your feet. Now stuff the cartridge into the muzzle, draw the ramrod and ram the charge home. Roll back on your belly, aim and fire. I have done this. Note that in having the barrel side up your hand isn't in front of the muzzle when withdrawing the ramrod, more importantly the priming pan isn't upside down with the chance of accidently knocking the pan cover/frizzen/battery/hammer open. I remember a rather short, rotund member in our militia coy, who when on his belly resembled a see-saw. I suspect any troops who were in a skirmish line, armed with muzzle-loaders, went prone at one time or another.

Going "prone" while under smoothbore artillery bombardment vs. going prone while under musketry range.

The first possible examples under artillery I remember from a personal report at the battle of Blenheim 1704. While the French bombarded the Allied left flank waiting for the right flank to seek initial positions. All long range stuff but the soldiers "laid down" to avoid the distance bombardment. Stood up once the battle commenced. The rank firing systems of the period sometimes used a "go prone by rank" after firing, till the last rank fired, then all ranks stand up to reload.
Then there are the Peninsular war battles behind a crestline, lying down to avoid passing French bombardment, but not directly threatened by French advancing infantry. The only direct infantry musketry situation that comes to mind before the ACW period is "Arise Guards (Maitland) situation…. as the French Guard approached the Waterloo ridge. There are surely more "going prone" actions but documenting hard without actual in person written accounts of history before the ACW period.
Once the ACW early battles started, the infantry definingly used a prone stance. Gettysburg has the Union army ducking for cover from the Confederate artillery morning bombardment (third day). The need to build hasty breastworks for defense comes about during the ACW battles.

a very ad hoc example ….

In 1812, the Russians recruited volunteer militiamen (called "opolcheie") to augment their regular forces. These included two battalions recruited from the seasonally nomadic hunters from the vast northern forests in Olonrets and Vologda provinces – mostly ethnic Vepps and Permiaks only nominally converted to Christianity and of varying skill in spoken Russian.

On the march through Saint-Petersburg, they exchanged their various personal hunting rifles for Model 1805 Russian rifles, designed after the British Baker. Outfitted with a simple gray uniform, yhey received little or no military training.

At the 2nd Battle of Polotsk, they were sent opposite a French artillery battery. At 300 m distance they fell prone and started an advancing fire, crawling forward a bit after each shot, taking advantage of every scrap of cover. Their officers, ethnic Russian nobles, called upon them to stand up. A few did, only to immediately fall prone and continue as before.

Soon the officers noted that the French battery's crews were essentially being assasinated at their guns and the militiamen were permitted to continue until the battery was obliged to limber up and displace.

Although militia for home defense, the two battalions were kept with the army. They were distinguished at Leipsig and fought all the way to Paris. Albout half of the men survived and made the long walk home, arriving back to their quiet snow-bound forests in early 1815.

I think you need to differentiate between "fighting from the prone position" and "going prone" which became useful in Petit Guerre once cannons and firearms had a decent flat trajectory and velocity.

Hopefully, if I'm understanding your question correctly as "habitually fighting from the prone position as part of the main battle line as opposed to skirmishing" I'd say it was the Franco-Prussian War and on that prone and really taking cover dispersed was a major portion of the fighting. The Prussians probably started when they worked out the Dreyse, but it was initially issued to elite skirmisher types so that doesn't count.

Perhaps the Prussians started doing in the their Schleswig Wars and 1866 as a significant tactical doctrine.

FPW is the first war that has it constantly going on all the time in every battle.

Thanks Stalkey, yes I wasn't precise enough in my initial post. I meant at what point did troops habitually fight from a prone position s part of the main battle line. I was thinking FPW but wondered if it occurred earlier given the nature of the weapons being employed primarily by line units

There's some interesting discussion about this in the Osprey books about the British Army, vol 2 or 3 covers the late 19th C. and the main reason to me in close order [which requires kneeling and standing positions] was mainly volley control.

So except for "petit guerre" the surprising thing – unless you are in military supply and logistics, or a professional Soldier – is that fire control of a line formation orients around not wasting ammo. So it is mainly the logistics of the train [and greater industrial capacity of massive government orders for ammunition] that makes it possible for men to disperse and fire at will according to their training and discipline. The Prussians did a model job of this in the FPW, and the French did a poorer job.

Aside from that, as the above posts indicate, it has to do with special situations and special units. My guess is that the matchlock was best fired from a crouch rather than prone, but once you've got a reliable "Brown Bess" you can certainly fire prone if you are allowed to do so!

As a shooter and as a Soldier, my preference to prone would be crouching behind cover in a concealed position. Prone is harder to move quickly from than a crouch, and it is harder to keep a 360 view of things.

If you expand the question to crouching, any muzzleloader can fulfill that need.

So it boils down to fire control and ammo supply, IMHO.

Based upon my reading, it was part way through the FPW that the officers of both sides really started to USE the "extended order" formations all the time, disperse the men, take cover and concealment, and concentrate on using firepower to overwhelm the enemy. Unfortunately, I forget where I read that, but it may be Weigle's wonderful rule sets.