"In 3 rank formation, did the 3rd rank actually fire??" Topic

As above – When a line of infantry was deployed in 3 ranks close order, did the 3rd rank fire or only the 2 front ranks?

Currently reading a book on the KuK army in 1859, which maintains that the 3rd rank was excess when in close order and that this was the reason that they were frequently used as skirmishers.

I've become agnostic on this one. No question a 3-rank line was more stable, especially in less well-trained troops, and cavalry less likely to charge through. And if the ranks aren't regularly passing through one another, actually firing from the third rank puts your muzzle uncomfortably close to the ear and the back of the head of the first-rank man.

But you hardly ever see someone saying "the third rank WILL not and SHOULD not fire" either because they're loading muskets or because that fire is being held for special circumstances. Squares sometimes being an exception, and of course loading muskets still improves the firepower of the line. There's a whole laundry list of minor improvements in muzzle-loaders which reduces loading time over the 18th and 19th Centuries, and the number of ranks declines as loading gets faster.

My guess is that by 1859 (a) you could maintain continuous fire with two ranks, and (b) the fire of the third rank was somewhat less effective. But I'd be very reluctant to read that back to 1815, much less 1759. Once or twice in the Peninsula the French form battalions in three ranks and engage in defensive fire, and the British comment on how intense the fire is. And of course the further back you go the more the ranks actually do change places.

Also worth remembering that the answer at the beginning of a long exchange of fire may not be the correct answer at the end of one.

yes and no, as for the French there were indications that they did – even when first rank stopped kneeling firing, they may overshoot initial target but may hit second line, as in other armies, Prussian Army of 1806 no third rank firing, as well as later. In the new Prussian Army third rank was used for skirmishing as for Austrian Army of 1807 onwards (for that reason they placed their best shooters in 3rd rank)

If they took half a step to the side, the third rank could fire between the files of the second. The challenge was keeping it going after the first volley.

I'm personally a bit dubious about how often the first rank fired. You couldn't easily reload kneeling, but if standing to do so they'd be in the second rank's way.

Le maréchal Marmont a écrit dans « De l'esprit des institutions militaires », en haut de la page 41 : link
que le 3e rang qui tire finit par se fondre dans les deux premiers et les désorganise ! Il conseille donc de disposer les fantassins sur 2 rangs.
(sorry for the french language)

Interesting – a third rank that fires ends up merging into and disorganising the first two.

My opinion it could be done, easier on a parade ground or first few rounds with trained troops, it gets dicey after that.

Here's what Bruno Dotto says at p. 68 of his "Le Armate del 1859" (Google Italian – English translation):

"The fires were divided into: battalion fire (i.e. when the first two ranks fired at the same time on command), fire by files (the 1st and 2nd ranks were commanded to fire alternately), single fire (or fire at will where in the first two ranks any man could fire when ready without waiting for the order) and fire in deployment of half-divisions (as the companies were named at the time) on the command of captains or first lieutenants."

There's nothing there about the 3rd rank firing when the battalion or division was in close order.

(The book is almost entirely about the KuK Armee, despite its more general title btw.)

There's a whole laundry list of minor improvements in muzzle-loaders which reduces loading time over the 18th and 19th Centuries, and the number of ranks declines as loading gets faster.

My guess is that by 1859 (a) you could maintain continuous fire with two ranks, and (b) the fire of the third rank was somewhat less effective. But I'd be very reluctant to read that back to 1815, much less 1759. Once or twice in the Peninsula the French form battalions in three ranks and engage in defensive fire, and the British comment on how intense the fire is. And of course the further back you go the more the ranks actually do change places.

IDK about that. I can only think of 2 big improvements. Fritzie's metal ramrods and the substitution of percussion caps for flints in the 1840's.

Cartridges come in pretty early at the beginning of the 1700's IIRC.

Interesting – a third rank that fires ends up merging into and disorganising the first two.

These are prolonged firefights when the formation breaks apart and everyone is bunched into 1 thick elongated gaggle of guys firing, except for Jim who blew his hands off by loading 3 charges and balls into his musket and trying to fire them all at once and Will who's a shuddering, sobbing PTSD mess behind the tree over there.

hevans011, I wrote "minor" and you replied with "big."

So cartridges stored in wooden blocks in waterproof cases, which is somewhat later than cartridges per se, iron ramrods, percussion caps. Am I wrong in remembering a redesign so powder poured down the muzzle primed the musket without separately priming the pan? That would about give us one a generation as the ranks go from four to two.

But I did say "minor." There are subtleties you'd have to be a real 18th and 19th Century gun nut--which I am not--to fully appreciate, but there seems to be a very wide consensus that the Tower Musket, the Charleville and their Prussian, Austrian and Russian equivalents are improvements on earlier smoothbore muzzle-loaders, and not just changing fashion. I even remember some testing to that effect with the late Napoleonic Prussian muskets. Minor improvements add up.

I'd also wonder, given some up thread speculation about early volleys then degenerating as Marmont suggest (quoted above) whether this could be part of justification for a first fire bonus.
Also related to Marmont, this sounds like the kind of situation other officers have described where it is difficult to get the men stop firing to advance.

Our figures are quite good at standing still for the firing part of the turn. The real troops would be busy with upper body movement things like loading, though. Very unfortunate for Hans if he moved his elbow into the way just as you pulled the trigger. Or poor Karl, hit in the face and flailing around as he falls, either knocking you into the path of a bullet from behind or causing you to move to avoid his falling body and getting hit. Then, there's the ever-popular shooting Lieutenant Gruber-Schmidt in the back "accidentally."

It does seem that considerable effort would be needed to prevent things like this from happening and make third rank firing effective. Definitely agree with 14Bore.

I don't just recall but were any of the officers or NCOs in a position to tell the third rank when to fire or not fire or shove individual soldiers up into holes in the lines in front of them.

Grelber

According to the drill regulations which I have seen, firing in three ranks was only done in a volley on command: all three ranks firing together, then reloading quickly and putting their musket on the left shoulder, the commander giving the next command for firing of the whole platoon or battalion only after seeing that all men have shouldered their muskets.

Of course this required well-trained soldiers who did not become nervous by the effects of the enemy's fire …

of course you also had firing for each rank, so three ranks could fire three times, or the method the French devised in Egypt, no kneeling, third rank would fire first, then first and second rank at once. The longer the firing, the more disorder and exhaustion in the ranks.

First fire bonus – yes for morale, for hitting – no.

true, forgot that, here the French regulations on firing by rank:

demi-brigade.org/feuderfr.htm

In the ancien régime, there was even a volley fire in the French army with all three ranks standing:

demi-brigade.org/feudepfr.htm

Under the instruction and command of v. W., we once practiced it in a re-enactment. Under these ideal conditions, it worked very well, without hurting anybody.

In the WSS/WAS/SYW period, one of the claimed advantages of Dutch-originated platoon fire was that all three ranks of a platoon fired together: first rank kneeling (or crouching), second rank standing firing directly over the first, and the third rank 'locked', ie having taken a half step sideways, firing between the men of the second rank.

After all three ranks fired simultaneously they would then spring up to reload standing while the next platoons in the firing order did their thing. Once reloaded, the platoons assumed their firing stances once more, and did the same again.

In theory, that's a more efficient way of doing things than firing by ranks. From contemp accounts eg Captain Parker, sometimes platoon firing worked and achieved significant advantage over opponents. But it was a pretty complex ballet to conduct under close range fire and it must be debateable how often it really worked. At Dettingen, while the British and Hanoverian infantry did begin with this fire, it seems to have degenerated quickly into each soldier firing independently- as did French rank firing. It thus became a familiar Anglo-French attritional contest of wills.

Yeah, I think there's no question but that whatever's going on over a prolonged firefight at range, it's NOT what's going on for the first two of three volleys. Problem from a game standpoint is that sometimes those first two or three volleys settle matters. I'm usually in favor of a "first fire" bonus for that reason, but most rules have more trouble with the prolonged firefight at range. That "attritional contest of wills" about needs a turn to represent more time.

Yeah, I think there's no question but that whatever's going on over a prolonged firefight at range, it's NOT what's going on for the first two of three volleys. Problem from a game standpoint is that sometimes those first two or three volleys settle matters. I'm usually in favor of a "first fire" bonus for that reason, but most rules have more trouble with the prolonged firefight at range. That "attritional contest of wills" about needs a turn to represent more time.

I drafted a set of house rules that had a special morale effect for "casualty shock" – i.e. a volley that inflicted more than 10% (or whatever %) casualties on the hapless recipients and gave first volley a massive enhancement, second volley less so and every other volley no enhancement at all.

how can a volley inflict 10 % casualties, must be fired at 50 paces distance? A volley however has more damage to moral than a fire at will or fire by files.

"how can a volley inflict 10 % casualties, must be fired at 50 paces distance?"

Exactly, von Winterfeldt. If you want to settle matters by fire, you're talking one or at most two volleys at "whites of their eyes" distance. Otherwise, just stop at a nice safe distance--60 to 80 yards?--and fire at one another ineffectually as muskets foul and ammo runs low. Sooner or later, someone will get bored and go home.

how so you explain this then :

Die feindlichen Kanonenkugeln sprangen ä la Ricochette dicht an der linken Flügelspitze unserer Masse vorbei auf das Grenadierbataillon des zweiten Regiments, welches sogleich einige Mann verlor. Wir deployirten darauf unsere Massen und begrüssten die rasch anmarschirende feindliche Infanterie aufs Beste mit einem wohl unterhaltenen Rottenfeuer, so dass sie auf 7 — 800 Schritte vor uns doch stehen blieb.

Legler, p.28
Very interesting, so the units deployed form close column into line to reduce the effect of artillery and then they greeted the advancing enemy with a well nourished fire of files so that the enemy stopped 7 to 800 paces in front of them!!

in my view they caused effective damage on the morale of the enemy, hardly by causing casualties but just by opening a well nourished fire – morale effect, usually ignored in wargaming.

While I am not disagreeing that opening firing could be held till short distance, it was in my view – in general more an exception, I tend to believe this

A veteran of the 7YW, General v. Tempelhoff notices about (range of firing and hitting HKW) ; "One is firing total differently in a battle than on the drill ground, despite what was learned and taught on the drill ground – the advancing infantry often opens fire at 800 paces distance from the enemy – at least however at 600. Usually, it is believed that such a fire is useless, however this is an error. A small arms ball kills or wounded a man as long as it hits regardless of being short in an arc or horizontally.
(Jany, p. 38/39 (Gedanken des Generals v. Tempelhoff vom 11. April 1802, Beilage 13 zu Band II der Massenbachschen Memoiren, Amsterdamm 1809, S. 504)

I have long thought a game rule should include involuntary fire dice roll, not when you want it always

how so you explain this then?

Well, first, by saying that I said "settle matters by fire" and this appears to be exactly the long-range indecisive firefight I just described. (I'd also wonder whether the distances were not exaggerated. COULD a smoothbore musket ball still injure at 500 yards?)

I am not denying morale as a factor. I am saying that if you don't inflict a lot of casualties in a very short time, units will only break at the end of a very long firefight, and the "winners" will be only marginally more effective. And morale often reflects training and experience. A good unit might take no notice of that 800-pace fire.

yes of course a musket ball could injure at about 500 yards or longer, reports are numerous – but usually ignored – see Tempelhoff's remarks above, who should know better than us.

Decker : Die Artillerie für alle Waffen – Erster Theil – Die reine Artillerie, Berlin 1816

„Wenn das Infanteriegewehr horizontal oder auf den halben Mann gehalten wird, so schlägt die Kugel auf 200 – 250 Schritt des erstemal auf die Erde, mache auf ebenen Boden 2 bis 3 Aufschläge, und bleibt auf 400 – 500 Schritt liegen. Wird aber die Kugel im Bogen geschossen, so kann sie mit der gewöhnlichen Ladung über 1000 Schritt weit getrieben werden. Die Franzosen sind Meister darin, und daher kam es auch, daß sie uns zuweilen Leute blessierten, wenn sie wir sie nicht einmal entdecken könnten, woher der Schuß gekommen war. Doch sind das meist nur Prellschüße, welche wenig Schaden thun."
S. 267
When the infantry guns is held horizontally or at the man's half, the bullets hits first time the ground at 200 – 250 paces, bounces of even ground two to three times and stops on the ground at 400 – 500 paces. Is the bullet shot in an arc, it is possible to propel it with a usual charge over 1000 paces. The French are masters in that, and therefore it occurred that sometimes they wounded our men, when we didn't even discover from where the shot did have come. However those are mostly one contusion shots which cause little damage.
p. 267

Valentini : Die Lehre vom Krieg. Erster Theil. Der kleine Krieg und die Gefechtslehre, 4. Auflage, Leipzig 1820

§ 52.
Die im 45sten §. Gegebene Regel, daß Infanterie nie auf eine größere Distanz als auf dreihundert Schritt feuern muß ist überhaupt nicht auf Schützen auszudehnen. (…) Was will man ferner gegen einen Feind thun, der, wie die Franzosen im Revolutionskriege, auf fünf- bis sechshundert Schritt auf uns feuert, und uns Leute blessiert, wenn das Terrain nicht erlaubt, im näher zu rücken."
Seite 77 ff.
Those in § 45 issued rule that infantry mustn't never fire at a longer distance than of 300 paces, is never applied to skirmishers. (…) What can be done against an enemy, who, like the French in the Revolutionary Wars, fires at us from five – to 600 paces, and wounds our men, when the terrain doesn't allow us to approach him closer.

A Prussian Jäger officer, lieutennat von Seydlitz, later ADC of York and famous as editor of the diary of York‘s corps in 1812, reported 1808, that ; "the French tirailleurs wounded already at 1600 paces."

Titze, Jörg : Die Berichte der sächsischen Truppen aus dem Feldzug 1806 (I) – Brigade Bevilaqua, books on demand 2014

Bericht Artillerieoffizier – Premierlieutenant v. Hiller
S. 93 ff
Eine große Intervalle, zwischen dem Regiment Churfürst und Xavier nunmehr zu schließen, zog sich das Regiment Churfürst rechts, bei welchen, so wie von den Vorrück an, wir immer von leichter Infanterie beschoßen wurden. Sie verwundeten mir auf die Weite von 7 bis 800 Schritt Leute, waren hinter Hecken und Zäune postiert, wo ich ihnen keinen Abbruch thun konnte mit Cartäschenschüßen deren ich einige mit großer Elevation versuchte, nicht die geringste Wirkung aber verspührte.
(Gecht bei Saalfeld)
S. 95
Here the observations of the artillery officer von Hiller who commanded the regimental artillery of regiment von Churfürst, at the clash at Saalfeld
To close a big gap between the regiment Churfürst and Xavier, the regiment Churfürst was drawing itself to the right, by that as also in the advance we were always under fire from light infantry. They wounded me men at a distance of 7 to 800 paces, were placed behind hedges and fences, where I couldn't do any harm with grape shots, which I tried to use with high elevation but didn't feel the slightest effect.

Dumas J.-B. Neuf mois de campagnes à la suite du maréchal Soult. Quatre manoeuvres de couverture en 1813 et 1814, 1907, p. 275-276
Clausel plaça au débouché des hauteurs de Bassussarry à Arcangues, et sur le contrefort à 500 mètres environ au sud de la cote 76, douze pièces pour canonner le cimetière d'Arcangues, organisé par l'ennemi; il poussa en avant 400 ou 500 hommes pour couvrir cette artillerie; mais le feu des défenseurs du cimetière et des carabiniers postés un peu en avant sur la pente qui était alors couverte de broussailles et de taillis très épais contraignit nos tirailleurs à reculer jusqu'à leur artillerie; ce feu atteignit alors celle-ci, malgré la distance de plus de 550 mètres qui la séparait du cimetière; il, força les canonniers français à reculer leurs pièces en arrière de la crête et leur tir devint alors trop courbe pour pouvoir agir efficacement contre le cimetière. Le général Kempt, arrivant sur les lieux à ce moment, fut d'avis que la distance à laquelle ses fusiliers tiraient était trop grandeet que leur tir devait être sans effet; il le fit cesser; mais aussitôt les artilleurs français avancèrent de nouveau leurs pièces, et leurs projectiles tuèrent en un instant huit hommes aux alliés. Ceux-ci reprirent donc leur feu de mousqueterie et forcèrent de nouveau les pièces à reculer hors de portée utile contre le cimetière.
La distance, à laquelle les fusils des Anglais furent ainsi employés, peut être évaluée à plus de 550 mètres. Ce genre de tir à grande distance, en,utilisant même parfois la portée maxima (900 à 1.000 mètres) de l'arme inclinée à 35°, était bien connu des vieux soldats de l'époque du premier Empire, et il fut souvent pratiqué par eux, malgré les défenses constantes de leurs chefs.

While I am not disagreeing that opening firing could be held till short distance, it was in my view – in general more an exception, I tend to believe this

A veteran of the 7YW, General v. Tempelhoff notices about (range of firing and hitting HKW) ; "One is firing total differently in a battle than on the drill ground, despite what was learned and taught on the drill ground – the advancing infantry often opens fire at 800 paces distance from the enemy – at least however at 600. Usually, it is believed that such a fire is useless, however this is an error. A small arms ball kills or wounded a man as long as it hits regardless of being short in an arc or horizontally.
(Jany, p. 38/39 (Gedanken des Generals v. Tempelhoff vom 11. April 1802, Beilage 13 zu Band II der Massenbachschen Memoiren, Amsterdamm 1809, S. 504)

I've got to think that this fire stopped no one and the enemy simply stopped as ordered to take a position 800 yards away.

And a musket ball does indeed lose energy and become non lethal after a certain distance.

I am disagreeing, by opening fire you are stopping, in case you advance, in case of defending, why would they open up at 600 to 800 paces, in case it was useless ? Legler's unit stopped an infantry attack at that distance.

von Winterfeldt, I think huevans011's point was that "we fired at extreme range and they stopped" doesn't prove a causal relationship. Here in Indiana I spray my car with Rodent Repellent, and am never attacked by elephants. This does not prove the formula also stops pachyderms.

Prussian units are blazing away at extreme range at Jena too--and Spanish in the early Peninsula. The French simply take no notice. In the AWI, where there's not much serious artillery, attacking infantry don't usually deploy out of road column until about 300 yards. I doubt the militia fire discipline was so good no one was shooting at them.

I admit I am confused, all those eye witness accounts show that those under long range fire took notice, a veteran of the 7YW even states that they opened fire at much longer distances than on the drill ground. Best I move on.

I have trouble believing a musket ball wouldn't be bowling along a little at 500 paces

14bore wrote "I have long thought a game rule should include involuntary fire dice roll, not when you want it always". If I was going to waste gaming time bothering with the detail of a fire fight rather than producing the result in terms of unit movement then this would be my starting point. At periodic intervals any infantry unit advancing on visible enemy, or being advanced on themselves must test not to stop and commence the firefight. Unlike Robert Piepenbrink I don't think long firefights go on until one side gets bored and goes home. All the evidence I've read is that they go on until both sides run out of ammunition and then they stand and look at each other if reserves don't intervene. The skill is therefore in getting to very close range without firing, then delivering one volley and charging with the bayonet.