"When a French attack column crashes into a defended line on the wargaming table, few mechanics trigger more heated debates than supporting fire from adjacent friendly units. While 18th-century military doctrine explicitly built defensive formations around mutual support, historical evidence and period mechanics show that static infantry could only deliver a tiny fraction of their full firepower to aid a neighbor.
Period tactical manuals, clearly demonstrate that no unit was ever meant to fight in isolation. Defensive arrays relied heavily on interlocking fields of fire. For instance, hollow infantry squares deployed in a checkerboard pattern (échiquier) spaced 100 to 120 paces apart created lethal crossfires against charging cavalry, a layout that proved crucial along the Mont-Saint-Jean ridge at Waterloo. Similarly, line infantry relied on enfilade fire (tir d'enfilade) to catch attacking column flanks in a funnel of crossfire, a tactic Arthur Wellesley famously deployed at the Battle of Talavera in 1809.
Despite the foundational doctrine of secours mutuel, static infantry in a shoulder-to-shoulder line faced extreme physical constraints that prevented them from bringing anywhere near full firepower onto a target charging an adjacent unit. Standing two or three ranks deep with men spaced just 21 to 24 inches apart, soldiers could physically swing their musket barrels only 15 to 20 degrees to either side without endangering the comrade next to them. Consequently, an adjacent static regiment could bring only 10 to 20 percent of its total musketry to bear, as only the few platoons on the immediate inside flank held a clear line of sight. Furthermore, as the charging column closed within 50 yards of the target unit, the firing angle for neighboring static troops became so acute that continuing to shoot risked hitting their own allies in the side, dropping static supporting effectiveness to zero at the moment of impact…"
BigLee's 'Miniature Adventures'
link
Armand
receives a gift from his wife…