Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Rich's new scenario contest got me thinking of making a sceanrio for 1776.

I decided to check out the basic organizations of the armies to get a feel for what kind of 'what-if' scenario to do.

I discovered that the US deployed their troops in 2-rank lines and the Brits in 3-rank lines.

There isn't any distinction of this in the game system. I found that odd. Afterall, in the BG Waterloo game there is.

So what's the deal? When the shoe is on the other foot the Brits aren't penalized for thier 3rd rank? Why not?

Shouldn't the Colonials be given a weapons class with a third more firepower?

Here is the link to my source material leading to this discovery:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/revwar ... /CA-fm.htm

Well, maybe my scenario submission will be one with a modified pdt & oob to correct this error.

Major Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

By the time of the revolution, the British army had begun using 2 rank firing and phasing out 3 ranks . Three rank firing was not useful here because heavy cavalry was not much used in battle, the Americans generally used two rank open order firing so their lines would extend past the flanks of the same sized British company if it were in three ranks and three rank firing was somewhat more dangerous for the firers and required better trained troops to accomplish it. Also eliminating the kneeling rank allowed for more rapid firing and loading rate not to mention being less fatiging. Two standing ranks became the norm. That said, it must be remembered that tactics were always evolving, and personal preferences of regimental commanders played into the mix. There is a famous painting of British troops at Warley from 1778 demonstarting tactics to the King that shows British soldiers in two rank formations, some with both ranks standing and some with a kneeling rank, but none with three ranks. In any case, the way casualties are determined in the game has to do with the strength occupying a hex. Regardless if 50 men are in three ranks or two, they still fire 50 muskets.

Larry Davis
Major of
His Royal Majesty's
64th regiment of Foot
on the CCC

Larry,

Yes the footnotes indicate that by 1778 the English were using 2 ranks also.

Your statement of "Regardless if 50 men are in three ranks or two, they still fire 50 muskets," although technically correct is, according to nearly every expert of the period, inaccurate.

Many, experts, state that the third ranks either did not fire, or if they did the effectiveness of that rank's fire was about the same as if they didn't.

Further snooping around indicates that some of the early scenarios could stand being redone as the American regimental organization was not an 8 company one, and the Brits may have been in the less efficient 3-rank line.

And later in the the war the British carried a 12 company battalion (although the 2 extra companies were recruiting companies left in the home islands) which expanded into a 14 company battalion, which in game terms would give the battalion a 10 company unit in the field with the two flank companies detached.

The US battalions seem to have gone from a 10 company organization to an 8 company one finally settling on a 9 company formation. The 9th being a light company that was sometimes detached from the bn and collected in a converged light bn, or it skirmished in front of the bn.

In any case, it may be interesting to see if any of the above would change the play of any of our scenarios.

Major Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

Al,
The additional companies were used for recruiting and training in Britain before sending recruits to the regiment proper. They varied in number, (usually two-but sometimes more). The utilization of additional companies began earlier in the century, and was used only for regiments outside of Britain. I've never seen anything about carrier companies here in the colonies, except that the recruits would be brought over as say two companies for control purposes, but then distributed throughout the regiment once they met up with it. So they ceased to exist once they served their transport function. The British had difficulty maintaining their company complements and had to resort to drafting men from regiments that were rotated home in order to keep strengths up. The extra line companies you mention is new to me.

American strengths and number of companies varied widely, and was brought under some control in the Continental army in 1779. However, the Continental regulations had no bearing on the militia and state troops. Even with the regulations in place, troop strengths were never consistant.

In trying to design the scenarios, it is also hard to determine who actually fought because it was so common to tell off detachments. For example, in reading a history of a battle, it might mention casualties taken by a certain regiment, when the entire regiment was not engaged. But withut some real digging it might be hard to find that information. I made up a Germantown variant where I attempted to get the correct number of Light companies in the two light brigades. It was very hard to find a listing of the actual companies that were there. Even then, because the fighting the lights did was divided in several distinct stages, and it is not recorded in any dairies I have had access to if some or all fought in each stage.

It is an interesting subject and new information is always coming to light. One thing more on three ranks. The British had devised what was called "locking" in the 1720s that reduced some of the danger and increased the effectiveness of fire. But it required a lot of training to be done properly.
Larry

Larry Davis
Major of
His Royal Majesty's
64th regiment of Foot
on the CCC

Some good points gents - I agree that the Colonial Army used the basic 8/9 company structure and that any further 'new' scenarios should allow at least one of the companies (possibly more) to be designated as a light company to reflect that - also the occassional rifle unit could be used for milita (not all of them!) which might give a case for allowing rifle fire effects in some games.. any comments??



...we rise and fight again!!

CCC Rank = Major(bvt Gen)
CinC Colonial/US Army

Larry,

Agreed that accounting for detachments is a real pain.

Here is a link that briefly covers Brit AWR organization:

http://members.aol.com/GuardsSite/Establishment.html

Most 76 scenarios seem rather bland to me, no offence to thier designers intended. I think more flavor can be introduced with more detailed oobs & pdts.

One of the major strengths of the Campaign Series engine is its flexibilty and ease in generating differing oob, pdt and scn files.

In my original post you will find a link that leads to a very interesting on-line book covering the development of the US army. As you will see there attempts to control organization of the rgts actually started in 1776.

On interesting off-shoot was the rgts tactical ability to operate in two 'wings' of 4 compaines each with a 60 pace interval in between.

At the ground scale used in the 76/12 engine players really can study the different formations and their usages.

Of course this requires the player to ignore maximum stacking potential of a hex and attempting to cover the entire map width with ZOCs, and to deploy thier units more along historical unit frontage requirements.

With a hex of 125 ft you can comfortably place 68 files in a hex. so for 2-rank troops this would be 136 men (3-ranks 204.)

I think each player should, for one entire game, fight with this in mind. So instead of spreading an 8 counter unit our over 8 hexes, deploy the unit in line by filling the fisrt hex with up to 136 (150 if you want to account for file closers, etc.), then continue to deploy into the next hex and the next etc. etc.

Suddenly you will find out how compact these little armies really were, and how much manuevring space you will have to each flank.

Its fun, I have done it quite often, especially in 1812.

Major Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

Edited by - Al Amos on 03/28/2002 23:05:06

Well Guys, this is getting my juices flowing. The term "Major's command" was used often then to refer to 3 or 4 companies. I have made an oob that worked incorporating that idea. The Lt. Col. had command of the entire regt. of 8 companies, then I made two 4 company sub-commands under majors within that regiment. The command range button highlighted everything properly. Maybe all regiments in each game should be redone to incorporate that feature, giving players the latitude to "tell off" a few companies.

Perhaps we could pick a battle, research our respective armies and collaborate. A lot of tactical development went on during the ARW, so we would have to zero in on a given year lets say and agree on how we would define the parameters. I have made some changes to the Harlem PDT. that have not been sent in yet. One of which is Muskets with bayonets restricted to two hexes - 80 yards, muskets w/o bayonets - 3 hexes, Regulars being more disciplined, and less likely to throw away their fire would have the Muskets with bayonets. The firepower at 1 hex is increased. This encourages more manuevering in column. I'm not sure how we could emulate 3 rank firing. One further thing on that to consider. Howe trained the entire army that retreated to Halifax in 1776 in open order light infantry tactics as he felt they would make the army most effective in America. He wrote a Light Infantry manual based on his experience in the AWR around 1790.

Larry Davis
Major of
His Royal Majesty's
64th regiment of Foot
on the CCC

Larry,

I have an AmosWars campaign that will come out this year, ELIC, where the regiments are organized as you describe.

It works out very nicely, not only in the larger set piece battles, but if you need to send off a detachment for any reason (like going for pizza) it makes a nice self contained, led force.

To create 3-rank fire is not to difficult. Assign a letter in the pdt file that is not being used. Then give it hit factor so that the 2-rank hit factor will be 50% greater than the 3-rank hit factor.

I think that is right, have to set this out in print to make sure.

18 men in a company (for simplicity.)

In three ranks that would be 6 per rank, totalling 12 firers, if you subscribed to the notion that the third rank is wasted or not used.

Now in a 2-rank unit there would be 9 men per rank, so 18 fire.

The number of firing muskets then is 50% greater in the 2-rank formation over the 3-rank formation, correct? 18-12=6 , 6/12=50%

So if the M weapons class is used for the 2-rank musket armed troops and its 1 hex hit factor is 18, then the new weapons class created for the 3-rank musket armed troops would be 12.

It would be up to the players to discipline themselves to not "overstack" the 2 rank troops, since each hex can only support 136 firing line troops deployed in 2-ranks.

Now the 3 rank formations can put 204 in a hex.

Quite often we hear that the Brits liked closing for melee because they had bayonets and the Colonials didn't. Perhaps, beacuse of this feature and experiences of the Brit army in Europe during the SYW, they realizd that not only did they have a bayonet but they had a heavier melee formation (3rks) and could get local superior numbers, and get some practical use from the 3rd rank by resorting to the charge/melee form of fighting.

By intorducing these changes, perhaps we can give players ncentives to model the historical tactics used at various stages of the war.

Just a thought.

Major Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

Edited by - Al Amos on 03/29/2002 12:44:06

Gents,

I'll freely admit, I don't have the technical knowledge to really contribute here (my interests are strategic and political, more than unit tactics.. but that's another story for another time).

However, if you do as Al suggests, something occurs to me. My understanding is that one of the roles of the third line was to "fill" the forward lines as they were lost in combat. So, say a 30 man company loses 5 men, I would think that they would have 10 front, 10 middle, 5 back.. thus lowering the loss in firepower... or do I misunderstand, and did they close ranks to a shorter 3-man line?
Now having images of a 3 man company in a 3 man line *L*



Sgt. Gary McClellan
12th Light Dragoons - 1st Reg, 2nd Brig, 2nd Div.
Northern Department

Gary,

I think units tended to keep file in proper order. However ....

Units did get disordered because of losses to men within these files and then the unit was pulled out of combat, and reorganized.

(I know gamers think it cowardly to pull a disordered unit out and rest it, but really its okay <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>.)

Then the unit would reform thus creating new files, only fewer of them thereby shortening the length of the battalinons frontage.

This reforming is not much more than "falling the men in" and making the ranks even in numbers, I believe. Our re-enactor members can help us with this.

File closers (NCOs and Officers in the supernumary 4th rank) would probably be trying to close up the ranks during actual combat as well.

So I think temporarialy your assumption of 5 men stepping forward would be correct, but once the unit got a break it would reorganize into a line of 8 3-man files. I guess the extra guy sits out until tagged (hehehe...) I suspect he is kept close to an NCO and thrown in once losses start to happen again.

Major Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

well, I said I didn't have the technical knowledge *L*

Sgt. Gary McClellan
12th Light Dragoons - 1st Reg, 2nd Brig, 2nd Div.
Northern Department

Al - I have always considered Yanks to be in two ranks - great and marvelous while Brits always fight in three ranks - bad, awful and running for cover!<img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_kisses.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
This one's for you Ernie!

Maj. Bill Peters, Morgan's Rifles, American Army
Commander of French Dept.

HeH!<img src=icon_smile_dissapprove.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_8ball.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle>

<b><font color=gold>Ernie Sands
Col, 3rd East Kent,CCC
President, Colonial Camp Club
Col,1 Konig,VIII,AdR
BG,CO XXIII Corps AoO
Sch,183Inf,VIII,PzC
Pvt B Co, 3/3-MBC </b></font id=gold>

<img src=icon_smile_dissapprove.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_blush.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_sleepy.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle>

<b><font color=gold>Ernie Sands
Col, 3rd East Kent,CCC
President, Colonial Camp Club
Col,1 Konig,VIII,AdR
BG,CO XXIII Corps AoO
Sch,183Inf,VIII,PzC
Pvt B Co, 3/3-MBC </b></font id=gold>

Heh! Me??<img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_dissapprove.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

<b><font color=gold>Ernie Sands
Col, 3rd East Kent,CCC
President, Colonial Camp Club
Col,1 Konig,VIII,AdR
BG,CO XXIII Corps AoO
Sch,183Inf,VIII,PzC
Pvt B Co, 3/3-MBC </b></font id=gold>