Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Guys - some of you have access to more works than I do - how often did the 3rd rank in a 3 rank Line (French and others) fire?

Muir on page 85 of his book "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon" says that they fired but could and did have men hit in the front ranks because of it.

I thought that the practice of firing the 3rd rank was abandoned as less than effective.

Does anyone have any light to throw on this?

Another comment: how often would a bn. expand its frontage to cover more ground AND take use its 3rd rank to do this?

One of my playtesters, Warren Bajan, cites Nafziger's work "Imperial Bayonets" on page 43-46 and 60-61 to justify this practice.

The reason why I am looking into this is a proposed change to 3 rank line fire when in Shortened Line. Currently we have 1200 men able to fire at 1x value and I think that when compared to the 2 rank line being reduced to 75 percent this is not correct.

My thinking is that we should go with either 66 or 75 percent for a 3 rank line in Shortened Line. This would force the larger bns. to expand if they want to be able to use full firepower value.

My first thought was 50 percent but this value was too low.

Anyway, its a proposed change and I did some testing with it yesterday with a test engine that John sent me. Nothing is set in stone and we will also want to run it by Rich Hamilton as well before we were to do this.

I had never given it any thought really but a 3 rank line that is in a 100 meter space in Shortened Line should not be able to fire at full value. For instance those large French bns. in Jena or an Austrian bn. in Eckmuhl.

Colonel Bill Peters, 17th Dragoons, III Corps, French Army
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Swiss-Swedish Army CinC, Musket and Cannon Game Club - Come over and see what we are all about!

Bill,

I think it was pretty much abandoned by the end of the wars but there was a lot of experimentation done by all the armies except the British before then. This will make it diffcult to come up with a standard frontage or firing %.

Check out this link:

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleoni ... tics_2.htm

Field Marshall
Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

Well and Warren pointed out that by one point in the wars Napoleon directed Marmont to use a 2 rank line but he doubts that it was ever put into practice.

Colonel Bill Peters, 17th Dragoons, III Corps, French Army
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Swiss-Swedish Army CinC, Musket and Cannon Game Club - Come over and see what we are all about!

Just looking at this now, the following quote is from Nosworthy "With Musket, Cannon and Sword: Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies" (p73)

<i>"That the new emphasis on volume of fire led to a more frequent breakdown of orderly volleys did not go completely unnoticed. Many, however, sought a means of addressing this problem without rejecting the new emphasis on a higher rate of fire that underlay this tendency in the first place. In France where, as in the remainder of Europe, the infantry continued to deploy along three ranks, the various traditional methods of delivering fire continued to be employed. During the closing years of the ancient regime, a series of formal tests had demonstrated that the fire of the third rank was ineffective. Obstructed by the first two ranks most of the muskets in the third rank were fired harmlessly into the air. To put the soldiers in the third rank to more effective use, and at the same time to address the problem of irregular fire which tended to occur in sustained volley fire, after the Seven Years' War the French military developed a new method of delivering fire. This was the feu de rang or 'fire by two ranks', known through the English-speaking world as 'firing by ranks', 'file firing' or 'running fire'. In this new system, although the three ranks were to remain standing, only the first and second ranks were actually to fire. The responsibility of the third rank was to reload muskets and pass these to the second rank."</i>

Now, I'd want to read more of Nosworthy, and check other sources before I came down solidly. Nosworthy does indicate that was in the 1791 regs, and that Ney sung the praises of this method at the camp on the Channel in 1804. Whether it was used into the later Napoleonic period though, I'm not sure.

In any case, the upshot seems to be that while the 3rd rank did not fire, it would not be entirely useless, but give a mild advantage to the rate of fire of the 2nd rank. Then, when you consider the 3rd rank moving forward to replace any losses in the first two ranks, my gut call is that the 75% or so is a bit more accurate. As the third rank adds a bit to the mix, but is far from fully (100%) effective.

Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Bn
Allied Coalition C-in-C

Bill,

You issue is not with the large battalions, its with the artificial size of the hexes. In reality those big battalions would spill over into adjacent hexes when in line. Not something very code-able. On the other hand making them expand puts them at a severe disadvantage vs. two battalions of half the size. I have seen very few times where you ever get the big battalions back together after expanding.

Marechal Doug Fuller
Duc de Montmorail et Comte de Hainaut
2e' Grenadiers a' Pied de la Vielle Garde
I Corp Commander
AdN

Bill,

I would like to extend my comment below. The big battalions are at a severe disadvantage vs. 2 half sized battalions. The large ones become practically immobile in extended line and are hard to reform. If one half gets crunched it will be practically impossible to reform. Two small battalions don't have this problem. Also two battalions can cover more territory both in attack and defense. They also take twice as much fatigue (from a fatigue standpoint small units are always better - cavalry squadrons never worry about the -1 morale hit due to medium fatigue, big battalions do). Also big (1000+) sized battalions cannot stack with 8-man gun batteries, an issue in the Eckmuhl games for the Austrians. Its very hard to have 1800-1900 sized stacks due to battalion size, while the smaller battalians have no problem getting there.

Big battalians in line can only cover a 2-hex ZOC front (3 in extended line). Two half-sized cover 4 hexes.

In square a big battalion only can cover two hexes with ZOC without getting surronded. Two half-sized can cover 6 hexes.

Units in extended line cannot form square in the two seperate hexes. They also have to reform before forming column. (IMHO reforming from extended line should cost 0 MP).

The worst is on the attack with a Briade of huge battalions. A 6,000 man Austrian Brigade in Eckmuhl will have at most 6 battalions as compared to 10-14 French half-sized battalions in an equal sized brigade. The flexibility is an overwelming advantage.

About the only advantage these big units have is their huge firepower punch and you now want to LIMIT it????

Never forget the historical accurrate part of the game is at the Brigade/Division/Corp level not at the battalion/squadron/battery level....

Marechal Doug Fuller
Duc de Montmorail et Comte de Hainaut
2e' Grenadiers a' Pied de la Vielle Garde

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by buffpilot</i>
The big battalions are at a severe disadvantage vs. 2 half sized battalions.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I concur.

<center>
[url="http://www.dswalter.net/NWC/2nd_Dragoons.htm"][/url]
Maj. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
~ 2nd Dragoons (Royal Scots Greys) ~
2nd (Union) Brigade, Cavalry Division, Anglo-Allied II Corps
----------
~ 3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards ~
[url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/BritGuardHorse.html"][/url]
</center>

Doug makes some good points. The way we let our units dance around in the face of the enemy gives a big advantage to the side with more smaller units. But Bill is right to examine the 3 rank issue though and just looking at firepower he is right. But the other factors listed by Doug regarding the big units and extended line do complicate the issue slightly. Of course the other option is to split battalions into two units in the oob file as was done with the British Guards battalions (and others) in Campaign Waterloo. I don't know if that is a better solution...

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/nwc/nwc_personal_record.htm"]Major General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/Brit.html"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Cavalry Division, II Corps, Anglo-Allied Army[/url] ~
----------
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/BritGuardHorse.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

Slightly OT perhaps, but something I found interesting was that supposedly: "At Waterloo, much of the British infantry was formed in four-deep line, which made the procedure for forming square much quicker and easier, eliminating one step in the drill"*.

*Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon By Rory Muir p.133

Agree with Gary about rate of fire and think 75% (at least) sounds right. I wonder what the four-rank line British infantry at Waterloo would get? 50%? [:D]

Ensign Bill Stokes
Brunswick brigade Foot Artillery
Anglo-Allied Army

From what Gary said I will not be pressing for a 1/3 reduction in firepower for 3 rank lines. I feel that the 3rd rank would have handed ready-loaded muskets to the next rank enough so that it was not a big issue.

However, note that the large bns. also affect the French as well (Jena) so its not an all-Allied thing.

In fact if anything its going to make it harder for Soult's Corps (IV) in Jena to match up with the Prussians/Saxons so if anything the Allies (already saying that this game is hard for them to win) will be a bit easier as the French firepower will be reduced.

Frankly I do not like the idea of two units for Extended Line. It should be one unit. Not much we can do about that though from what I understand.

Rich H. and I and John as well as my playtest team will be kicking this around for a month or so. Its not something that we will put into production right away and we will review the pros and cons of it.

I think that if the Extended Line were ONE unit many of us would not hesitate to use the formation. Am I correct?

If that were the case then this entire argument would be moot.

Thanks for the input guys. Gary reaffirmed what I had already thought was true. Just noted that Rory Muir may be citing cases where the 3rd rank fired its muskets into the air as Nosworthy states.

Colonel Bill Peters, 17th Dragoons, III Corps, French Army
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Swiss-Swedish Army CinC, Musket and Cannon Game Club - Come over and see what we are all about!

Gentlemen,

This was an issue with all the armies right through the period and was never really resolved one way or the other. The pros and cons for each system seemed to fall evenly with both arguments. Obviously the British two ranks IN COMBINATION with superior training and superior steadiness was the 'Gold Standard' of the day but the other nations were unable to get that mix.
I have read considerably examples of the third line being virtually ineffective and actually cuasing considerable casualties to their own unit, when in the heat of action or not properly trained, more often than not.
We are unlikely to come up with the solution that pleases all. I would also concur with Doug and Antony's points but see no real logical fix. I must admit that splitting the unit into two similiar to the Waterloo game is an option I COULD live with and should not be discarded without considering its GAME effect and pros and cons as opposed to reality. The space issue for big battalions in lines is something I think needs to be addressed.
Whereas the firepower issue can be resolved more easily once the numbers v space issue is sorted.

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

Looking at it from a more abstract perspective I quite like the big btns as they pose a tactical challenge to use or fight against. It's good as this variety helps simulate the variety that was present on the Napoleonic battlefield. Albeit in an abstract way.

The smaller btns are more flexible but more vunerable to artillery. They do however spread battle fatigue out more. Big btns have tremendous firepower but become fatigued quicker.

If you reduce their firepower you take away their advantage without compensating for it. The best compromise would be to allow extend line units to operate indepedently once extended ie they can form square for example (which the cannot at the moment which is a big disincetive to use them). Correspondingly you would need to then remove the bounce through fire for small btns with a limit of 900 men stacked say before it cuts back in.

There is a signifigant game balance issue here I think.
Just my thoughts.

General de Brigade Knox
Grand Duc d'Austerlitz et Comte de Argentan



Escadron Mamelouks
Chasseurs a'Cheval
Division de Cavalerie la Vieille Garde.





CO. 1er Brigade, II Heavy Cavalry Division, Reserve Cavalry.
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

I am changing the 2 and 3 rank EL values for Austerlitz to coincide with the Waterloo/NRC format FYI. There are issues with the 2 rank line when the half unit in EL fires. If its above the EL value then you get weird values. Some of you will note this in the Operation Eagle campaign for the British units.

I also am leaning towards having the 3 Rank SL fire reduction to be 75 percent per Gary's comments (as well as my own reservations about 66 percent). I think that that one is a done deal as far as I am concerned.

(from now on note that I am abbreviating Ext. and Short. Line to EL and SL respectively - Normal Line is NL - that is a line that cannot form EL - no railroad puns please)

Game balancing: with the addition of large French bns. to the series (Austerlitz and Jena) its not an "Allied thing" anymore. But for the purpose of play balance I went with the 75 percent value. That is NOT that much of a reduction. After all the large Allied bns. suffer a reduction as well.

Frankly I cant justify splitting up the Guards bns. as was done in our Waterloo game. It basically gives the British more tactical flexibility and doing the same for the Austrians in Eckmuhl for instance would not be historical. If it was done just to avoid the Extended Line issue then what of the large Prussian units? Anything over 800 men has to form Extended Line too.

Currently in our team we are discussing this issue and more info will be forthcoming.

Colonel Bill Peters, 17th Dragoons, III Corps, French Army
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Swiss-Swedish Army CinC, Musket and Cannon Game Club - Come over and see what we are all about!