Redcoat Firing Formations (1 Viewer)

[Cornwallis]

Does anyone know which of these firing formations is more historically accurate?

In one there is a gap of well over a metre between those in the fronk rank kneeling down firing and those standing firing behind them.

In the other they are alot more compact and the kneeling soldier is literally on the boots of the guy behind.

I would just like to get my diorama as accurately as possible in terms of the formation.

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

In most cases with two to three rank firing the ranks 'lock in' to avoid accidents between ranks. If you look at the drill manuals of the flintlock period they will instruct the men of the rear ranks to close to the front and if there is a third rank they lean to the front too. I will look for some images to post for you a little later today.
Ken

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

Although this image is from a slightly later edition depicting the guards in the early 1790s...they are using the 1764 excercise for three rank firings. This was in use during the period of the AWI.
In open order the men are about 30" apart and the ranks are paced about 1 pace apart. The image on the left is the 'make ready' movement where the men 'full cock' the hammer of the musket to prepare for firing.
The next movement is depicted on the right and it is 'present', where the men close ranks. The front rank remains in position and the two rear ranks step up and to the right to lock in forming an oblique formation. The next command would be to fire. After discharging their weapons, the men would return to the original position of open order to reload. It was not unusual for a well trained company to go through this cycle 3 times a minute.
The 1764 drill and firing exercise was a much improved and simplified drill than the previous Bland's exercise that had been in continuous use since it was published in 1727, going through at least nine editions with improvements. The first real improvements for the firing exercise appeared by 1748, with the final simplifications appearing in the 1756/57 editions eventually being replaced by the 1764 drill.
The 1764 edition was improved again in 1803, with the notable addition of the 'port arms' position and was in continual use for the rest of the Napoleonic period.
Hope this helps!
Ken

 

[Spitfrnd]

Interesting photos and explanation. For the Napoleonic period I have read in a number of tactics sources that the British fired in open (generally two) ranks with a distance of a pace apart. The same appears to be the case for the French, first in three ranks, which were order abandoned by Napoleon give the usual ineffectiveness of the third rank and the detrimental effect of third rank firing on second rank accuracy. I have also read that the British abandoned three rank firing in the AWI.

 

[theBaron]

I second Ken's post, and add that the Prussian manual followed the same sort of order. Each man was imagined to inhabit a rectangle about 2 feet on the front and 2 and a half on the side. Generally, they deployed from a column in a platoon of three ranks, parallel to the battle line, halted in position, then the first rank dropped to one knee, the second, standing immediately behind the first, drew its right foot back and aimed through the spaces between the men in the front rank, and the third rank aimed through the spaces in the second. This was in a space roughly 6 feet deep, for those three ranks.

Later in the Seven Years War, the formations were sometimes teased out into two ranks, to cover larger frontages, but still, with the second immediately behind the first.

An open formation, called Heckenfeuer, "hedge firing", was also used, if a formation was caught in terrain that didn't allow for deploying in a full line, and consisted of alternate men along the platoon front stepping forward a few paces, firing, then returning to the line while the next men in sequence stepped forward.

I think your re-enactors might have opened their ranks out of modern concerns about auditory safety, M'Lo'd.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

Although it was abandoned in practice, it was still taught.
If all eight battalion companies were present, the companies would be balanced in number and each company performed as a 'platoon' for firing. On active service a company could easily number only 30 effectives and the three rank system would be an ineffective way to cover the front.
As a result two rank firing was the norm for the AWI period and it was better suited to maneuver quickly and redirect fire along the front and flanks.
Three rank firing was still useful in built up areas for 'crowd control' and combat. This was sometimes taught as 'a street firing' exercise and it was used for maximizing the firepower in a narrow space.
Ken

 

[Spitfrnd]

I second Ken's post, and add that the Prussian manual followed the same sort of order. Each man was imagined to inhabit a rectangle about 2 feet on the front and 2 and a half on the side. Generally, they deployed from a column in a platoon of three ranks, parallel to the battle line, halted in position, then the first rank dropped to one knee, the second, standing immediately behind the first, drew its right foot back and aimed through the spaces between the men in the front rank, and the third rank aimed through the spaces in the second. This was in a space roughly 6 feet deep, for those three ranks.

Later in the Seven Years War, the formations were sometimes teased out into two ranks, to cover larger frontages, but still, with the second immediately behind the first.
...
I think your re-enactors might have opened their ranks out of modern concerns about auditory safety, M'Lo'd.

I don't know Brad but if each rank was 2ft apart then the difference in ranks between these sources is roughly 6-12 inches. Interestingly Napoleon and other good tacticians of the time were aware of and concerned about the impacts of the muzzle flash and sound on the ranks in front as well so I am inclined to believe the one pace observations.

 

[theBaron]

I should clarify the picture I'm trying to draw with this: Think of the space each man occupied as the base of a figure, so that 24 by 30 inch space in which the first man stands abuts the space of his neighbor. They really were elbow to elbow. Add to that the cartridge box, tornister, water flask, and for practical purposes, there was no daylight between them.

It really was the best formation possible, considering the technological level of the weapons, communications and managing groups of men under fire. Though, Ken raises a good point about opening up formations. The Prussians did discuss whether to abandon formally the 3-rank firing line for a 2-rank line, but I don't think they did, at least during Frederick's lifetime. It was more of a wartime adaptation, just as they modified the cavalry drill, too, when some regiments were depleted, using two ranks instead of three. But it was considered a weaker formation than three ranks, and as soon as they could manage, they maintained three, both for foot and for horse.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Scott]

I can tell you that the still from Revolution is off. I used to be in a British rev-war reenactment unit and we drilled per the period manual, very close together. Even with the CW manuals you're still close together in ranks (not skirmishing) The idea is for the second rank to step over to the right to go between the two men in front and keep his lock back enough and muzzle forward enough not to injure the front rank man. It takes training and I've been singed by muzzle flash and pan flash and clipped by percusion caps. One problem with some miniatures are that they don't take into account that the troops they represent fire in ranks. Standing firing figures should have feet together and second rank standing figures should have the right foot over one step to clear between the front rank men. Kneeling men actually "sat" on the back foot heel to save space and to be able to spring back up. Few plastic miniatures capture the drill positions of 18th and 19tn century drill. I'm glad to see that the painted metal figures are much better at this!

 

[Spitfrnd]

I should clarify the picture I'm trying to draw with this: Think of the space each man occupied as the base of a figure, so that 24 by 30 inch space in which the first man stands abuts the space of his neighbor. They really were elbow to elbow. Add to that the cartridge box, tornister, water flask, and for practical purposes, there was no daylight between them.
...

The sources I have say the ranks were to have about 13-14 inches between the chest of the rank behind and the pack of the rank in front. Essentially this is the same as your 28-30 inches. It was different side to side where the instruction is too almost touch elbows. Given that the proper pace was 28-30 inches, it would be hard to have more compression than that in practice.

 

[theBaron]

Ah, OK, I understand what you're saying, and I think we're both describing the same thing. And ultimately, Cornwallis' line should look like the first picture, and not the second.

Also-
Rrrrrrrrrrichtet-euch! Auge ge-radeeeee aus!
Ladet!
Macht euch fertig!
Schlagt an!
Feuer!


Prost!
Brad

 

[Spitfrnd]

To add to the mix, I found this on the web which is said to be taken from The Manual Exercise, As ordered by his Majesty, In 1764.

(A French drawing of two rank firing. The British and Americans normally did not use a kneeling front rank during the war, but only two standing ranks. In three ranks firing, each rank is offset slightly to the right of the rank in front. Two ranks in close order- each line of men about 9 inches apart- or open order- about 18 inches apart- were the standard during the Revolution. Two ranks allowed a smaller number of troops to effectively cover more ground. )

Note that the illustration is for a two rank formation and would appear to be open since on average it is more than 18 inches from thigh to end of outstreched foot is and some additional space shown beyond that to the rear rank.

To add some more color to this, I have some texts stating that open rank is two paces and closed rank is one pace. This may be consistent with your 2 ft square notation, as well as the normal 13-14 inch rank difference I noted since I think the usual advance was in closed ranks.

In all events, the first photo would appear more common than the second, which would seem more spread than even open formation.

 

[Scott]

I read Fusiliers by Mark Urban ..

http://www.amazon.com/Fusiliers-Mark-Urban/dp/0571224865

...and what happened by the later part of the War of Independence is British troops going to light infantry open order rather than the close order. This would be true in the southern campaigns. Urban relates how the British army went back to closed order because of the influence of a Prussian grand review after the war. Younger officers would had served in America rejected the Prussian style in time for the Napoleonic Wars so that light troops and rifles could manuver more openly than tight ranks.
There is good evidence stated by Urban that Brirish uniforms were also adapted to the American campaigns as early as 1776 when the Guards came ashore in New York in trousers and "campaign" style hats.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I read Fusiliers by Mark Urban ..

http://www.amazon.com/Fusiliers-Mark-Urban/dp/0571224865

...and what happened by the later part of the War of Independence is British troops going to light infantry open order rather than the close order. This would be true in the southern campaigns. Urban relates how the British army went back to closed order because of the influence of a Prussian grand review after the war. Younger officers would had served in America rejected the Prussian style in time for the Napoleonic Wars so that light troops and rifles could manuver more openly than tight ranks.
There is good evidence stated by Urban that Brirish uniforms were also adapted to the American campaigns as early as 1776 when the Guards came ashore in New York in trousers and "campaign" style hats.

Did he happen to define open or close order by any chance?

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

A common method for dressing the ranks distance is to extend your arm to the front with the hand extended to just touch the back of the man in front. This is about 24 inches.
The dressing to the right or left is with the elbow out to the side you are dressing to, and the hand on the hip...this is about 12 inches.
These distances work well for the movement of troops and the loading sequence of the flintlock musket.
Ken

 

[Scott]

Let me have a look....

 

[Scott]

...it looks like a full arm's distance between each file, that is man. The front and rear rank man working together. William Howe developed this in the 1750s. Urban note's Howe retraining the light infantry at Halifax and getting the rest of the troops down to two ranks and forming from the center for speed during this time in 1776.

 

[Spitfrnd]

...it looks like a full arm's distance between each file, that is man. The front and rear rank man working together. William Howe developed this in the 1750s.

Well I am slightly shorter than average and I can reach 28 inches so that would make sense in light of the below. I have also read they dressed side to side by elbows for close and arms for open.