Two rank firing question (1 Viewer)

[Cornwallis]

The British Army was famous for being the only army that fought in two ranks rather than three. This allowed every single man to fire his musket without the need for the front rank to kneel.

As I'm sure like myself most collectors try to make their displays as historically accurate as possible and on my K&C American Revolution display I am aiming towards a two rank company in firing formation. I have been working towards the front rank kneeling firing and the second rank standing firing as I thought that was how things were done, however its appears I could be wrong as the above sentence from an online source seems to suggest.

I would value some opinions from those on the forum who have good knowledge of this sort of thing as if need be my kneeling front rank will have to go!

 

[Spitfrnd]

The British Army was famous for being the only army that fought in two ranks rather than three. This allowed every single man to fire his musket without the need for the front rank to kneel.

As I'm sure like myself most collectors try to make their displays as historically accurate as possible and on my K&C American Revolution display I am aiming towards a two rank company in firing formation. I have been working towards the front rank kneeling firing and the second rank standing firing as I thought that was how things were done, however its appears I could be wrong as the above sentence from an online source seems to suggest.

I would value some opinions from those on the forum who have good knowledge of this sort of thing as if need be my kneeling front rank will have to go!

At least for the Napoleonic period, the front rank was much more likely to kneel since it was awknowledged to have the advantages of lower risk to the front rank as well as removing it from the the sound and flashes of the discharges near their heads that the alternative would assure. If the line as advancing or expected to advance shortly, then both ranks might stand.

BTW, the French army also used two line firing from time to time so the source you cite is rather suspect with its details.

 

[Scott]

One problem that model makers have is a problem with making standing firing figures. The foot position of the front rank man is different than the rear rank. The rear rank man steps over to his right and that is difficult to mold, but in reality it helps the rear rank men fire between the front rank men. (I've done it with Rev-War and CW/WBTS drill) If the front rank kneels, much better in firing by three ranks of course, some modelers have a figure kneeling directly on the ground with the leg back rather than "sitting" on his heel. That takes up less space and aids the kneeling man in standing up again. Old hollow-cast Britains show this quite well.

The AIRFIX Napoleonics, French and British, are terrible as they take up too much space in ranks making firing in ranks "dangerous."

In the Rev-War the British experimented with more open ranks and just two ranks depending more on rapid firing and maneuver rather than a solid mass.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

One problem that model makers have is a problem with making standing firing figures. The foot position of the front rank man is different than the rear rank. The rear rank man steps over to his right and that is difficult to mold, but in reality it helps the rear rank men fire between the front rank men. (I've done it with Rev-War and CW/WBTS drill) If the front rank kneels, much better in firing by three ranks of course, some modelers have a figure kneeling directly on the ground with the leg back rather than "sitting" on his heel. That takes up less space and aids the kneeling man in standing up again. Old hollow-cast Britains show this quite well.

The AIRFIX Napoleonics, French and British, are terrible as they take up too much space in ranks making firing in ranks "dangerous."

In the Rev-War the British experimented with more open ranks and just two ranks depending more on rapid firing and maneuver rather than a solid mass.

Why is that difficult to mold. Do you have an illustration? I can't quite picture it?

Terry

 

[Scott]

Can't find a photo but imagine that the front rank standing man's legs are in line with his aimed weapon, which is easier to make a mold of while the the rear rank man's legs are at more of a right angle to his aimed weapon. Harder to create a mold parting line. Of course this is 1860s.

In the 1764 British manual a man is taught to step back with his right foot and balance on his left. So this K & C figure is pretty good.

This K & C figure kneeling isn't bad either....

One could set up a firing line of men at extended order which from the manual is one arm's length from the right or left, rear rank standing or both ranks standing, or the front rank kneeling, Obviously one can't alter collector figures w/o damaging the value.

 

[Scott]

Three ranks by a 7 Years War reenactor group. I don't like to use photos of reenactor groups for examples as these groups often don't have the numbers to recreate the tactics.

You can see that the 2nd and 3rd standing ranks are using different foot positions.

 

[DCN1898]

I am looking for some illustrations on firing positions. They are in Hardee's School of the Company for Civil War. I will try to describe it.
At the command "Ready" the right foot of soldiers in both ranks are turned, toes pointed out and parallel to the company line. The left foot heel is placed against the instep of the right foot and facing forward. The feet are in a "T". During firing, as a general rule, the right foot never moves forward or backwards so that each soldier keeps their proper place so that the rear rank's rifle muzzles don't get too close to the ears of the front rank. (Rear rank stays about 15 inches behind the front rank.)
At the command "Aim", the front rank soldier's feet remain in a "T". The rear rank soldiers take a step to the right with their right foot so that their rifle is in the space between the two front rank soldiers. At the command "Recover" or "Load", The rear rank soldier's right foot comes back to the "T" position. Loading is done from this very compact position.It is very important that that the soldiers don't step up or back during this drill.
I was a Civil War Reenactor for a few years so I don't know if this is the same kind of drill for other periods.

 

[theBaron]

The British Army was famous for being the only army that fought in two ranks rather than three. This allowed every single man to fire his musket without the need for the front rank to kneel.

Not entirely accurate, without qualifiers.

The Prussian manual called for a platoon to form up in three ranks, first rank kneeling, second rank standing and aiming in the gaps between the men in the first rank, and the third rank standing and aiming in the available gaps. It was a much tighter formation, though, with the men practically touching. Frederick himself, or one of his officers, noted that he believed the close contact helped give the men more confidence and unit cohesion.

From a position of attention, facing the enemy, the first rank knelt, of course, on command, kneeling on the right knee. The second and third ranks each drew back their right foot, which had the effect of present the narrowest possible target. Each man was thought to occupy a rectangle of two feet on the front and two feet and some inches on the side.

However, due to manpower losses, in the latter half of the war, formations often formed into two ranks, instead of three. This allowed the unit to cover the same frontage as a unit at full strength. But when losses were replaced, a three-rank formation was used.

The main advantage, in the era of smoothbore weapons, is to have more muzzles concentrated in the same frontage.

Scott's right about molding a kneeling figure. The mold maker has to deal with parting lines that travel through several planes. I know that of all my Prins August molds, the one to cast a kneeling figure is the one that works the worst. The figure's right foot often doesn't fill, leaving a stub, and that after having cut vents as best I could (spin casting might work better, thought).

Prost!
Brad

 

[Scott]

This is the problem for any figure maker doing CW troops is men standing firing need three distinct foot positions to show a unit loading and firing in two ranks. Men loading by Hardee's and others need the weapon in front and perpendicular rather than at an angle as many makers sculpt their figures. That's tough to cast in one piece. The feet are heel to heel.

When Priming, at Ready, and firing a man goes back to the "T" position. It's better to show CW troops skirmishing or in some kind of broken formation with the figures available. The poses then would be "right."

Most of the drill manuals are On-Line somewhere.

To answer the Rev-War question, the problem with the 1764 British Manual that you may find On-Line is that some of the positions are not explained in the detail that we want concerning positions in more than one rank. Period art work may be inaccurate or stylized.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Two problems with doing the drill manuals are that the field practices were often different and in the Napoleonic period, the longer the fire fight, the more out of position the individuals in line became. The first volley or so might have be roughly the way described but after that is was smoke, noise, musket balls, canister and confusion. The re-enactors cannot quite simulate the conditions since they are not being fired upon with cannon and musket, which is a very large difference. The British did occassionally use 3 deep lines just as the French sometimes used 2.

 

[Scott]

Two problems with doing the drill manuals are that the field practices were often different and in the Napoleonic period, the longer the fire fight, the more out of position the individuals in line became. The first volley or so might have be roughly the way described but after that is was smoke, noise, musket balls, canister and confusion. The re-enactors cannot quite simulate the conditions since they are not being fired upon with cannon and musket, which is a very large difference. The British did occassionally use 3 deep lines just as the French sometimes used 2.

The manual of arms was really to get a soldier to load and fire quickly and efficiently by long practice. In the CW loading in 9 times progresses to loading in 4 times until the command is load as the training progresses. It's much the same practice with 18th century drill. The marching drill was useful for the 99 % of the time soldiers were getting from place to place. I've recently read Fusiliers, relevant to the Rev-War, which relates that the British altered their tactics to fit service in the Colonies. After the War, they went back to the static tactics because the Brass was impressed with the Prussians. Early service in the Napoleonic wars showed the British that the American experience, experience by officers who served in America and now senior officers, was the better way. I suggest the book rather than me rewriting it here.

Cool! Mark Urban the author of Fusiliers has a short video......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53APPLI_AY

 

[Spitfrnd]

I agree about the purpose of the drill. My point is simply that it is a point of departure, not destination, when it comes to defining how the soldiers of the periods actually fought. It is not really my period but Fusiliers sounds worth trying indeed, thanks for the link. Of course, I would have the same observations about Cornwell as Urban makes about himself.

 

[Scott]

Sorry...I don't get the Cornwell ref. I'm just looking back here a week later.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Sorry...I don't get the Cornwell ref. I'm just looking back here a week later.

Urban says he wrote Fusiliers with historically accurate, well researched, primary information. Nothing against Urban and his modesty but I would say Bernard Cornwell does the same.

 

[Scott]

I get it. I like Sharpe because it's Harlequin Romances for men. I found a few technical gaffs in Sharpe. Cornwell doesn't footnote or source his fiction, but I don't mind because the stories are fun.

Here's a reply to my post on a Rev-War forum about the original drill question from Don N. Hagist. His blog is pretty good and I used to reenact British with him back in early 80s.

"Re: British Drill question....

It's a trick question, because the 1764 manual describes only firing in three
ranks. We know that in America the British army usually formed in two ranks, but
we lack a manual that describes firings in two ranks.

That gives us choices:

- Follow the manual for the first and second rank, in which case the front rank
kneels and the second rank steps directly sideways (over the leg of the kneeling
front rank man) with the right foot. This displaces the body a few inches to the
right. It is VERY IMPORTANT that the front rank men kneel properly, by keeping
the lower left leg straight sinking their body backwards. The lower left leg
does not move at all, the left thigh ends up horizontal, and the body has moved
backwards to close the space between the ranks. The body remains erect (no
slumping); not only does this close the space so that the second rank man does
not need to step forward, it also makes it easy to stand up again even for
people with weak knees, because the knees never bend farther than 90 degrees.

- Follow the manual for the second and third rank. In this case the front rank
man still steps directly sideways. The third rank man also steps directly
sideways with his right foot, then steps forward with the left foot so that the
left foot is directly in front of the right. This moves his body forward to
close the space between the ranks and also turns it sideways so that he has a
clear lane in front of him. The second-and-third rank technique looks really
cool because the men in front never turn their bodies.

- Make up something that seems logical and follows the spirit of the manual. The
usual approach is to have the front rank remain standing but step back with
their right foot. The second rank steps directly sideways, as in the manual.

It is really worth the effort to choose one of the above techniques and then
practice it so that everyone in your unit knows exactly what they're doing and
everyone does the right thing. In practice, many units just mush through
two-rank firings and sometimes have firelocks positioned dangerously relative to
other men. If you follow the movements described in the 1764 manual, the locks
and muzzles always are safely away from faces.
Don N. Hagist
Books and CDs of primary source documents: http://revolutionaryimprints.com
Stories of British soldiers: http://redcoat76.blogspot.com/

--- In nerev@yahoogroups.com, "sbl" <sbl590@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I haven't done the drill since the early 80s and I forgot what the rear
rank man does with his feet when both ranks are firing in formation as opposed to skirmishing. In CW/WBTS drill the rear rank man steps over to the right to
get between the two front rank men. I'm trying to help a toy soldier collector.
Thanks.
>
> Scott
>

 

[Scott]

All in all, a collector would have to change his expensive figures to fit OR just show the figures as cast by the maker and hope that the "experts" don't nit-pick.

 

[Cornwallis]

Thanks for all this, much appreciated.

I already have x10 of the kneeling figures now so changing them would be a bit of a nightmare, however at the same time it really would irk me everytime I looked at my display to think it weren't quite right.

Is there any situation that I could use kneeling firing in and be authentic for an AWI set up i.e. firing over a stone wall, in woods etc, as opposed to both sides facing each other over a field with no obstacles between?

 

[DCN1898]

Probably as a skirmisher.

 

[Scott]

DNC1898 has a point. Your standing and kneeling troops could displayed skirmishing, even though they are battalion "hat" men, or defending a strong point. If you have the advancing troops form that King and Country you could mix in a line of advancing/ firing figures.

As we have been beating around, there is enough period information that the British were trying open order and skirmishing tactics.

They are nice figures all in all. It would be sad to try to change them as they are collectibles.

Hopefully the makers are reading these forums and getting the idea of making figures representing the basic drill positions for this period. Imrie/Risley did this 40+ years ago with their kits.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Thanks for all this, much appreciated.

I already have x10 of the kneeling figures now so changing them would be a bit of a nightmare, however at the same time it really would irk me everytime I looked at my display to think it weren't quite right.

Is there any situation that I could use kneeling firing in and be authentic for an AWI set up i.e. firing over a stone wall, in woods etc, as opposed to both sides facing each other over a field with no obstacles between?

For skirmishers definitely. In line it would be appropriate as noted below but bear in mind that the manual and the re-enactors interpretations should be taken as guides and not gospel for actual battle formations. I will note again that the many contemporary observations of actual battles of the period amply support the expectation that rigid adherence to the manual of arms was NOT a reality, nor was it even practical beyond perhaps the first volley. Moreover, formations had to adapt to conditions and where it was not appropriate to use 3 lines, you can be they used 2. In the Napoleonic Wars of course, 2 lines were the norm for the British and the front rank kneeled most often unless the plan was for a single volley followed by a charge.

I would not worry so much about the limitations of poses you have in your figures; I think the minor deviations noted are well within expected and documented variations.