Advancing in three lines

[btfire]

Forgive me if this topic has been presented before, as the search features did not bring up the information I seek...

Reading the Proceedings of the General Court Martial of Col. F.W. McMaster, I came across this quote by Capt. J.W. Avery, 17th SCVI, concerning the Battle of South Mountain.

...in falling back...ordering them to retire in good order, and he [McMaster] wished to renew the fight on the top of the mountain when we had very few men, and there was no other Regiments to be seen on the right or left; the enemy then at that time advancing on us in three lines.

Lieutenant J.R. Morse, 17th SCVI, speaking of the same battle said,

...the enemy were advancing in three lines, and were outnumbering us; I can't say to what extent.

The only reference I can find to using three ranks is in Scott's. Are the quotes above referring to companies three deep? or was the officer facing off against them using the older drill manual? Evan's Brigade faced off in Turner's Gap against Rickett's Second Division of Hooker's I Corps.

[Dan Wambaugh]

Re: Advancing in three lines

Brian,

I would take the above quotes to mean three successive lines of battle, not three ranks within a single unit. A heavy column much like the attack formation popularized by Emory Upton at Spotsylvania.


Best,

[btfire]

Re: Advancing in three lines

Thank you, I knew something had been written that I read recently, but could find it nowhere when I came across these references...

[Pvt_Sullivan]

Re: Advancing in three lines

Brian,

You're going to make me look up a quote for this one...

The concept of using three successive lines of battle is from the French and was used during the Civil War. Say a Brigade of six regiments, could stack in three lines of two regiments each, separated by 100 paces. When they advanced, the first line could engage defenders in hand to hand, the second could follow up and overwhelm the defenders and the third line in concept could exploit the breach.

The problem is this relied on coherent formations reaching the defenders. Which did not happen successfully to my knowledge. Later in the war, the realization was that to spread out the mass of the force was ineffective. As an example at Spotsylvania CH the 2nd Corps (Hancock) Attack on the Mule Shoe Salient was done with a mass formation of regiments with little to no space between them in my recollection.

OK... off to the book shelf for me to corroborate my memory.

[btfire]

Re: Advancing in three lines

Well, based on that, and from the description of Spotsylvania, this also explains the various quotes in the text referring to waves of firing, as opposed to vollies from a stationary line of battle. As one line broke, the next immediately took it's place. Scott's refers to forming the company in either two or three ranks, and I was just attempting to figure out which the above quotes referred too.

[Johan Steele]

Re: Advancing in three lines

To add to the confusion sometimes period authors and observers would refer to three distinct & adjacent lines of battle in such a way. This confused me greatly when reading on the Battle of Griswoldville after the Atlanta campaign as I doubted greatly that the Georgia militia was still using Scott's. Upon further reading from a different auther I figured out that the first writer was referring to three seperate lines of battle.

[Chad Wrinn]

Re: Advancing in three lines

According to military manuals of the time it would most likely be the first rank being skirmishers the second the main attacking column and the third the reserve. The main attacking column makes up half of the total then the skirmishers make up an eight and the reserve make up three eights of the total. Or something of that nature.

[ajroscoe]

Re: Advancing in three lines

The 17th SCVI at the Battle of South Mountain was fighting as part of Evan's Independent Brigade on the Rebel left. As such, it was fighting against the Union I Corps under General Hooker. The I Corps was attacking in 3 lines of battle, each division after the other. So, the three lines of battle he was talking about were most likely Meade's then Rickett's then Hatch's (later Doubleday's) divisions attacking up the hill.

[john duffer]

Re: Advancing in three lines

Even though SCOTT'S call for three or two ranks it's mentioned in the front that the manual is adopted with the exception that three ranks will not be used.

[Pvt_Sullivan]

Re: Advancing in three lines

The 17th SCVI at the Battle of South Mountain was fighting as part of Evan's Independent Brigade on the Rebel left. As such, it was fighting against the Union I Corps under General Hooker. The I Corps was attacking in 3 lines of battle, each division after the other. So, the three lines of battle he was talking about were most likely Meade's then Rickett's then Hatch's (later Doubleday's) divisions attacking up the hill.

Andrew that was precisely what I was getting at from my memory. Thanks for the assist with a period example.

Chad, I'd disagree with you in the sense that a line a skirmishers (dispersed moving independently) is entirely different than a line of battle (massed, moving in unison). You are correct that is the textbook method of putting out skirmishers and supporting it with a line of battle and a reserve. Once again my apologies for going form memory, but I have read this described in battle reports as 'The attacking force had thrown out skirmishers during their advance'. I think Brian's orginal quote is based on the what I described from memory and what Andrew helped me with a period example.

[RJSamp]

Re: Advancing in three lines

I've brought this very topic up a couple of times (once for each server crash?) on various forums.

You've got BUFORD'S quote at Gettysburg about 'the devil to pay' and they'll be 'coming a boomin', 3 lines strong'...

I think Martin (First Day at GB), Coddington (GB Campaign), a piece in the Gettysburg Magazine from the early 90's all point this out.....one quote was: they came on in their usual style 3 lines deep.

It isn't Scott's 3 ranks for certain, it's an 1863's reference to CSA (not USA) standard practice for their usual approach tactics in a meeting engagement.

It MIGHT be alternating ranks of skirmishers + main battle line (that's a cloud of skirmishers and 1 battle line forming '3' lines).

I don't think it's Skirmishers, Skirmisher Reserves, MBL.

We KNOW it isn't Skirmishers, MBL, Reserve....I see no reference to that anywhere in manual or writings. If 1st and 10th companies form your skirmishers, just exactly which companies form this 'mythical' reserve?

It just might be Skirmishers, MBL, 2nd MBL. Now THAT makes sense. Hood's Division assault on July 2nd was in this manner. Cloud of skirmishers in front, brigade battle line, reserve brigade (2nd) battle line.

It isn't UPTON's USA stack of regiments assault column. that's many more than 3 lines deep, and it's 1864.....the references are to CSA and 1862-3....

Sorry I don't have my books with me at work.....but keep this fired up and I'll dig out the quotes this weekend.

[Chad Wrinn]

Re: Advancing in three lines

Mr Samp If you would you should invest in the book Manuel of Instruction for the Volunteers and Militia of the United States By Major William Gilham in it on page 689 and 690 in states,

" On the field of battle, wether the object be to attack or defend, the infantry is divided into three bodies- and advanced guard, the main body, and a reserve. "

Secondly to contradicted your self with,

We KNOW it isn't Skirmishers, MBL, Reserve....I see no reference to that anywhere in manual or writings. If 1st and 10th companies form your skirmishers, just exactly which companies form this 'mythical' reserve?

and then you say,

"It just might be Skirmishers, MBL, 2nd MBL. Now THAT makes sense. Hood's Division assault on July 2nd was in this manner. Cloud of skirmishers in front, brigade battle line, reserve brigade (2nd) battle line."

Also you would not deploy your first and tenth companies as skirmisher only one of them.


Or you could deploy your skirmishers they using Hardee's Infantry Tactics reform your skirmish company behind your main body and use this as the reserve. In this you can see that Hardee too agreed with he concept of Skirmishers, main body, and reserve.

While I'm on skirmishers, According to Hardee's a skirmish line is only ONE line on an alternating CLOUD, the reason it you get men blowing each other heads off that way, ask anyone who has fought in the real thing they will tell you the same thing.

[ajroscoe]

Re: Advancing in three lines

Chad,
The opening preface of General Casey's Tactics clearly say that two companies are to be kept behind the other eight on either flank of the battalion to be deployed as skirmishers. That being said, there were numerous instances of whole regiments being put forward as skirmishers before an entire brigade, or of several companies, not necessarily just one or two, being deployed. As with all things military, there is a sharp difference between what the drill manual (or the dozen drill manuals) says and what is necessary on the battlefield to achieve victory.

[john duffer]

Re: Advancing in three lines

Mr. Roscoe

CASEY'S was adopted with the exception of the 8 & 2 rule. All paragraphs that refer to the "skirmish companies" have an (0) in front and the prefacre mentions that those paragraphs are omitted. This was the French model but in the US at the time all troops were expected to function as light infantry when needed.

[ajroscoe]

Re: Advancing in three lines

John,
I was aware of that, I was simply trying to make the point that in any study of the tactics used on a battlefield, we have to stop looking so rigidly at what it says in the manuals and instead look at the actual practices of the soldiers. Any tactics MUST be adapted to the situation at hand and allowances made in those tactics in order to ensure success on the battlefield. Some people have the mindset that only one company can be ordered forward as skirmishers, because that is what the manuals say. I was pointing out Casey's as an example of even a manual that says differently (though of course it was not adopted that way, it still must have stimulated the thoughts of those officers who read it). If we, as living historians, become too fixated on the manuals, and in the process ignore the realities of their actions on the field, we do them a disservice. Officers back than were little different than officers today: some were good, some were middling, and some were terrible. It was then, as it is now, the good officers who can size up a situation, gauge a threat, and using the SPIRIT of the tactics, adapt his force best to overcome the enemy.