Introduction
So you’ve got the game, played a few battles against the AI – joined the CCC, and now you’re off to offer battle to the first passing enemy officer in the tavern. Well wait a moment!
Before you embark on your campaign to write your glorious deeds in the annuals of history, take heed of some homely advice and read on….
Welcome to a new site developed for new (and not so new!) commanders to the CCC.
This will take the form of an analysis of historical tactics and weaponry used during the conflict, how they developed, and more importantly how to use these concepts in the game. Further on there will be contributions from experienced commanders on playing the scenarios with hints and tips for the beginner.
I make no claim to being a military historian, and this is intended as a low-level introduction to those with little or no knowledge of the period and (hopefully) enables them to grasp the tenants of 18<sup>th</sup> Century warfare and translate this to the game Campaign 1776.
[font=Amaze,Arial Narrow]Although many would disagree, I consider warfare more ‘art’ than ‘science’ – the inherent variables make combat a very imprecise science at best, and factors such as morale and human responses can never be formulated or constantly predicted (in game terms this often means a ‘chance’ or random factor). As such, and all things being equal, tactics and the deployment of troops is usually the decider on a level playing field – but again this rarely occurs in real warfare. [/font]
Ultimately the decisions lie with the commander how best to achieve the most from the available recourses and men, what tactics to employ, utilising terrain, formations and weapons to ‘win’ or deny his opponent victory. Often there is no ‘right or wrong’ but there are ‘better or worse’ ways to achieve this.
Remember that not all games are won by the highest body count, objectives and long-term goals must be realised. Bunker Hill was a victory (of sorts) for the British, but the price was incredibly high (1/4 of all British Officer losses in the war occurred in this battle). For the new student I recommend studying the campaign of Gen Nathaniel Greene in the South, who never won a battle but achieved eventual victory, a salutatory lesson to the British in the scope of grand tactics.
Lastly, a brief word on game play and gamesmanship.
The CCC is club a in which all players should observe a certain amount of ‘role-play’ etiquette and manners of the time. Yes winning is good, but in the 18<sup>th</sup> Century it was the style of winning and/or losing that mattered. As a beginner you should try and understand the tactics and weapons of the time, which in turn influenced the battles and the way they were fought. Do not expect to win your first battles, but try and learn from your defeats – learn the different style of your opponents play, and adjust accordingly.
The game engine is good at promoting ‘historical’ play, and penalises unhistorical tactics – scatter your men all over the map if you don’t believe me!
But we are probably getting ahead of ourselves at this point, so let us consider the factors that influence the nature of combat in the 18<sup>th</sup> Century – and the most primary of these is namely the weapons.
Weapons
Weapons and tactics are interdependent. When one changes the other changes.
The main weapons of the American Revolution were the muzzle loading flintlock musket, its attached bayonet, and the cannon. Secondary weapons were the rifle and pistol, swords and other cutting weapons. By far, the most common weapon was the smoothbore flintlock musket, of a large calibre, .62 to .75 inch bore, or equal to 16 to 11 gauge shotguns.
Musket
A musket has no rifling to spin the ball. It is "smooth bored" and will shoot both ball or shot, or a combination of the two. The firearms of the period used blackpowder. Blackpowder leaves fouling behind when fired. For this reason, the balls used by the military were undersized, so that the troops could quickly seat the next load down the barrel. The British musket, (the Brown Bess), was 75 calibre and they used a 69 calibre ball. The French musket (the Charleyville), supplied to the Americans, was 69 calibre and fired a 65-calibre ball. They were long barrelled (about 42 inches) and could mount a long triangular shaped bayonet on the barrel. The armies used paper cartridges to speed the loading process and reduce the risk of loose powder being around sparking guns. A wooden dowel about the diameter of a ball was used as a former to make paper tubes. Into this a ball and the proper amount of black powder was put, and it was sealed.
To load, a soldier opened his cartridge box, grabbed a cartridge, bit off the end to expose the powder, and poured a small amount into the pan of the lock, closed the pan, dropped the cartridge (powder first) into the barrel, removed his rammer, rammed it home, returned his rammer, and then "made ready" to shoot by cocking his lock, and "presenting" or pointing, his piece to the enemy. There were no sights, just the bayonet lug near the muzzle. The soldier just looked down the barrel.
Since the ball is undersized, and the paper cartridge is just dropped into the barrel, the ball might come out spinning as the gases behind it escaped unevenly. It might spin in any direction, and fly like a curve ball or be thrown slightly to any side. After 50 yards it was very hard for a soldier to deliberately hit a man sized target.
Rifle
Primarily the Colonial woodsmen, some militia and light units used rifles. The British raised very few units with rifles but had the Hessian Jaegers. Contrary to popular opinion/myth very few militiamen had a rifle.
The rifle is basically a longer musket with grooving to improve range and accuracy and the Colonials were noted for their tendency to pick off British leaders and officers (see Rifefire effects).
The main drawback was the slower rate of fire and lack of bayonet rendering it poor in melee.
Bayonet
The invention of the bayonet changed the face of modern warfare by allowing musket armed infantry to dispense with the plodding pikemen to hold off cavalry charges by turning the musket into potential thrusting spear.
By the time of the ARW the bayonet was the main close combat weapon of the infantry and had been used by the British to great effect; even blunting the charges of the Scottish Highlanders and Indian hordes several years before.
The use of the bayonet was perhaps as much psychological as physical, but the lack of one certainly would effect that units ability to stand up in melee.
Sabre/Cavalry
Hardly changed from ancient times, the sabre, sword or lance could be devastating in melee; particularly infantry caught in extended or in flank/rear attacks. Cavalry duels tended to be of the hack slash and through variety but very little damage in terms of casualties caused. In the game, Cavalry are predominantly light, and the infantry tactics of the day meant that charging home against a formed body of men was not a good idea in practice. Their speed and versatility means they are best used for recon, raiding and seizing positions ahead of the main force. They are more expensive (x2) in terms of points if lost, so care needs to be taken.
Artillery
The Muzzle loading cannon used were smoothbores, and smaller than used in later wars. Most were 3, 4 or 6 pound guns, mounted on wooden carriages with large wheels. Some 3-pound guns had iron legs to stand on and were called "grasshoppers". Larger guns of 12 pounds were sometimes used in the field, and even larger guns were mounted in fortifications and ships.
The cannon fired solid ball, various small shot, or sometimes shells. Shells are a hollow iron ball filled with blackpowder and fitted with a fuse. The shot used could be buckshot, musket balls or grape shot, which are larger iron or lead balls about 1 inch in diameter. Cannon had a range of several hundred yards. A 3 pounder ranged about 800 yards with solid shot, and 2 hundred yards with grape shot, maximum. At close range, loaded with shot, it could destroy an enemy company.
Cannon were considered useful particularly in siege operations or assaults. Infantry unsupported by cannon usually lost if the enemy had cannon. American Militia units were known for not standing up against British units with cannon support, since they rarely had any of their own.
The drawbacks to using artillery is the need to use the terrain to set up a killing field of fire (often on a hill overlooking open spaces) to utilise its range, its cumbersome turning and limbering to get it firing in the right place (i.e. not very flexible), and the high points cost if lost.
So to relate all the weapons look at the Fire effectiveness table below:
The commonest formation for movement. Companies were drawn up 4 men wide to enable rapid movement and changes of direction. Single units in road hexes only pay 1MP per hex. No firing is allowed, but units can melee.
Units have ZOC from the front two hexes only.
Cavalry are mounted to use this formation.
Square Formation
This is formed by several companies in line facing at right angles to each other. Obviously it protects the flanks, but reduces the frontal firepower of the unit by ¾. This formation was used against cavalry (unlikely during this period as cavalry rarely could break close formations) or to defend an objective or fortification.
Extended formation
This formation is only available to Light and Militia units. It represents the unit in skirmish or ‘dispersed’ formation – not shoulder-to-shoulder, but it still could have structure. It allows the same firing as line, and receives less chance of casualties from shooting. It is however weak in melee and easily swept away.
Units have ZOC from the front 2 hexes – and fire along this front also.
Why such tight and rigid formations then?
To compensate for inaccurate shooting, the men fired volleys, sending a mass of balls toward the enemy, some of which should hit. In order to fire volleys in unison, they formed into units of two or three ranks (lines) deep, shoulder to shoulder. The unit would operate like a machine, led by an officer (assisted by his non –commissioned officers), who would give the orders to load, fire and manoeuvre. Units could turn their lines, form into columns or squares, advance or turn about at the direction of their officers. Early in the war, the Americans did not have a universal system. Each state or even regiment had their own, making command by generals harder. The Americans also did not practice large unit -Brigade or larger- drills early in the war.
The tactics of the day called for each unit to form next to it's neighbour, forming a line across the battlefield. (not necessarily a straight line, or an unbroken one.) They would both defend and attack in these formations, which gives them the name of linear tactics.
The tactics were not designed to shoot down the enemy until he gave way, but to break up his organized lines so that your side could then march forward, in cohesive, organized and linear fashion, and charge with the bayonet. A disorganized unit cannot stand against an organized bayonet charge. Each unit tried to break the unity of the enemy formation so it could charge with the bayonet. Charged units, if not able to organize themselves, would give way if possible- or die spitted.
Muskets could be fired as fast as every 15 seconds. It took a sense of timing to be able to drive a charge home while the enemy was unable to fire and break up your lines.
Rifles, while much more accurate than muskets, also were loaded much slower. It would take at least 30 seconds, and sometimes a minute or more, to reload a rifle. In that time they were often charged with the bayonet, and since rifles were not equipped with bayonets, riflemen usually had to yield to musket men.
Early in the war, the Americans had a shortage of bayonets. When France joined the war, they supplied muskets with bayonets, and the other accoutrements- uniforms, cartridge boxes, etc, alleviating the Americans shortage of arms and bayonets. The French provided a hundred thousand muskets and bayonets during the war.
It is a myth that the Americans won by using cover, while the dumb British stood in the open in ranks to be shot by the hidden Americans. Both sides fought primarily in the open, in formation. When von Stueben took over training at Valley Forge, he put a single standard and methodology into the American army, so they could work better together. They then became a match for the British on the open ground in every respect. The Americans had been hampered by various methods and commands of manoeuvre, with little large-scale drill. Von Stueben changed that, setting a single standard and training the army to use it, and the Americans proved their ability to use these techniques at the Battle of Monmouth. Instead of a regimental way, or state way, there was only the ARMY way. One method, one-way to issue the order.
Certainly on occasion the Americans used cover, hiding behind trees and rock walls. The start of the war at Lexington and Concord is a prime example, and the New Jersey Militia, used it well also, both being examples of partisan warfare. Most battles of armies were fought using linear tactics. Even most partisan battles were fought using some form of linear tactics- they would fire volleys, and often stood in lines.
<dir> <dir> </dir> </dir> The Eighteenth Century was a period of constant tactical experimentation and growing sophistication. Technically it saw the introduction of the ring bayonet, improvements to the infantry musket that included the metal ramrod, and an improved flintlock mechanism. Tactical theory moved from deep battalion formations with little flexibility to linear fire lines capable of manoeuvre. Cavalry gradually moved out of the main battle line to the flanks and reserve, and the artillery saw great gains in mobility and rates of fire. Commanders such as Marlborough and Frederick sought new ways to overcome the limitations of their tactical deployments. Professionalism on all levels increased in all the armies of the period. It was also during this century that the first true world war was fought in climates and terrains far from the European norms. New types of troops, such as trained light infantry, flourished in these new conditions. No period can boast of more theoretical development and innovation of tactical doctrine than the eighteenth century.
So you’ve got the game, played a few battles against the AI – joined the CCC, and now you’re off to offer battle to the first passing enemy officer in the tavern. Well wait a moment!
Before you embark on your campaign to write your glorious deeds in the annuals of history, take heed of some homely advice and read on….
Welcome to a new site developed for new (and not so new!) commanders to the CCC.
This will take the form of an analysis of historical tactics and weaponry used during the conflict, how they developed, and more importantly how to use these concepts in the game. Further on there will be contributions from experienced commanders on playing the scenarios with hints and tips for the beginner.
I make no claim to being a military historian, and this is intended as a low-level introduction to those with little or no knowledge of the period and (hopefully) enables them to grasp the tenants of 18<sup>th</sup> Century warfare and translate this to the game Campaign 1776.
Ultimately the decisions lie with the commander how best to achieve the most from the available recourses and men, what tactics to employ, utilising terrain, formations and weapons to ‘win’ or deny his opponent victory. Often there is no ‘right or wrong’ but there are ‘better or worse’ ways to achieve this.
Remember that not all games are won by the highest body count, objectives and long-term goals must be realised. Bunker Hill was a victory (of sorts) for the British, but the price was incredibly high (1/4 of all British Officer losses in the war occurred in this battle). For the new student I recommend studying the campaign of Gen Nathaniel Greene in the South, who never won a battle but achieved eventual victory, a salutatory lesson to the British in the scope of grand tactics.
Lastly, a brief word on game play and gamesmanship.
The CCC is club a in which all players should observe a certain amount of ‘role-play’ etiquette and manners of the time. Yes winning is good, but in the 18<sup>th</sup> Century it was the style of winning and/or losing that mattered. As a beginner you should try and understand the tactics and weapons of the time, which in turn influenced the battles and the way they were fought. Do not expect to win your first battles, but try and learn from your defeats – learn the different style of your opponents play, and adjust accordingly.
The game engine is good at promoting ‘historical’ play, and penalises unhistorical tactics – scatter your men all over the map if you don’t believe me!
But we are probably getting ahead of ourselves at this point, so let us consider the factors that influence the nature of combat in the 18<sup>th</sup> Century – and the most primary of these is namely the weapons.
Weapons
Weapons and tactics are interdependent. When one changes the other changes.
The main weapons of the American Revolution were the muzzle loading flintlock musket, its attached bayonet, and the cannon. Secondary weapons were the rifle and pistol, swords and other cutting weapons. By far, the most common weapon was the smoothbore flintlock musket, of a large calibre, .62 to .75 inch bore, or equal to 16 to 11 gauge shotguns.
Musket
A musket has no rifling to spin the ball. It is "smooth bored" and will shoot both ball or shot, or a combination of the two. The firearms of the period used blackpowder. Blackpowder leaves fouling behind when fired. For this reason, the balls used by the military were undersized, so that the troops could quickly seat the next load down the barrel. The British musket, (the Brown Bess), was 75 calibre and they used a 69 calibre ball. The French musket (the Charleyville), supplied to the Americans, was 69 calibre and fired a 65-calibre ball. They were long barrelled (about 42 inches) and could mount a long triangular shaped bayonet on the barrel. The armies used paper cartridges to speed the loading process and reduce the risk of loose powder being around sparking guns. A wooden dowel about the diameter of a ball was used as a former to make paper tubes. Into this a ball and the proper amount of black powder was put, and it was sealed.
To load, a soldier opened his cartridge box, grabbed a cartridge, bit off the end to expose the powder, and poured a small amount into the pan of the lock, closed the pan, dropped the cartridge (powder first) into the barrel, removed his rammer, rammed it home, returned his rammer, and then "made ready" to shoot by cocking his lock, and "presenting" or pointing, his piece to the enemy. There were no sights, just the bayonet lug near the muzzle. The soldier just looked down the barrel.
Since the ball is undersized, and the paper cartridge is just dropped into the barrel, the ball might come out spinning as the gases behind it escaped unevenly. It might spin in any direction, and fly like a curve ball or be thrown slightly to any side. After 50 yards it was very hard for a soldier to deliberately hit a man sized target.
Rifle
Primarily the Colonial woodsmen, some militia and light units used rifles. The British raised very few units with rifles but had the Hessian Jaegers. Contrary to popular opinion/myth very few militiamen had a rifle.
The rifle is basically a longer musket with grooving to improve range and accuracy and the Colonials were noted for their tendency to pick off British leaders and officers (see Rifefire effects).
The main drawback was the slower rate of fire and lack of bayonet rendering it poor in melee.
Bayonet
The invention of the bayonet changed the face of modern warfare by allowing musket armed infantry to dispense with the plodding pikemen to hold off cavalry charges by turning the musket into potential thrusting spear.
By the time of the ARW the bayonet was the main close combat weapon of the infantry and had been used by the British to great effect; even blunting the charges of the Scottish Highlanders and Indian hordes several years before.
The use of the bayonet was perhaps as much psychological as physical, but the lack of one certainly would effect that units ability to stand up in melee.
Sabre/Cavalry
Artillery
The Muzzle loading cannon used were smoothbores, and smaller than used in later wars. Most were 3, 4 or 6 pound guns, mounted on wooden carriages with large wheels. Some 3-pound guns had iron legs to stand on and were called "grasshoppers". Larger guns of 12 pounds were sometimes used in the field, and even larger guns were mounted in fortifications and ships.
The cannon fired solid ball, various small shot, or sometimes shells. Shells are a hollow iron ball filled with blackpowder and fitted with a fuse. The shot used could be buckshot, musket balls or grape shot, which are larger iron or lead balls about 1 inch in diameter. Cannon had a range of several hundred yards. A 3 pounder ranged about 800 yards with solid shot, and 2 hundred yards with grape shot, maximum. At close range, loaded with shot, it could destroy an enemy company.
Cannon were considered useful particularly in siege operations or assaults. Infantry unsupported by cannon usually lost if the enemy had cannon. American Militia units were known for not standing up against British units with cannon support, since they rarely had any of their own.
The drawbacks to using artillery is the need to use the terrain to set up a killing field of fire (often on a hill overlooking open spaces) to utilise its range, its cumbersome turning and limbering to get it firing in the right place (i.e. not very flexible), and the high points cost if lost.
So to relate all the weapons look at the Fire effectiveness table below:
Campaign 1776
Fire Effectiveness Table
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
1/6 means at 1 hex the value is 6.
1-2/4 means at 1-2 hexes the fire value is 4.
So, to compare – look at the musket range 4 = fire factor of 1, but at range 1 (i.e. very close!) the fire factor goes up to 6.
Fire Effectiveness Table
<table border="1" bordercolor="#800000" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="573"> <tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#0000ff" valign="middle" width="27%">Weapon
Type
</td> <td bgcolor="#0000ff" valign="middle" width="13%"> Type
Letter
</td> <td bgcolor="#0000ff" valign="middle" width="19%">
R/F
</td> <td bgcolor="#0000ff" valign="middle" width="11%">
R/F
</td> <td bgcolor="#0000ff" valign="middle" width="10%">
R/F
</td> <td bgcolor="#0000ff" valign="middle" width="13%">
R/F
</td> <td bgcolor="#0000ff" valign="middle" width="8%">
R/F
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
Musket
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
M
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1/6
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
2/3
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
3/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
4/1
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
Rifle (no Bayonet)
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
R
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-2/4
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
3-5/3
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
6-8/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
9/1
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
Jaeger Rifle
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
B
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-2/4
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
3-5/3
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
6-8/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
9/1
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
Mortar
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
U
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-3/6
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
4-13/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
14/1
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
Howitzer
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
H
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-3/6
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
4-15/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
16/1
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
2 Pounder
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
O
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-15/1
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
16/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
3 Pounder
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
T
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-3/3
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
4-17/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
18/1
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
4 Pounder
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
F
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-5/4
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
6-19/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
20/1
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
6 Pounder
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
S
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-3/5
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
4-7/3
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
8-21/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
22/1
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
12 Pounder
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
V
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-3/8
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
4-7/4
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
8-11/3
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
12-29/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
30/1
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
18 Pounder
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
E
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-3/9
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
4-7/4
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
8-13/3
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
14-31/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
32/1
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
24 Pounder
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
Y
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-3/10
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
4-7/5
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
8-15/3
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
16-33/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
34/1
</td> </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="27%">
32 Pounder
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
Z
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="19%">
1-3/12
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="11%">
4-7/6
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="10%">
8-15/4
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="13%">
16-39/2
</td> <td bgcolor="#00ffff" valign="middle" width="8%">
40/1
</td></tr></tbody> </table>
R/F = Range/Fire Value 1/6 means at 1 hex the value is 6.
1-2/4 means at 1-2 hexes the fire value is 4.
(Chart courtesy of Bill Peters)
So, to compare – look at the musket range 4 = fire factor of 1, but at range 1 (i.e. very close!) the fire factor goes up to 6.
Formations
Typical structure of 18<sup>th</sup> Century Infantry Regiment
Although there were many types of formations used the most common basic unit is the Company.
Made up of usually between 20-100 men (depending on recruits, battle, injuries etc)
This is the ‘core’ infantry unit in c1776 and each infantry unit represents 1 company.
This company belongs to a Battalion. Usually in the British and French Armies made up of 8 Line companies, 1 Light Company and 1 Grenadier Company.
In the game there is usually a leader to represent the Battalion Commander.
In the US army the number of line and light companies varied, but the usual practise was 8 companies to 1 Battalion.
In battle the units used line formation and spread out to maximise firepower.
To represent this in the game 2 companies per hex = 4 Hexes:
Or doubled up for melee = 2 Hexes:
Specialised units
Often the flank companies were ‘detached’ to form battalions of Light or Grenadier troops. This gave the commander an excellent reserve or advance unit, but was unpopular with many Battalion commanders as it robbed them of their best men.
The advantage of having a superior unit as opposed to additional ‘penny-packets’ of good troops was borne out and was common practice in the ARW.
Legions
These units were composed of groups of infantry and Cavalry, and were the forerunners of the later (and much larger) Corps concept as ably used by Napoleon. Often they were militia or provincial units of whom some did not have horses or rode double, and provided a strike force capable of quick response, but had the staying power of infantry. In reality they often came unstuck if not properly used, or became isolated.
Line formation
The commonest formation for battle. Companies were drawn up 2-3 men deep to maximise shooting firepower and trained to fire in ranks then reload.
This formation has problems if the additional rule LINE MOVEMENT DISRUPTION is on – as it then reflects the need to ‘dress ranks’ and hold formation, which would slow the unit down.
Units have ZOC from the front 2 hexes – and fire along this front also.
Cavalry are dismounted to use this formation.
Column formation
Made up of usually between 20-100 men (depending on recruits, battle, injuries etc)
This is the ‘core’ infantry unit in c1776 and each infantry unit represents 1 company.
This company belongs to a Battalion. Usually in the British and French Armies made up of 8 Line companies, 1 Light Company and 1 Grenadier Company.
In the game there is usually a leader to represent the Battalion Commander.
In the US army the number of line and light companies varied, but the usual practise was 8 companies to 1 Battalion.
In battle the units used line formation and spread out to maximise firepower.
To represent this in the game 2 companies per hex = 4 Hexes:
Or doubled up for melee = 2 Hexes:
Specialised units
Often the flank companies were ‘detached’ to form battalions of Light or Grenadier troops. This gave the commander an excellent reserve or advance unit, but was unpopular with many Battalion commanders as it robbed them of their best men.
The advantage of having a superior unit as opposed to additional ‘penny-packets’ of good troops was borne out and was common practice in the ARW.
Legions
These units were composed of groups of infantry and Cavalry, and were the forerunners of the later (and much larger) Corps concept as ably used by Napoleon. Often they were militia or provincial units of whom some did not have horses or rode double, and provided a strike force capable of quick response, but had the staying power of infantry. In reality they often came unstuck if not properly used, or became isolated.
Line formation
The commonest formation for battle. Companies were drawn up 2-3 men deep to maximise shooting firepower and trained to fire in ranks then reload.
This formation has problems if the additional rule LINE MOVEMENT DISRUPTION is on – as it then reflects the need to ‘dress ranks’ and hold formation, which would slow the unit down.
Units have ZOC from the front 2 hexes – and fire along this front also.
Cavalry are dismounted to use this formation.
Column formation
The commonest formation for movement. Companies were drawn up 4 men wide to enable rapid movement and changes of direction. Single units in road hexes only pay 1MP per hex. No firing is allowed, but units can melee.
Units have ZOC from the front two hexes only.
Cavalry are mounted to use this formation.
Square Formation
This is formed by several companies in line facing at right angles to each other. Obviously it protects the flanks, but reduces the frontal firepower of the unit by ¾. This formation was used against cavalry (unlikely during this period as cavalry rarely could break close formations) or to defend an objective or fortification.
Extended formation
This formation is only available to Light and Militia units. It represents the unit in skirmish or ‘dispersed’ formation – not shoulder-to-shoulder, but it still could have structure. It allows the same firing as line, and receives less chance of casualties from shooting. It is however weak in melee and easily swept away.
Units have ZOC from the front 2 hexes – and fire along this front also.
Why such tight and rigid formations then?
To compensate for inaccurate shooting, the men fired volleys, sending a mass of balls toward the enemy, some of which should hit. In order to fire volleys in unison, they formed into units of two or three ranks (lines) deep, shoulder to shoulder. The unit would operate like a machine, led by an officer (assisted by his non –commissioned officers), who would give the orders to load, fire and manoeuvre. Units could turn their lines, form into columns or squares, advance or turn about at the direction of their officers. Early in the war, the Americans did not have a universal system. Each state or even regiment had their own, making command by generals harder. The Americans also did not practice large unit -Brigade or larger- drills early in the war.
The tactics of the day called for each unit to form next to it's neighbour, forming a line across the battlefield. (not necessarily a straight line, or an unbroken one.) They would both defend and attack in these formations, which gives them the name of linear tactics.
The tactics were not designed to shoot down the enemy until he gave way, but to break up his organized lines so that your side could then march forward, in cohesive, organized and linear fashion, and charge with the bayonet. A disorganized unit cannot stand against an organized bayonet charge. Each unit tried to break the unity of the enemy formation so it could charge with the bayonet. Charged units, if not able to organize themselves, would give way if possible- or die spitted.
Muskets could be fired as fast as every 15 seconds. It took a sense of timing to be able to drive a charge home while the enemy was unable to fire and break up your lines.
Rifles, while much more accurate than muskets, also were loaded much slower. It would take at least 30 seconds, and sometimes a minute or more, to reload a rifle. In that time they were often charged with the bayonet, and since rifles were not equipped with bayonets, riflemen usually had to yield to musket men.
Early in the war, the Americans had a shortage of bayonets. When France joined the war, they supplied muskets with bayonets, and the other accoutrements- uniforms, cartridge boxes, etc, alleviating the Americans shortage of arms and bayonets. The French provided a hundred thousand muskets and bayonets during the war.
It is a myth that the Americans won by using cover, while the dumb British stood in the open in ranks to be shot by the hidden Americans. Both sides fought primarily in the open, in formation. When von Stueben took over training at Valley Forge, he put a single standard and methodology into the American army, so they could work better together. They then became a match for the British on the open ground in every respect. The Americans had been hampered by various methods and commands of manoeuvre, with little large-scale drill. Von Stueben changed that, setting a single standard and training the army to use it, and the Americans proved their ability to use these techniques at the Battle of Monmouth. Instead of a regimental way, or state way, there was only the ARMY way. One method, one-way to issue the order.
Certainly on occasion the Americans used cover, hiding behind trees and rock walls. The start of the war at Lexington and Concord is a prime example, and the New Jersey Militia, used it well also, both being examples of partisan warfare. Most battles of armies were fought using linear tactics. Even most partisan battles were fought using some form of linear tactics- they would fire volleys, and often stood in lines.
<dir> <dir> </dir> </dir> The Eighteenth Century was a period of constant tactical experimentation and growing sophistication. Technically it saw the introduction of the ring bayonet, improvements to the infantry musket that included the metal ramrod, and an improved flintlock mechanism. Tactical theory moved from deep battalion formations with little flexibility to linear fire lines capable of manoeuvre. Cavalry gradually moved out of the main battle line to the flanks and reserve, and the artillery saw great gains in mobility and rates of fire. Commanders such as Marlborough and Frederick sought new ways to overcome the limitations of their tactical deployments. Professionalism on all levels increased in all the armies of the period. It was also during this century that the first true world war was fought in climates and terrains far from the European norms. New types of troops, such as trained light infantry, flourished in these new conditions. No period can boast of more theoretical development and innovation of tactical doctrine than the eighteenth century.
Last edited:
