A Request for Increased damage against a regiment in Column Formation

[JC Edwards]

The use of Battle Columns is not as ridiculous as you would put it. American Infantry Battle Columns were first implemented during the ACW......most notably by Longstreet during both Chickamauga and The Wilderness due to maneuvering troops through the heavy/dense forests. Though both battles came after Gettysburg, it would not have been a surprise they could possibly have been in use even before hand.

Also, your perception that a unit(s) in column formation would have taken more casualties is about 30% accurate.....only if that unit(s)were being flanked would they POSSIBLY receive 2x more casualties.
Units in a forward attacking Battle Column would suffer even less..........because, as Longstreet and other commanders discovered, a unit in column formation moves quicker and more concise than one in line formation......thus, covering more ground and distance at a much faster pace.

One of the purposes of SOWGB, and it's predecessors TCCWBR and TC2M, is to CHANGE HISTORY.....the "what if's".
There are plenty of them......just enjoy yourself.

kindest regards

The Mad One

I think your history is off by at least 55 years. Napoleon was utilzing attack columns to increase mobility and add weight to a charge at the decisive point back at the turn of the century. This was a practical tactic at the time due to the decreased range of infantry weapons at the time and the shorter effective engagement ranges and less destructive artillery. Rifled guns significantly increased the accuracy from the smoothball muskets of the Napoleonic era thereby making attack columns less useful. Additionally, improvements in both the range and killing power of Civil War artillery made attack columns very susceptible to destructive battery fire.

Strange.....you say my history is off by 55 years.....yet I said AMERICAN INFANTRY......had nothing to do with Napoleon.

Sarge

[Willard]

The use of Battle Columns is not as ridiculous as you would put it. American Infantry Battle Columns were first implemented during the ACW......most notably by Longstreet during both Chickamauga and The Wilderness due to maneuvering troops through the heavy/dense forests. Though both battles came after Gettysburg, it would not have been a surprise they could possibly have been in use even before hand.

Also, your perception that a unit(s) in column formation would have taken more casualties is about 30% accurate.....only if that unit(s)were being flanked would they POSSIBLY receive 2x more casualties.
Units in a forward attacking Battle Column would suffer even less..........because, as Longstreet and other commanders discovered, a unit in column formation moves quicker and more concise than one in line formation......thus, covering more ground and distance at a much faster pace.

One of the purposes of SOWGB, and it's predecessors TCCWBR and TC2M, is to CHANGE HISTORY.....the "what if's".
There are plenty of them......just enjoy yourself.

kindest regards

The Mad One

I think your history is off by at least 55 years. Napoleon was utilzing attack columns to increase mobility and add weight to a charge at the decisive point back at the turn of the century. This was a practical tactic at the time due to the decreased range of infantry weapons at the time and the shorter effective engagement ranges and less destructive artillery. Rifled guns significantly increased the accuracy from the smoothball muskets of the Napoleonic era thereby making attack columns less useful. Additionally, improvements in both the range and killing power of Civil War artillery made attack columns very susceptible to destructive battery fire.

Strange.....you say my history is off by 55 years.....yet I said AMERICAN INFANTRY......had nothing to do with Napoleon.

Sarge

Still not sure what your point is given that your facts are still off. CW troops were using linear Napoleonic tactics throughout the war. I am not sure what column tactics you think were developed by AMERICAN INFANTRY that had nothing to do with Napoleonic tactics. By the end of the Napoleonic era, even those French heavy column attacks were less effective. The whole Battle of Gettysburg is Lee's love letter to Napoleonic tactics and theory of decisive battle - and this should not be a suprise to anyone as Lee taught this West Point.

[ORourke]

... quoted from various sources"


"Could the increased effectiveness of Civil War era artillery help explain the tactical changes since Napoleon's time? Perhaps advances in

artillery explain why it was rare for infantry to advance in maneuver columns, and almost never with cavalry support. Prussian observer

Justus Scheibert says as much; "Americans tried the column for offense and gave it up because artillery poured murder on their columns."

(Scheibert 41)

Later in the war, commanders developed more effective offensive formations, including the “close column by division.” Here, regiments formed

into a narrow column, two companies wide and 10 ranks deep. This formation presented a slender front, allowing regiments to pass over ground

quickly, sustain fewer casualties and preserve the morale and physical shock of their attack. Close column by division formations and

similar adaptations worked exceedingly well at several battles—Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, Fort Harrison and the final assaults at

Petersburg—puncturing an entrenched enemy position with impunity. However, at other battles, most notably at Kennesaw Mountain, where steep

or rugged terrain did not favor a dense formation, attack columns stalled, forcing the soldiers to pile up and incur heavy casualties."

-O'Rourke

[maym]

... quoted from various sources"


"Could the increased effectiveness of Civil War era artillery help explain the tactical changes since Napoleon's time? Perhaps advances in

artillery explain why it was rare for infantry to advance in maneuver columns, and almost never with cavalry support. Prussian observer

Justus Scheibert says as much; "Americans tried the column for offense and gave it up because artillery poured murder on their columns."

(Scheibert 41)

Later in the war, commanders developed more effective offensive formations, including the “close column by division.” Here, regiments formed

into a narrow column, two companies wide and 10 ranks deep. This formation presented a slender front, allowing regiments to pass over ground

quickly, sustain fewer casualties and preserve the morale and physical shock of their attack. Close column by division formations and

similar adaptations worked exceedingly well at several battles—Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, Fort Harrison and the final assaults at

Petersburg—puncturing an entrenched enemy position with impunity. However, at other battles, most notably at Kennesaw Mountain, where steep

or rugged terrain did not favor a dense formation, attack columns stalled, forcing the soldiers to pile up and incur heavy casualties."

-O'Rourke

interesting quotes, but the second quote seems to be referring to battle columns rather then road columns.
good find. Thank you.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Willard wrote:

CW troops were using linear Napoleonic tactics throughout the war. I am not sure what column tactics you think were developed by AMERICAN INFANTRY that had nothing to do with Napoleonic tactics. By the end of the Napoleonic era, even those French heavy column attacks were less effective. The whole Battle of Gettysburg is Lee's love letter to Napoleonic tactics and theory of decisive battle - and this should not be a suprise to anyone as Lee taught this West Point.

This is quite true. After 1806 the well trained French army was no more. With all the new conscript replacements and continuous wars, Napoleon did not have the well trained troops necessary to carry out line advances. Hence he evolved his tactics to utilize mixed order and column charges. These were quite costly as the artillery of the day was very effective, especially against massed troops. Napoleon didn't worry about the large losses. His only concern was to have a large enough mass of men, ordered or not, reach the enemy lines.

His generals were not in favor of these tactics because of the enormous losses suffered due to the enemy's artillery. If Napoleon was present during the advance, they indeed went in column. But if he was not in view of the advance, his generals, more often than not, ordered that advance in line formation.

As you pointed out, Lee was very much like Napoleon, a strategic genius, but a mediocre tactician. In 1863 he had a well trained army that was capable of carrying out a long advance in line formation. He must have thought that changing the formation would would have produced a different result at Waterloo. But the distance his men had to travel on July 3rd was much longer at G'burg and the artillery had more time to work on the shallower formations.

The use of column formations in 1864-5 was probably due to the same reason that Napoleon made use of it. The old seasoned armies no longer existed. Large scale line advances were no longer possible with the quality of troops on hand.

[Olszowy]

"A gap of 250-300 yards." There is your problem right there. Gaps are and were exploited all the time. Bottom line is there are many examples of columnar attacks and not only against gaps. Look at the Battle of Big Black Bridge. Lawler's troops smashed open a defensive line with a point blank column attack. Shortest charge of the war at 3 minutes and mostly done in column. Hancock at the Mule Shoe and there are others. I myself use column attacks when I can because they are fast and usually used to catch a flank hanging in the air, or an unprotected battery, or a section of line weakly held. An unsupported battery is nothing more than a gap in you line waiting to be exploited.
How do you solve it? Support batteries with infantry regiments so that the attacking unit has maximum time to suffer. Put you guns some place where they can take advantage of poor ground to the front. Something a column has a tough time getting across. Ensure batteries can cross fire and if they cannot back them up with a 2d line or ensure they are supported.
If you have a gap or exposed unit/battery and the enemy makes a decision to come at you HARD, he is coming and you best be ready. If you can slow or break up the attack in front of a battery, the animation of the effect of canister is my favorite thing to watch be it a unit in column or line. At least in column they are not hurting my battery as I rip them a new one.

[Hancock the Superb]

I think the biggest problem is what is a column?

By definition (US Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics), a column is a formation where the company/battalion/regiment/brigade/etc. is not in line. That is, the formation is not two men deep with officers three paces to the rear.

A formation often used late in the war when attacking is either column by battalion or column by division. The first is actually quite effective, where each regiment has a front line and a reserve line. This was often used in the early part of Petersburg. Columns by divisions was used effectivly when Wright's 6th destroyed Heth in 1865 at Petersburg. However, other column formations used include columns by twos, columns by fours (used in game), columns by sections, platoons, and companies.

An attacking column by fours really was never found for one main reason; the officers of the regiment are actually not in the column. Although not shown in the game, the officers of the battalion would be off to one side in a fifth column (I forgot which side), to make deploying in line formation far easier. So if a regiment was attacking in columns by fours, all their officers would be shot down immediately; both sides know where the officers are in columns by fours!

There are two main reasons why columns were used. One is because an officer can control his men better; he doesn't have to worry about men spread across a broad front. The other is because generally when they are used, they are used to engage in melee fighting (like Seale does!). Remember in all formations, the men are elbow to elbow, and roughly 13 inches from front to rear rank. This is why the pathing is an issue with this game. In reality, it would have been incredibly difficult to march a regiment through another. In fact, if an officer had good control of his men, it never happened. You can't squeeze past people that are elbow to elbow: this isn't red rover. Thus, the only time columns is effective is when you aren't shooting, you are meleeing.

To make this clear, columns were not used because they were infinitely faster. There are four regulation paces, the direct step, quickstep, double quickstep and run. These are specified paces with a given step length and step rate. A good regiment would be expected to march in all formations in all paces. The only thing that would be faster about a column is that generally you might have to stop to reform the line when crossing fences or woods in line, whereas in column, it doesn't take as long to reform. However, if a regimental commander had half a brain, he would avoid woods and have his skirmishers take down the fences so he doesn't have to worry about them.

Finally, one last thing. Commanders would go through hell to make their troops not engage in melee combat. There were very few melee casualties throughout the overland campaign, as a result. Column tactics are more used to scare enemy troops...no soldier is going to want to stand against columns of men swarming at him and he retreats. No actual fighting was really ever done in column formation due to the lack of firepower. Remember, guns are what do the fighting, and the more guns you can put on a spot, the faster you will kill off the enemy. Melee wastes far too many men and as seen in the game, doesn't always turn out the way you want it to.

Enough said by me.

[Olszowy]

Was thinking about my earlier post and the original post. Think the root problem is not the column or the use of it, but how OFTEN it is used.
I suspect that people do not like it for three reasons.
Reason #1. Historical scenarios are not. In so called "historical" scenarios" where it is known that one side outnumbers the other, column can be used with impunity to gain the high ground or inflict serious damage. After all, most of us know the OOBs inside and out, we know the ground, we know exactly what happened, where and how much each commander had to eat for breakfest. So, there is a 100% certainty that the defender will not be able to handle a column going around the flank or into a gap. As a rule "historical scenarios" usually are not other than starting positions and unit strengths. As such players can abuse the 100% situational awareness they have and usually the weaker side suffers.
Reason #2. Initiating melee is dangerous UNLESS the OOB gives your side a decided advantage in moreal, melee, leadership, etc. The shipped OOB gives many CSA regiments a decided advantage so you can afford to use melee more often. You don't even need to know civil war tactics in this case, just melee because numbers dictate a win.
Reason #3. The 90ft General. Patch 1.3 will fix some of this. Column attacks usually were well thought out and planned. They were not used all the time due to the fog of battle and the danger of being caught in column. Unfortunately, as a 90ft general you do not even need to know tactics. Just a simple understanding of the numbers and dice roll and it is too easy to devolve your tactics to the most effective that the game engine allows. When you can see the entire battlefield and immediately see gaps, flanks, and opportunities using column is very easy. If I know the 86th NY and the 124th NY are listed as crappy units(which they are in the shipped OOBs), guess who I am hitting first. As such it can be abused. Columns become the I WIN button. i foresee 1.3 making things a lot more challenging in this regard.
However, If you cannot see what lies beyond a flank or a "gap" and you get your face punched in a few times doing it you will become more cautious in your use of that tactic. In my early post I recommended using defenses that will defeat a column attack. Defense in depth, crossfire, good use of terrain, etc. heck, create a gap and suck the column lover into the innermost circle of he** That in conjunction with 1.3, avoiding historical fights where your enemy knows he outnumbers/outclasses you, will prevent a lot of this issue.
Is the dead horse beaten enough?

[maym]

placeholder