Casualty removal

[j1mwallace]

A bit of discussion in our group leads me to ask you gents opinion.
Casualty removal. As a unit receives casualties, say a British line it tends to get more dispersed and thinner so no need to remove casualties
(thus says camp 1)
Or as a unit receives casualties the survivors tend to clump together and the unit frontage shrinks. remove casualties.
camp 2
As a matter of interest what are your opinions?
cheers
JW

[Duke of Plaza-Toro]

Perhaps a bit of both, because I wonder if it depends on the circumstances.

A line, standing passively with ordered arms, but under fire from artillery or skirmishers they cannot readily see or reply to, would close ranks as casualties were inflicted – as a matter of honour and a demonstration of their steadiness under fire. (Or at least the experienced regulars and veterans would have done). There are plenty of eyewitness accounts describing such heroics and presumably if endured for long enough the process would significantly shrink the frontage of the formation. So Camp 2.

However, I think the views of Camp 1 may be more relevant to an infantry line actively engaged in a fire fight with another infantry line. There’s a fair body of evidence from the Napoleonic wars (and other 19th Century conflicts like the ACW) that suggests men engaged in prolonged fire fights become mentally very focused on their weapon and the repetitive, mechanical process of loading and firing - to the near exclusion of all but their immediate surroundings. The smoke, noise, fear and general confusion added to their sense of isolation, and if the shooting went on for any length of time it became very difficult for the officers to get their men to do anything else – let alone close ranks as their comrades went down.

One example that’s always stuck in my head is the account of General Duhèsme where he describes riding over to some French battalions locked in a prolonged, but inconclusive (as they often were) fire fight with some nearby Austrian opponents. Trying to get the men to stop firing and move forward Duhèsme and his entourage (all mounted) rode “…into the ranks, which were neither closed or aligned, throwing up with my hand soldiers’ muskets to get them to cease firing…” (my emphasis).

The implication of this (and personally I don’t think Duhèsme’s experience was at all unusual) is that the frontages of infantry lines engaged in sustained fire fights were prone to dispersion rather than contraction, irrespective of casualties - or 'best practice'.

DPT

[Coyote]

I remembered this conversation while reading Where Right and Glory Lead: The Battle for Lundy's Lane This was a battle of the War of 1812, but the British involved were regulars or trained as regulars, and the Americans tended to the French school of fighting, so I think it's applicable.

While it does mention how once soldiers started shooting they tended to not advance and instead concentrated on loading and firing, many mentions are made to file closers.

Winfield Scot's Brigade is under fire from British Artillery. They are expecting to have the rest of the Left Division join the battle at any moment so stand under a murderous fire without retreating or advancing. Outside of effective musket range they stood and fired ineffectually at the British. "The men loaded and fired on order as casualties were dragged out of the ranks and the survivors were shifted towards the colours by the file closers" pg. 130

Later in the battle after the British have lost their guns to the American, during the first British counter-attack when the lines were "so close... that the fire from their Discharge would seem to strike out faces" Benjamin Ropes, "Autobiography" 140

Here there is no mention of file closing, so that seems to go with Camp 1, except once the British retreat "...the American units dressed their lines and closed in to their centers, gaps appeared between the regiments and it was obvious to Ripley that he could not cover the same extend of ground he had previously held" pg 171

Those are both American examples. Here is a British one, the 1st and 100th Battalions are under fire from Scott's First Brigade as the British moved forward at the Battle of Chippawa. "The British line faltered for a minute as men fell, singly from musket balls, in clumps of two or three from artillery fire, but the company officers and sergeants steadied the survivors and closed them in to the center" pg 97

So it seems that while closely engaged the line will thin, but while moving or less heavily engaged the files close in on the center.

However, much later in the battle the heavily decimated, and I shouldn't use that word because it indicates 10% casualties and not the nearly 50% it took, 1st Brigade is so weakened that one of the regiment commanders is forced to deploy in a single line including his file closers. pg 176

So, if I was going to try to match this in a wargame I'd do the following. "Casualties" represents both morale and people being hurt. The worse the morale situation, probably represented in my imaginary rules system as morale hit points rather than discrete levels, the less effective the shooting of the unit and the more likely it is to take further morale hits and break.

When not closely engaged the unit can rally. Part of that process discards stands in order to discard accumulated morale hit points.

Thus, large units can weather combat better, when units get a break they can recover some of their strength (I would compare morale hits against total stands to determine current morale level) and get back in on the action. Also, when units get really hammered in a single engagement they're more likely to break than if someone's doing a few hits from a distance.

Kinda weird to be talking about it based on how keen I am to order R2E, but I was reading this book and wanted to contribute to this conversation.

[quindia]

Luckily, Republic to Empire embraces both camps! Following the 'maintain frontage' argument, casualties are not removed until half of the unit's starting strength has been taken out... the remainder then 'clump together' and the half-sized unit stays on the table unless routed from the field or completely wiped out!

[CoffinDodger]

I must admit that I prefer the system used in BtLB and RtE for the sole reason that I didn't spend all that time painting the little buggers up just to see them languishing on a shelf; I enjoy the spectacle too much.

Jim

[John-G]

This is one of the areas that drew me to the rules when play-testing: no need to remove every single casualty inflicted, it's all taken care of on a simple battalion/brigade/divisional roster sheet

I've taken some time in planning little vignettes within most of my Spanish battalions: whether its a couple of French cuirassiers smashing into a battalion of levies, or some Legere defending a smashed limber and cannon against an advancing line, I want them to remain on the table for as long as possible.

The beauty, for me anyway, lies in the fact that I've maybe only got 24-30-odd figures, plus the scenic bits and pieces, in the battalion, but they occupy the correct frontage and depth for a 40-strong battalion.

[Note to self: must try and get some pics. sorted out ]

Cheers,

John.