"Heavy Skirmish Lines"

[ScottWashburn]

On a wargaming forum I frequent there has been some discussion on the issue of the "Heavy Skirmish Line". It's something that shows up in the reports and memoirs all the time but so far we haven't found anything describing just what it is or how it is formed. There's nothing in any of the tactics manuals referring to it. All the manuals only refer to a standard skirmish line with the men at five paces apart. The groups of fours can expand or contract their intervals, but the minimum spacing between men is still five paces.

So what's a heavy skirmish line? I could see that you could form a skirmish line with only 2 or 3 (or even 1) pace between men if you wanted to. For instructional purposes I have done that just to create a more compact formation so it's easier for me to see what's going on and easier for the men to hear me. It works fine. But is this what the reports mean or are they referring to something else?

Has anyone here seen any first-hand report or memoir that describes a heavy skirmish line?

Thanks!

[flattop32355]

The traditional skirmish line seems to consist of 1-2 companies from a regiment, with a part of that being held in a reserve between the actual skirmish line and the main body.

From the readings I've seen that mention a heavy skirmish line, I've tended to take that to mean sending out a larger number of men, such as an entire regiment across a brigade front (assuming 3-4 regiments per brigade). This may, indeed, require that the men close interval from the manual's five paces, but I believe it means more the amount of men committed as skirmishers over a given width of front.

It could also mean committing more men to the line and fewer to the reserve, or a combination of both.

See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...83D85F408684F9 for a general reference case.

[Pvt Schnapps]

If you give the command, "in one rank form company" you essentially come up with a "heavy skirmish line" which you can then order to fire by rank, as skirmishers, or by file.

I think that a slightly different example -- a different way of ending up with the same formation -- may come from Chamberlain's AAR for LRT: "I immediately stretched my regiment to the left, by taking intervals by the left flank..." Looking at the actual ground you realize that he deployed his men in one rank, but clearly didn't keep five pace intervals between men -- even if he'd had the room, that would have doomed his command to being overrun by the numbers attacking them.

[Jubilo]

Dear Sir,
Paddy Griffith's book "Battle Tactics of the Civil War ," mention a two rank battle line in combat being reduced to a "strong skirmish line. " He also addresses the open order attacks of the chasseurs 'a pied and the "Zouave rush."
A Federal account mentions the Rebs coming on with skirmishers three deep. It would seem a "strong skirmish line," is one that has strength in depth , one skirmish line behind another. If more reenactment battles were fought using skirmish order the twelve man companies would look less inappropriate.
all for the old flag,
David Corbett

[sbl]

"They will attack you in the morning and they will come booming - skirmishers three deep. You will have to fight like the devil until supports arrive."
-Brigadier General John Buford

I've wondered about this quote.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

"Skirmishers three deep". I've seen that reference before and have always wondered if it was a throwback to someone utilizing Scott's Tactics, which was known to had drill for three ranks.

[johnduffer]

I admit to not doing much study (yet, but I've recently started looking into how skirmishing was done pre 1845 Ordonnance/1855 Hardee) but my first reaction is that a "heavy" skirmish line, or the "clouds" of skirmishers oft mentioned in Napoleonic battles simply means more men - several companies or an entire battalion deployed as skirmishers and their reserve rather than a single company. German tactical doctrine immediately pre WW1 used only skirmish formations for infantry advances and heavier movements were either wider front or in waves.

I believe the three deep skirmishers most likely three units deployed as skirmishers one behind the other. Very similar to discussions we've all seen regarding a main body advancing in multiple lines and the consensus is usually three "lines" refers to three two rank line of battles and not three ranks.

The three rank formation in Scott's was copied from the 1831 Ordonnance but states in the preface it wasn't to be used by U.S. troops so shouldn't have any bearing.

[johnduffer]

A couple possible items of interest for the "heavy" and "three lines" questions:

In addition to having more men, when an entire battalion is deployed each company occupies a front of 100 paces, when only a company is deployed it covers the entire battalion front (roughly 40 paces per company depending on strength). Company reserves are 150 paces back (actually staggered 30 paces for clear fields of fire) and the main reserve is at 400 paces, not sure if this would be construed as three lines. If the three lines were actually three waves of battalion strength skirmish lines it would be a significant tactical innovation. I'm going through SHOCK TROOPS OF THE CONFEDERACY to see if it mentions this being the case.

John D

[RJSamp]

we never came up with a definitive answer to this, several crashes ago on various forums. Any one remember John Walsh's Skirmisher forum???

Anyway.....what 'we' came up with:

CSA tended to deploy a sharpshooter battalion out front (like Blackford's Alabama Battalion as Rodes' Division designated skirmishers) and the two battle lines (column of regiment's).

Not a great definition of a heavy skirmish line, come a boomin' 3 lines deep, Skirmish line + Reserves + infantry in line, or a Swarm\cloud of skirmishers.....

Several references to manuevering Federal Units as a Division, Brigade, Corps by the bugle with 'skirmish' drill. IV Corps (Woods) was one such cited. There are illustrations of the Regulars fighting at Chickamauga that are no longer the highly stylized lines of infantry shoulder to shoulder....or even with a light touch of the elbows....they are seperated by a step......

Anyway, I'm looking forward to some answers to this...have been since 1997.....

[johnduffer]

" Several references to manuevering Federal Units as a Division, Brigade, Corps by the bugle with 'skirmish' drill. IV Corps (Woods) was one such cited. There are illustrations of the Regulars fighting at Chickamauga that are no longer the highly stylized lines of infantry shoulder to shoulder....or even with a light touch of the elbows....they are seperated by a step...... "

RJ
Any chance you have fairly easy access to list some of these references? Note that I'm not trying to discount your info - I'm genuinely facinated and want to study furthur. As I mentioned this is major tactical innovation for the time. Mass versus firepower was a debating point from at least early 1800s forward and these type of formations would presage the most modern thinking folks of 1914. I'm somewhat surprised by the Corps level skirmishing by bugle as many of the commands are at a detail level that would be hard to oversee from a central point and not always appropriate for the immediate situation of every unit.

any help appreciated, thanks
John D