The Loose Association of Wargamers

Am I correct that the French were almost caracoling their muskets? What were the Austrians up to.

France and Austria and the German states generally (their are French exceptions but that is a book to cover) were still firing by rank, and used a 4 deep (French and German) or 6 deep (Austrian) formations. For the Austrians this had proved efficient against the turks in there wars with them.

French Colonels had complete control of how their battalions fought (except Royal ones) and generally started the WSS carrying over rank fire from the 9YW. As the WSS progressed some changed over to the Platoon system used by the British and Dutch, some didn't, and some did and changed back!

In the French Army platoon fire never became regulation until 1744, and volley was used until then by a dwindling number of Colonels.

In practical terms the main difference between the two was frontage, as the firepower although delivered in different ways was similar, but platoon fire and 3 ranks gave a longer frontage. There were fears on the continent that the thinner line was more vulnerable to cavalry (the socket bayonet was new at this point remember), but the counter argument was that in a platoon system there would always be loaded men waiting to fire so it was not an issue, and that 3 ranks was enough steel to dissuade them.

But to fire four ranks, the rear two had to pass through the front to, or vice versa, yes?

kneeling, stooped, stood and replacements to step in is my understanding, so the 4th rank was almost a reserve. The introduction of metal ramrods and better drill improved loading/firing speeds enough.

The actual minutiae gets really tough to find, so a little in the dark on some of this, and anecdotal and second and third hand accounts. The only reason we know more on this for the British is that the training Officer for the Dublin Castle Garrison wrote about the change over and how it worked in his memoirs.

Ah! So the rear rank was for filling gaps, and the Austrians?

Better to handle the turks, who were still likely to hit you in hand to hand at this time.

So, just a column in defence?

Mass but yes that sort of idea.

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:50 am The only reason we know more on this for the British is that the training Officer for the Dublin Castle Garrison wrote about the change over and how it worked in his memoirs.

The Dublin garrison was unique in the British Empire throughout the 18th Century, in that it was the only such formation of sufficient size and permanence from which enough troops could be drawn to fight brigade v. brigade actions, whereas most other regiments were dispersed on "peacekeeping" (ie law enforcement) duties in company/troop strength, or often even smaller detachments. Other units had to wait for either an annual camp (extremely rare in peacetime), or an uprising somewhere before they found themselves part of a large enough force to undertake a "field day". Such was the regularity of the size of the Dublin garrison, that it had a permanent battlefield set up in Phoenix Park, including a series of well-maintained earthworks. It was also a "breeding ground" for tactical innovation, providing at least two battalions for any form of innovative training (eg Howe's light infantry camp in 1774), which would then return home and "cascade" the new thinking throughout the two brigades in Dublin. It was no coincidence that the threat of war outside of the British isles was usually met by shipping out troops from Ireland - and mostly from Dublin - and replacing them with "green" units from England. Even the drafts to bring units "shipping out" from Ireland up to war strength invariably came from other units based in Ireland. Most of the well-considered generals of the 18th Century had cut their teeth commanding one or both of the Dublin brigades. J A Houlding's Fit for Service: the training of the British Army 1715-1795 covers this extremely well.

It is a great book.