One of the most prominent discussions was whether a 2 rank or 3 rank infantry line formation was better. As I've considered this very thing for some time now, I thought I would weigh in with my opinions. Ack! I should have stayed out of it!
Still, it was fun and somewhat informative. One thing I will note at this point, most of the adherents to the 3-rank system seemed to be supporting it due to traditionalism. Which I found rather odd. In the late 1700's and early 1800's there was an argument as to which should be used, a 2 rank deep or 3 rank deep formation. Many of those who supported 3-rank back then did so from a traditionalist perspective.
The article, "Two- or Three Deep?" in The United Service Magazine, Volume 62 discusses the past debate over whether infantry formations in the Napoleonic Era should deploy in two ranks (two deep) or three ranks (three deep). Here’s a summary based on the arguments presented. Please keep in mind that these arguments are not mine, although I do tend to lean toward the 2-rank system.
Arguments for Three Deep
- Historical Precedent
- Advocates for three deep often cite traditional practices, especially in armies like the French and Austrians, where three-deep formations were the norm. The additional rank provided more mass and perceived staying power in battle.
- Reserve Strength
- The third rank was seen as a built-in reserve that could step forward to replace casualties in the front two ranks, maintaining the line’s integrity during prolonged engagements.
- Morale
- The psychological effect of having more ranks behind soldiers in the front-line bolstered confidence, especially during charges or while receiving enemy fire.
- Close Combat Advantage
- In melee situations, the extra rank added more weight to pushes or bayonet charges, increasing the likelihood of breaking through enemy lines.
Arguments Against Three Deep
- Firepower Efficiency
- Opponents argued that only the front two ranks could fire effectively in most situations. The third rank often had a limited ability to contribute to firepower, reducing the overall efficiency of musket volleys.
- Flexibility and Maneuverability
- Two-deep formations were nimbler and could adjust to battlefield conditions more quickly. This was particularly advantageous on uneven terrain or in situations requiring rapid redeployment.
- Casualty Replacement
- The third rank was unnecessary if units were well-drilled. Soldiers could replace casualties in the front ranks organically without needing a dedicated third rank.
- Historical Success with Two Deep
- Armies like the British demonstrated the effectiveness of two-deep lines, particularly at battles like Waterloo, where superior firepower and discipline helped repel larger forces.
The article seems to lean towards supporting two-deep formations, emphasizing the increased firepower, flexibility, and practical use of manpower in this configuration. However, it acknowledges the situational benefits of a third rank, especially in prolonged melee or for psychological reassurance.
I urge everyone interested in this to read the article, "Two Deep- Or Three Deep" in The United Service Magazine Volume 62, [Jan-April 1850], The choice between two and three deep is presented as context-dependent, influenced by doctrine, terrain, and the specific needs of the army at the time.