Assault in Columns

[Joshua Horn]

I've recently been studying battle tactics in the Napoelonic Wars. The French would often assault in columns rather than lines. This had several advantages - a heavy column was less vulnerable to cavalry than a line, when attacking in column the assailants would be less likely to halt to return the enemy's fire, and it focused heavy pressure on a very narrow portion of the enemy's line.

My question is, why was this used so rarely in the Civil War? (It was used occasionally with varying degrees of success, more on that here.) I have read the new rifles made it too costly, but wouldn't a column present a smaller array of targets than a line of battle?

Any thoughts?

 

[CMWinkler]

I'll be interested to see the answers you get. I have a theory but I'll wait a bit.

 

[Saruman]

Perhaps artillery in the Civil War was too effective and an attack in columns would be blasted into oblivion.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I just recently read an article touching on this, collected in the anthology Military Analysis of the Civil War, from articles published in Military Affairs around the time of the Civil War centennial... I don't recall the exact reason right off the top of my head, but I do remember that there were differences in organization in both American armies from the European armies (one example being that ACW armies, when in line, tended to be two deep, rather than three). I do think it said that column was seldom (not never) used, but it was frequent for there to be 'waves' of lines that would do something similar. (I'll have to review it; I might be getting it garbled.)

 

[Chattahooch33]

This happened by Harker's brigade at Cheatham Hill during Kennesaw.

Insight please, @CheathamHill

 

[Frederick14Va]

As mentioned tactics differed... If desire to strike at a given specific weak point in the enemy line.... more common to assault in mass using Regiments in line stacked by column of companies.. Brigades stacked by regiments... each closely following the other in a wave...

Since these by design were intended to advance very rapidly... defenders having rifled muskets was of very little advantage, still could not shoot any faster... Yes the attackers will take casualties... but how many shots could you as a defender get off in the short time it would generally take for that massive wave rapidly moving forward to close up the distance and solidly hit your breastworks... One reason we commonly find the attackers being ordered not to stop or return fire... In some cases they were not even allowed to load before stepping off... hence avoid the natural habit and desire to pause and shoot back... The longer the pause... the more damage a defending force can inflict, which most wanted to try to avoid... The faster the advance equaled less casualty numbers...

Inherited weak points in a defenders line such as may be due to terrain, were generally targeted for such an action... A sharp bend, point or angle typically afforded less provision for supporting fire from other parts of the defending line... noted shortage or lack of sufficient defending artillery at a given point.... Mule Shoe at Spotsylvania is one example...

 

[dlofting]

The French column didn't work well in the Peninsular campaign because the British were very disciplined (i.e. didn't run) and fired "rolling volleys" that inflicted heavy casualties on the column before it got to the British line. The line formation allowed all the soldiers to fire at the approaching column.....only the outside 2 ranks of the column (about a 30-40 man front, 50 ranks deep) could return fire. The column worked well against less disciplined troops. Given that Civil War rifles were accurate at a much greater range than Napoleonic muskets I expect the column would have suffered very high casualties.

 

[Dave Wilma]

The French would often assault in columns rather than lines.

There is film from 1914 of French columns attacking German lines.

 

[DaveBrt]

I think the main reason the column was rarely used was the greatly increased range and lethality of CW artillery. A column would allow artillery to operate at its maximum effectiveness -- canister, shell, shot -- all hitting a mass of men, not a line that was only a few men deep. The longer range would allow the artillery to smash the front of the column much earlier in the assault and would allow flanking artillery from much farther away to hit the target. It would be like trying to assault in column against machine guns -- you are just making too easy for the defending guns.

 

[Henry Whitworth]

Isn't there an inherent problem in the column assault similar to that in a naval engagement where the advantage goes to the ships arrayed in a line with a column of ships approaching at a perpendicular? They 'cross the T' and can bring all their guns to bear in broadsides against a concentrated point. A column of men approaching a line could suffer the same fate with the front ranks having zero chance against the concentrated fire of the entire line. You might want to hit a weak point in their line but if everyone nearby isn't also being assaulted, they'll shift their fire onto the front of your column.

 

[Joshua Horn]

I think the main reason the column was rarely used was the greatly increased range and lethality of CW artillery.

Good point, but it would depend a lot on the battlefield. There were many Civil War assaults where there either wasn't much artillery present, or the terrain was such that the range wasn't any different than that of a Napoleonic--era cannon.

 

[Joshua Horn]

Isn't there an inherent problem in the column assault similar to that in a naval engagement where the advantage goes to the ships arrayed in a line with a column of ships approaching at a perpendicular?

The difference between "crossing the T" and assaulting in columns is the goal of the attacking force. In a lot of naval warfare they weren't trying to board. Cannon fire was their only weapon. So if their ships can't fire while the enemy can, it's a set up for disaster.

On the other hand, the entire goal of the assaulting in a column formation was so that the attacking troops could not fire. Many times they were ordered to advance with unloaded muskets. This was because the officers did not want the troops to stop to fire and reload, as that would just give more time for men to be hit, and would dilute the effectiveness of the change. Instead the idea was to push forward as quickly as possible and punch a hole through the defending formation without stopping to return fire.

 

[borderstates]

There is a pretty clear example of an attack in columns going very badly. One only need look at what happened to Uncle John's division in the West Woods at Antietam to find an example where the massed columns, instead of shaking out into a line of battle went very wrong.

 

[AUG]

Often it depended upon the terrain of North America. In William T. Sherman's memoirs (vol 2, 394) he mentioned:

"Very few of the battles in which I have participated were fought as described in European text-books, viz., in great masses, in perfect order, manoeuvring by corps, divisions, and brigades. We were generally in a wooded country, and, though our lines were deployed according to tactics, the men generally fought in strong skirmish-lines, taking advantage of the shape of ground, and of every cover. We were generally the assailants, and in wooded and broken countries the "defensive" had a positive advantage over us, for they were always ready, had cover, and always knew the ground to their immediate front; whereas, we, their assailants, had to grope our way over unknown ground, and generally found a cleared field or prepared entanglements that held us for a time under a close and withering fire."

Artillery had not changed much since the Napoleonic Wars; it still accounted for around 10% of the overall casualty count in most ACW battles. The only major difference was the rifled gun, though one of the most common artillery pieces in the ACW was the Model 1857 12-pounder Napoleon - a smoothbore. Artillery could definitely play havoc on an attacking column, without a doubt, but I just don't think a few rifled guns alone kept commanders away from the thought of advancing in column formation. I think terrain probably had a bigger play in it.

 

[Tom Elmore]

One well-placed solid shot could wreak havoc on a column, and at close range an infantry line could shoot such a column to pieces with converging fire. That said, it was used at Gettysburg by McGowan's SC brigade on the first day - when the main line of battle was stalled in a firefight and the outcome was in jeopardy, a weak column was sent forward from the right and got astride the exposed Federal left flank, which recoiled and unraveled the whole line. In other words, a column could be used on an open enemy flank when their main line was preoccupied in front.

 

[CheathamHill]

This happened by Harker's brigade at Cheatham Hill during Kennesaw.

Insight please, @CheathamHill

the hope to penetrate and overwhelm 1 point in the enemy's line or a select few points in the line. Shaped like an arrow- straight ahead and really deep as opposed to stretching the lines wider but thinner. If everything went according to plan the spearhead(s) (advancing columns) would penetrate the works and keep pouring more and more concentrated troops into the salient or a few designated points. In the case of CH, hidden artillery on the confed. left AND right blew the hell out of that idea as the right columns and left columns were simply either devastated to the point of non existence or severely pushed into the advancing columns in the center and to the left thereby creating a mass blob of confusion. A still visible example is the marker where Sgt. DH Coffee of the 22nd Indiana was mortally wounded. If you see where he started out across Ward Creek and see how far left of that he ended up (though he was posted on the very left of his company) you see just how jumbled and messy it got.

Another, often overlooked reason why they went in this way, as far as CH is concerned, is because of the abatis/abattis, chevaux de frenchfries, etc. At CH the Confeds had chained most of the impeding obstacles together to create a near solid line of impediments in which the very tip of the Federal spearhead columns were instructed to clear the impediments as quickly as possible and allow the men behind them to continue to funnel through, which DID occur at first before the artillery fire and rifle fire became too much to bear.
If you have solid spread out battle lines you just can't tackle these obstacles as effectively. In fact the very heads of the columns weren't even carrying their rifles as their job was to 'clear that da*n debris.'


Forgive my VERY crudely drawn and hardly to scale or accurate drawings. I'm at work but wanted to at least visually give you SOME sort of idea what the differences looked like. The left would be the more narrow but far deeper advancing columns attacking fixed points on a salient as opposed to the right side that is long columns spread out over the entire area.
Again just a VERY rough sketch. Now obviously, the head of the column wasn't actually shaped like a spear but the intended outcome would have the same effect. @Chattahooch33 and myself will be in that area Saturday so I may be able to take some pictures and put some illustrations on them to show why it was done, at least on this portion of the CH battlefield.

 

[Jamieva]

The improvement of artillery from Napoleonic to CW times meant that advancing in column was giving the artillery a nice big target to hit. Your best chance of advancing on a target with the most men getting there was in line as the artillery would have less of an impact.

 

[Henry Whitworth]

The difference between "crossing the T" and assaulting in columns is the goal of the attacking force. In a lot of naval warfare they weren't trying to board. Cannon fire was their only weapon. So if their ships can't fire while the enemy can, it's a set up for disaster.

On the other hand, the entire goal of the assaulting in a column formation was so that the attacking troops could not fire. Many times they were ordered to advance with unloaded muskets. This was because the officers did not want the troops to stop to fire and reload, as that would just give more time for men to be hit, and would dilute the effectiveness of the change. Instead the idea was to push forward as quickly as possible and punch a hole through the defending formation without stopping to return fire.

I recognize the differences, I was just pointing out to the fundamental similarity of allowing the defending line to concentrate their fire. Even when you're talking about ordering the assaulting troops not to fire (they would sometimes tell them to load but not put on a percussion cap) so they close with the enemy faster, the front of the column might just continually melt away in the face of concentrated rifle and artillery fire.

 

[rpkennedy]

The French column didn't work well in the Peninsular campaign because the British were very disciplined (i.e. didn't run) and fired "rolling volleys" that inflicted heavy casualties on the column before it got to the British line. The line formation allowed all the soldiers to fire at the approaching column.....only the outside 2 ranks of the column (about a 30-40 man front, 50 ranks deep) could return fire. The column worked well against less disciplined troops. Given that Civil War rifles were accurate at a much greater range than Napoleonic muskets I expect the column would have suffered very high casualties.

This right here. In the face of disciplined foes, French columns were often shot apart.

Coupled with the extended potential range of the rifles used in the war, except in specific circumstances, assaulting columns would be suicidal.

R