J. The regulations on the use of the 3rd rank instructs the 1/3 deployment, or by company to provide a reserve for the skirmishers. If any part of the skirmishers were deployed from the third rank, the rest were assumed to be committed to that combat task as the supports/reserves. Both the Prussian and Austrian instructions on this agree. As to the morale and fire implications of a two rank as opposed to three. There is a toss up. Considering how often armies did use two rank lines, I don't think either were a real concerns. Many felt that the fire from the third rank was pretty much a waste anyway. Often the French would have the third rank load. Ney and Foy felt the third rank inflicted more friendly casualties than enemy when the three lines actually volleyed. It never seems to have been a morale issue. Both the Prussians 1793-1795 deployed in two ranks against the French and it never seems to have been an issue. The same is true of the British. Dundas, in his British regulations, give two concerns with a two rank line: 1. They wouldn't stand up to a three rank line--no depth to take losses. A reduction in fire is never mentioned as an issue. 2. Cavalry. Not only because of the lack of depth, but that it was more difficult to go to square with a two-rank line. In fact, the British didn't have a method for that. They had to double the lines to four ranks before going to square. The trade-off with third rank is the same as other methods. With every infantryman committed to a skirmish mission meant the formed troops were that much weaker. Just some thoughts. GdB doesn't provide for skirmish reserves per se, so how that would be represented with the 3rd rank, I don't know. Reserves were important for 'refreshing' the skirmish line, providing for immediate reinforcements, as well as protection against cavalry.

Returning to the original question, I find it od (rule speaking wise) that when I have two identical batallions ( a french one and an understrength austrian one) who both could have 6 companies of 6 men) that when the french one sends out its skirmishers (one company) that in a following melee he can fight with just 30 figures and the austrian who sent (part of)his 3rd rank out as skirmishers has no minusses. At least I can not find anything about in in the rules. Maybe the effect of no 3rd rank wasn't an issue with firing but if a 3rd rank ahdn't any effect at all then I would think al countries would go over to using 2 ranks. What am I missing here

It seems to me that the rules are right - third rank firing disappeared in the regs after 1805 and had probably been less wiely used for sometime earlier. If you send out a single company, then you lose their two ranks of firing, whereas the one dispatching his third rank isn't losing anything in firepower terms. Contrary to the received wisdom, the French did not have a monopoly on wisdom and were often gaining the upper hand by concentration of force at a single key point. It is easier to send off a single company than to sort out 3rd rank plattons and if you decribe them as the "battalion light company", they stay together all the time and develop a common experience, which is useful when coordinating skirmish screens. Again, we are in the realms of trade-offs - if the light company is then decimated, you have another problem. Some of the confusion is caused by the concentration on the peninsula, which was a very different theatre from central Europe. In Spain, the British lacked the numbers to fill the spaces in three ranks and went top two ranks for reasons of practicality (aided by the general; lack of enemy cavalry). In central Europe, the Austrian 1807 regs specifically state one reason for forming Masses as the increased density of troops of troops on a battlefield - ie: exactly the opposite of what faced the British. The third rank also enabled you to maintain the firing line's length by using them to fill gaps in the front two lines and they provided a back support for the front two, giving them the confidence that someone was watching their backs.

Dave, * in one posting you say (in the first line) that the third rank has no effect for shooting as the third rank wasn't used but in the last sentence you say they have effect because the third rank was used to fill out casualties in the first rank. a contradiction. * I already said in my latest posting that maybe the effect on firing was minimal but the melee effect is in my opinion greater * why did most countries use otherwise a third rank formation if the whole 3rd rank hasn't any influence. The French used the 2nd lie in 1813/14 but when enough troops were available come back to the 3 ranks formation.

J. The third line allowed a unit to stay in a firefight longer than 2 ranks, and as mentioned before, able to face cavalry better. Having said that, the French Legere and Prussian Fusiliers always deployed in two ranks. The French had a 1789 set of regulations that was never approved, but it set 2 rank formations as the standard. The French military wasn't that forward looking and stayed with three ranks. But several French generals including Ney, Marmont and Foy argued for two rank lines. Napoleon approved a change to 2 rank lines in 1814, and a number of French units fought in two rank lines during the Waterloo campaign, sooo... Two rank lines did have effects--a lack of depth was one, and two, more vulnerability to cavalry.

Jan, Sorry, I am not being clear. in terms of actual volley fire, the third rank had little effect, partly because it forced the front rank to kneel and upset their fire, partly because they cannot see through the smoke if it is hanging, partly because if three men fire at one target, their fire is not going to have much more effect than two men firing and there are other reasons. However, if you have a third rank, you can move a man forward to replace a casualty in the front two and so maintain the line. Otherwise, if you close up, then one of the two front ranks may close faster than the other and certainly gaps to the next unit will open up. They can handle problems like misfiring muskets too. The background is that 100 years earlier, when squares were not known, infantry fought 6 deep to be "stiff enough" against cavalry by providing a deep enough flank - Charles wrote after Aspern "I have manoeuvred on this plain as against the Turks", which was partly a ref to units fighting in two companies - ie: 6 deep. With the advent of squares, four ranks was the normal formation, but that quickly dropped to three. In part, this is because cavalry cannot then reach the rear rank, een with lances. Also, it does give a ready reserve, (the Austrian 1769 regs envisage this) for other tasks, like extending the line in 2-deep or flank guards or as later, Coburg's anti-skirmisher hit squads. If your primary aim is maintaining a 2-deep volleying line, three ranks gives you stiffness and some flexibility.