View single post by HankC
 Posted: Wed Dec 13th, 2006 02:51 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I realized last night that this may be the source of your confusion...

"In" echelon , means to be in support of or behind another unit, providing extra punch, close support or a ready reserve. Standard practice is to deploy brigades 2 deep, so this may be noted only when *extra* brigades are deployed for additional depth, as at Chickamauga on 20 September.

"En" echelon (pronounced "on")  means to attack in sequence believng that exposing a weak point will cause the defensive line to roll up...

And it is quite possible, and typical,  to attack 'en echelon' with units that are 'in echelon' as Longstreet did on 2 July ;)

On 2 July, Kershaw and Barksdale's attacks are good examples of the technique. They attacked 'en echelon'. During Kershaw's attack, the defending US units on Barksdale's front, in the Peach Orchard, began firing at Kershaw, who was not attacking them. This covered the US position with smoke, depleted ammunition and confused their focus. Barksdale approached through the smoke and overruns the Peach Orchard line (which had defense issues regardless). This unhinged the entire rest of the US line, in both directions. Then, Wofford and Semmes brigades, 'in echelon' behind Kershaw and Barksdale, were in position to exploit the breakthrough.

Pickett was missing Jenkins' brigade on 3 July. Having Armistead form behind Kemper is a typical deployment. However, it is atypical to have no brigade behind Garnett.

 

HankC

 Close Window