Firing through unformed units

[viperofmilan]

Well Roger, I would agree with most of what you have proffered, but infantry specifically is prohibited from shooting through detached skirmishers (p. 66), and the consensus (such as it is) appears to support the idea that though called unformed, disordered units are a different kind of unformed than skirmishers and unlimbered artillery, representing a "moral state" rather than a "dispersed formation". I'm OK with this, but then it really should be called something besides "unformed" for units with disorder markers.

I'll agree that the case for infantry is going to come up very seldom given the 2 MU range of volley fire. Artillery fire is the big unresolved question. Artillery specifically can fire canister or cannonball through enemy skirmishers to target formed troops beyond, resolving fire against both the skirmishers and the formed troops (p. 66). I can find no mention of artillery being able to do the same when firing canister or ball through unlimbered enemy artillery at a formed enemy unit beyond, and resolving fire against both targets a' la fire through enemy skirmishers. IMHO, simple logic says the two situations ought to be resolved in the same way since both skirmishers and unlimbered artillery are very dispersed targets. It is not a question of line of sight or partially obstructed targets.

Just my $0.02.

[Roundie]

Is the rule pertaining to Artillery shooting through enemy skirmishers there to cover the close range mandatory fire rule for artillery?

Thus placing a skirmish screen in front of an enemy battery (at close range) will not force the battery to fire on the skirmishers ignoring all else. It may instead focus on bigger threats to its well-being ie: formed units behind the skirmish line.

In short I would agree with Roger when it comes to artillery fire
Which seems to be what Hervé said in his post on the subject.

another 2cents into the bucket

[RogerGreenwood]

Missed that one on page 66. Infantry may not fire through enemy skirmishers. Given that the skirmishers have to give ground when approached I didn't think it was likely to happen.
I think a consensus is approaching!

[Cialdini]

Roger, have you taken into consideration that once an artillery battery commences firing it will produce a lot of smoke that will in all probability conceal everything behinds it? Remember also that the battery will be firing continuously before and during any attack. You also have to consider that artillery was mainly a direct firing weapon using the bounce of the ball to cause casualties. Artillery batteries were not only the guns deployed in line but also the limbers and caissons which were positioned behind the battery making it a fairly deep target.
For these reasons and because I don’t believe that artillery was invulnerable to enemy fire, I would suggest that artillery firing through another artillery battery at a target behind it should be considered ricochet fire unless the target is in support of the battery I.e behind and adjacent.

[RogerGreenwood]

Your arguments about smoke and other things are not unreasonable. However, we are just looking at what the rules say. They are pretty clear that the artillery are unformed and hence may be fired through.
If this were not the rule, we would probably start the game by picking off each other's artillery and the winner would be the first to eliminate the other's guns. This would not be historical; artillery appear to have survived battles quite well. So I am satisfied that the rules as written make the game work correctly.
Maybe in historical battles gunners aimed where they expected the enemy to be. I presume that artillery expected troops deployed behind them for support. Perhaps firing towards the middle of the smoke was the best tactic. It would be interesting to read a gunner's account of a battle.