Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Sorry for the ignorance, but would the cavalry have bayonets?

I would love for them to automatically be in extended order whenever they dismount, and not be allowed to form a normal line. I think this would reflect their traing better, any ideas?

I'm getting ready to convert Brandywine over to my Bar Fight style oob & pdt files.

Thanks for any help.

Lt. Col. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

Al,
I have to say, I do not know. But, the carbine of the time had the same size barrel diameter as the infantry musket, so the bayonet should have fit. Even if they did not have bayonets, they were supposed to have swords. So, as far as melee, they had edged weapons. Secondly, dragoons/light cavalry were used often as scouts and to shield just as light infantry, so it seems they would have been trained in light tactics. Lastly, as the war progressed, it became harder to outfit cavalry as traditional mounted units. Horse units from both sides were outfitted just as their infantry counterparts with long muskets. So they may have also had bayonets. It all depended on what was available, and what their commanders wanted. At Cowpens, Col. Washington ordered his men to turn out with sabers only. So they would be able to melee, but not shoot if the scn. was historically correct. In the end, for scn purposes, you are the commander, so outfit your men as you wish. Make up your rationalization.

Larry Davis
Lt. Col. of
His Royal Majesty's
64th regiment of Foot
on the CCC

This is from Digby Smith's <u>Napoleon's Regiments - Battle Histories of the Regiments of the French Army, 1792-1815</u>, so take it for what it is worth:

"The dragoons were mounted on slightly smaller horses and could be required to fight on foot. For this reason, they were equipped with <i>muskets and bayonets.</i> [my italics] The light cavalry were mounted on smaller horses, carried carbines and light, curved sabres and were designed to perform scouting duties although they were also used in action on the battlefield. Apart from their uniforms, there was no real difference between the hussars and the Chasseurs a cheval."

From that, I would extrapolate that dragoons could form a line of battle. However, their cost would be prohibitive (in game terms). They should be able to form X order while dismounted. (Can militia cavalry form X order while dismounted? Have to load Camden(?) ro find out.)



Lt. Colonel Mike Cox
New Jersey Militia
(1st Hunterdon Cty)
AdC American Army

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Even if they did not have bayonets, they were supposed to have swords.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't know much about swords, but the cavalry sabre as I know it was a heavy, curved weapon that was designed to be wielded rather than thrusted. I don't think it was of much use for dismounted combat, and it would certainly require special training.

<font color=gold>Lt.Col. D.S. Walter O.S.M.
Commanding 4th Regiment of Foot, "The King's Own"
Aide-de-camp, Royal North American Corps</font id=gold>

I think I have the answer. A tomahawk fits equally as well into the skull of mounted or dismounted British cavalry. I think the same would apply for a warclub. Glad I could help.
[url="http://www.choctaws1.homestead.com/irregulars.html"]<img src="http://www.choctaws1.homestead.com/files/l2feaths.gif" border=0>[/url]


Mingoe "High Head" Rodes
Okla Hannali Choctaw
1812 American Army Irregulars

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I think I have the answer. A tomahawk fits equally as well into the skull of mounted or dismounted British cavalry. I think the same would apply for a warclub. Glad I could help.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My dear Chief,
Ì'm sure our british cavalry looking much smarter with sabres and muskets than with tomahawks.

<font color=gold>Lt.Colonel Reuter
1. Regiment (Royal Scots)
Royal North American Corps</font id=gold>

Some confusion exists in this club about extended order...IT IS BAD!!

It usually results in loss in melee and you lose firepower when firing FROM it!

Historically, you could not hold an enemy advancing in the open back by employing it.

(ZOCs distort this in our games, as players we need to recognize it and modify our play styles, say by always making sure at the end of a turn your extended troops do not end up in the ZOC of a formed unit. This will allow formed troops to advance across an open area against 'skirmish' troops without having to melee every step of the way, and also allow the 'skirmishers' to delay the advance by only dropping back a hex a or two a turn. The troops in extended ordered 'skirmishing' would not approach a battle line closer that the 42 yards one hex represents for fear of being overpowered by a quick bayonet charge. Distance means life to the 'skirmisher'. Of course if you just like playing the game, with out worrying about historical tactical details...)

That is why I think dismaounted cavalry should always be in extended order. I do not think they should be able to withstand bayonet charges of formed infantry, nor should they be able to stand up in a firefight.

Mike please don't get confused in a title here. The reference to Dragons from Digby is another type of unit AND it is 40 years in the future.

In 1776, we have Lt. (light) Dragoons. They are light cavalry, grouped with Chasseurs a cheval, Mounted Jagers, Hussars, etc, etc.

They were reconnaisance cavalry not battle cavalry, nor mounted infantry, nor dragoons. There is a big difference.

Dismounted duties, you reference Mike, mean ... skirmishing, guarding prisoners, guarding HQs, and various other aspects of "the little war". These troops were nowhere considered battle line troops, mounted or dismounted. If the need arose they would form up the second line of cavalry, but usually were kept back in reserve, way out on flanks, on LOCs, etc.

Remember, this discussion is for 1776, not 1812. We cannot look at the Napoleonic Wars for examples, rather we must look back at the F&I War and the rest of the Seven Years War. That is where the actors in this war drew their experiences, and how they evolved the units, and doctrine they used.

Lt. Col. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Some confusion exists in this club about extended order...IT IS BAD!!

Mike please don't get confused in a title here. The reference to Dragons from Digby is another type of unit AND it is 40 years in the future.

In 1776, we have Lt. (light) Dragoons. They are light cavalry, grouped with Chasseurs a cheval, Mounted Jagers, Hussars, etc, etc.

They were reconnaisance cavalry not battle cavalry, nor mounted infantry, nor dragoons. There is a big difference.

Remember, this discussion is for 1776, not 1812. We cannot look at the Napoleonic Wars for examples, rather we must look back at the F&I War and the rest of the Seven Years War. That is where the actors in this war drew their experiences, and how they evolved the units, and doctrine they used.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

From what I can see, the naming/classifiaction of units did not change that much over time. However, to bracket the Revolutionary War, lets look at Jacobite Rebellions (1689-1745) leaving only the period 1746-1791 in question:

"In the 17th century Dragoons were the handymen of teh Army who, though mounted, were trained primarily to fight on foot. They were less numerous than the Horse [shock troops armed with swords on big steeds]. They were invaluable for teh tasks of advance, flank and rearguards...and as such were far more useful in terrain like the Scottish Highlands than the cumbersome Horse of slow-moving Foot. During the War of Spanish Succession their mounted infantry role tended to lapse and, since they were cheaper than Horse to raise and maintain, they became increasingly used as pure cavalry... Nevertheless they could still be called upon to fight on foot., as was seen at Preston in 1715. By the time of the '45, however, dragoons, though still armed with musket and bayonet as well as a sword, became virtually indistinguishable from the Horse in emplyment.

The regiments emplyed in '45 averaged little more than 200 each, providing 2 squadrons each of probably 2 troops, in which the men were formed for battle in three, sometimes two ranks."

<u>The Jacobite Rebellions 1689-1745</u> by Barthrop and Embleton

So I think it is a reasonable assumption to say that Dragoons were armed with Musket and Bayonet in America. Light horse/hussars would carry a carbine with no bayonet.

I disagree with your assessment of X order. It is an important tool, often mishandled in 1776/1812, when used as designed, yields historic effect. Anyone rash enough to run troops in X order up to a formed unit for a quick ZOC block deseves to watch them get their teeth kicked in by those nasty, ugly, smelly grenadiers.

Lt. Colonel Mike Cox
New Jersey Militia
(1st Hunterdon Cty)
AdC American Army

Edited by - Mike Cox on 05/18/2002 13:26:15

Mike,

Again you prove my point, light cavalry was not armed with bayonets. Lt Dragoons are not Dragoons, hence the difference of name.

If we had the heavy dragoon regiments from England over here they would be able to do as you quoted, but this is light cavalry here.

Jacobite Rebellion would work very nicely with this engine, btw, any takers?

Yes, my reference to extended order being bad was that it is not a main battle line tactic, and when players use it in the open they should keep retiring that 'skirmish' line from in front of an advance of formed troops.

Lt. Col. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R

Got a question for all you more learned types. I have an interest (as I've stated before) in the War of the Spanish Succession. Now, this engine would be workable for some of the smaller skirmishes among other things.

A few questions.

1). Is there an upper limit on unit size? In other words, could you kick up in scale, and have each counter be 1 battalion rather than 1 company, and make appropriate .pdt changes? It might be easier just to use Eckmuhl, though the "locked map" feature there is a problem, and there are some other aspects that would require hordes of house rules if my understanding of the era is correct.

More seriously, it would be possible to do the smaller battles/skirmishes in this system without those changes, but Chandler indicates that the French still used in that era a 4 man line, against the British 3... so the French had a relatively low firepower output as compared to any of the systems we currently use. What would be the best way to model that?

Of course, considering how busy life is, and some of the things on the agenda for the summer, this is sorta pipe dream.. but still...


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Jacobite Rebellion would work very nicely with this engine, btw, any takers?

Lt. Col. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Ensign Gary McClellan
12th Virgina Light Dragoons
CO, Northern Department

What's a "locked map feature"? <img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>

<font color=gold>Lt.Col. D.S. Walter O.S.M.
Commanding 4th Regiment of Foot, "The King's Own"
Aide-de-camp, Royal North American Corps</font id=gold>

Dierk,
Not sure that's the right term, but from Eckmuhl 1.02 on (and presumably from first release of NRC) you cannot use user-created maps, only the orignal map(s) and any submap created from them. Now, if Bill's Eckmuhl map went up towards Blenheim and that area, I'd already be digging up detail OOB information.. but, it doesn't.. <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>

Ensign Gary McClellan
12th Virgina Light Dragoons
CO, Northern Department

Why's that?

<font color=gold>Lt.Col. D.S. Walter O.S.M.
Commanding 4th Regiment of Foot, "The King's Own"
Aide-de-camp, Royal North American Corps</font id=gold>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Jacobite Rebellion would work very nicely with this engine, btw, any takers?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I have been working on a '45 mod for some time. It has been on hold lately because of my time restraints.

Al - we are on the same page and saying the same thing. It seems that the Americans tended to have more of the Lt. Horse/Lt. Dragoon units. The British 16th and 17th were regular Dragoons (I have not seen heavy Dragoons). In the game there is a mix of cav units some armed with carbine (no musket) and some with the musket/bayonet combo. Legion, militia, and Lt. Horse/Dragoon with carbine and Dragoon with musket.

Lt. Colonel Mike Cox
New Jersey Militia
(1st Hunterdon Cty)
AdC American Army

Edited by - Mike Cox on 05/19/2002 15:43:51

Mike,

good info and sensible recommendations.

al

Lt. Col. Al Amos
1st U.S. Dragoons 1812-R