Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k ... re=related

Could this rate be attained on the battlefield? Seems like he is moving along at a pretty good clip.

How much would the approach of an enemy have caused the musketeer to get a bit shaky in his motions? Seems like this guy is well drilled and with no real threat facing him how much more does that allow him to be steadier than a soldier in combat?

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

I reckon a few minutes of that would knacker you! Note too how one of his shots is totally unaimed, just pointed. Expect a lot more of that were he to continue at that rate!

_________________
Podporuchik HarryInkski,
Lithuanian Uhlans
14th Brigade, IV Cav Corps,
2nd Army of the West

Hi Bill
Key things here that would probably effect the rate of fire would be:

Is he using black powder how they made it in the period? I recall it built up a residue in the weapon which slowed the rate of fire as a battle went on. The first 5 or so volleys were less effected.

A veteran soldier may be calm enough to reload and fire when their is threat around him but generally speaking the din of battle, smoke and fear would reduce the soldiers efficiency.

The third factor is just physical the soldier would begin to grow tired after a while and this would slow the rate of fire further.

I suspect if his own unit was under fire at close range the likelyhood of maintaining this rate of fire for more than 2 or three volleys is quite low.

Just my thoughts

regards

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Seems that way Colin. I remember that the muskets could foul too.

Wonder if this was another attempt to portray the British soldier as some invincible superman?

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

Actually watching that again I am not sure it's accurate. I thought you had to prime the pan, bite off the cartridge top, holding the ball in your mouth poor in the powder pushing it down (inside the catridge) then put the ball in on top. He seems to be doing both of the last two steps at once. Calling Mike Ellwood resident weapons expert please confirm on this.... I have never fired a musket so I don't really know just something I recall from one of many books.

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

....and our Operation Eagle game aside, what makes you think he wasn't!

_________________
Field Marshal Mark Nelms

You just need one well timed volley at close range from steady and disciplined troops and the enemy are shattered and vulnerable to the bayonet charge. No need for multiple volleys

_________________

Hi Guys,

Been unable to log onto the site for a few weeks for some bizarre pc gremlin reason !

But now i'm back on so...Im no black powder expert ...but that said Ive read a lot on the mechanics and the battle actions of musket fire and what you all say is true. The first volle was always the most effective and then dropped off quickly from there due to: combat situation, training, combat experience, visibility and range.
I've had this discussion many times. As Colin says fouling was a big issue in protracted firefights.
Firepower effect for musket fire should reduce proportionately for each volly after the first and get down to some redicules level of say 5% hit ratio for each volly at the end, even for good troops. Dry mouths, watering eyes, NO visibility, Shouted commands, casualties falling, noise....all these have a compounding effect on rate of fire and accuracy (effect) not to mention getting the drill right! Many muskets found after battles on the field were double and even triple loaded. This was found to be common in many conflicts in the 19th century.
Were the Brits had the advantage, as Antony said, it was more the timing and range of the British volleys backed up by more disciplined fire control and the two rank numbers that gave the EFFECT. Tactical positioning was a key factor in the moral effect also(surprise, high ground, behind cover, flanking fire).Follow up a devestating volley with a bayonet charge and I hate to say it 'Even L'Guard Recule!'. That became a common practice with the british penninsular troops but was not doctrine to most others.
Reading about engagements that were drawn out (Albuera is a classic) and comparing those with the fire effects we have in both these HPS games and tabletop miniatures, its no wonder the casualties are so high. The actual casualties were highest at the start and then dropped off quickly due to the reduced amount and effect of the actual fire, it was the tactical and moral advantage that were the key! Discipline (Training and Experience), Determination(Leadership and Troop Quality) and tactical advantage were more important in the end than firepower during a drawn out firefight.
My 2c

...what Mike said

_________________

Gents,

Do not overestimate the role of infantry fire. Due to the reasons Mike listed in his first paragraph the infantry fire was not a major killer. It was the artillery fire that caused most casualties. Of course the role of infantry fire highly correlated with the number and quality of artillery support available. For the British army with only a few rather light guns it was vital to have effective infantry to be able to soften up the enemy before the melee. For Russian army, for example, it was not at all important.

At the same time as a general rule, there longer was the unit involved in a firefight the less was it able to charge home and decide the outcome. As a general rule being drawn into a firefight meant that attacker loses momentum. Leave alone the fact that during a firefight both sides suffer approximately the same casualties. Of course if the quality on both sides is equal. But anyways the firefight is always an exchange of "pieces". And hence it's bad for both sides: the weaker side has it's possible set of decisions reduced leading to a final defeat; the stronger side looses a chance to achieve a decisive and fast victory in order to achieve a posible future undecisive victory. That said I believe that infantry ability to fire at enemy was during the era secondary to its ability to fisically occupy a piece of terrain either by offensive or defensive melee. Of course there were numerous cases where at certain circumstances infantry fire was very successful. At secondary war theaters, at closed terrain, in ambush etc. After all that's why infantry was armed with muskets rather than pikes. But, to repeat, infantry fire was only the second after the arty.

Directly on the topic there was a video on youtube where reenactor fired 5 shots in one minute. Unfortunately I couldn't find it. I also recall there was a case during Suvorov's Swiss campaign when a cossack fired on a pary 6 aimed shots within one minute. If memory helps there was also an obligation to hit a target with every shot, but this may be wrong. Obviously these are only exceptions. 1 shot per minute seems to be a good guess for an average soldier involved into a massive firefight.

_________________

The only thing I will say in answer to Anton's comments is that the British line vs. the French columns in the Peninsular saw more French dead. The first volley would disorder the front rank. The British would counter charge. If there was a return volley it was very weak. So much for the idea that the return fire caused similar losses. And I disagree with this concept for even line vs. line. The side that got off the first round caused a large amount of smoke. Harder to see the target for return fire. Also maybe a reason why the counter attacking side could win. There is something about troops coming out of a cloud of smoke at you. Never sure what else is behind them.

The British would deploy on reverse slope and once the French columns came over the top would fire one volley followed by a spirited charge. Its hard to get this to work in our games. In fact its nigh well impossible. The only way to do it would be for a rule to be added that no Disordered unit could counter attack. And that you cant react to such a situation as the attacking player (meaning you know its coming in the next turn). Add to that that the attacker is now Disordered (2/3 strength) but even with a 600 man bn. (French) vs. a 400 man British bn. the odds would be 1:1 (allowing that both sides have a leader or dont have one) the engine wont allow the British to win most of the time. And that is just frankly not right. Numbers in combat rarely told. It was mainly all in the head. Thus 300 French Guard should be able to beat 800 militia. But it just doesn't work that way in our games and that is why most of us beat each other to death.

Wondering how this works out in the LG:HW game? Can you attack a unit of higher strength and win in certain situations (attacking flank, defending unit of less morale, etc).

It would be nice to see an INFANTRY CHARGE rule too. Basically multiple melees with the same unit sweeping anything in its path based on terrain, etc. The British would charge downhill after their initial attack on the French column but unlike their cavalry would reform and fall back to their initial position. It was the key to their victories (well that and Wellington being at the crucial point of the battles).

For Mark - the British ties to their past according to Nosworthy made them a formidable foe in melee but frankly other than a slightly higher quality in loading and so on were no more better shots for the most part as they were rarely called to fire on targets at any range. Once the French column approached the fire was delivered sometimes at less than 30 yards. Pretty much any of the nations could have achieved the same results in fire at that range. According to Nosworthy it was their Celtic origin, etc that made them ferocious in melees. Maybe its the difference between a brawl at a English soccer match (in the stands) and one at a USA baseball game! I still go to USA baseball games but if I were ever to go to the UK you couldn't get me near a UK soccer game, especially in Birmingham or Manchester! I think those guys go to the game with bayonets fixed!

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

You are right Bill. But when I'm playing I try to see the devastating effects of the British 2-rank fire as partially compensating for this. Not a perfect simulation but at least there is some advantage there...

_________________

Bill, it was not at all so easy and straightforward. I highly recommend the seminal paper by James R. Arnold (available here):
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military ... aida3.html
A very closely related topic is Cavalry vs. Infantry or the efficiency of square formation which is well described by F.N. Maude (available for example here):
http://openlibrary.org/works/OL417130W/ ... s_infantry
Each particular case is so different! And that's why it's so exciting to study it carefully and in detail!

BTW, talking about particular cases, I was really surprised to see that such successful commanders as were FML Kinmayer and GM Lichtenstein are rated so low in the last game. It does not seem to be fair.

_________________

Both articles refered to by Kosyanenko above support what I have indictaed, and as most of us agree, that it is in fact MORAL effect that will determine the outcome. That problem being that effect is obtained by such a large number of factors, all with varying degrees and dependant on the often unique situation at that moment, that it is almost impossible to accurately replicate in a simulation.

If it was such a mathmatically quantifiable process (as all games ultimately are) then wars would not be fought!! They would be calculated and the outcome pre-determined!!

Both articles above again use examples of the unusual to discredit or explain away the norm. Ultimately it was the victor's determination and aggressiveness that prevailed and the factors that achieved their moral accendancy over the vanquished were again unique and many.
To do an effective simulation requires a vast amount of factors and their varying degrees in relation to the situation to be available to the calculation. There is a huge array of situations the calculations must be tested on. Add to these calculations the varying quality of troops training and leadership, mental and physical conditions, national and 'regimental' values and you see that .......this is a big ask....yet to be better achieved commercially than the current HPS titles!

Get some backroom, academic, historian, techo who's experience of fear is loosing his job or his internet connection, has never been in a physical fight, let alone put his life on the line by standing toe to toe with an equally determined and brutal opponant hell bent on your pain and distruction doing the calculations . Then the likelyhood of the values of all those factors being justifiable and the simulation being 'realistic' is not going to happen. This is not a dig at the current HPS teams I might hasten to add!!

However, food for thought. A surprise flank attack with a couple of devestating vollys did do it for L'Guard (middle guard only!) and the British did run at Albuera from a surprise Lancers flank charge! The value of surprise and support, flank and rear threats, I feel is way underestimated in current HPS titles. I do like Bills idea of multiple inf melees as well In fact I would make them possible up to a normal inf move (terrain dictated) and Cav melee moves likewise one move(terrain dictated) Include with this a variable (logical paramaters) and random (again with a logical scale) Charge/Melee Determination Role/Factor for both the attacker and defender and you begin to achieve the random and unpredicatbility (to a justifiable level) that will allow/achieve the odd Thann example, as above.

Now if someone wants to pay me what I'm earning now to sit for months (maybe years?) reading, calculating, testing and re-testing such a sytem I would relish and jump at the opportunity I believe it is more and more achievable as computers become more capable of such calculations.

ONWARD

The British were beaten at times in the Penninsular by strategy. The French were beaten on the field of battle by tactics combined with a more determined and aggressive opponant in the British soldier. Napoleon underestimated the difficulties in the Penninsular.

Napoleon conqueured Europe by using better strategy but combined it with more determined and capable troops on the battlefield. Napoleon always had the advantage over the European armies until lesser men lost their nerve and he was swamped in 1814, then cruel fate intervened in 1815!

Napoleon was beaten in Russia by an unconquorable physical strategy, just as were the Germans. The Russians were not often able to beat a cohessive French or German force in the field ie the russians achived most of their battlefield victories strategically before the shots were fired, just as Napoleon had done with many of his victories. An overwhelming strategy CAN decide the war if it is followed through and the enemy react to support it.

Our games are the battles at the end of the strategy. Therefore they need to reflect the tactical factors. Our manoeuvring can gain or lose those tactical advantages. You can get a likely outcome when testing a theory against a machine. If it is going to be put into action against another human then unless your strategy succeeds in achieving an overwhelming tactical advantage then ultimately the die roll will decide! History is full of these facts we see after the event