Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

When Mon ami will 1805 be here !

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

I too would like to see this title in our retinue. Perhaps in the not so distant future. We are busily putting titles together ...



Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, 5ème Division, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Speaking of new titles, the Peninsula veterans have been savagely ignored!

Col. Dirk Smith
1e Bg, 16 Dv, V Corps
Armee du Rhin

Yes I heartily agree with you both, 1805 and the Penninsular would be my priorities (not to mention pre-orders if that were possible) [:D].

In regards to the Penninsular and British moral however, would we see an increase in the British units ability not to rout (similiar maybe to the golden moral of NIR)? I think this would be justified and would be surprised and interested in why if anyone had strong objections to it.
I say this even as an avowed disciple of Napoleon. As much as it galles me to admit it the reality is that British line units throughout the era showed tremendous unit cohesion and were near impossible to break. Yet it is a common occurance in the games (at least with my battles [;)]).
The only real examples of formed British line units nearly breaking that I have come across are at Quatra Bras, Fuentes de Onoro and Albuera where there are reports of one or more units actually "falling back in some disorder", I think the wording/impression stated. I am not sure what units but I have the info somewhere its just a matter of searching/finding it.
I would be interested in others who might know of examples of British units breaking in the period 1805-1815 and if people have an opinion.
We Masters of Europe do like to fight against worthy opponents and for the British units to be anything less would cheapen their efforts and our victories [:D].

Vive la France!

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
VII (Saxon) Corps
ADR

Mon ami
That sounds like a perfect balance to me a give something to the die hards emps of the Emperor and some to the sons of the King![:D]

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mike Ellwood</i>
<br />Yes I heartily agree with you both, 1805 and the Penninsular would be my priorities (not to mention pre-orders if that were possible) [:D].

In regards to the Penninsular and British moral however, would we see an increase in the British units ability not to rout (similiar maybe to the golden moral of NIR)? I think this would be justified and would be surprised and interested in why if anyone had strong objections to it.
I say this even as an avowed disciple of Napoleon. As much as it galles me to admit it the reality is that British line units throughout the era showed tremendous unit cohesion and were near impossible to break. Yet it is a common occurance in the games (at least with my battles [;)]).
The only real examples of formed British line units nearly breaking that I have come across are at Quatra Bras, Fuentes de Onoro and Albuera where there are reports of one or more units actually "falling back in some disorder", I think the wording/impression stated. I am not sure what units but I have the info somewhere its just a matter of searching/finding it.
I would be interested in others who might know of examples of British units breaking in the period 1805-1815 and if people have an opinion.
We Masters of Europe do like to fight against worthy opponents and for the British units to be anything less would cheapen their efforts and our victories [:D].

Vive la France!

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
VII (Saxon) Corps
ADR

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I disagree on increasing the British morale just because of their Peninsular record. If anything it was because Wellington had that knack of being at the right place at the right time. Something you cant quite capture in our games.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, 5ème Division, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

I agree with Bill. The way the British infantry were handled tactically was the secret of their solidity. Wellington was very good at protecting his boys from bombardment etc. But if they were canistered in the flank I would say they would have been as vulnerable as any <u>good</u> French unit. Especially as it seldom happened.

They were different from the religious 'holy mother Russia' fatalism of the Russian infantry. Who truly did stand and be canistered without surrendering or running away. In particular at Borodino but this was more to do with spiritualism and peasant beliefs than discipline. Earlier encounters did see them run occasionally when they were not defending Russian soil.

regards


Colonel Colin Knox,
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur
La Jeune Garde
IIIe Corps ADN
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

According to the lastest histories on the British their key was their counterattacking ferocity. If anything give them a +10 percent in melee when they attack. That to me would be the key to depicting them in a game. The old Celtic ferocity.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, 5ème Division, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

I would like to see the early revolutionary wars covered.

<center>
[img]</center>
<center>Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Commanding L'Armee du Rhin
Grande Duc de Piave et Comte de Beauvais
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde
NWC President</center>

What Bill and Colin say is correct. Yes Wellington was VERY good at picking his ground. But saying "at the right place at the right time" is only part of the equation.

I contend the British infantry CONSISTANTLY stood firm and HARDLEY EVER BROKE, even in the most trying of situations and given bad tactical handling. the British Line units were CONSISTANTLY better than the best line units of other nations. I would put them on a par with excellent veteran and the likes of Young Guard units.I do not think the Golden Moral is justified BUT I think most British line units should be classed as A Grade, at least B Grade (I realise most often are but I'm saying 90% should be), C Grade I think is under selling them in relation to game unit quality. Examples below.

Remember I am a Frenchman[:D]! I say this as I believe it to be a better reflection of their quality and capabilities in comparison to the other troops gradings. Untasteful as it is to admit it, the evidence speaks for itself, the British line units were better than even good French units [V].

Examples:

<b>At Fuentes de Onoro </b>- The 85th Regt and 2nd Cazadores were isolated and retreated from the village of Pozo Bello. They were "very roughly handled by the enemy on their FLANK" being French Chassuers and Dragoons. Both units loosing over 150 men in a few minutes and it was the 85th's first engagement since arriving. However assisted by other allied cavalry and infantry in the area managed to reach and link into the 7th Div defencive line 2KM AWAY. Also same day, a piquet of Foot Gaurds (admittedly guards) under comd of a Lt Col George Hill formed were ordered into EXTENDED SKIRMISH LINE and were charged by the 13th Chasseurs (Veteran troops)who cut down over 70 men from three companies, taking Lt Col Hill and 20 prisoner. The remainder banded together and held firm until relieved by British cavalry.
<b>At Albuera </b>(not Wellington but Beresford)I pick one example from a number. Even worse was in store for the 66th who were thrown into some disorder and then charged in the rear by french cavalry, began to waver and one Lt G Crompton "saw the backs of English soldiers turned upon the French" "our colours were taken"(Hmmm interesting) but they held on.
<b>Again at Qutra Bras </b>both the British 42nd and 44th were attacked by Lancers when in line and managed to repulse them by fire (the 44th firing to their REAR! A fine feat.
However (same day) the breaking of the 69th (who lost a colour!Hmmm more interesting), 73rd and 33rd does show the British did break. They rallied immediately on entering the Bossu woods.

Bill I like the 10% advantage idea it is a start but needs more ideas I think (therefore I will think more [:D])

Replies and comments gentlemen please?

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
VII Corps, ADR

Mike,

Moore's retreat to Corunna in 1808 was marked by the wholesale disintegration of most of the British army. "Everywhere, the Imperial cavalry encountered evidence of the enemy's mounting demoralization: the road was littered with abandoned wagons and other equipment; and scores of stragglers, sick and wounded were captured at every turn. At Beimbre, the French dragoons rounded up hundreds of drunken British troops and, at Villafranca, Moore's deserters were found to have looted their own army's depots." Gates, David, <u>The Spanish Ulcer</u>, p. 111. Only Paget's rearguard maintaned a semblance of order, enabling the rest of the army to make good their escape.

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et
Comte de Marseille
Commandant - Ecole Militaire
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i>

Paco,

Yes that was definitely the case. "The Spanish Ulcer" is a good book and very useful reference. The army did disintergrated. The retreat to Corunna was severe in weather, terrain and the pace unforgiving. Had the army totally disintergrated there would have been no battle. The rear gaurd held its own. The army reformed at Corunna and again dealt the French a set back when the units were "called to the colours" to fight, they stood firm.

This was a common event even in some of the European armies, but particularly the British, where large numbers were absent ("foraging"/malingering/looting) but would re-appear when a fight was in the offering (mainly veteran units).

I am only refering to the British Line units behaviour IN BATTLE in my case, not any overall campaign performance/behaviour.

Does anyone have any specific example of British Line units breaking in battle between 1805 and 1815, in Europe, other than my previous instances?

Regards
Mike Ellwood

Mike,

All armies/rgts have great morale when they are victorious and you cannot separate the impact of Wellington's superior generalship from the overall good performance of his Peninsular units. [:D] Before Wellington's appearance, British performance had been indifferent.

For instance, the two British attempts to conquer Argentina failed miserably. On 27 June 1806 a British force of 1,500 men under William Carr Beresford occupied the city for about six weeks until surrendering in mid-August to colonial militia, led by Santiago de Liniers y Bremond, a French nobleman at the service of Spain. A second, better-resourced invasion followed in May 1807, under Lieutenant-General John Whitelock, attacking Buenos Aires in July. After a couple of days of intense street fighting, the British lost more than half of their force and surrendered to an army they had considered no more than a rabble. The Walcheren expedition in 1809 under the Duke of York was a similar fiasco. These same troops, when placed under the command of Old Nosey, performed brilliantly[;)].

Regards,

Paco



<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et
Comte de Marseille
Commandant - Ecole Militaire
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i>

Mike I disagree by two reasons:

1.Peninsula was never a main front, it never saw really big armies and huge battles. At max 30 000 on each side. What does that mean? Before answering this question let's first understand what units become broken and what's needed to come to this state. I see three main reasons:
a. at the very beginning of the battle unit breaks and run away because. Examples are several engagements in American revolutionary wars with militia and probably sevral initial engagements in 1806 campaign.
b. because of very unfavourable operational situation on the field of battle the whole army breaks and routs away. What actually happened at Austerlitz and after Friedland and Jena-Auerstedt.
c. because of very high battle fatigue (in game terms) as did many units on both sides in the hell of Raevski redoubt in the battle of Borodino.
The small fronts and small battle scales means commanders simply can not concentrate their forces in such a density that will lead to these extraordinary fatigue levels. Just look through all the battles with scales less then 30 000 on each side in all of the campaigns since 1790 to 1830. It's a sequence of frontal assaults of forces of approximately equal sizes and normal densities. There are no monstrous batteries, no dense colomns no grand charges of whole cavalry divisions or even corps etc. In your example "85th inf and 2nd Cozodores lost over 150 men in a few minutes." I estimate it to be at max 20% loss, it's an overestimation. But such loses were normal to the units of all armies from regular french, russian, austrian, prussian to raw polish troops of 1809 at Raszyn or semi-militia formations of Swedish army in 1808-09. French raw conscripts of 1813 suffered even worse casualties and didn't rout. Should we rate them as high as French Old Guard? To conclude I believe any regular infantry unit could do the same in the same situation. The scale of the engagements cancelles reasons b and c. And to repeat any regular unit must not be subject to reason a.

2. I do not like idea of reassesment of units quality in such a manner. Now we improve quality of these units, next we decrease quality of those. But they stood the ground! Ok let's introduce fanaticism, let's have different estimation process for each of the armies and have a complete chaos! What I would like to se is a straight forward assesment procedure same for all of the units wich would incorporate unit's experience, battle honors, history of reorganisations etc. It's a hard work! But it should be done, I believe. To cancel questions like this.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

1.Peninsula was never a main front, it never saw really big armies and huge battles. At max 30 000 on each side.

Anton, I disagree and so does history.

Salamanca - Wellington 51,949; Marmont 49,647

Vittoria - Wellington 79,000; Joseph 66,000

I also argue that Spain had more influence on the wars than the 1812 campaign. Napoleon lost more men in Spain than in any other theater of war including Russia. The inability of the French to take Gibraltor also sealed their fate in the Med. A much more important theater than most.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, 5ème Division, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]