1866 Hanoverians

[sdennan]

Hi All

Would any of you clever Chaps be able to tell me how many dudes were in a Hanoverian battalion and whose tactical doctrine they were similar to, Prussian or Austrian.

Thanks


Simon

[KTravlos]

Hmm according to the Quintin Barry book on the 1866 campaign the Hanoverians had at full strength 20 battalions of infantry, 24 sqaudrons, and 52 guns for 23000 men. According to Barry the Hanoverians came up with their own unique answer to the challenges to warfare brought by 1859 and 1864. The other German States followed a Prussian model, and Saxony a Austrian, but Hannover did its own thing.  Barry is not exact on what that is. It does seem from the Order of battle that each battalion was probably 800-1000 men, though I cannot be sure 100% (20 battalions, 24 sqaudrons, 24 guns for 16000-23000 men)

The 1866 Grand Tactical Rules may have a ton of information on this question.

[mollinary]

Hi Simon,

Cleverness doesn't come into it, it is just a matter of which sources you are lucky enough to own!  The official Austrian History of the war gives the following strength figures for the Hanoverian Army:

20btns, 24Sqns and 52guns.  Manpower for these formations 15,684 infantry, 2,388 Cavalry, 1,807 Artillery, 208 Engineers, 482 medical and train personnel. 

However, it goes on to give much lower figures for Langensalza, as untrained recruits were sent to the rear, and there were a number of other detachments made. So, at Langensalza, 20btns, 21 sqns, 42guns. These total 13,390 infantry, 1,731 Cavalry, 1,056 Artillery.

So, in action, an average battalion strength of around 670, against a full strength of c780, and an average squadron strength of c82 against a full strength of about 100.  Hope this is of some help. 

Mollinary

[cameronian]

The other German States followed a Prussian model, and Saxony a Austrian

Not exactly; the Saxons still fought in line and eschewed the 'modern' (LOL) doctrine of stosstactik, their casualties were comparable to those of the Prussians; the Wurtemburgers on the other hand were thoroughly modern little Germans and charged in shock columns whenever they could as their horrendous casualties will attest. Not sure about the Hanoverians but I suspect they were also fighting in line, I'll check tonight.

[KTravlos]

Hmmm, interesting. Maybe Barry was too generalizing there. My own feel is that the Hanoverian relied on fire rather than on shock. But again this is not based on facts, just my reading of the battles from the Barry book.

Man I should buy the 1866 and 1871 GT Rules

[cameronian]

I should buy the 1866 and 1871 GT Rules

Indeed you should, excellent and informative.



 

[Chad]

In Stuart Sutherland's "The Organisation of thr German States Forces in 1886", he quotes the following strengths prior to Langensalza:

Guards. 1,298
1st.         1,213
2nd.        1,473
3rd.         1,763
4th.          1,043
5th.          1,122
6th.          1,134
7th.             991

Guard Rifles.  763
1st Rifles.       933
2nd Rifles.      725
3rd Rifles.       837

Chad

[Chad]

That should have said 1866!

A regiment consisted of 2 battalions of 4 companies

Chad

[sdennan]

I was under the impression that Saxons were very conservative and charged in column

[sdennan]

Hanoverians in line. In Regimental Fire and Fury would that equate to units in line?

[Leman]

Get yourself a copy of the booklet, Langensalza 1866, by John Pocock. Obtainable from The Continental Wars Society (Ralph Weaver), 37 Yeading Avenue, Rayners Lane, Harrow, Middlesex HA2 9RL. Caliver Books may have a copy as that's where I bought mine. Full description of battle, uniform colour plates, OOBs etc.

[KTravlos]

Actually, one could say that the Austrian-Saxon assault tactics were the radical ones. They were formulated after 1859 in reaction to what was seen as a change in warfare due to French tactics.

The Prussian one was the  "conservative" one relying on firepower.

Though people can dispute the terms

[cameronian]

Actually, one could say that the Austrian-Saxon assault tactics were the radical ones. They were formulated after 1859 in reaction to what was seen as a change in warfare due to French tactics.

The Prussian one was the  "conservative" one relying on firepower.

Though people can dispute the terms

Gentlemen please, for the last time, the Saxons did NOT use shock columns, they were 'old fashioned' preferring to fight in line to emphasise the firefight. The Austrians were 'modern' ie they eschewed the essentially Napoleonic tactics of the Saxons but instead elaborated a method of fighting which emphasised shock rather than firepower, stosstactik to give it its official name. Simply put (there were many refinements) this advocated a rapid approach in shock columns (in reality deep lines, 6 ranks deep with the two front ranks out front skirmishing) followed by a pell mell charge from a few hundred yards, the enemy would scatter, supposedly. Unfortunately the Prussians with their clunky breech loader could still get six rounds in per man in that last few hundred yards which in most cases was enough to shatter the Austrians. Some German states also espoused shock, Wurtemburg to name on, there were others but their name escapes me. THe CWS book on Langensalza mentioned above is a must if you're going to do this properly. Hope this helps.

[Dave Fielder]

LIKE

[mollinary]

Gentlemen please, for the last time, the Saxons did NOT use shock columns, they were 'old fashioned' preferring to fight in line to emphasise the firefight. The Austrians were 'modern' ie they eschewed the essentially Napoleonic tactics of the Saxons but instead elaborated a method of fighting which emphasised shock rather than firepower, stosstactik to give it its official name. Simply put (there were many refinements) this advocated a rapid approach in shock columns (in reality deep lines, 6 ranks deep with the two front ranks out front skirmishing) followed by a pell mell charge from a few hundred yards, the enemy would scatter, supposedly. Unfortunately the Prussians with their clunky breech loader could still get six rounds in per man in that last few hundred yards which in most cases was enough to shatter the Austrians. Some German states also espoused shock, Wurtemburg to name on, there were others but their name escapes me. THe CWS book on Langensalza mentioned above is a must if you're going to do this properly. Hope this helps.

So how did the Saxons attack? 

Mollinary