Hearts of Oak (well MDF...)

[Orcs]

1) Sunjester's Lucky Dice (Orcs will confirm; three 6s on 4 dice is taking the piss) - But absolutely normal for Sunjesters dice

2) My Dice (again, ask Orcs) _- Buy some more.  Take them outside where they can see your old dice. THen infromnt of them either smash the old dice with a hammer or burn them with a blow torch. then explain to the new dice that is what happens to dice that do not throw the correct numbers.

3) I always choose the Austrians...Why - choose British,

[Last Hussar]

As much as I'd like to do the British, in not sure it is possible to get rules that work for them because they were so different to the rest of Europe. Also the British didn't take part in the Austro-Prussian and -Franco wars of the 1850s and 60s.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

But they did take part in the Crimea, and India, look how well they did there, upsetting allies and insulting those supposed to be on our side. The Army is too far spread to help really....

The navy was rather useful, at looking good. Its tactics werent kerping uo with technology, just coz it was bigger, did it make it better?

We were still paraniod the French would invade in the 1850s.  Palmerston's Follies anyone...

And they had a tendency to start supporting one side, then switch to back for the underdog ( FPW), or just pull out without getting involved due to business  (ACW, Maximillian in Mexico).

What statues to pull down from this period, we didn't deserve it...

[Last Hussar]

Look, I'm trying to get Sunjester to do little wooden Russians for 1805, don't confuse the matter!

[hammurabi70]

The navy was rather useful, at looking good. Its tactics werent kerping uo with technology, just coz it was bigger, did it make it better?

Would you care to elaborate on that, given that it converted sail ships to steam and introduced the screw frigate?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

But its tactics were still those of Nelson.

Fair point.

[Orcs]

Look, I'm trying to get Sunjester to do little wooden Russians for 1805, don't confuse the matter!

Two problems their,
1 SJ is not really interested in Napoleonics- Yes he will happilly play the game as he is a wargames slapper - Any Period, Any rules , Any side.
2 He has lots to paint that interests him. 

[hammurabi70]

But its tactics were still those of Nelson.

Fair point.

I think the problems arise in the late Victorian period as demonstrated by the loss of the VICTORIA and the signals debacle of WWI. Of course you might argue that such failures make a period MORE interesting.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

The signals problem in WWI were due to a lack of voice radio, and coal smoke. Overall in the only major battle only one signal would have appered to have gone astray, BCF to 5th Battle Squadron. Yes there were problems at Dogger Bank, but that was due to an unclear signal not not seeing it.

[fred.]

Signals problem is WWI was as much down to radio being new and no-one having worked through the practical application of it, so you had the Admiralty giving orders directly to the ships.

Plus lots of reliance on short-range comms by flags, which had the problem of smoke and damage - which I suspect was hardly a new problem for WWI, but ranges were probably longer, so harder to see.

Plus RN focusing on volume of fire over accuracy - which was the reverse of the German approach. Coupled with manual range spotting trying to work amongst the scatter of lots of shooting from lots of different guns.

[hammurabi70]

One of the major issues in WWI was that nobody realised the visibility issues so units at the periphery failed to inform the centre of what was happening.  In Nelson's day, subject to smoke, the fleets were visible to the admirals.  At Jutland, Jellicoe was deploying his fleet of dreadnoughts without proper scouting intelligence.  There was too much of doing as one was told and not enough about ensuring effective communication.

[Last Hussar]

Update.
The problem with Walt's little wooden men is the price, just £2 for 12 strips of 8 men. I'm looking at doing the entire Bavarian corps. At battalion level (3 bases to a unit,)! It going to come to about £30.

Plus they are easy to paint being flatish.

I can now field ALL of the Brunswick MiB, again at 3 bases to a BP unit. For Blucher I need less than I have.

The bigger problem is Uhlans, because I have to cut squares to glue on top for the czapka, and the pennants on the lances.

So, Bavarians next, then maybe Wurttemberg and or Westphalia. Possibly the Poles.

Wondering about getting a Russian army for Christmas.

[Orcs]

Wondering about getting a Russian army for Christmas.

Learn from Napoleon and Hitler, Don't go anywhere near Russia or Russians in the winter.  - Buy them now!

[steve_holmes_11]

Signals problem is WWI was as much down to radio being new and no-one having worked through the practical application of it, so you had the Admiralty giving orders directly to the ships.

Plus lots of reliance on short-range comms by flags, which had the problem of smoke and damage - which I suspect was hardly a new problem for WWI, but ranges were probably longer, so harder to see.

Plus RN focusing on volume of fire over accuracy - which was the reverse of the German approach. Coupled with manual range spotting trying to work amongst the scatter of lots of shooting from lots of different guns.

Volume of fire might have seemed sensible at the time.
You can see a lot of design features which play to the "You'll never see, let along hit anything at 8 miles range" school.
The recent example of Tsushima had a lot of Navies reevaluating their fire policies, and often drawing incorrect conclusions.

It's a bit like early WW2 tanks.
There's a little prior experience, but armour's now three times as thick (More if you're in a Matilda), speeds are up to 10 times faster and gunnery is completely different.
Sure, you've had plenty of time to practice, but most of that was spent driving a 15cwt truck with a plywood tank chassis on top (unless you're Russian, in which case you've likely been purged).
So everybody goes into 1939/40 with their vision of the modern tank force...
Some worked better than others.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Since the arceologists have been at work -

Royal Navy Gunnery was actually better that German in WWI, the Germans lacked director fire control til 1916, but found the range eariler than the RN, but RN ships held it better. The loss of the battlecrusiers was mainly due to ignoreing the saftey precautions.

Tank design in 1940 was fitted to doctrine, and yes on average the Germans were rather better at it. However compare an A13 MkII with a Panzer IIIE. Armour is of the same order, the 13 is rather faster and has a better gun. THe major difference was in how they were used, and numbers.

[Last Hussar]

Learn from Napoleon and Hitler, Don't go anywhere near Russia or Russians in the winter.  - Buy them now!

But then they will be ready to fight in Spring!

[toxicpixie]

Since the arceologists have been at work -

*snip naval examples*

Tank design in 1940 was fitted to doctrine, and yes on average the Germans were rather better at it. However compare an A13 MkII with a Panzer IIIE. Armour is of the same order, the 13 is rather faster and has a better gun. THe major difference was in how they were used, and numbers.

Ahhh but soft factors & non-obvious hard factors come into play - which is mostly what wins battles (see your comment on losing Battlecruisers to people ignoring safety procedures!).

Reliability, ease of use, crew comfort and vision - all far better on early to mid war German tanks. All baaaaaad on UK/French designs - compare say bailing out of an A13 (or crewing it up in the first place). The Pzr III crew can be in the tank and fighting in five mins, it took 10-15 mins to get the driver into or out of a Cruiser, and considerable time for the turret crew as well! It's not often mentioned but UK crews bailed early and often - they knew if they waiting till it it was needed they'd be dead. Reliability is another - when you see from the maintenance returns how few actual runners UK & Commonwealth units had even with *fresh* vehicles, it's no surprising that allegedly smaller German formations performed far better - they often had more fighting tanks at point of contact!

Fuelling is a great example - French tanks in 1940 used a terrible system - fill a small bladder from the fuel truck, carry to the tank, attach to fuel tank, squeeze/pump in, back and forth. Took 30-60mins *per tank* to fill up - all of which required special connectors and a lot of manual faff. German tanks - stick the nozzle of the hose connected directly to the fuel truck into the tanks fuel cap, and done - at worst just pour a jerry can into it. Time to refuel? Five mins... whole damn Abteilung refuelled in the time it takes one French tank to be done...

When German design "caught up" with guns and armour the soft factors that had made them so successful just got lost. Meanwhile Allied soft factors exceeded the early war gap and still retained good enough hard factors.

If I could find the link I read a great write up from the Army's comparative testing of Sherman, Cromwell, Pzr IV and T-34 from '43 - PzrIV was really badly made, pretty unreliable and poor on crew fatigue/usability but was clearly worse than earlier examples made pre/early war, Sherman was utterly boss, as was Cromwell ("assuming current problems with reliability are ironed out") - both could do a battalion sized 60km route march across unfamiliar territory and then go straight into combat *as a full battalion* with crews who were still able to fight, and T-34 was... unreliable, virtually impossible to drive and fight, and whilst great for hard stats they felt it was a bad combat tank unless you expected to use it once, briefly and right up from on the front lines as the crew would be too shagged and too many runners have dropped out due to mechanical failure to be useful!

[fred.]

Those are some really good points, and things that are rarely represented in rules. There are occasional rules for '2 man turrets' or similar, but rarely rules for the fatigue the tank causes on the crew (fatigue is often missing from many wargame rules). Perhaps this is where the abstraction of BKC and its command values comes in, and you could limit certain countries / years to maximum CV for their armour.

The fatigue causing and reliability of different tanks was huge - the Allies drove their Shermans and Cromwells 100s of miles from Normandy to Holland in a space of days, with the loss of very few tanks through mechanical faults. I always contrast this to one of the German reinforcements units sent to Arnhem, a unit of 13 Tiger Is, that drove about 12 miles and had 11 tanks break down during that road march!

[Last Hussar]

So back on topic...

Ordered the entire Bavarian Corps for 1809, something you can do at 32p a base. This will be enough for 3 bases/battalion for BP. Blucher and FoGN don't need this many.

Last night started 4 units of Landwehr- now painted grey. Need to do backpacks, boots, faces etc. 48 strips- 384 figures.

Lesson learned was probably best to still do an undercoat with spray paint. I was using a 1 inch brush, and the MDF went a little hairy, plus needed two coats. However method tested on Landwehr means can be explained as substandard clothing. I can use the 1 inch brush for jacket colour, having sealed with spray- I'll find a shop with plastic loyalty cards to have as a paint guard to protect trousers of the undercoat colour

Wondering about doing Württemberg, Westphalia and Poland next, but only enough for Blucher, 12-18 bases each

[sunjester]

Wondering about doing Württemberg, Westphalia and Poland next, but only enough for Blucher, 12-18 bases each

Yes!