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
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.
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
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.
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
I should buy the 1866 and 1871 GT Rules
Indeed you should, excellent and informative.
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
That should have said 1866!
A regiment consisted of 2 battalions of 4 companies
Chad
I was under the impression that Saxons were very conservative and charged in column
Hanoverians in line. In Regimental Fire and Fury would that equate to units in line?
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.
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
Quote from: KTravlos on 19 November 2014, 09:25:54 AM
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.
LIKE
Quote from: cameronian on 19 November 2014, 01:50:04 PM
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
Carefully ?
IanS
From cameronians point then probably in what we term the supported column
A dense skirmish screen fed by units in reserve that would try to gain the upper hand in the close firefight and then URRAHHH and ala bayonet.
Quote from: KTravlos on 26 November 2014, 09:15:17 AM
From cameronians point then probably in what we term the supported column
A dense skirmish screen fed by units in reserve that would try to gain the upper hand in the close firefight and then URRAHHH and ala bayonet.
But what does Cam think, and what are the sources which describe it? :-\
Mollinary
No idea but we both know they didn't espouse stosstactik otherwise their casualties would have been comparable with the Austrians; you're the man of leisure, go and look it up.
You're the one setting out what they did and did not do, not I, old chum. I thought you might have some source which backed up your statements. What a mistake-a to make-a! :o :D#
Mollinary
Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditor est.
Now go and do something useful.
Gentlemen,
Play nice!
Wars have been fought for less! :P
We are Gentlemen, therefore by definition we ALWAYS play nice (that is unless we play dirty! :D). Anyway, in an attempt to bring some "evidence" into this debate, Stuart Sutherland's translation of the Saxon official history describes the initial attack on Diletz being carried out in company column's by the 2nd infantry. The 1st platoon is deployed as skirmishers (Half a compnay or about 100+ men) then an assault column consitingof the 1st and 2nd Companies (now only 3 platoons, so circa 300-350 men. The battalion had approached the village in closed up column of platoons, so probably 24 man deep, with each platoon in 3 ranks. It seems therefore that the remainder of the 1st and 2nd compnaies in column were probably 9 deep. The other company columns would be 6 deep. In the attack from Nieder Prim during the Kohiggratz battle seems to have been conducted in ompany columns. Given the organisation of a Saxon company (two platoons) and the standard formation (a three deep line) I am assuming a company column would be six deep, one platoon behind the other. The supports to the first company column are described as in hall battalion, so not clear if the companies are side by side or one behind the other. The final conundrum, is what is meant by the standard formation being in three ranks. The Prussians form up in three double ranks, the Austrians in two double ranks. A famous engraving of the 10th Saxon Battalion at Problus seems to show it in 3 double ranks (at least). This Obviously has implications for the depth of a company column. Could it really be a standard of 12 ranks deep? Seriously, I wuld be very grateful for anyone who can cast some better informed light on this question. The big difference between the Austrians and Saxons would seem to be that they had no requirement to assault, and therefore often didn't, rather than the formation in which they carried out the asssault.
Mollinary
Good to hear you place such store by references Andrew. I seem to remember you and holdfast standing in the middle of a forest in Bohemia arguing until you were blue in the face that the cleared slopes of the Svib weren't dotted with 'hundreds of piles of cordwood' until I emailed holdfast the translated portion of Heidrich which settled the matter in my favour and closed the debate. An acknowledgement would have been nice, indeed gentlemanly, but none was forthcoming although I understand you have incorporated the cleared slopes and the 'hundreds of piles of cordwood' in your Swiepwald game. In light of this poor and ungenererous behaviour do you really think I'm going to make the slightest effort to adduce a reference at your behest? Look it up for yourself, you have plenty of time, the clue is in the casualties.
Wow! Good info.
No, I'm not rebasing my Saxons!
Quote from: cameronian on 26 November 2014, 06:56:22 PM
Good to hear you place such store by references Andrew. I seem to remember you and holdfast standing in the middle of a forest in Bohemia arguing until you were blue in the face that the cleared slopes of the Svib weren't dotted with 'hundreds of piles of cordwood' until I emailed holdfast the translated portion of Heidrich which settled the matter in my favour and closed the debate. An acknowledgement would have been nice, indeed gentlemanly, but none was forthcoming although I understand you have incorporated the cleared slopes and the 'hundreds of piles of cordwood' in your Swiepwald game. In light of this poor and ungenererous behaviour do you really think I'm going to make the slightest effort to adduce a reference at your behest? Look it up for yourself, you have plenty of time, the clue is in the casualties.
Wow!
It appears that we had a complete missing of minds. No-one disputed the hundreds of piles of cordwood. You disputed what cordwood was. I don't recall you winning that debate. The main debate was about "dotted" (and how sad are we for admitting that?!). Our point was that these would be alongside the tracks which had run through the forest before cutting. You disagreed. Enough. We have exposed our inner childishness to the general public more than is good for ones of our advanced years. :-[
Mollinary
Anyway.....the Saxons looked very nice in their pale blue uniforms with the natty little cap, apart from the jagers in green. Now, talking of references, the Saxons shown in Flodin's photos of the First Schleswig War are in pale blue, but Ralph Weaver's book states that they fought that war in their old green tailcoats. I wonder who's right on that one?
Quote from: mollinary on 26 November 2014, 07:14:49 PM
Wow!
It appears that we had a complete missing of minds. No-one disputed the hundreds of piles of cordwood. You disputed what cordwood was. I don't recall you winning that debate. The main debate was about "dotted" (and how sad are we for admitting that?!). Our point was that these would be alongside the tracks which had run through the forest before cutting. You disagreed. Enough. We have exposed our inner childishness to the general public more than is good for ones of our advanced years. :-[
Mollinary
Sorry but not so; I maintained the cordwood (stacks of cut timber, there was no argument) was dotted in chequerboard pattern all over the cleared slopes (see Zimmer print), you (pl) profoundly disagreed maintaining it was stacked by the trackside basing this on a lot of specious nonsense about what peasant wood cutters would or would not have done. The argument was settled by Heidrich, how you remember/misremember things is your concern. Re childishness, pot/kettle.
Quote from: Dour Puritan on 26 November 2014, 07:24:51 PM
Anyway.....the Saxons looked very nice in their pale blue uniforms with the natty little cap, apart from the jagers in green. Now, talking of references, the Saxons shown in Flodin's photos of the First Schleswig War are in pale blue, but Ralph Weaver's book states that they fought that war in their old green tailcoats. I wonder who's right on that one?
DP I think your assessment of Saxon Uniformsin 1866 is spot on, my sources say they wore tte Green coats until 1862. But I think you may do Flodin an injustice! As I look at his photos, I see dark green coats with cornflower blue trousers. I think that is right, do you have any other sources?
Mollinary
So all I want to know is do I play the Hanoverians in normal line for Regimental Fire and Fury.
I would echo Dour Puritan's advice "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". Austria, Hesse and Wurtemburg were the only allied states to formally espouse stosstactik. Their casualties were proportionately huge particularly the Wurtemburgers (Weigle 1866).
But Cameronian, permit me to be a bit foolish, but can you be 100% sure that differences in casualties represent differences in tactics, rather than differences in how those tactics were put in practice and by who?
To the orginal poster. Play them as you wish. There seems to be serious disagreement on the matter. I wish I could help but beyond the Quinting Barry claim that they followed the Austrian doctrine, I have nothing else to give.
Why not do both? play some battles using one doctrine and play the same using the other, see which results are closer to history?
And my rule is if the person I am playing with starts giving me grief over uniforms, models, tactics, and this or that, I stop playing. When I play I play to have fun. I have nothing against those who worry about these things more than getting the toys moving. I just will not play with them. I have stopped games in the first turn because the other person behaved in a manner that made it impossible for us to both have fun.
Here's another spanner in the works. I've just read the Bloody Big European Battles' Koniggratz scenario. The stosstaktik is listed as tactically inept. The Austrian army list then states that all Austrian infantry units are tactically inept EXCEPT the Saxons. Make of that what you will.
I have a copy of th ebooklet.
If it has anything on tactics then I am missing it.
I will take the advice and play them as I see fit to figure it out.
Cheers
Tactics used are discussed in the grey sidebars next to each scenario army list.
Then I have a different book
There are no scenarios in the continental wars society battle booklet no 1 Langensalza 1866 by John Pocock
Sorry, we're at cross purposes. I was talking about the Bloody Big Battles European scenario book that accompanies the rules of the same name. Unfortunately Langensalza didn't make it into the book as Chris Pringle considers it too small for the scale he uses. However it does feature in Bruce Weigle's 1866 rulebook with an excellent map and OOBs. I will be using these to design a scenario to fit Neil Thomas' C19th European rules.
Just reading that and he has Hanoverians operating in line while Federal armies are in column only.
I am disappointed that two respected members of this forum should feel it necessary to adopt a tone in their exchanges that is sadly reminiscent of 'discussion' on TMP. Particularly as it moved off the subject. 😢
Chad
Quote from: Chad on 27 November 2014, 09:58:01 AM
I am disappointed that two respected members of this forum should feel it necessary to adopt a tone in their exchanges that is sadly reminiscent of 'discussion' on TMP. Particularly as it moved off the subject. 😢
Chad
Chad, you are quite correct. i apologise unreservedly to all, including Cam, for allowing the tone of my posts to become too combative. :-[
Coming back to the point, I think you are probably entriely safe in allowing Hanoverians (or Saxons for that matter) to enagge in fire fights in line. If attempting to close assault, my impression is that most armies would form column. The big distinguishing mark between those who followed Austrian practice and those who did not appears to be that the Austrians would seek to close assault at practically every opportunity, often with totally inadequate preparation. The others would be much more careful about decidng when to attack in column. Saxon practice seems to be that assaults are in company, not battalion columns. I have a couple of books in German about Langensalza, and will try and find if there is anything definitive regarding tactics, but my recollection is that regrettably they do not contain such detail.
Mollinary
Mollinary
Thank you, I was worried this here row would spiral out of control.
Grumble, grump ... ok, sorry, busy week, big inspection, difficult surgical caseload, felt a bit put out, mumble .... :-[
Bennighof for what he's worth ... yes I know, I know.
Saxon soldiers carried the same Lorenz muzzle-loading rifles as their Austrian allies, but Saxon doctrine called for "outmoded" tactics compared to the Austrian army's brutal stosstaktik. Austrian units formed massive assault columns, 60 men wide and 12 deep, and suffered terribly from Prussian rifle fire. The Saxons used the linear tactics of the late Napoleonic period, with much better effect. The Saxon corps saw as much action at Königgrätz as most of the Austrian corps, but suffered fewer losses than any equivalent Austrian formation. The wrecked Austrian IV Corps lost roughly seven times as many men as the Saxons.
I see. Thank you
I've been taken to the cleaners by Bennighof before so caution is advised.
Thank you cameronian and mollinary
Both your passion for the period and your apologies are appreciated
We are passionate about it, explains the heightened emotion that sometimes surfaces, sorry Andrew I was a bit out of order there.
Gents,
Flattered to see Bloody Big European Battles cited as a source. A certain amount of homework did go into it. I will dig out some references and post them here later this week.
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
How does one obtain said publication, BBEB ?
I ordered mine from Caliver Books.
Some references as promised (thanks to Dr Nicholas Murray of the US Naval War College). I have paraphrased somewhat:
===
Spencer Wilkinson reckoned the best analysis of the tactics of 1866 was by Moritz Kuehne, Kritische und Unkritische Wanderungen ueber die Gefechtsfelder der Preussischen Armeen in Boehmen 1866.
The Saxon troops were considered to be of excellent quality and the Hannoverians to be very good. Most analyses focus on the Austrians. As you know, the Austrians adopted the mass attack in response to their experience in the war of 1859. I doubt that the Saxons or the Hannoverians copied the Austrians, and I have never seen anything that says they did. Furthermore, what I've read regularly mentions the Saxons 'dug in', which suggests that they were not inculcated with the offensive spirit of their Austrian counterparts. Mention is also made of the Saxon use of skirmishers, though I have no idea if this is anything more than Napoleonic style.
See also page 246-247 of Wright & Hozier, "The campaign of 1866 in Germany". This describes a Saxon infantry attack which sounds similar to the Prussian model. Then take a look at Gluenicke, "The campaign in Bohemia, 1866", and Anderson, "The Austro-Prussian War in Bohemia, 1866". The latter describes Stosstaktik. Clearly the two descriptions are different. The Austrians attack in battalion columns and the Saxons in company columns with skirmishers.
===
BBB and BBEB can be obtained from Caliver Books or Irregular Miniatures in the UK, or Brigade Games or On Military Matters in the US.
Hope this helps.
Chris
Certainly does Chris, and thanks for that. Have now sorted out an armoured train and gunboat from Irregular for the Villiers scenario.
Excellent - it just has to be done, doesn't it? I bodged up my own armoured railway guns using spare cannon from the Peter Pig 1/600 forts, on an Irregular flatcar, with cardboard walls. I imagine that's close enough to how they were actually constructed ... The Villiers game is a nice one. Extending the map to include Vinoy's force as well as Ducrot's opened up options and made it so much more interesting than if you just fight the frontal assault. I'll be very interested to hear how your game goes as and when you get to fight it.
Chris
(with apologies for digressing slightly from Hanoverian tactics of 1866)
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 30 November 2014, 07:07:33 PM
Some references as promised (thanks to Dr Nicholas Murray of the US Naval War College). I have paraphrased somewhat:
===
Spencer Wilkinson reckoned the best analysis of the tactics of 1866 was by Moritz Kuehne, Kritische und Unkritische Wanderungen ueber die Gefechtsfelder der Preussischen Armeen in Boehmen 1866.
The Saxon troops were considered to be of excellent quality and the Hannoverians to be very good. Most analyses focus on the Austrians. As you know, the Austrians adopted the mass attack in response to their experience in the war of 1859. I doubt that the Saxons or the Hannoverians copied the Austrians, and I have never seen anything that says they did. Furthermore, what I've read regularly mentions the Saxons 'dug in', which suggests that they were not inculcated with the offensive spirit of their Austrian counterparts. Mention is also made of the Saxon use of skirmishers, though I have no idea if this is anything more than Napoleonic style.
See also page 246-247 of Wright & Hozier, "The campaign of 1866 in Germany". This describes a Saxon infantry attack which sounds similar to the Prussian model. Then take a look at Gluenicke, "The campaign in Bohemia, 1866", and Anderson, "The Austro-Prussian War in Bohemia, 1866". The latter describes Stosstaktik. Clearly the two descriptions are different. The Austrians attack in battalion columns and the Saxons in company columns with skirmishers.
===
BBB and BBEB can be obtained from Caliver Books or Irregular Miniatures in the UK, or Brigade Games or On Military Matters in the US.
Hope this helps.
Chris
Hi Chris,
Very helpful. To add a bit more granularity, your description of Saxon columns agrees with the description in their official history, which talks of company or, on one occasion half battalion, columns, very much like the Prussians. With four companies in a battalion, that equates to some 200-240 men or 400-500 men. The Austrians, where they stuck to their own doctrine(!) were going for attack in "division mass". A battalion had three of these, as they had six companies per battalion. But the three divisions often attacked in a closed line, making it practically a battalion column in four double ranks. A real battalion column, which was the recommended formation for the second, supporting, line of a brigade, was all six companies, one behind the other, so six double ranks, or twelve men deep. This seems to have been used for the assault as well. I have now checked my sources on Langensalza, including Lettow-Vorbeck, and I can find nothing of the level of detail we are looking for. Does anyone know if Mike Embree's booklet on The Hanoverian army addresses tactics. I would agree with Cameronian's warning not to take Mike Bennighof's stuff as in any way gospel.
Mollinary
Quote from: mollinary on 02 December 2014, 03:50:57 PM
I would agree with Cameronian's ...
Mollinary
:o
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: paulr on 02 December 2014, 06:43:40 PM
:o
;D ;D ;D
Naughty.
We agree more than we disagree, I'm jealous really, Mollers has taken early retirement so can devote his time and capacious brain to the study in depth my demanding work schedule doesn't permit. I have considerable respect for his scholarship, a good egg really ... mostly ... ;)
later: whoopee my French have arrived from Fernando; elected to have the cavalry and Guard done to 'collector' standard, wow, now for basing, flocking and hopefully some piccies before Christmas.
Looking forward to seeing those. Very near to completing my French 6mm for BBB. Photos in a week or two.
Wrong thing to say on a 10mm board but in retrospect I wish I'd gone for 6mm at the start.
Got 10mm as well, but I think BBB will work better in 6mm. These 6mm are mostly over 20 years old. My 10mm will be based differently and fighting the smaller scale actions like Wissembourg and Langensalza.
Looking forward to seeing the new figures
Different scales all have their place
Look forwards to seeing those.