| Celtic Tiger | 26 Jan 2009 11:22 a.m. PST |
Did British infantry companies or battalions really attach platoons of Highlanders? |
| wehrmacht | 26 Jan 2009 11:37 a.m. PST |
I don't think so. I wondered about this too, considering that the army list allows attachment of a "company" to the battalion, but in the example army the Highlander attachment is only platoon-strength, not a company. w. |
| Celtic Tiger | 26 Jan 2009 12:11 p.m. PST |
So they attached companies to battalions? |
| wehrmacht | 26 Jan 2009 2:23 p.m. PST |
I just looked at the WH Historical site and there is an erratum that deals with that. Apparently you do get to attach individual platoons of Highlanders to your battalion. w. |
 Jlundberg  | 26 Jan 2009 4:48 p.m. PST |
I think it is one of the least attractive parts of the rules – the whole GW mode. You could get the same thing by saying that you have raiders attached – nationality independent. I bought the Great War rules – great pictures and decent ideas but elected to go with Iron Ivan's Price of Glory rules. |
| Etranger | 26 Jan 2009 8:18 p.m. PST |
'Highlanders' (presumably you mean troops in kilts?) would have been fighting in their own battalions of eg The Black Watch or the other Highland regiments. Anything else is highly fanciful. |
| Celtic Tiger | 26 Jan 2009 11:26 p.m. PST |
What, so it is completely made up then? It didn't happen? |
| x42brown | 26 Jan 2009 11:39 p.m. PST |
What, so it is completely made up then? It didn't happen? I haven't read the those rules to be sure what is being talked about but what has been said above is totally foreign to me. I was in the Black Watch and as far as I know they were never lending detachments to other battalions. x42 |
| carolusone | 27 Jan 2009 2:11 a.m. PST |
The term " highlanders " is used in the Great War rules as a sort of elite troops It does not just mean kilted units. |
| Plynkes | 27 Jan 2009 2:22 a.m. PST |
Yes, it is rather ridiculous. They go to the trouble of naming a troop type "Highlanders" and then in a small note at the bottom say, "Actually, we don't mean Highlanders at all, we just mean very good troops of any kind. It's just that we really, really like that movie with Sean Connery and the French bloke, so we wanted to call something Highlanders." It seems unnecessarily confusing and dumb to me.
Whatever you are pretending them to be (Highlanders, Guards, Aussies, or just very good troops from an ordinary infantry battalion, etc.), I suppose one could put them on the flank and look on them as troops from an adjacent battalion, the rest of whom are off-table.
Or just ignore their stupid army list and use your own judgement. |
| Martin Rapier | 27 Jan 2009 5:23 a.m. PST |
"What, so it is completely made up then?" Yes. There were some instances of companies being attached to battalions for very specific tasks (like extensively planned trench raids), but it wasn't very common. What was a bit more common was companies being detached from their parent battalion and given an independant mission to perform, so I guess you could rationlise it that way. |
| Capt Flash | 29 Oct 2009 4:28 p.m. PST |
"Or just ignore their stupid army list and use your own judgment." Yep, that's what I'd do.
Although as nod to history, my army uses Gurkhas as assault troops as a tribute to the friendship between the Gordons and the Sirmoor rifles( 2nd Gurkha rifles?). Or something like that… I've been too busy at work lately…any corrections welcome. |
adds a tower to his 15mm trainyard.