"This Might Also Be Helpful...Or Not" Topic

Kevin's looney Mini-Me cheering squad.

classic stuff

Graf Bretlach

You didn't have to reply to my post that was directed at XV Brigada, who, as yet, like Hollins, has not replied.

Please explain why you felt so compelled to do so? Can't you help yourself?

badwargamer

Funny how you make such a remark about my leaving and returning. That is exactly what you did on another thread remember?

But now you make me feel guilty if I consider leaving. How will you be entertained?

@ dave

No, it is not about the "best" as the French had two!

You're right of course. So in fact, it is a debate about which nations had the second, third and fourth-best artillery system!

Here's the chart, pop pickers:

1/ Congreve
2/ An XI
3/ Lichtenstein
4/ Gribeauval

But wait, Lieven says the Russian system was the best!

Doh!

Gazzola, sorry, I feel really bad now, will you forgive me if I promise not to do it again?

Graf Bretlach

No need to feel sorry and there is nothing to forgive because you will do it again, as other posters have done and will keep doing. It is all part of the posting game. Just a shame there will be no winners.

Thanks Gaz…another win…..I can retire at this rate :-)

lol, you guys want the rot to stop yet you are guilty of doing the same…

badwargamer

'another win' 'I can retire'

Is someone paying you to make these posts then, or are you just gambling with yourself?

4th – Seems we have another contender (from the G overall barrels thread on Discussion) – an entirely fictious Gribeauval system, based on 18 calibre barrels! I was interested to see that N's order to sort out the artilelry was issued 9 days after becoming First Consul, so I think the Emperor is with us on the ranking of No.4 anyway.

@ Dave

Yes, I have to say, that is a pretty compelling piece of meta-data. Trained artilleryman, proven polymath and military genius acquires supreme power in France, and what's the very first thing he changes? Why, the artillery system!

Bly-mey, as they used to say in The Sweeney.

Quarrie claimed years ago that the An XI system was designed – paraphrasing – to make use of immense supplies of captured 6-pounder ammo and tubes, but that it wasn't a success because the barrels of the French-made 6-pounders were too short and the range and accuracy suffered.

I actually didn't understand that at the time, because AFAIK the really juicy hauls of swag happened in 1805 to 1806. This was 5 years after the supposed swag-based reform began. But as a matter of interest, was there such an effort to make tubes to fit captured ammo, or is the whole thing just a garbled account?

Mammals Suck seems to have captured the essence of half of the threads in the Napoleonic section.

badwargamer wrote:

Personally I was going to stay away from these posts but they are just toooooo funny

Well no – that's the point really. It's gone well past the funny stage. mammals sucks excellent post sums the whole sorry situation up perfectly

It has devolved into a contest to see which is more annoying: Dave's obsessive stridency, or Kevin's looney Mini-Me cheering squad.
Kevin's tactic has generally been to just keep Dave talking. Nobody can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like Dave. He can be right on every point, but lose on form, with self-inflicted wounds smoldering all over.
Kevin just pushes Dave's button every now and then, and gets out of the way. The upshot is something on the order of: "Look how annoying my opponent is! Obviously, I must therefore be right."
If Kevin could lose the kamikaze fan club, he'd seal the deal. They're as strident as Dave, arguably much crazier, and there's more of them!
Then all we'd need to know is WHY two guys who aren't wargamers have chosen a wargaming site as their Armageddon. (Or for that matter, why a British lawyer and an American middle-school teacher have spent ten years trashing each other over a rivalry about footnotes.)
Perhaps a wargaming site is just a natural forum for this sort of thing. Where else can you find a congregation of middle-aged men who are already so committed to devoting a lot of time to things that most of humanity finds incomprehensible and/or embarrassing?

4th – This is classic Ruling Theory, where they try to explain away the awkward issues. If G was so great, why did the artilleryman-turned-ruler do away with it asap?

Much of the ammunition and hardware lost by Austria in the Rev Wars was 3pdr pop guns – I suspect they abandoned regt guns in part, because the resources required to replace them were better spent on heavier calibre kit. in France (per DD&S), there was a move in the 1790s to rebore old 1740 4pdrs to 6pdr to take captured ammunition, but this was abandoned in 1798 – but it is probably the origin of the tale. The real problem was that the 4pdr was pretty useless and the 8pdr too heavy for field mobility, esp in support of infantry (barrel weight of 580kg with a similar carriage weight) compared with 388/398 for an Austrian 6pdr). As DD&S show, many "YrXI" guns are actually captured Allied guns, which would reinforce the tale about using captured ammo. Obviously having a heavier pound and so, a larger bore, French 6 and 12pdrs could use captured ammo in a way that the Austrians for example could not.

Could they use Austrian ammunition? wasn't the Austrian 6pdr ball about 5 something French pounds, yes it would fit but makes a mockery of tolerances and accuracy. yes/no?

96000 rounds fired at Wagram for about 23000 Austrian dead and wounded from all causes does not suggest much accuracy anyway! The balls seem to have a diameter of 90 vs 94mm (DD&S), so it is not that important.

If that is the difference then maybe it was ok

I know they used captured equipment and therefore balls to go, but is there any documents to say they used the smaller Austrian round in French tubes, just curious.

Do you have the figures for Austrian rounds fired at Wagram?

There are complaints by French gunners at Wagram using captured ammo, due to the barrels clogging up. This is usually adduced as evidence of poor quality Austrian powder, but ironically, it was down to French gunners chucking lots of water down the barrels as this made the grease on the rounds gum up. So, that shows they were using captured ammunition.

I don't have anything for Austrian rounds fired – the French figures are from an extensive study by Hirst, cited by Rauchensteiner. The Austrians fired about 55K rounds at Aspern for about 21000 French casualties from all causes, but of course the target was rather more compact. That figure I think comes from Krieg 1809.

goes to show the term it takes a mans weight in metal to kill him, to be pretty correct doesn't it? And more funny probably is is still true today.

Once the bickering's stopped I've managed to learn something about Napoleonics IN the Napoleonics rooms, so my thanks for that Dave. I admit most of what you're discussing is so way about my head as a mere wargamer, but things like casualty rates v balls fired is very useful to me.

All we can do is look at the historical material and then leave it for the rulesmiths to use it to create an approximation of what happened. That way, gamers should actually get a decent game, because they are faced with the same issues as the commanders of the time.

Peterborough WGC,

Me too but much to my surprise I find the weapons technology of the period more and more interesting. I know that some people don't but surely the Boards have room enough to cater for all subjects however related to wargaming itself. One doesn't have to read it. I am also encouraged that it has happened in spite of the disruptive attempts of the 'looney Mini-me Cheering Squad'.

Bill

This is the period of the Industrial revolution, so we should not be too surprised. All nations are taking ideas from each other – the Austrian 1798 musket is a French 1777 pattern (wrongly but commonly called a Charleville). the key is to understand who is doing what and the effect on the battlefield. As I said, this varying accuracy and ranges should make a game more interesting than if both sides are viewed as being the same.

The Austrians meassured their calibre or gun ball weight with Nürnberger Silbergewicht, which is a fraction less than the French pound.

There the Austrians used special cartridges which did not require wet sponging all the time, it well could be that the French run into dificulties using them – however they used Austrian guns and ammunition for ages – so at least the veteran gunners should know how to deal with captured Austrian artillery ammunition.

Do you know a break down of type of round Dave? What proportion of that would have been canister for example?

You would need Krieg 1809 or Hirst for the actual allocation, I expect. Maybe Gill mentions it?

I'm always surprised how little cannister rounds were carried officially, i expect ball or roundshot would be the vast majority of rounds, or the equivalent shells.

Yes it would be interesting to see the original report on expenditure. i will have a look this w/e unless someone finds it.

'It has devolved into a contest to see which is more annoying: Dave's obsessive stridency, or Kevin's looney Mini-Me cheering squad.
Kevin's tactic has generally been to just keep Dave talking. Nobody can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like Dave. He can be right on every point, but lose on form, with self-inflicted wounds smoldering all over.
Kevin just pushes Dave's button every now and then, and gets out of the way. The upshot is something on the order of: "Look how annoying my opponent is! Obviously, I must therefore be right."
If Kevin could lose the kamikaze fan club, he'd seal the deal. They're as strident as Dave, arguably much crazier, and there's more of them!
Then all we'd need to know is WHY two guys who aren't wargamers have chosen a wargaming site as their Armageddon. (Or for that matter, why a British lawyer and an American middle-school teacher have spent ten years trashing each other over a rivalry about footnotes.)
Perhaps a wargaming site is just a natural forum for this sort of thing. Where else can you find a congregation of middle-aged men who are already so committed to devoting a lot of time to things that most of humanity finds incomprehensible and/or embarrassing?'

Besides being absolute nonsense, I have posted on this forum before what my interest in wargaming is. I'll repeat it once again.

I am an avid collector of toy and model soldiers, the overwehming majority being in 54mm. I have some larger scales, as well as flats in smaller scales and some wargaming figures.

I wargame in 54mm when the opportunity arises, generally World War II. I'm teaching my son who to play. My eldest brother and I developed a set of wargame rules to use with 54mm figures when I was in the 6th grade. While at college in the 1970s, a fried and I developed a board wargame of the Battle of Aspern-Essling, which after trial and error, turned out to be fairly good and easy to play, and hard for the French to win.

I am not an avid wargamer in smaller scale nor do I use the detailed rules I have seen on this board. However, I am looking to start a collection in 28mm of either the War of the Revolution Continental Army or the Grande Armee.

Now, if those 'credentials' are not good enough, then that's too bad I guess.

As for the 'other issue' I make the attempt to stay out of it as much as I can and usually do pretty good to my mind. However, having everything I say remarked upon in a negative manner, without being looked up or researched, is just a little frustrating and quite rude. Perhaps the naysayers and those who like to ridicule might want to take that under consideration.

K

I did wargame in my youth, but got intp reenactment and then doing proper research. I came here primarily to get an idea of what a key part of the market is looking for, where the gaps are and what is in need of better explanation. It was particularly helpful for writing my chapter in Armies of the Nap Wars and pushing Osprey to do more Revolutionary books.

Every group has its Tendency and its Keepers of the True Flame, who think that the regular repetition of third hand claims and bad research, coupled with a book burning campaign against anything, which shows up their scared books for the nonsense they are, help the whole enthusiast community. I suspect that more wargamers are interested in how the research is going than they care to let on, but granted, they do get a little tired of the attempts of the Keepers to muddy the waters.

Every group has its Tendency and its Keepers of the True Flame, who think that the regular repetition of third hand claims and bad research, coupled with a book burning campaign against anything, which shows up their scared books for the nonsense they are, help the whole enthusiast community. I suspect that more wargamers are interested in how the research is going than they care to let on, but granted, they do get a little tired of the attempts of the Keepers to muddy the waters.

You are so out of touch with war gamers hollins, you have not got a clue what we want. If you insist on name calling and ridicule for a start you lose part of your market, if you bad mouth other authors and attack them or accuse them of war crimes you lose another part of your market.

Also, you have done very little compared with many other historical authors over the years, you seem to spend more time here insulting people than actually doing research…maybe you might wanna think about that.

I just wish those that admire hollins could open their eyes and see what this guy does, I implore you to step back and take an objective look at how hollins insults people and at the same time waves some kind of victory flag with the logo, "justice, righteousness and the hollins way". Guys, wake up, this is not the guy you should be impressed with, all he does is spread negativity, ridicule and hatred and does this through a divide and conquer mentality.

I am not trying to be sarcastic, I am sincerely trying to get you guys to see what and who this person really is.

I am sincerely trying to get you guys to see what and who this person really is.

Thanks. Point noted. Now let's move on, shall we?

mate I would love to move on, problem is, hollins keeps on pulling us back into the mire.

You are absolutely correct-well said and well done.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Stavka,

This deliberate, repetitive and offensive mobbing behavior by the same four people is an ongoing coordinated campaign of harassment targeted against Mr Hollins intended to disrupt threads on which he posts and to provoke an emotional response.

It is clear enough who they are. What they are is similarly clear in my view. Unfortunately they won't move on.

Bill

PS You seem to be really enjoying that beer. It reminds me that it is past mid-day and time for my first.

mate I would love to move on, problem is, hollins keeps on pulling us back into the mire.

Nonsense. We all have choices, and one choice is to just let go and move on. That is the choice of mature adults who realize that you cannot change and control what cannot be changed and controlled.

I have long ago come to my own conclusions on this issue, but be damned if I am going to waste time airing my opinion, let alone beating dead horses. Especially given just how insignificant the stakes are.

If you feel this is a fight worth expending your energy on, then it is no business of mine to stop you. But at this point in the debate most people with a life to live have either moved on and/ or ceased caring.

The difficulty the Tendency have is that their attempts to book burn are failing. they do not want to hear any new material and they certainly do not want you to hear it – because it means they must face up to the failings in their own sacred books. they try to shout everything diown here and on Amazon – now apparently as some public service. Maybe if they actually answered the key points raised against theor sacred works, we might get somewhere.

Now we have "having everything I say remarked upon in a negative manner, without being looked up or researched, is just a little frustrating and quite rude." Wqell, maybe if Kevin answered the questions about his own work and those he actually used, we might advance our knowledge by distinguishing between what is backed up by evidence and what is just fantasy or fabricated.

"rude" is quite hilarious given his claims in his Amazon review that I know nothing about staffs and artillery, especially coming from someone, who made things up in his own work.

Anyway, Stavka, I am looking forward to being exposed as me, someone, who actually does the primary research and interrogates the evidence!

I agree this is not getting us anywhere, which is a shame, as I am sure that we could engage ins ensible debate and argument to see what was actually the case, for the benefit of all of us.

stavka, for someone who seems to want it known he does not care or has moved on you sure seem to spend a great deal of energy imparting your own wisdom on the subject???

If you indeed have a life beyond this forum that makes partaking of discussion on such an insignificant topic you would not have spent your time responding now would you? how hypocritical can you get…

lol

Bill,

You are either incredibley naive or you agree with people who call others liars and other pejorative comments and engage in ad hominem personal attacks. As you have done this yourself, I'm not surprised by your above posting.

K

What else do you call people, who make things up, which are not true? There is no point trying to hide behind this "ad hominem" claim as it goes to the heart of (in this case) your work. You have claimed to be an expert on artillery of the Napoleonic Wars – your claims have been found wanting. You should not be too surprised, given your enthusiasm for claiming that others don't do their research to find the truth about yours published in a forum, where you have ample opportunity to respond clearly – rather than writing rubbish on Amazon and running away.

We are trying to untangle historical fact from a great deal of secondary nonsense. The firt thing we need to look at is whether the author (be he contemporary, recent or modern) is accurate in his claims. That seems pretty sensible to most of us. The efforts of the Tendency and the Protectors of the Received Wisdom are only designed to cloud that issue, but it would be better if we heard about the evidence backing a particular claim.

This deliberate, repetitive and offensive mobbing behavior by the same four people is an ongoing coordinated campaign of harassment targeted against Mr Hollins intended to disrupt threads on which he posts and to provoke an emotional response.

Yeah, it's ever so one-sided. It's a shame that Hollins doesn't have some sort of weasly sidekick to fight his corner for him.

It seems that Mr. Hollins likes to claim that the 'Tendency' use old books and out of date source material. That suggests that all titles written by Mr. Hollins should be thrown away because I'm sure we all use his books as source material at one time or another. Nice of him to admit that he is out of date!

His joke phrase for today is 'shouting down'. For those not in the know, that means if you disagree with him and have your own opnions and dare to mention it, you are not expressing your own opinion, you are 'shouting down'. Note that it also means are you a member of the Tendency and members of the 'Protectors of Received Wisdom' and 'keepers of the true flame'. Mind you, I'd give him full marks for imagination. I wonder what phrase he will come up with next?

Unbelievably, he even agrees that all this bickering is not getting us anywhere, yet continues to do it, under the pretence of wanting to progress the period. As if! If he really cared about the period or wargaming, he would stop postings such stupid remarks and trying to vainly convince us of his own self-importance. Sorry, Dave – you are only important to yourself!

Full House!

Mad house?

Day after day
They send my friends away
To mansions cold and grey
To the far side of town
Where the thin men stalk the streets
While the sane stay underground

[snip]

So I tell them that
I can fly, I will scream, I will break my arm
I will do me harm
Here I stand, foot in hand, talking to my wall
I'm not quite right at all…am I?

[Bowie, 1972]

Well look who is calling the kettle a different color
and you 3 have been doing this since 2003-04 and on.
and you say your not Hollin Acolytes? I don't know
about that.

lol,

long live the tendency !!!

we fight for justice and the liberty of all posters to be able to speak their minds without fear of ridicule from hollins and his acolytes!!!

hell, i might even get a badge made up now

"hell, i might even get a badge made up now"

Maybe you should spend that money for a tutorial on the proper use of capitalization/ punctuation instead. You and your pal Gazzola might wish to invest further funds into courses on formulating coherent arguments through the use of declarative statements rather than relying on rhetorical questions. If you have to ask, that's an indication that you're not quite sure of your position.

Note that I could have ended that last sentence with "don't you think?" or "isn't it?", but that would be seeking affirmation when I already know the answer, so there's no point in asking the question. Consider this your first lesson there, grasshopper. You may now go and punch your fists into heated sand, or go and pound sand in whatever way you deem fit.

Gribby

Er, this is a Napoleonic forum where people offer facts and debate and discuss, as well as insult each other, of course, although that is often tongue in cheek. It is not a place to try and impress people by making comments about how they write. Perhaps you need to take a long walk in the desert to find yourself?

Defiant

The badge is a great idea. How about a target pattern with a picture of Mr. Hollins head in the centre and with Long Live the Tendency in gold writing around it.

Then again, if you wear it, people will ask who the head belongs to and they just wouldn't believe it if you tried to explain who Hollins is and what he has done. On second thoughts, perhaps we should remain a semi-secret organisation.

Long live the Tendency!

"How about a target pattern with a picture of Mr. Hollins head in the centre "

quite out of order and unacceptable in any context.