MichaelCollinsHimself | 19 Apr 2015 2:35 a.m. PST |
It`s been some time since I updated you here on my progress… so here goes! I have increased the number of wars covered in Grand Manoeuvre variants to include 13 conflicts: The Mexican War of 1846-8, The Hungarian Uprising 1848-9, The 1st Schleswig-Holstein War 1848-51, The Crimean War 1853-6, The Italian War 1859, The American Civil War 1861-5, The Franco-Mexican War 1862-7, The Paraguayan War 1864-70, The 2nd Schleswig-Holstein War 1864, The Austro-Prussian War 1866, The Franco-Prussian War 1870-1, The Russo-Turkish War 1877-8, and The War of the Pacific 1879-83. I have gradually edited my notes on these wars down to the necessary details required about; weapons types used, tactical methods employed, troops qualities and generally speaking, an idea of the various armies` commanders abilities. I have it in mind to add some more to the list and I`m still open to suggestions for which these might be – apart from colonial wars which I think should be treated separately. Please do let me know if you have some ideas. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 19 Apr 2015 5:39 a.m. PST |
You can read more about my rules adaptations for nineteenth century wars at: TMP link and the original Napoleonic rules are at: grandmanoeuvre.co.uk |
Broglie | 19 Apr 2015 8:34 a.m. PST |
Hello I have just finished reading the TMP post you made a link to which I found to be very interesting. I am sorry I did not notice that post when you first posted it. Are you nearly finished your work on the FPW as I do not see anything completed on your website. I too have read quite a bit about the tactics and experiences of the FPW battlefield and would be very interested to know some of your conclusions. In the TMP post I notice terms like 'volleys' and 'columns' being used. Regards |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 19 Apr 2015 9:45 a.m. PST |
Hi Broglie, Very nearly done, but some aspects of c2 (that is in the nature of manoeuvres made by the Prussians in that war) need to be summed up. Although orders became more open, and firing practices had altered, the issue of increased firepower comes to the fore, in this variant and so the simple method of resolving combat (firing and charges/assaults) in GM Napoleonic rules with just one dice needed to be changed – several dice are used in the FPW version. Smaller columns had been used before in previous wars, but here both sides were equipped with breech-loading rifles, and so their use by the Prussians was a SOP. Of course we here have both sides aware of artillery and so extended orders were the norm too. I have so far got the general trends sketched out – I just need to do some more testing here and there to check how it all plays out ! Regards, Mike. |
Broglie | 19 Apr 2015 10:52 a.m. PST |
Hi Mike I am very interested in this and would love to exchange notes and ideas. Like yourself I am no more than an enthusiastic amateur and I too am engrossed in trying to write my own rules for this period which has interested me for many years. I think the starting point for any such rules has to be based on the actual tactics used and the weapons capabilities of the time and adapting these to a fit a playable game on a wargames table. My Blog is thewargamorium.wordpress.com and my wargames e-mail is wargamorium@gmail.com Regards Robert |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 19 Apr 2015 12:20 p.m. PST |
I do agree Robert, tactics and weapons capabilities are closely linked, But what I find interesting is that it was not always possible to get the best from the weapon`s effectiveness because the troops did not receive the level of training necessary… In so many of the wars that I`ve listed the weapons effectiveness just wasn`t there because the newly conscripted armies had no time train effectively in the use of their weapons… the Pacific War is a good, late example of this; a conflict in which breech-loading, rifled weapons were used by troops in "Napoleonic" formations. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 19 Apr 2015 12:51 p.m. PST |
These were the wars that I was thinking of adding to my list… November Uprising 1830-1 Egyptian–Ottoman War 1831–3 First Italian War of Independence 1848-9 Serbo-Bulgarian War 1885 The first three would need little adaptation – I just find them interesting subjects. And in addition I might include, some of the South and Central American wars without much variation to basic "GM" rules …a few years back I used Grand Manoeuvre rules to refight the battle of Huaqui (1811). The last (the Serbo-Bulgarian) has the more "modern" weaponry, and I think it`s interesting because the "match" between the armies was not even, but I believe there`s only one major historical battle to refight from it. Perhaps it has value as a basis for a campaign? |
Broglie | 19 Apr 2015 1:50 p.m. PST |
I agree Mike There are reports that French infantry were seen with their rifles at the hip in their left hands pointed at 45 degrees in the air and just loading with their right hands and firing off bullets from behind cover at an unseen target. However the Prussian casualty lists show that the French got the hang of the weapons fairly quickly. The Prussians were well used to their Dreyse rifles and both sides had used their artillery in action before so the only weapon left was the mirtrailleuse. Catering for that in the rules is a topic in itself. Regards |
McLaddie | 19 Apr 2015 2:30 p.m. PST |
Of course we here have both sides aware of artillery and so extended orders were the norm too. Mike: Who are you talking about here? That doesn't cover a lot of the 19th Century. Bill |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 19 Apr 2015 11:47 p.m. PST |
Hi Robert, Largely due to of the nature of the conflict, in the positions chosen by the French, the difference was that the French troops were able to use the greater range of the Chassepot. The Prussian needed to close down and make use of any covering terrain. Being kept with the artillery, the mitrailleuse was not deployed well and it had no traverse and so the effect although great in terms of accuracy, was too concentrated. Mike. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 19 Apr 2015 11:52 p.m. PST |
Bill "Who [am I] talking about here?" Just the Prussians in the FPW (& the Imperial French troops*), as both sides adopted tactics/formations and the "orders" in those formations, knowing how effective each others weapons were. More importantly, and in contrast to quite a few other wars listed above, both sides had the necessary training and many had the experience to use their weapons effectively. *BTW, I also need to add some stats and information for the Republican French of 1871. Mike. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 23 Apr 2015 4:21 a.m. PST |
I think this may be taking shape now… I will include the early wars and the Serbo-Bulgarian War too, but I will add the South American Wars of Liberation 1810-24 too. |
Mark Strachan | 24 Apr 2015 10:26 p.m. PST |
Mike I have heaps on Republican French. Contact me offline and let me know what you need. Following up on comments about the way in which the mitrailleuse was employed, there wasn't really much option but to use it in an artillery role. Its development was not as a infantry close support weapon, but rather was an attempt to augment the divisional artillery that the French were only too well aware was numerically inferior to the Germans ( but the military could not convince the legislature to front up with the cash to fund an expansion ) . There is this common view that this was an early machine gun, but it really was a volley gun, with all 25 barrels firing sequentially ( youtu.be/jO3haWrRtrY ) . It had great range and great hitting power even at extended ranges, but suffered a narrow cone of fire. However, what really kept this weapon back from the infantry line was that the thing was heavy – the barrel weight was 340 kilograms. The only way it could be practically moved around the battlefield was to mount it on a field carriage ( that increased the weight of the weapon up to nearly 900 kg ) and meant that it had to be drawn by a horse team. It was a large, clunky piece of kit. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 24 Apr 2015 11:32 p.m. PST |
Thanks Mark, I`ll mail you tonight ! Mike. |