|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 14, 2019 7:21:22 GMT
After a painting break last night I fought a War of the Roses Game.
Lambert Simnel then ten years old had proclaimed himself (with encouragement from so called friends and well wishers and his Father an organ maker called Richard Symonds) to be Richard Duke of York and therefore the rightful heir to the Throne of England.
After forming an army Commanded by the Earl of Lincoln, mainly consisting of mercenaries, Swiss and German Pikemen commanded by Martin Schwarz with Irish Kerns and Galloglaich lead by Thomas Geraldine, he marched on London.
Henry Tudor mustered his forces and intercepting him battle was joined.
Lincoln advanced his Longbows, Pikes and Billmen towards the waiting Tudor men at arms and Billmen, reinforced by their longbows. The Irish mercenaries were held in reserve.
Henry sent his Currours out to his left flank, knowing now that the ploughed land that lay there was good going. His Longbow men stepped forward a short distance and exchanged arrows with the rebels. Henry's artillery fired with good effect, destroying a unit of German Pikes.
Lincoln then wheeled his Irish Mercenaries and moved to wards his right flank to protect against the Tudor cavalry. He also advance his pikes and men at arms in the centre. A unit of Tudor Longbows fell to the shafts of the rebel bowmen.
The following bound the lines clashed, again the artillery struck and the Swiss pikes were removed, followed by a unit of rebel bows cut down by billmen.
Henry's line buckled as a unit of men at arms and another of billmen collapsed before the rebel men at arms who advanced into the created gap.
The Irish Mercenaries checked the cavalry on their right flank. But then their left flank was turned losing another unit of bows so giving Henry Tudor his victory and security of tenure on his throne. 4 units to 3.
Henry Tudor had Richard Symonds imprisoned for life. Lambert Simnel was made a kitchen porter in the Royal Household, but later rose to become Henry Tudor's Falconer. The Earl of Lincoln, Thomas Geraldine and Martin Schwarz died in the battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 14, 2019 10:27:26 GMT
The Rebel Army has always struck me as having a particular challenging mix of troops. But here is the strength of DBA, an unusual army can be fielded and a battle between historic opponents fought. A very interesting report, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 15, 2019 7:07:34 GMT
The Rebel Army has always struck me as having a particular challenging mix of troops. But here is the strength of DBA, an unusual army can be fielded and a battle between historic opponents fought. A very interesting report, thanks. Totally agree. I am glad the battle went the way of history as otherwise I am not sure how I would have worded the after battle follow up! In my battle Henry Tudor lost more troops than he did historically and Lincolns army less. Some reports say that Simnel's army suffered 50% losses, which in DBA terms is equal to 6 elements! |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on May 15, 2019 7:55:20 GMT
The Rebel Army has always struck me as having a particular challenging mix of troops. But here is the strength of DBA, an unusual army can be fielded and a battle between historic opponents fought. A very interesting report, thanks. Totally agree. I am glad the battle went the way of history as otherwise I am not sure how I would have worded the after battle follow up! In my battle Henry Tudor lost more troops than he did historically and Lincolns army less. Some reports say that Simnel's army suffered 50% losses, which in DBA terms is equal to 6 elements! Not necessarily six, the elements represent a variable number of men, so 50% might be just four, I think? Check the rules, as pike would probably be the largest size.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 16, 2019 7:06:27 GMT
Totally agree. I am glad the battle went the way of history as otherwise I am not sure how I would have worded the after battle follow up! In my battle Henry Tudor lost more troops than he did historically and Lincolns army less. Some reports say that Simnel's army suffered 50% losses, which in DBA terms is equal to 6 elements! Not necessarily six, the elements represent a variable number of men, so 50% might be just four, I think? Check the rules, as pike would probably be the largest size.
David Constable
I hadn't thought of it that way! I was over simplifying! I am prone to that! |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on May 16, 2019 9:55:44 GMT
I know the feeling, I am tending to put the question, but not the reason for the question on Fanaticus.
Losses are always a problem. Most of the time you would only be counting who was present, which does not include those who ran for home or safety and so are not actually lost/killed.
David Constable |
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 17, 2019 6:15:56 GMT
I believe Phil Barker said the destruction of an element represented those killed, wounded and or legged it off the field. I suppose the destruction of the element really shows it is no longer an effective fighting force.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on May 17, 2019 15:01:55 GMT
I believe Phil Barker said the destruction of an element represented those killed, wounded and or legged it off the field. I suppose the destruction of the element really shows it is no longer an effective fighting force. Losses are always a big problem.
If you take the Persians, if the day after a battle a general has "50,000" men with him out of "250,000" then the Greeks might say he lost "200,000", however, if he only had "75,000" actual fighting men to start with, then the losses are only actually "25,000", a very different figure.
This is why % are confusing at best, downright wrong at worst.
David Constable
P.S. - In the mid-70s we did a study of German tank losses in the desert in WWII, sometimes, if you just did a tank count, the Germans ended up with more tanks than the started the battle with. Now that might appear odd, even wrong, but the German habit of recovering tanks from the battlefield meant they added British tanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 18, 2019 7:09:11 GMT
I believe Phil Barker said the destruction of an element represented those killed, wounded and or legged it off the field. I suppose the destruction of the element really shows it is no longer an effective fighting force.
P.S. - In the mid-70s we did a study of German tank losses in the desert in WWII, sometimes, if you just did a tank count, the Germans ended up with more tanks than the started the battle with. Now that might appear odd, even wrong, but the German habit of recovering tanks from the battlefield meant they added British tanks.
Really interesting that. I had heard that the Germans were more efficient at tank recovery than us and were happy to use captured armour and indeed at times aircraft. However as you say it distorts the records because out of your recovered or captured tanks how many would actually be counted operational? |
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on May 18, 2019 8:04:48 GMT
P.S. - In the mid-70s we did a study of German tank losses in the desert in WWII, sometimes, if you just did a tank count, the Germans ended up with more tanks than the started the battle with. Now that might appear odd, even wrong, but the German habit of recovering tanks from the battlefield meant they added British tanks.
Really interesting that. I had heard that the Germans were more efficient at tank recovery than us and were happy to use captured armour and indeed at times aircraft. However as you say it distorts the records because out of your recovered or captured tanks how many would actually be counted operational? The Germans tended to be good at classifying tank state, but it was more accurate a few days latter, when they had properly looked at them.
The system varied with year, but general it was runners, short term repairs (days not weeks), long term repair (weeks). This was however more complicated in the case of captured tanks, a runner might have no or very little ammunition. A long term repair might need an engine change (difficult in mid-battle).
1943
Short term is up to 14 days.
Long term is over 14 days.
1944
Short term is within three weeks.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on May 18, 2019 8:25:36 GMT
Wasn’t it also that Allied tanks had a more vulnerable and inflammable fuel systems than the Germans. So their tanks had a tendency to catch fire and end up in an unrecoverable state.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on May 18, 2019 23:32:59 GMT
Wasn’t it also that Allied tanks had a more vulnerable and inflammable fuel systems than the Germans. So their tanks had a tendency to catch fire and end up in an unrecoverable state. The British called their tanks as early as the early 1930s "Ronsons" apparently. If the tanks were not maintained properly, and good wiring used, then the petrol might catch fire.
A study done during the war in the desert actually found that the problem was only petrol if the engine compartment was hit, particularly if the round had a tracer in the base. If hit on the turret the ammunition tended to explode if it had larger rounds which were high explosive or armour piercing with a high explosive filler. So tanks with 2-pdr were not as venerable as 75mm armed Grant and Sherman tanks, or the German Pz.Kpfw.IV, this was mainly due to hot metal or tracer setting the filler on fire. The Americans developed the "wet" ammunition storage system, that reduced the vulnerability.
R.A.R.D.E. actually had a lot of research on this and other matters, sometimes you will see extracts from these reports, what happened to them I do not know. The one on dice throwing for military wargames would interest wargamers, the conclusion was that with any single '123456' die you needed circa 120 throws to get a near true average.
An aside from that report was the recommendation that the dice should be issued in numbered sets of two, one red and one blue, and no umpire should use a numbered set more than once. The dice sets were to be issued for games from a central point, and that the dice should regularly be removed from the boxes, mixed up in a waste bin, and then put back in the boxes, that way if any die was good or bad, it was moved around. By experimentation it was found that all throwers were better at throwing with their favourite die than other people using the same die, simply because they were familiar with its vagaries.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 19, 2019 7:58:35 GMT
I recently read "Tank Men" by Robert Kershaw. A fascinating book looking at the Tanks and the men that fought in them on all sides during World War II. I would highly recommend it if you Gentlemen have not already seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on May 20, 2019 22:20:14 GMT
I believe Phil Barker said the destruction of an element represented those killed, wounded and or legged it off the field. I suppose the destruction of the element really shows it is no longer an effective fighting force. Sorry, forgot to answer this.
Roughly yes, but that is over simplistic at small levels.
At our level it is roughly correct, in WW2 the bayonet strength of an infantry battalion was what mattered. At very low levels a single gun might be operational when all others and most men are out of action. I think it was at the Hurtgen Forest where five German soldiers charged an American infantry company, it stopped advancing, that stopped the battalion and so on up the line.
David Constable
|
|
