|
|
Post by dpd on Jan 27, 2023 2:07:51 GMT
A typical Hussite war wagon had a crew of about 20. Modern reconstructions are large enough to allow enough room for 5 to 6 soldiers in the front of the wagon, resulting in an equivalent "formation" depth of only 3 to 4 ranks - about the same as psiloi.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_fort)
In fact, the missile armed members of the crew (crossbowmen, hand gunners, etc. - about half the crew) were essentially psiloi - firing individual shots at close range (instead of massed volley fire at long range, like bows).
Long range artillery was often placed at intervals in between the lined up wagons, but these should be considered to be separate units from the war wagons themselves.
Therefore, a war wagon crew is equivalent to a thin line of psiloi protected by the wagons themselves from cavalry charges, but are still vulnerable to an assault by a heavy infantry column swarming over the wagon and breaking though its crew formation during melee.
The wagons themselves would move at walking speeds of 2 to 3 mph while on the march, but could maneuver at speeds of about 8 to 10 mph at a trot (depending on the wagon's weight and number of horses in the team) when maneuvering on a battlefield to establish a wagon fort - about 2x to 3x that of soldiers marching on foot.
And unlike artillery which needed to be off loaded, limbered, positioned and aimed (all of which takes time and reduces the artillery's average maneuver speed) - war wagons could go straight from the march to forming a wagon fort without breaking stride. The subsequent chaining of the wagons together and placing the side boards were practiced movements quickly performed.
DBA 3.0 gives the following values for war wagons: against foot = 3, against mounted = 4, range = 5bw, movement = 2 in gg and 1 in bg.
I'm suggesting that this is all wrong.
So I would like to propose the following revised values: against foot = 1, against mounted = 3, range = 0 (no distance shooting), movement = 4 in gg and 2 in bg.
In fact, we should treat war wagons not as almost artillery, but as fortified psiloi.
Thoughts or comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 27, 2023 7:33:53 GMT
A typical Hussite war wagon had a crew of about 20. Modern reconstructions are large enough to allow enough room for 5 to 6 soldiers in the front of the wagon, resulting in an equivalent "formation" depth of only 3 to 4 ranks - about the same as psiloi. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_fort) In fact, the missile armed members of the crew (crossbowmen, hand gunners, etc. - about half the crew) were essentially psiloi - firing individual shots at close range (instead of massed volley fire at long range, like bows). Long range artillery was often placed at intervals in between the lined up wagons, but these should be considered to be separate units from the war wagons themselves. Therefore, a war wagon crew is equivalent to a thin line of psiloi protected by the wagons themselves from cavalry charges, but are still vulnerable to an assault by a heavy infantry column swarming over the wagon and breaking though its crew formation during melee. The wagons themselves would move at walking speeds of 2 to 3 mph while on the march, but could maneuver at speeds of about 8 to 10 mph at a trot (depending on the wagon's weight and number of horses in the team) when maneuvering on a battlefield to establish a wagon fort - about 2x to 3x that of soldiers marching on foot. And unlike artillery which needed to be off loaded, limbered, positioned and aimed (all of which takes time and reduces the artillery's average maneuver speed) - war wagons could go straight from the march to forming a wagon fort without breaking stride. The subsequent chaining of the wagons together and placing the side boards were practiced movements quickly performed. DBA 3.0 gives the following values for war wagons: against foot = 3, against mounted = 4, range = 5bw, movement = 2 in gg and 1 in bg. I'm suggesting that this is all wrong. So I would like to propose the following revised values: against foot = 1, against mounted = 3, range = 0 (no distance shooting), movement = 4 in gg and 2 in bg. In fact, we should treat war wagons not as almost artillery, but as fortified psiloi. Thoughts or comments? Dpd, Two items which may help. Distant Shooting: maximum range is 5BW if artillery and 3BW if bows or war wagons. Tactical Move distance: …artillery and war wagons cannot deploy or move at all off road in bad going. Page 14, Historical Refights gives an element representation of 50 chariots, war wagons or artillery pieces, times 20 crew generates a substantial number of troops. War wagons cannot move into contact and therefore depend on the good graces of their opponent to do the unthinkable. Page 3, paragraph 2, War wagons are classed as ‘foot’ and therefore it is a question of time before enemy blade or pike columns overcome the defenders. Distant shooting, a score of ‘better than’; from artillery will destroy war wagons. By the mid-15th century, armies increased the number of artillery for field use, relegating war wagons to the protection of an army’s camp. |
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Jan 27, 2023 11:16:39 GMT
True, 50 wagons x 20 crewmen per wagon = 1,000 men.
From the rules on ground scale:
"The unit of measurement is the width of an element base (a BW). For movement or maximum shooting range, this is roughly equivalent to 80 paces in real life."
A standard pace (either for the Roman legion or the American army) is 1 pace = 5 feet (2 each steps of 2.5 feet)
So a base width would be approximately 400 feet = 80 paces x 5 feet per pace (with about 13 bw equal to a mile at ground scale).
Each file of foot in close formation would have a width of about 3 feet, so 1BW = 400 feet / 3 feet per file = 133 files.
1,000 crewmen / 133 files = 7.5 ranks - more than the ranks for a Psiloi (4 to 5 ranks) and more like the number of ranks ranks for close order foot (6 to 10 ranks).
However ...
For 50 wagons to line up end to end over 400 feet (1 BW) each wagon and the gaps between them would be only about 8 feet in length - that's way too short.
So that doesn't work at real world ground scale.
However ...
War wagons literally "circled the wagons" when forming a wagonberg on the battlefield.
A circle of 400 feet diameter (about the length of an American football field with the end zones) has a circumference of about 1,250 feet (about 3 BW equivalent).
50 wagons would have an average length of about 1250 feet / 50 wagons = 25 feet (matching the real world), equal to about 8 files.
20 crewmen / 8 files = depth of 2.5 ranks - about the same as Psiloi.
So if we assume a war wagon represents a circle of wagons 1BW in diameter, the average depth of the wagon's crew is in the range of Psiloi - fortified Psiloi firing individual shots at close range.
Furthermore, this formation has no flanks or rear, being able to stop attacks from all directions.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on Jan 27, 2023 12:24:21 GMT
The Hussites weren't the only people to use war wagons - would these changes fit for the other WWg armies running around out there?
|
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Jan 27, 2023 15:25:00 GMT
I would think so.
Whether it is Polish Tabors, Ming Dynasty "war wheelbarrows" or a wagon train in the American West - the operating principles are the same: wheeled carts aligned in a circle to make a field fortification that protects crewmen against cavalry attacks, with the crewmen armed with short range missile and melee weapons.
They should remain vulnerable to infantry assault and artillery bombardment, but move faster than currently shown in the rules - while providing all around defense (no flanks or rear).
IMHO we should treat war wagons as "fortified Psiloi" instead of "almost artillery".
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jan 28, 2023 16:40:07 GMT
I would think so. Whether it is Polish Tabors, Ming Dynasty "war wheelbarrows" or a wagon train in the American West - the operating principles are the same: wheeled carts aligned in a circle to make a field fortification that protects crewmen against cavalry attacks, with the crewmen armed with short range missile and melee weapons. They should remain vulnerable to infantry assault and artillery bombardment, but move faster than currently shown in the rules - while providing all around defense (no flanks or rear). IMHO we should treat war wagons as "fortified Psiloi" instead of "almost artillery". No, sorry, dpd, I like your profound arguments all in all, and yet I'm not convinced. The one good (best?) thing about DBA is that it tries to model rather the behaviour of units on the battlefield than their real (?) or abstract strength. So I'm absolutely d'accord with most of the unit's values for gameplay, even with the shooting range of 3 BW. Why? Those war wagons are clumsy and slow and offer a great amount of staying power. Imagine 4 or 5 dozens of war wagons moved by field horses (Ackergäule), mules or cattle, driving over good ground. The hooves and wheels of the first carts will soon tear the ground open and slow down the movement of the following. Furthermore these carts need time to reform and organize their Wagenburg at the end of their movement. Thus they can't be as nimble as light troops like Psiloi and are accordingly a little bit stronger than them. And last but not least their impressive appearance on the battlefield may also account for some impact on the enemy... No, the DBA war wagon's values are alright with me. |
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Jan 29, 2023 16:20:58 GMT
The shooting range of 3bw for war wagons only makes sense if you count the field artillery placed in gaps between the wagons as part of the war wagon unit.
And if that is the case, then we should consider war wagons to be "fast" artillery since they were somewhat mobile, as opposed to typical field artillery remaining "solid" artillery.
"Fast" being a relative term.
|
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Jan 29, 2023 16:24:03 GMT
P.S. How about considering war wagons to be "solid" Psiloi?
Yeah, I'm kidding.
But it does illustrate how many of these units types overlap and bleed into each other (3bw, 3lb and 3cb also being skirmishers, 3sp and 3pk actually being Auxilia, etc.)
|
|
