A Historical Hypothetical (need help)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Empchild**

Frazzled wrote:Patton had better victories than Rommel? Pah! Patton never lost. How about Rommel?
anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Kilkrazy wrote:Rommel was no good at logistics.

The battles that Rommels Korp lost he was not leading them when he did, and I agree with you Kill but in the same sense so was patton. He moved faster then often his supplies would allow and often had to spot for time so it could catch up.

**Frazzled**

Rommel lost El Alamein correct? He was there.

Afrika Korps kaputt
Fortress Europa kaputt.

Patton nicht kaputt.

**Empchild**

Frazzled wrote:Rommel lost El Alamein correct? He was there.

Afrika Korps kaputt
Fortress Europa kaputt.

Patton nicht kaputt.

alright you got me on the El Alemein. In fairness Patton read Rommels book for their futur engagements.

**Frazzled**

Empchild wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Rommel lost El Alamein correct? He was there.

Afrika Korps kaputt
Fortress Europa kaputt.

Patton nicht kaputt.

alright you got me on the El Alemein. In fairness Patton read Rommels book for their futur engagements.

"Rommel you magnificent bastard I read your book!" George C Scott, outPattoning Patton.

**George Spiggott**

Rommel missed the beginning of El Alamein, as did Patton.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Either way you eventually have to fight old Blighty, and get horribly chinned, knacked, brayed and possibly hoofed in the process!

And no Yankee Dogs, you did not beat us, as during the war of independance, you were not America, merely one of our many colonies. So clearly, having gotten a bit bored with the lack of fight the French had in them, decided to go and beat ourselves up for a change.

**Empchild**

George Spiggott wrote:Rommel missed the beginning of El Alamein, as did Patton.

Was that when he was sick? I can't remember.

**Frazzled**

I see a lot of excuses for this Rommel fellow and his lack of strudel making abilities...

**dogma**

Generals, as a rule, can't make strudel. It takes a man of blood and iron to make a strudel of blood and iron.

**George Spiggott**

Empchild wrote:Was that when he was sick? I can't remember.

Indeed, he had a note from his mum and everything. Patton was just tardy and his homework was just a straight copy of Rommel's.

Off to principal Monty with the pair of 'em.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:Generals, as a rule, can't make strudel. It takes a man of blood and iron to make a strudel of blood and iron.

This is true. I've heard Montgomery sidestepped the entire strudel issue by mastering the art of Shepherd's Pie. In fact, its my understanding he routining built up his reserves until he was able to outpie his opponent by 2.5x to 3.0x. Zhukov applied the same strategy, but with vodka.

I believe this all stems from Longstreet's seminal treatise "Defensive Tactics and the Art of Crackling Grits."

**dogma**

Oh, it goes back farther than that. Napoleon once said:

"In order to govern, the question is not to follow out a more or less valid theory but to build with whatever materials are at hand. The inevitable must be accepted and turned to advantage. "

Of course, the materials at hand were puff pastry, pastry cream, and icing. Thus was born the Napoleon.

**Frazzled**

mmmm Napoleon

**Kilkrazy**

BTW it was on the news yesterday morning that the USA is re-opening its borders to Haggis.

Frazzled remembers how it used to be. You young uns don't know what is coming your way.

**reds8n**

Kilkrazy wrote:Rommel was no good at logistics.

Indeed.

In October 1942 Field-Marshal Montgomery launched the decisive battle of El Alamein, a turning point in British fortunes during the Second World War. Victory at El Alamein led to the capture of 30,000 German and Italian prisoners of war and to Rommel's rapid retreat from the Western Desert of Egypt.

Scarcely a year goes by without some new reappraisal of the battle of El Alamein or the war in the Western Desert, but few historians have said much, if anything, about the vital contribution that medicine made to Allied victory. Medicine and sanitation may lack the glamour of armoured warfare but their decisive part in the defeat of the Afrika Korps was widely recognised at the time and immediately after the war, when Montgomery declared that their contribution had been 'beyond all calculation'.

This was not mere hyperbole. In the Western Desert the British Army enjoyed a marked and consistent advantage over their opponents, as sickness rates were 50-70 per cent lower than in the German forces. By the time of the climactic battle at El Alamein, the Afrika Korps carried the burden of 9,954 sick out of a total strength of 52,000. Even elite units, such as the 15th Panzer Division, were significantly under strength, with only 3,840 men operational out of a total of around 10,000.

The British had always taken a dim view of hygiene in Mediterranean countries, and they anticipated having to deal with many cases of disease among Italian prisoners of war. But the large numbers of sick in the German army came as a surprise to many British officers. Colonel H S Gear, an assistant-director of hygiene in the British Army, claimed that enemy defensive positions were 'obvious from the amount of faeces lying on the surface of the ground'. 'The enemy appears to have no conception of the most elementary sanitary measures', he continued, 'and has a dysentery rate so very much higher than ours that [it] is believed that the poor physical condition of these troops played a major part in the recent victory at El Alamein.' F A E Crew, who edited the official history of the campaign, commented: 'It is not improbable that the complete lack of sanitation among both the Germans and Italians did much to undermine their morale in the Alamein position.'

The interrogation of German and Italian prisoners of war confirmed these impressions. They complained about the disregard shown by many combatant officers to hygiene, especially in the elite armoured divisions where sanitary matters were regarded as beneath their dignity. The situation in the British army could not have been more different. All combatant officers received training in hygiene and were compelled to take it seriously, on pain of disciplinary action. The men were also constantly bombarded with propaganda that aimed to instil a sense of pride and duty in respect of hygiene. The British soldier was exhorted to keep 'fighting fit' to serve his country; if he didn't, he was letting down his comrades in arms. Posters bore messages like 'Don't Murder Your Mates', while soldiers' newspapers carried light-hearted pieces conveying simple information on the prevention of disease. Although many soldiers seem to have become bored with this constant harping on hygiene, the message got through, to some extent at least.

linky.

Of course the above is no surprise to anyone who has ahd the misfortune to set foot in or even near a continental "toilet".

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:BTW it was on the news yesterday morning that the USA is re-opening its borders to Haggis.

Frazzled remembers how it used to be. You young uns don't know what is coming your way.

Indeed, its as if 300MM souls cried out in anguish...

For some reason I am visualizing haggis with jalapenos and a nice salsa.

I'd bet good money boudin is just a form of haggis.

**Kilkrazy**

Boudin is a form of black pudding.

Saucisson Andouillette is probably closer to Haggis though it's usually made with pork tripe rather than sheep's, and contains no oats.

Both boudin and andouillette are excellent, it must be said.

The ultimate dish might be a boudin stuffed into an andouillette stuffed into a Haggis wrapped in bacon. I could go for that.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:Boudin is a form of black pudding.

You compare the excellence of Louisiana boudin with, with this?!?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pudding

Sorry but all my ancestors are now screaming, forming up the Old Guard and marching in your direction with fixed bayonets for that. In the immortal words of bugs Bunny. Of course you realize, this means war

Oh wait, I see the mistake. I'm talking about Louisiana boudin, hot enough to make your mamma cry. Declaration of War put on hold, this time...

In the United States
It is notable that when one refers to 'boudin' in the cultural region of Louisiana, Acadiana, it is commonly understood that one is referring to the Boudin Blanc and not to other variants. The Boudin Blanc is the staple boudin of this region and is the one most widely consumed. A notable exception is the seafood boudin consisting of crab, shrimp, and rice invented by Elton Bergeron in 1976. Cajun boudin is available most readily in southern Louisiana, particularly in the Lafayette and Lake Charles area, though it may be found nearly anywhere in "Cajun Country" including eastern Texas. There are restaurants devoted to the speciality, though boudin is also sold from rice cookers in convenience stores along Interstate 10. Since boudin freezes well, it is shipped to specialty stores outside the region. Boudin is fast approaching the status of the stars of Cajun cuisine (e.g., jambalaya, gumbo, étouffée, and dirty rice) and has fanatic devotees that travel across Louisiana comparing the numerous homemade varieties.

**mattyrm**

Did someone mention blackpudding?

...

I LOVE blackpudding!

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Did someone mention Black Pudding?

ECKY THUMP!

**George Spiggott**

Ah the 70's. I bet Graeme Garden wouldn't dare to wear that blacked up boxing costume now.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Well indeed not, but the Apart-Height episode neatly puts to rest any accusations of hidden racism!

**Herohammernostalgia**

sorry for the OT, but I can't resist.

Empchild wrote:Truthfully a victorian would because as of battle formations of the time close quarters were the key. The inflicting of insurmountable heavy casaulties upon the other force no matter who you are causes a panick. If you really want to look at a similiar concept you can look at the Austro-Prussian war where the prussians had a bolt action vs the austrians black powder. The prussians fought in loose where as the austrians with still using black powder muskeets had to fight close. In the end of one battle the prussians lost 500 something where as the austrians lost 15000. Or even the final battle of the Hundred years war. France used crossbows and outnumbered the british 4 to 1. Were as the brits used long bows and utterly annilhilated the french thus winning the war.

The French won the Hundred Years war!
True, the three famous battles were won by the British against great odds (that's why they're famous), but the longbow was only partly responsible for them. Position, weather and French screw-ups counted for a lot more. In addition, the Crossbow was a technological more advanced weapon than the Longbow. The crossbow easily pierced armour, while all the Longbow did in "The Big 3" was kill horses. The three famous battles did force armstices on favourable terms to the English, but were not as decisive as one is made to believe. The war resumed each time after a few years of "not quite peace".

The French won because of technological developments. After a long period of conservatism they pioneered gunpowder (field) artillery tactics in the last years which brought them victory in the less famous battle of Chatillôn and helped them effectively regain their lost territory with relative ease. The new French adoption of Cannon had a more strategic impact than the traditional use of the English longbow. The siege was a smart medieval general's main tool to win wars, it was a science, it could be calculated and controlled and a succesfull siege reaped the greatest rewards. It's what the bombard was made for.
Field Battles, the Longbow's forte, had too many risks for little gain and were, if possible, avoided. Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt happened because the English couldn't escape the French army*... And in all three battles the English tried to turn a pitched battle into a siege by using position and fieldworks to which the French did not adapt accordingly (like, starving the English, or using artillery).

*At Chatillôn it was the other way around

**yani**

Apologies for the slightly ON topic post here.

The Napoleonic soldier would actually not have been at a massive advantage to an army from the Middle ages as the flintlock the men were carrying was both out-ranged and much slower firing than the bowmen of five centuries earlier. The men were also less armoured on the whole. Also the heavy cavalry of the Middle ages would have presented a problem to the men.

However they had the advantage of easier to use and aim, cheaper and quite frankly terrifying (due to the noise and smoke) weapons. They could basically function in the roles that archers and pikemen filled in the Middle ages era army due to the square formation to spear and intimidate charging cavalry. The relative differences in armour between the two armies would be rendered negligible by musket's armour piercing ability. The Napoleonic army would also have horse drawn light cannon to inflict a horrific toll upon the Medieval era soldiers. A full on charge from Medieval heavy cavalry would certainly be a fearsome sight for the massed muskets but they could probably offer stern resistance through the formation of a square as no horse will charge a wall of steel and the discharge of firearms which would hopefully spook the horses and send them into disarray.

Therefore I shall conclude that a Napoleonic force would repel a Medieval army (wow no surprises there I mean 300 odd years to develop tactics and technologies). They would also have an economic advantage as they were equipped with a weapon that required little training in order to use semi-effectively.

If a force of the late Victorian era took to the field against the Medieval army then there simply would be no contest as the cover utilising, rapid firing and well supplied rifle men would be able to hold a force of many times their number without any need for Maxim guns or artillery. The brute force of the Middle Ages would be bypassed and destroyed by the hail of accurate and powerful bullets turning even plate armour into colanders.

**Herohammernostalgia**

Don't confuse medieval and rennaissance weaponry.

Rennaissance armies were gunpowder armies, even if pikemen outnumbered the musketeers 2:1 at first (and the ratio of shot to pike increased rapidly). The rennaissance is right in between the medieval- and 18th century warfare. The cavalry was in many ways still similar to the medieval knight, but there were also mounted arquebusiers, dragoons and pistol-armed curassiers.

Heavily armoured lancers were employed, but against a pike-block (or Napoleonic infantry square) mounted arquebusiers, dragoons or pistoliers could be used to disrupt the formation before a lancer charge. Rennassaince commanders are no Mamluks or Sudanese Mujaheddin.

Pike vs. Bayonet however... While the pike has longer reach, it is a cumbersome weapon. A 18th/early 19th century fusilier can get past it's lethal end and do a lot of damage.

Napoleon was quite "retro" with his formations though. his assault collumns were close-combat oriented and only fired a few salvoes before they charged, not unlike renaissance pike-and-shot formations. The aeolian caracole pioneered during the renaissance (alternating firing ranks) could even-out the flintlock's higher rate of fire.

**George Spiggott**

Herohammernostalgia wrote:True, the three famous battles were won by the British against great odds...

No 'British' were available to fight during the 100 years war.

IIRC the English had a cannon at Agincourt but it blew up, killing it's crew.

"Cannon are interesting toys but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy.

**loki old fart**

English archers, using welsh bodkin arrow heads could go through armour

**sebster**

yani wrote:The Napoleonic soldier would actually not have been at a massive advantage to an army from the Middle ages as the flintlock the men were carrying was both out-ranged and much slower firing than the bowmen of five centuries earlier. The men were also less armoured on the whole. Also the heavy cavalry of the Middle ages would have presented a problem to the men.

However they had the advantage of easier to use and aim, cheaper and quite frankly terrifying (due to the noise and smoke) weapons. They could basically function in the roles that archers and pikemen filled in the Middle ages era army due to the square formation to spear and intimidate charging cavalry.

I've always considered the comparison in effective range of the musket and the bow to be in error, as they weren't used by equivalent units. The archer was a ranged unit, entirely dedicated to inflicting casualties from a distance. In this role the equivalent of the archer was the cannon.

The musketman held the line, fired at medium range and engaged in melee combat. He is the equivalent of the pikemen.

**chaplaingrabthar**

"Stop that! this thread is far too silly" -- Montgomery Python

**yani**

@ Herohammernostalgia
Yeah there is a major difference between Renaissance and Medieval warfare however I know little about the Renaissance style of war and so decided to comment on a Medieval force to avoid looking stupid and making false assumptions. However your points are all well made and solid.

Having done a little research into the pike and shot formation I would still say the Napoleonic force would have an advantage due almost purely to higher level of efficiency in the production and maintenance of the weapons. Also as every soldier had a firearm instead of only 1 in 3 they would be able to put out a wall of lead of a greater volume than their historical counterparts. Your point about a bayonet vs a pike is an intriguing one. I would say that a pike would receive a charge better due to its length but a bayonet armed soldier would be more effective on the charge as his weapon is less cumbersome and so would impede his movement less. So each pretty much cancels each others advantages out. However the Napoleonic infantry would be a non-mixed unit and every soldier could attack both at range and up close to an equal or better ability to a Renaissance pike-man or musketeer. This would mean that instead of some men being useful at range and some being useful up close, all of the men were useful in both situations allowing a greater concentration of force.
Its a little garbled but I hope you can follow my train of thought.

@sebster
That's a really interesting comparison. I would however disagree with the comparison of the pike-men and the men of the line. I would compare the Napoleonic soldier with a Roman legionary. Both were equipped with a missile weapon which was used at middle range but equally neither were ranged troopers and relied on close combat to get the job done so to speak. However the comparison of archers to cannon is an intriguing point. You could almost consider a unit of archers as a multiple shot artillery unit.