POST BY HERKYBIRD - 30 March 2009
Hi everyone!
I have been playing with Belisarius and have a few queries too on the game mechanics!-- My big Bugbear is:
I am unsure why the majority of Hessians are classed as second line?
From my research I have the following conclusions;
They outperformed the English at long Island, Fort Washington and White plains. They were only slower as they tended to operate in closer formations. At White plains, they were slow as they had a deeper ford to cross. The fact that most later ended up as garrison troops may have been due to the fact they couldnt recruit locally, unlike the English,and they had taken heavy losses at Philadelphia and elsewhere.
What do you think?
I am no expert on AWI and would welcome feedback!
POST BY PAUL MARSH, 30 March 2009
Hi Andy,
Right, now I get it. You just want to have bigger units from an aesthetic point of view. I had no idea how you might do this but Mikeb suggested in your other post counting each two figures as one for firing purposes etc. Will that work?
Herkybird, I am no expert on the AWI either but there are plenty of them on this forum to give you the definitive take on Hessians.
My understanding is that the German troops were apparently quite "slow and deliberate" in their movements compared to the British who adapted to the nature of warfare in the colonies by loosening up their formations. Making them 2nd Line will tend to force them to halt and rally more often. That is the main difference between Line and 2nd line; fighting power is pretty much the same and nobody can fault the courage of the German troops at various actions.
And not all German troops are rated 2nd Line. Grenadiers are usually Line and then you have those very useful jaegers. The von Bose regiment that operated with Cornwallis in the south is another example of a good Hessian regiment.
Maybe if the Brits had spent more time training the Hessians, as Howe did the British regulars post Boston, then maybe they would not have been relegated to garrison duties.
regards
Paul
POST BY RONAN THE LIBRARIAN, 31 March 2009
I am unsure why the majority of Hessians are classed as second line?
Paul has dealt with this as regards the rules; be aware though that some of the units were Garrison regiments, and that others had needed influxes of recruits. I think their status within the rules accurately reflects their overall performance throughout the war, since even the grenadier battalions were a little lacklustre at times. Perhaps a bit tough on them in relation to the 1776 campaign, when they were still relatively fresh and eager to show what they could do - but then you can always alter their stauts if you are gaming those actions, if you wish.
They outperformed the English at Long Island, Fort Washington and White plains.
Hmmm....not sure that it's true that they outperformed their British allies.
Long Island the British had the harder tasks - Grant's feint was against the best units (and commander) that the Continentals had at their disposal, and Howe's flank march required endurance, as well as fighting quality. The Hessians formed the erroneous impression that it was the looser formations that had led to the British suffering heavier casualties, but if anything this may have potentially reduced them.
Fort Washington was undoubtedly their finest hour, but then the point of the two British attacks (from the east and south - the latter including some Germans as well) was to "pin" the enemy and distract their attention from the main (northern) attack.
White Plains is arguably the one time they did, as the British attack stalled due to poor fire discipline (an officer discharging his fusil and halting to reload, which encouraged his men to do the same) and, as you say, the Hessians had the tougher route across the Bronx.
They were only slower as they tended to operate in closer formations. At White plains, they were slow as they had a deeper ford to cross. The fact that most later ended up as garrison troops may have been due to the fact they couldnt recruit locally, unlike the English,and they had taken heavy losses at Philadelphia and elsewhere.
Whilst they immediately went from three ranks to two on their arrival in America, the Hesse Cassel troops (unlike the Brunswickers in Canada) were expressly forbidden from adopting the loose files by their ruler, despite numerous requests from the filed commanders right up to the Yorktown campaign and from their British colleagues. In fact, they were considerably slower - anything up to 30% according to their own officers - as they steadfastly refused (even at a local level) to adopt the faster paces of the British troops, many senior officers believing it created a dangerous level of disorder. At Germantown, a Hessian grenadier battalion took so long to form up and get under way, that it had to be moved off the road in order to allow their British counterparts (who had received their orders to move much later) to "double" past them.
The Hesse Cassel units were also subject to an agreement that they had to be commanded by their own generals. Whilst the grenadier brigade tended to form part of the Reserve under Cornwallis after 1776, the line units invariably served within a distinct division commanded by Heister and then later Knyphausen. Because of that, Paul's suggestion that the British should have trained them is actually a non-starter - it would have been politically indelicate (and probably impossible) to interfere with the training and administration of the units themselves.
As regards recruiting, they were in exactly the same position as the British who had to bring replacements 3,000 miles from Europe. Heavy combat losses - as opposed to disease - were limited to a very few units only, mainly the grenadiers and jaegers. Most of the "ordinary" corps (ie the musketeer, fusilier and garrison battalions) lost fewer than ten dead in combat over the entire war - a few had none at all; even the Trenton regiments lost relatively few dead. The hardest hit Hessian units still took the field with almost twice the manpower of a typical British battalion.
If you don't have it already, try to obtain a copy of Rodney Atwood's book "The Hessians" - it's very good and analyses the Hesse Cassel contingent's participation in the AWI in minute detail.
POST BY CORNET, 31 March 2009
I don't mean to pile on the Hessians here, but some of the standard practices of the Hessians put them at a disadvantage. For instance, their marching cadence is reported by Raoul F. Camus in Military Music of the American Revolution
http://www.amazon.com/Military-Music-American-Revolution-Raoul/dp/0918048109/ref=ed_oe_h
to have been 60-72 steps per minute (similar to the British and American 60 steps/minute at 30 inches/step; and French 70 steps/minute at 24 inches/step), but unlike the other armies the Hessians had no quickstep -- meaning the Hessians had but one speed and they couldn't hurry in an organized body.
Quickstep was 120 steps/minute for the British, Americans, and French. Standard line units would employ quickstep as needed, while elite units (light infantry, grenadiers, etc.) would march in quickstep as their normal cadence. Interestingly, Washington played on this convention to make his entire army appear to Philadelphians as elite by marching the whole body through the city at quickstep.