Dutch Belgian (Quatre Bras 16 June 1815) AB army list

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Army Lists

Dutch Belgian (Quatre Bras 16 June 1815) AB army list - proposal

(20 posts) (7 voices)

Started 1 year ago by cam_millar
Latest reply from Biggreenbugeyedmonster

Tags:

cam_millar
Member

There was some discussion about a Hundred Days Dutch-Belgian list. Since I have been going on about wanting more diverse army lists I thought I would have a go. My knowledge of the army is pretty much zero - but this at least does mean I have no incentive to create an overly good army.

Rather than do a generic Hundred Days list, I thought I would do one based on the 2nd Dutch-Belgian Division at Quatre Bras. A separate Dutch-Belgian Waterloo list could also be developed. It would be pretty easy to provide similar Quatre Bras AB lists for Brunswick, Hanoverian, British Infantry, and British Guard core Divisions. I think the more lists the better if they allow historic but balanced forces to be created.

The concept is very much a "moment in battle". You command the 2nd Division. You have been sent your orders:

To the commander 2nd Dutch Belgian Division:
The action at Quatre Bras has reached a crucial stage. Your orders are as follows:
Please don't run away.
Your, etc
The Duke of Wellington

The list is not based on the actual battle - more possible battles on that day with those forces. Your core Division is always the same, but it could be early in the day and you are being supported by Dutch cavalry and some 5th Division British Infantry. Or around the middle of the day and you are fighting with Brunswick, British or Hanoverian infantry, or where all the army's cavalry has been massed to help you. Or it may be late in the day and you are fighting with the British Guard.

I decided to treat all the troops in the British Army at Quatre Bras as Organic Support. I think generally it is better to treat troops from other Corps as Reserve Support. But Quatre Bras was an odd battle where units from different Divisions and Corps turned up at different times and different places. I think it "feels" better to have them all as Organic Support. The offset is that the list does not get any British heavy cavalry as Reserves. (For a Waterloo list, for instance, I would be more strict on what is organic support and what is reserve support).

There are some obvious play balancing changes. For instance, I created an Army Cavalry organic support - combining all the Dutch and Brunswick cavalry together into a Brigade (despite them being in different Corps). This is purely because the Dutch and Brunswick cavalry are too weedy in themselves to be a support brigade. I also created a support option mixing Dutch cavalry with some 8th Brigade infantry (again different Corps) representing early arrivals thrown together to help the Dutch.

Troop characteristics are from the book. Nassau troops are not there - but I recall Sam saying to use Rel/Ama/SK2 for them, so took that as definitive. I did exhaustive research on the Hanoverians - I found another rulebook that rated them about the same as Dutch Militia and then randomly upgraded their light infantry to create some variety.

The obvious question is how do I know these are AB-compatible lists? I don't. They are based on my, umm ... numerical analysis posted elsewhere. But it provides a starting place for discussion.

Coincidentally, on my ~~points list~~ numerical analysis, the entire 2nd Division is an AB sized army. It is big - 10 infantry + 2 batteries on attack, but Conquest Prussian for instance has 11 infantry + 1 battery on attack, so it not does not appear extreme.

Is there an uber-army hiding in here? I wonder about Dutch Belgian + Hanoverian Infantry. This would give 16 infantry and 4 batteries on attack. Such a swarm may be hard to beat - although its poor quality and lack of cavalry may tell.

I will post this to the wiki (when I work out how to) and people who actually know something about the army can fix it up.

Cam

===============
Core: 2nd Netherlands Infantry Division, Quatre Bras, (Defend +1)
2 Dutch-Belgian Inf - Rel/Ama/SK1 (7th Belg. Line, 27th Dutch Jag)
3 Dutch Militia - Shaky/Ama/SK1 (5th, 7th, 8th Dutch Militia)
3 Nassau Infantry - Rel/Ama/SK2 (1st, 2nd, 3rd Nassau)
1 SK Base - (Jager-Kompanie)
1 Horse Battery - 3 Med Horse guns (Bijleveld's Horse Battery)
+2 Nassau Infantry - Rel/Ama/SK2 (1st, 2nd 28th Nassau)
+1 Foot Battery - 3 Med Foot guns (Stievenert's Foot Battery)
Subcommanders are “Other” (p120) (Bijlandt/Saxe-Weimar)

Organic: Army Cavalry (Von Merlen, Other Subcommander, max 1)
2 Dutch-Belgian Cavalry - Shaky/Ama/Pur/+ (6th Dutch Hussars, 5th Belg. Dragoons)
1 Brunswick Light Cavalry - Val/Exp/Pur/+ (2nd Brunswick Hussar)
1 Brunswick Lancer - Val/Exp/Pur/L (Brunswick Uhlans)
1 Brunswick Horse Battery - 3 Med Horse

Organic: 8th British Brigade/Dutch Belgian Cavalry (Halkett, max 1)
2 Dutch-Belgian Cavalry - Shaky/Ama/Pur/+ (6th Dutch Hussars, 5th Belg. Dragoons)
2 British Infantry - Rel/Exp/2 (28th 32nd 79th 95th Infantry)
1 RA Foot battery - 3 Med Foot (RA or KGL foot battery)
(only 1 of the two support lists above can be used)

Organic: British Infantry Brigade (Kempt, Pack or Halkett)
use British Infantry Brigade (elements of 5th, 8th or 9th Brigades)

Organic: British Guard Infantry Brigade (Maitland, max 1)
3 Foot Guard - Val/Exp/2/G/+ (Foot Guards or Coldstream Guard)

Organic: Hanoverian Infantry Brigade (Kielmansegge, Other subcommander, max 1)
3 Hanover Line Infantry - Shaky/Ama/Sk2 (Bremen, Verden, Lüneburg)
3 Hanover Light Infantry - Shaky/Ama/Sk1 (York Light, Jäger, Feldjäger)
2 Foot Battery - 3 Med Foot (RA, KGL foot batteries)

Organic: Brunswick Line Infantry Brigade (von Specht, Brunswick subcommander, max 1)
1 Brunswick Elite - Val/Exp/2 (Brunswick Jager or Advanced Guard)
3 Brunswick Line - Rel/Ama/2 (1st, 2nd, 3rd Brunswick Line)
1 Foot Battery - 4 Med Foot (von Moll's Brunswick Foot Battery)

Organic: Brunswick Light Infantry Brigade (von Buttlar, Brunswick subcommander, max 1)
4 Brunswick Elite - Val/Exp/2 (Leib Garde, 1st, 2nd, 3rd Leib)

Posted 1 year ago #
Pickton
Member

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Waterloo_Cowards.html

I think it might pay you to read the information at the above site before you commit to your list. Thought provoking if nothing else.

There were more opinions than Wellington's on the Dutch Belgians.

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

Not sure I follow you - the Dutch Belgian ratings are just those given in the book (on p123).

Or are you saying you think Lasalle's rating are wrong or suggesting that the troops at Quatre Bras should have non-standard ratings?

I was merely trying to provide AB compatible army lists using the ratings in the book - not create new ratings. I will leave that to others more brave than me.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
edb1815
Member

Cam:

With the understanding that your oob is based on the AB list in the book (which I have some reservations about - but that is another topic!), I would make the following observations:

27th Jager - light infantry - should be SK2

The Nassau regiments had large establishments 900@btn. Possibly qualifies as large units? I believe they had nearly that number on the day of the battle as well, although I don't have a resource at hand.

Brunswick lancers - only consisted of 1 squadron. Maybe fold them into the Hussars and give them the lance bonus.

I think you have the Hannoverians reversed, shouldn't the light infantry have Sk2?

Eric

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

Thanks for the feedback.

27th Jager - light infantry - should be SK2

Since I was avoiding creating new unit ratings, I kept all the Dutch Infantry as per the book. Then way Sam has to argue about unit ratings, not me.

I would not have any problems if someone wanted to upgrade one unit to SK2 - and drop the skimish base to play balance. In fact, the list allows someone to upgrade one unit to SK2 by adding the skirmish base, so it already allows the 27th Jager to be SK2 if wanted.

Brunswick lancers - only consisted of 1 squadron.

Listed at 250 men, which is a bit below the 300 needed for a small unit. The problem is if you eliminate the Lancers, the cavalry force becomes too small to be a support choice in itself. This is one of those situations I would probably bend the unit sizing rules and allow it as a unit purely for play balancing.

An alternative would be to add the Dutch horse artillery in place of the Lancers and have 3 cavalry with 2 horse batteries. The cavalry would represent all the army's Dutch and Brunswick Cavalry and Horse Artillery.

It is amazing how the British managed to fight Quatre Bras with such a small and motley array of cavalry.

I think you have the Hannoverians reversed, shouldn't the light infantry have Sk2?

Oops - yes, should be the other way around.

The Nassau regiments had large establishments 900@btn. Possibly qualifies as large units?

The OOBs do say they are big enough to quality as large.

So here is a variant, picking up on your ideas, and tinkering with the artillery to play balance:

Core: 2nd Netherlands Infantry Division, Quatre Bras, (Defend +1)
1 Dutch-Belgian Inf - Rel/Ama/SK2 (27th Dutch Jager)
1 Dutch-Belgian Inf - Rel/Ama/SK1 (7th Belgian Line)
3 Dutch Militia - Shaky/Ama/SK1 (5th, 7th, 8th Dutch Militia)
2 Nassau Infantry - Rel/Ama/SK2 (1st, 2nd 28th Oranje-Nassau)
1 Nassau Infantry - Rel/Ama/SK2/+ (1st, 2nd, or 3rd Nassau)
1 Foot Battery - 4 Med Foot guns (Stievenert's Foot Battery)
+2 Nassau Infantry - Rel/Ama/SK2/+ (1st, 2nd, or 3rd Nassau)
Subcommanders are “Other” (p120) (Bijlandt/Saxe-Weimar)

Organic: Army Cavalry (Von Merlen, Other Subcommander, max 1)
2 Dutch-Belgian Cavalry - Shaky/Ama/Pur/+ (6th Dutch Hussars, 5th Belg. Dragoons)
1 Dutch Horse Battery - 4 Med Horse guns (Bijleveld's Horse Battery)
1 Brunswick Light Cavalry - Val/Exp/Pur/+ (2nd Brunswick Hussar)
1 Brunswick Horse Battery - 3 Med Horse

Posted 1 year ago #
Pickton
Member

Just that the Allied troops with Wellington have not, shall we say, always been considered fairly by British sources. The site I gave is a fairly concise view of the Dutch-Belgian Troops, but not as annoyingly anti-British as Hofschroer.

It wasn't intended as a criticism of the list (or Sam's) just an aid.

Regards

Posted 1 year ago #
edb1815
Member

Pickton:

That is an excellent site, although I must say written with a fair bit of sarcasism towards the British historians. I like the comparision of the MIA statistic for the cavalry especially.

I would be interested in the French perspective in 1815, and when the Dutch-Belgians were fighting for the French in previous years.

Eric

Posted 1 year ago #
Drannakh
Member

I've seen the beta-AB list and seems very fun to play. But for play balance purposes I would change the British Guards Brigade to;
2 x Guards (Val/Exp/SK3/Guards/+)
1 x RA Bty (2 med + 1 How)

Three units of british guards seems very powerful to me...

Regards from Spain

Posted 1 year ago #
Evan
Member

I think the ratings for the D/B and Nassauers, especially the cavalry, don't reflect their performance on the day. I can't see any/much difference from most of the British troops at either QB or Waterloo. Apart from one mistake by the commander the lt. cavalry seems to have performed well overall. The list doesn't include any, admittedly "what if", opportunity for the rest of the cavalry brigades, especially the heavies, to join in the fun. The D/B artillery batteries need to be 3 guns and a howitzer as well, they used 8 gun batteries unlike the British and their clones with 6 gun batteries.

Evan

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

Thanks for comments.

Sizing the Guard is tricky.

I see you have upgraded the British Guard to SK3. I am trying to keep units the same ratings as Sam has them in the book, so I would personally avoid doing this. It is hard enough to propose AB lists without changing ratings as well.

We have a couple of comparisons that can help size the Guard:

1) The French Old Guard Brigade is 4 Val/Exp/SK2/G (but is subject to the Send in the Clowns rule). That is 16 bases. My proposed British Guard Brigade is 18 bases of the same troops. This suggest my British Guard option may be a little strong.

2) If you take your proposed support option (2 Guard but SK3, 1 RA Bty) compared to the usual British Infanty support brigade (4 Inf, 1 RA Bty), you are saying a Guard/SK3 unit is worth 2 British Infantry. But that would throw off the relationship between the core Guard and Core British Infantry Division lists on p103. If Guard/SK3 were worth 2 Infantry units, this implies that 2 Elite Infantry are worth 2 Infantry. Which can't be right. Guard (even with SK3) have to be worth less than 2 Infantry units.

This is probably one of those times where the Brigade should be a bit less than 3 Guard, but more than 2 Guard/SK3 + Artillery. My gut feeling is to make this option reasonably strong. The D-B have no cavalry reserve options, so I think we can at the margin be generous.

On the ratings of the DB troops, I can happily say I am just following the rating in the book. If you think the book is wrong, then propose a list using alternative ratings.

One risk is if the DB and Nassauers are as good as British, all you effectively end up with is a British list where the troops wear funny uniforms. My view is we need more variety in lists, not less.

In terms of adding reserves not actually at Quatre Bras, I suspect that a Dutch Belgian list for Waterloo may provide that option. The aim was to provide a specific list based on that day, rather than a general list for the campaign.

I actually did upgrade the DB artillery to 3 guns + 1 How in the lists I posted to the Scenario Wiki. I also picked up some other suggestions above as well.

http://sites.google.com/site/honourscenarios/home

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Drannakh
Member

Sorry, SK3 was a mistake, SK2 is correct. 2 Guards + 1 Foot artillery would be my option.

Posted 1 year ago #
Drannakh
Member

"In terms of adding reserves not actually at Quatre Bras, I suspect that a Dutch Belgian list for Waterloo may provide that option. The aim was to provide a specific list based on that day, rather than a general list for the campaign."

That is an interesting point of view. AB lists for specific campaigns and days. I'm also a FoW player, and in that game it works very well. We have the so called vanilla lists (generic German and allies lists in books like Fortress Europa), and we have special campaign books with some particular army lists that are very special for some reason.

Now in Lasalle we have the AB generic lists. Will be the Dutch-Belgians be the first AB specific campaign official AB list? Or is it better to make a very generical list, even if it isn't very historical.

Could be an interesting option to add some specific historical AB lists that add some flavour to the game. Some Lasalle players from the community and me have make an Old Guard army list based on the french last attack at Waterloo, 'cause lots of players want to play with his "Grognards", even if it would be very difficult to win. I will post it on the scenario wiki this week as an AB list, it's a very fun army to play.

Regards from sunny Spain

Posted 1 year ago #
Evan
Member

"One risk is if the DB and Nassauers are as good as British, all you effectively end up with is a British list where the troops wear funny uniforms. My view is we need more variety in lists, not less."

The D/B and Nassauers were as good, or bad, as the mostly new & un-battle tested British battalions during the Waterloo campaign. Why should they be handicapped in ability to just perpetuate the myth that the British were the same, experienced, soldiers who fought in the Peninsula? Considering the British fought pretty much only in the Peninsula for most of the Napoleonic wars why should they be considered as the Allied "baseline" for the 100 days? The officers & NCOs of the D/B and Nassau formations were mostly experienced, from fighting with the French, which actually counts for more than just the experience, or lack of, of the rank & file.

I personally would like to see a list that could be able to provide a representative choice for both QB and Waterloo.

Evan

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

I personally would like to see a list that could be able to provide a representative choice for both QB and Waterloo.

Add one to the scenario wiki. My understanding is Sam is unlikely to put up an official list, so it is up to us.

The main question is what would be different in your list from the Hundred Days British List? If you think the DB infantry should be the same rating as British it would be very easy to construct - just can use the British list as the basis.

I certainly would have no problems if someone in a competition told me (before the game) that they will be using DB troops but the British Hundred Days Infantry list. I wouldn't care what colour the uniforms were!

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

"Add one to the scenario wiki. My understanding is Sam is unlikely to put up an official list, so it is up to us."

Put it this way: Since I don't feel any particular expertise on this army, I'd be more likely to post an "official" list if I saw some good work done by others. (In the same way that Phil Karecki did the yeoman's work for the Polish list.)

Posted 1 year ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

Evan wrote: "The D/B and Nassauers were as good, or bad, as the mostly new & un-battle tested British battalions during the Waterloo campaign. Why should they be handicapped in ability to just perpetuate the myth that the British were the same, experienced, soldiers who fought in the Peninsula?"

Of the British battalions, only three were "new & un-battle tested". Of the three that were "new & un-battle tested", two had been in garrison posts for several years (2/69 suffered the loss of a colour at Quatre Bras and was amalgamated with a veteran battalion at Waterloo), and 3/14th had only been raised in 1813 and had a large number of 18 year old recruits (and Wellington kept them well to the rear in the battle).

The remainder were all 'Peninsula' battalions. Mark Adkin ('Waterloo Companion') analysed a typical British 'Peninsula' battalion at Waterloo. He found the average age of privates was 27 years of age and their average length of service was six years (sergeants averaged twelve years service). Most had fought in fought in at least five successful actions prior to Waterloo.

So far from being "new & un-battle tested", the majority of British battalions in the 100 Days were long-service professionals with considerable experience and successful combat records.

Posted 1 year ago #
Evan
Member

"So far from being "new & un-battle tested", the majority of British battalions in the 100 Days were long-service professionals with considerable experience and successful combat records.'

Maybe Paul, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Dutch, Belgian and Nassau units performed just as well - most of the officers and NCOs were as, or possibly even more, experienced from their service with the French. To rate the Dutch etc. as having lessor capability overall than the British is just pandering to a historical British writers bias rather than any objective reality - Adkins book certainly broke the mould in that respect.

Posted 1 year ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

Hi Evan,

Actually it isn't being biased to state that Dutch or other allied units did not have a comparable fighting power compared to the veteran British units. Its just a statement of fact.

All bar three of the British battalions in the 100 Days were veterans of the Peninsula, with an average length of service of six years with the colours for the private soldiers. Of course, it is not merely a matter that those battalion had veteran soldiers in them - they had remained complete battalions, so had exceptional unit cohesion. There is a world of difference between a veteran unit and a recently raised unit with veteran soldiers in it. And of course these battalions had been consistently successful over their French opponents in the Peninsula.

In contrast the Hanoverian Field Battalions, while volunteers, were inexperienced apart from the cadre of KGL officers and NCOs. The Hanoverian Landwehr (and there were four Landwehr battalions in each 'British' Division) were newly raised young militia with rudimentary training and no experience.

The Brunswickers were described by Adkin as containing "a higher proportion of inexperienced youths than any other formation. The average soldier's age was barely eighteen, while the light battalions had sergeants, sometimes sergeant-majors, of the same age. Even quite senior officers within the battalions were only slightly older." The Jager companies were mostly veterans from Spain, but other units were shaky.

According to Adkin "Apart from the officer corps, which contained a good leavening of experienced men, particularly at the junior level, the Nassauers almost rivalled their fellow Germans, the Brunswickers, for youth and lack of experience. Of the 1st Regiment of over 2,800 all ranks, more than 1000 were recruits with only six weeks in uniform."

As to the Dutch-Belgians, while their officers had considerable experience fighting for Napoleon, the DB units were relatively recently raised. Adkin writes that "The men were largely raw recruits with little training and no experience. Many were reluctant soldiers, some (particularly the Belgians) with pro-French sentiments."

Cheers

Paul

Posted 1 year ago #
Evan
Member

"Actually it isn't being biased to state that Dutch or other allied units did not have a comparable fighting power compared to the veteran British units. Its just a statement of fact."

In relation to events on the day of QB and again at Waterloo it is biased Paul, the D/B troops and their Nassau additions were slated for being tactically inept, cowards and even runners, mainly by British historians, at Waterloo . The Dutch etc in fact performed their assigned roles during the battle. The Dutch & Belgian cavalry especially performed as well as, and in some cases better, than their British allies. Even Adkins points out that much of the mythology of the poor D/B performance at Waterloo is just that, a myth.

The point being though that given the smallish number of options available within the Lasalle rule set there is no reason, based on actual performance at either QB or Waterloo to rate the D/B troops as worse than the British, KGL or even the Hanoverians(lets not mention the Cumberland Hussars!)The militia units are probably the only ones I'd rate as possibly shaky, but even that is unfair in light of their actual performance.

Posted 1 year ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

"In relation to events on the day of QB and again at Waterloo it is biased Paul, the D/B troops and their Nassau additions were slated for being tactically inept, cowards and even runners, mainly by British historians, at Waterloo "

I'd be interested if any modern British historians have written that the Dutch-Belgians were "cowards and even runners".

But there was a significant difference in the level of experience and training between those KGL and British batalions that had seen service in the Peninsula, and the recently raised units with young recruits. I don't see that it is being "biased" to point out that a unit where the average Private has ten years service with the colours and gone through several successful battles is probably going to be superior in combat to a unit consisting largely of young recuits with little and no experience.

Regarding the Dutch-Belgian troops at Waterloo, I agree that the DB cavalry performed well in counter-attacking French cavalry who had penetrated past the squares in the frontline - though I don't know that they caried out their role "in some cases better than their British allies". Adkin, in assessing the 'myth' of Bijlandt's brigade's performance states that (contrary to the myth) the DB battalions put up a fight for several minutes, but then "they retired in some disorder as the French pushed over the ridge. Their departure was the subject of a barrage of disparaging comments from the British battalions they passed." (see Adkin p.407).

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.