FIGHTING IN THE SWIEPWALD, 1866: A ONE HOUR SKIRMISH SCENARIO

 

The Prussian jager officer with his bugler looking at the action from behind the cover of a log pile. 

Greetings, dear reader(s).  There has been gaming activity in these parts. This post will present a brief overview (I can't really call it a "game report") of the most recent game of my One Hour Skirmish variant. This game was to give me practice running a  multi player OHSK game (four players).  Cutting to the chase, I can say that the multiplayer system (borrowed from AJ, of AJ's Wargming Blog) worked out well. For anyone familiar with the rules, each player gets their own deck of cards, but with only one joker (as opposed to two). For more, see the scenario which can be downloaded at the following:

SWIEPWALD SCENARIO FOR OHSKW (VARIANT)

Situation in brief: During the Battle of Koniggratz, there was heavy back and forth fighting in the Swiepwald Forest. This game focuses on a section of that fighting...

...in an area that became known as the "Meadow of Death." This was an area that had been harvested and the logs stacked in piles, and there was back and forth fighting across this zone. In this scenario, I put together a table roughly representative of the circled area in the above (you can clix pix for BIG PIX in this post--you may also want to check out my post on Logisticks). Specifically, this game represents one of these swings, with the Prussians having just advanced across the meadow and the Austrians committing another wave to push them back.

Austrian (left) and Prussian (right) squads ready to deploy

Each side has two squads of jagers, consisting of eight figures for the Austrians and seven for the Prussians. Each player controls a squad. Each squad includes two non-jagers representing soldiers who are still in the zone from earlier fighting. For the Austrians, these are grenzers and for the Prussians they are fusiliers. (Again, you can download the scenario pdf for more details). 

I used a randomized deployment...

...to represent the Prussians being spread across the zone and less organized, a six sided dice is rolled for each figure. The fusiliers are placed at one of the corresponding blue numbered locations within their squad zone. For the jagers, on a 1-4, they are deployed at one of the black numbered locations.  On a 5-6, the jager starts off table and enters using a move activation. 

The  Austrians, having been pushed back, start more compact. The grenzers deploy at white numbered locations corresponding to their die rolls within their squad zones. The Austrian jagers, who are counterattacking, don't roll for deployment, but start deployed on the table edge within their respective zones.  The Austrian jagers should be placed first, ahead of the Prussians and the grenzers. This deployment method worked out really well (surprisingly so), and will lend nice replay value to the scenario. The game lasts 12 turns. 

Victory conditions...

...each side has different objectives, but they combine to drive the action. The Prussians get 1 point for each surviving figure that they have at the end of the game forward of the road that runs parallel to their table edge, so they must contest the ground without becoming combat ineffective, but do have the advantage of position and defense. The Austrians gain 1 point for each log pile that they control, but are not penalized for losses (other than the effect that losing figures has on play). The Austrians can, however, cost the Prussians points by inflicting casualties (so there are some angles to be played between taking ground and engaging in firefights).  There are 15 Prussian figures and 15 log piles. The side with the most points wins. Alternately, if one side fails a morale check, it loses.  

So, how did our playtest go? Well, I was engaged with facilitating the game, so don't have a complete "battle report" but can give you an overall sense...

Above Left: The Austrians (Mike C, left, ran Squad 1, and Earl, right, ran Squad 2). Above Right: The Prussians (AJ, in the foreground, ran Squad 2, and Ralph ran Squad 1). 

Four out of six of Ralph's jagers started off board, while AJ's were more evenly distributed. So Ralph wound up having to bring up his fellows to get stuck in.  In this playtest, the Austrian jagers started off table and had to enter via a move activation (different than the version described above and now posted). Given that the Austrians require two activation points to fire vs one (representing the muzzle loading Lorenz vs the Prussian needle gun), a run of awful activation cards at the start of the game caused the Austrians to enter piecemeal, one figure at a time, in order to get in a move and a fire, or to enter several figures but be unable to fire. Although the Prussians had their own share of lousy card draws, the fact that they had more figures on the table and can fire with only 1 activation point meant that they were able to get on top of the Austrians early on.  The Austrians also had crummy luck with their  grenzers, who did start on table and could have provided some cover to get the jagers on table, but that didn't work out so well (in another game, it might go differently). 

On to a bit of eye candy: here are some shots of the action. Note that in OHSK, a figure that is hit is "downed": at the end of the turn, you check each downed figure to see if he becomes an actual casualty (or returns to action, sort of like a saving throw).  The red markers, if they are by themselves, indicate where a figure has become a casualty. If there is one behind a figure, it means that that figure is "down" (out of action), but waiting for the end of  the turn to decide whether he is out or not...

One of AJ's Prussian fusiliers facing the advancing Austrians early in the game.

Another view of the same: both of AJ's  fusiliers started in this advanced position. The other was picked off by Mike's advancing Austrians and has become a casualty.

Ralph's squad advances and takes up a position after entering the table.

Earl's (now outnumbered) Austrian jagers battle forward (the left jager has been "downed" leaving only two active). Having finally seen off Ralph's Prussian fusiliers who had been holding the forward log piles, they start to trade shots with Ralph's jagers in the distance. Although the Austrians have a lower rate of fire, they have a range advantage over the Prussian needle guns. 

Mike's squad, along with the Austrian officer, taking up position on the Austrian left. The tabs indicate special capabilities. The chevron is the NCO (the "T" indicates that he is "Tough"). The "D1" is the squad sharpshooter ("Deadshot" in the rules). The "IN" on the leader indicates that he has the "Inspirational" attribute.

The Austrian casualty count: given that the Prussians also managed to get the initiative in all the early turns, meaning that they got to shoot first, things added up very quickly. The Austrians eventually failed their morale check, and that ended the game.  Although you have to accept that the run of the cards in OHSK will influence outcomes, it was clear that the consequences of bad cards were less drastic for the Prussians than the Austrians, compounding the already existing challenges of the burden of attack.  The playtest was still an enjoyable experience, despite this, and the final version of the scenario (presented here), does help to make the Austrians less brittle without putting the finger on the scale in their favor. We're looking forward to running it again to see how it goes!

Excelsior!

SWORD LORE IV: BRITISH 1796 LIGHT CAVALRY SABER

 

Contemporary print of a British Hussar trooper wielding a 1796 Light Cavalry Saber. 

Greetings, dear reader(s). Life events have been rather bumpy and interrupted hobby attention lately.  I'll eventually piece together some content from the starts and stops that have been going on, but in the meantime, I thought I'd put up another Sword Lore post.  In this one, we'll be visiting the Napoleonic era and examining one of the most famous swords of that period: the British 1796 Light Cavalry Saber. For anyone new to these sword lore posts, each of them focuses on a particular sword in my modest collection of antique service weapons (not reproductions) from the era when swords were still relevant as actual combat weapons.  As usual, you may clix pix for BIG PIX in this post. 

THE SWORD

Sword Plus Scabbard

The Blade

Above are shots of my 1796 Light Cavalry Saber. In this case, I have both the sword and the scabbard. The complete sword, from pommel to tip, is roughly 38 inches. The blade by itself, from the hilt to tip, is about 33 inches. Being curved, this falls into the "saber" category. More particularly, this is a cavalry saber: designed and meant to be used mounted. I'll be discussing these points in more detail later, but for now this will serve as an introduction to get things started. 

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

At the conclusion of the 18th Century, the British Army was in the process of standardizing its equipment. Specific to the mounted arm, it introduced heavy and light cavalry saber patterns in 1788. Those are not the topic of this post, so I won't go into detail on them other than to say that during the campaigns in the Low Countries in the 1790s against Revolutionary France they were found to be lacking; it was evident that a change was needed. 

Maj General John Gaspard Le Marchant

And the man of the hour who would step forward and transform the British mounted arm, from weapons to sword drill, was John Gaspard Le Marchant. He was a cavalry brigade commander during the Revolutionary Wars in the low countries and would continue to serve with distinction in the British Army, meeting his end in combat at the Battle of Salamanca in 1812. 

Austrian Hussar of the French Revolutionary Wars era.

Going back to the revolutionary wars, the Hungarian Hussars were making a deep impression on everyone at this time, with all nations adopting their own versions and adjusting their approach to light cavalry because of them.  Le Marchant was also impressed with them, and he brought back nuts and bolts lessons from a soldier's-eye view. Marchant not only rewrote the British Army's cavalry manuals to improve swordsmanship, but...

Austrian 1768 Light Cavalry (Hussar) Saber.

....working with the Osborne cutlery firm, he redesigned the British light and heavy cavalry swords based upon the Austrian models. The two resulting swords were both adopted and became famous: the 1796 Heavy Cavalry pallasch (or broadsword), so called because it is a straight-bladed thrusting weapon.  And the (even more famous) 1796 Light Cavalry Saber (the subject of this post). The heavy cavalry saber was pretty much an exact duplicate of the heavy cavalry sword wielded by the Austrian cuirassiers and was carried by the British heavy dragoons. The light cavalry saber was derivative of the Austrian light cavalry (hussar) model, but was more of a redesign--and became one of the most successful swords in history.  

                                        Light Dragoons                   Hussars

                                    King's German Legion       Prussian Cavalry

In the British Army, the 1796 Light Cavalry Saber was issued to the Hussars, Light Dragoons, and the cavalry regiments of the King's German Legion. It would be the sword that was carried throughout the Napoleonic wars.  The gunners of the Royal Horse Artillery also carried the 1796 Light Cavalry Saber.  In addition, the post-1813 Prussian cavalry (minus the cuirassiers) were armed with the 1796 Light Cavalry Saber--produced and exported to them from Britain (see the Sword Lore: 1811 Blucher Cavalry Saber post for more). 

THE SWORD

A sword is discussed in terms of its parts, the two major ones being the blade and the hilt. Each of these has its own sub components and variants. We'll follow this model to discuss the points of interest of this sword (all images are of the sword in my collection). 

THE HILT

    Like many light cavalry sabers of its era, the 1796 has a single-barred "stirrup" guard (the part that protects the hand), so-called because in shape it resembles a stirrup. However, the very distinctive modification that the 1796 brought to this feature was the bulge towards the rear (sometimes called a "D" shaped modification). Nobody knows exactly why this was done; conjecture is that it would allow for an alternate grip, one where the last two or three fingers would be on the rear part of the guard, below the pommel. 

    Other signature features of the 1796 are the two shield shaped langets (these seat the sword in the scabbard)--there are some versions with different sized or shaped (rectangular) langets, but the shield shaped ones depicted in this sword are the most common. Another feature is the continuous backstrap that runs over the handle, ending in a curve at the back of the handle (the pommel), with a reinforcing "ear" about 2/3 of the way forward. The purpose of this ear is to reinforce and secure the blade to the hilt with a rivet that runs through the handle and tang (an extension of the blade that runs under the handle ending in the "peen" at the back--under the pommel on the 1796).  The backstrap and ear make for a very secure hilt/blade combination. Despite its age, the blade of the sword in my collection has zero movement in the hilt.  

    Moving on, there is a ferrule between the handle and the guard, and a bar that extends above the handle (the quillon) that ends in a curl.--these latter features are common to the 1796 (and should be looked for), but they are not unique to the 1796 Lt Cav saber. 

THE BLADE

This is where things really get interesting...

The blade has a single, wide, shallow fuller running nearly its entire length. As I've mentioned before, the fuller is sometimes referred to as a "blood channel" but that is not its purpose. It is a design feature that both lightens the blade and (depending on type, number, placement, and other configurations) lightens, balances, and reinforces the blade. In this case, the placement of the fuller at the top of the blade, near the spine, renders a ridge near the cutting edge, making the edge more rigid and stiffer. It also certainly lightens the blade and makes it more agile (more on that in a bit...).

                                                   Hatchet Point                        Spear Point

The 1796 was designed as a cutting/slashing weapon, consistent with the doctrines of the era: light cavalry delivered slashes and cuts while heavy cavalry delivered thrusts. The 1796 has a long cutting edge ending in a "hatchet point"--meaning that the tip is not symmetrical and does not end in a point. As such, it is not very effective at delivering a thrust. A spear pointed blade, on the other hand, is more familiar (to the contemporary eye) and has a symmetrical point; a classic example of a spear-pointed heavy cavalry (straight) blade from the same era is on the right for comparison. The light cavalry were more "swordsmen" in this way, sometimes circling in single combat in order to get in position to deliver slashes rather than charging straight ahead. Of course, when catching infantry in the open, they were as devastating delivering cuts as heavy cavalry were thrusts (it is a myth that only heavy cavalry engaged in "battle" and light cavalry only in "skirmishing" but I digress). But now, on to the really fascinating feature of the blade and 1796 Lt Cav Saber...

Profile Taper

The profile taper is a measure of the change in the width of the blade from hilt to point, affecting its outline and handling. In most swords, the profile taper gets smaller as it goes, hence the name, "taper"--in other words, when we think of swords, we think of the blades being wider at the handle and thinner at the point.  However, the 1796 Lt Cav Saber is the opposite: it gets broader.

Distal Taper

The distal taper is a measure of the thickness of the blade as it extends from the hilt to the point (the cross section of the blade when looking top down). The 1796 blade is quite sturdy at the hilt, but thins to just barely over 1mm for the last 1/4 of its length  (slimming from 3mm to 1+mm along its last 1/3). 

 

    As an aside, this is where reproductions (except for a few special cases) go wrong: they are good to the eye, but usually have these proportions incorrect (to include the fuller). In short, they look the part, and to be fair, that is what they are designed for (and also to be affordable). But in terms of handling, they are basically long bars of metal that don't have the same feel. The originals are much more agile and balanced than reproductions, surprisingly so if you ever have the chance to compare--this sword in particular is very light and agile in the hand. The craftsmanship and effort that went into producing these weapons becomes obvious when you handle them: in most cases, they may not have been turned out at a single point of mass production, but they were all produced to specific patterns intended to render deliberate performance profiles. 

Deadly Slashing Weapon

The combination of the long, shallow fuller, the widening profile taper, and the extreme distal taper make for a cleaver-like slashing weapon, one with a thin, broad, deadly edge. Troopers were taught to cut with the last 1/3 of the blade and block with the first 2/3. There was also a sharpened "false edge" along the last 1/3 of the top of the blade.  Anecdotes tell of limbs being severed by single blows from these swords. The downside was that the most effective blows had to be square on to the target for these effects. The more the blade was turned, the less effective the blow. The combination of these features (the long shallow fuller and the distal taper) also make the 1796 Lt Cavalry saber the most agile and balanced sword in my collection.  

AUTHENTICATING THE SWORD

Having discussed the sword's characteristics, we now move on to a discussion of what we can tell about this specific sword: how can we authenticate it?  The first steps involve checking its characteristics: whether the parts--the hilt and blade-- conform to what is known about the pattern. In the case of this particular sword, I can say with certainty that these are consistent with the historical record in terms of shape, size, and other tenets. The materials and their condition also seem to be consistent with its age  (but those can be faked--in this case, my sense is that they are not).

The next thing to look for are any markings. Not all swords will have them (particularly if it is a private purchase sword).  However, my focus is on service swords: fighting swords issued to troopers.  In the case of the British Army of the era (Napoleonic), there aren't many markings (and any sword that is festooned with letters and Georgian script should be given a hard look).  However, there are two things to definitely look for.

  

    Ordnance Mark: The first is an ordnance mark: a crown over a number stamped on the outside of the blade at the ricasso. (The outside of the blade is the one facing away from the body when the sword is held in the right hand, point up; the ricasso is an unsharpened part of the blade next to the hilt).  This sword has the correct stamps, in the correct form (numeral 11 under a crown), in the correct location. This indicates that the sword was inspected for compliance with the characteristics for the pattern and accepted into the Army inventory: in other words, a service sword that would be issued to a trooper.  The number, at the time, was probably associated with a particular inspector (possibly on a temporary basis).  Unlike French inspector and controller marks, there is no record that I am aware of recording the assignment of numbers to inspectors (or inspection timeframes). So, in terms of authentication, the presence of the number under the crown is what matters: the significance of the number itself does not.  

    Manufacturer: the second is a manufacturer's stamp. It is true that not all British swords may have a manufacturer's stamp, but most would. So having both an ordnance stamp and a manufacturer's stamp is better than just having an ordnance stamp. There were multiple contractors who provided 1796 light cavalry sabers to the British Army--and this accounts for some variation in the swords. Each conformed to a specific "pattern" but might vary within the specifications (the example of the rectangular langets, for instance, as opposed to shield shaped). The manufacturer's stamp should be on the spine of the blade near the hilt: and this sword has a manufacturer's stamp in the correct place: "ThosCraven".

What Else Can we Determine?

    So far, so good. We have both kinds of mark on this sword, and both are "right" in terms of form and placement. Combine these with the physical characteristics of the sword and we can feel pretty confident that this sword is "right."  We can glean a bit more information based on the manufacturer:

    Thomas Craven was a sword maker in Birmingham,  and the firm was in operation from 1797 to 1820. However, from 1803 through 1818 there was a partnership, and the firm was known as "Cooper and Craven" during this 15-year stretch. Given that the manufacturer's stamp on this sword is only "Thos Craven" we can surmise that it must have been produced in one of the two non-partnered timeframes: 1798-1803 or 1818-1820. The presence of the ordnance stamp tells us that this sword was produced for the government and not for export or private purchase. Given that the Napoleonic Wars had ended in 1815, it is not likely that it would have been produced to fill a government contract in the 1818-20 timeframe, particularly given that the 1796 was on the threshold of being replaced by then (see below). It is more likely, therefore, that this sword dates from 1797-1803. 

SERVICE LIFE AND LEGACY

The 1822 Light Cavalry Saber

Like its counterpart in Prussian service (the 1811 Blucher), it was replaced by a pattern with better hand protection and a more universal blade--less curved with a spear point--the 1822 Light Cavalry Saber.

Prussian 1811 "Blucher" and the British 1796 Light Cavalry Saber

I mentioned earlier in this post that the post-1813 Prussian Army was equipped with the British 1796 Light Cavalry Saber. This made such an impression that they designed and manufactured their own version, the 1811 "Blucher,"  that would serve as the standard (non-heavy) cavalry weapon until mid-century, when it would be replaced by the Prussian 1852 Cavalry Saber. (You can follow the links for detailed posts on each of these Prussian swords). 

US 1812 Starr Cavalry Saber

I think there is no doubt that the US cavalry saber contemporary with the British 1796 (above) owes much to the British pattern as well (clipped point and absence of langets aside). 

Excelsior!

SERBS FOR ONE HOUR SKIRMISH

 

The latest contingent in my Balkan collection: Serbs, circa 1877-78 (and later)

Greetings, dear reader(s).  I am gratified to report on the addition of the Serbs for my One Hour Skirmish Muskets to Rifle variant. For anyone stumbling on this blog for the first time, my focus is on the age of the rifle--post-Napoleonic to pre-automatic weapons. My Balkan focus is on the era roughly from the Russo Turkish War through the Balkan Wars.  As with a good number of others in the collection, these figures are from the Outpost Miniatures Russo-Turkish line: now available at Badger Games in the U.S. 

The Serb "People's Army" uniform of the era--the only difference between this uniform and that of the regulars was the collar (the regulars had a standing collar), so as far as the look on the table, they would be the same. As can be seen, the signature look is brown over blue, with a blue cap--in sources, the blue is variously described as a light or gray blue (per the above right image from Helion and Company From Musket to Maxim, 1815-1914,  #55, The Serbian Army in the Wars for Independence from Turkey 1876-1878). Images of actual surviving uniforms, like the above left, indicate a more robust blue. More on that in a bit...

My contingent consists of three poses plus command (as usual, you may clix pix for BIG PIX in this post)...

Serbian Line Firing

I used a wash of black and a drybrush of lighter blue to bring out the details of the cap lines in the sculpts. 

Serbian Line Advancing

I struck a balance between the dark and light blue options by using a mid-blue, Humbrol World War One Blue, for the trousers and caps. I decided to go with black belting rather than brown to add a bit more detail. Speaking of which, on a utilitarian uniform such as this absent any trappings, I add detail by emphasizing the strapping and equipment--first underpainting it in black and then going over it in the respective colors, with an eye towards bringing out points where straps cross  or equipment is nested together, like the water bottles over the haversacks. 

Serbian Line Charging

This sculpt is my favorite in this line: very animated and finely detailed, right down the facial details. 

Serbian Command

Given that One Hour Skirmish is a very low level game, I needed an NCO, so I took the standard bearer and gave him a guidon, something appropriate for a small unit: both he and the musician can serve as NCO leaders as needed.  Of course, since I had him I also worked up the officer.

Figure Comparison

Outpost Serbs next to Outpost Montenegrins.

I have previously posted about the variation in sculpts within the Outpost Russo Turkish line. The Serbs are among the smaller figures: they are "true" 25mm. I would guess that they are from the same artist who sculpted the Montenegrins. 

Three Foot View

The collection as seen at gaming distance (the colors in the picture are a bit washed out). 

The Serbs round out my collection of forces for the Balkans. Most conventionally, they would be put on the table in games against the Ottomans starting with the Russo Turkish War of 1877 and continuing through to the Balkan Wars. However, given the troubled history of the Balkan region and the small scale actions represented in the One Hour Skirmish system, they could be put on the table against just about any of the other contingents in any number of plausible scenarios. The possibilities are nearly endless. 

Excelsior!