Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 has an error

Moderators: hammy, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
adonald
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 pm

Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 has an error

Post by adonald » Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:25 am

The Anglo-Portuguese list for 1809-10 has a limitation on the British and their skirmish attachments. They can EITHER have rifle attachments OR have a light infantry brigade with rifles, but not both.

The time period covers Talavera and Bussaco. The above limitation would apply to Talavera as, while most of the British infantry brigades had attached independent rifle companies from the 5/60th Foot, there were no British light infantry brigades present. However, at Bussaco, not only did the line infantry brigades have the same rifle company support from the 5/60th, but the Light Division was present, with its two light infantry brigades, each of a British and Portuguese light battalion and four companies of the 95th Rifles. A British army at Bussaco would have the option of light infantry with rifle units AND line infantry with rifle attachments. The limitation in the Attachments table should be removed. Further, given the common nature of these rifle company attachments to the line infantry brigades, and the use of artillery batteries in direct support of divisions at this point, rather than in grand batteries, the number of attachments should be increased to THREE per division (historically, two rifle attachments and a gun attachment in most cases).

Thanks

Alastair Donald

Carriage
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:01 am

Re: Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 has an error

Post by Carriage » Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:28 am

Can you just use the 1810-11 list for Busaco?

adonald
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 has an error

Post by adonald » Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:14 pm

Actually, now I look at it, you're right, Bussaco is in the later list. Still, the Light Brigade existed at this time and the lists allow the deployment of British light brigades (KGL?), so I guess what I was saying was that the list wasn't flexible enough to reflect the British army in the Peninsula at this time, although it does reflect the specific formation at Talavera. But if it was just doing that, then there shouldn't be an option for ANY British light infantry brigades - they weren't present at Talavera. However, the lists appear to be more 'campaign' based rather than specific battle based. I was using the Bussaco example to show that rifle attachments were not dependant on whether there were light infantry brigades present or not. The rifle detachments were different. The rifle attachments came from the 5/60th Foot, or the KGL light infantry detachments in the KGL line infantry brigades, while the light infantry with rifle unit was the Light Brigade using the 43rd and 52nd Light Infantry and the 95th Rifles (it famously just missed Talavera after a forced march of some 68km in 48 hours). Still part of the British Army though in that campaign.

So, Bussaco was a poor example but the point still stands.

Alastair Donald

adonald
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 has an error

Post by adonald » Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:49 pm

Looking further at this (Anglo-Portuguese Army 1809-10) list there's another problem. The KGL light infantry unit "British and KGL light infantry" can't exist. The two KGL light infantry battalions that made up a brigade under Alten were at Walcheren and had their first action in the Peninsula at Albuera in 1811. This entry must refer to the Light Brigade. The only otye light infantry formation in the Peninsula at this time (other than the 5/60th Rifle detachments) was the 71st (Highland Light Infantry) but they arrived late in 1810 and were part of a line infantry brigade. The rest of the light infantry regiments seemed to have arrived in 1811.

Therefore, this entry should be limited to one 4 base average veteran light infantry with rifles unit.

Alastair Donald

KitG
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:51 am

Re: Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 has an error

Post by KitG » Mon Feb 23, 2015 12:24 am

However, would not the KGL Line battalions have deployed their schutzen company, thereby making a rifle attachment to a KGL Regiment something of a compulsory choice?

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 has an error

Post by deadtorius » Mon Feb 23, 2015 1:09 am

Actually Kit their Schutzen companies are inherent in the battalions and is what gives them the reformed status. Those are the troops who are not on table and allow their parent units to shoot out to 6 MU. Attachments are extra units beyond any inherent skirmishing companies within the parent unit.

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Re: Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 has an error

Post by deadtorius » Mon Feb 23, 2015 1:11 am

Actually Kit their Schutzen companies are inherent in the battalions and is what gives them the reformed status. Those are the troops who are not on table and allow their parent units to shoot out to 6 MU. Attachments are extra units beyond any inherent skirmishing companies within the parent unit.

adonald
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 has an error

Post by adonald » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:17 am

I'm not sure that's right. What about the 71st Foot (Highland Light Infantry)? They were just a battalion in a line brigade but their presence would allow a skirmisher attachment to that unit, whose line battalions also had their light companies.

After Talavera the two KGL line brigades were amalgamated under Low on 1 November 1809. At some point in 1810 the brigade received a KGL light infantry detatchment, presumably from the recently arrived KGL light battalions who arrived in Lisbon, but were in such poor shape they remained there refitting until they joined Beresford in Estramadura (and were at Albuera) in 1811. I assume they sent their fittest men as a detachment to Low's brigade, and then wound up being deployed in an entirely different army. The KGL Light infantry brigade eventually joined Wellingtons army in the 7th Division after the seige of Badajoz (June 1811).

So a single KGL unit should have a rifle attachment sometime during 1810, but an Anglo Portuguese army of 1809-10 shouldn't have a KGL light infantry unit. They weren't ready.

Alastair

KitG
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:51 am

Re: Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 has an error

Post by KitG » Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:18 am

deadtorius wrote:Actually Kit their Schutzen companies are inherent in the battalions and is what gives them the reformed status. Those are the troops who are not on table and allow their parent units to shoot out to 6 MU. Attachments are extra units beyond any inherent skirmishing companies within the parent unit.
Yes, I realise that Schutzen companies were integral to Foot Line Battalions of the KGL, just as the flank (or light companies) were to every British Line Battalion. The point is that the KGL had both a flank company and rifle armed schutzen - and the schutzen were rifle armed - this meant that each KGL line battalion had not only an integral skirmishing ability (like the British) but also an integral rifle skirmishing ability - which I do not believe any other nation had. Also of significance is that by Waterloo some sources say that KGL Line battalions had an entire schutzen company that was rifle armed. If so, then that is a great many rifles for a brigade of line infantry and an organisation that was quite different to the British Line.

Post Reply

Return to “Scenarios, AAR's, Lists, Modelling and more”