From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Frederik the Great's Army 
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 03:35:56 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


This discussion has been going on on sci.military for a while, but I 
thought some here might be interested.



  > THIS IS A BIT LONG - BE WARNED.
  > 
  > > From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
  > >
  > > Don't know about this particular (pre-Napoleonic) period but I
  > > don't recall that the Prussians had Cuirassiers. Dragoons were
  > > ostensibly mounted infantry (they were armed with carbines) but
  > > were at the time of Napoleon used as heavy cavalry. From the war-
  > > game tables one can tell that they were fairly poor as infantry
  > > but were fairly good heavy cavalry.
  > 
  > Dragoons had dropped being "real" infantry by the start of the 1700's
  > in most armies, although they retained muskets until well after
  > Napoleon's time.  They were expected to be able to act as infantry,
  > however - standing guard, etc, and armies short on horses would
  > sometimes use large numbers dismounted (Napoleon had a brigade or two
  > in Spain for more than a year).  Of course, wearing boots and spurs
  > didn't help their secondary function one little bit :-).
  > 
  > The Prussians had a good number of Cuirassier Regts, at Leuthen there
  > were 11 Regts, totaling 53 Sqns, at Rossbach 5 Regts, 23 Sqns.
  > 
  > > Grenadiers were simply infantry chosen for their size. They were
  > > also more highly trained than the regular infantry of the line.
  > > As such they were used for shock effect and to shore up critical
  > > places.
  > 
  > Grenadiers were not particularly more trained than other troops - just
  > bigger and generally regarded as elite.  Grenadiers usually got more
  > pay and had higher status than the rest of the troops, so they fought
  > better as well.
  > 
  > > >Only 10 squadrons of dragoons swept
  > > >6 battle hardened Austrian infantry regiments into disappearance.  They took  > > >66 unit flags and the Austrians lost 10,000 men wounded and killed.  This  >  was
  > > >the battle of Hohenfriedberg in June 1745 after which Frederick II (the  >  Great)>wrote his Hohenfriedberger March music.
  > >
  > >
  > > I wonder what point of development anti-cavalry tactics were at
  > > this point in time. Weren't infantry still armed with matchlocks
  > > and pikes? Perhaps bayonets had just come into vogue and the square
  > > hadn't been perfected yet. Or perhaps the Austrians were taken by
  > > surprise and didn't have time to form square.
  > 
  > no, infantry was no longer armed with matchlocks and pikes, they had
  > mostly disappeared by 1700.  Flintlocks plus ring bayonets were the
  > norm by the Seven Years War (1756 - 1763).  The standard infantry
  > defence against was the square, even at this early time period.
  > However no-one had invented suitable drills to enable large formations
  > (eg battalions of 400+) to form it quickly on the battlefield, so it
  > was rarely used.
  > 
  > The Austrian infantry in question had just been in a firefight with
  > Prussian infantry, and, although intact, was somewhat shaken.
  > Prussian infantry had a significantly higher rate of fire than anyone
  > else's, due to the adoption of iron ramrods, while the rest of the
  > world used wood.  The iron enabled the infantry to take less time
  > ensuring the ramrod was perfectly aligned with the barrel before
  > ramming, as it was more robust and didn't break as quickly.
  > 
  > This does, however, contrast with the 8 or 9 battalions of British and
  > Hanoverian infantry who took apart the cream of the French Cavalry at
  > Minden in 1759.  These troops (von Sporken's division - Waldegrave's
  > Brigade of 12th, 23rd, 37th Foot and Kingsley's Brig of 20th, 25th &
  > 51st Foot, plus 1st & 2nd Bns Hanoverian Guards - the "optional" 9th
  > Hanoverian Bn I haven't identified) mistook an order (shades of the
  > Crimea) "When the time comes the advance is to be accompanied by the
  > beat of the drum" to mean "advance to the beat of the drum".  No-one
  > knows how this came about, but the effect was devastating:
  > 
  > The allied infantry advanced to within 500 yds of the French cavalry,
  > which formed the centre of their line, while under the fire of 66
  > guns.  12 Squadrons of Cavalry, the Carabiniers and Mousquetaires,
  > charged them, only to be blown away @ 30-40 yds by the fire of the
  > infantry in line formation.  A few managed to reach the infantry, and
  > penetrate the line, but were set upon from behind and despatched.  A
  > further 22 squadrons met the same fat soon after.  8 Bns of French
  > infantry threatened the right flank of the little formation, but 10
  > minutes firefight with the 12th and 27th saw them off.  A further 8
  > bns attacked the allies, but were driven off by the  20th, 25th and
  > 51st.
  > 
  > A third French cavalry force, their last reserve, of 18 sqns now
  > attacked.  The allied C-in-C spotted them forming up, and moved some
  > artillery and infantry to support von Sporken.  The artillery caught
  > the French cav by surprise, and inflicted severe casualties and some
  > disorder.  Despite this the charge reached and penetrated the Allied
  > line, but was then defeated by musketry of the infantry in the new
  > supporting line, immediately to the rear, while the survivors of the
  > front line's third rank also turned about and fired into the backs of
  > the French Cav.
  > 
  > The allied commander (Prince Ferdinand) now ordered his small cavalry
  > reserve under Lord Sackville to complete the French rout.  Lord
  > Sackville had better things to do, however, and the allied cavalry did
  > nothing all day.
  > 
  > Thus the unauthorised advance of the allied infantry bought about the
  > defeat of 63 sqns of French cavalry, and won the battle.
  > 
  > As an interesting post-script, the regiments which fought on the
  > allied side in this battlee got to wear the "Minden Rose" as a battle
  > honour.  Some were on opposing sections of the front lines during WWI,
  > the Hanoverian regts being part of the Imperial German army of that
  > time.
  > 
  > 
  > > From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
  > >
  > > >From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
  > > >In article <Bz9Ez9.6Ix@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from  >  home) writes:
  > > >
  > > >>One of my ancestors was a 'Feldjaeger' in the Royal Prussian Army ...
  > > >
  > > >This would be light calvalry, similar to the British "lancers". Literally it  > > >means "field hunter".
  > >
  > >         Request for a small point of information....  Wasn't a feldjaeger
  > > a light *infantryman*, not a cavalryman?    I'd always associated "jaegers"
  > > with chaps having a distinct green element to their ensembles, edelweisse
  > > badges, and rifled (as opposed to smoothbore) firearms.  Sorta like the
  > > German equivalent of Napoleon's skermishers (voltageurs?), or the British
  > > "Rifle" regiments, perhaps?   (All those jolly, rustic hunters and innkeepers  > > foresaking the Black Forest with its bears, wolves, boars, and deer for the
  > > thrills of a more dangerous, though cognate field of sport......(8-))
  > 
  > Not sure about "Feldjaeger", but "Jaeger" was certainly the title for
  > German light infantry in general, often armed with rifled muskets.
  > The number of such troops in all armies increased markedly during the
  > SYW, many "FreiKompanies" being formed on all sides, usually
  > containing a portion of light cavalry (Hussars, Light Dragoons, etc)
  > and some light infantry.  The Austrians were to blame for this - they
  > used large numbers of irregular infantry from their border with the
  > Ottoman Empire.  These Pandours (or Croats or Serbs, etc) were a real
  > pain in the posterier for Frederick, virtually beseiging him in camp
  > on more than one occaision.  At one point a group of 60 even attempted
  > to kidnap an Ambassador from the middle of the Prussian camp, failing
  > only because they took a servant instead!!  To counter the threat
  > Frederick was forced to raise similar troops, though he despised them,
  > and disbanded all of them after the war.
  > 
  > The regular Prussian light infantry consisted of 2 companies of
  > Jagers, which were expanded to a battalion in 1760, then wiped out by
  > Cossacks near Spandau in October of that year.
  > 
  > > From Neal Smith <sasrns@unx.sas.com>
  > 
  > > |> The dragoons were heavily armed calvalry. The uniform resembled the US
  > > |> revolutionary army uniform, but the boots come to mid-thigh and the hat is  > > |> a two-cornered cocked hat with a plume.
  > > |>
  > >     The dragoons were still considered mounted infantry at this time and
  > > fought this way I would say at least 50% of the time.  They were not
  > > considered battlefield cavalry.  The battlefield cavalry was still called
  > > "cavalry" or "heavy horse" during this time period.
  > 
  > As above for the Dragoons.  "Horse" as a designation was obsolete by
  > the SYW, the British having converted their regiments of "Horse" into
  > "Dragoon Guards" in the 1740's.  The French still used the title
  > "Cavalry Regiment", in the English, but generaly referred to their cav
  > regts by title, eg "Maison du Roi", Royal Pologne, Royal-Cravattes,
  > etc.
  > 
  > Phew, that was a bit longer than intended - hope I didn't bore anyone
  > unduly :-)
  > 
  > Sources:   War monthly # 46 (especially for Minden)
  >            Uniforms of the Seven Years War (Blandford - highly
  >            recommended, has some good battle maps and orders of battle)
  >            Frederick the Great, a Military Life;  Christopher Duffy
  >            (more great maps & OOBs)
  > --
  > Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
  > mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
  > 
  > 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: alt.war