 Dubious sentence Consequently Ney now organised a combined arms infantry artillery and cavalry attack on La Haye Sainte which fell as the defending Kings German Legion troops ran out of ammunition Ney then moved artillery up to the allied centre and began to pulverise the infantry squares73This is the final sentence of the French Cavalry attack sectionThere seem to be several things wrong with it first attacking a building with cavalry is pointless be they with infantry or not second field artillery have little effect on reasonably stout like Belgian farmhouses buildings apart from shells setting them alight which is what happened to the Chateau de Goumont to little effectI think two events are being conflated here  Having become obvious that the cavalry on their own were achieving little Ney organised a combined arms attack using Bachelus Division Reilles Corps and the remaining French cavalry in a fit enough state towards the centre of Wellingtons position this was halted by the Household Brigade cavalry led by Uxbridge who couldnt break the French infantry formations and consequently the British cavalry then fell back Uxbridge then tried to lead the DutchBelgian heavy cavalry into the attack but they refused to charge  Meanwhile Bachelus men and their cavalry supports were being hard hit by artillery fire and eventually fell back themselves  Simultaneously or thereabouts elements of DErlons Corps renewed the attack on La Haye Sainte and were ultimately successful If you can reference all of that be bold and put it in   Done Im bloody bold and resolute  in Shakespeares words     Artillery One omission and one challenge We should say something about Wellingtons tactic of having his gun crews seek shelter in the infantry squares during the cavalry attacks There is also Mercers account of not doing so because he reckoned if his men ran for the Brunswick squares next to them the Brunswickers would run too He gives a great eyewitness account of what happened to cuirassiers when you fired canister at them at pointblank range too Now the challenge Whats the source for there being only 54 guns in the Grand Battery French batteries field brigades or companies perhaps more correctly had eight guns There should have been either 48 or 56 ie 6 or 7 batteries as otherwise it would imply at least one incomplete unit or that some weapons were detached for some reason I dont recall any suggestion from elsewhere that that happened Were there perhaps 54 guns east of the Brussels road  Adkin p 296 has forty two 6lb eighteen 12lb cannon and six 6in and fourteen 55in howitzers  eighty pieces of ordnance in total from 10 artillery companies of 8 pieces each  This is for the period 100 to 130 pm6th Foot Artillery 9th 10th 11th 19th and 20th companies8th                4th company2nd                7th companyMarines of the Guard Foot Artillery 2 companies undifferentiatedOld Guard Foot Artillery 6th company Thanks  and those figures are consistent with what I know of French artillery organisation ie each 8gun foot artillery company had 6 guns and two howitzers Your source shows 20 howitzers in total which says they had the howitzers of 10 companies hence 80 guns  so it ties in The eighteen 12pounders would be the guns of three companies and the six 6in howitzers would have been theirsI wonder if someone miscounted by adding up just the guns and forgot to include the howitzers That would get you close to 54 guns Or perhaps 54 guns is what they had left after the Union Brigade got done with them  I vote we change it At present the article implies that there was a 54gun battery which covered the entire length of Wellingtons position and that this dilution of fire accounted for its relative ineffectiveness  By all means change it  FormatIn my internet explorer is the formating of the page rather strange The text begins very late almost beneath the infobox Can this be changed so that the article looks better  0136 CEST 6 September 2007  Preceding WikipediaSignaturesuns

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
 Dubious sentence Consequently Ney now organised a combined arms infantry artillery and cavalry attack on La Haye Sainte which fell as the defending Kings German Legion troops ran out of ammunition Ney then moved artillery up to the allied centre and began to pulverise the infantry squares73This is the final sentence of the French Cavalry attack sectionThere seem to be several things wrong with it first attacking a building with cavalry is pointless be they with infantry or not second field artillery have little effect on reasonably stout like Belgian farmhouses buildings apart from shells setting them alight which is what happened to the Chateau de Goumont to little effectI think two events are being conflated here  Having become obvious that the cavalry on their own were achieving little Ney organised a combined arms attack using Bachelus Division Reilles Corps and the remaining French cavalry in a fit enough state towards the centre of Wellingtons position this was halted by the Household Brigade cavalry led by Uxbridge who couldnt break the French infantry formations and consequently the British cavalry then fell back Uxbridge then tried to lead the DutchBelgian heavy cavalry into the attack but they refused to charge  Meanwhile Bachelus men and their cavalry supports were being hard hit by artillery fire and eventually fell back themselves  Simultaneously or thereabouts elements of DErlons Corps renewed the attack on La Haye Sainte and were ultimately successful If you can reference all of that be bold and put it in   Done Im bloody bold and resolute  in Shakespeares words     Artillery One omission and one challenge We should say something about Wellingtons tactic of having his gun crews seek shelter in the infantry squares during the cavalry attacks There is also Mercers account of not doing so because he reckoned if his men ran for the Brunswick squares next to them the Brunswickers would run too He gives a great eyewitness account of what happened to cuirassiers when you fired canister at them at pointblank range too Now the challenge Whats the source for there being only 54 guns in the Grand Battery French batteries field brigades or companies perhaps more correctly had eight guns There should have been either 48 or 56 ie 6 or 7 batteries as otherwise it would imply at least one incomplete unit or that some weapons were detached for some reason I dont recall any suggestion from elsewhere that that happened Were there perhaps 54 guns east of the Brussels road  Adkin p 296 has forty two 6lb eighteen 12lb cannon and six 6in and fourteen 55in howitzers  eighty pieces of ordnance in total from 10 artillery companies of 8 pieces each  This is for the period 100 to 130 pm6th Foot Artillery 9th 10th 11th 19th and 20th companies8th                4th company2nd                7th companyMarines of the Guard Foot Artillery 2 companies undifferentiatedOld Guard Foot Artillery 6th company Thanks  and those figures are consistent with what I know of French artillery organisation ie each 8gun foot artillery company had 6 guns and two howitzers Your source shows 20 howitzers in total which says they had the howitzers of 10 companies hence 80 guns  so it ties in The eighteen 12pounders would be the guns of three companies and the six 6in howitzers would have been theirsI wonder if someone miscounted by adding up just the guns and forgot to include the howitzers That would get you close to 54 guns Or perhaps 54 guns is what they had left after the Union Brigade got done with them  I vote we change it At present the article implies that there was a 54gun battery which covered the entire length of Wellingtons position and that this dilution of fire accounted for its relative ineffectiveness  By all means change it  FormatIn my internet explorer is the formating of the page rather strange The text begins very late almost beneath the infobox Can this be changed so that the article looks better  0136 CEST 6 September 2007  Preceding WikipediaSignaturesuns

