EXERT FROM APPENDIX 1 from Don Featherstone's Battles With Model Soldiers
(The book that got me started.)

"Nothing in these pages is a dictate, no word says you must or you shall do it this way. On the contrary, the book sets out from the very beginning to stimulate the reader to think for himself, and to use what he has read merely as a foundation for efforts and ideas which reflect his own temperament and character. Only in this way will he obtain maximum satisfaction from the hobby of battling with model soldiers."

-Don Featherstone 1918 - 2013

Saturday, October 4, 2014

How conventional.

Cavalry charging machine guns.

Oh well at least both sides can now field  small but balanced forces for France 1914.



I had squashed my initial urge to repaint a squadron  of Larsen's Lancers for 1914 as the Indian cavalry in France seem to have worn European style tunics rather than khurtas. However, after some reflection,  I decided that since I don't intend to field 10 man cavalry regiments going forward, drab, late 19thC lancers would be useful in their own right, the minor uniform discrepancies wouldn't actually bother me, one of my goals is flexibility with restraint on shelf space, and one  goal was to give the sense or feel of an army composed of figures bought off the shelf in a store long ago,  it made sense to do a quick repaint of 4 figures letting me get a game in sooner and maximizing usage of existing figures. So I did.

I'm still considering the MG question.

One aspect has softened, The initial idea of fielding 1 per battalion for the British and units of 2 per regiment for the Germans or at least 8 didn't feel as attractive when I decided to scratchbuild rather than buy them but with 3 done I'm more sanguine that in the long term I can add as many as I need.

Another aspect that I'm still studying is that the larger MG units seem to be subject to some sort of diminishing returns effect. In other words, while more MGs mean more bullets and can wipe out a formation caught in the open, and a unit of 6 mgs can cover more ground than a pair, it seems like one well sited MG can have 90% of the desired  effect of halting or repelling an attack.

It also appears that 1 or 2 mg from an mg unit could be attached to an infantry unit when the situation called for it so paper orgs don't always tell the whole story. Since large, separate MG formations became more common during the war  it seems they did fill a purpose but one must also remember the quick appearance of light machine guns in the infantry units taking over some  of the work.

At this point my approach will be to field MG units on both sides in proportion but to allow them to stack with or be attached to infantry or other MG units without becoming a dense target and allowing both units to shoot unlike having 2 infantry companies joined where they are a dense target and only 1 can shoot.

Ok, time to set the table.


posted from Bloggeroid

4 comments:

  1. If you would have mounted them on toy tigers you could have had Bengal Lancers...

    ***rimshot***

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then I could've made a movie called The Nine Lives of s Bengal Lancer?

      Delete
    2. Touchè my good man, touchè!

      Delete
  2. I would go down the lower MG numbers - too many would just bog the cavalry down and they look so splendid we could not have that.

    ReplyDelete