Slitherine

Hy,

The usual rule for a division is : at least 3 units , one max being artillery .

For the russian 1812 INF division it is specified : All infantry and mixed divisions MUST contain a minimum of 3 infantry units, and 1 artillery unit .

Does that imply that you could have 2 art units in an inf division ? my first answer would be no as it is not clearlt stated you may have more than one div ...but who ever knows . Russian had a lot of guns . I did not gotrough all the lists to check if someone may have more than 1 ART per DIV .

And I suppose that ART attachement that may go to INF divisions may not go to mixed divisions ..

Does that imply that you could have 2 art units in an inf division ? my first answer would be no as it is not clearlt stated you may have more than one div ...but who ever knows . Russian had a lot of guns . I did not gotrough all the lists to check if someone may have more than 1 ART per DIV .

It does not mean that you can have 2 artillery units in a division.
It does mean that you can have 6 (or more) bases of artillery in a division.

I also suspect that the 1 per unit for attachments should also be the same in a mixed division.

terrys wrote:I also suspect that the 1 per unit for attachments should also be the same in a mixed division.

You might want to make it one per infantry or artillery unit in a mixed or infantry division, rather than 1 per unit.

Andy D

it does mean that you can have 6 (or more) bases of artillery in a division.

?? to have 6 bases you need at least 2 art units ..

And for mixed divisions with art attachment, could we have a ruling ...it might change everything for some lists .

Now I do nt see why in 1812 there would be a prohibition against art attachment in mixed divisions ...

1 large unit (3bases) plus 3(or more) artillery attachments equals 6(or more) bases.

Andy D

As you may only have ONE art attachmentper division ( is mixed div a INF division ... ) still missing 2 bases ...

Are there not exceptions stating the Russian infantry units may each have an artillery attachment?

NO

Page 42 of ToN:

Artillery Attachments: Up to 1 per unit in an infantry division.

Does this not mean each infantry unit in an infantry division can have an artillery attachment?

ONE is one base not two ...

And what about mixed divisions . there is no rationale why not those divisions having ART attachments

je sais pas...don't know. Perhaps panda2 could help clarify; I seem to have lost understanding of just what the question is. Apologies.

I think on the question of artillery bases there seems to have been some missunderstood communications. For an infantry division there is no problem fielding 6 or more bases in a division. However, in a mixed division that is not currently the case.

As the 1812 list currently stands you cannot add artillery attachments to mixed divisions. It has been suggested that there is no historical justification for this and I agree (for what thats worth!). A mixed division in a Russian Infantry Corps in 1812 would just be an infantry division with with a cavalry brigade added. It should have the same amount of artillery as a infantry division IMO.

Terry has indicated that this is probably a mistake and that the same provisions should apply to mixed division as an infantry division. I have suggested he looks at any changes in the wording carefully. Although I didn't spell it out in my post (I assume Terry will understand) there is a risk that just extending the same wording to mixed divisions will allow attachments to be made to all the cavalry units in the division (for which there is also no historical justication). I have no doubt in my own mind that Terry and Mike will change the wording in a further Errata on ToN. However, given Mike's other commitments and Terry being unavailable until after Britcon I doubt this will occur quickly.

Andy D

I have no doubt in my own mind that Terry and Mike will change the wording in a further Errata on ToN. However, given Mike's other commitments and Terry being unavailable until after Britcon I doubt this will occur quickly.

It certainly won't happen before Britcon - since we have some lists already in.

I understand Andy's point about mixed divisions and 1 per unit. It may be easier to just limit both infantry and mixed divisions to a maimum number of artillery bases.

panda2 wrote: It has been suggested that there is no historical justification for this and I agree (for what thats worth!). A mixed division in a Russian Infantry Corps in 1812 would just be an infantry division with with a cavalry brigade added. It should have the same amount of artillery as a infantry division IMO.

Well where in 1812 do you even get historical justification for mixed division? In the 1807 Russians I can see it. But in the 1812 campaign they didn't really have mixed divisions. Full stop.

hazelbark wrote:Well where in 1812 do you even get historical justification for mixed division?

I'll admit it wasn't necessarily common, but if you check Nafziger's orbat for the battle of Gorodetchna (link here http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/CARL/n ... 812HBJ.pdf ), you'll see that the Russian 18th and 9th Infantry Divisions all have a cavalry brigade or part brigade attached.

Andy D

Well where in 1812 do you even get historical justification for mixed division? In the 1807 Russians I can see it. But in the 1812 campaign they didn't really have mixed divisions. Full stop.

Guard V corps : Guard Division + Cuirassier division

I will admitt it was the only one

But god , the INF divisions had a LOT of artilery, most heavy and they had a artillery reserve corps under Kutaisov .

I do recall reading way back when that to Russians, artillery was the God of War, any rules that don't give them masses of guns just wouldn't seem right. That philosophy would explain the abundance of guns in the Russian army. Kind of like Indian armies in the previous century, those who had more guns should win, or so they believed and they had lots of guns, just not so sure their gunners were all that good.
I haven't looked very much at any non Austrian lists so far, but sounds like they got Russia and its love of guns down correctly.

deadtorius wrote:I do recall reading way back when that to Russians, artillery was the God of War,

they get a battery plus every infantry unit gets an attachement. I understand in the 1805 list they get two batteries per division !

Artillery was the elite of the army .

From 1805 all batteries were at 12 gun strenght ( 8 x12 pdrs + 4 howitzers or 8 x 6 pdrs + 4 howitzers same caliber as for the position artillery )

in 1812 the standard was for every division : 1 posisition battery + 2 "light" batteries or 24 guns + 12 howitzers ( licorne ) .

At borodino they had a lot of artillery reserves ( 2 divisions, one for the 1st army of the West, one for the second army of the West , or in total : 9 position batteries, 9 light batteries and 5 horse batteries , part of it being given to some divisions , a smaller part being held in reserve ) .


And by the way I founs some other mixed divisions but at Borodino, they detached the cavalry to cavalry corps . But the 3rd army of the west under Tormassov had mixed divisions but lacked cavalry corps, same for the army of Moldavia. It seems that after borodino, most divisions would be pure infantry or pure cavalry at least for the 1st and 2nd army of the West , but not before borodino .

Considering that after Borodino many of the present regiments were below battalion strength, its not surprising that they had to have specialized divisions, they had a lot of rebuilding to do. And from what I have read it was the infamous Russian winter that won the war of 1812, not so much the Russian army, but they did do their share in destroying the Grand Armee thats for sure.