Strelets Forum

Welcome to the Strelets Forum.
Please feel free to discuss any aspect of 1/72 scale plastic figures, not simply Strelets.
If you have any questions about our products then we will answer them here.

Strelets Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Comming back to Hanks first question

Hi guys,

Hank asked why we have these few numbers of British casualties in the war. It is true, we know a lot from the British side because this is the language we all understand and which is easy to find.

I have some books from the 19th century translated into German from the French and Russian few. There is a total different history. Usually the Russians mention the French as their primary enemy. If I see the numbers of troops involved this is true. Balaklava was just a charge of two cavalry brigades, nothing more. At the Alma we dozens of books how the British won the battle. But in reality the French turned the Russian flank and the Russians shifted troops to their left which made it easier for the British to attack frontally. The French lost nearly 1500 men at the Alma. In British sources they are joking about this number.

The battle of the Tschernaja is only mentioned in British sources with the important addition that some British hussars were there. But this battle was much harder as for example Balaklava.

All the Turkish losses are not just from disease, all nations suffered heavily from it. The Sardinians for example lost around 50 dead at the Tschernaja and 12 more at the last attack on Sebastopol. The rest died of sickness.

But the Turks fought the whole years of 1853 to 1855 at the Danube, defended Kars and not to forget the campaign around Kars with several battles.

Because of this I am really with Hank that the Turkish troops are very important for this war.

And of course Russian Caucasus troops, which we can not only use for the Crimea but fighting some moslem tribes in the area too.

Ok, a long speech but I am just in the mood of writing

cheers
uwe

Re: Comming back to Hanks first question

Absolutely right Uwe. Since most of us dont speak Russian we dont get much of the Russian point of view, and the English coverage is perhaps naturally biased towards the British.

Re: Re: Comming back to Hanks first question

Hi Jon,

do you know this link?

http://home.comcast.net/~markconrad/

Read the text about the Russian Hussars in the Crimea. A long text, about 40 pages long like a regimental history and you will see the thin red line from a total different point of few...

cheers
Uwe

Re: Re: Re: Comming back to Hanks first question

great link
cheers old john

Re: Russian CW Army/conversions continued

hi hank
for more ideas for crimean conversions from the days when only Airfix did 20mm figs see if you can find copies of their magazine april, may, june , 1967 using the following sets, Guards bandsmen, u.s.cavalry,ACW artillery, confederate infantry, arabs, and WW1 germans.
cheers old john

Fraternization in the Crimean War , a major cover up.

Those articles are very interesting.I wonder if the real reason for the so called repulse of the Russian Cavalry, was it was the result of a mark of repect to the Highlanders.

Did the Hussars deliberatley run into the pack as a gentlemanly act ? very Possible.

By that i mean /interpret, That Cavalry Regiments in those days as field training did the full on charges/ dashes at in front of the generals (and their goofd ladies in the grandstand etc )and peeled away at the last moment......possible

This may have been an embarrassment to both sides hierarchy and politically altered. The massive shout "Ura" with no connection/smack of contact rings tones that this was a mark of respect.

(Similar with the Zulu's at rourkes drift ,it sone of wars unexplainable actions that just happen).
The Scots didnt break their line. The kilted Scots were part of the Guards Division.

So who knows.in teh charge of the Light Brigade one man led and others followed. Maybe a mounted Hussar Officer wanted to save this fine regiment from ungentlemanly decimation by the massed cavalry and headed off the other regiments. I suspect so.What do yuo think.

SUCH ACTIONS HAVE HAPPENED IN EVERY CONFLICt.And i hope that continuesas it is a humanitarian thing/decision in the thickest fog of war where reason sees no bound.

the exact link for the above mentioned article is

http://home.comcast.net/~markconrad/Kozhukhov2.htm
---
Hi John et al, Yes I recall looking over my older brothers shoulder when he sat down with each issue with a modelling knife and stinky humbrol uncontrollable glue. Similar techniques prevail today and teh glue has got better. I never seemed to surpass my brothers ability(he's stil a smart ass to this day chuckle)

Re: Fraternization in the Crimean War , a major cover up.

Hi Hank,

the Russians sent two squadrons forward to take a look what was going on. They couldn't have seen the Highlanders behind a ridge.

Then this two squadrons (ca.250 men) came close to the Highlanders (550 men), recovalescense from Balaklava hospital (150 men) with the Turks (800 men) on their flanks.

The "Scotts" gave two volleys, the Russians were not so stupid to charge, lost less than 10 men and retired.

This is the famous thin red line. Turks "forgotten" - no they run away! And the Russian cavalry, huge numbers of them attacking the lost British unit which hold itself in a storm of Russian cavalry.


Sorry for being such sarcastic, but I want to show how we have to treat history. There are always three truthes - yours, theirs and what really happened.

cheers
uwe

Re: Re: Fraternization in the Crimean War , a major cover up.

hi Uwe,I'm stirring up the pot again ,chuckle. The open debate saga continues.... Yes the the Hussars recce was successful and returned.Seeing only 500-600 in 2 rank open order stood in the way of a cavalry brigade. What a precious moment to be holding a sabre, eagerly looking for Glory. An excited steed, explosions sporadic whinning of expended rounds,an uphill advantage and a virtual rout in suit. With only the fleeing Turks and Sebastopol behind the Scots and Royal Marines...

As a Russian Commander It would have been a glorious moment to decide whether to go back over the ridge and take the masse with him.Leaving the already confused fogged melee going on nearby.(Nothing a few despatch riders couldnt sort out and over extend the Allied gaps with a simple communique).

In hindsight,Maybe the swift French infantry were contouring/moving quickly to support the British worried the Russian cavalry commander. Something prevented a golden opportunity from happening here.

Was it worth the sacrafice dash and panache ?.Had the Russian Hussars had Dragoons not cuirassieurs with them perhaps they would have charged, they could have consolidated better on the reform dismounting and holding newly won ground....cutting offth e Aliied retreat.

Also With two volleys already fired/expended , the Scots had used up a fair percentage of their allocated issued ammunition.Specially on an uphill march equipment would be quietly tossed.Or ahem left for later etc...

To be fair to the Turks in this period they did generally very well under their own command against the Russians. Yes Britain had military advisers with them but so did the French.

Which also leads to the Allied mismanagement of the Turks.Soon the Turks exceeded themselves in the subcontinet when replacing their military advisory with Prussian ones. Now throw the dice again...

War run by amateurs

Lets not forget that many officers at this time were men from the aristocracy who saw the army as a good career, but would think twice about actually taking any gambles for glory - that might get you killed or even spoil the uniform. Having effected a sort of charge the commander may feel that was sufficient and retired before anyone (i.e. him) got hurt. This applies to ALL armies then. For every brave and dedicated officer there was one who just happened to be the second son and second sons went into the army, like it or not.

Re: Re: Re: Fraternization in the Crimean War , a major cover up.

Hi Hank,

interesting statement. The only fault is, that there was no Russian cavalry brigade. It was only this single regiment of Hussars with some Cossacks at this moment

cheers
Uwe

pst...Look behind the Hussars ...

That was 19 Russian Cavalry squadrons closing in support of the Hussar screen coming along the Causeway heights.Touchez mon ami.Hank

Re: pst...Look behind the Hussars ...

He,he - it seems a quiet interesting subject:-)

This 19 squadrons had another problem in the British heavy brigade to deal with. No time for the infantry.

cheers
Uwe

Re: Re: pst...Look behind the Hussars ...

Over the years the British have downplayed the role of the French in the Crimea, but I feel that some of the posts have gone to far in the other direction and downplayed the role of the British. The British took a lesser role in the Crimean theatre in the later stages of the war due losses from disease in the winter of 1854-55. They did not have enough trained men to reinforce their army and were forced to take a secondary role to the French for the remainder of the conflict. At Balaclava the 93rd Highlanders were charged by around 400 Russian cavalry. The Highlanders fired a first volley at 600 yards, which had little effect and a second at 150 yards which caused the Russians to withdrew. The Highlanders were isolated from the rest of the British force and that is why there actions were noted. Of course we all know that the end of the war came about as result of the British bombardment of the Russian dockyards at Sweaborg, and the threat of action against St Petersburg as a result!

Re: Re: Re: pst...Look behind the Hussars ...

Hi Hamish,

what we wanted to show is that most history is written from a personal point of few. We have this few in every nations history. For example our 6th army was surronded in Stalingrad, because the Russians broke through the Roumanian lines (Sorry Radu). Germans would have beaten the attack off

Don't forget that not only the British navy was in
the Northern sea! The French had a lot of troops there too.

The French stormed the Malakov while the British were repulsed at the Redan.

I just want to say, I want to take history serios and not only belief one source. And I hope for good translations of other countries campaign reports.

The most important for me would be a Spanish account for the Peninsular war or a Turkish one for the Crimean war. Does anybody know some books of this sort?

cheers
Uwe

Re: Re: Re: Re: pst...Look behind the Hussars ...

I agree Uwe. The Crimea involved a coalition of forces, none of which can take all the credit for victory. I agree that all sources should be studied to provide a balanced picture of History. Waterloo is a battle for which the British took all the credit for many years and it is only recently that it has been acknowledged as an allied victory.

Stalingrad - excellent example for different views on history

It is a fact that 6th army was surrounded due to breaking the romanian front, after the biggest soviet artillery barrage the eastern front had yet seen and a most powerful armoured attack. However, before the attack, the romanian high command had repeatedly appealed to OKW & OKH, informing about the soviet amoured build-up and the inadequacies of the romanian anti-tank defenses, but the measures taken were too little, too late (a strategic reserve of 1 german & 1 romanian armoured divisions). During and after the soviet attack, so many romanian soldiers died where they stood, after T-34s & KV-1s speeded through their lines, attacking in depth and leaving the following infantry to round-up the survivors. Few surrounded pockets of resistance could not change anything, and the consequent rout of the rest of the army found no help in german motorized columns, who instead of taking out as many romanians as they could, to have them fight another day, chose to flee alone. An action for which I found only praise in all sources - Mannstein's memories included, was the self-sacrificial attack of the 1st romanian armoured division, charging in their obsolete Pz-38(t) modern soviet armour, being completely wiped out as a result. For romanians, Stalingrad was no less a catstophy, than for the germans. The result of Stalingrad: commitment of the romanian army to the "crusade against bolshevism" and the trust in the german commitment to the alliance began to fade.

So, my point is that similar to quarrels between individuals, views on history need both sides to be listened to. The truth is always in the middle, and you can't hope for an objective view, without considering all sides. Since I brought him up, Mannstein was undoubtedly one of the best german generals, if not the best. But reading his memories is a bit annoying, view shared by many millitary historians. You get the feeling of reading the memories of the God of War reincarnated, who never could have made any mistake.
However, in his analyzis of the romanian troops, he is sharper and more objective than any romanian source. His critique of the romanian officer corps holds more truth and is deeper than any comunist historian's attack on the officer class he hated ideologically.

Re: Stalingrad - excellent example for different views on history

I knew you would give me such a kind of answer

cheers
Uwe