are the british head-hurlers real units?

[adg]

i know that the britains did throw heads at their enemies but did they actually have a unit specialising in this?

Thanks

[SpencerH]

No.

[Ginger]

In my head the barbarians wouldnt have had such regimented, standardised armies.

I think of the warlords elite troops concentrated in sections of the barbarian line, and while the rest of the army may be armed with similar weapons armour would vary from tribe to tribe. Breaking from the ranks as the armies engage would come individuals or small groups of frenzied warriors- call them berserkers, woad warriors or head hurlers.

I dont see them as formalised units- more young men bent on glory, taking massive risks and seeking recognition.

Im not maning that the armies wouldnt have tactical subtlety, more that the apearance of the army would reflect a multitude of tribes and families called together to fight.

[Kraxis]

Since hardly a barbarian unit existed you can bet that the head hurlers didn't exist. But I'm pretty certain that the Britons did throw severed heads at their enemies now and then, basically every culture did that (though mostly in sieges).

[Byzantine Prince]

I'm hoping that CA will fix this in the expansion. They should make the barbarian units mingle and attack as masses.

[The Stranger]

yeah, but putting them in horde formations make it look a bit better already, but i'd like to see that a unit used axes, swords and spears al together

[Arrowhead]

That would be unstoppable. The staying power of spears, the attack of axes and the agility of the swords? Whoa!

[Arrowhead]

You could stop a charge and then butcher your way through.

[Ginger]

EDIT Damn double post EDIT

[Ginger]

That would be unstoppable. The staying power of spears, the attack of axes and the agility of the swords? Whoa!

But little cohesion, meaning that a solid shield wall would probably take them apart.

Even massive barbarian numbers didnt always work against roman armies, for example Caeser vs the Helvetii where the roman forces were significantly outnumberered (10:1 *IF* you believe Caeser) but still slaughtered the Helvetii.

[Red Harvest]

Always be wary of the claims of the victors when it comes to the number of enemy they faced. Things are often magnified several fold. If you read through American Civil War After Action Reports from both sides it can be very enlightening as to how numbers get abused... Downplay the number of your own engaged, make wild guesses about the number of enemy you faced.

[Procrustes]

Always be wary of the claims of the victors when it comes to the number of enemy they faced. Things are often magnified several fold. If you read through American Civil War After Action Reports from both sides it can be very enlightening as to how numbers get abused... Downplay the number of your own engaged, make wild guesses about the number of enemy you faced.

McClellan was notorious for it - guy was always seeing visions of hordes of rebs.

[Kraxis]

Ah yes but Red meant smaller scale fighting (right?).

The same is true for WWII, the Germans often scaled the Russian forces up, the Russians did it even more. Not even the Brits and Americans were free of this to any significant degree. For instance the German counteroffensive in the direction of Mortain had 118 tanks. Flyer killclaims alone lay at 128 tanks, and another 80 were supposedly killed by antitank crews and yet some 50 by tanks and tankdestroyers. So the German 118 tanks got killed on average 2 times and then some. If we take out the 60 or so suvivors then every killed German tank got killed 4 times and a bit.

Even today we can't escape it, but now the wild claims has decreased to something like merely overestimations.

[Ginger]

The battle of britain was another great example of this. IIRC the Brits reckoned on a total german loss of 2300 planes as opposed to real losses of 900 planes.

At one point I think the Germans were surprised when they met resistance as according to the Luftwaffe figues all the UK fighters should have been shot down!

[Wishazu]

alot of that innacuracy can be put down to 2 pilots claiming the same kill. especially if they dont realise theyve both "killed" the same guy.

[Kraxis]

Actually the real airkills of German tanks at Mortain is around 6. Thus the increadible claims of 128 makes me believe the Jabos made a lot of such wild claims.
The Germans on the other hand have not minded this as it gave them 'an easy way out' when confronted with the failure of their armour. 'The Jabos kept killing us'... Well they seemingly didn't that much.

[Ginger]

I reckon that the real success of the jabos, particularly in Normandy, was in forcing armoured units to go go to ground every time they appeared restricting their ability to redeploy successfully.

The suppression effect was probably much increased after Rommel got shot- troops would be far more afraid of jabos if their revered commader was almost killed by one!

[Kraxis]

Indeed... The pictures of the time had the German crews in the collumns staring at the skies looking for planes. Little wonder really.

It is not that I don't think the jabos had an effect, they certainly had one as they could easily kill a tank if they hit it, but it has become a very comfortable excuse.
The supression effect would have been the most marked one, the kills themselves would have been ralatively low and most ly restricted to roads and railways where the tanks would have little room if at all to maneuver.

Anyway, the thread was not about the effectiveness of fighter-bombers in WWII.

[Red Harvest]

Ah yes but Red meant smaller scale fighting (right?).

Mostly. I've typically looked though regimental, brigade, and division reports...although sometimes higher, but most of those were for smaller actions.