are the british head-hurlers real units?

**The Stranger** · 03-17-2005, 17:26

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** · 03-17-2005, 18:08

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

**Arrowhead** · 03-17-2005, 18:09

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

**Ginger** · 03-17-2005, 18:17

EDIT Damn double post EDIT

**Ginger** · 03-17-2005, 18:18

Originally Posted by Arrowhead

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** · 03-17-2005, 18:28

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** · 03-17-2005, 18:32

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**Kraxis** · 03-17-2005, 18:45

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** · 03-17-2005, 20:25

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!

**Red Harvest** · 03-18-2005, 00:05

Originally Posted by Kraxis

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.