Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Longwoods 'tactical' event

Expand Messages
  • Dale Kidd
    I stand corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment. I m not too sure how well we could do a Waterloo simulation... we re usually short of the complements we need
    Message 1 of 3 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I stand corrected. Thanks for the enlightenment.

      I'm not too sure how well we could do a Waterloo simulation... we're
      usually short of the complements we need to even do the actual
      Battle of Longwoods justice! Instead of a tactical simulation, I'm
      afraid we'd probably just end up looking pathetic. Perhaps a flat-
      out tactical skirmish would be more adviseable - something with
      judges, like the tactical at Baccus Mills last year. Start off the
      season with some fun.

      ~Dale

      --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Dickerson" <mdickerson1@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Longwoods was indeed a historical battle. It was fought on
      March 4th,
      > 1814 along the Longwoods Road (#2 highway) near Wardsville.
      > Perhaps not of the magnitiude of Lundy's Lane, but no less
      ferocious for
      > the men who were there. The casualty rate at Lundy's Lane was
      approximately
      > 29%. At Longwoods, there were 67 casualties out of 236 regulars,
      militia
      > and natives (28%).
      > It was worse for the regulars. 58 casualites out of 150 which is
      39%!
      > I admit that the Longwoods re-enactment is not held on the
      correct week
      > end and not on original land. However, I doubt few others would
      join us in
      > March, and the original property is private farm land.
      > The Sunday re-enactment is not just a 'tactical'. We try to
      copy the
      > battle within limitations which means allowing people to
      participate who
      > were never at Longwoods (navy and artillery). The Saturday battle
      is a
      > 'tactical demonstration', not representing any particular battle.
      But we
      > were toying with the idea of Waterloo.........
      >
      > Mark Dickerson
      >
      > PS: At Juno beach on D-Day 21,400 men landed, there were 1,200
      > casualties. (5%)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > Hmmm.... Longwoods is a "tactical" event, is it not? Not
      specifically
      > > modelled on a historic battle?
      >
    • Kevin Windsor
      Actually the casualty rate is lower than that for the British. It was only 24%. (876 out of 3640) The brunt of the casualties being from the 41st Reg t (62%)
      Message 2 of 3 , May 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Actually the casualty rate is lower than that for the British. It was only
        24%. (876 out of 3640)
        The brunt of the casualties being from the 41st Reg't (62%) and the 89th
        Reg't (60%) The Scots suffered 30%, but I suspect that the 3 companies
        under Morrison suffered more casualties then the 7 companies under Gordon.
        I wish there was a break down between Brigades.

        Kevin
        89th Reg't

        -----Original Message-----


        Longwoods was indeed a historical battle. It was fought on March 4th,
        1814 along the Longwoods Road (#2 highway) near Wardsville.
        Perhaps not of the magnitiude of Lundy's Lane, but no less ferocious for

        the men who were there. The casualty rate at Lundy's Lane was approximately

        29%. At Longwoods, there were 67 casualties out of 236 regulars, militia
        and natives (28%).
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.