04 May 2021

Austrian SYW Artillery

With this article, I will present the Seven Years’ War periods most celebrated artillery. The new fine ordnance fielded by the troops of her majesty, the Empress-Queen of Austria. It was universally regarded as the most modern artillery system of this period until the introduction of the Gribeauval ordnance in France during the 1770’s. It should be noted that the Liechtenstein M1753 ordnance served as the template for Gribeauval’s system, for he had been part of the team modernizing the Austrian artillery during his service in the Austrian artillery before and during the SYW.
Now, the Austrian guns are truly missing among the articles on this subject in my Blog. Its about time I set myself to work. Vivat Maria Theresia!

A few important remarks in advance:
Only now I am able to do it after having been forwarded a rare contemporary manuscript found in the Austrian Kriegsarchiv. No one ever seems to have taken a closer look at it. Very surprizing. Possibly, the manuscript was burried in the archive and became available for academic research only a few years ago?!? I am most thankful to Pavel Jurik from Czechia who forwarded it to me. He is himself on the point of publishing a book on the archievments of prince Wenzel von Liechtenstein later this year.
This rare manuscript is authored by a certain Frantz von Rubli, Imp. & Rl. Artillerie Zeug-Lieutenant and is dated 19 October 1753. Find the full citation on my first sheet presenting the 3-pdr field gun barrel construction.

Rubli presents the entire range of the new reduced metal strength cannon, along with its associated carriages, plus his best recommendation on the iron fittings for the carriages "as they should be made", Rubli writes in his manuscripts title page. Awesome material.

Franz von Rubli manuscript 1753
with kind permission from Pavel Jurik, Czechia.
source: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv / Dept. Kriegsarchiv, Vienna /Austria
Missing is only the heavy battery 12-pdr quarter-cannon along with the howitzers—unfortunately. But for a compensation he also presents a light wrought-iron 3-pdr "quick-fire" gun of the sort the Saxons fielded during this period. I have never seen this before. Nor was I aware this type of gun was ever fielded by the Austrians. Under the direction of Feld-Maréchal Wenzel von Liechtenstein—1744 appointed General Director of the Ordnance—Rubli is confirmed being part of the team selected to modernize the Austrian artillery. This makes it a most valuable and reliable primary source. I can also draw from another primary source found in the Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttart / Germany, as part of the so called Sammlung Nicolai (Nicolai Collection). According to Daniel Hohrath, curator of the Bavarian Army Museum, to his knowledge, this material has also never been used for academic research as well. It has several sheets with detailed tables and some drafts of the new Austrian ordnance presented in Vienna 15 April 1750—as per their caption. Both sources make a perfect match as they agree in so many details. I cannot think of a better starting point to present the original M1753 range of guns.

That being said, it is important to be aware that all nowadays available literature on the subject I know of entirely fail to do so, as they are drawing from source that really presents the Austrian ordnance at around 1774—including images of the guns. Much has changed within those two decades. The material had undergone a remastering after the SYW and the range of the so entitled "Light Battery Guns" had been removed from service in the meantime and are not seen on any tables listing the Austrian range of guns fielded during the SYW. Very missleading. The tables found present "short" and "long" 12-, 18-, and 24-pdr battery guns instead. Their entitlement identifies them as post SYW range, for the M1753 range seperated between "light" and "heavy" battery guns only.
After the SYW, a "medium" range of battery guns was added. The denomination "medium" only makes sense if you had "light" and "heavy" already in place. Now, after the removal of the "light" battery gun range the entitlement "medium" & "heavy" obviously looses its purpose, hence, the entitlement "short" (read formaly medium) and "long" (read formaly heavy) was adopted for an identification.
With this article I will successively present the initial M1753 Lichtenstein Ordnance. It is the range of guns that saw service during the SYW. Lets start with the 3-pdr Regiments-Stück. Here it comes:

A note on the caliber dimensions I am using, as they will deviate somewhat with figures found elsewhere. Thats because the Austrians redefined their calibers during the 1770’s and it is moreoften those redifined figures that are presented elsewhere. I wanted to arrive as close as possible to the true Liechtenstein system figures. As a result, I calculate all anew.

Liechtenstein’s constructors where working with the old accepted Nuremberg caliber dimensions, widly in use within the Holy Roman Empire then. Liechtenstein’s team felt compelled to stay with them in order to remain compatible with the ordnance fielded by the many Reichsarmee contingents at that time, as it is quoted from Rubli’s writings in an article on the true ‘Old-German’ Nuremberg artillery caliber system (Oestereichische militärische Zeitschrift, edition 1826, vol 2). Hence, the basic caliber for computing the diameter of all pieces was the diameter of 1 Pfund iron shot for cannons or stone for mortars and howitzers of the Nuremberg Artillerie-Fuss (29.3 cm) expressed in Vienna Zoll.
My employed figures are based on the fixation by the Slovenian 1754 born baron Jurij Vega (in Austrian service known as Gerog von Vega). An Austrian artillery officer & a reknown mathematician. From 1780 on, he was appointed director of the Mathematics Department of the Vienna Artillery School. His fixation—apparently dating well after 1780—being 1 Nuremberg Pfund iron shot has a diameter of Nuremberg 2.04 Zoll or Vienna 1.89
Zoll. Some embarassment is caused here because the Vienna foot scale received a universal fixation for the Habsburg Empire only with the patent of 1756. A gut feeling tells me Liechtenstein’s 1745 team started off with neat Nuremberg 2 Zoll iron—since 1 Nuremberg Pfund stone was neat 3 Zoll, but I dare not mess with this famous lector’s figures. A resulting minor deviation to the true Liechtenstein figures should not corrupt my display of the original 1753 introduced new guns.

Tabella denen metallenen Stücken an beigesetzten Gattungen so den 15ten Aprilis 1750 verfertigt worden in Wien [sic.]
Württembergische Landesbibliothek Stuttgart / Nicolai Collection).

The 15 April 1750 presented and approved range of the new bronze cannon:
a so entitled range of Field Guns:
– 3-pdr field gun, 16 calibers,
a reduced metal strength Regiments-Stück
– 6-pdr field gun, 16 calibers,
a reduced metal strength 1/8 cannon
– 12-pdr field gun, 16 calibers,
a reduced metal strength quarter-cannon
a range of so entitled Light Battery Guns:
– 12-pdr light battery gun, 18 calibers,
a reduced metal strength quarter-cannon
– 24-pdr light battery gun, 18 calibers,
a reduced metal strength half-cannon
a range of so entitled Heavy Battery Guns:
– 12-pdr heavy battery gun, 27 calibers, quarter-cannon
– 24-pdr heavy battery gun, 23 calibers, half-cannon
Note: there were no 18-pdr battery guns in this initial range. They had been added to the Liechtenstein system only after the SYW. All 18-pdrs fielded during the SYW as part of a siege train were of the old 1722 regulation ordnance. A gun entitled Notschlange (culverin) with a barrel of 29 calibers bore length. Much of this older ordnance would be found among the siege guns or in fortifications during the war, being replaced by the new heavy battery guns only in case of want. The letter pretty much remained unchanged dimension-wise and weight-wise, except for the barrels garnishing elements.
Also found with the 1750 tables from the Nicolai Collection is a 10-pdr battery howitzer, 5,375 calibers long, as well as a draft of the 7-pdr field howitzer (barrel & carriage), around 6 calibers long, that is not listed on the 1750 tables. It was apparently added only later—quite certainly before 1756. The March 1757 published Reglement für das Kaiserlich Königliche gesammte Feld-Artillerie-Corps includes it with its presentation of the fielded ordnance.
I will also illustrate the two non-regulation constructions which Rubli presents in addition to the new Liechtenstein ordnance. It’s a 2-pdr double-culverin, 30 calibers long, and this wrought-iron 3-pdr quick-fire gun that I mentioned afore.

Franz von Rubli manuscript 1753
with kind permission from Pavel Jurik, Czechia.

source: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv / Dept. Kriegsarchiv, Vienna /Austria

I believe these two pieces of the old range of guns were still in service. Why else would Rubli bother to present them?

The next piece is the new 6-pounder field gun:

I need to correct myself by saying this piece was initially not manhandled with the Avancier-Stange with my initial article. I did find the iron rings in the Rubli illustration as I took a closer look, hence, I would assume they were also found with the 7-pounder field howitzer.

 Below see the original Rubli sheet for the 6-pounder:

Franz von Rubli manuscript 1753
with kind permission from Pavel Jurik, Czechia.
source: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv / Dept. Kriegsarchiv, Vienna /Austria

Interesting with this illustration is Rubli’s presentation of the complete team of learned gunners serving the piece just as it is specified in the 1757 regulation. The gunner serving as gun commander is seen laying the piece. He held the rank of a Stück-Korporal. He was also the one in charge for placing the fuze into the touch hole. One gunner has its position at the trail employing the trail spike to assist in laying the piece. One gunner serving as firer, and on the most left we see the gunner with the sponge in charge for whiping and ramming the cartridge down the barrel. On his right is the gunner in charge for placing the cartidge into the muzzle, while the gunner in the background is the one in charge to supply new rounds from the ammunition box or the guns associated ammunition cart located in some distance to the rear of the gun. The team for all field guns was the same—i.e. the new 3-, 6-, & 12-pounders. Only the number of Handlangers changed in size. The 7-pounder field howitzer had a team of 6 Büchsenmeisters and 1 Jung-Feuerwerker (NCO rank).
The next piece to present is the 12–pdr Viertel Carthaune "Field Gun".


Below see Rubli’s original draft and illustration of the new 12-pdr field gun.

Franz von Rubli manuscript 1753
with kind permission from Pavel Jurik, Czechia.
source: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv / Dept. Kriegsarchiv, Vienna /Austria

Next comes the range of the so entitled "Light Battery Guns" with the Nicolai Collection tables. 


Franz von Rubli manuscript 1753
with kind permission from Pavel Jurik, Czechia.
source: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv / Dept. Kriegsarchiv, Vienna /Aust

The conflicting weight figures of my presented pieces with the figures found elsewhere initiated once more a closer investigation to the issue on my side. I believe, I could clearify the origin for the false weight and dimension figures found in other sources. The vicious trap was set by Liechtenstein’s constructor gang as they choosed to implement a dual weight unit system by adopting the Nuremberg unit along to the Vienna unit which the army was otherwise accustomed to work with.

The next piece is the 24-pounder Light Battery Gun.

Franz von Rubli manuscript 1753
with kind permission from Pavel Jurik, Czechia.
source: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv / Dept. Kriegsarchiv, Vienna /Austria

Franz von Rubli manuscript 1753
with kind permission from Pavel Jurik, Czechia.
source: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv / Dept. Kriegsarchiv, Vienna /Austria

With the below illustration I arranged all 5 so far presented pieces on one sheet for better display of the dimensions. 

This article is to be continued…

31 January 2019

British SYW Artillery

This is now the start of my earlier expressed intention to arrage a number of scale drawings illustrating British ordnance fielded during the War of Austrian Succession & Seven Years’ War period. I hope to manage presenting a number of pieces, by focusing on the heavier position guns that saw service in the WAS campaigns in Flandres & Germany, as well as with the British contingent of Prince Ferdinand of Brunswicks’ Allied Army in Germany 1758 through 1762.
The light 6 pounder battalion gun will likely to be the last piece to present, for many illustrations are available already & also many original and replique pieces exist to the present day. Hence, this one is well known.
Identifying the heavier position guns recommended for Field Service from the gentlemen of his British Majesties’ Royal Board Of Ordnance will be more of a challange.
John Armstrong, appointed Surveyor-General of the Ordnance (1722–1742) designed 3 ranges of ordnance during the 1730’s that were fixed in what I understand to be his 1736 Regulation. It should mark the starting point for all gun constructions up to 1762. Here, general Armstrong specified the basic construction principles for a Heavy, Medium, & Light range of guns. This 1736 Regulation by itself would already result in a wide range of different pieces. But even worse, it appears to have been employed as no more then a loose guide line, for I already found quite a few pieces that are clearly offside the 1736 Regulation figures when looking at the barrel weigths. A mass calculation of the sort John Muller provides in his “A Treatise of Artillery” on p. 49-50 of the 1768 edition has now become an important tool with my search to find the right constructions. Anyone who wants to try good fun mathematics for himself—watch out for the typo on page 50. A cubic foot of gun metal weighs 549 pounds, not 459! See page 3 in the same book. Took me a while, till I found the annoying error here.
My first arranged sheet illustrates the Armstrong 1736 Regulation heavy 12-pounder battery or battering gun

I continue to believe the cannon seen in David Morier’s painting can really be identified as an authentic piece from among the range of ordnance fielded during this period. 
By placing the Cannonier from the Morier painting next to my 12-pounder barrel, it is obviously too large a construction. The diameter of the base ring is certainly bigger than that of the cannon seen in Morier’s painting. Another heavy range 12-pounder construction—a barrel 7 foot 6 or 8 inch long—would arrive at about the same diameter. Somewhat slimmer was the 6 foot 7 inch Armstrong construction of his Medium range of ordnance. But this barrel would be too short. We clearly see a long barrel here. The only piece left would be the ‘Long 6’ with a barrel 8 foot long. Here it is. 
Now lets have a closer look. For a quick check, I needn't bother to draw its carriage. It already exists. John Muller provides the illustration, presenting it as the type of carriage that was in use by the time of his books 1st edition in 1757.

Now this seems to make a charming match. I believe the piece we see in Morier’s painting is with near certainty the 8 foot heavy 6-pounder. The Imperial & Allied Army’s Order of Battle for the year 1747 lists 26 3-pounders for 14 British battalions—possibly mounted on ‘Galloper’ carriages, 27 6-pounders of which a number must have been of the light 4.5 foot construction. John Muller mentions in his book that such a piece, employed at the battle of Laufeldt July 1747, was testet at Woolwich in the early 1750’s. The guns seen in the painting must be more then a dozen heavy pieces, but only 6 British 12-pounders were fielded that year. Hence, a many of the big guns we see here must have been ‘Long 6’ guns.
The piece also seems to have seen service in the Seven Years' War. With the commencement of the 1761 summer campaign, Prince Ferdinand's staff papers have a detailed record of the British artillery. Apart from the British line artillery brigades consisting of ‘Light’ 6 & 12-pounders along with some 5.5 inch howitzers, there had also been 3 heavy brigades of the artillery park. 8 ‘Heavy’ 12-pounders, 8 ‘Medium’ 12-pounders (the ones that were at Minden 1759 with a 7-horse draught), & 8 ‘Heavy’ 6-pounders. The ‘Medium’ 12 & ‘Heavy’ 6-pounders reinforced Granby's hard pressed division July 15-16 on the Dinker-Berg in the battle of Vellinghausen.
Earlier this summer I researched this battle in more detail together with Charles Grant, as he is writing on his next volume of his "Wargaming in History" series. We had a wonderful time here. Charles provided me with the following interesting bit. Its from Walter Evelyn Manners, "Some account of the military, political, and social life of the Right Hon. John Manners, marquis of Granby", 1899. Loosely quoting: The Scottish officer "Sir James Innes Norcliffe observed a ‘serjeant’ of Campell's Highlanders serving a ‘Long 6’ which the serjeant had carefully masked with boughs. The Highlander surveyed the effects of his excellent practice, ejaculating: Now a round !—Now a grape ! at intervals, as he varied his load." It must have been the severe cannonade in the early morning 16 July. Gun crew killed or disabled. The couragious Highlander served the piece instead. Sir James added that after the action he noticed grape-shot sticking in some of the dead Frenchmen like grains of Indian corn in the cob, and the round-shot had occasionally taken two or three of the enemy in a line. It is speculated if it was the Highlanders piece which wrought such havoc among the French [high] aristocracy, for 3 generals—all related—were killed with a single round very near Vellinghausen. That's where James Innes must have had its battle position as there used to be a ground feature on the slope of the Dinker-Berg facing towards Vellinghausen, that has been known among the locals as "Sir James Innes" since the days of the battle. Now it is gone. It was a fold in the ground with much the character of a sunken road. A natural trench much like the Bloody Lane at the Antiedam battle of the American Civil War.
Now back to the subject. There have been other 6-pounder constructions. The 1754 Regulation lists a 5 foot 1 inch piece—that’s only 7 inches or two shot diameters longer then the 4.5 foot Light 6-pounder battalilon gun. I wouldn’t entitle a 5 foot 1 barrel a ‘Long 6’, but I might be wrong here.
Since the death of John Armstrong 1742, and well into the 1750’s, the gentlemen in Woolwich tested a great number of various designs to find the best length & metal strength for its gun constructions. The 1754 Regulation shows the ones that seem to have been accepted for service in the field. The question remains: how many of the new pieces would have been cast to be fielded in the SYW? Possibly not all that many as milord Sackville had difficulties finding enough light guns with no more then a 6 horse draught earlier in 1759. Possibly those old 8 foot 6-pounders—tested in Flandres in the preceeding war—had to be fielded for lack of alternative in 1761. 

Below see my scale drawing of the "Long Six" along with all the essential data found to it.

I believe this is the very piece that is seen in the David Morier painting's right foreground. After doing this 6-pounder I decided to do the entire range of the M1736 heavy Armstrong pieces. Below see the heavy 3-pounder. 

Next comes the 24 pounder. 
Finally, the heavy 12 pounder. 
The afore 4 pieces had been the mainstay of the British artillery during the 1740's. (There is also mention of a heavy 9 pounder fielded in Flandres in 1747. I did not bother to do this piece. It was a 9 foot barrel, like the 12 pounder & apparently became obsolete by around 1750).  Only few new models started to arrive during this period. The new light 6 pounder by around 1745 with the War of the Highland Rebellion and a light & medium 12 pounder construction by the time of the Seven Years' War. I believe that is all there is.

The next piece I present here is the ‘medium’ 12-pounder—fielded from the mid 1750's on, no earlier to my understanding.
An original barrel—a cast of 1760—is on display in the US Watervliet Arsenal Museum, New York Sate. See images of this piece below.

British  Armstrong design ‘medium’ 12-pounder
image published here with kind permission of Bill Maloney http://www.williammaloney.com
The barrel's 1st reinforce has the Royal Arms of His Majesty
image published here with kind permission of Bill Maloney
The barrel's chase has the arms of John, 1st Earl Ligonier,
General-Master of the Ordnance 1759-1763
image published here with kind permission of Bill Maloney
Front view of the ‘medium’ 12-pounder
image published here with kind permission of Bill Maloney
Here is my draft of the piece along with all the data discussing its identification.


Finally, with the below 2 sheets, I present the two models of the Armstrong design ‘light’ range of ordnance fielded during the Seven Years' War in Germany—the light 6 also being fielded during the 1747-1748 campaigns in Flandres during the War of Austrian Succession. 


Below see the complete contemporary draft of the British light 6-pounder piece originating from the digital archive of the Germanisches National Museum, Germany, with its carriage including the lockers & its associated limber.


09 June 2018

Refighting the battle of Lauffeld, 2 July 1747 in Flandres

Enjoy some images of our groups recent refight of the battle of Lauffeld. A hard fought French victory in Flandres, summer 1747 during the War of Austrian Succession. A great game it was. Its main purpose - to me - was to set up a scenario that would field my entire French Army for a nice display on my tabletop. Lauffeld – the battle with the many names (spelling wise) – turned out to be just right. Researching the historic battle wasn't so easy in parts due to the different spelling in French, English, & German, as well as the fact that there seems not so much literature availabe nowadays. My special thanks go to Charles S Grant, who generously provided me with great detailed informations. His Vol.2 of his series "Wargaming in History", Ken Trotman Publ. 2010 should provide the best scenario information in English language. It is based for good part on the orbats provided with the German language I.&.R. Austro-Hungarian General Staff History of the WAS publ. in 9 vols before and after 1900. Vol 9, publ. 1914 – very rare – has all the campaigns in Flandres 1745-1748. No reprint availabe to me & no copy in google library. Its the best coverage of the battle I came across. Very detailed. Many thanks to a colleague contributer from Poland to the kronoskaf SYW-Project (http://kronoskaf.com/syw) who took the effort to scan the many pages of this book for me, found in the university library of Poznan, Poland.
The first images show the initial deployment of the two rather large Armies. You are looking into a Sea of Flags. 
Above see more of the entire table. Both armies are deployed as per the situation at around 08.00 in the morning.

Saxe & part of his escort seen here well ahead of the army reconnoitring the situation from the heights south of the burning village of Vlytingen. See below for the sketch of our scenario with both sides initial deployment & my orbats for both armies.

My sketch of the scenario is loosely based on the situation illustrated in one of the maps found in the Austrian General Staff book. 

As usual, I inserted my units into the Volley&Bayonet breakdown of the historic orbats. 85,000 French with 110 position guns versus 71,000 Allies with 70 heavy guns. This is the biggest scenario I ever fought with my miniatures! A near 2,000 were on the table. I loved it. My display rooster sheet layout truely arrives at its limit, I must say.
A number of Austrians were fielded by fellow gamer M***, while F*** provided a French artillery stand as well as a stand of the regiment Auverge with his 3-d miniatures (by Warlords foundry). See below:

The view accross the Allied starting position.
Detail of Wolffenbuttel's troops occupying the village of Groot Sprouwen.
Below see the burning village of Vlytingen now being abandoned by its garrison – the Kings Regt, representing the British Foot Guards in my scenario.
The French go into the attack. Below see elements of the French right wing under d'Éstrées' & Clermont-prince tasked to seize the villages of Lauffeld, Montenaken, & Wirlé.
The French centre is advancing to support the French right.

Intermingled with the dense masses of French troops note my newly painted French artillery draught horses, guns and wagons. I'm particulary fond of this 24-pdr barrel mounted on an extra carriage for the march. This beast is now nicknamed the "Ark of the Covenant" by my French troops.
Below see some more pics of my latest paint job.

Now back to the battle. Below see the Austrians under Daun on the far right of the Allied position.
The Allied centre.
Auvergene again.

Detail of the French capture of Lauffeld. This time it was Belsunce – or Monaco in 1747 – that kicked the Allies out. Montenaken and Lauffeld were atacked and captured each 3 times. The Allies managed to recapture it 3 times. A really hard fought affair it was.
Below see the regt Dauphin inside Lauffeld the moment before the Allies prepared for another counter attack.
Below see the Dutch and Bavarians under Waldecks' command seizing Lauffeld, evicting the French for the 3rd time. 
My V&B scenario demanded for only two Dutch infantry regiments. Mine are really Brunswickers. I only took the effort to paint two flag bearers replacing the Brunswick flags. This worked out rather well, I believe. If you dim down the light a bit, the Brunswick yellow drummers dress will look perfectly orange, I'm sure. Also my Waldeck command stand isn't really Dutch. Its the command stand of my recently painted S.A.R. le marcgrave Charles de Brandenbourg-Schwedt – a Prussian, I only replaced S.A.R. with an Austrian general leaving his original entourage. It includes his servant named Pietro, a black, dressed in orange livery. Now if this isn't a dead on match with "te Zwarte Piet". The two other figures are a calvinist field chaplain (fine match as well) & an officer of the Prussian Garde-Du-Corps (borderline admitted).
Now back the the battle. Finally, the French had ran out of troops. All were found exhausted. Senneterre, with his left wing troops amusing the Allied right wing and the Gardes & Maison du Roi was all that was left. Not enough to punch a hole into the still solid Allied line. The Allies remained masters of the villages, hence, this refight turned out to be a clear Allied victory. A Cheers to Cumberland & his brave troops. But no more then one - after all, I played on the French side, of course.
Above see the situation around Montenaken at the end of the battle. Below see French dismounted dragoons & volontaires closing in on Montenaken after the French ran out of infantry to mount a another attack.
Now – wait a minute. The battle of Lauffeld an Allied victory? Silly Cumberland alongside (historic) alltogether inactive Austrians versus Splendid Saxe at the head of a French Army at highest spirits, thanks to the presence of Sa Majesté?
Now, how could this happen?
Well, I must say, the French attack was really rather ill coordinated. I played on the attacking French right. My numerous & superior artillery was quite behind and only managed to sustain the 3rd attack on the two Allied strongholds of Lauffeld & Montenaken. A big mistake. Also my co-player A*** commanding on the left, was unwilling to support me with 1 or 2 units of the French heavy guns, that were all under his command. He preferred to concentrate them all in the centre in a giant battery that soon ran out of targets and, as a result, spend most of the day doing nothing. The cavalry could have been employed better as well. They didn't do all that much that day. Another reason for the French failing to crush the Allies' lines was the early activation of the Austrian forces. In the historic battle Bàtthyànyi's Austrians did very little to support the hard pressed Allied left. In my scenario the Austrians needed a die roll to be activated – i.e. allowing them to engage in offensive moves or move any closer then 12 inch towards enemy units. Unfortunately, the Austrians passed the die roll in turn one. I'll have to rethink that for our next Lauffeld refight.
For a summery, I would say, the game worked really well. It will be played again. I'm sure.