How about the "Battle of Orleans - 1815" next! (1 Viewer)

[Larry Allen]

Okay, I am now hooked on John's War of 1812 Chippawa sets. My diorama is planned and just underway and I am thinking of the next one I want to see. I am putting in my vote for the Battle of New Orleans! ^&grin

British forces: Regiments fresh from Europe and 1st and 5th West Indian Regiments.

American Forces: US Troops | Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi & Louisiana Militia.
Of course the LaFitte and the Baratarian Pirates, Choctawa warriors .... so much to choose from

Imagine setting up your display and playing Johnny Horton's "Battle of Orleans" :rolleyes2::rolleyes2:

Okay, who is with me?

 

[OldDragon]

Larry

With you on this ... Sure will be a colorful lot with plenty of possibilities. {sm4}

Both combat and non-combat poses.

OD

 

[mikemiller1955]

Larry...good luck with this one...I ran this same campaign some time ago and was unsuccessful...I hope you can do better than I did...I welcome this series...

 

[Larry Allen]

Well, “THREE” is not an unstoppable force, but it is a start. Who would have thought that some of the series of JJD FIW figures would be so popular? :rolleyes2:

The Battle of New Orleans is the largest and most important battle ever fought on US soil between the US and a foreign nation. (It would be a stretch to call the Confederacy a foreign nation if you try to argue the Civil War battles).

John should see that the 1812 Battle of Chippawa sets are almost completely sold out in many distributors. I had a devil of a time getting the last four sets. So it would seem a logical extensio,n that if he sold 500 each of those, he can do the same with N.O! (John, are you there?? John? John?)

Well , Mike and Dragon let’s keep the bug in his ear!

 

[Larry Allen]

Re:UPDATE - How about the "Battle of Orleans - 1815" next!

Gee almost 150 folks have viewed and only ""3"" people with an opinion? ^&confuse

 

[nysoldiers]

How could this be the most important battle fought on American soil if the war was already over?

Too similar to Ticonderoga with the British marching against breastworks.
The American side would be colorful, however, so I would consider collecting for a smaller diorama.

 

[Combat]

I think it would have been better than the 1812 Chippewa line that John decided to do. But John is Canadian so that likely appealed to him more. With so many lines in production and collectors complaining that Sudan, Jacobites. St. Francis etc. aren't being done each month, I can't see him adding another 1812 line. You never know though with John. I'm still holding out for Bushy Run!^&grin Hope springs eternal.

 

[Larry Allen]

How could this be the most important battle fought on American soil if the war was already over?

Too similar to Ticonderoga with the British marching against breastworks.
The American side would be colorful, however, so I would consider collecting for a smaller diorama.

Hey nysoldiers;
Very TRUE that the war had ended with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent two weeks earlier, but that doesn't lessen the significance of the battle in establishing the American Army as a formidable force on the world’s stage and of course helping Jackson's reputation as a military leader and future President.

Although possibly not an appropriate thread for a discussion here, what would have happened if the British would have won the day and also taken Fort St. Philip a few days later. Would they have said, “The hell with the Treaty”; and started the hostilities again?

Can’t ever trust a Brit!!!! {eek3} {Okay guys, only joking}

But yea’ would make a colorful diorama and a great talking point to folks coming to my TS hideaway!

 

[BHogan]

Well I two would like to see the New Orleans battle I would first like to see some more battles that took place in Canada covered first such as Queenston Heights, Chateauguay, and Beaver Dams.

 

[mikemiller1955]

I think it would have been better than the 1812 Chippewa line that John decided to do. But John is Canadian so that likely appealed to him more. With so many lines in production and collectors complaining that Sudan, Jacobites. St. Francis etc. aren't being done each month, I can't see him adding another 1812 line. You never know though with John. I'm still holding out for Bushy Run!^&grin Hope springs eternal.

I thought John was from Wales...I do know he lived in the Niagra area for some time and developed a personal interest in the area battles...and as much as I wish he would add to the War of 1812...I don't think it will happen...we discussed this many times before...and while he agreed that both sides had an eclectic contingent of celebrities and mixed troops...I think he has his hands full right now trying to please a lot of different eras...being a one man show may not allow him to even start a new series this year...I know he mentioned he was trying to bring in some people to give him a little help...office...shipping...and some modeling maybe...honestly...he must spend several hours a day at his sculpting table to offer us releases like clockwork every month...

 

[nysoldiers]

Hey nysoldiers;
Very TRUE that the war had ended with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent two weeks earlier, but that doesn't lessen the significance of the battle in establishing the American Army as a formidable force on the world’s stage and of course helping Jackson's reputation as a military leader and future President.

Although possibly not an appropriate thread for a discussion here, what would have happened if the British would have won the day and also taken Fort St. Philip a few days later. Would they have said, “The hell with the Treaty”; and started the hostilities again?

Can’t ever trust a Brit!!!! {eek3} {Okay guys, only joking}

But yea’ would make a colorful diorama and a great talking point to folks coming to my TS hideaway!

Good points.....
I agree that a loss would have damaged Jackson's reputation and perhaps he would not have been elected President. That in itself could have changed history.

I doubt that Britain would have continued the war under any circumstances. The cost would have been prohibitive and most knew by then that ultimately they couldn't control the Americas.

With all due respect to the American army, beating the British who marched in close formation over swampy ground against a fortified position didn't make them into such "formidable" force.

 

[Larry Allen]

Good points.....
I agree that a loss would have damaged Jackson's reputation and perhaps he would not have been elected President. That in itself could have changed history.

I doubt that Britain would have continued the war under any circumstances. The cost would have been prohibitive and most knew by then that ultimately they couldn't control the Americas.

With all due respect to the American army, beating the British who marched in close formation over swampy ground against a fortified position didn't make them into such "formidable" force.

Yea, I hear that.
Didn't Bill Cosby do a comedy sketch about the way the British marched in a strainght line, wearing Red and such years ago?

I seem to recall that he did it as if it was a football came (America Football). The US won the toss and would wear dark colors and hide behind walls while the British had to march shoulder to shoulder, in bright red and in a straight line while we shot at them. {sm2}

 

[lcdr1635]

I am certainly (being a Nola native) in favor of this one befroe and suggested it. Did a little research and founfd the followig units that s.aervd at New Orleans.



On the British Side:
93rd (Sutherland) Highlanders (in trews)
95th Rifles
Royal Marines
Royal Navy Landing Parties
1st and 5th West India Regiments
4th, 21st, 40th, 43rd, foot
14th Light Dragoons
RHA (Rockets)

On The American Side:
US Marines
US Navy Gunners
New Orleans Militia
Louisiana Militia
Tennessee Militia
Choctaw Indians
Lafitte’s Pirates
3rd US Rifles
The First and Second Battalions of Free Men of Color
7tth and 44th US Infantry

Add to that both field and naval guns, scaling ladders, cotton bale field works. Not to mention the personality figures. Then again, Maybe he shouldn’t do this battle – I’d go broke.

 

[OldDragon]

....

Then again, Maybe he shouldn’t do this battle – I’d go broke.

^&grin ^&grin ^&grin Can't argue with this line of reasoning.

OD

 

[Larry Allen]

^&grin ^&grin ^&grin Can't argue with this line of reasoning.

OD

<SIGH> Not really ..... but I can still HOPE!

 

[The Military Workshop]

Larry,
You mentioned :

"The US won the toss and would wear dark colors and hide behind walls while the British had to march shoulder to shoulder, in bright red and in a straight line while we shot at them".

I hate to be a sore loser but it sounds like cheating to me !!! Surely the rules were to stand 50 yards apart and
open fire in volleys.

Regards
Brett
PS Having said that it does sound like a great comedy sketch.

 

[mikemiller1955]

With all due respect to the American army, beating the British who marched in close formation over swampy ground against a fortified position didn't make them into such "formidable" force.

I'll think that the US Army was definitely on the verge of becoming a formidable force...and if not that...they were commanding respect at every turn...

at Chippawa they proved they could trade volleys with the British...argueably the best army in the world at that time...

at the Battle of New Orleans...the US side had a contingent of the most eclectic group of Americans Jackson could drag off the streets...

Britain sent between 11,000 and 14,450 troops under the command of Major General Sir Edward Pakenham to fight in the Louisiana campaign. These included army and navy men fresh from campaigns fought against Napoleon in Europe, as well as veterans of other theaters in the War of 1812. Vice-Admiral Alexander Cochrane had charge of the British navy in American waters and directed naval skirmishes in the gulf.

The United States forces at the time of the Battle of New Orleans were much smaller--somewhere between 3,500 and 5,000. This detachment was composed of United States army troops; Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana militia; Baratarian pirates; Choctaw warriors; and free black soldiers.

Three British generals and eight colonels were among the 251 British killed. 1,259 were wounded and 484 were missing in the battle. The Americans lost a total of 11 men and 23 wounded. It was the greatest American victory of the war and it was against the finest of the British army. The tragedy of the battle is that it took place after a peace treaty had ended the war.

http://www.historycentral.com/1812/NewOrleans.html

this battle had a lot more to it than British soldiers marching in rank and getting slaughtered...the was an amazing amount of artillery on both sides and a good deal of hand to hand encounters...

 

[maddadicus]

I'll think that the US Army was definitely on the verge of becoming a formidable force...and if not that...they were commanding respect at every turn...

at Chippawa they proved they could trade volleys with the British...argueably the best army in the world at that time...

at the Battle of New Orleans...the US side had a contingent of the most eclectic group of Americans Jackson could drag off the streets...

Britain sent between 11,000 and 14,450 troops under the command of Major General Sir Edward Pakenham to fight in the Louisiana campaign. These included army and navy men fresh from campaigns fought against Napoleon in Europe, as well as veterans of other theaters in the War of 1812. Vice-Admiral Alexander Cochrane had charge of the British navy in American waters and directed naval skirmishes in the gulf.

The United States forces at the time of the Battle of New Orleans were much smaller--somewhere between 3,500 and 5,000. This detachment was composed of United States army troops; Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana militia; Baratarian pirates; Choctaw warriors; and free black soldiers.

Three British generals and eight colonels were among the 251 British killed. 1,259 were wounded and 484 were missing in the battle. The Americans lost a total of 11 men and 23 wounded. It was the greatest American victory of the war and it was against the finest of the British army. The tragedy of the battle is that it took place after a peace treaty had ended the war.

http://www.historycentral.com/1812/NewOrleans.html

this battle had a lot more to it than British soldiers marching in rank and getting slaughtered...the was an amazing amount of artillery on both sides and a good deal of hand to hand encounters...

I agree with your assessments on the battle. I suppose that Wellington was " cheating " at Waterloo,when he moved his front line troops to the back side of hills for cover. And then there were those " cheating " defenders at Rorkes Drift hiding behind sand bags and wagons. The facts are, based on the terrain and tactics of the day, the Americans crushed a veteran British army ,out manned 3-1...Hard to minimize the results. {sm4} Michael

 

[mikemiller1955]

I agree with your assessments on the battle. I suppose that Wellington was " cheating " at Waterloo,when he moved his front line troops to the back side of hills for cover. And then there were those " cheating " defenders at Rorkes Drift hiding behind sand bags and wagons. The facts are, based on the terrain and tactics of the day, the Americans crushed a veteran British army ,out manned 3-1...Hard to minimize the results. {sm4} Michael

Michael...that's really a pretty good assessment and analogy you're making...with the loss of the British officers from the US volleys...there is a lot of expert military history specualtion...that the British side made a few blunders and didn't seize the moment...either way...the Americans celebrated it as a huge triumph...

 

[The Military Workshop]

Michael,

Oops !!

Had not thought about the "cheating" at Rorkes Drift !!!. Being a gentleman (now don't spill your tea, beer, or
whiskey and soda) I will naturally withdraw my slanderous comment..

Regards
Brett
PS That is a great image at the top of the three shown.