Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Back of Beyond => Topic started by: Ignatieff on October 10, 2009, 05:17:46 PM
-
Given the scene of massed closed order ranks (Kornilov coloured unit) attacking in the 1934 Chapev film, and the close order infantry attack in the more recent 'Admiral' movie, is there any suggestion that anybody did any such thing during the Russian Civil War or is all b******s?? 'Discuss'
-
;)
no way
I think that the Whites attacking in closed order woith neat uniforms is a picture that was established with "Battleship Potemkin"
in the famous Odessa Steps - scene, and which has been perpetuated over and over again, until finally, in a "White" propaganda movie, the soldiers got another "classic" visual, the Russian soldier with greatcoat and fur hat (from the "great Patriotic War") - to be combined with the first (for recognition and projection)
that's how I always imagined RCW - marching towards MG with a brass band at freezing temperatures!
when I first saw the scene, I laughed my ass off - the triumphant finale being the nurse charging with "Hurrah!" towards the MG lol lol lol lol lol
but this is on a different topic, sorry ;)
I really don't know, but I imagine very mobile manouvres around strongpoints, with lots of outflanking and sometimes a "HURRAH!" charge, artillery suppression etc.
As I understand, Infantry was merely supporting the other arms and holding objectives, cavalry being the main operative arm. And armoured trains to support breakthroughs.
This can be seen in the initial success of the Whites (with masses of Cavalry), until the Bolsheviks managed to establish their own and bring to bear the overwhelming superior numbers.
In other words, a war at a very operational level, with few "epic battles" around seriously held fortified strongpoints - somehow like the pacific TO in WWII, but without water
I am looking forward to the experts confirming or refuting my "educated guess" ;)
-
and the close order infantry attack ..... 'Discuss'
wouldn't they still be using the tactics they used in WW1?
-
which one do You mean?
western front, eastern front, Palestine, Galipoli ??
-
Well trained and led infantry in the RCW attacked like in WWI, using the Brusilov tactics the Russians developed.
Problem was that an awful lot were untrained or poorly led. That meant reverting back a bit. It is pretty easy to find examples of Red infantry at least attacking in long strung-out lines even into 1920. I can't imagine White conscripts were any better.
Also bear in mind the situation of the attacks and the terrain. They often had large spaces to attack across, and bounding by platoons would have taken all day and allowed the opposition far too much time to react. The firm flanks and short distances of WWI (and WWII for that matter) were just not present.
The image of the Whites attacking like in the movie comes from a couple of examples early in 1918, when troop density was low, MGs and artillery in short supply and an odd morale situation existed: the Whites had very high morale but almost no ammunition, and the Soviets very poor organisation and leadership in battle (while simultaneously having good enough morale to keep coming back). On a couple of occasions the Whites forced positions by approaching in a deliberately steady manner without firing and broke the will of their opposition, partly just because they had no ammunition. That said, they probably approached in thin "chains", with 3 metres or so between men.
That would not work later in the war: the Reds' nerve would not have cracked and they would have mowed them down.
The film depicts Chapaev's career. He made his name fighting in the very early stages of the war, when the conditions I describe still existed. He probably faced "officer" units which attacked deliberately heroically in order to cow their opponents (though not densely packed like the movie, obviously) and that is what they are trying to show. (Soon after that Chapaev was commanding divisions, and he was dead by September 1919.)
----------------------------------------------------------
I would mostly agree with former user's description of the fighting, and the Pacific War analogy.
Fighting was almost always over something - a river crossing or village as often as not. Then they would all dash to the next one and do it again. In between there might be an encounter when two columns met, generally more or less by accident. Unless one side was actively conducting an offense though, they were as likely to pull back as fight.
This helped reduce the effectiveness of the White cavalry, since attacking towns is not their forte. Kind of how the Japanese could neutralise the US Navy by forcing the US into attacking islands.
The aim was generally to pierce the line, not destroy the opponent in a grinding match. Isolated enemy groups were left behind rather than mopped up before proceeding. Advances were very fast, and kept more or less to rail lines because no other means of supply was possible over such long distances.
The only thing I would seriously differ is in the scale. There were few major battles were troops clumped, and they were assaults on vital fortified points - Tsaritsyn, Kakkovka, Perekop. Even great "battles" like Orel, Warsaw and the Manych crossing were a series of interconnected small battles, generally with less than a division a side. Memoirs are a list of small and frequent actions, with "epic battles" occurring only once or twice.
Hence why I think the period is so eminently wargameable within a historical context. You can realistically set an objective: take a village, river crossing or rail line, which completely determines winner and loser. You can also have two columns colliding, giving the "encounter" battle, with one side having to stop the progress of the other at any cost. Forces involved can be from company to division, with no need to worry about any "edge" effects from neighbouring forces. Troops can realistically be a mix of infantry, cavalry, artillery and armour (although I won't go so far as to say every mix is reasonable).
-
thx Mark
This attacking in lines without ammunition and breaking the nerves of the opponent is really an interesting aspect.
one should have some rules to depict that...
I can also understand now how troops employing assymmetrical warfare tactics performed so well.
Maybe an analogy from the same time could be the war in Palestine, but on a far smaller scale.
The Brussilov tactics was something similar to german "Stoßtruppen", right?
At least I remember to having read this somewhere.
How would you judge the use of submachineguns?
-
I believe the Brusilov innovations were a major spur to the German development of the stormtrooper style tactics, hence the building of "storm" or "shock" units like the original Kornilovs. But all the troops received better training, and that carried through past the revolutions.
I have seen basically no evidence of sub-machine guns in the RCW. They were no longer attacking short distances into trenches, so the real need wasn't there. A lot of the new technology of WWI was barely used in the RCW -- mortars, flamethrowers etc, were present, but hardly used. Others, like LMGs and tanks, were wanted but only supplied by the Allies.
Supply would have been a major issue for all these things. Unless it could be built and maintained with the rudimentary production facilities still operational or by the Allies, it was not a possibility.
-
I believe the Brusilov innovations were a major spur to the German development of the stormtrooper style tactics, hence the building of "storm" or "shock" units like the original Kornilovs. But all the troops received better training, and that carried through past the revolutions.
Great debate as always gentlemen, and thanks for all the thoughts so far. On the development of storm trooper tactics, I would heartily recommend Paddy Griffith's 'Battle Tactics of the Western Front, The British Army's Art of Attack, 1916-18', published by Yale University Press. In it you see the British leading contribution to 'storm trooper' tactics which the German's also copied and in some cases (though not as many as popular mythology would lead you to believe) improved. What's a good source for understanding Brusilov's innovations?
-
I don't know that's why it was a question.
Next time I'll just shut up.
sorry...
mine was a question as well...
-
scrub it let's forget it and start again :)
-
Unless it could be built and maintained with the rudimentary production facilities still operational or by the Allies, it was not a possibility.
so the tactics used would largely be defined by the equipment available?
I'm essentially interested in 28mm Platoon/Company level.
And having one lewis gun per platoon would not of been exceptional? Likewise would one Maxim per company be entirely feasible?
Would the tactics and fighting therefore be a more regressive step, ie akin more to the Boar War than The Great War?
-
I basically game that any RCW conscripts attack more or less like 1914 Russians. Spread out, for sure, but basically in a line. Certainly not by sections. Any better trained troops like 1916 veterans. Cavalry had a smaller drop in quality, especially the Whites. (They returned to charging with steel not because they lacked sophistication but because they found that it worked well with the poor quality of infantry and artillery opposing them.) I game with the company as the base unit in 15mm, so I've never had to really concern myself about this too much.
One Maxim per 100 men is a rule of thumb. More for the elite units. Again firing like 1914 to 1916: not really the sophistication of the late war Western Front. Never enough ammunition for indirect fire or constant long-range harassment.
Lewis guns were getting more frequent through 1919. Common enough in 1920 Whites, especially in the elite units. Less so with the Reds, who had to rely on captured guns and ammunition. A few French LMGs (Chauchaut?) too. Ammunition supply was never like in WWI though.
-
I use my tropps like Mark, though Central Asia has perhaps slightly more to offer in terms of space for cavalry to operate more freely.
Inspirational though it is to us gamers, cinema is not renowned for its accuracy, even when it perports to be there's often a tradeoff between historical accuracy and what ultimately looks good on camera. There is inevitably always a compromise. Action is often compressed into the width of a single camera lens. Thus charges in films like 'Glory' and 'Enemy at the Gates', though they carry something of the spirit of the fighting of the time seem far denser than they would have been in reality.
Most actions in warfare were low level affairs. The big battles have hogged the limelight since they were so unusual and more often reported about. They have skewed peoples perceptions of what actually went on.
You have to read local, regional or Regimental histories to get a feel for the day to day events. History is replete with these smaller actions that were the norm, not the exception. Patrols and chance encounters, punitive raids etc., the 'butcher and bolt' actions that were the meat of work on the NW Frontier. For inspiration I use the old wargamers trick of scouring other periods for good scenarios to adapt.
My ECW favourite is the Battle for Alton in Dec1643 which features a night march and dawn attack on billeted soldiers in a village. Street fighting culminated in a set to around the most substantial buildings and field fortifications and walls around a churchyard. That seems to me an ideal scenario to translate into the RCW.
-
I second that
do you have any infos on Alton 1643?
it happens that I am gaming this period too ;)
-
Should really go on the Other Games thread but some Battle of Alton info
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_alton.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alton,_Hampshire#The_Battle_of_Alton_.281643.29
http://www.theteacher99.btinternet.co.uk/ecivil/alton.htm
http://www.southernlife.org.uk/civil_war.htm
http://gwargamesp.18.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=195
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/crossby/ECW/battles/alton.html
There was also an article I helped write on Alton in one of the early editions of the online mag Wargames Journal a few years back.
-
thank You
well, it is supposed to be an inspiration, right?
and awesome looking game! looks like fun
I tried some 30YW lately, but it is a little retro in comparison
anyway, we better discuss these tactics somewhere else ;)
-
I tried some 30YW lately, but it is a little retro in comparison
What??? As a thirty year wargamer of both (as opposes to a TYW gamer), I can assure you that the variety of tactics, armies & battles is way more varied in the TYW than the ECW. Dig deeper and I promise you you will fall in love with the TYW. :)
-
first please tell me the difference - TYW and 30YW
and with retro I meant the more cumbersome spanish tactics of huge and combined units, not that it would be boring or anything
or do I misundertsand something?
-
first please tell me the difference - TYW and 30YW
and with retro I meant the more cumbersome spanish tactics of huge and combined units, not that it would be boring or anything
or do I misundertsand something?
I guess he's been gaming both for 30 years
-
Yup, that's right. Spanish Tercio's stopped being big and lumbering fairly early on (late 1620's), and after Brietenfeld, were the same depth as the Swedes (6). You've also got fantastic Polish armies of horsemen and axe wielding musketeers, armoured cuirassiers (not many of them around in the ECW), Croats (my favourite looters) and every nationality under the sun. The two books by Guthrie on TYW battles will inspire you to the heights, I promise!
Anyway, we best stop talking about this on here before we are moved somewhere else!!!
S
-
we could open up a thread in "swashbuckling" - we are going to play a scenatio at Tactica 2010
so, since the tactics and formations of late Renaissance can hardly be translated to RCW, what remains is the strategic approach with skirmishing, looting, marching and countermarching
I thought of using the campaign system we developed for 30YW in RCW indeed
so we are here not at the level of infantry tactics, I'm afraid
I must say I am surprised of the lack of submachineguns, which would be very useful for Brussilov tactics.
I understand there is no account, even as fancy sidearm for elite etc, but I would attribute this to the ammunition problem
though I really do not know
let's see
Vilar Perrosa - 9mm Glisanti
1918 Beretta - 9mm Glisanti
MP 18 Bergmann - 9x19 mm Parabellum
Chauchat-Ribeyrolles 1918 - 8mm Lebel
Thompson - .45 ACP (but probably hardly available)
italian and german ammo are almost the same - I guess German subs would have been available, but
Nagant revolver - 7.62x38mmR
Walther P08 - 9mm Parabellum
Webley - .455 Webley
Colt new service - several large calibres
Modèle 1892 - 8mm Lebel
Mauser C96 - 7.63x25mm Mauser, 9 mm Parabellum
so obviously, no available Russian ammo for any submachinegun, unless imported
the fact comes up that Germany sold C96 to Bolsheviks in large numbers, and my guess would be that ammo production would have been easily adaptable (and obviously has been done, since the later Tokarev fires the same cartridge)
I guess we can take the broomhandle as some kind of submachinegun then....
-
I must say I am surprised of the lack of submachineguns, which would be very useful for Brussilov tactics.
I understand there is no account, even as fancy sidearm for elite etc, but I would attribute this to the ammunition problem
though I really do not know
let's see
Vilar Perrosa - 9mm Glisanti
1918 Beretta - 9mm Glisanti
MP 18 Bergmann - 9x19 mm Parabellum
Chauchat-Ribeyrolles 1918 - 8mm Lebel
Thompson - .45 ACP (but probably hardly available)
You are forgetting the Fedorov Avtomat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat), which was converted to take Japanese 6.5x50SR Arisaka ammo, which the Imperial Army apparently had in abundance (and which would have remained relatively plentiful throughout the civil war years). Mind you only 3,000 or so had been manufactured by 1924 so they can hardly have been abundant. Still, would be nice to see some minis wielding these early assault rifles... I know that Musketeer are due to release some 'shock troopers' for their WW1 Russian range so I've got my fingers crossed!
-
Indeed
never knew of that one, thank You for the info
it says however only 500 were produced by 1919, when production was increased
but You are right, this weapon should have been in use with shock troops, so where are the miniatures? ;)
-
I guess we can take the broomhandle as some kind of submachinegun then....
Definetly not. The C96 was not able to fire in full automatic mode until the early thirties. It's a common feature of Hollywoode movies to see it fired in SMG-rates, but that's just the movies. The Artillery-P08 is another subject, but this was a german army weapon not exported.
With the other SMG models - they should not be used in RCW. The MP18 was a rare item in the german imperial army (around 10.000 produced) and other models have been even rarer.
-
Poliorketes is absolutely right. The Schnellfeuer is a product of the 1930s, made for export to China. Everybody gets that wrong, as the idea of the Broomie being a Machine Pistol has somehow been burned on to our collective consciousness (by movies, TV, and in the UK probably war comics, too).
-
I know the C96 of that time fired single shots
but it had a large mag, far range and accuracy.
I meant "kind of", as opposed to pistol and rifle
I know the ones shown in movies are the later ones with full auto and removable mag. (Plynkes was quicker here ;))
I don't know if submachineguns were used in RCW or not, I merely " collected " the available ones and spent some thought on ammo, to have a potential idea if they could have been used.
the article on the fedorov avtomat says these were used in RCW, although only 500 had been produced by 1919
so of the 10 000 MP 18, some could have found their way to the east....
I wouldn't mind seeing some subs in a RCW game anyway
though of course not as unit weapons
-
the article on the fedorov avtomat says these were used in RCW, although only 500 had been produced by 1919
Sure, but then it goes on to state that from 1919 onwards production was increased so one presumes that by the final years of the war there could have been a few floating around in *ahem* elite Red units. The city of their manufacture, Kovrov, is situated about 150 miles east of Moscow and was never taken by the Whites (they got 'close'; Kazan was only 300 miles away!) so aside from the odd capture it would have been a predominately Red weapon.
-
sure, that makes total sense
however, it is as far as one gets with educated guess
and if there is no evidence for use of SMG, there will always be the hardline that doesn't want to see them in RCW, and the soft line (like me) who doesn't care if it would have been possible ;)
-
sure, that makes total sense
however, it is as far as one gets with educated guess
and if there is no evidence for use of SMG, there will always be the hardline that doesn't want to see them in RCW, and the soft line (like me) who doesn't care if it would have been possible ;)
follow your heart mate.
-
of course - this is what anyone should do and is fully entitled to
to stick to being as historically accurate as possible is also a good approach, thus I did not intend any criticism by "hardline" ;)
-
There is a third way of course: since I game with the company as the smallest unit, it makes not the slightest difference to me whether SMGs were used or not. :P
-
To return to the original post: I recently stumbled across an article which appeared to be claiming that the Whites in early 1919 were still attacking in close rows on occasion. I on't know if it is true or not of course, but there are claims that they were.
(I say "appeared" because it was in Russian and I was using a auto-translate function. Following that lead I found an article in Sergeant Magazine on these, so called "Psychic Attacks", but I'm not up to translating it.)
-
yes indeed
on company level SMG in any number available 1920 would be meaningless ;)
but then also Brussilov tactics?
about the close oder attack - the first question I would ask in this case would be:
who wrote this, when and in which context?
-
I've hedged my bets by giving my White army exactly 1 SMG, carried by one of the officers. I figure that way, no one can complain much either way. :D