Machnowist Black Army (and also some Headdresses in RCW )

[Poliorketes]

My image of RCW is (apart from full scale assaults on defended settlements) a very mobile warfare relying on outflanking manouvres and cavalry ambushes and surprise attacks, often reinforced with armored cars and trains a style of War which Makhnovists would perform very well at, as I imagine them

There have been several battles around fortified positions: The Whites outbreak from Crimea, Tsaritsin and others.

[Cory]

as to operating a steam engine
well, on that I did very extensive research
train engineer is a profession you have to learn for some years, and even the man to care for the fire alone has to learn that - simply imagine "scotty" on a smaller scale
(just as an example: when europeans decided to have railways in mid 1800, they had to import the engineers from britain as well )
I therefore very much doubt that any of us in these modern times with a driver license would be able to operate a steam engine
it is not just sit down and turn the key

While operating a steam engine is a complicated job requiring some expertise, remember steam power was used outside of locomotives - even Czarist Russia had steam boilers providing heat, steam powered tractors, steam powered engines in mills, and the like, all of which greatly expands the pool of available labor.

[former user]

of course
but these would also need qualified personnel
apart from that, a moving steam engine is something different

but my point is that the Makhnovists were not exclusively peasants with some limited technological knowledge, but also others who joined them, that's all
after all, every fraction in the RCW used armored trains of some kind, at least to my knowledge

[former user]

There have been several battles around fortified positions: The Whites outbreak from Crimea, Tsaritsin and others.

did I write anything different?
we are losing the topic here
so, just let me ask some questions:
yes, I read there were full scale battles around fortified positions. But what was the principal type of "battle" fought?
do we agree that the Black army, although "merely" some 30000 strong and consisting "entirely" of peasants, did employ modern technology and were able to engage the Whites and Reds alike in not only patizan engagements?

I am getting a little bit confused here
I know that the sources about the Makhnovists are a little controversial and scarce, but something can be deducted from the fact that they apparently wrecked Denikins moscow thrust and did manage to resist the Bolsheviks for at least 2 years

I mean they were not only partisans with MG riding around on horses an harassing the enemy, or were they? they had some political program and did try to install some new kind of society, right?

[Bako]

there are some pictures with a black flag featuring a skull and slogans I can't read

Ah, I have found it. Our family doesn't speak Ukrainian or Russian anymore, that was something they gave up when they immigrated, so I'd be of no help reading anything unless it was foods.

Honestly I see no reason for shaking your booties over engineers with steam machinery knowledge. As far as I've known the Makhnovists included people who weren't necessarily peasants. Even Bolshevik infantry outright deserted to join the anarchists. More than simple farmers would have felt sat upon.

People with specialized knowledge would be few and far between, but they would be there. And I believe it would be safe to assume some train engineers would have been sympathizers or would have been held against their will to allow the Makhnovists access to trains.

...did manage to resist the Bolsheviks for at least 2 years

Their relations with the Bolsheviks were a bit mixed, though never turned out to have been worthwhile in some cases.

[Mark Plant]

because I would really need a good background book

On Makhno what you need is: The Makhnovshchina, 1917-1921: ideology, nationalism, and peasant insurgency in early twentieth century Ukraine unpublished PhD thesis by Colin Darch. This is the full story, researched from original material and written by a man neither blinded by love of Anarchism, nor filled with hate either. He even covers military affairs in depth.

I got hold of Mr Darch a few years back and he gave me a copy of this. I had permission to pass on an excerpted version to wargamers - basically it had all the military details but leaves out the political and social bits. He didn't want the full copy released, as he was hoping to sell it as a book. His website shows that he still isn't releasing it generally. I imagine you would want the full thing, however, so I advise that you should contact him directly for permission. http://www.colindarch.info/Ukraine.htm

I've read Archinoff, Volin and Skirda but don't find them much use. Their interest is entirely political and they are hopelessly biased in any case. (I'm not sure there are English translations anyway.)

Another superb book for anyone interested in blacks/greens is Behind the front lines of the Civil War by Vladimir N Brovkin. It's not on the Makhnovists specifically, but none the worse for that.

I wouldn't know how to imagine "front line" combat in RCW, apart from assaults on prepared defence lines (and certainly noone would expect Makhnovists to do the latter)
My image of RCW is (apart from full scale assaults on defended settlements) a very mobile warfare relying on outflanking manouvres and cavalry ambushes and surprise attacks, often reinforced with armored cars and trains
a style of War which Makhnovists would perform very well at, as I imagine them.

I think I may have caused some confusion here. What I meant was that Denikin (foolishly) tried to finish off Makhno using too many rear area and security units. At Peregenovka the units hunting him included the Taman Cossacks, the First Simferopol’ Officers’ Regiment, the Composite Regiment of the 13th Division, the Composite Regiment of the 34th Division and some German colonists. Not the best troops the Whites could put in the field. When he faced the front-line White units in early 1919 his men were severely beaten.

Do we agree that the Black army, although "merely" some 30000 strong and consisting "entirely" of peasants, did employ modern technology and were able to engage the Whites and Reds alike in not only patizan engagements?

Never anything like 30,000 in the field at one time. Perhaps that many might be prepared to fight for him at any one time but they weren't prepared to leave their local areas for any duration. He took a hard core around with him, and fleshed it out with locals when he needed more. He had no means of feeding any large amount. He certainly didn't field anything like 30,000 when he fought for the Red Army (either time).

That they consisted entirely of peasants is irrelevant. The Whites fielded armies mostly of peasants: Russia was 90% peasant at the time. The term "peasant" includes any non-noble farmer, and is not synonymous with "yokel". Some of them had quite large holdings and employed a couple of men to work their land. Many were educated. Many had worked in the cities.

They engaged the enemy (Red, White, Green, Nationalist) in partisan actions mostly. But sometimes they took on sizeable enemy forces in the field, relying on speed and determination to cover their lack of technical means (supply of ammo was always an issue). Generally they didn't do too well when facing top quality Red Army or White Army units, as I understand it, but they didn't need to (until after the Civil War was over).

[former user]

thank you very much
finally we get into reason 

getting an unpublished phD Diss shouldn't be a problem
a PhD is only complete when it is published, but since most people can't afford the money the actual compromise is to distribute copies to universities - so I shall check with our history department

I agree, there is only little point in discussing the availabilty of railway personnel, since it was there, though very sought for (read OSPREY; RUSSIAN ARMOUR OF RCW) - although Osprey is not always reliable, these authors know their job

I was just getting a little bit taken away 


I am beginning to enjoy this thread
but since I have a very bad day,

Please allow my meek academic ego to indulge in presenting the result of my tiny piece of research:

WARNING: uncarrful reading and quoting of the below written can result in serious brain damage - watch out for nose- and ear-bleeding   

Colin Darch seems to be a scholar with marxist background. At least it makes me suspicious how many political activists with marxist background do quote him in the current discussion about anarchism (not here!). This is especially interesting since his work is not published yet. Other works quoted by pro-anarchists as "neutral" include: Christopher Reed , From Tsar to Soviets. OUP, available online
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14774660
and Michael Palij , The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921. UoWP
are at least available. but judge for yourselves

the point where wargamers and socio-political scholars do meet is the Black Army's performance in the RCW, and I will give an example:

In may 1919, the red army threatened the important railway station of Kutenskovo. To counter this, Denikin sent Shkuro's cavalry corps against the Black Army (at that time allied with the bolsheviks) who were holding the right flank of the red 13th army. Weakened by the assignment of one of their divisions to the campaign against Grigoriev, the Black Army gave ground and allowed the white cavalry to infiltrate the bolshevik rear. Trotzki was pissed and sentenced Makhno to death, but the anarchists claimed that they had been (deliberately) left unsupplied by the reds and therefore had to withdraw.

so far the facts

before making any deductions, please let me state the following apparent facts.
The red command assigned the black army a frontline position, and being not very incompetent, must have known about their performance in battle and their capabilities
The logistical situation must have been difficult for the whole red army and it is doubtful that the red command would have endangered the flank guard of their whole army on purpose
The Black army's motivation against the whites and their courage cannot be questioned

so, what would I deduct?
- The Black army was hardly a simple partisan army. It must be clear that that the difference between partisans and a regular army is not the equipment, but the organization and ability to fight as combined arms. They even assigned a division to another campaign...
- Since all units of the red army at that time must have been equally supplied, there can be only two reasons for their withdrawal:
  1. either Makhno had made a deal with Trotzky and changed his mind
  2. or the Black army did fight until their last bullet (as it would not be surprising to spend more ammunition against an attacking cavalry corps) and being of a different ideology than the bolsheviks decided to save the lives of their soldiers instead of herding them unarmed against the whites (as would have been bolshevik policy)

is this a weak military performance of a partisan force?
again decide for Yourselves

(the anglo-saxon readers uncontent with my english - it's your own fault! shouldn't have stopped in hungaria 1945)   
 

[Bako]

(the anglo-saxon readers uncontent with my english - it's your own fault! shouldn't have stopped in hungaria 1945)   

It's better than most of the young English speakers.

[Mark Plant]

Colin Darch seems to be a scholar with marxist background.

I felt him more anarcho-libertarian myself. Hence his interest in Makhno.

I'm not very partial to Anarchist rhetoric, nor Marxist come to that, but I found his analysis far from tainted by leftist leanings.

He analyses examples such as the one you discuss at Kutenskovo, and comes up with a slightly different answer. Basically he argues that the political differences of Black and Red made military cooperation very difficult, leading to gaps in the line and difficulty manouevring. Also as the Red Army was short on supplies, it was hardly a surprise that the blacks were not supplied first.

I would add that in that time and place it was pretty much out of the question for any mainly infantry unit to stop Shkuro. That was why the Soviets made sure that they had enough cavalry to match the Whites (after initially despising the cavalry as bourgeois and Cossack).

[former user]

seems so indeed

don't get me wrong here
I am not taking any political side

reporting the sources and discussing them is part of the drill
there are a lot of hard talks in anarcho leftist forums especially on the performance of Makhnovists

and since we want to get an idea of the truth, it is necessary to assess the sources
for me it is important wheather I build a Makhnovist army as regular or as partisans

why would you think it would be difficult for an infantry based force to withstand cavalry?
I would go for the opposite

[Mark Plant]

there are a lot of hard talks in anarcho leftist forums especially on the performance of Makhnovists

Indeed, with a lot of wishful thinking too.

why would you think it would be difficult for an infantry based force to withstand cavalry?
I would go for the opposite

Perhaps in other situations, but not in the conditions of the south of the Russian Civil War.

1) The mostly open terrain was totally suited to cavalry operations. Rolling, but uncrossed by fences, hedges or ditches is perfect since the cavalry are not slowed, but nonetheless can get close under cover. Up north where it is flatter and also more broken there were very much fewer cavalry.

2) The defenders could never maintain a thick enough line, due to the low troop density. If they clumped they were outflanked. If they spread out they were sabred by a frontal charge.

3) The infantry (all sides) never really had enough ammunition to hold cavalry off with firepower. Nor were most infantry trained to shoot properly.

4) If a cavalry unit made a break-through, they were into the rear and trashing it in a flash. If infantry did, the hole might be plugged. This was Budenny's forte - he probed and probed until he found a chink, then poured his men through into the enemy rear. And when I say rear, I mean many kilometres, potentially hundreds.

It is often said that the machine-gun killed off cavalry, but I reckon that is not true. Cavalry can take on MGs, especially if they have their own (tachankas) to lay down covering fire. What kills cavalry is barbed wire. The Western Front of WWI had line after line of it. The RCW had very little - but it is noticeable that when they did have it that the cavalry was useless (the first attacks on Tsaritsyn, for example).

The total dominance of the White cavalry was such that the Soviets soon took notice. The result was the Konnarmiya. Not always much chop individually, but a brutal weapon when used properly in mass.

[former user]

seems they got better later on in poland

but I get the idea, thx
and yes, MG are not very useful if you don't have ammunition
sounds expensive for the wargamer

[Bako]

sounds expensive for the wargamer

All miniature armies are expensive (even real world ones), unless they're 6mm scale or something. Personally my opinion would be to build the army accordingly with what you'd be playing on. Cavalry where they could be effective, machine guns in defensible spots, and infantry to fill the open space.

[Mark Plant]

seems they got better later on in Poland

I'm not sure I follow. The 1920 campaign in south Poland was totally dominated by cavalry. On the attack towards Kiev the Polish cavalry gave the Soviets a terrible time. Then Budenny arrived, and the scales turned. It was his cavalry divisions that drove the Poles back (the Soviet infantry only having a minor supporting role). It was the return of the Polish 1st Cavalry Division which once more turned the tide to the Poles.

In the north Poland is too flat and broken with woods and lakes/bogs to be ideal cavalry territory. Nevertheless the cavalry there was still a strike force. Gai Khan's cavalry rode right over the Polish Siberian Brigade, in the last great disaster of the war for the Poles.

[former user]

that's what IO meant with expensive

cavalry models are usually disproportionately more expensive than infantry
unless you buy plastic

so, perry, plastic cossacks please