Russian Civil War infantry tactics

[Ignatieff]

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'

[former user]

 
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 

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" 

[redzed]

and the close order infantry attack .....  'Discuss'

wouldn't they still be using the tactics they used in WW1?

[former user]

which one do You mean?

western front, eastern front, Palestine, Galipoli ??

[Mark Plant]

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).

[former user]

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?

[Mark Plant]

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.

[Ignatieff]

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?

[former user]

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...

[redzed]

scrub it let's forget it and start again

[redzed]

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?

[Mark Plant]

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.

[sukhe_bator]

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.

 

[former user]

I second that

do you have any infos on Alton 1643?
it happens that I am gaming this period too 

[sukhe_bator]

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.