Trench combat

[Will Bailie]

Some great analysis there, Robert.  I'll try to add a few points in defence of the games, with the disclaimer that I'm not the writer of the rules or the scenarios and I didn't create the videos!

The scenarios come from the Too Fat Lardies' scenario book, 'Stout Hearts and Iron Troopers', written their WWI game Through the Mud and the Blood, although the Crusty Colonel is using a variant of the TFL WWII rules Chain of Command. 

The first 4 scenarios are subtitled 'Training the Entente', and are specifically written to present a tactical challenge to the British platoon commander, and to teach the player how to use their assets to the best effect - using the Lewis gun and rifle grenades to suppress the Germans while the rifles and bombers move in for a close assault.  TFL rules emphasise the role of junior officers and NCOs to coordinate the actions of their troops, and these scenarios are a useful primer to show how to do that.  If the individual sections simply activate individually, the defenders will be able to defeat them in detail, so the leaders are needed to combine their actions.

Barbed wire is introduced in scenario 4.  Other topics such as artillery and trench blocks are also addressed in greater detail in the rules, but including everything all at once will give the 'drinking from a fire hose' information overload effect! 

The smallest subunit in the game, other than the individual leaders, is the weapons team (such as a machine gun team) but the most numerous unit is the section.  I suspect that activating bombers individually would add a level of granularity to play that would slow down the game too much - of course, that is a matter of individual preference!

The scenarios are also intended to show the British platoon after the lessons of the Somme had been learnt.  Or possibly not - when I tried the first scenario on the weekend, I moved my bombers into the open.  They were completely wiped out by defensive fire, and I was not able to recover despite a tremendous run of double phases.

Again, thanks for the analysis, great points made and I will keep them in mind when I take my own run at these scenarios!

[Basementboy]

A further question about TFL’s rules- how accurate would they be for other theatres of war during the conflict? Gallipoli or the Eastern Front would surely be different, but if I remember correctly the Germans did dig some trenchworks in the east during warmer months when the ground wasn’t frozen.

[monk2002uk]

Germans and Austrians operated on the Eastern Front. Trenches were ubiquitous but the type of trenches depended on the area. There are many examples of trenches built above ground, especially in the lower lying sectors:





In general, the trenches lay much further apart and were more thinly manned than on the Western Front.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

"...how accurate..." is a more difficult question to answer. Gallipoli falls into three broad categories of action: the landings; set-piece trench warfare; and outflanking manoeuvres. The latter features the Battle of Sari Bair in particular. The landings did feature entrenchments. At Anzac Cove, there were two platoons of Ottomans that opposed the landing sites (it would have been more if the landings had taken place where they were meant to). One platoon was dug in on Northern Beach; the other was dug in overlooking the first plateau above the cove. The landings at Cape Helles were opposed by wire and trenches. The French landings were not; they dug in and defended against Ottoman counter-attacks before disembarking as planned. The British landing near Krithia resulted in them digging in, repulsing counter-attacks, and then disembarking.

The set-piece battles would be very difficult to model. The Krithia series of battles are a good example of trench warfare in 1915 but would be next to impossible to model 'accurately' with any degree of enjoyment for both players. It would be possible to play out, however, in a manner similar to the first of the playtest scenarios, minus the bombers and Lewis guns.

There are some interesting possibilities with Sari Bair, such as the New Zealand Light Horse night attack on the Ottoman outposts at the base of Rhododendron Ridge.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

I'll try to add a few points in defence of the games...

No need to 'defend' from my perspective, Will. I know the rules well and understand what they are trying to model. Your extra details on the general concepts are well made for other readers of this thread, so thank you for posting. Also for the information on the scenarios themselves, which I am not familiar with as you can tell.

One minor point, which is in no way intended as a criticism of what you wrote. You mentioned the goal of showing 'the British platoon after the lessons of the Somme had been learnt'. This reflects the timing of the publication on the official leaflet about platoon-level tactics. It is important to note, however, that the British trained their forces in these tactics before the Battle of the Somme. The problems on day 1 and afterwards reflected other major factors that determined success, not the way that bombers, rifle grenades, and Lewis guns were used.

I have created a diagram to illustrate the alternative approach to the first scenario, taking the perspective from the 'other side of the wire'. Crusty Colonel did a great job with his videos. Here is the overhead shot of the battlefield for the first scenario:



I can't be sure about the exact terrain contours but it seemed like there were some ridges running at angles across the battlefield. I have marked out what appears to be the areas of defilade, which offered some protection to the British force as they performed a frontal attack. A German commander would not have permitted these covered lines of approach. One key feature, which is hard to model in this scale (and is not an issue with the rule set per se), is the difficulty in reproducing how the Germans would have protected against this. The red arrows show the lanes of fire that would have been laid down by MMGs positioned one or two tables away to the southeast.

The problem for the British is that no amount of junior leadership could overcome this type of battlefield tactical conundrum. It means, in practice, that scenarios have to be carefully thought through if the key features of the rules are to shine from an historical perspective. But, as I mentioned, the ultimate goal is to have fun...

Robert

[monk2002uk]

The smallest subunit in the game, other than the individual leaders, is the weapons team (such as a machine gun team) but the most numerous unit is the section.  I suspect that activating bombers individually would add a level of granularity to play that would slow down the game too much - of course, that is a matter of individual preference!

I understand your concern. FWIIW, I wouldn't advise reducing the granularity below the section level either. An alternative would be to modify the way that the section operates as a whole. Again thanks to Crusty Colonel's excellent videos, here is a screenshot of the key bombing attack in the second scenario:



The red arrow and ellipse illustrate the mechanic as stands. It appears as if the whole section threw bombs some distance to land and have an impact on the whole German Gruppe. In reality, from what I can tell from reading anecdotal reports, the lead throwers (two men highlighted with the dashed white ellipse) would attack the area marked with the solid white ellipse. It might be possible to physically throw bombs further but line of sight was a major problem preventing this.

Once the bombers got close enough to attack the Germans then the enemy would attack back in like measure.

Hope the image helps. Just to reiterate, the whole bombing section would be involved but the effects would reflect that fact that one or two men were throwing; the rest were feeding them with grenades or rushing round the corner to finish off injured or concussed enemy with rifle fire or bayonet. In both instances, the range was very short.

Robert

[Basementboy]

The image absolutely helps! Will take your notes into account for certain

[Will Bailie]

Hi, Robert and thanks for your fantastic comments!  You've really highlighted the challenge of scenario design - how to make a historically plausible but still balanced game 

Hand grenades are significantly more powerful in 'Cocking up Through the Mud and the Blood' than in the baseline WWII version of Chain of Command.  In basic CoC, a leader needs to use an activation to throw a single grenade, with a 'to hit' roll required - greater than the range to target on 2d6.  This gives a maximum range of 11", but thanks to the bell curve, the chance of hitting any target more than 6" away is less than 50%.  Only after hitting does the player get to roll the firepower dice for effect.  In the Colonel's videos, however, the bombers are allowed to roll their firepower dice (no 'to hit' test needed) at targets up to 11", resulting in the section rolling something like 24 attack dice!  I think it would be quite reasonable, based on the photo you provided, to require each bomber to make the same hit roll as required in CoC.  This would significantly shorten the practical range for the bombers, which will in turn reduce the number of throwers able to throw bombs.

I am looking forward to seeing how the Colonel fares with the next few videos, where the focus is on 'training the Central Powers', as the scenarios will involve lots of close quarters action!

[monk2002uk]

Thank you, Will.

You are on to something, with regards to bombing tactics. Your observations are well made and are worth exploring further, IMHO.

I have watched all 4 videos in the series now. Here are some general observations, FWIIW:

• The attacker can consistently achieve victory with, at most, a force superiority of only 2:1. This is in the absence of the major drivers of success on the WW1 battlefield during the positional warfare phases, namely massive artillery preparation and force superiority in the order of 3:1 or more
• MMGs can be targeted preferentially. A lot of effort is focused on eliminating MMGs early. There is good reason. In practice, however, MMGs were hard to locate and eliminate. This was, in part, due to their careful positioning to fire in enfilade, making them hard to detect by frontal observation. Secondly their very low profile, even when not in protective hard cover. Try playing out a game where an MMG cannot be targeted unless there is direct contact base-to-base...
• The German infantry sections are constantly fighting with two hands behind their collective back, i.e. the two bombers not being able to contribute with rifle fire. This would not have been the case when defending at distance. All men would have used their rifles until the introduction of the MG08/15. As with the Lewis gun and Chauchat teams, some of the men in a section with an LMG would have been ammo carriers predominantly and would not have routinely contributed with rifle fire
• Even with massed tank attacks, such as Cambrai, Matz, Soissons, Amiens, etc, it is highly unlikely that an infantry platoon would work with two tanks
• The last scenario involved wire. The process for removing wire was determined when the attacker approached it. On both occasions when this happened, the British were fortunate that the wire was not an obstacle. There was a significant risk that the wire would have remained. The risk related to a die roll, introducing significant uncertainty. This makes it difficult for the defender too, as no part of the line is known for certain to be protected. The Germans often concentrated defensive fire on known gaps in the wire. Tanks offered the advantage that wire did not need to cut by artillery and mortars (specifically the 2" spigot mortars, not Stokes mortars). The success of Cambrai was facilitated by the fact that artillery could focus on a sudden pre-registered bombardment for suppression purposes, while the tanks opened lanes through the dense wire entanglements.
• My last observation is just a general impression. I can't quite put my finger on it but significant proportions of a force may not see any movement or other action, sometimes for quite long periods. Activity seems to focus around the 'junior leaders' and I wonder if there is an issue with the NCO leadership (or lack of) within the section/squad?

[monk2002uk]

I am looking forward to seeing how the Colonel fares with the next few videos, where the focus is on 'training the Central Powers', as the scenarios will involve lots of close quarters action!

The first of these videos has been posted. It features the Germans attacking two British MMG teams. Just a quick observation about the set-up of MMGs. The game starts with the MMGs on either flank facing forwards:



I have added the 90 degree firing arcs, plus a snapshot of the British right flank MMG team taken at table level.

Here is the alternative approach, illustrating how mutually supporting fire worked. Note how the right MMG team can be placed in defilade. The left MMG would be facing sideways, not forwards. This would give cover to the gunners from direct fire to the front.



Watch how the first option plays out...



Robert

[Basementboy]

Thanks for the diagrams! Very useful information indeed

[Baron von Wreckedoften]

Missed the last couple of days, but boy does Robert (monk2002uk) bring a superior perspective to any discussion on Great War infantry combat!!!

I can't off-hand recall which army adopted this (it may have been universal), but I seem to recall reading that bombing sections had a "near bomber" and a "far bomber" with the former lobbing a grenade into the next traverse along, and the latter going for the one beyond that to catch any enemy "hanging back".  Obviously, cricket skills would give the Empire troops an advantage - that said, I did see a contemporary film of Poilus being taught to throw a grenade in much the same way that we were taught to bowl at school.....

(A propos nothing in particular, I do recall reading a short article indicating that Hitler once observed British PoWs playing cricket and joined in, being taught how to bowl leg-spin.  It was one of those beautifully-written articles where you could not tell, for sure, if it was a spoof or not.  Still, the thought of Der Fuhrer acquiring the skill to turn something from right to left is intriguing..... )

[monk2002uk]

Suffice to say that throwers did not operate in this way:



Robert

[Baron von Wreckedoften]

That's definitely NOT the film I saw - although it does show why the most dangerous thing an officer should be given in wartime is a map!!!  My one had a group of French soldiers and they were drilling as a formation - presumably with dummy grenades.

[Basementboy]

Missed the last couple of days, but boy does Robert (monk2002uk) bring a superior perspective to any discussion on Great War infantry combat!!!

You’re not wrong- I’ve been quite blown away by the expertise they’ve brought to the field! I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s some kind of celebrity professor going undercover on the site