Trench combat

[Basementboy]

Thanks so much, folks! Will deffo take a gander at the YouTube series, always good to know what I’m getting into

[Baron von Wreckedoften]

There's a new small-scale (5-10 figures per side) skirmish game out in the US called "Scouts Out!"  The test games I've seen on You Tube use late war figures, but all seem to be aimed at the early war period - so no trenches.  I could be wrong, but the set up generally smacks of some confusion about the Great War and how it panned out.

The Pandyman/Trench Offensive chap told me at Warfare on Saturday, that they have some trench pieces in the works, which should be out some time in January.  He showed me some of them and they seem to have been designed in order to be counter-sunk into styrene blocks/tiles, which is much more appealing than the "scaling the north face of the Eiger" type trenches that most firms put out.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

The Pandyman/Trench Offensive chap told me at Warfare on Saturday, that they have some trench pieces in the works, which should be out some time in January.  He showed me some of them and they seem to have been designed in order to be counter-sunk into styrene blocks/tiles, which is much more appealing than the "scaling the north face of the Eiger" type trenches that most firms put out.

They have some rendering on the site's blog.

I did pick up the Sarrisa trench set at Warfare, and I know what you mean. They could do with some "No Man's Land" bits without the slopes.

[anton ryzbak]

Baron Von Wreckedoften,  You are right about "Scouts Out" some solid mechanics but they do miss the mixed weapons of the later war. Like "Blood and Valor" there is no consideration of grenade tactics or rifle grenades and the unit organization is rather suspect. The bones are there, it just needs tuning to bring it into sync with the realities of the tactics.

[monk2002uk]

Thank you for posting the link to the videos. I have watched 'Attack on a Strongpoint' so far. It is a good example relating to an entrenched enemy. Here are a few observations in furtherance of this discussion, FWIIW.

The scenario set-up appears to relate to the German withdrawal to the Hindenberg Line in early 1917 (it fits with an anecdotal report from the period; there is no wire; the Germans do not have MG08/15 LMGs; and the trench set-up is consistent with a rearguard action). On a general note, the table includes terrain features that facilitate an attack unsupported by artillery. There are several small ridges that offer defilade. This design is consistent with a textbook description of how to attack a hastily entrenched position. The other perspective, however, is the German view. Why set up a defensive position that favours the attacker in these ways?

The trench in this scenario is not like the deeply entrenched static lines during the opening of the Somme for example. The latter was orders of magnitude more difficult, though any entrenched position was a major problem to be fair.

The British force composition does not seem right for the mission. Bombers would not be used as such. They would have operated as a rifle section or as rifle-operating members of a rifle team. Crossing open ground to attack an entrenched position would have been absolutely lethal. Generally bombers followed the riflemen into the deep trenches and started clearing laterally or deeper into the network of trenches.

The process of bombing was very different from what was illustrated. One or two men threw the bombs; the rest carried supplies and fed them through to the throwers when in the trenches. The men with their vests and sacks of bombs were very heavily laden, so not easily able to be throwers themselves. Throwers were carefully selected, though in theory all of the men in a bombing section would operate as throwers.

A British rifle section could have thrown bombs in the way that was illustrated, where several men outside the trench would have thrown bombs into the trench. German riflemen operated the same way.

British advance guards in the pursuit to the Hindenberg Line  typically operated as combined arms teams, with Stokes mortars in some cases, as well as the close attendance by 13- or 18-pounder guns.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

The point about trench above-the-table lines is well made. Acheson created examples that could be embedded into foam or similar. Remember, however, that a lot of the trench systems in the northern Picardie region were above ground because of the high water table.

Robert

[Basementboy]

I didn’t know about that- so the whole trench system there was made from raised earthworks then?

[monk2002uk]

Yes, that's right. Roughly from Armentičres down to Loos, give or take.

Robert

[Pattus Magnus]

Regarding the raised trenches - the qualifier is “to the extent that it constituted trenches at all”. Most of my reading relates to the areas around Passchendael, because those battles featured fairly prominently in Canadian history when I was a student in the early’90s.

In practice, the soil to make the raised defense lines had to come from somewhere and building them created low points that collected water (as well was the water coming from underneath from the water table). So the areas became very soupy, even when the defenses were above grade. Then the raised areas were subject to German artillery, which churned the whole thing into mud… After a fairly short time, the defense works were not especially well defined and the stereotypical Flanders mud that would drown soldiers was very widespread (that kind of mud wasn’t as big a problem elsewhere on the western front, but it shows up a lot in English-language depictions because British and Empire troops served a lot along that part of the line).

Not be of which applied as much to the German lines - the Germans were very good at siting their trench lines along any available ridges. The British trench lines were sited afterward where advances against the German lines stalled - often in low ground. Later in the war the British and their pals got more selective about where to site the lines (and in places didn’t actively defend a continuous line). But in some areas lines through low areas were unavoidable.

The difficulty in trying to advance (or even just survive) out of the wet low areas against positions that were relatively dry and well sited was one of the reasons Passchendael was such a meat grinder in 1917. The British and Canadian troops were basically ordered to assault ridges from a swamp.

[monk2002uk]

The trenches around Neuve Chapelle, Aubers, Festubert, etc were built up above the ground with sandbags. In March 1915, the British broke into the German lines at Neuve Chapelle. The parapets were not very wide and were easily breached by the British bombardment. Direct fire was used, with artillery being wheeled forward during the night, as well as massive (for the time) indirect fire.

The Germans learned quickly from this. The width of parapets was increased up to 30 feet in places, with MG emplacements embedded into the trench walls at ground level. Although the trenches were on 'higher' ground, the water table was still a big problem. Walking the old lines around Aubers, for example, the higher elevation is barely noticeable. It does afford better observation but it is also clear why the Germans had to build trenches above ground as well.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

Just finished watching the second in the Chain of Command examples online: 'The Platoon in the attack between the trenches'. It is clear that the first example is part of a campaign, so does not represent an encounter by a British advance guard on a German rear guard. Rather it seems to be part of a set-piece attack on German defences in depth.

In both scenarios, the first thing that stands out is no wire. This would be the case in a hasty entrenchment as part of a rear guard action. In a major attack on fixed positions then, if a preparatory bombardment has 'cleared' the wire, it is likely the trenches would be knocked about as well. It took several days to 'clear' wire. Eventually, trenches became such a magnet for preparatory fire that the Germans dug them to deliberately draw the artillery fire but defended the shell holes between them. Hence the need for the British creeping barrages to start in No-Man's Land and not on the trenches. Plus the depth of the barrages was increased significantly too.

The second thing that is noticeable is the discrepancy in force sizes. On the first day of the Battle of Somme, for example, a German platoon would be facing at least 2 and up to 4 companies of British infantry. If the platoon was unsuppressed (which was often the case with the lifting barrages adopted by some Corps) then the platoon could destroy the British attack completely. The two videos do not come close to mimicking this level of defensive firepower IMHO. It could be argued that the dice rolled favourably in one game but it is starting to look like a pattern.

The mechanics for bombers do not seem right. As mentioned previously, bombers worked along trenches. In this game, the bombers did get into the German trench system. Once in a trench, the narrow confines meant that the bombing team adopted very specific tactics. There was no process of everyone in the team throwing bombs. The process of clearing along a trench was slow and arduous. There were would be a lead thrower. He would throw a grenade/s (not too many at a time as the supplies had to last for a prolonged engagement with defenders with access to almost unlimited supplies of stick bombs) over and into the next bay in the trench. A rifleman would then round the corner of the bay and finish off any one who survived. The process was then repeated one bay at a time. All the while, the remaining 'bombers' would be feeding bombs to the thrower and would not be throwing them as well.

Trench blocks were common. This would lead to stand-offs between opposing teams of bombers until one or other withdrew back. The attacker was always at a potential disadvantage because of the risk of supplies running out.

Bombing attacks on suppressed defenders could clear more quickly. Here you read examples of a Lewis gun being set up on a parapet and firing down the German trench line to suppress their bombers for example.

Overall impression is that the attacking forces are too powerful, FWIIW.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

Please note that my comments are directed at providing an historical perspective, in so far as I can based on my reading. Games are meant to be playable and fun, first and foremost.

Robert

[Basementboy]

Thanks so much for the historical insight, folks! Always nice to learn another piece of history
Monk2002, don’t worry about it, I like my games to strike a balance between accurate and playable, so this was very useful

[monk2002uk]

Thank you. Your comments express the spirit in which I hope my feedback is intended to be received.

Robert

[traveller]

Very interesting thread. I have a project for this on the shelf but have never seen any rules that are fast and fun enough to start working on building trench terrain. I read recently of a simple ruleset from Wargames Illustrated #235. Would anyone have a copy of that for sharing?