The War that 'no-one' wargames..will that change?

[ChrisBBB]

It was not firepower that killed mobility. It was the ability to deny open flanks.

I suggest these two things are related - it was not just manpower but also firepower that made continuous defensive lines viable, and made it easy to plug gaps quickly. During the period of the "mathematics of destruction", logistics wasn't the ultimate issue, was it? You could bring up X guns with Y trainloads of ammunition to blow a guaranteed hole Z miles long in the enemy's line. The problem was that the attacker's artillery couldn't keep up with his infantry's advance, so the defender only needed a small reserve to stop any significant exploitation - because firepower (infantry and artillery) trumped mobility (cavalry). And I did emphasise that I was speaking relatively.

Anyway: interesting discussion and of course there are still interesting games to be had from WWI. I know this is very much your area of expertise rather than mine, Robert, and I hope we can talk more about it at JoS. (Where I believe Richard Heath will be offering a game of my own Le Cateau scenario for the retreat from Mons!)

[sundayhero]

GEG 1914

We enjoyed Iron Cross a lot - it is essentially platoon to company a side pretty much 1:1 scale. The activation systems works really well at this scale, and we have had some fun games.

But for 1914 rules which are a much higher representative scale (IIRC one stand is a platoon) we didn't find the activation mechanism worked very well, it felt like units were doing loads of things in a turn. We did play mainly remotely during covid, and I don't think the players really made best use of the interrupt mechanism. But you also need quite a high dice roll to interrupt so I suspect they felt keeping their activation counters was more effective.

The games looked good, you get plenty of figures on the table, and move along. But they don't feel very WWI.

The photos in the rule book are odd too - nice figures but the terrain looks more like Middle Earth with great rock formations, rather than northern France.

Edit - one good thing about the higher level WWI rules is that the same figures work for all the rules - perhaps with the addition of the odd different type of command figure.

thank you. I may have found a ww1 "feel" wargame rules : http://dtf.chatperche.free.fr/Pierre/C&ANS.pdf

If you can read french, there is some interesting points in this game. And considering the scale, should be fully compatible with GEG 1914 figures and basing.

[Freddy]

I suggest these two things are related - it was not just manpower but also firepower that made continuous defensive lines viable, and made it easy to plug gaps quickly. During the period of the "mathematics of destruction", logistics wasn't the ultimate issue, was it? You could bring up X guns with Y trainloads of ammunition to blow a guaranteed hole Z miles long in the enemy's line. The problem was that the attacker's artillery couldn't keep up with his infantry's advance, so the defender only needed a small reserve to stop any significant exploitation - because firepower (infantry and artillery) trumped mobility (cavalry). And I did emphasise that I was speaking relatively.

It was also about the reinforcements. The artillery barrages for days and weeks alerted the enemy about the direction of the offensive, and with the well established railway system they could bring the reinforcements there even before the first attacking soldier jumped out of the trench.

[monk2002uk]

...it was not just manpower but also firepower that made continuous defensive lines viable, and made it easy to plug gaps quickly

The 'million man' armies that took the field on the Western Front had the manpower capacity to stretch from coast to Switzerland. Although the French and German field armies were not stretched that far initially, they could have been. If the Belgian Army had held then this would have been the case from the outset. Even with the relative collapse of the Belgian defences along the Meuse, the armies were still large enough that the German right flank First Army was plagued by concerns about being outflanked. My translation of the German Official History of the Battle of Mons and Joe Robinson's book 'German Failure in Belgium' show how the threat posed by manpower stifled 'mobility'. 

... I believe Richard Heath will be offering a game of my own Le Cateau scenario for the retreat from Mons!

Yes, I recall the scenario and commented on the original After Action Report at the time. Le Cateau was predicated on the ongoing effect of the scale of manpower that was operating in August 1914.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

During the period of the "mathematics of destruction", logistics wasn't the ultimate issue, was it? You could bring up X guns with Y trainloads of ammunition to blow a guaranteed hole Z miles long in the enemy's line. The problem was that the attacker's artillery couldn't keep up with his infantry's advance, so the defender only needed a small reserve to stop any significant exploitation - because firepower (infantry and artillery) trumped mobility (cavalry). And I did emphasise that I was speaking relatively.

I do understand that you are making relative comparisons, yes.

The term 'mathematics of destruction' is not one I have heard in relation to WW1. Two Australian historians have definitely tried to make the point about number of guns per kilometre as a predictor of success. It is a different proxy but amounts to the same concept. There were commonly understood logistics calculations across all major armies. The equations did not extend, however, to 'guaranteed hole(s) Z miles long' as an outcome. More significantly, cavalry were not regarded as the harbingers of operational success on the modern battlefield of that time. The roles of cavalry on the battlefield had changed significantly after ACW and the Franco-Prussian War. Large-scale infantry formations, operating in continuous connection with neighbouring units were the basis of 'mobility'.

Robert

[ChrisBBB]

Hi Robert,

The term 'mathematics of destruction' is not one I have heard in relation to WW1.

I think it stuck with me from reading Gudmundsson, "On Artillery".

The roles of cavalry on the battlefield had changed significantly after ACW and the Franco-Prussian War. Large-scale infantry formations, operating in continuous connection with neighbouring units were the basis of 'mobility'.

Which was really my point in relation to games: when cavalry largely disappears from the battlefield, you lose the tactically interesting triad. Rock-scissors-paper is a better game than Rock-Scissors. And the reason it disappears is firepower.

Chris

[carlos marighela]

Of course cavalry doesn't quite disappear anyway, at least outside of the Western Front. It played a leading role, some might say a decisive role in the rolling up of the Ottoman Empire in Palestine. Argue all you like as to whether it was more a case of pure cavalry or mounted infantry, in a grand tactical and strategic sense it acted as cavalry.

[monk2002uk]

Cavalry did not disappear from the Western Front either, at least not in the British and French armies. Two divisions of cavalry will appear on-table in the Cambrai 1917 demo game at Joy of Six. Plus tanks. Plus ground attack aircraft.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

Carlos, you are right about Palestine. During several phases of that campaign, there were open flanks to exploit. Megiddo was an example where the Ottoman defences had become too difficult to defend in depth. The trench lines were smashed by land- and naval artillery, opening the way for the 'cavalry'. Feints to the open flank to the east had helped.

Robert

[ChrisBBB]

Relatively speaking, cavalry in WWI just can't deliver the shock on the battlefield that it did in previous eras or that fast-moving armour did in WWII. Cavalry's mobility can get it to the WWI battlefield but is no use on the WWI battlefield - it can't survive the defender's firepower. (No disrespect intended to the Australian Light Horse - perhaps a rare exception that proves the rule?)

Yes, there were cavalry divisions at Cambrai - but they did virtually nothing, did they? If it had been a Napoleonic battlefield, or if they'd been WWII mechanized inf 'armored cavalry', you can be sure they'd have had more impact.

Yes, there were tanks at Cambrai, which makes it more interesting than battles without them.
Total French and British tank production combined in WWI was about 6,000 or so, wasn't it - and most of those were Renault FT?
Compare that with WWII where the US and USSR each produce about 100,000, Germany 50,000, Britain 30,000 - never mind the further 100s of 1000s of APCs and armoured cars.
No wonder WWII warfare is more mobile and varied and wargamed more.
(Though not so much the ground combat in the Indo-Pacific theatre - where there weren't many tanks.)

Yes, million-man armies could hold a line from Switzerland to the sea, but only because of their firepower. Troop density reduces as lethality of weapons increases - fewer men can cover more frontage as their firepower improves. Those million-man armies couldn't have held that line with muzzle-loading rifles.

I'm not arguing that 'defense was king'. I'm not arguing that 'firepower killed mobility' - that was obviously an exaggeration, a caricature. But it is surely incontrovertible that in this particular period the balance between firepower and mobility had shifted, to the detriment of mobility. It shifted back in WWII thanks to greatly increased numbers of much more advanced tanks and airpower enabling more mobile warfare. Nowadays, further improvements in firepower and especially in target location mean it has shifted the other way again and modern warfare is more akin to WWI attrition.

[monk2002uk]

Relatively speaking, cavalry in WWI just can't deliver the shock on the battlefield that it did in previous eras or that fast-moving armour did in WWII. Cavalry's mobility can get it to the WWI battlefield but is no use on the WWI battlefield - it can't survive the defender's firepower. (No disrespect intended to the Australian Light Horse - perhaps a rare exception that proves the rule?)

I am going to touch on the several points that you raise. It is important to deepen the understanding of WW1 if we are to set aside some of the myths and to foster interest in this era.

With regards to cavalry, it depends on what you mean by 'shock' on the battlefield. The Australian Light Horse was not an exception re charging effectively with bladed weapons (ALH were not issued with cavalry sabres) or lances. There are numerous examples.

Leaving aside 'shock' tactics, cavalry brought significant firepower to the battlefield. There are loads of scenarios that feature infantry versus cavalry or cavalry versus cavalry. Cavalry versus infantry are particularly interesting because the mobility on the battlefield really helps make up for the differences in manpower. A cavalry division was equivalent to an infantry regiment or brigade.

Here's another example from Palestine, with Yeomanry and ALH involved link

Eastern Front 1914 link

And First Battle of the Marne, which featured multiple cavalry divisions link

All of these scenarios (and more) make for very interesting and enjoyable games.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

Yes, there were cavalry divisions at Cambrai - but they did virtually nothing, did they? If it had been a Napoleonic battlefield, or if they'd been WWII mechanized inf 'armored cavalry', you can be sure they'd have had more impact.

The reason why the cavalry divisions had a limited impact on day one of Cambrai (they played significant roles in the subsequent days) relates to the defence of Flesquières. Had the British taken this town then the cavalry would have operated as they did in the Battle of Amiens for example or similar late war battles (some of which featured 'shock' tactics).

Just to remind others about the respective sizes of Napoleonic versus WW1 battlefields, here is map of Mons 1914 with Waterloo and Mars-la-Tour battlefields superimposed for scale.



Robert

[ChrisBBB]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the additional info re cavalry in WWI. Nothing there to disagree with. I don't have anything further to contribute to this discussion. While my (deliberately and explicitly) overstated caricaturing remark obviously had a kernel of truth, I can see why it irked you, and I apologise for that. I certainly didn't mean to create or reinforce any myths about WWI, which I know is an often misunderstood war. I respect and admire your expertise on WWI and endorse your efforts to combat said myths. I also admire your spectactular WWI games!

The OP asked whether WWI might ever become more popular among wargamers. I'm sure that, by your dedicated endeavours, you have done more than most to promote it. Well done and keep up the good work.

Best wishes,
Chris

[fred]

Just to remind others about the respective sizes of Napoleonic versus WW1 battlefields, here is map of Mons 1914 with Waterloo and Mars-la-Tour battlefields superimposed for scale.

This is a great graphic showing the huge size of WWI battles.

The main WWI map is also intriguing (and Anglo centric I think) with Germans shown as Army Corps, and the plucky Brits as Brigades

[carlos marighela]

Possibly cos it's a map from a book focussing on the British Army? Possibly because the BEF was but a fraction of the German forces facing them?