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

[monk2002uk]

The map is a very reasonable description of the German Army Corps sectors that engaged the BEF brigades along the Condé Canal. What is not obvious is that the German corps were not advancing with all of their divisions and regiments in line abreast. British regimental histories often give the impression this was the case. It has led to Napoleonic or equivalent wargame rules being thought to be suitable for these early war engagement battles. The full details of how this battle unfolded from a German perspective are in the translation of the German Official History that I published in English.

In the lead-up to the Battle of Mons, the BEF and the German First Army were using their cavalry divisions to screen the movements of their infantry forces. Both sets of cavalry divisions were operating many kilometres ahead, at least one day's movement ahead of their infantry colleagues. In the German case, however, the main focus of the cavalry divisions was to the west towards the Channel ports not to the south where the BEF was advancing from. The main body of the German infantry, therefore, was covered by the next layer of cavalry. The second layer of cavalry were smaller units attached to corps and divisions. They operated much closer to the infantry, literally hours ahead. The main BEF cavalry screen struck the German advance well ahead of the BEF infantry, giving the infantry time to set up defensive positions along the Condé Canal. The second line of British recon/screening elements, which included cyclists as well as divisional cavalry, then picked up the impending German attack on the next day.

The German corps were advancing in long lines of column, unaware that the BEF was along the canal. The columns were so long that a whole corps could not be deployed in a day in the same spot. The German advance guard divisional cavalry struck the forward screening elements of the BEF, for example at Tertre on the map i.e. along the top edge of the shaded Army Corps sectors on the map. Each German corps then started to deploy units as they arrived. Of note, the IX Army Corps had deployed artillery well forward with the advance guard. This enabled the leading infantry elements to cross the canal between Nimy and Obourg.

While all of this was unfolding, the British cavalry division reformed itself behind the line (you can see the cavalry brigades around Quièvrain, Elouges and Dour on the map). They were preparing to cover the BEF left flank. During the next few weeks, the cavalry played an extraordinary role in delaying the vastly superior German forces operating in pursuit. The same situation occurred after the Battle of the Marne when the German cavalry played a similar and significant role in delaying the Allied advance to the Aisne.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

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.

No need to apologise at all, Chris. I was not irked or upset in any way.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

Here is a map of the German IX Army Corps advance on the 23 August:



Note that the use of 'J.' is actually an 'I.' for 'Infanterie' (Infantry) not 'Jäger' as is sometimes translated in English.

Robert

[HerbertTarkel]

Cavalry in WW1 doing nothing?

The Canadians might disagree.

Fort Garry Horse (my regiment) at Cambrai earned their VC.

The Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians) brought home two VCs. One lived, one posthumous.

That’s hardly nothing for cavalry action.

[2010sunburst]

What that map also shows is how the troop densities of battles in those respective conflicts varied.  Mons had around 220,000 combatants, Waterloo had around 190,000,  and Mars La Tour had just 160,000, which is about the same size as the battle of Gettysburg.  It would be interesting to see that superimposed in a similar fashion because I think you would get all three of the nineteenth century battles into the frontage of Mons. 

[monk2002uk]

Here is the map with Gettysburg overlaid:



Robert

[monk2002uk]

Yes, there were tanks at Cambrai, which makes it more interesting than battles without them.
Compare that with WWII... No wonder WWII warfare is more mobile and varied and wargamed more.

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.

Chris, you are touching on what makes for interesting wargames. No-one is particularly interesting in playing the static warfare examples in the American Civil War for example - Vicksburg and Fredericksburg spring to mind - at least from what I can see. How different it might be if the only literature on ACW focused on these examples of linear trench warfare? Or there had been sufficient manpower to extend the trenches of Fredericksburg from coast-to-coast? Likewise if the Franco-Prussian War was solely written about from the perspective of the Siege of Paris. With respect to WW2, the grinding attritional battles on the Eastern Front do not feature highly in our literature yet this is where the vast majority of casualties occurred. If the UK had to take on the role of the Soviet Union in holding the bulk of the German army in WW2 then we would be lauding how light the casualties were in the Great War.

It can seem surprising that the current war between Russia and Ukraine harks back to the Great War rather than WW2. But the three wars are not fundamentally different. This is why I think it is important to redress the imbalances in how the Great War is represented.

Tanks are cool. The numbers were less in WW1 but they were involved in pretty much every major battle from late 1916 onwards. Hence the plan to release three scenario books focused solely on battles with tanks - British, French, American and German. A goal is to help readers understand how tank/combined arm tactics evolved towards the foundation for the use of tanks in WW2. This includes the evolution of anti-tank tactics as well.

Robert

[ChrisBBB]

What that map also shows is how the troop densities of battles in those respective conflicts varied.  Mons had around 220,000 combatants, Waterloo had around 190,000,  and Mars La Tour had just 160,000, which is about the same size as the battle of Gettysburg.  It would be interesting to see that superimposed in a similar fashion because I think you would get all three of the nineteenth century battles into the frontage of Mons.

Yes, exactly as I said:

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.

[ChrisBBB]

Cavalry in WW1 doing nothing?
The Canadians might disagree.
Fort Garry Horse (my regiment) at Cambrai earned their VC.
The Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians) brought home two VCs. One lived, one posthumous.
That’s hardly nothing for cavalry action.

As I keep saying - it's relative.

As Clausewitz notes, in the 17th century cavalry was the major battle-winning arm and was often close to 50% or more of an army's strength.
He says its proportion declined in the 18th century because of improved infantry firepower until it was 20-25% in his (Napoleonic and immediately post-Napoleonic) time.
He astutely predicted that its proportion would continue to decline in future, as it did through the rest of the 19th century, because of further improvements in firepower.
By the end of WWI, the British only had about one cavalry division per army, didn't they - probably <10% of strength?

Hence relatively it disappears, compared with earlier periods.

[ChrisBBB]

No-one is particularly interesting in playing the static warfare examples in the American Civil War for example - Vicksburg and Fredericksburg spring to mind - at least from what I can see. How different it might be if the only literature on ACW focused on these examples of linear trench warfare? Or there had been sufficient manpower to extend the trenches of Fredericksburg from coast-to-coast? Likewise if the Franco-Prussian War was solely written about from the perspective of the Siege of Paris. With respect to WW2, the grinding attritional battles on the Eastern Front do not feature highly in our literature yet this is where the vast majority of casualties occurred. If the UK had to take on the role of the Soviet Union in holding the bulk of the German army in WW2 then we would be lauding how light the casualties were in the Great War.

What makes for interesting wargames? That is obviously a matter of personal taste but for me, it's primarily about having plenty of tactical decisions to make, which requires that there should be plenty of options. Ideally, the situation should change significantly every turn so that the game generates fresh decisions every turn. Ideally, that requires large movement distances and decisive combat. Ideally, both sides should need to and be able to maneuver quite a lot (more than just committing one reserve to the defensive line). WWI battles where even the tanks move at infantry speed and where the defender's opportunities for counter-maneuver are very limited therefore tend to be relatively (there's that word again) less interesting to me.

No-one is particularly interesting in playing the static warfare examples in the American Civil War for example - Vicksburg and Fredericksburg spring to mind - at least from what I can see. How different it might be if the only literature on ACW focused on these examples of linear trench warfare? Or there had been sufficient manpower to extend the trenches of Fredericksburg from coast-to-coast?

I think you mean Petersburg, not Fredericksburg? (I think there's an interesting game there, actually - it's the scenario I'm working on right now - but it is about groping for a flank and cutting LOCs rather than about the siege works.) I don't see the point of your what-ifs. Literature and wargamers focus on the field operations because there are lots of them and they're dynamic and important.

Likewise if the Franco-Prussian War was solely written about from the perspective of the Siege of Paris.

Actually, you could say the FPW was all about the Siege of Paris: the initial battles were about reaching Paris and establishing the siege; the republican battles were about three French armies converging to try to liberate Paris. And there's a major sortie at Champigny/Villiers. Again, not sure what is the point of the what-if.

Tanks are cool. The numbers were less in WW1 but they were involved in pretty much every major battle from late 1916 onwards. Hence the plan to release three scenario books focused solely on battles with tanks - British, French, American and German. A goal is to help readers understand how tank/combined arm tactics evolved towards the foundation for the use of tanks in WW2. This includes the evolution of anti-tank tactics as well.

A major problem for WWI wargaming (for me, anyway) is that while tanks were present in significant numbers in late war battles, they were only on one side. There was virtually no tank-vs-tank action. You don't have the kind of maneuver and counter-maneuver by large mobile masses that generates lots of complex decisions for both sides and makes for really interesting games.

Again let me say relatively speaking. You don't need to try to convince me that there are interesting games to be had from WWI. I already know that and I've played a few and expect to play more. It's just less fruitful soil than other conflicts for my particular tastes.

[carlos marighela]

Could we possibly have an overlay onto that map of the 1981 Battle of Montevideo*? That would put it on a human scale. Another titanic battle between the forces of good and evil and one of the most violent confrontations of the late 20th C. Good triumphed, through sheer brilliance, professionalism and resolve, against a horde of hateful, hapless, foes.





* Libertadores third match final (decider) between Flamengo and Cobreloa held on nominally neutral ground.

[monk2002uk]

I think you mean Petersburg, not Fredericksburg? ... I don't see the point of your what-ifs. Literature and wargamers focus on the field operations because there are lots of them and they're dynamic and important.

Petersburg is another example (rather than 'instead of') as is Cold Harbor. Apologies that my point was not clearer. I am asking that you suspend any information that you know about ACW currently. Then picture a situation where you came to read about the conflict for the first time. The only readily available literature focused solely on siege lines or attacks against dug-in enemy. Nothing about open flanks or the ability to get at lines of communication. My point about FPW was along the same lines. What if the only books you could find were about the siege lines around Paris? No options. No room for plenty of tactical decisions. This is how much of the Great War has been misrepresented in the past.

Even with the continuous defensive lines on the Western Front, there are plenty of options and what ifs. I appreciate that the depth and type of decision-making is not to your liking. This will be true for many gamers. And that is perfectly fine. But I want to make others aware that there is more to WW1 than is typically written about. For example, your point about no major tank versus tank battles suggests that there is no tactical depth or challenge to the use of tanks by one side. This is a fair reflection of the literature but there is more to this than gets into most books. Artillery were the 'tanks' that the enemy used. Guns had to be set up in such a way that they could take on tanks effectively. This posed challenges in choosing locations and in timing. Attackers had to consider where the guns might be located. Preparatory barrages were planned accordingly. Then various recon systems were put in place to track and target the enemy guns in real time.

I love the planning that is required for Great War games. This is the first layer of tactical challenges. Then you have to adapt as the battle unfolds on the table. The latter is not just about pushing a line of reinforcements forwards.

Robert

[ChrisBBB]

Petersburg is another example (rather than 'instead of') as is Cold Harbor.

Oh, so you did mean Fredericksburg. Yes, that was basically a frontal assault against entrenched enemy, as was Cold Harbor, as were a number of other ACW and FPW set-piece battles. Those weren't siege lines but Clausewitzian 'positions' where the defending army had dug itself in astride the expected enemy axis of advance. These campaigns typically alternated between bashing heads against such positions and attempting to sidestep them.

I agree that simple frontal assaults don't make for the best games. (See my essay on this here:)
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2023/04/can-frontally-assaulting-redoubts-make.html
I wouldn't particularly want to play a game just of Cold Harbor or The Crater (or Gaines Mill, or Malvern Hill, or Pickett's Charge, etc etc). The trick is to expand the frame of time and space to the point where you do have some options and some decisions to make. BBB's elastic scale allows that. We've actually had really good games from Fredericksburg:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/07/a-hot-days-fighting-at-fredericksburg.html
(where Matt's scenario encompassed Prospect Hill as well as Marye's Heights and created both pre-game and in-game options for both sides);
and from Cold Harbor:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2024/10/acw-cold-harbor-more-than-just-frontal.html
(a scenario covering the whole six days of operations between the Pamunkey and the Chickahominy, tons of maneuver);
and The Seven Days' Battles:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-seven-days-battles-acw-all-in-one.html
(doing what it says on the tin).

The latter two in particular cross the line from grand tactical into operational-level games. I think WWI games at that level - multi-day operations, with units being divisions or corps - could generate enough decisions to be 'interesting' per my definition.

Apologies that my point was not clearer. I am asking that you suspend any information that you know about ACW currently. Then picture a situation where you came to read about the conflict for the first time. The only readily available literature focused solely on siege lines or attacks against dug-in enemy. Nothing about open flanks or the ability to get at lines of communication. My point about FPW was along the same lines. What if the only books you could find were about the siege lines around Paris? No options. No room for plenty of tactical decisions. This is how much of the Great War has been misrepresented in the past.

OK, I understand now, thank you. I suppose British WWI literature is coloured by the fact that Britain incurred huge casualties on the Western Front, mainly from the Somme (the British Army's bloodiest day ever?) and Passchendaele, for advances of 5 miles or less. Obviously there's more to the war than just those two battles, but it's understandable that they get a lot of attention.

By contrast, America's bloodiest day was a battle in the open field (Antietam), and all the top 10 bloodiest ACW battles were similarly field actions rather than assaults on entrenchments (Fredericksburg and Cold Harbor aren't in the top 10). For the FPW, you could characterize Gravelotte as a frontal assault on entrenchments, maybe Le Mans, but most of the rest are more mobile open field battles.

Even with the continuous defensive lines on the Western Front, there are plenty of options and what ifs. I appreciate that the depth and type of decision-making is not to your liking. This will be true for many gamers. And that is perfectly fine. But I want to make others aware that there is more to WW1 than is typically written about. For example, your point about no major tank versus tank battles suggests that there is no tactical depth or challenge to the use of tanks by one side. This is a fair reflection of the literature but there is more to this than gets into most books. Artillery were the 'tanks' that the enemy used. Guns had to be set up in such a way that they could take on tanks effectively. This posed challenges in choosing locations and in timing. Attackers had to consider where the guns might be located. Preparatory barrages were planned accordingly. Then various recon systems were put in place to track and target the enemy guns in real time.

I love the planning that is required for Great War games. This is the first layer of tactical challenges. Then you have to adapt as the battle unfolds on the table. The latter is not just about pushing a line of reinforcements forwards.

Certainly I applaud your efforts to make people look beyond the simple stereotype and appreciate that there is more to WWI. And yes, I appreciate that pre-battle planning can provide interesting challenges. For me, it's still the in-game decisions that WWI battles tend to lack (again - relatively), for fundamental reasons to do with the technology and resulting battlefield geometry. I believe the best (but perhaps not the only) way to overcome that problem is to design scenarios at the operational level rather than grand tactical.

[sundayhero]

I'm always suprised by all the knowledge of LAFers 


Concerning cavalry, this is something we can see apparently in 1914 ruleset. DOn't know if it "feels" OK or not.

[ChrisBBB]

I think it is important to redress the imbalances in how the Great War is represented.

PS - maybe this is a good time to mention that I'm on your side in this and have done my bit to try to counter misrepresentation of WWI. (Forgive me if you've heard this anecdote before - others may still find it amusing.)

A friend of mine was writing a textbook for the UK school curriculum on 'War and Society'. He invited me to review the chapter on 1750-1900. I found a couple of things to object to. One was the assertion that warfare did not change significantly between 1750 and 1850 (Clausewitz takes the opposite view, but what did he know?). The more pertinent one here is that, in this period leading up to WWI, "the generals failed to learn the lesson that, because of improvements in weapons, defence was king". This is just a slightly politer way of saying "lions led by donkeys". I felt obliged to point out that weapons can be used by the attacker too and that in virtually every war between the Crimea and WWI, the attacker wins, the attacker wins, the attacker wins ... apparently I caused my mate a serious problem because the facts are at odds with what the curriculum required him to say.