Bring out your Basmachi images!

[traveller]

Warming up myself for doing some Basmachi conversians....Some Basmachin snapshots from "White Sun of the Desert":


















From Osprey MAA White Armies




Foundry book
Fig 1 Enver Pascha
Fig 2 Basmachi



Anyone have images from the Russian movies "The 7th Bullet" or "The Bodyguard"?

[Mark Plant]

Those are pictures of what Russians think Central Asians looked like.  It's like converting your American Indians based on depictions in John Wayne movies!    (Doubly so, since "Basmachi" is about as meaningful as "Red Indian".)

There are plenty of pictures of actual Central Asians to use instead. These are Samarkand locals, which is as good a spot as any to base your units on:
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search?q=samarkand

[carlos marighela]

Maybe so Mark but the idea of an army in brightly coloured and torn dressing gowns does have a certain appeal. 

[Mark Plant]

Don't get me wrong, I have an strong interest in the Basmachis. I have a couple of dozen articles on them for me to wade through one day and make some sense of.

The bright dress has a certain appeal, but in the end the Basmachis are just another mob of Central Asians on horses. 

The armies of Bukhara and Samarkand are more appealing to me, since they mix more types. Since their opponents (or potential opponents) don't get the game-unbalancing toys like planes and armoured cars, I also reckon it is a better period to game too.

[carlos marighela]

One of the things I've always liked about this general period is that an aircraft or two is hardly a war winner. Lobbing the occasional 20lb bomb or  airborne IED from a, usually outmoded, aircraft doesn't seem to have dramatically altered too many outcomes. Likewise the  tendency to disperse armoured cars, themselves rather fragile items, into packets of ones and two prevents the RCW and beyond from becoming Blitzkreig in Bokhara.

[cuprum]

The Regard!
Here, there is some photo, which were used in work on my figure. See, there is colour photographies, they will help in painting of the figures.
http://www.fieldofbattle.ru/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=5113&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
http://papercraft.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=20

[Mark Plant]

Cuprum, I note you saying that the Basmachi were well equipped with automatic weapons. That goes against everything I have ever read on them.

I cite the article "The Basmachi in Red Journals" which says "As soon as the fight went to their advantage they captured machine-guns from the Red Army, but they did not actually own any themselves. Before the arrival of the Red Army the weapon was unknown in central Asia. It was so frightening to the Basmachi that they called it Sheitan Mashinka. (Satan's machine).

I have seen references to Basmachis owning a few captured machine-guns, but with no-one trained in their use they cannot have been very effective. Nor could they supply ammunition or parts. (Glenda Fraser's article on the Basmachi notes Enver Pasha as having no ammo for his couple of machine guns, nor any artillery at all. If he didn't, then who did?).

In any case such weapons would remove the Basmachis only advantages - speed and surprise. Everything I read suggests that the Basmachi never chose to fight on anything other than their own terms - small guerrilla actions - unless cornered. Perhaps a machine-gun might defend a village, but otherwise it was of little use to them.

[cuprum]

Hello Mark.
I give references to some articles on stories Basmachi in Central Asia. Unfortunately, only in Russian. There the chronology of this movement and its some basic events is well stated. This insurgent movement even before revolution in Russia, in 1910 has arisen. The first armed performances occurred in 1916! The number of insurgents reached 50000 persons! Then the armed groups Basmachi struggled with imperial administration. (1919 – 1920) some groups Basmachis reached the second period of blossoming of this movement of number of 20000 persons. They were armed enough modern weapon transferred by it by England, then supporting this struggle against Bolsheviks.
Here references:
http://www.hrono.ru/sobyt/1916rus.html
http://www.hrono.ru/sobyt/1918basm.html
Here, for example, a photo of the mountain tool which has been beaten off at Basmachi , from the Kirghiz museum:
http://borianm.livejournal.com/175900.html
Such weapon the former soldiers of Bukhara and Khiva, and also the former volunteers of the Russian Imperial army who were at war at the front in the First World War ("the Wild division") could use well. By the way, among Basmachi was many Turk and Afghans, able to address with such weapon, and as Russian-white which wished to battle to Bolsheviks.

[Mark Plant]

They were armed enough modern weapon transferred by it by England, then supporting this struggle against Bolsheviks.
[snip]
Such weapon the former soldiers of Bukhara and Khiva, and also the former volunteers of the Russian Imperial army who were at war at the front in the First World War ("the Wild division") could use well. By the way, among Basmachi was many Turk and Afghans, able to address with such weapon, and as Russian-white which wished to battle to Bolsheviks.

Ah, that explains it!

The Soviets were quite determined that the British supplied the Basmachis with weapons. They did not. Never. Not once. Thinking about it for a moment. Why would the British be supplying weapons to the Basmachis in 1919 and 1920 when there were White Russian forces that were acknowledged allies and were on sea routes? Why would they supply weapons in 1921 onwards when they had given up on defeating the Bolsheviks and were no longer even supplying White Russian forces?

Britain had no route to supply the Basmachis, even if they had wanted to. Nor are there any records in the UK of any supply being considered, much less sent.

The "Wild Division" has nothing to do with the Basmachis. Wrong tribes. Wrong side of the Caspian.

There were virtually no Turks with the Basmachis. Enver had 50 men? The Turkish period that was only a fraction of the Basmachi period and only in one location. (And, as noted above, Enver did not have much by way of support weapons.)

The Afghans refused to help. They had their own problems. Nor did they have much in common with the major Basmachi groups. They sold them a few arms from time to time, and allowed them refuge if they weren't too much trouble.

The former Bukharan and Khivan forces were loyal to their Emirs. They fought with them or they left. They had little in common with the rural Basmachis.

The concept of White Russians fighting with Basmachis is even less likely. They had nothing in common, apart from a dislike of Bolsheviks. Not language, not culture, not politics. There was a brief working relationship with the Peasant army (Monstrov?) but that wasn't White, and the Whites in Turkestan had a few Turkoman auxiliaries, but the idea that White Russians hung around to work the MGs for the Basmachis is extremely unlikely.

Basically the whole "the Basmachis were supported from outside" is a Soviet-era construct. It's part of the "we are surrounded by enemies" paranoia. It goes along with the nonsense about the "Entente" directing the Poles to attack in 1920. The 26 commissars is another Soviet era fantasy. Although the paranoia is at its best with the idea that Tukhachevski was a German spy. (Another amusing Soviet leftover is the Osprey on the Whites declaring that the Basmachis were "kulaks". How nomadic, tribal Moslems could be kulaks is quite beyond me.)

Now if you can find direct references in Frunze or such to heavily armed Basmachis, then it will carry some weight with me. Otherwise it is Soviet misdirection - keen to show that only with foreign intervention will anyone fight Soviet power.

[cuprum]

Well Mark!
  But the English weapon got on arms Basmachis as well as the English regimentals were not a rarity in groups Basmachi. Whence? Perhaps, any special services were engaged in arms supplies?
  And what you know about work «The British military mission in Turkestan» under the direction of general Malleson which was in Meshed (Iran) and has begun work on August, 10th, 1917?
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B8
  In Guards of the Bukhara Emir soldiers too have been armed by English rifles, had 16 machine guns of "Vikkers" and "Gochkis", had as 23 tools of various systems. Any part of the weapon could get to Basmachis and from the former Bukhara soldiers. They, by the way, were able to use it as were trained with the assistance of Russian and Turkish officers. The Unter-officer and younger officers Emir guards from the beginning of 19th century were often completed with retired Russian soldiers and corporals. Therefore to address with the modern weapon Bukhara soldiers were able.
  Now about the "Wild division". Its structure included the Tekinsky (Turkmen) regiment.
 http://www.antibr.ru/dictionary/ae_hadzh_k.html
  Pay attention on some last paragraphs!
I am surprised that you do not know this fact! The regiment was completed with soldiers-volunteers (Turkmans) from Central Asia. After revolution, naturally, the majority of them has come back home. These people, having First World War experience, for certain were able to address with machine guns, and could train in it others.
  On Turks – as a part of army of Bukhara there was a Turkish regiment. Where these people then have got?
  On assistance white and Basmachis – such facts I have not found, except army Monstrov.
  Imaginations in the Soviet history was much – with it silly to argue, but it is a lot of imaginations and in official stories of other states 
   By the way: "fist" is the farmer using work of hired workers. So also nomads could be considered as fists if employed to itself shepherds from structure of the poor people who had few of the cattle. Besides, in Central Asia there were many areas where peasants of local nationalities conducted a settled way of life, growing up wheat and a clap.
  Yours faithfully, Michael.

[Mark Plant]

And what you know about work «The British military mission in Turkestan» under the direction of general Malleson which was in Meshed (Iran) and has begun work on August, 10th, 1917?

For six months Malleson was in the Trans-Caspian area and might, quite reasonably, have armed anti-Bolshevik troops. There is no record of him doing so. There was a Bolshevik army in the way, so he had no communication with Bukhara, Khiva etc. At no other time were the British even close to the Basmachis. So any weapons supplied would soon have run out of ammunition.

  Now about the "Wild division". Its structure included the Tekinsky (Turkmen) regiment.
 http://www.antibr.ru/dictionary/ae_hadzh_k.html
  Pay attention on some last paragraphs!
I am surprised that you do not know this fact! The regiment was completed with soldiers-volunteers (Turkmans) from Central Asia. After revolution, naturally, the majority of them has come back home. These people, having First World War experience, for certain were able to address with machine guns, and could train in it others.

The Tekinsky were not in the Wild Division, which was made up of Caucasian peoples (regiments each of Daghestanis, Karbadians, Tartars, Chechens, Ingush and Circassians). The Tekintsy unit was much older (pre-war) and served entirely separately, since they were not Caucasian. They could hardly be both Wild Division and Kornilov's bodyguard at the same time.

I would add that in the Wild Division the machine-guns were not armed by Moslem tribesmen, but by Russians (sailors actually). The Tekintsy had no heavy support. They may have served for years, but that does not mean Tekintsy would know the first thing about MGs or artillery.

It was Tsarist policy to not arm Moslem tribes, and even when forced to use them, they did not do so as anything other than pure cavalry.

On Turks – as a part of army of Bukhara there was a Turkish regiment. Where these people then have got?

Bailey, the English agent in the area says
"There are about 1,000 Turkish soldiers and officers in Bokharan army. These are prisoners of war released in Russia and deserters from Mesopotamia army. Bokharan army consists of 30,000 regular troops and 6,000 magazine rifles. Artillery is deficient; practically whole population is armed."

But how many of these fought for the Basmachi, rather than return home? Once the war ended and Bukhara fell, why would they stay?

I suppose I really must organise my material and sort something out on paper about this.

[Ignatieff]

Great debate you guys....Keep going!

[cuprum]

So any weapons supplied would soon have run out of ammunition.

Certainly, but only in the event that it would be war traditional, with long defensive and offensive actions. Basically, it was reduced to guerrilla and counterguerrilla methods of conducting war. It usually does not mean heavy expenses of an ammunition. From several millions cartridges!
Here the citation (I resulted the reference to this article above):
«On August, 14th, 1918 to Tashkent there has arrived English military-diplomatic mission in structure Bailey (head), Blekker and the former consul general in Kashgar (Northwest China) D.Makkartni which official purpose was the establishment of communication with the government of the Soviet Turkestan. Mission has come into contact with « Shura-and-Ulema »and Basmachi and actively supported activity of" the Turkestani military organisation »(ТMО). Under the agreement between mission and « the union » directly organisation of mutiny and a management of performances Basmachis were assigned on ТMО, Englishmen were obliged to supply with its weapon and money, and then to support armies. In plans of Englishmen there was a formation of "Turkestani democratic republic" under the control of Great Britain.« To the union » the credit in 22 million roubles has been allotted. Englishmen have transferred Basmachis 100 million roubles, 20 000 rifles, 40 machine guns, 16 mountain tools and some millions cartridges. In Meshed for mutiny support the group сипаев as a part of 500 persons with machine guns» prepared.
It you name absence of support by Great Britain Basmachis of movement?
Here still the citation:
«In 1919 Englishmen have sent to Bukhara 2 caravans from 600 and 200 camels with the weapon, an ammunition and other military property, and in January of 1920-1200 rifles, 12 machine guns, 4 guns and a considerable quantity of cartridges and shells».

The Tekinsky were not in the Wild Division

Yes, it is my error! They were not in «the Wild division». Excuse.
But what it changes? Really you consider what to seize ability of shooting from a machine gun so difficult? It agree that for service and an artillery effective utilisation the expert is necessary, but from a machine gun (at that level of possession of this weapon what the usual Red Army man in Central Asia possessed) the big knowledge it is not necessary for shooting. After all modern small arms various insurgents both in Africa perfectly owned, and in Asia – and it did not cause in them special difficulties. You consider Asians as idiots?

But how many of these fought for the Basmachi, rather than return home?

Numerals are not known, so here there is no sense to argue. But soldiers of the crushed army of Bukhara often continued to battle against red in the ranks of Basmachis.

[Mark Plant]

I'm not sure whether Ignatieff is being sarcastic or not, but I'm running out of steam anyway.

You make a good point on the ammunition usage Cuprum - the Basmachis made a little go a long way. I'm not sure this is compatible with machine-guns though: if you aren't firing them very much, you might as well not have them.

I am no expert on weapons usage. My understanding though - and I'm happy to be corrected - is that keeping machine-guns of that era operational was not a simple matter. Naturally anyone can press the trigger, but what to do the first time it jams because you let it overheat?

I agree that ex-Bukharan soldiers continued to keep up resistance for some time after the fall of the city. Perhaps a few of them were ex-Turks. That is quite different from the Basmachis getting support from Turkey (just as their were Latvians in the Red Army even as the Soviets were fighting Latvia).

We know the Turks were full of moral support for their co-religionist, co-Turkic brethren fighting the Soviets, but they were actively involved in their own messy internal struggles and wars. They had no energy or means to supply the Basmachis.

[Prof.Witchheimer]

I'm not sure whether Ignatieff is being sarcastic or not, but I'm running out of steam anyway.

I'm sure he wasn't sarcastic. I'm enjoying your debate too, lots of very interesting infos.