'Malleson Mission' - looking for Turkomen cavalry in 28mm (p.4)

[Red Orc]

Right:

What I've gathered is that Malleson commanded a force of Indian Army (19th Punjabi Rgt, 28th Light Cavalry, and an unidentified machine-gun detachment - presumably from the 19th Punjabis) under British officers.

Then there were some Turkoman cavalry.

And some White Russians, from Deniken's Army.

And then there were the Ashkhebad Committee's Social-Revolutionary and Menshevik workers (especially on the railway).

And the Bolsheviks, including some (many?) Austro-Hungarians and Germans (ex POWs).

Oh, and some armoured trains of course, but I probably won't go that far just yet.

Is that about the size of it?

[Mark Plant]

Armed trains, rather than armoured. I believe cotton bales were the main protection. You can't really avoid doing them, as the entire campaign pretty much was along the railway, and for the railway. (Mind you, they only provide artillery support, as they were not really up to steaming into hot action, so you could abstract them off table.)

The White Russians were technically under Denikin, but because of the distance they were independent in reality. I say this because they weren't the elite officer "coloured" types or deadly cavalry. In the summer of 1919 they were Commander – Lt-Gen. B.I. Kazanovich, Caucasian Rifle Division, 3rd Astrakhan Cossack Regiment and Steppe Partisan Detachment.

Behind the Lines did an excellent summary for wargamers:  http://archive.is/JM2RA

[Red Orc]

Hmm, thanks for the information Mark; and yes I have to admit 'armed' trains sounds a little easier than 'armoured'.

Thank for the Behind the Lines link - unfortunately, I can't get any of the map or other links in the article to work but it's certainly something to go on.

In my original post, I had included the Hampshires, but then took them out again. I've been reading so much about Malleson, Dunsterforce and the Third Anglo-Afghan war over the last few days I decided I'd got my engagements muddled.

Seems that in addition to the 'three main actions' listed in Behind the Lines, there are a number of other engagements that aren't really detailed:

1 - the original battle where the Punjabi machine-gun detatchment fights alongside the troops of the Ashkebad Committee (is the word here actually 'soviet'?) against the Tashkent Soviet troops (Bairam Ali, 13th August);
2 - the first battle at Kakhka is detailed (28th August);
3/4 - either of the two subsequent attacks by the Bolsheviks at Kakhka; these took place on the 11th and 18th September, after the British had received reinforcements from the Hamphires and Royal Artillery, and the Bolsheviks now have cavalry;
5 - plane and train attack by Bolsheviks on Allied position at Arman Sagad (11th October) - by this point the 28th Light Horse had arrived;
6 - the Allied attack on Dushak is detailed (14th October)
7 - first Bolshevik attack on Annekovo - the 28th Horse were involved in this action (17th November);
8 - second Bolshevik attack on Annenkovo is detailed (16th January)
9 - March 2nd 'action' where 28th Light Horse an Bolshevik cavalry clash at unknown location.

[Mark Plant]

Soviet is the Russian word for Committee (or Council), so in the context of Bolsheviks I would always use Soviet for committee.

The smaller actions are indeed left out from Behind the Lines. Principles of War, the set written for, would not accommodate those easily.

There was a whole campaign after Malleson left of course. And you could always do a potential "what if". I think the biggest of those is if Dunster had held Baku, because that would have given Malleson a much safer rear, and an asset the British might have wanted to keep for a while.

[Red Orc]

The Ashkebad Committee was the Menshevik/SR committe. I'm fairly sure it would be known as the Ashkebad Soviet. It's just a bit odd reading the article and it referring to the 'Tashkent Soviet' and the 'Ashkebad Committee', as if there is actually some kind of organisational distinction between them.

There was indeed a whole campaign between the forces of the Ashkebad Committee and the Tashkent... Soviet. But I was only listing the engagements where British/Indian troops fought too. Listing all of them is a bit more tricky, because Behind the Lines is very hazy on some details.

Somehow, between 14th-24th July, the Ashkebad Committee stages a revolt against the Committee in Taskent, and chases the Bolsheviks over the Oxus (with troops that are constantly referred to in the article as being unreliable). Then the Bolsheviks counter attack and drive the supporters of the Ashkebad Soviet back to 'positions east of Bairam Ali' (where is not clearly stated) in the days following 24th July. The Bolsheviks then attack the forces of the Ashkebad Soviet and drive them back to Bairam Ali on 10th August. But there are no details on forces for that part. This however is the point when the British intervene, and that's when the article becomes more detailed. The next engagement is the battle at Bairam Ali on August 13 and the campaign follows my battles 1-6


After the British halt at Bairam Ali at the end of October (after the advance from Dushak - this is the first mention of White soldiers fighting with the Transcaspian force), the Transcaspian forces pursue the Bolshevik forces to the Oxus again; then, on 14th November after one of their trains explodes and they are shelled by the Bolsheviks, they retreat to Annenkovo. This is where the battle I've numbered 7 is fought. Then, the Transcaspian forces (there is no mention of involvement by the British) attack the Bolshevik positions at Ravnina, but are forced back to Annenkovo. This then leads to the second battle of Annekova (8 in my list) in January 1919, which did include British forces.

Between the beginning of April, when the British finally withdrew, and the autumn of 1919, the Taskent Soviet gradually re-established control over the whole of Turkmenistan. But there's no info on that at all - if I want to o anything about that I'll be looking for other sources I guess.

But for starters, the idea of putting together forces to fight some of the engagements I listed means 1-a contingent of Punjabi Infantry (with machine gun section); 2-some British troops to represent the Hampshire Regiment; 3-some Royal Artillery; 4-some Indian Light Horse to represent the 28th; 5-some Turcoman cavalry; 6-some (presumably irregular) forces to represent the troops of the Askebad Soviet; 7-some White Russians (Denikin's troops? The '80 ex-Tsarist regulars' mentioned in the article at the battle of Dushak); 8-some White Russian artillery; 9-Bolshevik infantry (with machine guns); 10-Bolshevik cavalry; 11-Bolshevik artillery; 12-conscripted Austrian POWs fighting for the Tashkent forces.

And the trains.

[Mark Plant]

Sources for after the British leave are all in Russian.

Have you got the Ellis book? There's a reasonably cheap copy on Abe books at the moment.

[Red Orc]

All I have is a download of a paper by Michael Sergeant called 'British Military Involvement in Transcaspia (1918-1919)'. I only started researching this on Monday... 

I thought it may be the case that most of the sources would be Russian. But I'll do what I can with the sources in English I can get my hands on in coming weeks.

[Hammers]

Sources for after the British leave are all in Russian.

Have you got the Ellis book? There's a reasonably cheap copy on Abe books at the moment.

Tangentially, what's your opinion of Peter Hopkirk, Mark?

[Mark Plant]

I enjoyed Setting the East Ablaze. Hopkirk doesn't make stuff up, as least, and appears to have some discrimination about sources. Tends to exaggerate the importance of the goings-on he writes about, but that's to be expected.

Red Orc -- if you are going to seriously game the Malleson Mission you need to get a copy of C H Ellis's The Transcaspian Episode. Good exposition, and lovely photos too. You'll probably be able to get a library copy, but in the end I went and bought one once I found a cheap copy (they can go for stupid money).

[Ignatieff]

I enjoyed Setting the East Ablaze. Hopkirk doesn't make stuff up, as least, and appears to have some discrimination about sources. Tends to exaggerate the importance of the goings-on he writes about, but that's to be expected.

Red Orc -- if you are going to seriously game the Malleson Mission you need to get a copy of C H Ellis's The Transcaspian Episode. Good exposition, and lovely photos too. You'll probably be able to get a library copy, but in the end I went and bought one once I found a cheap copy (they can go for stupid money).

Totally agree.  I got a cheap hardback copy.  It really is (unintentionally) written for the wargamer.  I've a vague plan to wargame it as a campaign, and this book provides all you need, including two great maps on the end covers.  Ellis is an interesting character. In later life (the 1960's) he was strongly suspected of being a soviet spy, though nothing was ever formally proven.

[Ignatieff]

Armed trains, rather than armoured. I believe cotton bales were the main protection. You can't really avoid doing them, as the entire campaign pretty much was along the railway, and for the railway. (Mind you, they only provide artillery support, as they were not really up to steaming into hot action, so you could abstract them off table.)

The White Russians were technically under Denikin, but because of the distance they were independent in reality. I say this because they weren't the elite officer "coloured" types or deadly cavalry. In the summer of 1919 they were Commander – Lt-Gen. B.I. Kazanovich, Caucasian Rifle Division, 3rd Astrakhan Cossack Regiment and Steppe Partisan Detachment.

Behind the Lines did an excellent summary for wargamers:  http://archive.is/JM2RA

Mark

I am curious about the use of cotton bales.  I may have missed this in my reading.  I know they were used in the region. The Bukharans used them them as flaming barricades for example.  All the reference to trains I have read speak of 'armoured' trains.

Thanks

Steve

[Hammers]

According to Hopkirk the cotton harvest was a HUGE game token in the Great Game as much of the economy of Central Asia was based on the cotton crop (this was before the times of the widespread popularity of Heroine ^(tm). Moreover, the much of the whole harvest was during 1919(20?) kept in one single stockpile in [Merv, Samarkand, somewhere] and a lot of different factions had a stake/lust for this. I have not thought about it before but there is a lot to be inspired from in this, from a gaming perspective: scenery, scenario, back story, props, objectives...

[Ignatieff]

Spot on Hammers. Malleson was charged with stopping this falling into the hands of the advancing Germans and Turks (who were closing in on Baku) as well as stopping said foes capturing the railway line, one spur of which ended right on the afghan border. It would have only taken the Germans and Turks a matter of days to be on the doorstep of India.  It really is a cracking little campaign with so many 'what ifs'

[H.M.Stanley]

Damn!! Another book to buy 

[Mark Plant]

Cotton is rather an useful ingredient when trying to make guncotton. Which of course people were using at a prodigous rate in 1918.

I know that a lot of "armoured" trains were armoured with materials other than plate steel. Wood in a few cases. There is nothing bad about that really -- without the splinters cottom might even be safer. The steel monsters with rotating turrets are mostly quite late in the RCW -- at the time of the Malleson Mission no-one was at that level of production.

I would like to know if there is a difference in Russian between the words for armoured and armed trains. Are you here Cuprum or someone else Russian?