1914 Belgium - UD 18/12 - news re German infantry paint scheme

[archiduque]

Well done !

[Silent Invader]

Thank you 

There's more to come idc

[monk2002uk]

I really enjoyed putting the game on - I know the briefing was a bit lengthy but it's not really a game you can afford to learn in the first couple of turns as you go along, the early decisions being so important. 

Thank you for the reports and photos. Lovely terrain and figures. Were the German attackers supported by artillery?

Robert

[Silent Invader]

Thanks  

The focus of the game was the platoon vs zug 'snapshot' of a bigger battle. Artillery action wasn't part of the game but was incorporated into the scenario as if it had occurred pre-game, thus the destruction to the town, the shell holes that provided cover for the Germsn advance, and that the British had been reduced by about 50%.

When I first sketched out and tested the game I did give the Germans an artillery barrage but quickly decided that it detracted from what I wanted the game to be about, which wasn't a focus on 'big assets' but rather getting into the mind of the infantry, tasked with difficult objectives while minimising losses. Hope that makes sense.

[monk2002uk]

Yes, it makes sense. Thank you for the extra details. I know that you are refining the rules so please accept the following as some (hopefully) constructive feedback. In reality, the effects of musketry and machine gun fire would have decimated the close order German forces shortly after coming on table. Musketry was the capacity to lay a beaten zone of rifle fire on an area, with combined rifle fire. If the British had had a little time to set up their positions in the time then there would have been little white sticks set up along the road at various pre-defined intervals. This sticks would have served as ranging posts to make the process of fire control easier. Thus all the defenders would have had their rifle sights pre-set for the distance from the houses to the furthest ranging stick, say at the edge of the table (though in practice the defenders would have had line of sight out to several tables distance through the use of range finders - see the top example here). When the Germans came into range then the NCOs would call out the range, the rate of fire, and then set the men to work. The fire would not be aimed at individual soldiers but at a large area known as a beaten zone. The volume of fire at such short distances would have been utterly lethal to men trying to move en masse in the open. MGs would have only made this worse.

The Germans knew about this effect of musketry and drilled their men accordingly. In the scenario that you illustrated, the men on the road would have dispersed immediately. In practice, scouts would have preceded the group so that the presence of the British in the town would have been picked up far earlier and the German infantry would have already been dispersed. As soon as the men came under fire, they would have formed a firing line - falling to the ground in a rough line and then opening fire on where the fire appeared to be coming from. The Germans also had infantry ranger finders to help confirm the distance to the buildings in this case. Once the firing line was established then small groups of men would rush forward a short distance, fall to the ground, and start forming a new firing line. Gradually the groups of men would get smaller and smaller, and the rushes would get shorter and shorter. It was a long drawn out process but any attempt to short cut was lethal.

It might be worth reviewing the effectiveness of rifle fire against massed infantry in the open. I hope these comments are helpful. Please do not let them detract from the superb table and figures. Excellent job!

Robert

[monk2002uk]

Here is an example of an assault on a small town in early 1914. It comes from the 88th Regiment's history. The attack was directed at Longlier, which is in the Ardennes region. The town was defended by an advance guard of cyclists from a French cavalry division. They fell back from the town as soon as the attack started, which enabled the success that is described below. These extra details from the French perspective come from the respective unit diary of the cyclists. This translation is my own, so any mistakes are directly attributable to me:

"The attack by [the German] 5th and 8th Companies developed as if on the parade ground. Then their advance was partially held up by wire fences around the paddocks. The obstacles were overcome with a variety of implements, including wire cutters, spades, bayonets, and pickaxes. The leading riflemen could hear the incessant soft chirping sound of enemy bullets but they couldn’t see their opponents. Captain Zickendraht, the commander of 8th Company / 88th IR, was seriously wounded by small arms fire. His company pushed ahead undeterred, with the 5th Company / 88th IR continuing to be further forward. Suddenly the air was filled with a shrill then eerily hollow whistling noise followed by a loud, metallic cracking sound. The battalion was under hostile artillery fire but this only accelerated the attack. When Major Schmidt detected an enemy position south of Longlier, he pushed the 6th Company to the left of the 8th. Near the entrance to Longlier, a German cavalry patrol consisting of Jäger zu Pferde and hussars was rescued. They had been bravely defending a farmstead against an enemy cyclist detachment, after their horses had been shot down. Our artillery had set Longlier on fire. The right flank platoon of 5th Company / 88th IR pushed forward as ordered to a wood that was lying half-right on a hill. There it made contact with [left flank] Company von Hirschfeld [6th Company] from the Brigade Regiment [87th IR]. This meant that 5th Company was able to move left again, taking the two men wounded by artillery fire, and head towards Longlier, joining in the battle. The enemy appeared to have machine guns because the automatic rapid rate of fire, which the German machine guns could not achieve, was clearly heard from certain directions above the din of the battle. Having deployed, the companies now commenced the firefight. The air was rent with the loud German musketry. As the enemy's fire diminished, Oberleutnant Eger strained to get his 6th Company’s skirmish line forward. The men at the front refused to get up. The "Fix bayonets!" signal rang out. Then the village was stormed! The leutnants rushed ahead of their platoons with swords drawn. The assault parties cheered as they entered the village. Savage house-to-house fighting broke out wherever the enemy resisted stubbornly. Individual fanatical civilians joined in, to whom no quarter was given. The cyclist battalion, which had defended Longlier, fell back. They pressed between the burning buildings in Longlier, rushing through our men. Enfilade fire then struck our left flank. From the edge of the village, one-year volunteer Unteroffizier Otterbein spotted the dark line of firing enemy skirmishers on a small hill beyond an intervening hollow. He raced over to Oberleutnant Eger in order to gather together part of his 6th Company. The range finder enabled the new enemy to be brought under fire at 700 meters. The opposing French forces received reinforcements, however, beginning with an enemy machine gun coming into action on the flank. The thin German firing line came under heavy enemy fire. Oberleutnant Eger received an arm wound but he continued to lie next to his men throughout the tough struggle. The brave Reserve Unteroffizier Guth was shot in the head and fell dead with a hoarse cry. Immediately afterwards, the skilful and courageous one-year volunteer Unteroffizier Otterbein was shot through the eye. He lay unconscious in the firing line. The one-year volunteer Unteroffizier Bernsmüller received multiple wounds but stayed with his section. The enemy seemed to be setting up a sweeping counterattack. The valiant 6th Company attempted to thwart their intent with brisk rifle fire. A moment later the company was reinforced with some infantry sections. The battalion had rushed 7th Company into the front line."

Note that the distances at which initial contact were made were further out than the game. The German officers did not attempt to advance further until they had achieved perceived fire superiority [...as the enemy's fire diminished...]. Note the use of the range finder to engage the flanking French infantry force once the village was occupied.

Despite the graphic description of the hand-to-hand fighting in Longlier, the French cyclists withdrew with only a handful of casualties.

Robert

[Silent Invader]

Thanks Robert, your thoughts and information are very much appreciated. 

I agree 100% that I need to address the effectiveness of musketry against troops in column.

In the second game, the British MG was taken out very early on and it was apparent that while the British rifles inflicted sufficient casualties for the Germans to lose the game, they didn't inflict sufficient for the Germans to disperse the column. My mistake, as your historical assessment confirms, was not to differentiate the casualty rate for rifles against column versus rifles against line.  I think that if the casualty toll had been greater, the column would have dispersed quite quickly rather than not at all (or the player would have incurred a massive and early loss).

One thing I can't do is lengthen the table so the matter of range will always be a 'wargamey compromise' thing, partly for space and partly to get the players into the game as quickly as possible.

Thanks again, your knowledge of the subject matter is top notch!

Steve

[monk2002uk]

Steve, I totally understand about the length of the table. This is true of any WW1 game at 28mm and is a compromise we all share. With respect to dispersion of a column, this would happen almost immediately fire was taken. The drills were designed to ensure that such a juicy target would evaporate as quickly as possible, knowing that to wait for casualties would mean losing most of the column. You might want to consider weaving that concept into the review process as well. Personally, I am not a great believer in adding certain behaviours as part of the rules themselves. It should be sufficient that the effect of rifle fire is such that the gamer realises, as his historic counterpart did, that dispersion of column is the better part of valour.

Robert

[Silent Invader]

Thanks again Robert.

I'd rather the game punished the player for not dispersing than the rules doing the job of forcing dispersal. I'm trying to make players feel both responsible for their men and for attainment of their objectives, stressed players make me a happy GM!!!  

I'll publish the rules and scenarios when I've fiddled with the changes, as I think I should give the MGs a couple more casualty dice but also allow the Germans another turn or more to reach the town (it was very tight in the second game, which also encouraged staying in column).

[Constable Bertrand]

Steve could you have a consecutive hit roll when 3 or more figures are in base contact? Something like that .. or removing the 'to hit' roll for large targets?

Cheers
Matt

[Silent Invader]

Thanks Matt.  

One thing that might not be realised is that there are no saving rolls, so a hit is a straight casualty who is taken out of the game.

The turn can be move, fire, move then fire, or fire then move, with a movement deduction for those that have or will fire. A straight fire (ie, no movement in the same turn) already gives a +1 for rifles. I expect that what I'll do is incorporate another +1 for rifles and MGs when the target is in column.

It's worth bearing in mind that in the game, column is a specific state that provides big movement advantages. Robert's earlier point about the column dispersing  much further out, due to the preparedness of the defenders, is a very good one. However, the scenario is that the artillery bombardment has just ended and the defence is hasty, which if the initiative draw is right for the Germans means that the scenario accepts they might have a first turn advantage to cover some ground quickly. As players have to specify their first move before knowing the intiative draw and are blind of the enemy's opening dispositions (it's done on maps) there's a certain amount of risk but it'll still be possible for an initial fast advance down the road to be rewarded BUT it's more likely to be punished, and now punished even harder.


Edited for typo

[Constable Bertrand]

Ah I see, that should work too.

In the blame games did the Germans stay in column for 1 turn or 2? You would expect 1 turn right? But not 2?

Cheers
Matt

[Silent Invader]

Ah I see, that should work too.

In the blame games did the Germans stay in column for 1 turn or 2? You would expect 1 turn right? But not 2?

Cheers
Matt

I wouldn't call it a blame game    

In the games played and anticipated, it's up to the Germans if they stay in column or disperse. In the second game they had a really tight deadline to meet and pushed hard, but took so many casualties that they won ground but lost the game. As mentioned earlier, by making a column a significantly more dangerous place to be, offset by more time to objective in which to make use of the slower-moving skirmish line, I think the later (and implicitly forced by circumstances) more dangerous use of the column will cause players to adapt. I don't want this to be a forgone conclusion though: for example I might set a scenario in which the bulk of  defenders come on a turn or two later, so a German commander might risk a quick advance in the absence of shooting etc. The decision has to be by the players not decided by the rules.

Edit: I've gone way beyond your point Matt, the above is a bit of a brain dump 

[monk2002uk]

It is important that the game is fun to play. Ultimately that is all that counts. And it is quite possible to construct a scenario in which a German commander might choose to rush forward a column of men after a preparatory barrage. What follows, therefore, is merely a description of what I have learned so far about German infantry tactics in general, FWIIW.

The column of march was used to approach a battlefield. In this respect, it was the formation that offered the greatest movement advantages. Wherever possible, roads were used to ensure that the infantry could move unhindered and, just as important, the support formations could keep pace easily. A column of march would always be preceded by at least one layer of reconnaissance. Divisional cavalry would form the furthest forward recon elements, followed by infantry scouts. Rommel described his experience of scouting in his book on infantry tactics. The goal was to detect the enemy as early as possible,

The 'battlefield' was defined tactically by the furthest reach of the artillery. Infantry doctrine recommended breaking from column of march once this zone was reached. The next zone was that covered by rifle and MG fire. Skirmish formations were then expected to start the process of forming firing lines that supported movement in smaller and smaller units towards the enemy. The final zone was that which could be covered by a rush to contact and close combat. The goal of this phase was to form a final firing line at the edge of this zone, achieve fire suppression, and then rush across to contact once the enemy was seen to be scattering or had, at the very least, ceased effective fire on the attackers. The rush to contact was not made in close formation. I believe that this scenario under consideration would fit with the final tactical hurdle of suppressing a defender at close combat and then rushing into contact.

Robert

[Silent Invader]

Thanks again Robert: your sharing of your insights and knowledge is very helpful and very much appreciated.