Origins of Naval Wargaming(?)

The discussion about the origins of naval wargaming is in the mention of his experimenting with tactical theories by pushing objects around on a table, I don’t think that really qualifies as “wargaming.” I do recall that American naval officers held as prisoners by one of the Barbary States practiced maneuvers among themselves by using nuts to represent ships on a tabletop or board that had been ruled into squares. If they tried to outwit each other, and there was a set of rules that regulated movement, then you would have a rudimentary “wargame.” It seems to me that Nelson did something like this with the captains in one of his fleets or squadrons, perhaps as a training device on the voyage that ended in Aboukir Bay. This sort of thing is obvious enough that I would be amazed if the highly professional Greek, Carthaginian, and Roman navies did not do it, and if they didn’t, that the Byzantines and Venetians did not.

Documentation of that period is so fragmentary that any evidence might have been lost millennia ago. I would also be amazed if professional armies in the “ancient” or classical period did not have “wargames” as training aids for junior officers and to test strategies for coming campaigns. When the American attack on the Hürtgen Forest jumped off, the battalion commanders of the defending German division were actually at division HQ engaging in a wargame to test defense tactics. They quickly recast the game to the actual situation and tried defensive responses faster than real time. Given the necessarily slow development of strategic maneuvers in ancient times, there would have been even more opportunities for this sort of thing then.

THE NAVAL WARGAMES SOCIETY

LINK

LINK

LINK

Naval Campaign on Lake Tanganyika 1915-1916

Click and read the PDF

By Simon Stokes

Lake Tanganyika lies in the rift valley in the centre of Africa. With a surface area of 13,000 square miles the lake is one of the largest in the world 350 miles long and 35 miles wide. In 1914 it was also the natural border between German held East Africa on its Eastern shore, the Belgian Congo in the West and British controlled Northern Rhodesia to the South.

Raiders of the Dark Host

Moving to the recent past, Ted Herbert, an experienced colonial wargamer of some repute, offers a most unusual setting for an early 20th century action. Model T Fords, DeHavilland biplanes and Arabs all play their part in a fascinating scenario

There are many facets to colonial war- I gaming. The most popular topic, accor­ding to a survey recently carried out by the Victorian Military Society, is the Zulu War of 1879, followed closely by the Sudan Wars of 1885-98, the Boer War of 1899-1902 and the many campaigns on the North-West Frontier of British India. But there are numerous minor actions that qualify as ‘colonial wars’, their common characteristic being the suppression by small numbers of foreign regular troops, backed by contemporary technology and native levies, of large numbers of irregular tribesmen, equipped mainly with obsolete weaponry but having the advantage of knowing the local conditions and terrain much better than the regulars. One such operation was the control of Arab raiders along the northern frontier of Saudi Arabia in the 1920s, when the fanatical Ikhwan warriors came up against three powerful infidel inventions - wireless telegraphy, the aeroplane and the Model T Ford.

The Ikhwan (also called Wahhabis) were a fanatical Moslem brotherhood whom ibn Saud had led to victory over his rivals in the Nejed and later the Hejaz deserts. Raiding had always been endemic among the Bedouin of the Empty Quarter. On the whole, it was a form of equalisation of wealth, since the poor tended to raid more actively than the rich. But the Ikhwan added a new dimension by the sheer savagery of their attacks on anyone who was not Ikhwan. Every male captured was put to death without mercy, usually by cutting his throat; and the dispossessed women and children were left to fend for themselves in the desert.

The raiders travelled light on swift riding- camels or horses, armed with rifles, lances, swords, daggers and hide shields. Their only provisions were dates, flour and water. They often disregarded the traditional Arab head­dress and wore instead a white cotton turban called an imama. While they clipped their moustaches short they let their beards grow long. Long brown cloaks protected them from the dust of the desert. By day the green flag of Wahhabism flew at the-head of the raiding column, and by night a staff and lantern. The traditional weapons of the Bedouin were the lance, consisting of an iron tip mounted on a long bamboo shaft, and the sword, both of which allowed the highly selective method of fighting and killing in individual combat favoured by the Arabs. But after the defeat of the Turks in the First World War, they were increasingly equipped with firearms, some­times old Remington rolling-block rifles or muzzle-loading shotguns but not infrequently modern magazine rifles. In addition, the British Government had given four machine-guns to ibn Saud in 1915.

Raids on territory adjoining Saudi Arabia began in earnest in August 1924 when the Ikhwan travelled 1000 miles to attack Trans-Jordan, which at that time, like Palestine and Iraq, was under British mandate assigned by the League of Nations after the dissolution of the Turkish Empire in the Middle East. By pure coincidence, an RAF lorry located the invaders and retired to base camp to report. The raiders were engaged by aircraft and armoured cars, together with tribesmen of the Bani Sakhr and dispersed with heavy casualties. Out of 1500 Ikhwan, barely 100 escaped. If the RAF had not taken such immediate action, Amman, the capital of Trans-Jordan, might well have fallen; as it was, the raiders had reached within 15 miles of the capital.

Despite this heavy defeat, the Ikhwan continued to raid the frontier of Saudi Arabia with Iraq. This had one important effect: the callous nature of their attacks on peaceful tribesmen caused the British Inspecting Officer in Southern Iraq, one Captain J B Glubb (later to become Sir John Glubb or Glubb Pasha), on Christmas Day 1924 to vow ven­geance on the Ikhwan.

In November 1927 between 50 and 100 Ikhwan of the Mutair clan raided a police post under construction at the well of Bussaiya, 50 miles south of the River Euphrates, and killed 30 policemen and unarmed labourers. The only survivor was an Iraqi policeman who escaped by feigning death. It was not until 12 days later that a section of RAF armoured cars managed to recover the post.

Then in January 1928 All ibn Ashwan ven­tured into Kuwaiti territory at the head of the Persian Gulf with a force of 350 Mutair camelry and 50 horsemen. On the night of 27th January, they attacked an outpost 38 miles North-West of Jahra, killing three men and carrying off a considerable number of sheep and camels. It was an action that led to unexpected retaliation.

The Sheikh of Kuwait was furious when he heard of the raid. His Bedouin followers were a motley collection, consisting of sections or families - fugitives, immigrants, or retainers- from half the tribes of Arabia. The largest group was from the Ajman tribe of the Hasa region, who had fled from their homeland during ibn Saud’s conquests in 1916. But the Sheikh had one valuable asset that could increase the effectiveness of his followers. There were about 25 automobiles in Kuwait at that time, mostly Model T Fords; and the Sheikh commandeered the lot. Knowing that he could rely on support from Glubb and the British forces in southern Iraq, he filled the automobiles with 75 well-armed volunteers and sent them off across the desert to Jahra, with orders to proceed as soon as it was light to the West-South-West, in the hope of cutting off the raiders’ retreat.

This they succeeded in doing and at 4.30pm on 28th January 15 of the 25 cars that had originally set off caught the raiders. In a sharp running battle, 35 of the Ikhwan were killed for the loss of 11 Kuwaitis killed and 11 wounded. Much of the booty was recaptured. This was a very creditable performance on the part of the Model T Fords as there was no road beyond Jahra; and the remaining automobiles were grossly overloaded, some carrying as many as nine men. Although four of the cars had broken down in the desert and had had to be aban­doned, they were afterwards brought in and repaired. One Model T Ford was captured by the Ikhwan but the only damage they succeeded in doing was to wrench off the lamps and break some off the instruments on the dashboard.

Then came the turn of the RAF. On 29th January British aeroplanes located the fleeing raiders 15 miles north of Hafer al Batin and attacked them with bombs and machine-gun fire. On the afternoon of the following day, the raiders were again caught, this time eight miles south of Hafar al Batin. On both occasions casualties were inflicted by the RAF.

Wargaming the chase

This is a very interesting action to fight as a wargame. The first phase necessarily has to be map movement, preferably with an umpire, to determine if and when the air and ground forces locate the raiders. Once contact has been established, colonial skirmish rules (for example those of Blake, Curtis, Colwill and Herbert) can be used for individual actions. One useful ploy is to recreate the running battle by replacing figures at one end of the table with some changes of scenery, as they leave the other end. Part of the action can be fought on a 1:1 basis or else the whole action can be reproduced on, say, a 1:5 basis, using 80 raiders, 5 cars, 15 Kuwaitis and a couple of aeroplanes.

The machine-gun fire from aeroplanes can be treated as Maxim fire under normal colonial rules and bombs as shrapnel shell from artillery; the latter should not be made too effective as it was very difficult to hit the scattered raiders. The Kuwaitis should be classed in the main as average fighters, while almost all the Ikhwan should be veteran marksmen. Morale rules should allow the temperament of the Bedouin to show up as hot-headed, volatile, proud and treacherous (a contemporary British description).

In the early days of air control, flying in desert conditions was a hazardous venture; and wargame rules should reflect this. Apart from violent winds and sandstorms (the ‘Shammal’), the aeroplanes were vulnerable to the accurate fire of the Arabs. Any forced landing in the desert could bring the crew to a nasty end, even if they survived the initial prang. The De Havilland 9a (the ‘ninak’ - pronounced nine-ack) had no self-starter and once the propellor stopped, it needed three men to swing it. Any crew captured were likely to be tortured to death by the raiders, although ‘goolie chits’ were sometimes carried offering a reward for British personnel returned intact. Moreover the RAF crews were not very experi­enced in desert conditions as the tour of duty was restricted to two years. As far as the ground forces were concerned, conditions were equally bad; the armoured cars were not too reliable and up to 15 tyre replacements could be required for a trip of 450 miles across the stony desert.

Heroes

There are plenty of opportunities for deeds of derring - do in the spirit of the 1920s. In the actual action, the son of the late Sheikh Salim of Kuwait and the grandson of old Sheikh Muburrak, was delayed by engine trouble in the chase. He was so incensed at missing the fight that in direct contradiction of orders he pushed on after the raiders. He was trapped in the Batin with three or four of his men. They fought until they ran out of ammunition and then surrendered, whereupon they were killed in cold blood by the Ikhwan. On 30th January, one of the British planes was brought down by rifle fire and crash-landed only 400 yards from the raiders. Flight-Lieutenant J F T Darnett landed with great gallantry and picked up the crew and a DSO. I use as a volunteer pilot a character called Major James Bigglesworth, en route home via a series of action-packed adventures in the Middle East (see Biggles Flies Again by Captain W E Johns for details of these wandering years).

British forces

In 1927-28 the British forces in Southern Iraq included nine ‘ninaks’ of 55 Squadron based at Bussaiya together with two sections of armoured cars and nine ‘ninaks’ of 84

Squadron and a company of the Iraqi Army at Shaiba. HMS Emerald was in the Bay of Kuwait offering naval support; while in Baghdad were two small forces of camel police, three Chevrolet one-ton trucks, three Chevrolet vans, one Ford one-ton truck and a Ford vanette. In 1928-29 the Southern Desert Camel Corps of 70 camelmen was formed, backed up by 30 machine-gunners in trucks, eight miscellaneous vehicles (two equipped with Vickers guns), four new Ford trucks with Vickers guns, and two wireless vans. Later, Lewis guns became available. There were also three Vickers Victoria bombers but their range was limited to 400 miles.

Ibn Saud himself saw the advantages of the new technology and in the last great Bedouin battle at Sibilla against his arch-rival, al Duwish, he used cars with Indian drivers, as well as his traditional forces of men on foot in the centre, horsemen on the flanks and camelry skirmishing beyond and behind the enemy. This battle, on 29th March 1929, secured ibn Saud’s position in Arabia and he was able to curb the excesses of the Ikhwan brotherhood, weakened as they were by the casualties inflicted by the British forces on the frontier.

In Glubb’s view, the RAF frontier campaign saved a poor, simple and hardy community from the terror of constantly threatened massacre and established a peace that would not have been achieved by any other means. It was a campaign that was deliberately not publicised as even at this time the British Government was aware of the sensitivity of colonial war. I imagine that few readers will have heard before about this obscure but fascinating campaign and I hope that this article does something to fill the gap.

Bibliography

The Desert King - A Life of Ibn Saud by David Howarth, Collins, 1964.

Kuwait and Her Neighbours by H R P Dickson, Unwin Brother, 1956.

War in the Desert - An RAF Frontier Campaign by Sir John Bagot Glubb, Hodder and Stoughton, 1960.

LINK

Wargaming Hürtgen Forest

West Wall Offensive 16^th – 23^rd November, 1944

October, 1944. The break out from the Normandy Peninsula had been made. The wild race across eastern France, culminating in operation Market‑Garden, the failed attempt to end the war in 1944, was over. Allied armies were poised on the borders of the Germany. One more blow would smash the Thousand Year Reich forever.

THE SITUATION

In the north, Montgomery’s 21^st Army Group, stalled on the Rhine, was clearing the Peel Marshes and the seaward approaches to Antwerp. Bradley’s 12^th Army Group, just to the south of the British, had taken Aachen after bitter fighting, only to be stopped at Schmidt. In the south, Dever’s 6^th Army Group had ground to a halt in the Vosges Mountains after a successful crossing of the Moselle late in September. All across the western front, from the Dutch border in the north to the Swiss frontier in the south, the great Allied offensive was over. Logistics and weather had combined to do what the Germans could not; stop the Allied drive on the Reich.

This was the background to the strategic conference of October 18 1944, convened at Brussels to plan strategy on the next phase of the war. Three factors weighed heavily on Eisenhower’s mind and these largely determined the outcome of the conference.

German casualties were running at approximately 4,000 per day, or one 1944 type infantry division every other day. Since this was well below the German replacement rate, the enemy was growing stronger rather than weaker.

A pause in offensive operations would give the Wehrmacht time to train its new formations and prepare defensive positions.

Allied intelligence indicated that German jet aircraft production was on the threshold of a large increase in output, and that the Germans were close to developing a proximity fused anti‑aircraft projectile. That spelled trouble for the massed strategic bombing campaign to contain the German war economy.

The conference concluded with the decision to resume the offensive, code named Operation QUEEN, an attack by the American First and Ninth Armies. The Allies reasoned that by husbanding their supplies and attacking on a narrow front with overwhelming air support, a decisive break through might be achieved. If the weather cooperated, QUEEN would begin on the 5^th of November with 4.500 aircraft, half of them heavy bombers, pulverizing the German front from Geilenkirken in the north to Hürtgen in the south. To appreciate the size of this undertaking, operation COBRA, the break out from Normandy, was supported by just 1500 aircraft. In the First Army sector alone, 40 battalions of field artillery were positioned to fire on an eight mile front. The whole operation had all the earmarks of another great breakout.

Operation QUEEN consisted of two efforts, by the Ninth and First Armies. Ninth army was to attack along a front just to the south of Geilenkirken extending to and encompassing Wuselen. The initial effort was to be made by the XIX Corps, consisting of the US 2^nd Armored, 29^th Infantry and 30^th Infantry Divisions. Its objective was to seize Julich and Linnich, forcing the crossing of the Roer River. First Army was to attack just to the south of the Ninth. The lead element was VII Corps, consisting of 104 Infantry, 3rd Armored and 1st Infantry. Later it was reinforced by V Corps, including the 8th Infantry. First Army’s initial effort was to capture the Eschweiler‑Weisweiler industrial complex, followed by the capture of Duren and the forcing of the Roer River crossings.

In order to understand the First Army offensive we must understand four things: the terrain, the weather and the attacking and defending forces. The battle was fought in a dense growth commonly referred to as the Hürtgen Forest. Characterized by thickly treed land with a heavy undergrowth, the forest canalized movement along its few roads and paths. The terrain was wet, plagued by fog and heavily mined in places. Fallen trees and numerous gorges made for ideal defensive terrain.

Splitting the Hürtgen Forest in two was a section of ground running from Stohlberg to Eschweiler, the “Stohlberg Corridor”. It was the only sector truly suited for armored operations. North of the corridor the woods generally gave out onto a plain that eventually merged with the Roer River further to the north. South of the corridor extended the Hamich ridge, dominated by Hill 232, which denied access from the Stohlberg Corridor to Eschweiler‑Weisweiler.

To smash through this forbidding terrain, VII Corps commander ‘lightning’ Joe Collins deployed three reinforced divisions, the 104^th Infantry, 1^st Infantry and the 4^th Infantry, all supported by 32 battalions of field artillery and numerous tank and tank destroyer battalions. The 104^th (Timberwolf) Division commanded by Terry Allen was a green division deployed north of the Stohlberg Corridor. Its objective was to clear the woods north of the Corridor and eventually fight its way into Eschweiler. The division lay on the corps boundary with the Ninth Army located further to the north. The 104^th had landed in Europe on 24 August and had yet to fight its first engagement.

The 3^rd armored was a veteran unit of proven capacity commanded by Maurice Rose. Its mission was to enter the Stohlberg Corridor, break up whatever German formations it encountered along the way, and assist in securing Eschweiler and Weisweiler. The 3rd Armored was attached to the 1^st Infantry and only Combat Command B participated in the offensive.

The 1^st Infantry needs little introduction. An elite unit, its mission was to attack south of the Stohlberg Corridor along the Hamich Ridge towards Hill 232, spreading out its front as it advanced in the general direction of Gressenich, Hamich and Merberich towards the Roer plain. To assist it, the 47^th Infantry Regiment of the 9^th Division was attached. 1^st Infantry’s sector was to be the main thrust of Operation QUEEN.

On the right of the 1^st Infantry lay the 4^th Infantry. A veteran unit, it had to fight its way through the densest portions of the Hurtgen Forest, and break out of the woods in the region between Gey and the Hof Hardt castle 4^th Division was spread across four miles of difficult terrain and its 12^th Regiment began the battle chewed up from earlier German counter attacks from Hurtgen. The absence of major roads in the forest would make re‑supply precarious.

Opposing this formidable force was a motley collection of ragged German formations outnumbered by five to one. Opposite the 4^th Division in the south the Germans had deployed the 275^th Infantry Division. The 275^th was an amalgamation of 6,500 men from 37 different, previously shattered, combat units and had no reserves. Its 985^th regiment was down to 250 men but the division boasted 106 artillery pieces.

In the center the Germans had posted the 12^th Infantry Division. This unit had three regiments of infantry plus artillery, 6,400 men in all. German commanders considered it the best division in the sector and it was rated as capable of limited offensive operations. It was scheduled for relief by the 47^th Volks Grenadier (VG) Division at the beginning of the offensive.

The 47^th Volks Grenadier Division was a new unit which had drawn half its men from Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine formations, plus a sprinkling of units gathered from all over Germany. Their equipment was good, but the division was given only six weeks training before commitment. Not much was expected of it and it lived up to those expectations, being smashed by the 1st Division in three days.

Bordering the Corridor and to the north lay units of the 3^rd Panzer Grenadier (Pz. Gr.)Division. This unit had been badly ground up in the battle for Aachen, and was not considered as good as the 12^th. Not considered fit for offensive operations, the 3^rd Panzer Grenadier was fortunate to be opposite the untried 104^th.

Operation QUEEN began at 12:00 noon on the 16^th of November, and began badly. Fog and mist grounded all but 2,400 heavy bombers on their runways in England. Bad weather also crippled the effort from the IX and XXIX tactical air forces assigned to close air support. What did get through failed to achieve anything like the psychological impact of a much smaller effort made in Normandy back in August, and the Germans were scarcely affected.

Timed to coincide with the air support came the artillery preparation 694 field pieces fired off 50,000 rounds on the afternoon of the 16^th. Here to, things did not begin with great success. In the sector of the 104^th Division, the Division’s artillery inexplicably failed to fire at all on the first day.

The infantry and tank attacks began on schedule and immediately ran into difficulties everywhere. In the north, the 104^th Division pushed east with curious timidity and could not turn the flank north of Stohlberg. In the center CCB of the 3^rd Armor abruptly stalled in front of the Donnerberg Castle, which resisted all attacks for three days. 1st Division attacked along the Hamich Ridge towards Hamich village but the attack was quickly contained by the 12^th Volks Grenadier three days later the Big Red One still had not captured Hamich.

Barton’s 4^th Division attacked on cue and bogged down just as quickly. Its weakened regiments were in no condition to properly support the 1^st Division on its left and the attack produced heavy casualties and little real estate.

The poor road network in its sector made resupply difficult and the terrain in front of the 4^th was the worst along the entire 1^st Army Front. So bad was the situation in the south that on the 17th the 4^th Division was unable to attack at all.

To make things worse, the weather deteriorated, turning to light rain, mist and fog, hindering air support and artillery spotting. The roads turned to quagmires and re‑supply became the critical factor.

Finally though, the attack made progress. After three days of attrition and few reinforcements the German position in the Donnerberg abruptly collapsed.

The Donnerberg fell on the 18^th ; 1^st Division captured Hill 232 on the 18^th and the 4^th Division simply ground down the 275^th Division to progress to within half a mile of the Gut Schwarzenbroich castle. However, this did not resemble the grand design of a rapid break out on the scale of Cobra.

Heavy casualties and slow penetration characterized the progress that had been made.

At this point, when the front was giving way, the Germans committed whatever reserves they could scrounge. The 47^th VG Div was thrown in to beef up the 12^th VG sector opposite the 1^st Division. A kampfgruppe from the 116^th Panzer (Pz.) Division and the 104^th VG Regt launched a counterattack to retake Hamich and Hill 232. It was beaten off but the effort did stabilize the front in the German center.

In the south, opposite the 4^th Division, the Germans rushed forward the remnants of two VG divisions, the 344^th and 353^rd and also threw in shattered contingents of the 116^th Panzer by the 20^th these had stiffened the 275^th Division considerably, and the 4th’s attack ground to a halt.

Battle options

As the Allies you must get going quickly. Take the Donnerberg as soon as possible and get armor moving up the Stohlberg Corridor before the Germans can commit the 47^th VG and the 116^th Pz. This was, after all, the original Allied plan. The Corridor is vital because of its suitability for armored operations. You will have to exercise some caution. The German units opposing you will generally be of poor quality, and often will be kampfgruppes or remnants. However all other advantages like terrain and weather will usually be on their side. Be careful with the 4th Division. It is not in good shape and if you push it too hard you are asking for trouble.

As the Germans you have an interesting position. You must hold the Donnerberg for as long as possible. The longer you hold the Donnerberg, the better your chances of being able to commit the 47^th VG to stopping the Big Red One opposite Hamich. Then you can feed in your hastily reassembled kampfgruppe reinforcements into a delaying action along the corridor. Fight all out for Eschweiler. In the south things should be simpler. If the American player gets too aggressive with the 4^th a counter‑attack may be in order. Don’t do it too early or you will be in trouble.

VARIANTS

Better Weather. The weather was terrible for most of the battle. Adjust the start weather to something more suitable for air operations and the Americans will do much better.

More Aggressive 104th. The 104^th Division was green, fouled its opening attack and was sluggish throughout the rest of the battle. Assume that it performed somewhat better first time out. Increase the experience of all battalions where appropriate and increase HQ admin and leadership.

5th Armour to the Rescue. The 4^th infantry ran into such difficulties during the battle that Bradley decided to commit the V Corps 5th Arm XX. 5th Arm actually turned up on the 23^rd and blasted right into Hurtgen city. Assume a more realistic appraisal of the initial situation. Model the CCR of the 5^th Armored on the CCB of the 3rd Armored attached to 104^th Infantry. Attach the CCR to the 4^th Infantry.

What was the “Kall trail”?

I’ve walked the Kall trail with Mr. Ray Fleig, former US tank platoon leader who used the trail to get his Shermans up to the town of Schmidt in early November 1944. The Kall Trail was designated as the main supply route (MSR) for the attack being carried out on the town of Schmidt by the US 28^th Infantry Division. Beginning at the village of Vossenack, the Kall Trail left this ridgeline and dipped into the rather steep Kall Gorge, crossed the Kall creek, then climbed up the other side. The trail was very narrow with a lot of switchbacks which made it very difficult for tanks and other vehicles to negotiate. Several Shermans of Fleig’s platoon slid off the trail or blocked it, effectively bringing the movement of supplies to the US troops in Schmidt to a halt. When they were trying to establish defensive positions in Schmidt, the Germans, fully awoken now to the danger posed by the US attack, launched a counterattack using elements of the 116^th Panzer Division and the 89^th Infantry Division. To make a long story short, the Americans suffered a crushing defeat, losing over 4,000 men. They were forced not only to abandon Schmidt and the neighboring village of Kommerscheidt, they had to retreat down the Kall trail, across the creek and back up again until they finally found safety in Vossenack. Fleig was forced to abandon all of his tanks (though not before he had destroyed 3 Pz.IVs) since the trail had been interdicted by the 116^th Panzer’s reconnaissance battalion (oops, I mean Abteilung). If you go to the Kall trail today, you can still see a section of embedded track from one of Ray Fleig’s Shermans as well as many old foxholes and fighting positions. In retrospect, the 28^th Infantry Division’s scheme of maneuver was sheer folly, since it became patently obvious that they could not sustain a reinforced infantry regiment along such an inadequate supply route. By the way, every year the community of Hürtgen hosts a military march competition whereby participants of all NATO countries take part. The route includes not only most of the major sites from the Battle of the Hürtgen Forest, but the Kall Trail as well.

Doug Nash

These are the main protagonists;
3rd FJ Div, 12th, 47th and 272nd VGD, 89th, 275th, 344th, 353rd Infantry Divs, 116th Pz Div, 116th Panzer.

There were numerous Festungs (Fortress), Politzei (Police)units too; there are a number of great sites on the net related to this campaign.

The Westwall, or Siegfried Line, an immense, 650 km long fortified barrier along the German border. This is where the allied assault came to a halt after the failed attempt to capture the bridge across the Rhine in Arnhem. To gain momentum again, a small US offensive was staged to break through to the river Ruhr and from there through the Kolnisch Lowlands to the Rhine. After the capture of Aachen on the 21st of October, the 1^st US Army had to secure their right flank, the Hürtgen Forest.

This dense, dark forest, an area 30 by 15 kilometers wide, was filled with concrete bunkers, dug-in strongholds, gorges, German soldiers, streams, barbed wire, tripwires, muddy roads, and mines: truly a Green Hell.

The 9^th US Division already lost 4,500 men during its attempt to cross the forest. They were relieved by the 28^th Division. Within two weeks, losses were so high; they were replaced by the 8^th Division. Another division, the 4^th, followed by the 83^rd and the 5^th Armoured, were also send into the forest…all in all, 120,000 men. Only on the 13th of December, troops of the 83^rd and 5^th division reached the other site of the forest, leaving 24,000 dead, wounded, missing or captured US soldiers behind…

The ordeal of the 28^th Infantry Division

The 28th smashed into the Hürtgen Forest, 2 November 1944, and in the savage seesaw battle which followed, Vossenack and Schmidt changed hands several times…

The U.S. 28^th Infantry Division, a Pennsylvania National Guard unit, arrived on October 16 to relieve the battered 9^th Infantry Division.

The 28^th Division was reinforced with armor, tracked transport Weasels and air support. Of its three regiments, one was deployed to protect the northern flank, another to attack Germeter, and the third to capture Schmidt, the main objective. The area had terrible terrain with the Kall Trail running along a deep river ravine. This was not tank country, despite the need for armor to support the infantry.

The attack by 28^th Division started on November 2; the defenders were expecting it and were ready. The U.S. 109^th Infantry Regiment was impeded after 300 yards by an unexpected minefield, pinned down by mortar and artillery fire and harassed by local counterattacks. One mile was gained after two days, after which the 109^th dug-in and endured casualties. The U.S. 112^th Infantry Regiment attacked Vossenack and the neighboring ridge, which were captured on November 2. The 112^th was then halted on the Kall by strong defenses and difficult terrain. The U.S. 110^th Infantry Regiment had to clear the woods next to the River Kall, capture Simonskall, and maintain a supply route for the advance on Schmidt; again these were very difficult tasks due to weather, prepared defenses, determined defenders, and terrain. The weather prevented tactical air support until November 5.

The 112^th captured Schmidt on November 3, cutting the German supply route to Monschau but no American supply, reinforcement or evacuation was possible as the Kall Trail was blocked. A strong German counterattack by tanks of 116^th Panzer Division and infantry from 89^th Division rapidly expelled the Americans from Schmidt and they were unable to counterattack. For two days, the 112^th remained hard pressed to hold its positions outside Schmidt.

On November 6, the U.S. 12^th Infantry Regiment was detached from the U.S. 4^th Division and sent to reinforce the 28^th Division

Across the Kall Bridge the troops of the 28^th US Infantry Division pushed forward at the beginning of November 1944 to capture the village of Schmidt. After a few days, the so-called “Allerseelenschlacht” resulted in a disaster for the Americans. As American troops tried to retreat across this bridge to Vossenack, great parts of the Kall Valley were already cut off by the Germans. A German regimental doctor, Captain Guenther Stuettgen, managed to negotiate an unofficial ceasefire with the Americans at the Kall Bridge from November 7 to the twelfth, in order to attend to the wounded of both sides. The lives of many American soldiers were saved by German paramedics.

At Vossenack, the 2^nd battalion of the 112^th disintegrated after constant shelling and fled a German attack. Following the providential arrival of two U.S. armored platoons of tanks and M10 Wolverine tank destroyers, supported by those 2^nd battalion men who had held tight, and two companies of 146^th Engineers operating as infantry, the Americans held on and the fighting for Schmidt continued until November 10.

…Later that day, the remaining defenses east of the Kall were pulled back after Major General Norman Cota received permission from First Army. The disaster that had befallen the 28^th Division led to a visit by all the senior US Army brass, including Eisenhower, Bradley, Hodges and Gerow. Divisional casualties to date had been 6,184, with the hapless 112^th Infantry (Regt) having suffered 2,093 battle casualties, as well as 544 non-battle casualties from combat exhaustion and trench foot. Total German casualties in this phase of the Hürtgenwald fighting were 2,900, and the 116^th Panzer Division alone needed 1,800 replacements with GR 1055 needing 490.

The reasons for the debacle were many. To begin with, the attack plan dispersed the 28^th Division on three separate and uncoordinated missions leaving each regiment isolated. With two of the regiments tied down in the German defenses on the shoulders, this left the 112^th Infantry exposed to the full force of two German divisions. The isolation of the battalions of the 112^th Infantry due to the terrain allowed the Germans to destroy the 112^th Infantry piecemeal, a battalion at a time. The dispositions of the 2/112^th Infantry in Vossenack were poor, and Kommerscheidt’s isolation due to the Kall trail made it unusually vulnerable. The decision to postpone Operation Queen from November 5 to November 16 due to the poor weather doomed the 28^th Division, since it allowed the German 7^th Army to throw all of its reserves into the Hürtgenwald. This included a considerable amount of artillery, which was instrumental in reducing the 112^th Infantry positions in Kommerscheidt and Vossenack, and also permitted the participation of the 7^th Army’s operational reserve, the 116^th Panzer Division.

Spence Toll, was at Schmidt crossroad during the battle, he wrote:

I don’t know the reasons for the silence of the 28th Division’s WWII veterans, but the scholars who study Hürtgen appreciate what a disastrous episode it was. For example’ my friend Russell Weigley, Temple U.’s distinguished military historian, likens the 28th’s Hürtgen involvement to the Civil War’s Wilderness or WWI’s Argonne. I came into Hürtgen after most of the 28th’s blood had been spilled, but I have a vivid memory of what a frozen version of hell it was.

(He then quotes an excerpt from Ernest Hemingway’s account published in Collier’s issue of November 1944 describing the fighting. Hemingway was a war correspondent with the 28th at that time. The account is the usual description of tree bursts, darkness and fighting in wooded area. He continues) To give our division a chance to recover from its savaging, the strategists sent us to a quiet place on the front. It was the Ardennes.

The irony of the last sentence is striking. On 19 November, the Division moved south to hold a 25-mile sector along the Our River in Luxembourg.

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

LINK

Wargames: Computer geeks and war.

Terrible Swift Sword (very detailed recreation of Gettysburg) boardgame map -viewed from the west.

By Dave Kopel & Glenn Reynolds . Dave Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute. Glenn Reynolds is professor of law at the University of Tennessee, and writes for InstaPundit.Com.

October 1, 2001

America is hearing a great deal about the martial society of the Afghans, about their extensive experience of warfare, their great skill with firearms, and their tradition of humbling foreign militaries. All of these things are (mostly) true, though a visit to almost any shooting range will turn up Americans of astonishing shooting skills, and the military experience of the United States is hardly to be sneezed at. And a lot of bin Laden’s troops are Arabs, not Afghans, and the Arab world hasn’t produced a great military leader or fighting force for a very, very, very long time.

Yet we have repeatedly heard that Americans — not so much our military, as our overall society — don’t have the right stuff for warfare. Americans, too wedded to technology and commerce, know nothing of war, some say. The public will not understand the considerations involved, the risks, or the nature of the conflict.

In fact, the opposite may be true. As a population, the American public probably has more deep expertise concerning serious military history than any previous society. This expertise has been acquired steadily over the past four decades, and it has happened largely without notice from the media, academics, or the punditocracy, and in spite of the removal of most military subjects from the mainstream educational curriculum, and despite the p.c. movement’s success in driving military history out of history departments.

One reason that this military education has gone unnoticed is that the people acquiring the expertise are mostly techno-geeks, the very people that some commentators point to as evidence of our unmartial character. Yet to anyone who knows it, geek culture is full of military aspects.

Military history is widely admired among geeks. So is skill with firearms. As an article in Salon noted a while back, geeks tend to be strong gun-rights enthusiasts, regarding both computers and firearms as technologies that empower the individual. Geeks, who know that they can program their VCR, also believe themselves capable of cleaning a gun safely.

Some geeks take their enthusiasm further, engaging in massed battles with broadswords and maces as part of the Society for Creative Anachronism’s popular rounds of medieval combat. Though the weapons are usually blunt or padded, injuries are about as common as in rugby and football, and the rules are far less refined. Geeks also read military science fiction, by authors like David Drake, Jerry Pournelle, S. M. Stirling, Eric Flint, and Harry Turtledove, in which war is not glorified, or simplified, but presented in surprisingly realistic fashion.

But the biggest source of geek military knowledge comes from that staple of geek culture, wargaming. Ever since the introduction of wargames in the early 1960s by companies like Avalon Hill and Simulations Publications Inc. (SPI), geeks have made wargaming a major pastime. The games, once played on boards with cardboard counters, now often run on PCs, and realistically reflect all sorts of concerns, from logistics, to morale, to the importance of troop training.

Wargaming, like chess, has always been an activity mainly for intelligent males. At the peak of board-based wargaming, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, most good high schools had a wargame club. And you can be sure that the average member of that club ended up with a job and an income far ahead of the average student at the school.

Board-based games attracted a smaller set of the geek population in subsequent decades, as computers became a new way for geeks to have fun, and as Dungeon & Dragons (originally just a small part of the wargaming world) grew massively in popularity, spawning scores of imitators.

Avalon Hill, the founding father of the industry, nearly destroyed itself through a bad lawsuit, and ended up getting taken over by Hasbro, which has junked almost all of AH’s once-formidable catalogue. Today, Decision Games is probably the leading wargame publisher, with the flagship magazine Strategy & Tactics (a military-history magazine with a game in every issue), and with a catalogue of board and computer games ranging from Megiddo (1479 BC, the epic chariot clash between Egypt’s Tuthmosis III and the King of Kadesh) all the way to the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

Today’s computer format for games works better at creating “the fog of war,” since the computer can hide pieces. The computer also makes it easier to play solitaire — and solitaire was always a major form of wargame play; the players were attracted by the ideas, not by the chance to chat while playing Bridge.

How well have wargames taught war? Well enough so that several wargames have been used as instructional or analytical tools by the United States military.

Over the years, game designers learned how to playtest games before publication, so that players would be forced to address real strategy and tactics, as opposed to manipulating artifacts of the game system. No game could possibly simulate everything realistically, but the best games pick some key challenges faced by the real-world commanders, and make the players deal with the same problems. For example, the many games depicting the 1941 German invasion of the U.S.S.R. find the German player with near total military superiority in any given battle — but always wondering whether to outrun his supply lines, and conquer as much ground as possible, before the winter set in. Other games make the players work on the delicate balance of combined arms — learning how to make infantry, tanks, and artillery work together in diverse terrain, and learning what to do when all of sudden your tanks are destroyed, but the enemy had 15 left.

Some wargamers prefer purely tactical games, such as plane-to-plane, or ship-to-ship combat. These players come away with amazing amounts of knowledge about submarines, or fighter planes, or Greek triremes, or dreadnaughts. And since real wargamers like lots of different games, many wargamers learn a lot about many different military subjects.

Even the least successful games teach a good deal of geography and history. And they always demonstrate how the “right” answer to a military strategy question is usually clear only in hindsight.

The wargaming magazines are all about military history, naturally, and most wargamers end up reading military-history and strategy books too. If you ask, “Who was Heinz Guderian?” most people will guess “A ketchup genius?” Wargamers will be ones who answer: “The German general who invented modern tank warfare, and who wrote a famous memoir, Panzer Leader.”

Most people who wargame don’t become real warriors — although the games have always been especially popular at military academies. But anyone who spends a few hundred hours playing wargames (and many hobbyists put in thousands of hours) will soon know more about the nuts and bolts of warfare than most journalists who cover the subject, and most politicians who vote on military matters.

So here’s the funny thing. While the official American culture around, say, 1977, was revolted by anything military, a bunch of the nation’s smartest young males — the “leaders of tomorrow” — were reading Panzer Leader and Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart’s Strategy, and of course Sun Tzu’s Art of War — which wargamers were reading long before it became a business-school cliché.

This was no accident. Many of those who founded the wargame publishing business feared that, with the anti-militarism caused by the Vietnam, and (later) with the adoption of the all-volunteer army, American society would become estranged from all things military, leaving ordinary citizens too ignorant to make meaningful democratic judgments where war is concerned. They hoped that realistic simulation games would teach important principles.

We’ve never really tested the societal effect of having such a large number of knowledgeable citizens. The Gulf War was too short, and too much of a set piece, for public military knowledge to play a major role. But there’s reason to believe that it will be different this time — especially as the favored geek mode of communication, the Internet, is now pervasive, meaning that geeks’ knowledge, and their knowledgeable opinions, will have substantial influence. They will be able to put the military events of any given day into a much broader perspective, and they may be opinion leaders who help their friends and neighbors avoid the error of thinking that the last 15 minutes of television footage tell the conclusive story of the war’s progress.

The phenomenal educational effort of the wargame publishers has ensured that, despite the neglect of matters military by most educational institutions, important aspects of military knowledge were kept alive, and taught to new generations of Americans, in a fashion so enjoyable that many didn’t even realize they were being educated.

Some of our favorite wargames:
Reynolds: Mechwar 77 (NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, company-level tactics), France: 1940, Tobruk, Terrible Swift Sword (very detailed recreation of Gettysburg).

Kopel: War in Europe (huge division-level recreation of WWII in Europe and the Mid-East); Sinai (Arab-Israeli wars of 1956, 1967, 1973), Guadalcanal, Chaco (Bolivia v. Paraguay, 1932-35).

Decision Games

Egyptian Deities and Wargods

“It is the Antediluvian Age…the time after the fall of Atlantis and before the destruction brought about by the Great Flood. It is a time when the Children of the Gods still walked the earth, and fought great wars for their creators. To lead them in battle, the gods invested certain mighty mortals with a portion of their own power—the Harbingers. On the bright sands of ancient Aegyptus, the Harbingers and their armies made war.”

WarGods is a game for 2 or more players that re-creates these battles of ancient mythology using metal minatures on a tabletop. This 288 page hardcover book provides you with the rules and background you need to play the game using the forces of Aegyptus, and gets you started collecting and painting your own warband of Crocodile Games miniatures.

Where did the gods live?

Did Egyptian deities dwell in some unreachable divine realm beyond space and time, or did they inhabit the human world? There is evidence for a variety of answers to this question. A few religious texts speak of the creator god Amun as an invisible, unknowable force existing beyond the limits of the cosmos. Others emphasize that something of the essence of the creator was present in the elements that made up the cosmos and in all the beings whom he had made. One answer to where did the gods live might be ‘in the past’. In a letter to his dead wife, a scribe called Butehamun refers to Ra and his ennead, or council, as being gone like the kings of old. Most of the surviving mythical narratives are set in a remote era when a dynasty of gods ruled Egypt. This golden age was terminated by the first acts of rebellion and murder.

Gradually, the gods withdrew to divine realms beyond and below the earth. There they lived in their mysterious true forms, as huge, radiant beings with an overpoweringly sweet scent. Most humans could only enter the divine realms after death, but deities continued to interact with the human world in a variety of ways.

Deities could manifest themselves in natural phenomena such as storms, floods, and plagues. Their spirits could be ‘resident’ in special or unusual people, such as kings and dwarfs, and in sacred animals, trees, and objects. One of the main functions of Egyptian art was to provide temporary bodies for deities in the form of statues, drawings, or hieroglyphs. Much of the ritual that went on in Egyptian temples was aimed at encouraging the gods to inhabit these bodies so that their presence could benefit humanity. Thus, a deity like Sobek could be thought of as living simultaneously in the primeval ocean before creation, in a palace in the mountains of the horizon, in wild areas of Egypt’s lakes and marshes, and in the statues and sacred crocodiles kept in his temples.

Were Egyptian deities all-powerful and immortal?

In hymns and prayers deities are praised for their wisdom, strength, and power. In other writings, that power seems to come with limitations. Deities were expected to obey the rules of maat. They might be subject to fate and they did not always know what would happen in the future. In Egyptian myth, gods were depicted as longer-lived, stronger, and more powerful than people, but they did age and they were not invulnerable. In the story known as ‘The Secret Name of Ra’, the sun god suffered the indignities of old age and was harmed by heka (magic), one of the powers he had used to make the world. That world was like a small island in the ocean of chaos, and the forces of chaos posed a continuous threat to the gods.

In their struggles with chaos monsters or with each other, Egyptian deities could be injured or even die. Such deaths rarely seem to be more than a temporary inconvenience. Isis survived being beheaded. Seth was executed in a number of unpleasant ways but always came back again. In these cases it is usually only a particular body or manifestation of the deity that dies, but Osiris seems to die in a more final manner and could not go back to his former life in Egypt. Some Underworld Books imply that the sun god died each evening and was reborn each morning. Time was made up of inescapable cycles of birth, life, death, and renewal. The creator would eventually grow weary and return into chaos until it was time for the creation of a new world.

LINK

WARGAMING AN ACTION OF THE CAMEROON CONFLICT: GARUA

Kamerun Timeline

1914

August 1

News of the outbreak of war in Europe reaches Douala. After sinking several steamers in the Kamerun River to block an Allied attack on the capital the Government moves to Buea.

August 5

A 300 man French column leaves Bangui, Ubangi-Shari moving towards Cameroon.

August 7

The French Bangui column captures the German customs post at Singa. German troops repel a French attack on Kusseri.

August 15

Governor Ebermaier establishes his command post at Buea.

September

British troops enter Cameroon from Nigeria advancing along the coast towards Douala.

September 26

French reinforcements arrive from Dakar. HMS Challenger, a British cruiser, enters Douala Bay and begins shelling the capital.

September 27

Douala surrenders and is occupied by an Anglo-French landing party.

1915

June 10

The Garua garrison surrenders.

June 27

The Ngaundere garrison surrenders.

October 24

The German garrison withdraws from Banyo to Yaounde.

December Anglo-French forces occupy the entire coast including Buea and Edea.

1916

January 9

The German garrison evacuates the Yaounde fortress and flees into the neighboring Spanish colony of Rio Muni.

February 4

France and Great Britain agree to divide Cameroon into separate administrative zones.

February 18

Captain von Raben surrenders the last German holdouts in Cameroon at Mora.

July 4

France assumes sole responsibility for administration in the zone comprising the old Neu-Kamerun territory. Great Britain settles for a 53,000 square kilometer zone (slightly under 20% of Kamerun’s territory).

LINK

An ideal action to portray on tabletop would be the Allied assault on the German stronghold of Game.

This action commenced on August 24th 1914. But first a little background information to the events leading up to the attack.

On the 24th August a British column marched east from the Nigerian town of Yola, swiftly taking a strong German fort at Garua (the German’s Northern capital of the colony). However a German counter-offensive forced the British to retreat back into Nigeria, suffering many casualties as they did so. The Allies knew that Garua had to fall and so directed General Cunliffe, with sub commands going to Colonel Webb-Bowen, and Captain Fowle, to link up with a French column under Lt. Col Brisset. Both forces were to make a combined attack once more on the German garrison, but it was no easy task. The British had to advance over 600 miles of mountainous terrain, intersected by deep ravines, each a perfect spot for ambush, of which the Germans were masters.

Tropical rivers were swollen to bursting point and the rainy season was still far from over. Not only had the Allies to contend with this hostile terrain but they also had to clear away any possible German strong points that littered the line of advance. “My information,” noted down General Cunliffe, “with regard to Garua was that the place was very strongly fortified, and that the German artillery there could outrange any gun which either Lieutenant Colonel Brisset or Lieutenant Colonel Webb-Bowen possessed at the time. Before leaving Duala, therefore, l had made arrangements by which one of H.M.S. Challenger’s 12pdr guns, with 500 rounds of ammunition, should be placed at my disposal, while the French authorities had similarly directed that a 95mm gun should be sent to Lieutenant Colonel Brisset.” The Germans knew full well that Garua would not be left alone and so set over 2,000 native labourers to work improving and strengthening the defences. In all, the work on the defences continued for five unmolested months, and when completed was said that it would, ‘have done credit to the engineers of a European battlefield.’ The Germans did not intend to give up Garua without a fight.

On the 18th of April 1915, after both the Allied guns had been miraculously shipped up the Benue River to Yola, the advance got underway. Though painfully slow at first the columns kept on plodding, eastwards, hacking and slashing their way through the roadless terrain, until setting up a camp at Bogole, near to the German defences at Garua. Unable to mount an attack immediately Cunliffe pushed aggressive patrols to the South and South west, probing ever closer to the German positions. Finally an assault was made, initially by sappers gradually pushing trenches toward the German positions. Artillery support allowed the sappers to carry out their perilous task. There was “a well-regulated bombardment of the three forts situated on the high ridge over-looking Garua, as well as on the old fort in the plain below. This firing was maintained by heavy guns from a distance of about 4,000 yards at first, and latterly from 3,000…” One lucky shell, bursting on No.2 fort, is said to have penetrated a bomb-proof shelter and exploded inside, killing twenty of the enemy. After bitter fighting the Germans (on the night of June 9th) attempted a breakout to the South, but were forced back by withering tire from a well positioned company of British infantry. The Germans attempted a second breakout, but this proved even more disastrous than the first for many tried to cross the Benue, but as this was in a state of flood many drowned in the attempt. On the 10th June a white flag was seen flying over the garrison and the commander, Hauptman Von Crailsheim (after attempting to secure free passage of his remaining men), surrendered unconditionally at 6pm that same day.

We can see just how formidable a task it was taking one of the Garua Forts. Fortunately a British officer at the surrender of Garua recorded his findings. “The old fort, a strongly-fortified walled-in enclosure, was surrounded by a broad deep ditch, about 150 yards by 100 yards, containing bungalows, offices, and stores. The walls of the fort are of mud faced with cement and bricks, about 15ft, or 16ft high and a 4ft thick, embrasured for guns, sandbag loopholes all round. It contains underground bomb-proof shelters for the garrison; a deep ditch filled with upright spears surrounds it, and outside this is a 12ft broad barbed-wire entanglement; beyond this an abattis of felled prickly acacia trees, and beyond this again a maze of 10ft deep circular holes cunningly covered over. Every bungalow is strongly fortified, and surrounded in the same way with barbed-wire entanglements and covered over pits.”

GAMING NOTES

STRONG POINTS

As is already described, the forts at Gartia are very formidable and it will be no easy task to destroy them. It is suggested that only two of the strong points are to be portrayed on the tabletop, that of the ‘old fort’ down on the plain and one on the ridge. Other strong points on the map can be classified as machine guns nests.

MOVEMENT

All movement is to be reduced in unfavourable terrain, however this must not allow the game to get bogged down and so suggest uphill movement is only reduced by a quarter, whilst forest movement (off tracks) will be reduced by halt. Mounted troops will not be allowed to enter forest areas unless following behind infantry,

RIVERS

All movement in rivers, at this time in flood, is highly risky, Any attempt by loot troops to cross will have to be diced for, For every 12 figures crossing roll a d6. The resulting score equals the number of figures lost. Neither horse nor transport can attempt to cross. The Benue River is very wide and will take two turns to cross.

BRIDGES

I have placed two bridges on the map for gaming purposes (unfortunately I could not locate a map of the battlefield area, but there must have been bridges somewhere along
that stretch of the river).

The main bridge is damaged and will allow no more than 4 infantry figures per move to cross it.

Needless to say the Allied capture of this crossing point could seriously affect German morale. A foot bridge has been added but this too can only carry three figures per move.

ORDER OF BATTLE

Known Allied strengths at Game is as follows. I could not locate German strengths so have estimated to produce a balanced wargame. In order to field the maximum number of figures I have set a ratio of 1 figure being equal to 20 men. The majority of men in each company will of course be mainly native troops, but are considered to be of fighting quality, as long as their European officers are present.

BRITISH

8 companies of infantry = 1,280 men = 64 figures

1 company of mounted infantry = 120 men 6 figures

3 guns (inc. naval gun) = 120 men = 6 figures

9 machine guns = 180 men = 9 figures Total 85 figures (1,700 men)

FRENCH

3 companies of infantry = 480 men = 24 figures

1 squadron of cavalry = 80 men = 4 figures

2 artillery pieces = 80 men = 4 figures

2 mitrailleuses* = 40 men = 2 figures *Wheel mounted machine guns. Total 34 figures (680 men)

GERMAN

8 companies of infantry* = 1,280 men = 64 figures

1 company of mounted infantry = 120 men = 6 figures

4 medium artillery pieces = 160 men = 8 figures

2 heavy artillery pieces = 80 men = 4 figures

4 machine guns = 80 men = 4 figures

*The greater part made up by native troops.

Total 86 figures (1,720 men)

LINK

Flames of War - The BEST Introduction for Younger Gamers!!

I can’t say it better than Glenn Kidd did in his blog: Command Decision *Test of Battle* has:

Flames of War

In the past year I’ve heard a lot of buzz about ‘Flames of War’, some of it good, some of it not; in addition, I’ve been told many of the posts on the miniatures page are less than favorable. For me–I like the game. Yes, it makes no excuses about being a game, and perhaps this is one of the reasons I like the game. The ‘Flames of War’ folks make no apologies about their game–what they have done is to try and make their game fun and exciting, and I think they did.

Reflecting on ‘Flames of War’, I believe this game has done more for historical war-gaming than any game I recall. The only game I ever remember having a following near this large was WRG. The number of books and its web support Flames of War has is remarkable–I can only envy this.

My viewpoint, this article, is not a criticism and, in addition, I’ve actually played the game twice and both times had a good time. Some of the criticism of ‘Flames of War’ puzzles me–it’s as if the critic has not played the game or even given this game a fair chance. One of my observations, no, let’s say confessions, is if this game had existed in 1960s, I might have discovered the ladies and their charm much later–not to repeat myself, but if I was still a teenager I would love this game. Since I loved military history, and my Dad was a WWII veteran, this would have been my favorite game. During my adolescence I played most of the board-games of the era. I didn’t become involved with miniature war-games until 1969-70, not sure which–guess I’m getting old? Since I had a considerable number of models and soldiers, this would have filled most of my fantasies–most.

As I recall, not all, well, not many, of the vehicles needed to play anything but West-front existed when I was younger. I would have been stuck with West-front and, perhaps, the Pacific. So what? I would have still used my imagination to somehow create what I needed. Now, you can get almost everything you need, for pretty much all the war and all the fronts. What a dream! Not only can you get almost anything you need, but you have several scales to chose from. I used to game WWII in 20mm-1/76 but about 10 years ago I switched to 15mm.

To repeat myself, ‘Flames of War’ is a great game, and if I were younger I would play it more often. Now that I’m older and heavily involved with Command Decision, I don’t have time to play this game. In my fantasy or whimsy my interest now is more at the operational level, I like being a colonel or brigadier not a lieutenant or captain. Nothing wrong with being a lieutenant or captain, but I feel I need a promotion. READ MORE

I started out at the age of 18 with Mike Reese’s Tractics WWII ruleset and have gone through all the younger rulesets and now at the ripe age of 51 play Spearhead, TAC: WWII, etc…

There is a comparison review that includes these rules in the latest (No. 298 February 2008 edition) of Miniature Wargames, along with Rapid Fire, Flames of War, Poor Bloody Infantry and Battlefront WWII.

Wargame: Into a Bear Trap (2004)

The capital of Chechnya, Grozny (meaning “terrible” in Russian), was in January 1995 the target of a Russian attack — beginning a war that continues to this day. The Russian plan was to subdue the city with a massive show of force to intimidate its populace into submission. This approach had worked in 1991, and Moscow saw no reason why a repeat performance would not again suffice. Massive artillery and air support were not thought essential, as the long columns of tanks and their two battalions of mechanized infantry support were deemed sufficient to cower any who chose to witness.

Alerted to the Russians’ plan of entry, two battalions of Chechen resistance fighters flitted among the sewers and rooftops to greet the Russian force. Well-armed with RPG’s and mortars and backed by snipers, the defenders deployed small groups of hunter-killer teams to tackle any armor encountered. A battle for the city was set.

Players are cast in the roles of the commanders of each side’s forces. Both players can brutally harm their opponent, while each has liabilities to protect. Opponents will be challenged to do as well, or better than, their historical counterparts.

The map scale is about 100-150 yards per hex. Each combat unit represents a platoon (25 to 30 men), one leader, 2 tanks or 6 armored personnel carriers. A game turn represents 2 hours of time.

Full color 22″x34″ map
280 full color die cut counters
Complexity - Low
Solitaire Suitability - Average

Introduction and presentation:

Into a Bear Trap is an interesting simulation of the first Russian assault in Grozny during the first Chechen war. Being a magazine game it is accompanied by a really interesting article about the battle that gives some interesting insights on the city, the story behind and the real battle. It’s definitely a tactical game with platoon size counters for infantry and vehicles (2-3 vehicles each counters that for standard Russian organization is a platoon). The Russian counters are color coded for formation identification and all counters discarded traditional NATO icons in favor of Russian ones. It’s a nice touch even if at start it can generate some confusion. The map is a subdued representation of the city with really (and handy) large hex. IMO it is successful in conveying the idea of the large, socialist styled, city. Tables are included in the rules that are printed in the magazine. Two scenarios (one historical with many restrictions on the Russian player and a variation with a more careful Russian plan).

The System
Into a Bear Trap has a chit based sequence. The chits representing Russian formations and Chechen “activations” are placed in the opaque container and then draw randomly. When a formation is activated (for Chechens a number of units equal to a die roll) each activated unit can move, call artillery, close assault or perform a combine fire/move action. Fire results vary from outright elimination to progressive states of unit incapacitation. Artillery can also reduce urban hexes to rubble aiding the defender even more. Random events are included to cover some unusual actions in the battle.

Comments
I think that the game does a good job in simulating modern urban combat. The random activations grant that nothing is predictable and that coordinating different formation is almost impossible (this is more a problem for the Russian player than for the Chechen, the latter activations allow to stage more “coordinated” operations even if they are subjected to the random roll for unit activation) and soon the Russians are fighting separate battalion sized battle at various places. This brings another problem of the city terrain, the dependence on road for vehicles. While on paper the heavier Russian units like T80 tanks are strong the dependence on the road network makes them vulnerable and forces the soviet player to protect them with infantry (adding coordination problems due to the fact that tanks and riflemen are on different battalions). And destroyed vehicles generated wrecks that block roads. Thus the main heavy weapons in the hands of the Russian player have to be employed carefully.

The Chechens are also provided by plenty of RPG and they are more mobile (6 mp compared to 3 for Russian foot). The end result is a lumbering bear moving forward surrounded by smaller birds of prey. This doesn’t imply that the Russians can’t win, just that they have to tailor their tactics to their force structure and bear in mind that the Chechens will outmaneuver them (I have tried a Baghdad approach with garrisons at mayor crossroads to keep them open only to see them surrounded and wiped out if they weren’t less than half battalion sized).

The fire system is a bit frustrating you have to roll a d10 and obtain less than the unit firepower. Considering that average infantry units have 3 and for firing on built up area there is a +2 modifier to the die roll it means that you have to put a lot of fire in a hex to obtain results (there is a +1 if the target has been already subjected to fire). And activate units then become more vulnerable (the firer has a -1 do the roll for firing on activated units) meaning that more you push more you are vulnerable to enemy reaction, a nice way to simulate the ambush prone nature of urban combat. The close combat modifiers are based on the number of unit the attacker/defender has and the worst suppression status between defender units. Ideally you have to soften up the enemy with fire and then move in…

In addition employing heavy firepower (off board arty and Schmel pseudo-flamethrower) risks to generate rubble that will only increase terrain protection.

The rules are generally well written even if the section on Russian forces entry on the map can be a little difficult to digest and can be interpreted in different ways. Still no major erratas are needed and the game isn’t affected by mayor problems.

Conclusion
A nice game on a less known, but very interesting battle. If you like city battles and/or contemporary conflicts this is a nice choice.

LINK

Against the Odds

The Battle of Dublin (1171AD)

When the Anglo-Normans obtained a footing in the country, the lordship of Dublin was bestowed on Earl Strongbow, who appointed Milo de Cogan as his deputy.

In 1171, Dublin was invested by a large army under the command of Asculph the Dane, but the brave Milo de Cogan succeeded in repulsing the enemy with great slaughter; and the fierce Asculph having been taken prisoner, his head was struck off, and placed upon a spike on the castle-gate. Thus terminated the sway of the sea-kings in Ireland, for this was the last attempt made by the Danes to regain possession of the city. “Many of them,” writes Harris, “had before incorporated with the Irish, and now upon this great revolution, such as remained in the city or neighbourhood became quiet subjects of the English, and by degrees one people with them.”

The first Norman knight to land in Ireland was Richard fitz Godbert de Roche in 1167, but it was not until 1169 that the main body of Norman, Welsh and Flemish forces landed in Wexford. Within a short time Leinster was regained, Waterford and Dublin were under Diarmait’s control.

The Battle of Dublin 1171

Dermot McMurragh, King of Leinster, was ejected by the new High King of Ireland, Rory O’Connor and fled to the court of King Henry II in Aquitaine. There he received royal protection and permission to recruit mercenaries. It was perfect timing as Henry Nicholas Breakspear, son of an English Cistercian monk, had become Pope Adrian IV and gave papal approval for a conquering crusade of ‘heathen’ Ireland.

The Anglo-Norman invasion began with the landing at Baginbun, Co. Wexford in 1169. ‘At Baginbun Ireland was lost and won’. Neither the Irish nor the Vikings could match nor withstand the Norman’s advanced military technology of chain mail clad heavy cavalry, backed by Welsh longbows - equipment previously unknown in Ireland. Wexford was taken and the next year they force marched through the ‘impenetrable’ Wicklow Mountains and arrived at the gates of Dublin. They attacked Dame Gate (at the present day junction outside Palace Street Gate). A second attack by shock troops at the Christchurch end of town proved decisive. ‘The Vikings were slaughtered in their citadel’ - and so Dublin became a Norman settlement.

King Rory O’Connor laid siege on the town for two months. The position of the Norman defenders was perilous when Strongbow led a surprise sortie and scattered O’Connor’s forces, at the site of present day Phoenix Park. Tiernan O’Rourke, Prince of Breifne, attacked Dublin three times in 1171. First his son was killed and then he was killed in battle. It would be almost three and a half centuries before Dublin would sustain such assault again - the next would be that of Silken Thomas in 1534.

The Vikings were forced out and settled in Oastmantown (Norse Town), now Oxmanstown, on the north side of the Liffey.

Strongbow married Diarmait’s daughter, Aoife, and was named as heir to the Kingdom of Leinster. This latter development caused consternation to Henry II, who feared the establishment of a rival Norman state in Ireland. Accordingly, he resolved to visit Leinster to establish his authority.

Pope Adrian IV, the first English pope, in one of his earliest acts, had already issued a Papal Bull in 1155, giving Henry authority