October 2011 game

Following this Sunday's WW2 Pacific game, our next will be on Sunday 23rd October. This one is provisionally titled:

KRIEGSSPIEL IN THE CAUCASUS - OCTOBER 1877

Yet another Russo – Turk War has broken out, and this time the Turks are without the Anglo–French assistance they had in 1853–6.

However, much of the Russian army, like their navy, is tied up in the Balkans around the Danube and its estuary, leaving only local forces to fight in the Caucasus, and the Turkish army – being gradually remodeled and rearmed by Imperial Germany - is no longer the walkover it was earlier in the century.

The Turks have so far proved disorganized on the offensive, as in previous wars, but it has become their custom to dig prepared positions wherever they find themselves, and defend them stubbornly. These positions often require prolonged bombardment and a vigorous bayonet charge if there is to be any hope of taking them frontally.

Further, and thanks to German assistance, both Turkish artillery and small arms now show some superiority to those of the Russians. The Turks have a few Krupp steel guns to match against the Russian brass pieces, and many of the Nizam (regular) infantry have Martini–Peabody rifles which outmatch the Russian ‘Berdankas’.

The Tsar's men will need to march and fight skillfully if their opponents are to be dislodged from the strong forward positions they have occupied near the frontier.

Martin

We are looking to get an idea of numbers for the October game, so if you are thinking of coming please let me know.

This game is at 11 am on Sunday 23 October, and is a map campaign set the Russo-Turkish War in the Caucasus theatre of eastern Turkey in 1877.

At great expense, we have secured a portrait of a contemporary Turkish general (or possibly the guy running the scenario).................




Martin

Just a reminder that the game is due to start at 11 am. Paul advises that roles & briefings will be distributed on Sunday, approximately in the order of your appearance .

See you then

Martin

Thanks to Paul and the Umpire team for the game and long live the Tzar....

A good scenario and map with some interesting terrain to fight over....

Yes, a very good scenario on an esoteric subject.

The game itself was unusual in several ways. The Turks were outnumbered 2v1, but my feeling is that the Russians were quite unaware of that until the debrief. The reports they were getting on Turkish strength & deployment were pretty un-illuminating, given early morning mist, then smoke, dust, and that the Askars were often entrenched. I would be interested in Mark's take on this, as my feeling is that this unawareness was perhaps their greatest problem. I guess British generals must have often felt the same way fighting the Boers.

Other Turkish advantages were longer-ranged weapons with a higher rate of fire, and the opportunity to dig in some pretty rugged terrain. From their commanding ground they also usually had a much better view of the enemy. Their real problem, which in the end proved insuperable, was covering 8 miles of rugged terrain with only 7 battalions, 2 batteries and few cavalry.

Hat's-off to the Russians who remained positive after initial reverses, and went on to score a significant victory. But as one of the other umpires commented in the debrief, both sides played well.

Martin

Martin wrote:Yes, a very good scenario on an esoteric subject.

Always better if players cannot identify a real battle unless you want to mislead them by great changes to history.

It was a real battle, but Paul wisely kept us all guessing on the details to avoid anyone Googling prior to the game.

Martin

Martin wrote: I would be interested in Mark's take on this, as my feeling is that this unawareness was perhaps their greatest problem. Martin

No not a problem at all really as we did not bother to try and guess what the enemy had. The plan was simple once we found the two entrenched gun positions. Isolate one and overwhelm it with superior numbers.

Getting the Dragoons into the rear really helped and the Turks could not effectively stop that. We had no idea how weak they were and it really did not make much difference to the plan.

In fact the Turk counter attack really played into our hands and allowed his forces to be pulled away from the battery and make our attack and success a certainty especially as the two generals themselves were sat with the guns and no one else around to help them, all facing the wrong way...

Without the cavalry (Dragoons) I guess our assault could have failed and the Turks hold the positions.

BTW the original plan had always been to find the enemy and then decide what approach to take. The Prince forgot that plan and finally when I caught up with him we managed to co-ordinate better and agree the approach. We could have decide to do something similar on the Southern Turk force if we had knew we had lost the positions I thought we had taken.

The choice to relocate forces stealthy was a good choice as it gave no indication to the Turks what we were upto and if Steve had seen us going North he might have been persuaded to beef up John's positions which could have meant they held...

Anyway I tend not to worry about what I don't know and focus on dealing with what I know and making choices on that basis. You can get command indecision if you worry too much about elephants that don't really exist....

Yes, there’s there’s a limit to what recce can do when the enemy is using the ground and not standing in serried ranks to be counted. Sometimes you just have to suck it and see.

I disagree about the Turkish counter-attack. Its success knocked some of the Russian troops about a bit and, more importantly, retook the trenches they had lost to the earlier Russian advance. This meant they they benefitted from some protection from artillery bombardment & also when the main Russian attack went in. That said, the eventual infantry assault was still successful, and the Russians were also able to push again and prevent the retreating Turks reforming. In the event the arrival of their cavalry in the Turks’ rear completed their discomfiture, although in other circs it could well have been the game winner. This raises 3 questions in my mind:

1. Did we give too little benefit to the Turks for being entrenched? In the key Russian assault, a total of 5 battalions attacked against 3 Turkish ones. This was actually slightly less favourable odds than the Russians faced overall. In addition the Turks were on higher ground, in prepared positions, and with better rifles. OTOH they had suffered a 1 hour preparatory bombardment, and 2 of their 3 battalions were irregulars. Nonetheless, on reflection, I suspect it should have taken more than one assault to do the job. I would be interested to hear other’s views on this though (particularly fellow umpires). Did we get this one right?

2. Were the Turkish trenches in the right place? They were deployed well forward of their final battery position, on a downward slope overlooking a watercourse which part of the Russian attacking force needed to cross. But 2 hillocks to their rear precluded direct support from their own guns, and a small wood offered a covered approach in one sector. So less than ideal, but the alternatives had disadvantages too. Deployment on the 2 hillocks behind them would still not have allowed artillery support. Deployment back with (or somewhat forward of) their artillery would have left the hillocks uncontested for the Russians to use as artillery positions, which they intended to do. One of the umpires wondered whether it might have been better to entrench instead on another area of high ground about 1 ml to their rear. There were some advantages to that position, but it would have meant either giving-up the other excellent defensive position on their right (which would have left the main massif undefended), or leaving both parts of their force totally out of mutual supporting distance. No easy choices for our Ottoman chums.

3. Could the Turks have moved more men to face the main Russian advance? As it was they concentrated half their artillery and 5 out of 7 battalions on the one mile or so front where the Russians made their main attacks, facing an eventual total of 10 Russian battalions in that sector. Their other artillery position on the right was still threatened by a possible Russian advance, and had only 2 battalions to support it. Had they been sure of where the enemy were redeploying, could they have risked say moving one of them to reinforce their left? Again this is not an easy one, as it would have left them with only 1 battalion to defend against the 4 Russian ones in that sector. Given that 3 were to fail to hold against 5 on their left, those don’t look like great odds. Which brings us back to 1. above.......

Hopefully we can get the Turkish commanders to comment, assuming thy are no longer enjoying Russian hspitality .

Martin

Having licked my wounds I have a couple of thoughts.

I think its right to highlight the challenge of holding a long piece of ground with fairly small forces.

The turkish right held well initially. The challenge was then to understand the forces facing the right and consider redeployment accordingly. With only two battalions and the guns any move, either with the guns or a bttn would have made the turkish right a risky position. Knowing the risk to the turkish left would have allowed a considered response. I think i underestimated the russian numbers and by the time the threat was assessed and a move by the Sultans rifles ordered it was too late. This stressed to me the importance not only of knowing what the enemy are trying to do but with how many people they are doing it with! Regular reporting up by subordinates is something we often have to prompt, especially early in a battle when everything seems in hand!

Its worth noting the value of the wide left hook by the russian cavalry. A risky tactic sending them the long way round, out of touch and with a lack of knowledge of how things will look in a couple of hours time. However it proved decisive in turning the well entrenched Turkish left. I knew it was happening but did not want to detach a weaker cavalry force to shadow it. My fear was it would lose in any engagement so kept my cavalry to secure the turkish right. I recall a few games now where this long range cavalry action has proved valuable.

Overall i really enjoyed the game. The challenge of holding the approach to Kars, keeping the heights and being in a position to harass the valley was a big ask with the forces available. It forced some difficult decisions and proved ultimately impossible. I draw solace from our early success and the fact that our game mirrored the historical action.

Steve

Martin wrote:1. Did we give too little benefit to the Turks for being entrenched? In the key Russian assault, a total of 5 battalions attacked against 3 Turkish ones. This was actually slightly less favourable odds than the Russians faced overall. In addition the Turks were on higher ground, in prepared positions, and with better rifles. OTOH they had suffered a 1 hour preparatory bombardment, and 2 of their 3 battalions were irregulars. Nonetheless, on reflection, I suspect it should have taken more than one assault to do the job. I would be interested to hear other’s views on this though (particularly fellow umpires). Did we get this one right?

It sounds a bit suspect given mid-century history that trying frontal attacks on trenches even when artillery have bombarded is a very bloody event and unlikely to succeed; was it an extreme die roll?

The battle was in fact ALACA DAG 1877, of which there is a detailed account in Muratoff's CAUCASIAN BATTLEFIELDS, now in English on the web at Google Books.

Map is below, though I have a feeling only the west side of the map will be visible on some browsers. I have also therefore put it up here - it’s the third one down and you need to double click on the ‘thumbnail’ to see the larger more readable version.





Steve gave much weight to the desire of the Turk high command to interdict Russian supplies down the Arpa Chay; hopefully I did not overstress this in the briefing, but it resulted in the Turks establishing themselves forward of the historical position, which was on the Kerhane Ridge (where John was) and further back towards and on the two Yahni hills, straddling the road to Kars. From Yahni historically the Turks were able to fall back and at least contest the Russian turning manoeuvre when it materialized from the South; albeit unsuccessfully since it was conducted in considerable strength. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable game to umpire, there were dramatic changes of fortune, and I was pleased with how the design turned out.

Thanks for map Paul.

The photon cutters blocks look very nice & crisp. I see James Sterrett was involved. Perhaps he can comment on the weight of the blocks? One advantage of the traditional metal blocks is their heft, and I've always wondered whether the new plastic ones might be a bit light and be easilly disturbed when in use. These ones appear to be mdf, so perhaps that's less likely to be a problem?

In answer to Hammurabi's question............no it wasn't an extreme die roll. Actually the Turks probably had the best of the die rolls throughout the game.

Martin

I think the scenario gave suitable emphasis to the varying tasks the Turks had to complete. Part of the command decision process is to decide where to be strong and where to give. I think the main Turkish error was in trying to achieve all three key tasks rather than perhaps sticking with two (retaining the approach to Kars and the high ground).

Steve





quote="King_Rufus"]At Martins request, I have put up the map at http://kriegsspiel.homestead.com/Mideast_maps.html

- it’s the third one down and you need to double click on the ‘thumbnail’ to see the larger more readable version. For technical reasons I seem unable from my present location to put it up here.

The battle was ALACA DAG 1877, of which there is a detailed account in CAUCASIAN BATTLEFIELDS, now on the web at Google Books.

Steve gave much weight to the desire of the Turk high command to interdict Russian supplies down the Arpa Chay; hopefully I did not overstress this in the briefing, but it resulted in the Turks establishing themselves forward of the historical position, which was on the Kerhane Ridge (where John was) and further back towards and on the two Yahni hills, straddling the road to Kars. From Yahni historically the Turks were able to fall back and at least contest the Russian turning manoeuvre when it materialized from the South; albeit unsuccessfully since it was conducted in considerable strength. Nevertheless, a very enjoyable game to umpire, there were dramatic changes of fortune, and I was pleased with how the design turned out.

Have we all seen the cool blocks available from Photon Cutter Studios, incidentally?
[/quote]