Inspiration from Guy Sajer's Forgotten Soldier

This post is overdue - I was knocked out of several days of normal productivity by a bout of illness and then computer problems. This caused me some problems with a number of competing deadlines and the blog simply had to wait.

In the meantime, I did finish up Guy Sajer's The Forgotten Soldier, an autobiographical account of a Franco-German soldier who spent nearly three years on the Eastern Front in World War II. It was even more depressing than I recall from reading it 14 years ago. I'm not going to do a review of the work, except to say that I highly recommend it. There's apparently some conflict regarding the authenticity of the work - you'll have to make that judgment yourself. I believe its based on actual experiences.

Beyond the sobering enrichment this book offers (akin to All Quiet on the Western Front) to a reader, there's plenty of interesting things in the book that lend themselves to wargaming the period - and I must say that I still have a hard time separating what I would consider technical details (ie. equipment, orders of battle, etc) from Sajer's emotional overall account. Regardless, here goes...

Obsolete Equipment
I was rather surprised how older model tanks and anti-tank guns showed in Sajer's accounts. Granted, they often appeared in last ditch defenses and the like, but I really didn't expect that Panzer I's and Panzer II's would be used in late 1943/early 1944. I recall the Panzer I's were used to tow trucks through muddy terrain during a retreat and another early Panzer (II or III) was employed in a ditch during the Prussian city fighting in late 1944. Even the 37mm anti-tank gun shows up, providing close support along with panzerfaust teams. On a sort of related note, Sajer even mentions trucks painted in blue in the late war years - I would have expected everything to have been in dunkengelb by then. Also, there always seems to be some foreign trucks impressed into service.                                                    

Anti-Partisan Actions
Sajer, whether a supply truck driver or as a member of the Gross Deutchland Division, encountered partisans more often than I would have expected. Sometimes their numbers surprised me, as well. Plenty of small actions and company-sized operations are described in the book. Again, this is where older equipment shows up (esp. the Panzer Is). Also, I believe Sajer's company mounts their machine guns on trucks during one operation.

Kursk
For what was a gigantic tank battle, we only see a few tanks in Sajer's account. His unit spends its time infiltrating Russian entrenchments and fighting its way through villages. Their defensive actions in a village prior to the German retreat would make a good company-sized game: plenty of machine gun nests, coordinated with a few mortars, infantry guns, and a bit of self-propelled artillery (or anti-tank gun).

Finally...
From a gaming perspective, there's a lot of unusual things one could add to their tabletop scenarios and miniatures that one doesn't expect to see late war, based on The Forgotten Soldier. Honestly, I'm only talking a little bit about how Sajer's accounts might alter the typical expectations one might have for gaming the Eastern Front.

New Year

I want to thank all the readers - old and new - who make an attempt to keep up with this blog. I do hope you find something of interest and value here as I ramble on. 

I've been thinking a little bit how on how I want to handle blog content and updates. Offhand, I think I'm going to make an effort to write at least one post per week. I've averaged better than that, but I think some more consistency is worth it. I've thought about archiving some of the older material  as well. Not sure just yet.

The next blog or two will likely focus on Guy Sajer's The Forgotten Soldier, the autobiographical account of a Franco-German soldier serving in the Wermacht on the Eastern Front (up until the last days of the war). It's been 14 years since I read this book and I must say I see a lot of inspiration to bring to the wargames table. In the meantime, I highly recommend this book 

Fifth Century Franks in Gaul: Modeling Ideas

Guy Halsall made some insightful comments regarding tabletop representations of the Frankish troops in Roman service in 5th Century Gaul in a recent post (see Comments). In short, he suggested those troops ought to have some distinctive elements of Frankish and Roman appearance - ie. Frankish axes and top knots, but Roman uniforms.
 

While I have never built a Frankish army like this (I've got an Essex 15mm Early Franks DBA army from the mid-1990s...), I think it could be done with some existing ranges of figures and accessories.

Gripping Beast offers weapon packs of the Frankish axe, which makes it a cinch to give Late Roman figures a quick and easy Frankish look. But what about the top knots? Well, with helmeted figures, no one will be able to tell. However, it would be nice to tell on at least some of the figures. So unless you are looking to do some head conversions, what can you do?

I think some Early Franks figures might could pass for Franks in Roman service if painted right. What I would look for is unarmored types whose tunics look like Late Roman tunics; avoid overlong tunics and skip the fur vests.  Equip them with oval shields and paint them to look like your other Roman infantry as opposed to giving them the striped Frankish tunic.
In general, I think some of Wargames Foundry's Early Franks/Saxons "Spearmen Standing" might be the best candidates for this.

The Horsa figure from the Wargames Foundry Arthurian characters pack (he's got the top knot, short scale shirt, and a sword) seems like a good officer candidate. As far as that goes, a number of GB's Early Saxon/German noble warriors could pass for some decent Roman-helmeted officers as well - just add some Frankish axes. Alternately, I suppose these guys could work as well-armored rank and file.

In the meantime, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

Winter Reading: Halsall's Genesis of the Frankish Aristrocracy

While I don't have much to add directly to my thoughts on the Roman/Frankish armies operating within the Loire region of Gaul in the mid-5th Century, I do recommend that you take some time to read Guy Halsall's s four-part series on "The Genesis of the Frankish Aristocracy" over at Historian on the Edge (link takes you to Part One).
If I recall correctly, Halsall has advised he will not keep the series up indefinitely, so don't wait.

What does this socio-economic-military piece have to with wargaming the period? Well, lots if you are trying to put the Roman and 'Barbarian' factions into a proper context of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries AD. It certainly made me wonder how much the Franks serving as bodies of imperial military forces might have considered themselves as Roman as the state they fought for. Could one really tell the difference between one Roman army composed of Franks and another that was not, especially if both purchased clothing and equipment from the same kinds of imperial sources (whether government-issued or otherwise)?

How do you interpret that for the tabletop? I would imagine it means predominantly using late imperial figures, mixing in more 'Frankish' elements the further away from 460 you get. If nothing else, I'm not convinced the stereotypical Frankish warrior images - top-knots, throwing axe, round shield - are necessarily applicable to what was going on inside mid-Fifth Century Gaul.

Check It Out: Halsall's Battle in the Early Medieval West

I haven't made much time for the blog in recent weeks, but I thought I would share something with you that I recently read on Guy Halsall's blog, Historian on the Edge.

I took my time and enjoyed reading Guy's post of Battle in the Early Medieval West. He describes the piece as an unpublished entry submitted for an "Encyclopaedia of Classical Battle or some such." If you have not read Halsall's Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West c.450-900, then this is a great place to start. This piece really re-energized my love for the period after spending quite a bit of time researching, playing, and writing about other military subjects.

I think I am just starting to grasp how differently this period was from Roman Imperial Europe and the Late Medieval West. I mean, I thought that Dark Age warfare was different, but only in a rather superficial way for the most part - ie. not like Late Medieval warfare. As one might expect from Halsall, he challenges the idea that the military trip(s) from Point A (Late Antiquity) to Point B (Late Medieval) are smooth or that they can be interpolated simply by looking at data from better recorded periods.

How does this apply to wargaming? Well, right now I think I'm going to let that swim about in the back of my mind for a bit. I can kind of see pieces of how one could adapt rules to capture at least some aspects of Dark Age warfare, at least in regards to army list stats/abilities of certain types of armies. Try this - take a good look at how Halsall describes 6th Century weaponry and combat, and see if you can build a tabletop unit that moves and fights in the way described. Of course, this is just part of Dark Age warfare - there's also the matter of command and control and tactics. I'm looking forward to revisiting this subject later.

Black Powder and Feudal Japan

The game pieces from Shogun/Samurai Swords may come in handy with experimenting with Japan's late feudal period using Warlord Games' Black Powder rules and any suitable Richard Borg hex game board and terrain (ie. Battle Cry, Memoir 44, Battle Lore). As I mentioned in a previous blog or two, Borg's boards are a great way to play the Black Powder rules if you don't have the time/inclination/funds for collecting large painted armies of lead or plastic. I have already tried this with the American Civil War and been quite satisfied with gameplay. This is also a quick way to get some experience with Black Powder with a quick set up and clean up time.

The shogun army pieces should give you enough figures for a good game (assuming about 4 figures per unit and hex); if you combine a couple of army colors then you ought to be able to something really large.

As for the rules, I know they don't really apply to the period, but I think they ought to work well enough. If post-Mughal Indian armies can get a fair translation with the rules (check out their entries in The Last Argument of Kings supplement for examples), then I think 16th/17th Century Japanese armies are worth scratch-building using the game's easily-tweaked unit templates. While I don't think the period was dominated in numbers by matchlock-armed peasants, I think the armies that relied on unarmored peasant levies make a good fit here.

Shogun

I recently got a chance to play Milton Bradley's Shogun (aka Samurai Swords), after a wait of probably 24 years (and even then I probably played it no more than twice). I love the game - not only for it's design - but also for how some its rules could be applied to a campaign game of tabletop miniatures set in feudal Japan.

A core concept of the game is the division of armies into either field armies (each player begins with three) or provincial armies. Field armies can hold up to about 20 units, with limitations placed on the number of noble warriors and peasant spearman and matchlock gunners they may contain. Provincial garrisons may only have a handful of troops. Player choices are further limited - and made more important - by the limited number of matchlock gunners and samurai bowmen he can distribute to his forces, period. I like that. Field armies can pick up or drop off units in provinces they occupy or move through.

Most of the action takes place with the maneuver of the field armies; losing field armies certainly reduces one's offensive capability and doesn't do much for defense either (ie. fewer fire brigades). Ultimately, the game is won by the player who can take over half the island's provinces.

The importance of the field armies is heightened by gaining experience with their leaders, the daimyos. Beating an enemy army - even small provincial garrison - earns the commander experience point. With enough experience, the daimyo can make extra moves and attacks on the player's turn. That could be big - although I think I have been knocked out every game well before anyone developed that kind of expertise.

One thing I would recommend as a home rule would be offer more points to a daimyo that defeats a field army. There's gotta be a difference between besting another army of potentially equal size than it is to roll over a couple spearmen in a backwater province. This would also be a quantifiable reward for players who get the action in quick against other players instead of wheedling them out of pieces of easily obtained territory. There's got to be more honor for one daimyo to beat another daimyo.

For tabletop campaign play, I'd recommend the above to any that use some sort of territorial conquest. You would likely need to reduce the field armies to one per player and probably limited the geographic extent of the map. While army lists probably would address composition limitations and decisions, it might be kind of cool to have a bonus "Dogs of War" unit or two that one could add if a battle took place in a particular region. Battlefront's Firestorm campaign did something like this for adding special units to certain fights and this method would work well here as well.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to add that the game has been re-released under the name Ikusa by Wizards of the Coast.

Monte Cassino: Wargaming Ideas from Castle Hill

Matthew Parker's Monte Cassino

There was plenty of brutal fighting to go around during the Allied offensive for Cassino and the Gustav Line in the first half of 1944. I'm specifically referring to assaults and counterattacks for specific strategic points, not the horrific drawn-out attrition that consumed much of the campaign. One battle sticks out in my mind more than others - the struggle for Castle Hill. The German paratrooper counterattacks against British-held Castle Hill (another key point near the Cassino monastery and town) were harrowing affairs that were compared to a medieval siege that used machine guns and hand grenades.

From a gaming perspective, I think this would translate well into a good squad/section or platoon-sized game. Why? Well, for one thing, the rules really need to highlight on the bomb-throwing aspect - and that's something tends to be handled a bit abstractly the further up the org-level of the game (ie. maybe as a combat factor or stat). I think the amount and nature of the castle and ruins might have made linear rifle fire a bit limiting compared to lobbing a grenade over covering obstacles.

While I don't know if there was an unusual number of MG42 and Bren crews positioned for the fights, I could certainly believe the local battalion commanders put as many of them into the hot spots as possible, leaving some sections in reserve without their squad MGs. The idea lends itself to an interesting possibility of scenario-specific orders of battle that allow one to attach a few extra MG crews to the combat squads.

Then there's the terrain. Even if one did not attempt recreate any of the assaults at Castle Hill, the use of medieval walls and gates combined with later period buildings would make for a cool tabletop if handled right. In my mind I'm thinking that some of those plastic Warhammer 40k buildings could pass for Gothic/pseudo-Gothic architecture used in churches and other civic buildings.

This has really got me to thinking thinking about Warlord Games' plastic Commonwealth infantry and their extra weapon sprues. That would be a fairly quick way to get as many bomb throwers and Bren gunners on the table as any, considering the build options available. While they don't offer the German paras in plastic yet, their plastic German infantry (and extra weapon sprues)  would also be a good way to build this mix of troops. Of course, any rifleman can be a grenadier, but I think the visual appeal of having more than a couple of bomb-throwers on the table is a plus.

Coming Up: A few more words on Monte Cassino, plus board games

While I haven't had much time for posting in the last couple of weeks due to a number of unexpected work and home improvement projects, I have been thinking about them at least.

I have a few more game-related things to say about Monte Cassino. After that, I'm ready to talk about some inspiration from Richard Borg's Battle Lore and the Milton Bradley classic, Shogun (aka Samurai Swords).

Cassino: Wargaming Ideas

I have been reading Matthew Parker's book on the campaign for Monte Cassino and thought I would share some thoughts I had on rubble in wargaming.

The bombing of Cassino -  which was even more brutal than the bombing of the monastery - and its subsequent assault by Commonwealth troops gave me a lot of ideas for wargaming certain aspects of the terrain conditions. Rubble piles - some measuring 20 feet high - and craters blocked the progress of infantry and armor alike. Like quite a bit of the natural terrain of the campaign area, this forced the Allies to channel troops under fire and countered advantages in numbers and mechanization. Storming a building or strong point might happen, but the town would not be simply and quickly overwhelmed.

I think huge piles of rubble need to make more of an appearance in street fighting scenarios, at least in heavily decimated and contested areas. Offhand, I think of the Ruhr Pocket, Stalingrad (and probably most Eastern Front city battles), and of course, Cassino. I see a lot of ruins and rubble on tabletops, but not often like the way they described in personal accounts. They should be more than table dressing and maybe something more/other than difficult/very difficult terrain.

In games like Flames of War, where the infantry have a steady movement rate regardless of terrain (if I recall correctly), I think some of these debris areas should require a successful skill check to ascend or move across. I would probably consider them impassable to vehicles. Really, I think that might be ideal for most skirmish games in regards to the infantry; heavy movement penalties for entering rough terrain has its place, but I think that requiring a plodding one-quarter move up a debris hill the size of a building as taking away from the fast-paced action one associates with a firefight. I think pass or fail on a climb check seems more like it.

WW II Gaming: Luftwaffe Air-to-Ground Tactics

Rise of the Luftwaffe

I stumbled across a blog post that had some US Army data gathered on late war German air tactics v. ground targets at Lone Sentry. Don't know much about the site, but I did find a number of interesting topics and pictures while browsing around.

I think late war scenario design could benefit from this kind of study. While I thought about how it might be put in the context of a skirmish game, it certainly has a much broader application.

First - and I'm making the assumption that you have read the report by now - is that I was amazed at how much the German Air Force still played a combat role against Allied ground troops at that point of the war, especially considering Allied air superiority.

The assertion that German air attacks concentrated on armored spearheads (target type), followed by attacks on crowded bridges/river crossings (target area) was illuminating. Rear areas do not appear to have been priority. This certainly opens the possibility of bringing in a Luftwaffe attack in a hot ground engagement between Allied armor and German troops in breakthrough/last ditch scenarios.

I was also interested in the tricks the Luftwaffe would pull on the ground units, such as purposefully drawing AA fire so as to spot them for waiting bombers and staging fake dogfights to dupe foes on the ground into thinking Allied aircraft was in the mix. Offhand, I'm not sure how to bring that to most ground based games, but it leads to certain possibilities with campaign missions for aircraft card games like Down in Flames (Rise of the Luftwaffe, etc.). However, this would be a great reason to paint up the US M16 AA halftrack model with the quad .50 cal mount.

Finally, I'm going to make a big assumption here: probably most ground attack missions did not occur in during a ground battle already in progress. I thought the idea was to hit the enemy while he was vulnerable (ie. in column on a road) and before he could bring his forces to a ground fight. That said, timing, opportunity, and other priorities could certainly bring aircraft into play in the heat of a ongoing battle. I suppose at some point I should try to find some data that challenges/supports my thoughts here.

FOW Project: Wooden Guns on M10s

 Sometimes I really don't like the soft lead guns on 15mm AFVs. Battlefront's M10s gave me an option to keep from bending or breaking the barrels.

If you look closely at the pictures, you will see that a clipped toothpick is mounted on the vehicle. It fit snugly in the gun mount and doesn't look that much wider than either of the guns provided for the model. I'm pretty sure that when the model is painted, no one will really notice what I've done here when it's on the table.

FOW Project: M7 Priests and M10s

I'm bringing in a number of AFV support for my US infantry and armor. Ultimately, I am trying to build an armored company and an assault infantry company (taken from 3rd Division lists from Battlefront's Dogs & Devils).

Of course, I am continuing the tradition of posting pictures of the "Drying of the Washed Resin/Plastic Models". I gave the vehicles a good soapy scrubbing - and still amazed at the bluish gray water left behind in the soaking cup.

This time around the vehicles are new enough that they have the new hard plastic tracks and accessories. OK - new to me; I think Battlefront began the switchover to hard plastic a few years back. I was very impressed with the quality of the pieces - even the the .50 cal machine guns. Also, the new track-mounting method leaves 3 slots on one side of the hull and 2 on the other, with corresponding tabs on the tracks. This keeps guys like me from putting the tracks on backwards - and I have done it, believe me.

Also, I think Battlefront did a good job with the crews. Most of the time I do not like most of the crew figures. Many of them look poorly sculpted or molded compared to the decent to excellent figures you get with an infantry platoon.

FOW Project: Flakpanzers

I finally finished up the flakpanzers - part of the summer project for last year!

 

I can't recall if I mentioned it before, but I tried out the Late War German Armour spray from Battlefront (I believe Army Painter makes it) on one of the flakpanzers. It makes for a great shade of dunkengelb. While I'm not crazy about the price of $15 US retail, it might be worth it in time saved and great color (it serves as primer too). Since I picked up a can in the discount bin real cheap, I can't complain at all.

Instead of using a mix of black and brown inks, this time I just went with watered-down black acrylic paint. It left a lot of smudges and I like the effect.

The last thing to do for last year's summer project is to put in crews for the 251/9s. I've already started the next summer project - more on that later.

Things That Go Bang! by Neil Smith

It seems only appropriate on July 4 to write about things that go bang, and Paul’s musings on artillery and aircraft have me pondering all things explosive. Paul has brought forward some very interesting ideas on what might be labeled “off-table interference”, so I hope my thoughts can add to his.

My first point is that if we’re skirmish wargaming we don’t really need artillery and air-attacks to enhance the game, and historically I cannot thing of many examples where a commander in a skirmish action has called in fire or air support. More often it is likely to be a stray shell or opportunistic air attack that comes into play – although to my utter discredit, my best “example” that comes readily to mind is the German plane attack in Kelly’s Heroes! Nevertheless, my point is that this event is in the lap of the gods, and we know they roll a d6 before every turn, don’t we?

Supposing we do have a stray shell come flying across our table, how can we work that into the game in a fair and hopefully realistic way? If there is no fighting at the time, then the soldiers would hear the sound of the in-coming shell and should be given time to take cover. Grant every soldier a 50mm move to cover or to hit the deck before the shell lands, so that after the event takes place that is their new starting position for the impending turn. If combat is underway, then no action is taken because no-one hears the shell.

Working out where the random shell lands has always been a problem of mine, but having the non-receiving player lobbing a grain of rice works as well as anything – it is hard to aim and has an unpredictable bounce. Whatever the means of delivery, the shell lands and has an impact radius of perhaps 120mm. The receiving player then rolls for damage on everything within that radius, with perhaps a radius of 25mm completely obliterated and replaced by a model shell-hole, or black cut-out circle if you haven’t mastered making shell-holes out of round beer-mats and modeling clay.

Aircraft are different because their intervention is targeted. In this case I advocate a roll of a d6 on a 360 degree circle – 60 degrees per spot running clockwise. I love Paul’s idea of a silhouette being place on the incoming line of the aircraft, though a model works too if you’ve made any Airfix investments lately. Now flip a coin to decide whose side the plane is on, unless you agree beforehand who has air supremacy. Whoever gets the attack may now decide on a strafe or bombing mission – i.e. the player is now the pilot – and he can attack anything on a straight line from the entrance point to the exit point on the opposite side.  But again, if no combat is taking place, the defender can make the impulse move to cover.

A bombing run should be one targeted bomb with a simple d6 to decide on hitting the target. The radius would probably be the same as for an artillery round, and it makes life easier. My strafing runs are 300mm long and 25mm wide for two guns at 75mm apart – as stunning coincidence has it, that is the exact measurement of the plastic ruler I bought out of the Dollar Store for the purpose! The intended target is located 150mm along the strafing line, it doesn’t matter which side, and damage is rolled for everything else that falls under the strafing ‘template’. While, yes, you could throw in friendly fire, the plane being shot down etc, why complicate a simple random event?

My final thought on things that go bang is on on-table direct fire artillery. I don’t want to overload my table with artillery, but I painted that 88 and I want it to do something useful!  And if you were a commander on the ground and had access to an artillery piece, you would want it firing. To slow down rate of fire, I advocate that your artillery piece is either firing, or loading, or traversing if it is capable, and even then the dreaded “1” should result in a misfire that takes another turn to clear.

When firing an artillery piece at the ranges you are working with on a skirmish table, deciding on if it hits the target seems superfluous. Although, you could roll a d6 to assess the height in cm at which the shell hits. Otherwise a simple straight line between barrel and target works easily enough. However, you must include a dead ground distance in front of the barrel where in heavier pieces the barrel cannot be depressed enough.

Having said all of the above, it seems that artillery has the propensity to decide a skirmish game – which makes me think of the super-weapons in GW games that made me wonder why anybody played the game with anything else. But, if you’ve set up your game with bucket-loads of terrain then the effects of artillery are much reduced: artillery then might deviate your game trajectory but wont kill the game, at least I hope not. If it does, adjust your random event tables accordingly!

Artillery Support in WW II Skirmishing

WI 259

This is my last post in a series of combined arms in World War II skirmish gaming, taking inspiration from Neil Smith's "Skirmish Envelope" from Wargames Illustrated 259. However, I do like skirmish gaming, and I expect I will return the subject sooner than later. 

I think a number of basic ideas used in local mortar support can be applied to artillery support - check out those posts here, here, and here - things like automatic knockdowns/pinned results, chances for suppression and kills, and the effects of heavy cover in some cases. I think fire support from battalion and divisional headquarters should be potentially devastating - and not always welcome.

I think heavy indirect fire could be handled in a manner similar to Flames of War - simply determine a center point for the barrage and measure out a large circle, square, or rectangle on the tabletop and assume multiple rounds pound the area liberally; I think 2' square feet would do nicely.  I think any infantry would be automatically pinned with chances to suppress or kill - ie. maybe roll a d10, with results of 4-8 resulting in suppression and 9-10 in heavy wounds/killed. A building might provide some protection, changing the odds of suppression to 7-9 and kills on a 10. In woods, it might be similar, although I recall that timed fuses were sometimes used to cause blasts in the treetops to make things much worse on the ground.

If by some chance either of the platoons on the ground have a chance to call in fire, it will probably be worth having chances of delays, even if requested for a specific turn in the future. I'd say if a defender has the option, it's a good idea to go ahead and identify a limited number of landmarks on which the barrage will center. Offhand, I'd say that planned defensive fire would have less chance of scattering, or at least not scattering as far as artillery that has not had a chance to make some preparatory test rounds.

If the big pattern blast does not appeal to you, then it might be worth trying a series of smaller templates (say, 12" in diameter) and giving them a chance to deviate or pre-assign a pattern - ie. "the first salvo is aimed a landmark A, and the next will occur due North, 12" away.

Of course, the random event table comes in handy here. It may be that neither side has a chance of calling in the heavy guns, but knows there may be a chance it will fall on their behalf. It may be that it does not matter which sides is firing the big guns - the referee or scenario designer can simply pre-plot fire based on certain landmarks and roll randomly which one receives fire when it happens. I'm sure battalion commanders have ordered or requested fire for their men without consulting them. In a lot of ways, I think this may be the best approach to using battalion and divisional artillery support - the players have no real control over it and at best they are only aware it could happen.

Air Power in WW II Skirmish Gaming

WI 259

Today, I'm throwing out some ideas on how I would handle the occasional strafing and dive-bombing in a World War II skirmish game. As the teaser mentioned yesterday, I have some more conceptual food-for-thought kind of ideas as well, but I'll probably go into that later.

Right now, let's get to the mechanics of a limited air attack. This one should probably really have a random out-of-the-players' hands feel to it. Neil Smith recommended a random events table in his "Skirmish Envelope" article in WI 259 and I think this may be the right way to bring in air attacks into a skirmish game. The scenario designer/referee can certainly tweak the probabilities of having air support arrive as well as WHOSE air support arrives. Of course, there's such vagaries as misidentifying aircraft and troops on the ground by both parties, so there's a chance to throw in some friendly fire into the mix.

Frankly, I think all of the above concerns are big IFs and I suppose the designer can make them as simple, complicated, or random as desired. The most devious thing I could think would be to have a plane show up - doesn't matter whose side it is on - and make a random check (you might could weight the probability for one side or the other) for what section, gun team, or vehicle takes a pounding with bombs or rockets - and it might be worth clarifying a priority target list here as well. Simply use mortar or artillery templates for effects.

Offhand, I would recommend that a strafing attack simply require a tape measure, yard stick, or wooden dowel to be placed at the selected attack point and set across the table as desired. The kill zone could probably measure 2 or 3 inches on either side (giving a 4 - 6 inch swath of destruction), with a knockdown or pin zone of equal distance beyond. I guess 3 feet would be about the extent of the strafing run, but 2 feet might work as well; I think 12" seems a bit short, but I suppose it would be worth researching minimum strafing fields of fire before coming down against it.

Now I suppose if you decide on using the random ground attack method mentioned previously the referee could use scatter dice to determine the axis of the strafing run. This could certainly result in attacks on both sides.
To represent a strafing attack, I suppose you could use a scale model of a suitable aircraft. If we assume that 1 inch represents about 5 feet, then it's probably not too crazy to have the model suspended over the tabletop by 18" or 24" (90 or 120 feet altitude) - which seems close to treetop level. You could also put them in at an angle. I would say that attack/descent altitude be handled abstractly by ground fire - ie. the plane isn't actually 18" above them. Offhand, I'd say any AA weapons should treat strafing aircraft as medium or long range shots (and assuming they aren't surprised and can react).

Alternately, I think it might be kind of cool to make a silhouette out of card of foamcore and place it directly on the table. I think this even more appropriate if you are handling a bombing action. I'm taking a nod from the Combat Mission computer game here - whenever aircraft show up, you just see passing shadows - and there's always a chance of friendly fire.



All right, that's it for today. Next time around we'll take a look at some historical data on Luftwaffe air-to-ground attacks and see how that can play a role in scenario design.

Coming Up: Air Power in WW II Skirmish Gaming

OK, I know I said I would post next on artillery fire in WW II skirmish gaming, but I stumbled across some great data on German Air-to-Ground tactics compiled by the US Army (can't remember the source right now, although I think it was an armored division in the 3rd Army) and it has made me think of some tabletop gaming and modeling ideas that I have never considered before. I had some mechanic ideas already in mind, but these may give some scenario-building considerations and a nod towards aesthetics.

Out of the Blue - more on mortars in skirmish gaming

WI 259

This post is part of a series regarding combined arms in skirmish level games (primarily World War II and taking inspiration from Neil Smith's "Skirmish Envelope" article in Wargames Illustrated 259). This one in particular picks up from a guest post made by Neil Smith. You can follow the whole thing from his post or simply roll back a couple weeks.

I think Neil brings an important fact to light regarding mortar attacks - or more specifically, opening a combat encounter with a mortar attack. The falling rounds give little or no warning, giving them the advantage of ambush - ie. taking the targets by surprise. I'd also have to agree with Neil's suggestion that falling mortar rounds in the midst of an already-hot combat kind of loses some of its impact since the targets are already taking some sort of evasive action if possible.

I think this probably should translate into an increased chance to pin, suppress, or kill with the opening salvo (which might only be one round). Going beyond mortars here, I think the ambush concept of applying bonuses to initial attack rolls for any kind of fire ought to apply - and this thought is probably not a stranger to most rules systems.

Another point Neil mentioned is that for game purposes one side shouldn't be allowed to simply pound the other with mortar rounds right after another - ie. the targets should get a chance to act. I agree with this certainly. In an I-Go-You-Go game this can be done by simply requiring a check for suppressed figures to take some action (maybe at some reduced mobility). I kind of like how Arty Conliffe's Crossfire handles one-sided pounding - if the attacker can't achieve significant results (ie. suppression or kills), then the targets get a chance to do something besides take a shellacking.

Finally, I think skirmish games do benefit from interrupting actions - things that come under such names as opportunity fire or overwatch - and I believe mortars ought to get those kind of options. I think this mode of fire typically applies only to direct fire, but I can really see it working for a local mortar team, self-spotting or with a spotter.

Out of the Blue – mortar attacks on infantry (Neil Smith guest blog)

[This guest post by WI regular contributor Neil Smith is in response to some recent posts on combined arms in skirmish wargaming: here and here.]

WI 259

As Paul was kind enough to mention my Skirmish Envelope article in WI259, I thought I would respond with some thoughts of my own and jump into what I think is a fascinating thread, how to replicate skirmish combat in miniature. For the most part I agree with Paul’s assessment and as always I bow to his superior knowledge on rules and rules mechanisms, what I want to do though is get into the weeds on how to frame a mortar attack. So, without further ado...

I’ve never been under mortar fire, nor would I want to be. My reading of such an event tells me that to do so would be worse in some ways than coming under long-range artillery fire for a couple of reasons. First, a mortar attack comes with no warning, unless the target is close enough to hear the tell-tale “puff” of the round being expelled from the mortar tube. Otherwise, the first the target knows about a mortar attack is the detonation. The second reason is the sensation of being specifically targeted: the enemy firing the mortars must be close to know the location of the target if only approximately. Both of those add an element of terror to coming under mortar fire that doesn’t exist with the equally terrifying but more random lightning-strike quality of artillery fire. At least that is the assumption I operate under when considering how to replicate mortar fire on the table-top.

Mortar fire, depending on circumstances, creates two levels of reaction, voluntary and involuntary – the dominant circumstance is whether or not the mortar fire begins an attack, or is part of a broader enemy response to the presence of hostile troops. Assume it is the former event; your infantry are moving forward into enemy territory and a mortar round lands, what do they do? I suspect the normal reaction, around which most rules should be written, is to instinctively duck or seek some sort of safety. Hearing the round land would be enough to prompt that reaction; therefore, in the scale of a skirmish game, I suggest that every soldier on the receiving end takes some sort of instant evasive action and should be moved or repositioned accordingly, say within 50mm of their current position if cover is that close.

The conscious reaction follows on from the initial movement – will your soldier under mortar fire take an action or stay put? If the mortar round detonates within sight or is close enough for the soldier to reason that another round is on the way and has a good chance of landing close by, then the odds of staying put are quite high. I think it is quite reasonable, therefore, to demand that a figure within a 125mm radius of the detonation, or any figure with line of sight to the detonation to a distance of 250mm, requires a 6 on a d6 to take any action for the rest of that turn – figures in front of the detonation would probably be less consumed by fear, I think, so only those closer than 125mm would be affected beyond their instinctive reaction.

I would ignore the psychological reaction to mortar fire if the target infantry comes under fire as part of a larger assault on the grounds they probably already have bigger problems to deal with from direct fire.

As for the physical effect of a mortar round detonation, I think there is no way past using a template or a quick spin of the tape-measure from the point of explosion. For the sake of argument, I assume the round lands where the firer intends, although that does not necessarily result in any casualties within the blast radius. I would also halve the effects of mortars both psychological and physical in built-up areas or jungles/forests.

I think also because skirmish games are generally one-to-one for figure scale, the mortar should be on table and each model fires only one round/turn like any other single shot weapon. Mortar ammunition should also be severely restricted, maybe three rounds/scenario/mortar. Finally, in keeping with my Skirmish Envelope idea, once a mortar (or mortars in the case of more than one being present and allowed to fire in salvo) is fired, the initiative immediately transfers to the receiving side. Those measures would hopefully prevent the rules lawyers for laying down continuous mortar fire and operating unopposed for the rest of the turn.

Thank you Paul for letting me squeeze into the driving seat for a while. I’m already looking forward to your thoughts on the big guns.