7 ms·

Is there a game that helps you understand WW1 era battle tactics better? I find discussion of tactics in that era confusing - like the creeping barrage.

w0de0 4y ago
I don’t believe so. Few games take on the challenge of modeling battlefield tactics (as opposed to geo-strategy). In my view those of highest quality are a few of the Total War series and WARNO. These still far fall short for reasons of fantasy and feasible simulation size. To model the Battle of the Somme with even some tactical fidelity is also likely not feasible within present constraints. I would look to niche war sim board games instead. That said, one might be wiser to read the English war poets than search for such a game. The study of Great War tactics is perforce the study of a macabre failure in human imagination and morality. Even at the tactical level the war is proof of a human inability to learn and change - even when our choices lead inexorably to mass death. Battlefield mortality was exacerbated by commanders’ fixation on 19th century tactics. Creeping artillery barrages and over-the-top frontal assaults were finally effective only strategically, as economic and political weapons. This was not tactical innovation. It was an upscaled iteration of cannon barrages decimating bravely advancing line infantry.
- ogogmad 4y ago
  > Battlefield mortality was exacerbated by commanders’ fixation on 19th century tactics. This is a cliche, and it doesn't explain the tactics. If that were the case, then surely there would've been an advantage to be gained for not "fixating on 19th century tactics". Given that they had 4 years to discover such tactics and failed, they didn't exist.
  - afterburner 4y ago
    > If that were the case, then surely there would've been an advantage to be gained for not "fixating on 19th century tactics". Given that they had 4 years to discover such tactics and failed, they didn't exist. Battlefield tactics did in fact change during WWI. Quite a lot. Infiltration, use of tanks, combined arms, how artillery was used and coordinated. Some of these innovations were kept and used successfully in WWI and beyond. However, the over-riding reason for stalemates in WWI was because static defensive firepower technology and tactics had, briefly, outpaced maneuver warfare technology and tactics. Accurate and fast-firing long distance firearms neutralized the millenia old technology of cavalry, and made mass advances extremely costly. Mechanized and air power had yet to counter this, but they were quickly developed. And armies had to learn new tactics as well. But that takes time, and losses.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  But aren't niche war sim video games able to take the niche war sim board game ideas even further ?? http://www.furysoftware.com/ http://www.furysoftware.com/
oxfeed65261 4y ago
Not a game, but the writer of this post (Bret Devereaux) has a two-part post on trench warfare in World War I, starting with https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-i-the-trench-stalemate/ https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-.... A brief summary: “What I want to focus on here is the disconnect between the popular conception of how trench warfare actually worked and the actual conditions that produced trench warfare. This week, we’re going to look at the problem: both the popular perception of what the problem is and what the actual problem of trench warfare is. This is both to set the groundwork for the next post, which will discuss the ways that this stalemate was and wasn’t broken, but it also serves to handily dismiss some of the ‘easy’ solutions that are often offered which don’t solve the actual problem but merely solve the imaginary one.”
- ogogmad 4y ago
  Here's my question: I'm wondering why the shells were made to explode directly in front of the advancing troops. There were no targets there, except for barbed wire. Did the exploding shells conceal the advancing troops? But then surely they should've used smoke grenades. If the point was to destroy the barbed wire, they could've done that ahead of time without the risk of killing their own soldiers with their own artillery. So I am as confused as ever.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    > But anyone fool enough to be standing out during a barrage would be killed, so your artillery could force enemy gunners to hide in deep dugouts designed to resist artillery. Machine gunners hiding in deep dugouts can’t fire their machine guns at your approaching infantry. > And now we have the ‘race to the parapet.’ The attacker opens with a barrage, which has two purposes: silence enemy artillery (which could utterly ruin the attack if it isn’t knocked out) and second to disable the machine guns: knock out some directly, force the crews of the rest to flee underground. But attacking infantry can’t occupy a position its own artillery is shelling, so there is some gap between when the shells stop and when the attack arrives. In that gap, the defender is going to rush to set up their machine guns while the attacker rushes to get to the lip of the trench:first one to get into position is going to inflict a terrible slaughter on the other.
rawgabbit 4y ago
From what I remember... There were essentially two problems for the attacker. First, infantry charging into fixed machine gun nests were suicide. Second, if they are able to clear out the enemy and take over a trench line, they would need re-supply. Meaning, eventually, another trench would have to be dug to connect the newly won trench with your own lines. Meanwhile, the enemy is counter-attacking. The creeping barrage (Allied) and blitzkrieg (German) solves the first problem of how infantry can attack machine gun nests. The Allies would closely synchronize artillery a few hundred feet in advance of their attacking infantry. The creeping barrage of artillery fire suppresses the enemy so the infantry can charge. The Germans developed the first steps towards blitzkrieg tactics. Basically small squads armed with grenades were empowered to make tactical decisions. They would advance when resistance was soft. They would move laterally when resistance was stiff. The metaphor was like the ocean wave crashing against a rocky beach. The wave would advance but would bypass stiff defensive points. Eventually those defensive points would fall when they run out of ammo. Either side did not effectively solve the re-supply problem. At that time trains would bring forward supplies, trucks would then transport to communication trenches, and soldiers would have to hoof the last mile. All of which was difficult when someone was shooting at you.
- ogogmad 4y ago
  > The creeping barrage of artillery fire suppresses the enemy so the infantry can charge How?
  - rawgabbit 4y ago
    In WWI, concrete pill boxes were rare. Most machine gun emplacements were protected by sandbags and makeshift defenses. The defenders would have to be out in the open. When artillery rain down on them, they would stay in their bunkers which had no ports for them to fire out of. They would wait until the shelling stopped, get of their bunkers, and then man the machine guns. The attackers, meanwhile, if they got their timing right... would be on top of the trenches when this happens. Giving the attackers a chance to engage the defenders before the machine guns open up.

w0de0 4y ago

I don’t believe so. Few games take on the challenge of modeling battlefield tactics (as opposed to geo-strategy). In my view those of highest quality are a few of the Total War series and WARNO. These still far fall short for reasons of fantasy and feasible simulation size. To model the Battle of the Somme with even some tactical fidelity is also likely not feasible within present constraints. I would look to niche war sim board games instead. That said, one might be wiser to read the English war poets than search for such a game. The study of Great War tactics is perforce the study of a macabre failure in human imagination and morality. Even at the tactical level the war is proof of a human inability to learn and change - even when our choices lead inexorably to mass death. Battlefield mortality was exacerbated by commanders’ fixation on 19th century tactics. Creeping artillery barrages and over-the-top frontal assaults were finally effective only strategically, as economic and political weapons. This was not tactical innovation. It was an upscaled iteration of cannon barrages decimating bravely advancing line infantry.

ogogmad 4y ago
> Battlefield mortality was exacerbated by commanders’ fixation on 19th century tactics. This is a cliche, and it doesn't explain the tactics. If that were the case, then surely there would've been an advantage to be gained for not "fixating on 19th century tactics". Given that they had 4 years to discover such tactics and failed, they didn't exist.
- afterburner 4y ago
  > If that were the case, then surely there would've been an advantage to be gained for not "fixating on 19th century tactics". Given that they had 4 years to discover such tactics and failed, they didn't exist. Battlefield tactics did in fact change during WWI. Quite a lot. Infiltration, use of tanks, combined arms, how artillery was used and coordinated. Some of these innovations were kept and used successfully in WWI and beyond. However, the over-riding reason for stalemates in WWI was because static defensive firepower technology and tactics had, briefly, outpaced maneuver warfare technology and tactics. Accurate and fast-firing long distance firearms neutralized the millenia old technology of cavalry, and made mass advances extremely costly. Mechanized and air power had yet to counter this, but they were quickly developed. And armies had to learn new tactics as well. But that takes time, and losses.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
But aren't niche war sim video games able to take the niche war sim board game ideas even further ?? http://www.furysoftware.com/ http://www.furysoftware.com/

oxfeed65261 4y ago

Not a game, but the writer of this post (Bret Devereaux) has a two-part post on trench warfare in World War I, starting with https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-i-the-trench-stalemate/ https://acoup.blog/2021/09/17/collections-no-mans-land-part-.... A brief summary: “What I want to focus on here is the disconnect between the popular conception of how trench warfare actually worked and the actual conditions that produced trench warfare. This week, we’re going to look at the problem: both the popular perception of what the problem is and what the actual problem of trench warfare is. This is both to set the groundwork for the next post, which will discuss the ways that this stalemate was and wasn’t broken, but it also serves to handily dismiss some of the ‘easy’ solutions that are often offered which don’t solve the actual problem but merely solve the imaginary one.”

ogogmad 4y ago
Here's my question: I'm wondering why the shells were made to explode directly in front of the advancing troops. There were no targets there, except for barbed wire. Did the exploding shells conceal the advancing troops? But then surely they should've used smoke grenades. If the point was to destroy the barbed wire, they could've done that ahead of time without the risk of killing their own soldiers with their own artillery. So I am as confused as ever.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  > But anyone fool enough to be standing out during a barrage would be killed, so your artillery could force enemy gunners to hide in deep dugouts designed to resist artillery. Machine gunners hiding in deep dugouts can’t fire their machine guns at your approaching infantry. > And now we have the ‘race to the parapet.’ The attacker opens with a barrage, which has two purposes: silence enemy artillery (which could utterly ruin the attack if it isn’t knocked out) and second to disable the machine guns: knock out some directly, force the crews of the rest to flee underground. But attacking infantry can’t occupy a position its own artillery is shelling, so there is some gap between when the shells stop and when the attack arrives. In that gap, the defender is going to rush to set up their machine guns while the attacker rushes to get to the lip of the trench:first one to get into position is going to inflict a terrible slaughter on the other.

rawgabbit 4y ago

From what I remember... There were essentially two problems for the attacker. First, infantry charging into fixed machine gun nests were suicide. Second, if they are able to clear out the enemy and take over a trench line, they would need re-supply. Meaning, eventually, another trench would have to be dug to connect the newly won trench with your own lines. Meanwhile, the enemy is counter-attacking. The creeping barrage (Allied) and blitzkrieg (German) solves the first problem of how infantry can attack machine gun nests. The Allies would closely synchronize artillery a few hundred feet in advance of their attacking infantry. The creeping barrage of artillery fire suppresses the enemy so the infantry can charge. The Germans developed the first steps towards blitzkrieg tactics. Basically small squads armed with grenades were empowered to make tactical decisions. They would advance when resistance was soft. They would move laterally when resistance was stiff. The metaphor was like the ocean wave crashing against a rocky beach. The wave would advance but would bypass stiff defensive points. Eventually those defensive points would fall when they run out of ammo. Either side did not effectively solve the re-supply problem. At that time trains would bring forward supplies, trucks would then transport to communication trenches, and soldiers would have to hoof the last mile. All of which was difficult when someone was shooting at you.

ogogmad 4y ago
> The creeping barrage of artillery fire suppresses the enemy so the infantry can charge How?
- rawgabbit 4y ago
  In WWI, concrete pill boxes were rare. Most machine gun emplacements were protected by sandbags and makeshift defenses. The defenders would have to be out in the open. When artillery rain down on them, they would stay in their bunkers which had no ports for them to fire out of. They would wait until the shelling stopped, get of their bunkers, and then man the machine guns. The attackers, meanwhile, if they got their timing right... would be on top of the trenches when this happens. Giving the attackers a chance to engage the defenders before the machine guns open up.