"TSATF: Why 20 man units?" Topic
48 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Victorian Colonial Board Message Board Back to The Sword and The Flame Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleAnother four villagers from the Romanian set by Blue Moon.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleAlmost two dozen desperate gunslingers were arrayed on the outskirts of town, armed with sixguns, rifles, scatterguns and a bloodthirsty desire to kill!
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
PzGeneral | 20 Dec 2014 12:28 p.m. PST |
I know units in TSATF are 20 man units but is this because it gives the desired look to the game or is this "where the math works"? The reason I ask, I have my Sudan units based for Field of Battle but I wish to try out TSATF. My Anglo-Egyptian units are based in units of 4 stands, but the Madhi Rubs are based on a single "Mass Attack" base. I understand that I will need some sort of damage counter to keep track of the unit losses, but can we just play with each unit being just 10 figures? (10 dice thrown, 10 damage points). Not sure if that would make the game go quicker or if it will just mess up the causality percentages….. thanks for your input, Dave |
John Leahy | 20 Dec 2014 12:33 p.m. PST |
There are variants for 8 and10 man units. Shouldn't be an issue. |
Winston Smith | 20 Dec 2014 12:40 p.m. PST |
There is a variant for TSATF called 800 Fighting Englishmen that used stands of 4 figures. But you should have no problem as is. For the hand to hand, roll off stand vs stand instead of figure vs figure. You do not need 20 figure units. That is more of a suggestion. When I got a bunch of Afghan regulars they ended up with unit sizes of 18, 24, 21 etc. I also play Boxer Rebellion with unit size of 10. All work fine. There is no mystic algorithm that dictates 20. |
Moe Ronn | 20 Dec 2014 1:23 p.m. PST |
Didn't Ral Partha and Minifigs come in packs of six? So three packs plus two figs out of the command pack equals one unit. another three packs and the rest of the command pack finish off the company? |
Big Red | 20 Dec 2014 1:27 p.m. PST |
According to Mr Brom, it was due to his ability to afford only 20 figures when he was writing the rules oh so many years ago. Told to me at Historicon in 1989. |
Gone Fishing | 20 Dec 2014 1:35 p.m. PST |
As the others have said, you should have no problem with bigger bases. The rules are very flexible. Have fun! |
Ed Mohrmann | 20 Dec 2014 1:54 p.m. PST |
What Big Red said. The original Colonial games which Larry did were played with boxes of SAE's – infantry came in boxes of 16-20 figures, depending upon what they were. Ergo…. |
PzGeneral | 20 Dec 2014 2:10 p.m. PST |
Thanks guys…will let you all know how it goes |
Leadjunky | 20 Dec 2014 2:50 p.m. PST |
There is some math involved when considering artillery and machine guns. You can always adjust the dice rolled or the number of gunner figures, but it makes them fragile. Twenty seems to work best. |
Nashville | 20 Dec 2014 3:33 p.m. PST |
Actually been around for 100 years.. HG Wells "Little Wars" :"The best arrangement and proportion of the forces is in small bodies of about 20 to 25 infantry-men and 12 to 15 cavalry to a gun."
|
ITALWARS | 20 Dec 2014 5:40 p.m. PST |
from game experience 20 castings units are an appealig site on a wargame table and retains the balance of the game…on the opposite i experimented with 8-10 man units and the result deceinving..both in therms of game mechanics (a kind of modern game with autonomous special squads converging on objectives with too much differentiated tactical orders) and visual aspect..(too many officers…too many small units ) |
NappyBuff | 21 Dec 2014 12:59 a.m. PST |
Ral Partha colonial packs came with 10 inf or 6 cav – perfect for TS&TF, but they where released after TS&TF came out. Good question. Not sure why TS&TF has 20 and 12 figure units. It just could have been a number the designer thought that was useful, and manageable. Or it just what he had when test playing. However, I can imagine units of 20 to 40 figs will work just. Though, the odds of having more leaderless units goes up with larger units. There is even a Zulu War scenario book that uses 8 fig units but also suggest some ways to make the 8 fig units work better. |
Winston Smith | 21 Dec 2014 4:49 a.m. PST |
Actually Ral Partha's packs were not all that perfect since you added command from a different pack, giving you leftovers. Not a real problem, though. You only had ONE unit of Ansar spearmen? Movement trays quickly solved the only real problem with maneuvering masses of 20 man individually based units. |
rjones69 | 21 Dec 2014 6:49 a.m. PST |
Here are the 8-figure-unit rules changes to which NappyBuff refers. They're from the Zulu War scenario book that I co-wrote with Mark Fastoso. These rules changes work very well "as is" for the British versus their standard opponents (Zulus, Dervishes, Pathans) and for many other conflicts as well (e.g., Italians versus Ethiopians in the 1890s). However, certain conflicts may require adjustments to match the unique historical capabilities of the forces involved. For example, I needed to make several changes to the rules below for the Herero War book I co-wrote with Eric Alvarado – number of leaders in each unit, straggler rules, unit size for mounted troops, movement, number of firing dice, etc. As a case in point, the Germans had no real cavalry in the Herero War – they used mounted infantry. So you need 8-figure mounted units, each with 8 foot dismounts, not the 6-figure cavalry units listed below. The Germans also had weapons like Gebirgsgeschütze (i.e., mountain guns), Revolverkanonen and Maschinenkanonen, which require different rules than the standard rules for field guns and machine guns. So feel free to modify the 8-figure rules below as the historical circumstances require. But if you're playing British vs. Zulus, or British vs. Dervishes, or Everybody and their Cousin vs. the Boxers, you can use these rules with no changes. Here are the standard 8-Figure Rules: 1. Unit Sizes: Infantry units have seven soldiers and one leader figure. Cavalry have five troopers and one leader figure. Artillery have three figures counting for two firing dice per figure. 2. Stragglers: Since units are smaller the ‘straggle die' is reduced. When an infantry unit charges roll 1d6. 1-2 = one straggler, 3-4 = two stragglers, 5 = three stragglers, 6 = no stragglers. 3. Officer Pistol Rule: Do Not use the officer pistol rule. Count the officer as having a rifle. If your group likes the officer pistol rule feel free to use it, but we have found that a game with 8-figure units works a little better without it. 4. Movement: Cavalry move 4d6 + 6 inches and charge 5d6 + 6 inches. Artillery can move 3d6 and NOT fire, or move 1d6 and then fire. Roy Jones |
Nick Pasha | 21 Dec 2014 7:37 a.m. PST |
Units of 10 figures do not last long in TSATF. Morale must be taken at 50% loss. Figures are wounded or killed rather quickly. Wounded count as casualties, so one round of shooting can basically destroy small units. 20 figure units last longer. Also European units must carry their wounded or suffer morale decrease of -1. If a 10 man British unit suffers 2 dead and 3 wounded in one round of shooting, passes morale, and then moves, 3 effectives have to carry the 3 wounded, leaving only 2 figures who can shoot. 20 figures allows flexibility and durability. Also once at 50% units take morale on each subsequent casualty or turn. |
chicklewis | 21 Dec 2014 9:26 a.m. PST |
I vividly remember playing in a tSatF game at Historicon 6 or so years back. Those kindly souls running the game had changed over to 8 man units of infantry, 6 cavalry. BUT it quickly became obvious that they had never play tested these changes, and didn't realize they couldn't use the same old rules for artillery. The very first shot of the French gun killed 5 of my unit of 6 camel cavalry !! There was some muttered discussion among the game masters, and rules were changed 'on the fly', with some success. Enjoyable game was had ! |
rjones69 | 21 Dec 2014 10:10 a.m. PST |
Our gaming group almost never uses the wounded rules when using 8-figure units, for the reasons you outlined above. We treat wounds as kills. As for the 50% morale check issue, in the hundreds of 8-figure TSATF games which I've ran or in which I've played (both my own scenarios and those of others), it's been rare that a large percentage of European units fall below 50%. There's such a disparity in firepower between European and indigenous forces that a lot of native figures are going to die before they can blast or melee a European unit below the 50% threshold. This has been true of British vs. Zulus, British vs. Dervishes, Germans vs. Hereros, Italians vs. Ethiopians, British vs. Sikhs, Maximilian Imperials vs. Mexican Republicans. Also, even when they do fall below 50%, European morale is high enough that their units usually stick around. It's true that native units will commonly fall below 50%; in fact they're often completely wiped out by firepower. But that's why they have superior numbers and/or can recycle destroyed units. Now, the scenarios that I've run/played were all specifically designed for and playtested with 8-figure units, and that may be the issue. If you take a scenario playtested using 20-figure units and start using 8-figure units, I can see how things may go very bad very quickly. |
rjones69 | 21 Dec 2014 10:13 a.m. PST |
The "you" in my previous post refers to Nick Pasha. |
rjones69 | 21 Dec 2014 10:19 a.m. PST |
chicklewis' post illustrates the pitfalls of going from 20-figure units to 8-figure units without playtesting. It's great everyone ended up having an enjoyable game. |
nazrat | 22 Dec 2014 8:12 a.m. PST |
Mark Fastoso's wonderful Skirmish Campaigns Zulu book uses all 10-man units and it plays perfectly. Highly recommended! |
rjones69 | 22 Dec 2014 7:22 p.m. PST |
Actually, our Zulu book uses 8-man units. Thanks for the kind words and recommendation! Roy Jones |
rjones69 | 23 Dec 2014 4:21 a.m. PST |
"The Zulu War" by Roy Jones and Mark Fastoso can be purchased from Brigade Games. Here's the link: link Roy Jones |
Nick Pasha | 23 Dec 2014 9:00 a.m. PST |
Why 10 or 8 man units? TSATF was intended to be a skimish type game with a few British units on one side and a ratio determined number of native units. I do not like recycling units as it gives a no end in site type of game. In reality, in spite of numerical superiority, where the British troops were well lead and prepared native armies are forced to withdraw long before they are destroyed by British fire power. Using a finite amount of natives allows for that to happen. Brom's ratios work at his unit strength. The only reasons I can see for smaller units is to save money or to turn a skirmish game into a larger tactical game to fight large battles. Or to sell your book. Your conversion also cuts out rules integral to the game. If you have to make changes in a rule set that actually changes the way it plays, you might as well use a different rules set or write your own. We tweak TSATF but we don't make wholesale changes that will require other changes to make the new rules make sense. |
Murvihill | 23 Dec 2014 10:36 a.m. PST |
I bought some WW2 Skirmish Campaign books and found the scenarios are generic enough that you can fit them to your own system by adjusting unit sizes. That said, I was curious how you'd deal with the 2 versus 1 leader issue for native troops? |
rjones69 | 23 Dec 2014 10:50 a.m. PST |
There are several reasons for moving to smaller units: (a) Melees are resolved more quickly, thus speeding game play. (b) Larger battles can be played with fewer figures. (c) It adds a skirmish element to the combat, although it does not turn it into a skirmish game. Many players enjoy that skirmish aspect. If you don't, use 20-figure units. As for the move to 8-10 figure units resulting in a "no-end-in-sight type of game", that's not the case for a well balanced, thoroughly playtested scenario. One limits the number of turns and very often the number of recycled units that can come back each turn. In one of my scenarios, the number of recycles allowed each turn drops as the game goes on. So even with recycling, limits on the number of turns and the number of recycles per turn ensures there is a finite number of native troops. The key issue here, of course, is playtesting to make sure the scenario is balanced. And that's true for 20-figure units, 8-figure units, or for that matter any rule set or period (Colonial, World War Two, etc.). As for TSATF in particular, in the end this is not an issue of "8-figure units" versus "20-figure units". If one likes the advantages associated with 8-figure units, one should use 8-figure units. If one likes the advantages associated with 20-figure units, one should use 20-figure units. If one likes both, use 8-figure units on some occasions and 20-figure units on other occasions. |
rjones69 | 23 Dec 2014 10:56 a.m. PST |
My immediately preceding post was in response to Nick Pasha's inquiry about 8-10 figure units. |
rjones69 | 23 Dec 2014 11:02 a.m. PST |
Murvihill, I'm afraid I don't understand your question. What do you mean by the "2 versus 1 leader issue for native troops"? Roy |
rjones69 | 23 Dec 2014 11:19 a.m. PST |
Nick Pasha, There were some typos in my response. Here's the correction: (c) It adds a larger tactical element to the combat, but still preserves elements of a skirmish game. Many players enjoy that added larger tactical aspect. If you don't, use 20-figure units. Roy Jones
|
Nick Stern | 23 Dec 2014 12:26 p.m. PST |
I believe Larry Brom, himself, has called TSATF a "rules tool set". I think the 8-10 unit variant is well within the bounds of what even the author would deem acceptable. As for questioning the intent of the authors of the small unit variant, I would think that, all being members of what most of the world views as the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe, there's no need to stir up dissent within our own ranks without good cause. I play both the 20 and 10 figure versions of the rules. My only problem with the 10 figure variant for the Zulu War is that the Zulus are a little thin on the ground, visually, IMHO. |
Liliburlero | 23 Dec 2014 2:45 p.m. PST |
Dad chose 20 man infantry and 12 man cavalry units for TSATF as that worked for him and because as Ed mentioned, the majority of his British Colonial troops were SAE's. Ral Partha's were released after TSATF IIRC. But as others have said, tweak the rules as you wish so they suit you and your fellow gamers. We feel this flexibility has contributed to TSATF's longevity. |
Murvihill | 24 Dec 2014 8:52 a.m. PST |
"I'm afraid I don't understand your question. What do you mean by the "2 versus 1 leader issue for native troops"?" In TSATF at 20/12-man strengths European units get two officers. Native troops get only one. it has a distinct effect on morale. So with 8/6-man units if both sides get one officer you've negated an advantage given to European troops. |
Winston Smith | 25 Dec 2014 9:45 p.m. PST |
I have always considered TSATF as a framework showing how to manage many elements in a game. The least important factor is the number of figures in a unit. I would hate to confine myself to 20 figures if I have 26 painted or not play with it if I only had 15. So some are more powerful or fragile than others? Golly gee, that's so unlike "real life "! I hardly ever tinker with the mechanisms , charts , etc. though. They are the real soul of TSATF. |
rjones69 | 26 Dec 2014 8:28 a.m. PST |
Murvihill, Using 1 leader per European unit has worked well, without any morale imbalances. Now I'd love to say that this is the result of some clever design choice or deliberate balancing decisions, but it's not – we never explicitly compensated for the reduction in the number of European leaders. And I now realize why: because we didn't have to. The scenarios worked – they were balanced. That begs the question, however, of why do the scenarios work despite the reduction in the number of European leaders. On the one hand, there's the empirical evidence that across hundreds of games with a variety of native opponents (Zulus, Dervishes, Boxers, Ethiopians, etc.) there's been no morale imbalance between the European and indigenous forces. On the other hand, there's the very sound point you raise that the native players have an improved morale situation with the move to 1 leader/European unit. Here are some thoughts on possible explanations: (a) In a given scenario, any morale imbalances between the European and native forces may have "come out in the wash" during the playtesting. In other words, when explicitly deciding on and balancing the number of units, number of turns, victory conditions, etc., the fact that a certain number of European units would end up leaderless may have been taken into account as well.
Not explicitly or consciously taken into account, by the way; as I've said, this morale balancing was not the result of some clever design choice. The morale balancing would be submerged in all the explicit balancing that took place (number of units, number of recycles, number of turns, etc.) that resulted in a well-balanced scenario. (b) In any TSATF scenario (8-figure or 20-figure) there are independent leaders who can attach to a unit if it becomes leaderless. Perhaps our ratio of independent leaders to units (on the European side) is higher than most 20-figure scenarios. Here are numbers from some of the Zulu scenarios: 3 independent British leaders for 8 infantry units vs. 2 Zulu independent leaders for 15 Zulu units +Zulu recycles (independent leaders do NOT recycle – once they're dead they're done) (3 for every 6 British) vs. (1 for every 15 Zulu units+ recycles) (3 for every 8 British) vs. (1 for every 15 Zulu units + recycles) Are these proportions higher than expected for a 20-figure scenario, the same as expected, or even lower than expected? I'd love to hear people's experiences with 20-figure scenarios regarding this. Again, these are just thoughts about possible explanations. All I can tell you with definitiveness is that 1 leader/European unit has worked for Zulus, Dervishes, Ethiopians, Boxers – for every indigenous group except for the Hereros (see my next post for the Hereros).
Roy
|
rjones69 | 26 Dec 2014 9:02 a.m. PST |
For the Herero War, we decided on 2 leaders/Schutztruppe Kompagnie before even playtesting, on the basis of the historical evidence. Playtesting confirmed that was a good choice, and thus we kept it. Historically, Schutztruppe units in the Herero War were "chock-full" of leaders, and initially I wondered why. Then, as I began delving deeper into the original German sources, it became clear why: German officers would drop like flies! German officer casualty rates were often especially high during Herero War battles: 25% officer casualties at Hamakari, 33% officer casualties at Otjihinamaparero, 75% officer casualties at Okaharui, 91% officer casualties at Owikokorero. In fact, overall German casualty rates (i.e., officers and the men) were as high as 70% (at Owikokorero, a disastrous German defeat), with casualty rates well above 10% in several other battles (e.g., 47% at Okaharui and 19% at Hamakari). Thus nearly 1 in 2 Germans were killed or wounded in the fiercest fighting at Okaharui, while nearly 1 in 5 Germans fell at Hamakari. Even at Omaruru, where the Hereros were caught slightly off-balance, the German casualty rate was 1 in 8 (i.e., 13%) – with 3 out of 4 of the platoon commanders wounded, two of them mortally. These numbers are taken from an analysis I've done of German combat casualties during the Herero War. I'll be posting that analysis on the web in the next couple of days. As you can see from the casualty rates, the idea that German casualties were generally light during the Herero War, and thus the battles and engagements were one-sided in favor of the Germans, is a misconception. Another thing to note: theses German casualties were almost all due to Herero rifle fire. The Hereros fought very differently than other native groups; for a description of the fighting style of the Hereros, see here link So 1 leader per German unit "ain't cuttin' it" for the Herero War. Because the Hereros don't shoot like Zulus, and thus the Germans don't die like Brits! |
rjones69 | 26 Dec 2014 9:10 a.m. PST |
Typo in previous post: "these German casualties", not "theses". |
rjones69 | 26 Dec 2014 9:50 a.m. PST |
The 1 leader per European unit rule may also fail for British versus Boers. Like the Hereros, the Boers fought very differently than the Zulus, Dervishes, Boxers et al. and inflicted significant casualties via rifle fire. I've never designed a Boer scenario and have only played in one Boer game that used 8-figure-units. There were definite balance problems, mostly associated with Boer rifle fire being too powerful. We never dissected the scenario deeply enough to know whether there were British leadership issues as well. If other people have run 8-figure Boer scenarios, I'd love to hear what the results were. |
Clays Russians | 27 Dec 2014 7:34 a.m. PST |
It worked with 20/12, it still works with 20/12. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Or as we say in the signal corps, if it ain't broke, fix it 'till it is. (This is actually a reference to non signals trying to get commo working) |
rjones69 | 27 Dec 2014 3:21 p.m. PST |
This is not an issue of the 20-figure-unit system being broken. As mentioned above, there are several advantages in moving to smaller units: faster melees, larger battles with fewer figures, and the addition of a larger tactical element to the combat. If one likes those advantages associated with 8-figure units, then use 8-figure units. If one likes the advantages associated with 20-figure units, use 20-figure units. If one likes both systems, use 8-figure units on some occasions and 20-figure units on other occasions. |
ochoin | 09 Jan 2015 5:03 p.m. PST |
We use 12 figures for an infantry platoon. A few small tweaks needed. Works well. |
Smokey Roan | 13 Jan 2015 3:41 p.m. PST |
20 infantry plus an officer, sergeant nand flagbearer (flagbearer is just for looks) Mahdists and other bad guys have 20 figs, plus leader and a musician and flagbearer (just because I like haveing lots of flags) Also units of 10 all the time. Doesn't matter |
Florida Tory | 15 Jan 2015 5:29 a.m. PST |
ochoin, What tweaks do you use for 12-man infantry units? Do you keep the cavalry at 12- men, too, or reduce them proportionately? Rick |
ITALWARS | 15 Jan 2015 10:58 a.m. PST |
just another tought…i experimented, those last months, more than once with reduced 8 man units…the main problem was a kind of unrealistic, at least for the 19 c in which colonial battles took place, attitude by the players…above all the adversaries of European/Imperialist…which is that, contrary to everything we have read on colonial military history, the Sudaneses, zulus, pathans, moros, abbyssinians, boers, Berbers ecc…once crippled by Imperialists fire they do not react as a whole..that's retreating or trying to get in cover or at least sweeping on flanks..but instead..every unit which is less affected by casualties do his solitary battle and tactical choices..possibly filling gaps of those annhitilated and coordinating with those in good shape/morale..that's is unrealistic for massed warriors or enforcibly recruited tribesmen armies or for civilians acting as soldiers like the boers…maybe the Hereros of DSWA where different ..we only have German sources rarely translated and compared for that and they tend to descript the hereros like exceptional foes but , again, i don't think they where equipped with radios and walkie talkie to be able to act so indipendently as compared to 1904-12 various doctrines |
ITALWARS | 15 Jan 2015 11:13 a.m. PST |
i would also like to add, possibly, different doctrines..if not totally different menthality between various colonial armies of the period and also between their foes.. for example if a British NCO was capable of taking command of leaderless company but only in exceptional cases..on the opposite , an Italian Lieutenant officer would have asked , (and they still do) to the Ministry of War in Rome before commanding fire or also allowing their troops to adopt sleeve order…on the contrary a Belgian European Adventurer/Private or would command a column of Askaris in Congo up to decision of annexing a new land…so the problem is centralisation of command and decisions..in my opinion in the 19 c..that centralisation was very high and decision asset given to a small unit leader (of scaled dowm 8 figures unit for example) was practically nil…that's the reason why, in my next games, i'll try to REadapt 8 man units scenarios (like those in the useful scenarios books by Mark Fastoso)to 20 men units… |
rjones69 | 15 Jan 2015 3:19 p.m. PST |
In terms of being massed warriors, the Hereros were different than other native groups. The Hereros used open-order skirmish tactics, instead of the dense mass formations favored by the Dervishes. Here's a first-person account from Maximilian Bayer, who fought in the Herero War: "Simultaneously the Hereros burst forth; they left the protective thorn abatis and trenches and ran towards [the Germans]; but not in a wild, thick mass, like the Dervishes at Omdurman, but on the contrary in a long skirmishing line, crouching down and bounding, with great skill and exploitation of all cover." (Translation by Roy Jones) Here's the original German: "Gleichzeitig brachen die Hereros schon hervor; sie verließen den sicheren Dornverhau und die Schützengräben und liefen heran; doch nicht als eine wilde, dichte Masse, wie die Derwische bei Omdurman, sondern in langer Schützenlinie, geduckt und in Sprüngen, mit großer Geschicklichkeit und unter Ausnutzung jeder Deckung." (Bayer, pg. 38) (The quote is from Bayer, Maximilian "Mit dem Hauptquartier in Südwestafrika"; Berlin, Wilhelm Weicher, 1909). For more details on this topic of Herero open-order tactics, see the TMP thread "German Southwest Africa – Tactics and Figures": TMP link The Hereros were organized in platoons and companies ("Züge und Kompagnien"), with each unit having its own leader ( "[d]ieser hatte offenbar seine Truppen genau ebenso in Züge und Kompagnien eingeteilt, wie wir, und jeder Truppenteil hatte seine bestimmten Führer gehabt." Bayer, pg. 47 ). Thus given their level of tactical skill and unit organization, the Hereros were able to operate in a coordinated fashion. |
rjones69 | 15 Jan 2015 3:51 p.m. PST |
As for an NCO taking command of a leaderless company, that may have been exceptional for the British (I can't say for sure; I haven't studied that in detail). However, it was not exceptional for the Germans during the Herero War. Here are some historical examples: '(3) When the company-level officer goes down, a Feldwebel (i.e., an NCO) takes command.
"[The left wing of the company] had suffered heavy casualties in a very short time; the commander here, Lieutenant von Rosenberg – who a few weeks before through his courageous conduct had so essentially contributed to the success at Klein-Berman – was mortally wounded, as were several of his men. Feldwebel Schlabitz – who, himself wounded, took command here – had the men of the left wing wheel somewhat back, so as to be better able to fend off the Hereros' attempts to encircle them." (Translation by Roy Jones) "Dieser hatte in kürzester Zeit schwere Verluste erlitten, der hier befehligende Leutnant v. Rosenberg, der vor wenigen Wochen durch sein tapferes Verhalten bei Klein-Barmen so wesentlich zum Erfolge beigetragen hatte, und mehrere seiner Leute waren tödlich verwundet, Feldwebel Schlabitz, der hier, selbst verwundet, den Befehl übernahm, ließ die Leute am linken Flügel etwas zurückschwenken, um die Umfassungsversuche der Hereros besser abwehren zu können." (Generalstab, pp. 96-97) (4) As officer after officer is killed or wounded, command of a Schutztruppe company falls on the shoulders of the last veteran NCO standing: Unteroffizier Bötzel.
"Captain Gansser, shot through the head, fell at the front of the onrushing company; a few moments later, 1st Lieutenant Streccius was severely wounded. This did not stop the company in its brave forward charge. Just in front of the enemy position 2nd Lieutenant Leplow, mortally struck by several bullets, also collapsed. Nevertheless, even though without officers and despite the murderous fire that confronted them, the brave troopers penetrated into the enemy position and took the forwardmost waterholes with fixed bayonets. The [Hereros] vanished into the thick bush at lightning speed, however reappearing after a short time with overwhelming strength, in order to again take back the waterholes from the company. Unteroffizier Bötzel in the meantime had taken over leadership of the company, as all the veteran Unteroffiziere [i.e., NCOs] were among the dead or among the wounded." (Translation by Roy Jones) "Hauptmann Gansser fiel durch den Kopf geschossen vor der Front der stürmenden Kompagnie; wenige Augenblicke später wurde der Oberleutnant Streccius schwer verwundet, allein die Kompagnie ließ sich hierdurch in ihrem tapferen Vorstürmen nicht aufhalten. Dicht vor der feindlichen Stellung brach auch der Leutnant Leplow, von mehreren Kugeln tödlich getroffen, zusammen, allein wenn auch ohne Offiziere, drangen die tapferen Reiter trotz des mörderischen Feuers, das ihnen entgegenschlug, mit aufgepflanztem Seitengewehr in die feindliche Stellung und nahmen die vordersten Wasserlöcher in Besitz. Der Feind verschwand blitzschnell in dem dichten Busch, erschien jedoch nach kurzer Zeit mit überlegenen Kräften wieder, um die Wasserlöcher der Kompagnie wieder zu entreißen. Ihre Führung hatte inzwischen Unteroffizier Bötzel übernommen, da alle älteren Unteroffiziere teils tot, teils verwundet waren." (Generalstab, pg. 165)' [ The excerpts above are from "The Herero War" by Roy Jones and Eric Alvarado, pp. 20-21. The German quotes contained therein are from the official history of the Herero War produced by the justly famous, pre-Great-War German General Staff (i.e., "Generalstab"):
Die Kämpfe der deutschen Truppen in Südwestafrika. Auf Grund amtlichen Materials bearbeitet von der Kriegsgeschichtlichen Abteilung I des Großen Generalstabes. Erster Band (von 2): Der Feldzug gegen die Hereros; Berlin, Ernst Siegfried Mittler und Sohn, 1906; (hereafter, Generalstab) ] |
ITALWARS | 15 Jan 2015 5:04 p.m. PST |
very interesting topic and thanks for those quotations….as regards to Germans i can have certainly fewer doubts about the men's skills ..is not secondary that they where the same soldiers or the ancestors of those famous for the Auftragstaktik doctrine or way of thinking that led to WW1 Stormtroopers and Whermacht Units Blitzkrieg tactics later…as regards to Hereros i should, me too have a look in my library at the Official History (translated and published here in Italy just before WW1 for our School of Infantry..at this time Italy was allied with both Imperial Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire)..but i also remenber that the first attacks at German Schutztruppe posts, isolated farms hastly fortified and ralways lines where not so different from every uncoordinated insurrection by a rebel force in great numbers VS isolated outposts held by risolute regulars..also quite a few ambushes, above all at the end, carried out by Witbois ..failed to annhitilate the German patrols/columns for lack of coordination and suddenly death of their leaders….but as every statement it must be supported by evidence if not trough primary sources at least trough secondary ones as you did..so i'll have, as said a look at my Official History……In any case i'm sure that the Hereros had a superior craftmanship and i did'nt, obviously, compare them to fanatical Dervishes..but , while considering your supporting explanations very useful i still think that a TSATF game who allow every group of 8 castings to act indipendently (in fact only commonsense not the rules would restrain player from that stance)untill the end without even care what the other units are doing or forced to do by morale dice trowns..will result for me in something similar to Vietnam, Rhodesia, Afghanistan during Soviet Invasion..but not 19 c. colonial….i don't have the book for playing TSATF (if only Falcon Miniatures answered me on that matter) but when i tried this 8 castings formula acting indipendently …Italian Askaris Vs Ethiopians; US/Philippinos Vs Moros; Frontier Light Horse VS Zulus..the result was less entertaining and less realistic than 20 inf or 12 cav. classical units..not to say that the visual effect is not the same.. thanks again for your suggestions Prof R. Jones ..i'll study more the Hereros Military History.. |
ochoin | 22 Jan 2015 12:03 a.m. PST |
@ F.Tony Irregular Cav at 8 figure units (8 mounted & 8 on the dismounted firing line). Regulars @ 12 figures (17th Lancers). |
Old Contemptibles | 22 Jan 2015 9:23 p.m. PST |
They don't have to be 20 figures. They can be any size you want. It's not that hard guys. |
|