"ground scale in WW1 games" Topic

Hey all,

I recently acquired some figures I've always wanted- 10mm ANZACS and Turks for use on the Gallipoli Front.

To be completely frank, I've never been too fiddly with ground scale, but with this project, I do think I need to spend time thinking about it.

Given that at some points, the ANZAC and Turk trenches were no more than 50 yards apart, what happens when a rulset specifically designates the ground scale at 1in-100 yards? Even if I rescale to 1in=25yards, that still means trench lines will be anywhere between 4-8in apart.

For those of you that simulate trench warfare with small scale figs (6mm/10mm) representing companies or larger, is this something you find you have to deal with in your games?

Thanks,
J

When companies are represented on table then 'trenches' are an abstraction. A trench line that is 1" wide will represent, at the very least, 100 yards width of multiple individual trenches and other defensive positions. In general, the forward-most trenches on both sides will be at least 1" apart. If not then it is very important to understand what tactical feature/s enabled such close proximity. The answer may help to factor in special rules that mimic the effect.

In Great War Spearhead, there are three things that will come into play. The first will be any intervening wire. If uncut then the attacking companies will be held before crossing the 1/2" or so gap. Then there is the effect of defenders' fire, which kicks in before the attackers reach the trenches. Finally, there is defense-in-depth. If you try to defend the forward-most line of trenches in strength then it is easy to get overwhelmed. So place most of your forces deeper. A handful of companies in the first line can hold up numerically superior forces, causing the other attacking companies to become fragmented in their advance. They become more vulnerable to the defenders that are located further back.

With Gallipoli you will find that the very large scale battles were not fought in the terrain where trenches were built so close together.

Robert

Robert,

Given that there wasn't as much depth in defense at Gallipoli compared to the Western Front, would you recommend doing the larger scale battles immediately following the April 25th landings, as opposed to the trench warfare that took place later on?

J

For sake of avoiding fiddliness, I'd start with wanting 8-12" between trenches, then scale to that.

I would also seriously consider doing platoons instead of companies but it could work either way.

If scaled to your figures, where 10mm = 6ft. Then your 50 yards becomes 25 cm, or about 10 inches.
So, what Weasel said

I find I usually have to fudge Nomansland, whatever the the ground scale. It represents a significant Tactical barrier, almost regardless of how physically wide it was, so I often end up with a semi logarithmic ground scale with NML significantly wider on the tabletop than it was irl.

Gallipoli in particular featured some very dense troop concentrations, which are always hard to model in a higher level game. As noted, consider the more operational aspects of defence in depth etc. Packing the front line with defenders just makes a great artillery target, which is why all the combatants stopped doing it.

J, there were some areas of Gallipoli that had less room for defence-in-depth. This was especially true on the Allies side, around ANZAC Cove in particular. It was not the case for the Ottoman defenders by comparison. Even when defence in depth was difficult, the reasons mitigated against major attacks. If the terrain made it hard to spread defensive forces then it also made it extremely difficult to amass sufficient strike forces to make for a big scale battle. This is why most of the big battles took place on the more open slopes or the area around Suvla Bay.

The second problem for both sides was the relative lack of heavy and super-heavy high trajectory artillery. Ammunition was also very limited on both sides. This was not a Gallipoli thing. The same problems scuppered many larger scale offensives on the Western Front in 1915 too.

If the Allies had not withdrawn when they did then the limited defence-in-depth would have been severely tested. The Ottoman army realised that their big counter-attacks were too costly. Larger howitzers were being amassed, which would have done serious damage.

The terrain around the ANZAC Cove landings is very hard to reproduce for the likes of GWSH. Special rules are needed to reflect the way that the steeper areas of terrain had a major impact in slowing any advance up the slopes, whereas the Ottomans could move down more quickly. Leaving that aside, it is hard to put company size stands on a game table with the sort of terrain in this area, if modelled with any degree of accuracy.

Robert

The distance between the trenches was larger at Cape Helles. You could try out the Second Battle of Krithia (or something based on it as it wasn't very successful) which was the battle that featured the 2nd Australian Brigade and the New Zealand Brigade.

Another alternative could be the Salonika front as the British often wore slouch hats there. The Turks also sent troops to this front but I'm afraid I don't know much more about their service there.

Yes, the Gallipoli campaign (at the level of one stand = one company) resolves into the initial landings (including the French landing), the Krithia battles, and Suvla Bay. The large Ottoman army counter-attacks can feature too. Chunuk Bair is a tricky one. It was big enough but the terrain is problematic.

With regards to the landings, it is possible to represent V, W, and X Beach landings on the same table. A bigger table can include ANZAC Cove too. The Ottoman commander will then experience the uncertainty about where the British and Dominion effort was being directed. There should be some effect from the worry over Suvla factored in, pinning some reinforcements from moving for a few moves for example.

Robert