Colonel Marbot | 26 Apr 2019 5:08 p.m. PST |
I posted this over on the Reenactor Tab, but had my doubts as to whether many would see it there. Are there any other historical reenactors out there that have used their experience in modifying wargame rules? It became obvious to me that many rule writers have no experience in fundamental aspects of maneuver, formation changes, and combat. An example would be the Fire and Fury rules. After a melee, both sides would become disordered in reality but in the F&F rules the victor is considered in good order for the following turn. I have other examples, particularly on artillery but look forward to other reenactors that have applied there knowledge to modify war game rules that are inconsistent with history (and reality). |
AICUSV | 26 Apr 2019 5:39 p.m. PST |
The biggest change I found was in the deployment of artillery. That gamers allow artillery to set up in areas or situations that physically couldn't happen. As to melee, I noticed that toy soldiers don't stand around, smoke cigarettes, and swop joke with the enemy afterwards. |
Repiqueone | 26 Apr 2019 5:43 p.m. PST |
Any useful parallels between a reenactor event and actual combat are total nonsense. If one only compared the efforts of plus 40, overweight, fantasists to sub-25 year old, underfed, youngsters facing an ugly death, one would have no reason to accept any validity to the Confederates in the Attic's views beyond a correct count of buttons on a tunic. |
Colonel Marbot | 26 Apr 2019 6:05 p.m. PST |
The use of artillery is one that I found particularly unhistorical. Brigade, division, and Corps artillery fire was directed by senior officers, e.g. the brigade commander, division commander, or corps commander – or the Army's artillery commander. What I've found is artillery batteries/sections select their targets at will rather than being designated by an officer. To correct this, the brigade, division, or corps commander must be within command distance to change the artillery unit's target. |
Colonel Marbot | 26 Apr 2019 6:11 p.m. PST |
Repiqueone, your opinion seems to be of one who has never reenacted – and is unnecessarily demeaning to those who invest time and money in the hobby. Your Confederates in the Attic comment is indicative of a closed mind. While today's reenactors do not resemble the physical attributes of the ACW combatants, the drill manual has not changed – and that is what I was referring to. The rule writers seem to have no experience in marching, changing formation, etc. Unless you have something positive to add, go count some I buttons and threads per inch… |
Colonel Marbot | 26 Apr 2019 6:24 p.m. PST |
Continuing with the artillery discussion, senior officers would direct artillery placement based on enemy dispositions or expected approach routes. Once placed, the artillery would remain in position until ordered to another location or to withdraw. Only when the enemy had approached within canister range and the battery commander determined he had to retire or be overrun/captured, would the battery be limbered and retire without orders from a senior officer – then to await orders from the senior officer to direct a new position and target. |
GROSSMAN | 26 Apr 2019 6:55 p.m. PST |
Rates of die for artillery as an AWI weekend warrior our gun crew could fire three plus rounds per minute. |
Repiqueone | 26 Apr 2019 7:05 p.m. PST |
Marbot, Ah, but years ago I did do re-enactment, primarily mountain rendezvous, and have shot a wide array of black powder weapons. Drill manuals are to actual combat as paper airplanes are to 747s. I actually would trust more to keen research and analysis of history by trained historians leavened with a sure appreciation of the degradation of order in any structure and the basic laws of entropy to anything that reenactors can contribute. In fact, I would be most interested if any re-enactments have led to any meaningful insights into history. Face it it's a harmless hobby for socializing, drinking, and firing black powder, but it's no place for serious history, but mostly the reinforcement of myth and exercising arcane knowledge of minutiae. It's not much different from wargaming, it just takes a more literal approach ( and more discomfort!). |
Colonel Marbot | 26 Apr 2019 7:15 p.m. PST |
Repiqueone, drill was the basis of military maneuver and unit effectiveness. Why do you think it was emphasized and relentlessly practiced by commanders of the era? Function without thinking. |
SOB Van Owen | 26 Apr 2019 8:06 p.m. PST |
Do reenactors follow a script? Or are they free lancing in front of crowds? |
Colonel Marbot | 26 Apr 2019 8:22 p.m. PST |
SOB, the best reenactment I attended was one at Gettysburg, probably around the 147th anniversary of the battle. The final scenario was Picket's Charge. Our brigade commander (we were CSA) went down the ranks and issued orders as to when we would take casualties by Federal volley, e.g. first volley a certain number would fall, second volley where more would fall, third volley even more would fall. The detail went so far as where each individual reenactor was hit. As in any hobby, there are different levels of participation: mainstream versus campaigner, which has and will continue to be a struggle within the hobby. |
ochoin | 26 Apr 2019 9:59 p.m. PST |
I would imagine that the authors of historical wargame rules do research period drill manuals, weapons' capabilities etc. And I would think the practical experience of re-enactors does have some valuable insights. I must say, however, that both wargaming & re-enacting are clearly not the same as the reality of actual warfare. And I think we are kidding ourselves if we feel that either hobby is more than playing around the edges. |
UshCha | 27 Apr 2019 12:05 a.m. PST |
I do find it sad that this many years from the start of the Hobby(s) folk still have zero undetstanding of simulation. Simulation cannoit and never will by design be actual warfare! For one in simulation its not productive to actually kill people. They won't learn from that! Repiqueone the real army even now run excersices at great cost! They are not real nobody dies, hopefully, but they are actaul training and help add lessons learnt. Reaenactment and wargames at its best is that. Like wargames there are branches I am sure where learning is subservient to drinking abd chatting. But do not tar all with that brush. |
MajorB | 27 Apr 2019 3:43 a.m. PST |
Re-enactment is all about creating a spectacle for Joe Public. Personally, I wince when I see ECW re-enactors not levelling their pikes at the enemy or WOTR re-enactors aiming their arrows at the ground rather than the enemy. All in the cause of health and safety of course. Sadly it just doesn't convey the real aspects of the warfare of the period. |
Patrick R | 27 Apr 2019 3:51 a.m. PST |
Simulation covers a lot more ground than most people are aware of. When talking about simulation people generally assume a "process based simulation" where you try to accurately sum up and process all the variables in any given situation. The problem is that it works great for predictable things like planetary orbits or how an engine will work. If you want to simulate an engagement with tanks, you can try to figure out the thickness of all the armour involved the penetration at any given range and then tabulate it in some way. But there are far more variable than that. Shells have inconsistent velocities, the wear and tear on the barrel (something most armies kept a close eye on) or how hot it runs when the shot is fired can make a huge difference. A shell can hit plate at almost any angle and due to the yaw and pitch of a shell in flight the impact angle of the shell and the angle of the armour are two totally different things. The more you look at it, the more variables you will discover, including atmospheric pressure and variance in the quality control of the ammo and armour. This brings us to "Objective-based simulation" where we look at generating the same results as reality, skipping the variables and looking at the averages. We do have information on roughly how many tanks were destroyed in an average engagement. Therefore we can create a random range which matches the average amount of hits and still get results that tend to match the reality in the field without having to figure out all the relevant exact details of every shot. Say we know that a regiment in battle will suffer about 2% casualties per 15 minutes of active combat and that combat effectiveness drops by a quarter at around 10% in casualties. You can then establish rules that will give similar results. And if on average you tend to stay in that ballpark figure your wargame/simulation will get the right kind of results even though we don't care about the fact that the "casualty" is dead, incapacitated, merely wounded, ran away or is perfectly fine and single-handedly carving a canyon of death through an enemy unit. Of course there is one overarching argument "But is it fun to game ?" Even the most accurate inclusive simulation or the most refined abstraction with realistic results matching all existing evidence will not stand if it's a chore to play. We can model things without the need to sort variable and still get results that match observation so having a game with a "realistic" simulation is not an impossible task. |
warwell | 27 Apr 2019 4:14 a.m. PST |
While reenacting is not a perfect analog to actual combat, you can still learn some interesting things that don't seem so obvious when reading about it. For example, it is a lot harder to keep formation while marching through a cornfield than I imagined. And visibility is practically nil. Found this out at an Antietam reenactment. I also remember a discussion on TMP about medieval one-on-one combat rules. The point in question was the probability of 2 combatants simultaneously killing each other. In my experiences in medieval recreation groups (SCA, Adria, etc) I found it to be rather common. It would not surprise me to find it common in reality. Of course, these experiences don't prove anything (it isn't the same as real combat) but it makes one ponder. |
Blutarski | 27 Apr 2019 4:52 a.m. PST |
warwell's comments re difficulties in keeping formation order and restricted visibility strike me as legitimate and valuable observations drawn from re-enacting. Because re-enacting can never be a perfect 1:1 analog to mortal combat does not mean that it cannot provide useful insights. Re siting of artillery, this has been a pet peeve of mine with respect to ACW tabletop gaming. Real world topography bears approximately ZERO relationship to the surface of our plywood table tops. Field artillery always sought and profited from an elevated position which would enable it to cover the manifold undulations of the surrounding terrain; nearby blind areas or defilades posed a danger to the battery. In addition, the inclination (degree of slope) of the ground was also an important factor; too steep a slope (either way) could preclude service of the guns or even limit or prevent access to an otherwise good position. FWIW. B |
Flashman14 | 27 Apr 2019 5:55 a.m. PST |
I'm not a re-enactor, but I crossed a ploughed field at Gettysburg and regretted it about a score of yards in. Ploughed fields should be considered ROUGH terrain. |
Old Glory | 27 Apr 2019 8:14 a.m. PST |
I often chuckle when I see our wargame figures moving accross the field in perfect order -- like a marching band on a perfectly mowed football field. Also, being one who has actually been in combat I can assure you that at best -- it is partially organized chaos. Regards Russ Dunaway |
Martin Rapier | 27 Apr 2019 8:48 a.m. PST |
I tend to agree that the public display battles don't teach us very much (apart from the points above about formations, movement and visibility). I have however learned a great deal about the value or otherwise of various bits of military equipment, in particular wool uniforms to keep you warm when it is soaking wet, the value of helmets to keep rain out of your eyes, and what a complete PITA leather laces are. |
Repiqueone | 27 Apr 2019 10:10 a.m. PST |
One characteristic of musket era battlefields is that they are usually closer to a smooth surface than not. Admittedly, it doesn't take much to present line of sight problems ( Waterloo is divided up into several discrete areas with views blocked by low terrain undulations) but in terms of drill and movement many a battlefield is fairly devoid of rough terrain, and the majority are quite small. A flat tabletop is not as bad a metaphor for a musket era battlefield as one would think. In that regard, the ACW May be a real outlier with a higher degree of terrain difficulties than most battlefields. That may account for its dominance by infantry, relatively low effectiveness of artillery, and almost no use for cavalry beyond pursuit and scouting. ACW re-enactments m be encouraging attitudes about musket era warfare that are very limited to one conflict and lacking much in the way of universal application. |
Dn Jackson | 27 Apr 2019 11:06 a.m. PST |
Two things I learned from reenacting. 1) How hard it is to walk a few hundred men in a straight line while in line of battle. Hence why constant drill was so important and why better drilled troops should move faster than undrilled troops. 2) How difficult it is to cross a freshly plowed field. I now count plowed fields as broken terrain. |
ochoin | 27 Apr 2019 1:04 p.m. PST |
The closest you can get to reality in gaming is The Look. Thus those of us with correctly (& beautifully) painted figures & highly detailed & realistic terrain at least look like the real thing. |
McLaddie | 27 Apr 2019 3:39 p.m. PST |
Drill manuals are to actual combat as paper airplanes are to 747s. this is a really silly statement for any 19th Century combat.The are innumerable comments, observations and descriptions of troops using drill in combat. Drill was basically a 'how to move bodies of men from A to B' in some order. Hardee, Casey etc. 'drill' were seen all over the ACW battlefield…if you read primary sources. |
Repiqueone | 27 Apr 2019 8:49 p.m. PST |
Mc Laddie still at your restatements of the obvious, I see. Of course, drill manuals were used. Of course, drill was practiced. And from many descriptions in primary sources I would think you might have noticed that it only approximated the experience in battle. As others have noted it's damn hard to move several hundred men in line in order over anything but a parade ground, and plowed fields, fencing, hills, poor officers and poor troops often must have led to less than textbook outcomes. Add in .70 caliber shot, and artillery hard shot and it must have often not looked like a period painting. What reactors do is present a spiffy theater piece for spectators that want it to look like Gone With The Wind. They are actors who must remember their part in the passion play and mumble their "line" on every step with little worry of losing a leg, arm, or their head in the next instance. They should have an actor's dedication to the success of the play, but it is simply a performance. Applause and the camaraderie of others later in the day about their efforts is an actor's due- and they deserve that. But inflating it into some meaningful study of warfare of the period is about on par with the occasional wargamer thinking a replay of Waterloo in which he wins as Napoleon is worthy of much more than laughter and possibly a good drink with his fellows. |
Blutarski | 27 Apr 2019 9:06 p.m. PST |
Hi Repiqueone, I would respectfully venture to say that your description of the underlying motivations of re-enctors probably falls a bit short of accounting for all of them. B |
goragrad | 27 Apr 2019 10:16 p.m. PST |
In the 'Western Way of War' Victor Davis Hanson wrote of the impacts of heat and other environmental factors on hoplites in battle situations noting that he felt that they were not properly appreciated by other writers. The friend that loaned me the book presumed that Hanson had paid individuals to simulate combat. I pointed out that given Hanson's position at California State University very likely enabled him to view SCA re-enactors and study their reactions and draw conclusions based on those studies. |
epturner | 28 Apr 2019 12:39 p.m. PST |
As a re-enactor (AWI, 1812, Civil War, and WW2) and a wargamer, and as a very active Reservist of 27 years service, I find this highly amusing… Wargamers and re-enactors seem to come in two flavors. The kind that appreciate what the other hobby has to offer and the kind that seem to denigrate anything "those people" seem to do. Look, you're all just playing games. I never was scared of become dead at either a re-enactment or a wargame. I can't say the same thing about Iraq. To get back to the OP, it depends on the scale of the rules. Commanding and moving large bodies of troops in the days before radio and professional staff work is painful. With F&F, the average re-enactor's experience may not be valid since the vast majority of us are simple spear carriers, Third Class. Folks like Scott Washburn, who held higher levels of responsibility in the re-enactment community can better attest to their experience in relation to outcomes/time distance/scales. This past weekend, I was involved in a WW2 tactical in Luzerne County, PA. About the scale of CoC or BA. As a skirmish, it was a hoot. Gave a good idea of low level tactics (we had a section of 7), line of sight, use of fire and maneuver. But BA or CoC couldn't simulate the fact I was (very) wet, cold at night, tired from crawling all over the terrain and from tweaking my knee. My two loonies worth. Eric |
McLaddie | 29 Apr 2019 8:02 a.m. PST |
As others have noted it's damn hard to move several hundred men in line in order over anything but a parade ground, and plowed fields, fencing, hills, poor officers and poor troops often must have led to less than textbook outcomes. Add in .70 caliber shot, and artillery hard shot and it must have often not looked like a period painting. Repiqueone: And this is just as obvious. However this doesn't produce paper airplanes to 747s. Of course, contemporaries had no idea this could happen. Right? Never crossed their minds, so they continued to play with paper airplanes… over and over again. To negate the strong relationship between training, drill and actual battlefield performances is as I said, silly. Drill on and off the parade ground, in this case being the very same maneuvers used on the battlefield as opposed to today's parade ground performances. |
McLaddie | 29 Apr 2019 8:08 a.m. PST |
Look, you're all just playing games. I never was scared of become dead at either a re-enactment or a wargame. epturner: And I am sure all involved are very happy about that. However, that doesn't negate the fact many of re-enactors and gamers are attempting to capture other parts of the experience. Parts to be sure, but still interested in getting the history right. |
etotheipi | 29 Apr 2019 8:18 a.m. PST |
Ploughed fields should be considered ROUGH terrain. You can learn this from farming as well as reenactment. in perfect order -- like a marching band on a perfectly mowed football field. It's damn hard to make the marching band do that. And the field is never level or the same, especially at halftime. Perhaps we should argue about how well farming and marching band simulate warfare.
Not as sarcastic a suggestion as it sounds. Ultimately, what we are talking about is comparing some aspects (never all aspects; if that were the criterion actual warfare does not accurately simulate actual warfare) of an activity with some aspects of another. This is sometimes called "knowledge transfer". How much experience of one activity is relevant to the execution of another depends as much on what aspects you decide to compare as it does on the intrinsic nature of those activities. |
McLaddie | 29 Apr 2019 8:22 a.m. PST |
There are some comparisons. A marching band is a group of individuals acting in coordination as practiced according to a scripted set of maneuvers. The band director doesn't throw out the script because the playing field is uneven. If he knows playing fields can be uneven, he even accounts for that during practice. |
Blutarski | 29 Apr 2019 3:08 p.m. PST |
Etotheipi wrote - " 'Ploughed fields should be considered ROUGH terrain.' You can learn this from farming as well as reenactment." Excellent. We now have at least three reasonable means of evaluating the issue. B
|
SOB Van Owen | 29 Apr 2019 7:52 p.m. PST |
There are some comparisons. A marching band is a group of individuals acting in coordination as practiced according to a scripted set of maneuvers.The band director doesn't throw out the script because the playing field is uneven. If he knows playing fields can be uneven, he even accounts for that during practice. How many times have you seen a marching band carry out maneuvers in rough terrain? I've seen marching bands marching down the street. I've seen marching bands perform in football stadiums. But I've never seen marching bands maneuver in a cornfield, or the Devils Den. |
McLaddie | 29 Apr 2019 9:09 p.m. PST |
How many times have you seen a marching band carry out maneuvers in rough terrain? I've seen marching bands marching down the street. I've seen marching bands perform in football stadiums. But I've never seen marching bands maneuver in a cornfield, or the Devils Den. SOB: True. Uneven could mean limits to the area, gathering startup area. But then after two teams of 200+ pound players in cleats have been scrabbling around on lawn for a half hour, the ground could be uneven. The point being that individuals in both groups, band and military units are attempting to act in concert--as a team--according to a plan and practiced maneuvers. In both cases, the actual event can present problems in acting as a team and carrying out practiced maneuvers. Obviously, the problems that military units face are far more severe, both in terrain and the fact that the enemy is trying to kill you. [a stray beer bottle at a band member isn't the same thing] That is why military training is far more severe, compliance far more demanding. That is why you have military men in the 19th Century [and beyond] repeatedly telling their men when things go to hell: "Remember your training!" Are there instances where training can't help--yep. Are there points in a battle where unpracticed efforts are made for good reasons. Certainly, no training or plan can ever cover all contingencies. However, you don't see any soldiers tossing the play book in the trash and winging it from day one. And von Moltke, the one who coined the phrase, "Plans never survive the first engagement" was a obsessive planner and advocate of persistent training…insisting all his officers even play wargames. Battle is the struggle between an army to maintain order and carry out plans and the chaos inflicted by chance and the enemy. The army who maintains order and best carries out their plans wins. The loser is the first to succumb to chaos. Training and drill play an critical part in maintaining order. |
Repiqueone | 02 May 2019 11:03 a.m. PST |
Nobody has said it didn't. What has been said is that using re-enactments as a study of period warfare has many limitations, can be misleading, and often has little to say about tactical combat that can't be found in more detail in researched historical writings. I'm sure it's fun for those who choose to do it, and entertaining, but ascribing much more to it than that is simply not a sustainable position. I would repeat that drill books are not the best guide to tactical reality either. Anyone who's ever actually served in the military services can tell stories about "going by the book" and "the army way". Armies are, by design, highly bureaucratic and risk adverse. They codify everything and the troops make field adjustments the minute the first shot is fired. |
McLaddie | 02 May 2019 12:54 p.m. PST |
Nobody has said it didn't. What has been said is that using re-enactments as a study of period warfare has many limitations, can be misleading, and often has little to say about tactical combat that can't be found in more detail in researched historical writings. I'm sure it's fun for those who choose to do it, and entertaining, but ascribing much more to it than that is simply not a sustainable position.I would repeat that drill books are not the best guide to tactical reality either. Anyone who's ever actually served in the military services can tell stories about "going by the book" and "the army way". Armies are, by design, highly bureaucratic and risk adverse. They codify everything and the troops make field adjustments the minute the first shot is fired. Repiqueone: THAT above is not the same as comparing paper airplanes to 747s. Making 'adjustments' is not the same thing as throwing out the entire play book, or comparing all training and drill to paper airplanes visa vie 747s and the battlefield. Wildly misleading at best. What re-enacted is re-enacting/copying are the formations and drill of the period armies…and walking through battles on terrain, often on the same battlefields often with the same weapons and equipment. To that extent, there are things that can be learned about the period from re-enacting. No one said anything about re-enacting equaling real warfare, only how re-enacting experiences might help inform wargame design. |
tshryock | 06 May 2019 1:02 p.m. PST |
I would like to add "hiking" in addition to farming as a means of learning about warfare (or whatever it is we are now talking about). Have you ever stood in a forest in summer? Choose a direction, note the furthest point you can see and then measure it. I guarantee you it will be far shorter than most rules allow for shooting at an enemy. I sometimes wonder if most rules writers grew up in a desert or the Great Plains. |