"Using WWII Operational Rules for WWI?" Topic

Due to the relative scarcity of operational rules for the Great War, I was interested in seeing if one could mod a WWII operational ruleset for WWI. Some choices I was considering include:

- Bloody Big WW2 Battles
- Command Decision: Test of Battle
- Division Commander
- Megablitz

Have you tried these:
greatwarspearhead.com

You might try the earlier Command Decision version for WWI, if you can find a copy.

You can use BBB pretty much as is for WW1.

CD is more on the grand tactical side, and as noted, GWSH is probably a better fit for division/corps sized actions as CD is very much battalion/brigade.

Megablitz works fine for WW1.
Div Com and all the other KISS Rommel derivatives would probably work OK too.

It is easy enough to convert Fire & Fury (essentially what BBB is) and Volley & Bayonet to WW1. I've done both.

I mainly play OP14 by Richard Brooks for operational WW1 these days, units are brigades, formations are Corps an it handles Armies quite easily. Published in the Wargames Developments Journal.

If you want to do heavy trench warfare, GWSH works better as it has a more detailed systems for artillery, gas, trenches etc. although I have used OP14 for e.g. the Battle of Amiens, I did add in some mods for rolling barrages etc.

Our group uses BBB for our 1914 games, works well with just a couple modifications we added.

What did you have in mind – 'operational' can be used to mean different things? Is there an example of a particular battle that illustrates what you would like to wargame?

Robert

I have often thought of using Volley and Bayonet for big WWI games.

You might try the earlier Command Decision version for WWI

That would be Over the Top.

The biggest problem I see with using WW2 rules is the vast improvement in communications between 1914 and 1939. No radios, for starters, and the use of liaison planes. The new film 1917 is a good example. There would be no use of runners to cancel an attack in 1944. If the phone net was out and the attacking unit didn't answer in the radio, you'd just send a staff officer over in an AOP.

monk2002uk – For the purposes of wargaming, I'd say Steve Balagan's definition works well: link

Hi OldReliable,

Thanks for your interest in using a BBB variant for WWI. If you want to see how BBB gets used for (proto-)WWI warfare with minimal adaptation, I encourage you to look at Konstantinos Travlos's outstanding campaign volume for the Balkan Wars, "Bloody Big Balkan Battles!":
link
In it you'll find battles with as many as 200,000 men a side, on battlefields up to 60 or even 80km across, using WWI weaponry and fighting battles lasting several days. Basic units are typically brigades or divisions.

As it happens I'll be visiting WWI with BBB myself this month, refighting the Turkish raid on Suez.

Looking beyond BBB, I think Frank Chadwick's forthcoming 'Breakthrough' ruleset for WWII should have potential – probably with the regiment or brigade as the basic element, rather than the battalion.

Good luck with finding a ruleset that suits you.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com

Thanks, OldReliable1862. Very helpful to have the working definition referred to. Steve Balagan notes that the Operational level applies to campaign plans and major operations. The fighting of a single battle-in-a-day falls under the description of Tactical in his hierarchy. You have to be very careful when interpreting the word 'battle' in the context of WW1. The term can be used for a single battle-in-a-day, such as The Battle of Flers-Courcelette when used to describe the action on September 15, 1916 – the first use of tanks ever. Officially, however, the battle took place between Sept 15 – 22. This puts it squarely in the Operational definition. Furthermore, the battle was in the context of the longer Battle of the Somme, which was a campaign in the scope of the definition. Some people equate this battle with July 1st, 1916 – ie tactical – but strictly speaking this isn't correct.

The two examples (Battles of Flers/Courcelette and Somme) illustrate by far the most common types of Operations in the Great War. Two sides are locked together in fixed positions at the start of the Operation; one side is seeking to breakthrough and breakout over a several day campaign or major offensive. If we label these as Attempted Breakout Operations then the first big difference between WW1 and WW2 becomes apparent.

WW1 formations were much more compressed than their WW2 counterparts, by an order of magnitude. A WW1 regiment would cover the frontage of a WW2 battalion for example. Even at the end of WW1, which is often described as being the same as WW2 tactics-wise, there was still a huge difference. Stepping back to the Tactical level for a moment, this is why the WW1 variant of Spearhead (known as Great War Spearhead) uses the company as the smallest stand, occupying the same frontage essentially as its WW2 platoon counterpart.

The depth of active battlefield was narrow in Attempted Breakout Operations. This was primarily due to the relatively short distances that the attacker could cover during each tactical battle, if successful.

From an operational perspective, the width of an Attempted Breakout Operation was a crucial factor. Enemy artillery outside the flanks of a tactical attack within the context of a wider Operation had a disproportionate effect on the potential for success or otherwise. The British experience is useful to examine in this regard. The Battles of Neuve Chapelle, Aubers Ridge, Festubert and others during 1915 all pointed to the need for a much wider frontage of attack. This was the basis for the planning behind the Somme. If you want to mirror the challenges of the first day of the Somme at an Operational level then you need a table that is approximately 12 feet long by 1 foot wide with a ground scale of 3" = 1km for example. This would expand to 2 feet wide for the whole Somme campaign. In other words, Attempted Breakout Operations are long narrow battlefields with large numbers of units on table because of the compressed nature of WW1 forces. Rulesets designed for WW2 miss the mark by a long way in this respect. It's not to say that adjustments can't be made, far from it. But you have to be aware of the scale of the differences to know how to appraise a WW2 ruleset.

The second major type of operation is what can be labelled as Manoeuvre Operations. These will be campaigns or major offensives where both sides are advancing to contact and/or attempting to out-manoeuvre the opponent over several days or weeks. Manoeuvre Operations were less common but examples include: the initial invasion of France and Belgium; the Russian invasion of East Prussia; the operations in Galicia; the Race to the Sea; etc. The scale of many such operations was immense. We put on the Battle of the Marne with 6mm figures across 50 feet of tables in 2014. You can get a sense of the scale here:

link

Within each of the examples noted above, you can tease out smaller scale (in terms of unit numbers) components at the operational level. The operations of German First Army against the BEF in late August 1914 is a good example. Chris has noted a smaller example still – the Ottoman raid on the Suez Canal in early 1915. Ultimately the question comes down to what you are trying to model and what lessons, if any, you would like to learn or appreciate more fully by gaming WW1 operations. I will delve into these issues in another post.

Robert

Great post, Robert.

Chris

Thanks, Chris.

Manoeuvre Operations in WW1 hold the greatest attraction to most wargamers, especially when contrasted with stolid trench warfare. At the operational level, there is the lure that an opponent can be outflanked and destroyed – perhaps it was possible to be home by Christmas (1914). In reality, this never worked out. There are several factors that contributed. Not least is the Fog of War. Even with the introduction of airships and aeroplanes, it was still extremely difficult to know where and what your enemy was doing. If you really want to experience this aspect first-hand then you must game with hidden movement. Not just the use of blinds but with good umpire/s who can provide the appropriate level of recon information when two forces start to make contact. It really brings home the impact of FoW when played well; some of the most amazing games I have played at scale – multiple players with each side in a separate room, huge maps, conflicting reports about cavalry patrols making contact, small-scale skirmishes, 'large' formations being sighted, other geographies seemingly empty with no enemy sightings, etc. You really start to appreciate why von Kluck made a hash of things in August/September 1914

A second important factor is the way in which large formations operated in the field. Forces were spread out front-to-back and from flank-to-flank. Maintaining contact with neighbouring friendlies was of major importance, so much so that it could lead to significant distortions in what would seem to be straightforward advances. The distance over tens of kilometres from the forward officer patrols to the last major fighting brigade (in the case of the BEF) or regiment meant that it was very unlikely that a division could be taken unawares and then surrounded/destroyed. Cavalry could move faster for longer than infantry but, in the context of an operational campaign, this capability was degraded. In any case, a full-strength cavalry division was equivalent to an infantry brigade or regiment. During retreats, however, cavalry could exert a disproportionate effect in slowing the pursuit by the enemy. WW2 operational rules are more likely to be predicated on the rapid exploitation of gaps or open flanks by motorised formations. There is no equivalent in WW1.

Robert

Martin Rapier,

I see you are using OP14. I have a copy of the rules but there are some aspects I just cannot get my head around. Is there any particular place I can post questions?

Due to the relative scarcity of operational rules for the Great War, I was interested in seeing if one could mod a WWII operational ruleset for WWI. Some choices I was considering include:
- Command Decision: Test of Battle

Not only has TOB been adapted to WW1, there are scenario books written with the rules adaptations for WW1 included. Jessee Scarborough has written two scenario books. (You will need a copy of Command Decision: Test of Battle to use the scenarios.)

The first book concerns the opening 1914 campaign in the west. The Death of Glory has 10 scenarios and a great deal of information.
link

The second book is Great War East – 1914. It has 10 scenarios and uses "bath-tubbing" of forces to allow for portrayal of larger battles.
link

Catching up on this topic, it seems Megablitz has been out of print for some time, so it's difficult to come by; even then, it seems it didn't exactly win everyone over. The situation is similar with DivCom, though it's still in print. Evidently both these rulesets have problems with not explaining how everything works, leaving players without any clear idea of what to do.

That still leaves CD and BBWW2B, and I could use good old bathtubbing to help me with a Brusilov Offensive or Somme campaign game.