"Russo-Polish War 1920 Project Plan" Topic

I am revisiting a stalled project linked to the Russian Civil War collection, very eclectic so great fun, lots of photos and and some thoughts around plans on my blog here:

link

thanks for posting. I've never gotten past the, "that would be cool" phase of this project.

I have 15mm Russians and access to Poles. Might try with O Group… See free cloud's Bordurian posts (sorry, can't seem to post the link on my phone).

Well thought out plan – what about the Red hordes?

I have a 20mm Polish Army for 1920. Done in plastics. I already have a Red Army. I still need tchankas. I am hoping that there will soon be a 3d print of those little buggies with an MG in the rumple seat will be made by someone. The Poles have a lot of uniforms to work with.

Yes!!!

Cheers guys, Frederick I already have the red hordes completed as does one of my gaming buddies, I also have the Whites and another chum has Chinese so once these guys are complete its just a case of pursauding someone to do the Japanese and we have lots of options.

Looks like excellent stuff!

As @advocate says, we've been using O Group rules – for "battlegroup" size 1930's games (somewhere between a battalion and a brigade with armour / AT / air support) in 15mm. O Group is suitably "un-detailed" so if you strip out the WW2 wunderweaponsyou you will get a decent game. WW1 and early 1920's armour is very thin, even an MMG can hurt it.

If its any interest, we played 28mm RCW using Lardies' "Mud & Blood" WW1 rules for 1-2 platoons (the armies we had led us to play around the Odessa area with French, Greeks & White Russians vs Reds/Bolsheviks. Some of those games are on the blog too.

What would be interesting is playing RCW with lots of cavalry, as it aparently worked well in that war (and probably prolonged the life of the horse in armies for a generation). We had cavalry in Mud & Blood but not much and IMO that's too tactical a level

Mud & Blood makes you test for the AFVs & trucks breaking down, frustrating but probably historical. It also has a random turn end card with "take a snifter" (aka shot of spirits from a hip flask) instruction. Took it literally a few times, very merry by end of game :D

Freecloud, y RCW forces have a decent ammount of cavalry, typically at least 6-10 units of 8 per side in our games, lots of images of these on the blog.

We played RCW/Russo Polish War some years ago, using RED ACTIONS rules. I like that both sides were pretty incompetent.

I think the Poles were a bit more professional with lots of Veterans and remaining Officer classes, other than their new Volunteer units I would expect a decent level of competence in most units. They also had decent ammounts of gear provided by the Allies and the Germans. A tank regiment of 120 FT17's for instance.

The Poles had a lot more professionals, but that didn't make them any more professional overall because they were often stuck in WWI mindsets. Five different mindsets too (German, Austrian, Russian, French and insurgent), often at odds.

The men were brave and often well trained, but the lower command levels did not cope at all well to the changed conditions.

Hence they often set up their artillery deep in the rear with forward observers and the works, only to have the battle over before their artillery could start to have an effect. The Red artillery, poor as it was, was at least in direct support and so did not have any delays. When attacking the Polish artillery simply didn't keep up.

In fact the entire Polish defensive system was poor, trying to defend a massive frontage with largely static defence (to Pilsudski's disgust). On top of that they often suffered losses because units would adopt a WWI "we stay till we die" attitude. Wrong war for that.

And the cavalry had a "charge or bust" mentality that wasn't even remotely professional.

This isn't just my opinion, but that of Poles of the time. The French observers were more scathing again.

Accounts of battles show the proceedings to have often been shambolic (provided you read at the lower levels, not just the cleaned up accounts of how divisions were moved around).

Thanks Mark, I do think the rules will reflect some of this. The artillery is mostly field artillery rather than the big stuff. Charge or bust is pretty much how the guys play the cavalry.

I'll edit my comment after the fact.. "incompetent" is a bit much. I'm talking about troop types.. this was not a war of elite troop types.

The Poles tended to deploy their field artillery very deep too, quite the contrary way to the White and Red Russians did it.

May have to consider ow to factor that into games Mark. Rules allow for forward observers as used by the Poles. I shall give it some thought.

I have some thoughts for the Poles, not allowing them to dismount and deploying the guns dug in at table edge to reduce their flexibility might be a start, maybe adding a die roll to get through on the field telephone for observers as Rapid Fire too.

That seems reasonable. You might give them a roll to see if they are more flexible though, because sometimes they were. It just depended on the senior commander for the day.

In balance, they should have a lot more ammo than the Reds.

I usually find that the gamers often create their own flexibility or not. If I deploy the guns dug in, many players will not consider moving them, others might and give themselves an advantage which in the end is a historical balance as well as rewarding a gamers initiative.

Interesting to come across someone using Triumph of the Will. What are the rules like?

I like the rules but they felt a bit unfinished, they need some polishing and tidying up, so as a group we have done that leading to slightly amended rules which we really enjoy. Each unit is 6-10 figures usually around 8 representing a company, with 4 of these being a regiment with a leader. 3 levels of troop, trained, drilled and green from memory. There are attributes you can add for troop types such as aggressive giving an advantage in hand to hand. All told I really like them especially since we have made the amends.