"1919 Red Army in Siberia any good?" Topic

Was the Red army in Siberia in 1919 any good? In particular asking about the infantry. Untrained conscripts or trained units?
Thanks
Oh
Ditto the Russian offensive into Turkestan

I presume when you say "Siberia," you are referring to the front centered on the Trans-Siberian RR in the general vicinity of Omsk. If I recall, that area was particularly prone to offensive actions moving the front (for both Reds and Whites) massive distances on relatively broad fronts. It also saw the incorporation of large numbers of captured equipment and soldiers into the service of the then ascendant force. It was not uncommon for men to serve on both sides numerous times based on the ebb-and-flow of fortune. For the majority of the infantry, unenthusiastic or untrained conscripts would be the norm. However, both sides had a cadre of better trained and, more importantly, ideologically reliable forces which the poorly motivated stuff supported. Trotski helped reorganize and motivate the Reds into a force capable of collapsing what, by 1920, had become Kolchak's military "house of cards."

Brilliant! Many thanks
Steve

Remember that 1919 is the crucial year. Not so much for the recruits which were always somewhat unenthusiastic as Gray Bear notes, but for the commanders.

At the start the Red Army was still shaking out some of the bad old habits of partizanshchina from its roots in the Red Guards, locally organised units and crumbling old army units.

By the end the Reds had got their commanders much more sorted out and trained (or at least experienced). Many of them were Voenspets (ex-Tsarist) by then, which upped the professionalism.

This was most pronounced in the technical arms and cavalry, which were very much better at the end of 1919 than the start.

Regarding into Turkestan, that was Frunze's units, most of whom were relatively good. The actual campaign into Turkestan was a non-event though, as the Cossacks had crumbled by the time that they got to that point. (Frunze's "Turkestan Front" was formed a very long way from Turkestan, which is mighty confusing.)

The Red Army in Turkestan facing the Cossacks was very poor though. Completely cut off from the centre, both for supplies and organisation, it much more resembled the poor Red Army of 1918.

Thanks Mark. Looks like I have some reading to do, especially on Turkestan. And I will bear 1919 in mind.

In Turkestan, in addition to the Cossacks, the Reds had other opponents. For example, the Basmachi and other irregular detachments of local peoples. And also the Transcaspian government, which was in alliance with Denikin's Volunteer White Army, the Basmachi and the British, who also participated in the battles against the Bolsheviks.

Mmmm.Thanks Cuprum2. Looking at the different army lists for Back of Beyond there do not seem to be separate lists for the Cossacks. But based on the above, and a little further reading just now, it would be quite reasonable to have an "army" of Cossacks. At least a force of Cossacks in their own right, where each side has typically 3-4 infantry units, 1-2 cavalry units, and a HMG/field gun/armoured car. Oh, were there really that many armoured cars floating around?

I spoke to a Russian doctor at the VA clinic a few weeks ago. He said he was from Siberia. He quickly informed me that the cities on the Pacific coast , part of the Far East District. Siberians are insulted when their smaller Siberian towns are lumped in to the Pacific coast area.

Facing the Turkestan front were

1) the Orenburg Cossacks. They were very heavily cavalry rather than infantry, so I would definitely do the ratios of infantry and cavalry the other way round. They had few armoured cars, but that doesn't usually bother the BoB crowd.

2) the Semirechensk forces. I have some information here: link

3) the Transcaspian forces -- my apologies for forgetting them -- which were not particularly effective when the British left.

Red Dragon 44, Cossacks have always considered themselves a separate "caste", since this is a rather unique phenomenon for the 20th century. This is a military class, a kind of relic of the Middle Ages. Moreover, they possessed vast, separate territories belonging to them, which had serious autonomy. They had serious benefits from the state, received in exchange for the obligation of universal military service throughout their lives (several years of active military service in the army, and then lifelong stay in the reserve with regular military training, which began at the age of five). Cossacks could be of various nationalities – Russians, Ukrainians, Kalmyks, Buryats. People who did not belong to the Cossack class but lived in Cossack territories were called "out-of-towners" (even if their ancestors had lived in this territory for several generations), could not join the Cossacks at will (only by decision of a general meeting of Cossacks of this area, which happened extremely rarely. A person could also be expelled from the Cossacks by decision of a general meeting), could not serve in Cossack units and could not enjoy Cossack privileges (for example, Cossack children studied in their schools for free, while children of non-Cossacks could only be accepted there on a fee-paying basis and very reluctantly). "Out-of-towners" could not buy land in Cossack territories and could only work as farm laborers. The Reds abolished all the privileges of the Cossacks, equalizing them with the rest of the country's population in rights, calling it a policy of "decossackization." Naturally, this caused a storm of indignation among the majority of the Cossacks. In addition, the "out-of-towners" immediately demanded a redistribution of the land that the Cossacks considered theirs (and they had much more of this land than all the other peasants, since the Cossacks were previously obliged to buy horses, uniforms and weapons for military service at the expense of this land). This conflict, naturally, grew into a monstrously cruel confrontation between them. Most of the Cossacks, naturally, turned out to be opponents of the Bolsheviks, and most of the "out-of-towners" were opponents of the "Whites". However, about 30 percent of the poorest Cossacks sided with the Reds, or defected several times to one camp or another. But among both the whites and the reds, the Cossacks considered themselves allies rather than creating a lot of problems for both. In fact, they were interested in either independence from Russia or broad autonomy again. At the same time, the Cossacks sought to form their own armies or units.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Army

Armored vehicles of the "Don Army":

Aviation of the "Don Army":

TimePortal, geographic boundaries of Siberia.

The watershed along the mountain ranges: Kolyma Highlands, Koryak Highlands, the eastern edge of the Chersky Range, the Dzhugdzhur Range, the Stanovoy Range, further to China – this is the border of the Far East and Eastern Siberia.

Siberia is the middle part. Far East – on the right.

Many thanks to all, from Steve who is beginning to realise how ignorant he is!

"Oh, were there really that many armoured cars floating around?"

A Russian Civil War game without the odd primitive armoured car just isn't the same. We probably over represent them in games, but they were significant weapons in the conflict. A pillbox on wheels, what's not to like?

According to the staffing announced by the order of the RVSR No. 220/34 of November 13, 1918, the rifle division was to include an armored vehicle detachment with a crew of 100 people, including four armored cars, one of which was armed with a cannon, the others with two machine guns, as well as cars, trucks and motorcycles.
The armored train, according to the order of the RVSR No. 416/57 of December 18, 1918, with a train crew of 136 people, consisted of a locomotive, two armored platforms armed with cannons and machine guns, a mobile base of 6-7 cars with a locomotive for transporting technical equipment and ammunition.
By order of the RVSR No. 57 of January 4, 1919, armored motor detachments operating in the zone of rifle divisions were subordinated to the chief of artillery of the division, and armored trains – to the chief of armored units of the army in whose area of ​​operations they were located. According to the instructions announced by order of the RVSR No. 59 of January 4, 1919, armored trains and armored motor detachments were separate military units and were considered as auxiliary means in the fight against enemy troops. By orders of the RVSR No. 489 of March 14 and No. 1088/204 of July 6, 1919, armored trains were numbered sequentially; in total, the Red Army as of July 1919 had 62 armored trains and 15 improvised armored trains. By order of the RVSR No. 1561/313a of October 6, 1919, landing detachments of 321 people were formed for each armored train in order to more successfully carry out combat missions.

In May 1920, according to the staffing levels announced by order of the RVSR No. 905/160 of May 28, 1920, the formation of the first tank detachment began, consisting of three tanks of different types with a crew of 81 people. By order of the RVSR No. 993/173 of June 8, 1920, a temporary staffing level of a tank cover team (up to 30 people) was put into effect. According to the instructions for the combat use of tanks, introduced by order of the RVSR N 1741/3031 of September 6, 1920, individual tanks were considered auxiliary combat assets, incapable of performing independent combat missions and intended only to assist other troops participating in the breakthrough of fortified positions. A platoon consisting of two identical tanks was considered a separate combat unit; two platoons made up a tactical tank unit – a detachment, which consisted of three parts: a combat unit (tanks), a combat reserve (cars, motorcycles) and a technical base (train). A tank detachment was attached to the army and in all respects subordinated to the chief of the armored units of the army, and during combat operations – to the corresponding combat commander. In early 1920, a reserve brigade for the formation of armored trains and a reserve armored vehicle brigade were formed to form new armored trains and armored vehicle detachments and to train personnel. In the fall of 1920, a separate reserve division for the formation and replenishment of tank detachments was created to form new tank units and train their personnel, subordinated to the reserve armored vehicle brigade (the regulations and staff of the division were introduced by order of the RVSR No. 1961/368 of September 28, 1920). At the end of 1920, in accordance with the staffing levels announced by order of the RVSR No. 2454/480 of November 11, 1920, the cavalry corps was reinforced by an armored detachment, and an armored train was attached to it if necessary.

By the end of 1920, the Red Army had the following armored forces: 49 armored motor detachments, 122 armored trains, 8 improvised armored trains, 10 tank detachments, 13 landing detachments, 5 armored railcars, and one repair brigade. Most of them were part of fronts and armies; units stationed in military districts were reassigned to district command by order of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Red Army No. 2451/479 of November 10, 1920.

77 armoured trains (including improvised ones) in 1919 for the Red Army?!!! And there was me thinking there were just a handful of them!

Oh, you haven't heard anything yet about the battles of river flotillas))) On almost every major river (and there are many of them) there were such flotillas, consisting of armed steamships (and for the Reds, sometimes even full-fledged sea destroyers) and seaplane carriers (barges carrying on seaplanes).

Oh what a fascinating time and place. I saw David Manley's rules on the Russian rivers on Wargames Vault a while ago.

Thanks Cuprum that is really interesting.

This conflict and period are interesting for wargamers for many reasons:
- A large theater of military operations – from the northern ice to the deserts of Central Asia, from Mongolia and the Sea of ​​Japan in the East, to Poland and Romania in the West
- A large number of opponents. Many "intra-Russian" factions: various white armies, Bolsheviks, anarchists and other non-aligned, many nationalists seeking to create their own states. Occupiers (Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Turks). Interventionists – it will not be easy to even list all these units and armies…
- Quite a wide use of modern, for those times, military equipment (tanks, armored cars, armored trains, airplanes). And there are also 18th century cannons, huge cavalry battles and detachments of partisan pikemen…
- Often colorful uniforms of the warring parties
- Various tactical techniques on the battlefield. From using tactics from previous eras (such as squares to repel cavalry attacks on infantry) to World War I-style battles, with numerous trenches, multi-day artillery bombardments and massive tank attacks.

Great info, Cuprum2.

@Red Dragon,

Here is an interesting TV series.

link

I think I've still got them on VHS. You don't see a lot on the RCW in English. I enjoyed them.

Ah, I have seen some of the episodes a few years ago. Great stuff indeed!

"Reilly…" was a brilliant TV series.

There were a lot of armoured cars around in the RCW, but that doesn't mean they all saw action very much.

The Reds had a massive issue with fuel. While they controlled the interior and had most of the industry, the fuel supplies were very much on the periphery. (This is a reason they invaded Azerbaijan very much earlier than Armenia and Georgia -- they needed Baku's oil.)

A lot of armoured cars ran on alcohol for want of better fuel.

Parts were unobtainable and specialist mechanics were in short supply. Tyres were particularly hard to get.

Armoured vehicles of that era didn't drive long distances, so needed to be transported by rail. The rail supply system was not in good order. This is why Budenny's armoured cars were so often missing from his order of battle.

Accounts of armoured cars have a very common feature: the cars turn up, wreak havoc, then retire after a few hours to not be seen again for days.

The above also applies to planes. Even the Poles, who had their own sources of petrol and supplies from the Allies struggled to keep their planes in the air as much as they would have liked.

"Accounts of armoured cars have a very common feature: the cars turn up, wreak havoc, then retire after a few hours to not be seen again for days."

Now this is very interesting and very useful.

Were field guns any good against armoured cars? Or were the crew of the guns so poor that no? Did anything work against armoured cars? Infantry with grenades?

There was no anti-tank artillery at that time. Due to the technical capabilities of the artillery pieces of that time, it was quite difficult to hit a moving target with a direct hit. It was possible to hit such a target relatively confidently only at fairly close ranges.
I know of episodes of fairly successful fight of the Reds against the White tanks in the battles on the Kakhovka bridgehead. There, the Reds' horse artillery guns drove up to a close distance to the tanks and opened fire from a close range. But such tactics were associated with the highest risk, since the tank was actively firing machine guns.
In general, any armored target was a big problem. But armored cars had their own vulnerability – they moved well on roads, but moving across rough terrain was accompanied by serious difficulties. Any pothole, loose or wet soil, tall grass, any other obstacle – and the car would be immobilized. After that, the crew would most likely simply abandon it, since the armored car would be destroyed by artillery or surrounded by the enemy.
Fragments of large-caliber shells were dangerous, as they could penetrate relatively thin armor even without a direct hit.
Crews could also suffer losses from regular rifle or machine gun fire – there were no protected observation devices yet and regular viewing slits were used. This led to the fact that bullets or their fragments could penetrate inside.
I am not aware of any cases of moving armored cars being destroyed by grenades.
And the poor technical condition of the vehicles led to frequent breakdowns, sometimes right during combat.

The commercial Back of Beyond army lists seem to have a lot of HMGs. Was this reality in the East? How did they transport them and the ammunition? Were they any good against armoured cars? Presumably good against charging cavalry or charging fanatics. Used for denial of area/suppression? Still would think they would run out of ammunition quickly.

There were plenty of machine-guns in the East. Ammunition wasn't always in really good supply, but then that's true of all the RCW. Even in side theatres like Mongolia the opponents had reasonable amounts of MGs.

By 1919 the Reds had a decent supply system going for ammunition. It ran down the rail lines, then onwards by carts. This is a major reason for the campaigns to head down the rail lines.

The main Whites captured Red supplies as they advanced, and fell back onto their own supplies as they retreated (most often Allied supplies) because their supply system wasn't as good. They did have more trucks though, which helped.

The Orenburg and Ural Cossacks, especially the latter, really suffered for lack of ammunition because they were at the ends of very rickety supply lines. This is one reason they remained mostly cavalry.

I can't think of examples of large battles lost because ammunition ran out early, although individual units often did run short until resupply arrived. Obviously they actively conserved what they had, not shooting at long range in particular. Using MGs for indirect fire, area denial and suppression was rare as a result -- it was too wasteful.

MGs and their ammunition were usually transported on carts when not in battle. Ideally military carts, but more often conscripted peasant ones. Then again, generally all the infantry travelled that way.

MGs were effective against Armoured Cars at short range, as Cuprum has noted, because of the "spall" inside the cars. The tyres can also be damaged.

It is a myth that cavalry died out because of MGs. The death of cavalry was from barbed wire. Of course MGs are very effective against cavalry in the flat steppes, but 1) the cavalry weren't generally stupid enough to charge frontally against prepared enemy, and 2) the cavalry often had their own MGs in the form of tachankas.

I don't worry too much about ammunition supply for my MGs, but my rules don't allow indirect fire or long range suppression. By contrast I do limit artillery rounds, because artillery supply was very much worse.

Thanks, Mark. Hopefully beginning to get my head around all this.

So plenty of machine guns and ammunition. How about mortars? Many or less common?

Almost no mortars.

The Poles had a very few -- a couple of divisions had a small company.

Mortars are not really suited to the mobile form of the war. They work when you shoot from your trench/crater at the enemy trench/crater. But in the RCW there were extremely few occasions where that applied.

I seem to recall the Reds having them at Kakhovka, but that was one of the few assaults of a fortified position.

"Almost no mortars"

Oh good, saw a BoB battle report with mortars but I was really questioning this.

One thing to watch out for is that the Russians have two different words for howitzers. There's гаубица (gaubitsa) which is the main one, but shorter barrel high arc ones are called мортира (mortira) which the dictionaries translate as "mortar", but in the sense of the medieval type of mortar, not the modern sort.

An infantry mortar, which I presume is what you are asking about, is generally a миномет (minomet) which is the equivalent to the old "bomb thrower" as they were called in WWI. But also very occasionally people will call them мортира, especially if it is a big one.

Using on-line translators will give examples of "mortars" that should really be short barreled "howitzers" in English. There were more of these in the RCW, though they were still not common.