"What If? Russian Invasion of India Question" Topic

I'd like to include my 1880s Russian colonial collection in a Northwest Frontier game, along with Pathan tribesmen and British Indian Army. I generally prefer to stick to historic scenarios, but I realize this is complete fiction. Which side does the colonial hive think the Afghan tribesmen would support? I doubt the Afghans would take kindly to the Russian occupation, same as they did 100 years later. In that case the Russians would have to fight the British while dealing with Afghan attacks along their lines of communication. On the other hand, it's possible that the tribesman could hold a grudge against the British after the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War and ally themselves with the Russians, at least temporarily. I also think there's a strong possibility that the Afghans would do nothing, wait until one side or the other was victorious, and then plunder the losing side.

Research the Duhamel plan. Proposed idea for such an invasion during the Crimean War period. Will give you insight regarding Russian approach and thoughts confronting such an invasion. You might also look at the The Khrulev plan which was similar, but called for using troops raised from central asian area as the main component and supported by a smaller number of regular Russian army forces.

Morning Scout,

Thank you very much. I might move the scenario to the 1850s.

Flashman took care of the 1850s.

Any invasion would most likely follow the parameters set forth in these plans. Little in approach would have changed for the Russians by in the 1890s, other than having less of a problem with the French and Turks. Almost forgot, it might be worth looking at the Russian afghan incursions during the 1880s, for some additional ideas on the subject.

Is it reasonable to think that there would have been Afghan factions on both sides?

There are opportunities looking at the 1880s

For one – with the building and expansions of the Trans-Caspian Railroad (Herat, Merv and other border locations) – allowing for the projection of the military more into Central Asia.

Second – In 1885 Russian troops were increased at Penjdeh opposite the Afghan province of Maimana over a minor border adjustment in Russia's favor. There was a very small battle of the annexation.

Third – Russian General Kuropatkin wrote a paper covering politics, alliances, and military requirements about a potential Invasion of India – The British Published the paper in 1904 link – not sure when it was written but there is a British Analysis of it in 1886 "Analysis of General Kuropatkin's Scheme for the Invasion of India" by Captain J.M. Grierson, R.A

Note there is plenty of information in the paper if one want to game it out.

The British and Russian 1884 Afghan Border Commission and subsequent commissions up until 1895 looking at the northern Border .

A few documents that might help –
-The Russian Railway To Herat And India (1883)
-The Legend of the Great Game Malcolm Yapp (2001)
-Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia, 1810-1895
Morgan, Gerald (1981)
-The Imperial Security State: British Colonial Knowledge and Empire-Building in Asia by James Hevia (2012)
-The Coming Struggle for India: Being an Account of the Encroachments of Russia in Central Asia and of the Difficulties Sure to Arise Therefrom to England
By Árminius Vámbéry (1885)
-Analysis of General Kuropatkin's Scheme for the Invasion of India.' By J.M. Grierson, Captain, R.A. (1886)

The Afghan tribesmen will support the Afghan tribesmen, i.e. whatever seems most advantageous at the moment – not a lot of love for either Brits or Russians – so like advocate sez, probably some Afghans on both sides

The article that Disaster Wargamer posted is to the point – not only would the Russians have to push troops thru tough terrain, they would have to feed them – no easy task!

I am amazed that any Russian general in the 1800s thought it would be feasible or worthwhile to send an actual army into India via Afghanistan in pursuit of any anti-British scheme. I can't think of any more hostile, vast territory in order to accomplish … what, exactly? Traverse pugnacious Afghanistan and what do you find? And even larger and more diverse subcontinent PLUS a capable Indian Army PLUS British regulars. It don't make any sense to me.

If the Russians want to stir up trouble for Britain in India, or Afghanistan, I have to think it is done thru subterfuge and alliances and bribes to local princes and the like and using proxy forces. Foment rebellions. Subsidize jihads. Send arms and advisors. Tie up British forces on the Frontier. Anything beyond looks hopeless to me.

They could instead cause far more problems in Europe and with far less effort. Shoot, just come to terms with France and/or Germany and Great Britain would be under serious threat. Why bother with South Asia?

But wargaming scenarios don't have to make sense. Go ahead and have fun, create some plausible fictional background, like we all do all the time anyway. It's some other Earth!

History has shown us since Alexander that anyone can conquer Afghanistan. We did that! USA! USA!
History has also shown us that nobody can hold it. We didn't. Should have asked the Russians and British. Don't blame Biden for that. Blame Clio, the Muse of History.

@Piper
My buddy Jim has Russians for the Boxer Rebellion.
I had Afghans for the usual NW Frontier stuff.
Guess what? You win!

Wanted to add a bit on the 1885 battle

Battle known under a couple of Names Kushka or Panjdeh and involved the Pul-I-Khishti Bridge

Some information from wikipedia and others
link

Translate from Russian on Google Translate link
Some good information on strengths – Also refers to Tribal alliances – "Local Turkmen – tribes of Saryks and Tekins – triumphed. They hated Afghans and rejoiced at their defeat"

link
link

Enjoy gaming the Great Game – both early and later periods

We all mock Napoleon for invading Russia and thinking he could conquer it, or force the Czar into accepting terms. I think the topper to that would be a Russian Grande Armee trying to traverse the highest mountain ranges on earth, force their way thru hostile tribesmen who are equipped with similar small arms and know the terrain, and then debouch into a huge expanse of land (with new tropical diseases and environments) with more millions of potential enemies, along with European and European-trained troops. That would make Napoleon's 1812 gambit seem rational by comparison.

"Supply lines? What supply lines?"
"We've been reduced to eating Afghans, Sir."

"And mighty tough they are."

Supply caused the Russians major problems during the Crimea campaign. Simply getting large bodies of troops across Russia took a great deal more time and resources than central government appreciated (or were prepared to spend). How much worse would it be going beyond their borders into what was effectively trackless terrain with barely adequate fodder for the local livestock.

As I understand it the Trans-Caspian Railway – initially a military venture was to help shore up the supply chain as Russia consolidated their central asian areas.

Though no doubt would have created issues going much further than they did

There was something who took place between Fachoda and the Boer War at the time of French-Russian Alliance when Russia whished to support France against Great Britain

during the crisis for Fachoda a Brigade was mobilized in Caucasus but early 1899 it was planned to concentrate a first line of 100 000 men on the borders of Afghanistan, taking into account that a potential major war against India would require the commitment of much larger forces.

A reorganization of the command envisioned the creation of new army corps: the 2nd Caucasus, Transcaspian, and Turkestan and railway equipment, logistical and medical supplies had been pushed to within four stages of Herat. In April 1899, a veritable concentration plan was outlined, with the Transcaspian and Turkestan army corps potentially being moved between Day+10 and D+20 towards Kushk and the southern region of Samarkand, while a Caucasus corps, in a second line, would reach the Ashkabad-Merv region between Day+14 and D+26.

Other forces, normally intended for the Western Front (against Germany or Austria-Hungary), were to be assembled in the Eastern Caucasus: the 23rd Corps, the 3rd Grenadiers Division, and 1st Cavalry Division between Vladikavkaz, Petrovsk, and Baku.

The success is closely tied to the state of railway communications, the Russian government considers the construction of the Railway from Orenburg to Tashkent essential; it is also exerting strong pressure on France to obtain its financial support; it should be noted that the decision to build the railway will be made in December 1899.

At the end of December 1899,the French military attaché learned that a brigade of Caucasian riflemen had been mobilized and dispatched to Tiflis, and that an observation corps, potentially numbering around twenty battalions, was being organized at Kushk. However, the situation was no longer related to the Fashoda Crisis but to the Anglo-Boer conflict; and the Russians were now seeking to provide indirect support to the Boers by attempting to limit the withdrawal of troops from the Indian Army for the benefit of the South African theater.

while in France it existed some plans to launch expeditions to invade Great Britain to take London, the French Military Attaché noted that Great Britain was then
at the mercy of a vigorous coup de main and could not resist to the Danish army this last one being the smallest army in Europe with Montenegro not counting the five micro-states

Wot everyone else said.

The Amir of Afghanistan might ally with the Russians or he might ally with the British.

The Afghan tribesmen however, they would fight everyone, or they might fight whoever the Amir was fighting…

Personally I would have 1/3 fight the Russians, 1/3 fight the British and the rest fight with the Amir.

So, for the Russians I would assume large garrison town on the edge of their Empire, with them attempting to run supply convoys up to where the main army is pushing forward towards Kabul or Jellalibad.

The thought of Afghan cavalry fighting with Cossacks just sounds brilliant. It's a campaign I have thought about a lot…

Interesting stuff, Lilian!

Royston,
Yes, a campaign of Russians vs. Afghanis would be a nice change of pace from British vs. Afghanis. As you say, the Cossacks would be formidable foes, able to match the local cavalry in many ways the Anglo-Indians could not, perhaps.

OFM, Clio warned successive US Presidents--and generals--who kept clapping their hands over their ears and shouting "this time is different!"

I think Royston has the right of it, pretty much: no Russian invasion without support from such central government as Afghanistan had at the moment, but no supply convoy would be able to move safely without a strong escort. As for the effect on India, I can't see Russia initiating such an invasion without some hope of elements in India rising against the British, and the trick of a campaign will be to hit the right balance. If all the Raj stands in support of the Great White Queen, it's going to be a very short campaign. If the bulk of native forces rise to overthrow English rule--well, the Russians will have troubles, but for the British, it might be the world's largest noncombatant evacuation exercise. Somewhere in between are a series of battles--British and Indian regiments against Russians, Afghans and Mutineers. Good luck finding the right numbers for the Indian Regiments Loyalty Table.

OFM, Clio warned successive US Presidents--and generals--who kept clapping their hands over their ears and shouting "this time is different!"

"This time is different!"
Yeah. That's why all those Plans sitting in drawers in The Pentagon are nothing but Busy Work for those career officers who are waiting for actual field commands to open.

Did the Russians or British try to stop local Police Chiefs from ing little boys? Or starting schools for little girls? I think not, but WE did, by gum!
Because this time it's different!

As a guy who used to produce plan fodder, OFM, it's not busy work, even if the plan is never executed.

1. Proper intel work has probably prevented more bad ideas from becoming actual wars than any one of us will ever know. (The trick seems to be to make people aware of the facts of life before the rush to war has built up serious momentum. Much harder afterward.)
2. Even if someone actually presses the button on a seriously bad idea, there's professional execution and amateur hour. Those "busy work" plans mean that someone knows languages spoken, tribal allegiences, political structures, port and rail capacities, lengths of runways, energy grids, communications networks and most--never all--of the thousand other things which can mean death and defeat to soldiers far from home. You can't do that--not well--in the couple of weeks between the President being upset with someone and the aircraft carriers being within striking range.
If I had my way, we'd have a good current plan on every country we're not prohibited from collecting on by treaty. Most will never be used--but which ones? Most of us won't need our smoke detectors or burglar alarms. You know, I was actually typing "99% of those plans will be unnecessary" When I started counting. I put on a uniform in 1972, and turned in my last badge in 2015. In that time, I think we needed the information in about 10% of those plans--more if you count the SOF--and it was hardly ever the ones we were seriously worried about a year earlier.

If you think good planning is expensive, check the price of ignorance some day.

For what it's worth, my plan for Afghanistan was either (1) in and out in six months, and tell them we'd come back if the al Quaeda did, or (2) Have our Green Berets train the women--widows in particular--and send them after the Taliban, paying them for heads. If you want to revolutionize a country, you make the revolution and stop cutting deals with people the locals already tossed out once.