"Cavalry in action 1914: a Great War Spearhead game" Topic

Some 20mm cavalry action 1914

link

Ngā mihi
Robin

Looks pretty cool. I love that WWI stuff!

Nice

I like the way he combined mounted and dismounted figures on one stand. Makes them more versatile.

Nice scenario, well designed.

Great, Robin. Meeting engagements between cavalry in 1914 often involved smaller forces per a GWSH-size table. They were often more spread out, particularly on the eastern front.

Robert

Thanks Robert.. neither of us really got our heads around how to create and use a cavalry screen though. Next time …
R

I don't think you need any changes to mimic a cavalry screen. From loads of primary source documents, it is clear that such screens existed often up to 10s of kilometres in advance of main body. It is equally clear that reports from such screens were difficult to interpret and made no difference to the progressive advance as ordered. It was only when the main body of enemy was contacted that order changes were considered. This is entirely consistent with GWSH rule mechanics. The game played out as I would have expected from historical accounts.

Robert

Robert
I agree with your comment about the end result.

That said, the German cavalry were too thin on the ground.A screen with one (reinforced) brigade, the other wit reserve orders, might have been better. The Russians approached with all three brigades in columns.. one probably ought t have been dispersed across a wider frontage to locate any enemy, with one brigade in reserve… just some thoughts.
R

Robin, you have raised two important tactical considerations. The first is around the concept of 'screen'. My initial response related to the most advanced screen, typically comprising small officer patrols. You have raised the next level of screen, which is provided by the advanced guard and behind which the main body is able to advance in the near certain knowledge that an ambush is extremely unlikely. It should be recalled, however, that the main body of cavalry was operating as the screen for the main body of the army following many kilometres back. This consideration is not directly relevant to your scenario but can have indirect implications.

The second consideration is that the German cavalry force was significantly smaller than the enemy. This below-strength Order of Battle is known to the German commander of course. In GWSH, the German commander may or may not know the respective size of the Russian cavalry force, depending on whether the OOB has been shared. Regardless, the German commander must plan according to the size and likely capability of his forces, taking the terrain into account. If there was complete Fog of War then the German commander must expect an enemy force of superior (to his force) numbers. Likely the enemy will have a full strength division for example. In Eastern Front games, there is always the possibility that the Russians will turn out to be Green. This will somewhat nullify the difference in numbers but it is not wise to plan for such benefits. Your game illustrated this very point. I am sure the result of the in-game Russian morale die roll was a worry to the German commander ;-)

Terrain can be a force-multiplier for the German commander. Looking at the pre-game table setup (thank you very much for the photos) then the river is the obvious terrain feature of importance. The key is to force the Russian cavalry to suffer from the inevitable delays in crossing the river other than by bridge(s). Control of the bridge/village was vital, as the German commander planned. In practice, the attached Jäger would usually be given this job. The other German forces can position behind the river with sufficient distance to engage any Russian cavalry that try to cross the river itself. If the Germans cross the river then they fight with their backs to it, which is not ideal. Choosing to do so but using the woods/high ground on the German left flank was the other way to maximise the benefit of terrain.

From actual accounts, the knowledge that the German cavalry were simply screening the following main force meant that if engaged by significantly greater forces then the German commander would conduct a fighting withdrawal. Cavalry typically withdrew from the battlefield anyway because of the issues with logistics, especially feeding and watering the horses.

Robert

Robert
Thanks for that… I feel that when you use the phrase advanced guard you probably more accurately reflect what I was trying to achieve with the scenario. The victory condition requiring each commander to exit a brigade on the diagonally opposite corner was my attempt at simulating efforts to break through what might have been perceived as a the 'screen' to uncover the main force that lay somewhere behind.
R

That makes sense, Robin. In practice, independent cavalry divisions or corps usually would not try and uncover the enemy main force behind their independent cavalry. In the scenario you posted, each independent cavalry force was likely to be 10-20 km ahead of their respective main forces. This would be 2-4 table lengths away from the respective table edges. The operational assumption was that when independent cavalry forces made contact then the main forces were likely to the distances back.

Independent cavalry forces had to withdraw back at night, often up to 10 km from any battle line so that there was sufficient distance to prevent sudden ambush at night and, more importantly, to enable logistics to catch up with horse feed, etc. There were examples when independent cavalry got this wrong. The Battle of Nèry occurred in 1914 because the German cavalry division did not have sufficient recon and outposts to know that the British were so close.

Main forces were preceded by advanced recon forces, such as divisional cavalry and cyclists. These operated many kilometres in front of the advanced guard force, which was often battalion size. You can see how the main force would pick up from the independent cavalry, enabling them to find the open flanks of the enemy rather than keep chasing to find the enemy main force.

All that said, the objective of both commanders who are entering the table with no knowledge of the enemy being close by will be to get to the opposite corner. This matches the victory conditions if no enemy came on-table. Once an enemy is in play then it might be worth considering alternative victory conditions based on damage inflicted rather than on geography. A German win the current scenario is only likely IMHO if the German commander draws the Russian force onto terrain of key importance, drains the Russian force and either inflicts a draw or manages to cause the Russian force to collapse completely (unlikely).

Robert