The Manchurian War

This was my AAR from a playtest of the RJW modifications for the Bloody Big Battles rules that was a fought before I started this blog. I decided to go ahead and post it as I prepare for another RJW game.

This was my second test battle for modifying the Bloody Big Battles (BBB) rules for the Russo-Japanese War. The war saw the large scale use of smokeless powder which increased range and accuracy of weapons and introduced the wide-scale use of indirect fire and machine guns; factors that didn’t exist in earlier wars. Additionally the larger RJW battles were multi-day/multi-week affairs that presaged the battles of WW1. Modifications to the BBB rules requires that these new developments be integrated into the rule system without losing the simplicity that BBB offers.

The historic battle of Ta-shih-chiao was fought on 24 July 1904 by the Russian Southern Detachment and the Japanese 2nd Army. The battle was a Japanese operational success due more to the Russian orders not to engage in a decisive battle than Japanese tactical finesse. Unlike the earlier battles of the Yalu and Te-li-ssu, Ta-shih-chiao established a pattern that generally defined the tactics used for the remaining battles of the war. 

The playtest of the RJW modifications for BBB offered a mixed bag. Most of the main modifications were well exercised while some of the lesser modifications that are unique to this particular war were glossed over. This latter situation was mainly due both to the players’ lack of familiarity with the rules, knowing the evolution of tactics during the war, and my failure to ensure the rules were followed.  

Figures used for the battle were my Baccus Austrians from 1866 and Danes from 1864 as I hadn’t yet decided on proxies for the Russians and Japanese. Baccus doesn’t make a dedicated Russo-Japanese War line and the uniforms and artillery were distinct enough that no manufacture makes anything close. The war also requires dismounted cavalry figures as dismounts figure proximately is several battles. [Comment: Since this battle I have assembled a RJW Russian and Japanese Army so future battles will see a better representation of the armies on the tabletop.]

Both sides used the historical deployments, although the Japanese side stated they had considered focusing more of the Japanese forces on the open western flank. I will return to that point later on. 

The Forces.

The initial set-up.

All four Japanese divisions advanced simultaneously against their opposite foes. While all the divisions positioned and unlimbered their artillery, two regiments of the Japanese 1st Artillery Brigade remained limbered (four stands). This reduced the Japanese superiority in artillery to nearly parity with the Russians during the first three turns. The Japanese 5.Div. occupied Tang￾chih in the east, but the Russian horse battery prevented it from continuing its advance north out of the village. In the center, the three other divisions advanced but the Russian artillery fire slowed that movement. In the west, the Japanese 1.Cavalry Bde and the Siberian Cossack Div charged each other. As it was historically, the Cossacks badly handled the Japanese cavalry and rendered it combat ineffective. The Japanese player was unaware that it was better to dismount the Japanese cavalry rather than engage in mounted combat. As the Japanese cavalry brigade was the only unit in the battle with machine-guns, that mod would remain untested. Facing the Japanese advanced, the Russians decided to abandon one forward entrenched position which created a salient in the Russian main position. 

Rather than tackling one of the shoulders of the salient, the Japanese 6.Div pushed into the gap between the 1.ESRD and 9.ESRD while the 4.Div to its west advanced towards Nui-hsin-shan which anchored the Russian right. The Russian bde in the village, supported by a battery of artillery managed to keep the 4.Div at bay, while the Sib. Coss. began to threaten its open flank. The 6.Div was beginning to take a beating as it pushed into the salient but was threatening to break through the defense. The Japanese 3.Div was being held by the well entrenched 3.SibDiv.

Finally the two regiments of the Japanese 1.Art Bde came into action and began to support the 6.Div. At the same time, the 3.Div was shifted west to support the 6.Div. The 4.Div was now split to face both the Russians in Nui-hsin-shan and the Cossacks on the left flank. By occupying a position behind the railway tracks and positioning an artillery unit, the Japanese quickly nullified the Cossack threat. The 3.Div pushed through the 6.Div and supported by artillery stormed the eastern side of the salient, defeating the 9.ESRD units holding those trenches. In the east, the 5.Div was able to push out of Tang-chih and stormed up the hills to force Mishchenko’s Mixed Cossack Div. out of their entrenchments. This uncovered the Russian left.

The Japanese attack was finally gaining some success but came too late. All the Japanese units were worn down with no remaining reserves (very historical), while the Russian 3.SibDiv was still intact. The Japanese decided that there was little more they could do and called the game after the 8th turn (1600). 

While the open western part of the terrain was inviting, the ability of both the Russian and Japanese artillery to inflict great punishment on units moving in the open is why almost the major fighting during the war happened in the hills and mountains. The exception, the Japanese 3rd Army’s successful western operational envelopment at Mukden, happened because the Russians reacted poorly and late. If Rennenkampf’s force had remained in the west, the chances were good that Nogi’s movement would have been identified earlier in and battle and likely indecisive. 

Modifications that worked well.  – The ranges, fire factors, and movement. Scaling everything to the ground scale worked well. An  initial concern was whether the small arms range of 6” was too little, but with the increased range of the artillery, it all meshed together.  – I kept the fire factors for the BLA and only spread them out for the increased range of smokeless powder. This worked. – The EQF factors were just expanded off the BLA factors.   – Movement under artillery fire is punishing. The effect was exaggerated as the players didn’t use/forgot the 6” and rifle pits rule.  – Defensive line/defensive reaction. These worked well. – Indirect fire worked well.  

Mods that need more thought – Bypassed. The Russians had to roll for this three times during the battle, successfully making each roll. I tried to leverage the existing Movement Table (which acts as a Morale Table) but it didn’t create the effect I was looking for (too easy to pass). I am now thinking a simple 2-6 roll fails, 7-12 passes, with a -1 if disrupted and -2 if spent (-3 if both). I don’t think passive or fragile needs to be included as the test is already mandatory for Russians. Needs more testing. 

Mods that weren’t tested.  – Movement with rifle pits.  – Night recovery.

Rules that need to be written. – Night attacks. I have them fully fleshed out, just need to write them down for testing.  – Coordination between artillery of different forces. All the reports from military observers I have in my library (reports from seven different countries) all commented on how well the artillery of the I Siberian Army Corps supported the IV Siberian Army Corps. In the test game artillery stands from one corps could fire in support of the other corps as long as there was a valid LOS from a unit of the same corps as the artillery. This allowed the Russian player to combine fires from different corps onto the same target. Rereading some of the reports once again after the battle, I feel this was a bit too liberal. 

What is likely needed is two rules. The first needs to be something that requires artillery to only fire at targets that are a threat to that higher force. IBWs, able to only fire at enemy targets that are in a force’s sector/zone. Those readers with a military background should understand this, that one doesn’t fire outside one’s sector/zone without coordination. The mechanism for that level of coordination didn’t exist during the RJW (or most of WW1). The challenge is to write a simple rule that gains most of that end state. 

Given the rule above, the second rule is that artillery stands from different forces (defined by the scenario, but likely Russian Corps, Japanese divisions) can’t combined fires onto a single target. Using the observer reports, it appears the coordination was asking the artillery of the 1 SAC to fire on targets that the artillery of the IV SAC couldn’t engage (either due to terrain or lack of available artillery), not combining fires. This is straight forward and easy to write. 

Uncomfortable problems.

The Ying/Yang balance that must be achieved is stand removal in the firefight vice the need to survive to enter the assault. IBWs units must be delayed/prevent by firepower to close-up to an enemy position in a single day, but must have substantial surviving strength to assault that night/next day. In my F&F modifications, this was achieved by large units (a stand = a company, so a regiment was anywhere between 12-16 stands), and the Night Recovery (automatic recovery of a number of lost stands). The first isn’t practical given the desire for BBB to play on smallish tables, the latter means battles must go on for more that a single day (which is actually a good representation of RJW and WW1 battles) requiring more player time.

It is unlikely that this gordian knot of a small table and limited gamer playing time can be successfully cut and have the game come close to something resembling history for the RJW. I have been thinking through the Liao-yang scenario. Even by breaking the battle into three components (outer southern, outer eastern and then inner), you will require multiple game days for each of these phases. 

The smaller battles that occurred between May-August 1904 can certainly be played within these constraints, but Liao-yang and beyond will require breaking these parameters if one wishes to fight the full meal deal.