Battle of the Wadi, 13 January 1916
Some images for Paul.
(http://www.lightbobs.com/uploads/9/2/1/3/9213075/4701969_orig.jpg)
(http://www.michaelscott.name/ww1/images/maps/Battle-of-the-Wadi.jpg)
The satellite image displays true north. Water courses can change but the present positions of the river and the wadi make the battle map look little more than a sketch.
(http://www.michaelscott.name/ww1/images/maps/Battle-of-the-Wadi%20sat01.JPG)
The Imperial command had expected the Turks to hold a position in the Hanna Defile with their left flank protected by the Suwacha Marsh and were heartened when they discovered that the Turks had otherwise taken a position with their left flank open to the desert.
Sounds like an interesting little scrap.
Have fun
Many thanks Michael
It certainly sounds a more interesting scrap than most of the battles at this time which seem to have involved the Indian troops walking slowly towards the dug in Turkish machine guns, some times wading through flood waters
Plenty of clogging, clinging mud in the continuous rain as the battle came to an end.
The Relief of Kut was a project I was keen on doing way back when. I made conversions to use as Black Watch and Seaforth Highlanders. Those are the ones still on hold at Pendraken HQ. The project is still on hold for me as what would a Relief of Kut be to a Scotsman without Highlanders?
As you say, Sheikh Saad is also a consideration for a January '16 anniversary. Cavalry on both open flanks with fighting on both banks of the river.
Quote from: WeeWars on 12 December 2015, 09:32:10 PM
As you say, Sheikh Saad is also a consideration for a January '16 anniversary. Cavalry on both open flanks with fighting on both banks of the river.
The fighting on the right bank on 7 January looks interesting and a manageable size
28th Indian Brigade Major-General George Vero Kemball
2nd Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment
51st Sikhs (Frontier Force)
53rd Sikhs (Frontier Force)
56th Punjabi Rifles (Frontier Force)
62nd Punjabis (temporarily attached)
92nd Punjabis (in support)
With say one battery of 9th Brigade R.F.A and a Heavy battery firing off table
The Leicestershires and artillery would be Jolly Good Fellow and the Indians probably Havildar Heroes (particularly as they are fighting over the same ground as the day before)
Kemball seems to be a Harrow level commander
Ottoman 35th Division
103rd Infantry Regiment (3 battalions)
104th Infantry Regiment (3 battalions)
With say two batteries of 7,7cm in support and a company of MGs per regiment
The artillery would be Mehmetciks, the infantry would be a mix of Johnny Turk and Pasaha Bashers
Nureddin Pasha seems to be a Young Turk commander
Any input on the morale/command ratings or the scenario in general would be appreciated.
I hope the rest of the forum don't mind me developing a scenario in this thread.
You'll need Arab horsemen on that side of the river.
The Turks were Ozmanlis, well organised and led and, what was more important, they came flushed with success from their recent victory at Gallipoli.
The Turks had 4 guns south of the river.
Kemball seems to be a stolid subordinate as he was later unwilling to grab a cheap victory. Instead, sticking with the rigidity of the orders he'd been given.
The British soldiers stood up better to the extremes of the Mesopotamian conditions than the Indian troops and far fewer of them fell ill.
Forum members might be surprised to hear that although this is desert warfare, it was so cold at night that the Suwacha Marsh froze over. Many wounded died of exposure.
Thanks Michael, any idea how many Arab horsemen?
With the Turks that good I would rate them as Johnny Turk and use the 104th Infantry Regiment (3 battalions) and 105th Infantry Regiment (2 battalions).
I need to have a test game to see how hard it would be to push them out of their trenches if they are rated Mehmetciks.
Harrow sounds about right for Kemball.
Given the figures I have available I'm planning on using dismounted cavalry for the Punjabis which means they will only have three companies of three stands. The remaining Imperial battalions will be four companies of three stands. This will also reflect the casualties suffered on 6 January.
Quote from: paulr on 13 December 2015, 05:41:58 PM
Thanks Michael, any idea how many Arab horsemen?
I doubt even the Turks knew. These may be the guys the Turks feared the most when they got separated from their units. You might treat them less as a fighting force and more as an annoying presence on the flank. On my map, they appear to be doing a good job of funnelling the Imperial infantry towards the four Turkish guns. For spotting, though, they are placed to the rear of the Turkish cavalry - and CAMELRY. Turkish camelry? Yes, please, Pendraken. Or there is that camel rider I converted which would do just fine. :'(
Quote from: paulr on 13 December 2015, 05:41:58 PM
Harrow sounds about right for Kemball.
I think you may be being too kind. It sounds like his juniors were far more inspired. But he may have been confident so long as he was carrying out his orders to the letter. He should have very little opportunity to divert from his orders.
Thanks again Michael
any chance of you posting the map :-[
Perhaps I could use a squadron of Turkish cavalry :-\
So Kemball should count as a "Lord Melchet" then :o That's going to make it hard to control 6 battalions ~X(
Yet another question, had the Imperial forces in Mesopotamia brigaded the machine guns by January 1916 or were they still assigned to the battalions?
Making good progress on the Sheikh Sa'ad scenario :)
I have found a copy of a sketch map of the battle and quite a bit of info :) :)
Any information on commanders of the Ottoman 35th Division, particularly 1 & 15 Regiments would be gratefully received
Quote from: paulr on 13 December 2015, 07:45:39 PM
Yet another question, had the Imperial forces in Mesopotamia brigaded the machine guns by January 1916 or were they still assigned to the battalions?
My guess is no. New tactics took time to reach the Middle East.
Thanks, give the shuffling of battalions between Brigades that makes sense.
(http://www.michaelscott.name/ww1/images/maps/Battle-of-Sheikh-Saad.jpg)
(http://www.michaelscott.name/ww1/images/maps/Sheikh%20Saad%20sat01.JPG)
The Imperial crossing point.
(http://www.michaelscott.name/ww1/images/maps/Imperial%20Crossing,%20Sheikh%20Saad.JPG)
Thanks again, that is a better quality image of the map than I managed to find online ;)
Second test game for Sheikh Sa'ad successfully completed. I did come up with one question that I have posted to the TFL Yahoo group
I'm doing some test games for a demo game in late January, part of day 2 of Sheikh Sa'ad in Mesopotamia, roughly 100 years on.
One situation I have had a couple of times now is an Ottoman company spread out along a trench line being attacked by two British or Indian companies.
I can see at least three ways to handle this, there may be others:
1. count each side as one unit and apply the combat calculator modifiers
2. split the Ottoman company in two and fight two close combats, applying the close combat calculator modifiers to both parts of the Ottomans and each attacking company
3. apply the close combat modifiers to each company and split the Ottoman dice against the two attacking company
Which is the correct way?
Thoughts from any of the ITLSU players here welcome as well.
You're right, there aren't any obvious Multiple Combat rules. Use ITLSU's mantra 'The key unit in these rules is base.' Don't handle any two units (especially with different ratings) as one unit. Split the outnumbered unit in two and use one die per base. Question would be: do you also split any suppression points? I would, seems fair.
In this case, I would add both attacking units' Spunk Ratings to the defending unit's Willingness to Fight throw. So the outnumbered defenders may simply surrender before any multiple combats.
Thanks Michael, so you are suggesting 2a.
Quote from: WeeWars on 28 December 2015, 01:47:10 PM
Question would be: do you also split any suppression points? I would, seems fair.
I hadn't thought of that, I assumed that the suppressions would apply equally to both parts of the defender, similarly to an attached MG :-\
Quote from: WeeWars on 28 December 2015, 01:47:10 PM
In this case, I would add both attacking units' Spunk Ratings to the defending unit's Willingness to Fight throw. So the outnumbered defenders may simply surrender before any multiple combats.
I used the best Spunk rating not both, you subtract the attackers spunk rating so using both would make the defender more likely to stand (unless they were both Diggers) :-\
As combat is in bases, it seems appropriate to split the bases. As kill and suppression is taken on either a troop base or attached MG, it seems appropriate to also split suppression modifiers when the troop bases split. However as with the rule mechanics not being able to cope with reaction to two charging units, the assumption probably is that full suppression is applied all round.
Nevertheless, it would seem that the rules assume that combat is always unit v unit and that any other units are treated as flank support - flank support that has no effect on reaction to being attacked. That may be the way to go. Except, of course, that chargers will be moving...
What are the sizes and formations of your units in this situation?
Typically it has been a company of Ottomans of 3 stands charged by two companies of Indians of 3 stands each.
The Ottomans have been spread out in the trench to cover ground so cover about 5". Five of the Indians can attack the front and the 6th counts as an overlap.
In my test games I have attacked with two companies up and the second two companies make the charge...