It's a hard life being a wargames oligarch. True, there are worse places to be quarantined than on the BBB megayacht. But when the panic buying broke out, it put serious strain on the helicopters, and I was forever tripping over the hoarded champagne and caviar. And while I can't fault the bevy of BBBBabes for their athleticism, their conversational talents are limited.
It has therefore been a relief to be diverted by Play-By-Email wargaming (PBEM). Our previous online excursion was to the Battle of Nachod, from the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. (See my blog post about it here.) The natural sequel to this is the Battle of Skalitz.* After his success against Ramming's Austrian VI Corps at Nachod, the Prussian General Steinmetz forged ahead toward Skalitz the next day. There his 5th Corps encountered Archduke Leopold's Austrian VIII Corps, the rear guard covering the rest of the Austrian army as it moved northwest. A disjointed delaying action ensued, culminating in another bloody defeat for the Austrians.
As Nachod and Skalitz form a nice pair of battles - a 'micro-campaign', as you might say - it made obvious sense to keep the same teams of players. Thus OWS provided the Prussian high command again, while the South Oxfordshire Generals (SOGs) supplied the Austrians.
Both sides commenced hostilities with bold plans. The Prussians had first move, and despite starting with only four regiments on the pitch, promptly diverted one on a long left hook to threaten Skalitz station behind the Austrian right flank. The Austrians responded by having all three of their brigades advance toward the central woods. They had already committed the whole of their jaeger screen to the Eichwald. They also moved all their guns toward the central rise, which proved judicious: once deployed there, they were in constant action for the rest of the battle.
The Prussian artillery was less fortunate. One Austrian regiment in column of march raced so rapidly toward the Prussian right that von Loewenfeld's artillery was caught exposed and had to evade back to the Schafberg, while the advance guard's guns ventured too close to the Austrian jaegers and were similarly forced to pull back again. This set the tone for the battle, as the Prussian guns spent much of it out of position or even isolated and unable to redeploy. This nullified what should have been the Prussians' significant advantage in numbers of guns.
The Prussians' initial probe into the Eichwald was therefore rebuffed with some casualties at the hands of the jaegers. Adapting audaciously to the Austrians massing in the centre, the Prussians added a right hook to the left hook already under way, creating a double envelopment. Von Loewenfeld's right flank detachment shifted its weight away from the woods and toward Zlitsch, while making Fragnern pay a heavy price for committing himself in the open at the start. An Austrian regiment was spent, and the Austrians found themselves having to react to threats behind both flanks. It was at this point, on Turn 4 - with the full weight of the Prussian 10th Division about to enter the fray as well - that the Austrian CinC said 'I can feel the game slipping away'.
But then the Austrians enjoyed several turns of consistent favour from the dice gods. Despite their poor command and control, on both flanks they managed to get regiments to respond just in time, fall back or pivot, and forestall the Prussians getting into the objectives there (Skalitz station in the south, and part of the village of Zlitsch in the north). Although they suffered heavy casualties, these were not as heavy as they should have been, given the superior Prussian rifles and tactics. As for the Prussians, they struggled to get their troops to move, and their repeated assaults in the Eichwald were repulsed every time by the jaegers' fire, despite these having run low on ammunition early in the action.
The scenario is 9 turns long but provides for the Prussians to achieve an early victory if they take 3 objectives by turn 6 or 4 by turn 8. (This forces the Austrians to put up at least some fight for the central woods, as they did historically.) In our game, the Prussians never came close to these. It was not until Turn 9 that they finally took their first and only objective, wiping out Fragnern's Austrian brigade and rampaging through Zlitsch.
In game terms, then, it was an emphatic Austrian victory, leaving the Austrians as clear 2-0 victors in our micro-campaign. Looking at the outcome of the battle, the Austrian players managed a better casualty ratio than their historical counterparts, at around 2.5:1 against them rather than the horrendous 4:1 in the actual battle. The game result still left Archduke Leopold's corps seriously battered; he was also in a rather awkward situation, with the bulk of his force committed in or around the Eichwald, and von Loewenfeld's Prussian force now behind his left flank. However, Steinmetz's corps was also in poor shape by now, so perhaps Leopold would have got away OK - he'd managed to preserve some cavalry to cover his withdrawal - and he had certainly held up Steinmetz much more successfully than happened on the day.
The degree of the Austrian players' success owed a fair amount to the dice, but still, their plan was sound and well-executed. The Prussian plan was also a viable one that came close to succeeding. However, partly through luck, partly through skill or judgement by one side or the other, the Prussians did not manage to make best use of their superior firepower: the dice were unkind; much of their preponderant artillery was out of action for much of the time; and because of time pressure, 10th Division never shook out into a proper firing line, instead attempting repeated assaults in depth that proved futile. A critical factor, though, might be said to be one tiny Austrian jaeger unit. This 2-base unit was the Austrians' campaign reward for having won at Nachod, and added about 5% to their force. Thus reinforced, their jaeger screen obtained early success, whose effect snowballed over the course of the game. Had the Austrians not had those extra jaegers, it could have been a very different story. (I did a solo dry run of the scenario without them, in which the Prussians managed an early win on Turn 6.)
This battle and its predecessor, Nachod, produced a most entertaining and instructive micro-campaign. Suitably encouraged, my attention now turns to creating a similar micro-campaign for the other nearby pair of Austro-Prussian border battles at Trautenau and Soor.
(Anyone wanting to see the full blow-by-blow AAR of this game in the form of annotated photos can find it on Colin the Wargamer's blog. The scenario is freely available in the BBB group files.)
*It is a little-known fact that the 1966 centenary ceremony at the railway station that played an important role in the battle inspired Jamaican pop sensations The Ethiopians to pen their hit song, "Last Train to Skalitz". As a result of this, Skalitz lent its name to a whole popular music genre. (Possibly. May need to check my references on that.)
Steinmetz and his Prussians finally reach Skalitz station:
"We apologise for the late arrival of this army corps, due to Austrians on the line."
It has therefore been a relief to be diverted by Play-By-Email wargaming (PBEM). Our previous online excursion was to the Battle of Nachod, from the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. (See my blog post about it here.) The natural sequel to this is the Battle of Skalitz.* After his success against Ramming's Austrian VI Corps at Nachod, the Prussian General Steinmetz forged ahead toward Skalitz the next day. There his 5th Corps encountered Archduke Leopold's Austrian VIII Corps, the rear guard covering the rest of the Austrian army as it moved northwest. A disjointed delaying action ensued, culminating in another bloody defeat for the Austrians.
As Nachod and Skalitz form a nice pair of battles - a 'micro-campaign', as you might say - it made obvious sense to keep the same teams of players. Thus OWS provided the Prussian high command again, while the South Oxfordshire Generals (SOGs) supplied the Austrians.
Both sides commenced hostilities with bold plans. The Prussians had first move, and despite starting with only four regiments on the pitch, promptly diverted one on a long left hook to threaten Skalitz station behind the Austrian right flank. The Austrians responded by having all three of their brigades advance toward the central woods. They had already committed the whole of their jaeger screen to the Eichwald. They also moved all their guns toward the central rise, which proved judicious: once deployed there, they were in constant action for the rest of the battle.
The Prussian artillery was less fortunate. One Austrian regiment in column of march raced so rapidly toward the Prussian right that von Loewenfeld's artillery was caught exposed and had to evade back to the Schafberg, while the advance guard's guns ventured too close to the Austrian jaegers and were similarly forced to pull back again. This set the tone for the battle, as the Prussian guns spent much of it out of position or even isolated and unable to redeploy. This nullified what should have been the Prussians' significant advantage in numbers of guns.
The Prussians' initial probe into the Eichwald was therefore rebuffed with some casualties at the hands of the jaegers. Adapting audaciously to the Austrians massing in the centre, the Prussians added a right hook to the left hook already under way, creating a double envelopment. Von Loewenfeld's right flank detachment shifted its weight away from the woods and toward Zlitsch, while making Fragnern pay a heavy price for committing himself in the open at the start. An Austrian regiment was spent, and the Austrians found themselves having to react to threats behind both flanks. It was at this point, on Turn 4 - with the full weight of the Prussian 10th Division about to enter the fray as well - that the Austrian CinC said 'I can feel the game slipping away'.
But then the Austrians enjoyed several turns of consistent favour from the dice gods. Despite their poor command and control, on both flanks they managed to get regiments to respond just in time, fall back or pivot, and forestall the Prussians getting into the objectives there (Skalitz station in the south, and part of the village of Zlitsch in the north). Although they suffered heavy casualties, these were not as heavy as they should have been, given the superior Prussian rifles and tactics. As for the Prussians, they struggled to get their troops to move, and their repeated assaults in the Eichwald were repulsed every time by the jaegers' fire, despite these having run low on ammunition early in the action.
The scenario is 9 turns long but provides for the Prussians to achieve an early victory if they take 3 objectives by turn 6 or 4 by turn 8. (This forces the Austrians to put up at least some fight for the central woods, as they did historically.) In our game, the Prussians never came close to these. It was not until Turn 9 that they finally took their first and only objective, wiping out Fragnern's Austrian brigade and rampaging through Zlitsch.
In game terms, then, it was an emphatic Austrian victory, leaving the Austrians as clear 2-0 victors in our micro-campaign. Looking at the outcome of the battle, the Austrian players managed a better casualty ratio than their historical counterparts, at around 2.5:1 against them rather than the horrendous 4:1 in the actual battle. The game result still left Archduke Leopold's corps seriously battered; he was also in a rather awkward situation, with the bulk of his force committed in or around the Eichwald, and von Loewenfeld's Prussian force now behind his left flank. However, Steinmetz's corps was also in poor shape by now, so perhaps Leopold would have got away OK - he'd managed to preserve some cavalry to cover his withdrawal - and he had certainly held up Steinmetz much more successfully than happened on the day.
The degree of the Austrian players' success owed a fair amount to the dice, but still, their plan was sound and well-executed. The Prussian plan was also a viable one that came close to succeeding. However, partly through luck, partly through skill or judgement by one side or the other, the Prussians did not manage to make best use of their superior firepower: the dice were unkind; much of their preponderant artillery was out of action for much of the time; and because of time pressure, 10th Division never shook out into a proper firing line, instead attempting repeated assaults in depth that proved futile. A critical factor, though, might be said to be one tiny Austrian jaeger unit. This 2-base unit was the Austrians' campaign reward for having won at Nachod, and added about 5% to their force. Thus reinforced, their jaeger screen obtained early success, whose effect snowballed over the course of the game. Had the Austrians not had those extra jaegers, it could have been a very different story. (I did a solo dry run of the scenario without them, in which the Prussians managed an early win on Turn 6.)
This battle and its predecessor, Nachod, produced a most entertaining and instructive micro-campaign. Suitably encouraged, my attention now turns to creating a similar micro-campaign for the other nearby pair of Austro-Prussian border battles at Trautenau and Soor.
(Anyone wanting to see the full blow-by-blow AAR of this game in the form of annotated photos can find it on Colin the Wargamer's blog. The scenario is freely available in the BBB group files.)
*It is a little-known fact that the 1966 centenary ceremony at the railway station that played an important role in the battle inspired Jamaican pop sensations The Ethiopians to pen their hit song, "Last Train to Skalitz". As a result of this, Skalitz lent its name to a whole popular music genre. (Possibly. May need to check my references on that.)
