Follow by Email

Friday, 16 March 2018

Target for Tonight: Wargaming Lancaster Bomber Raids Against Germany 1942-1944


 
A game for 1 to 6 players about the experience of flying bombing missions over Germany 1942-44.

The RAF and the USAAF dropped 1.6 billion tons of bombs on Germany between 1939 and 1945. The impact on the German war machine was huge, but so was the cost. Over 55,500 Bomber Command crew lost their lives during this campaign.

Each morning the weather and moon state were suitable, target(s) were selected by Bomber Command. Often the orders included the phrase ‘Maximum Effort’ that meant all bombers that had crews were to be part of the attack. A complex series of steps were then initiated to ensure the bombers were in the air, over the target at the appointed hour to deliver their bombs in the shortest possible time. Concentration of the bomber stream was designed to overwhelm the enemy defences.

The game allows the player to assemble their crew, select their target and go through the various stages of the mission. From take-off, over the enemy coast, through the flak zones and onto the target. Key to returning home was avoiding the enemy night-fighters.

The rules are embedded in historical research and include briefings, aide-memoires, maps and period material. Playing the game aims to help the player(s) understand the experience of the crews of Bomber Command a little better.

This book is published by the History of Wargaming Project as an example of experiential learning in the form of a hobby wargame.

The book is available from link and will available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble etc in due course.

Wednesday, 28 February 2018

The Civil Wars of Early Wargaming


The History of Wargaming Project has accrued one of the largest archives of private correspondence from the early days of hobby wargaming 1960-1990. As I continue to collate and digitise the material, I find myself feeling bewildered how wargaming ever managed to survive long enough to become the minority, but well-known and established hobby it is today. It is known by those interested in the development of the hobby, that there were major clashes such as Tony Bath v Don Featherstone, Fred Jane v RN, magazine editor X with Y, American A with American B, etc. Many of the key personalities in early wargaming were at war with each other for intellectual supremacy and hobby domination. They were rude, vitriolic, harsh and unreasonable.
I now realised why Don Featherstone kept his distance from WD and some innovations in the hobby; they would have consumed his time and energy and Don’s key contribution to the hobby of books would have been heavily impacted.

Paddy Griffith was a key innovator in wargaming and military history who inspired many to develop new and interesting ways of wargaming. Paddy launched WD in response to the demise of Don Featherstone’s Wargamer’s Newsletter (Don as was bribed to cease publication, but that is another story). However, Paddy was then on the receiving end of a regular diatribe from random people around the world. Many were just seeking his advice or accessing his vast knowledge based in his head (as this was before Google and the Internet), but some were venting their anger and he was just caught in the cross fire. I am amazed he was so tolerant of their correspondence.
John Davis was a key instigator of large games. He took Don Featherstone’s efforts and made them workable command post type exercises. This was along with Paddy, David Candler and others. In 1981 John Davis ran a mega game on Crete and Paddy then received many complimentary letters about the game, but many less complimentary.

I am still not quite sure why Paddy became the focus for these controversies and I am equally perplexed why he spent hundreds of hours typing his letters in response to them. I am certain that the time he devoted to these less productive correspondences significantly impacted on the amount of time he had to make his major and lasting contributions to wargaming and military history.  
If anyone thinks I am exaggerating about the letter driven civil wars of wargaming, here is an example of a letter sent to Paddy about the Crete mega game that was led by John Davis.

“This is not a critique but a bitch against some of the things that I felt were wrong in the mini-campaign played on Sunday 15 September.  As a member of the German planning staff I was involved in the campaign for a number of weeks prior to the game itself.  We were congratulated on the planning papers produced but I feel that this was only to be expected as we had an experienced group of players writing the overall plan and the tactical assault plans, Pete Merritt laboured under particularly difficult circumstances having to change his plan at the last minute.  It became obvious however that many of the Umpires had not read, or had not had the time to read, these papers in detail and this continued on the day as a number of orders/plans were not implemented properly by the Umpires, the best case being the deaf, dumb, blind and invisible Italian submarine which was a result of two misread orders.
We built a certain level of detail into our orders and these did not seem to come out at the time the Umpires did their calculations, this was a problem particularly felt by our Air player, Mike Horah, who commented that it did not seem to matter whether he put in an 80 aircraft strike or 8 groups of 10 aircraft, I will not elaborate on this point but there is a difference when the aircraft are sent in as a 'cab rank’ for continuous aircover and the ground players are not informed of their availability.  There seemed to be a total lack of understanding of airborne operations on the part of the Umpires and this was particularly noticeable in the scatter of battalions during the assault operations. 
During 1005 sorties flown by the transports on the two assault operations only 1 aircraft was shot down and two damaged which would indicate very light opposition to the actual drop and yet 2 Bn's, 1 on each lift, were dropped directly onto airfields, which are clearly defined and not their drop zones, and 1 complete Bn. was dropped in the sea. We pointed out to the Umpires that all our drops were in daylight but we still lost a complete Bn. during a frenzied period of aquatic sport.

This lack of understanding also reared its ugly head amongst our opponents when at the debrief one of them, who shall remain nameless but works at RMA Sandhurst, stated that it would take para's 6 hours to organise on the ground (if this is true why were so many para units used during W.W.II?) and he had been led to believe that 6 to 1 odds were required to eject his men from prepared positions (when most para attacks in reality were against the odds and a high proportion of them successful).  If I had been told this prior to the game I would have had serious reservations about going to Crete.  I could expand on these points, and many more, but this must not turn into a book of the game of the plan of …
This is beginning to sound like sour grapes but in fact we won, I think.  In conclusion, I must apologise to one of our juniors, at one point I received a message timed 0950 am from one Umpire and this was followed by his arrival as the runner for another Umpire to tell me it was 2000, he was then forced to retreat pursued by a stream of abuse.  I apologise and thank him and the other juniors for their endeavours through the day.

These lessons are that Umpire teams must be properly prepared, briefed and organised, they must co-ordinate their work and be seen to be working smoothly.  Also, it is an asset if they understand the subject/problem under consideration and have at least an equal knowledge to the players so that they can reason out a situation and subsequently justify the result from a position of relative security.  I do not believe that Umpire decisions should be justified by statements similar to "I'm the Umpire here, so tough".   Also, from what I heard at the debrief it sounded as though the Umpires used dice to an alarming extent.”

Tuesday, 30 January 2018

Small Wars: New Perspectives on Wargaming Counter Insurgency on the Tabletop

This is a new book by David Wayne Thomas, with a chapter by John Armatys.


The author has been a wargamer since the 1970s, member of Wargame Developments and a serious rule writer since the early 1990s. His longstanding interest in asymmetric warfare led him to develop a series of wargames to reflect the individual characteristics of such conflicts. This is his first book published through The History of Wargaming Project. 
The topic of counter Insurgency is under represented in table top hobby wargames. The relatively few sets of rules in this area have nearly all focused on the tactical level combat.  All except one of these sets of rules are written to portray the operational/ campaign level situation. Using card based systems, these games are particularly suitable for the solo wargamer.

These games are not ‘fair’; they each aim to give the wargamer a greater understanding of the particular conflicts they represent. From the sands of the Sahara, to the Mountains of Afghanistan, they place the wargamer in the position of command; facing an elusive enemy.
The games include:
     Boots on the Ground: Company Level Actions in the early 21st. Century
     An Isolated Outpost: Six Months in the Sahara
     Eight Years in a Distant Country: Soviet involvement in Afghanistan
     Ovambo: Counter- insurgency in South West Africa
     Good Morning Vietnam: LBJ’s War 1965-68
     Flying Column: The Irish Troubles 1920-21

It can be purchased here            Link

This book is published by the History of Wargaming Project as an example of recent innovation in hobby wargames.

The next book to go to print is a WWII bomber game, Target for Tonight, also by David Wayne Thomas. Link

Wednesday, 10 January 2018

Duke Seifried and the Developmnent of American Wargaming


Uncle Duke is one of those larger than life characters who helped develop miniature wargaming in the United States. The Jack Scruby Award (1995) summarised him as an American original, an entrepreneur and business man, a master sculptor, designer, and painter, a rule writer, publisher, and historian, a master showman, salesman, and advocate. He was also a good friend of Donald Featherstone.
  
It is impossible to discuss the development of early American miniature wargaming without discussing Duke and the many people he collaborated with over the years. This book is a celebration of his contribution.
 
The book includes:
  • The Jack Scruby Award 1995 citation. 
  • The MWAN tribute of 1989 by Hal Thinglum.
  • Early memories of American miniature wargaming and reflections by Duke and his lifelong friend Jim Getz.
  • Many previously unpublished photographs of early games.
  • The book also includes two complete key sets of rules that were a huge influence on American wargaming:
  • Melee (1960) by Duke.
  • Napoleonique: A Miniature Wargame Strategic- Tactical Manoeuvre in the Napoleonic Era (1979) Written by Jim Getz with the assistance of Duke Seifried.
This book is published by the History of Wargaming Project as part of ongoing efforts to document the development of wargaming.

Friday, 5 January 2018

Next 6 months in the History of Wargaming Project


I have a professional interest in gaming counter insurgency (COIN) and have published Paddy Griffith’s Counter Insurgency Wargames (1980) in 2016. I looked around and some hobby gamers have been doing some interesting stuff about gaming COIN on the table top, so I will shortly publish Small Wars: New Perspectives on Wargaming Counter Insurgency on the Tabletop.

The Matrix game methodology has made a huge impact in professional wargaming circles, so I am editing a handbook on the subject, working with Chris Engle and Peter Perla to produce a more academic examination of the theory and practise of matrix games.

I occasionally publish a non-wargaming book. The one this year is going to be one on an epic road trip around the USA that visited every Vietnam memorial.

I want to publish more books for the solo wargamer. I have done Donald Featherstone's Solo Wargaming and Donald Featherstone's Battle Notes for Wargamers Solo Wargaming Edition. The next one is going to be a solo game about a WWII bombing mission.

I have been interested in naval wargames for a long time and at last I aim to publish a book about the great naval wargames of the America navy prior to WWII. I thought the material has been lost, but now it has survived. It just needs collating and publishing.

I also want to finish a book A Practical Guide to Medieval Warfare, covering the real detail. Of course, this will include 3 new sets of rules to illustrate various aspects of our understanding.

Of course, I also have various authors such as Phil Dunn, Charlie Wesencraft, Stuart Asquith who all have new stuff that needs to get into print. In the background I am continuing to digitise, sort and collate huge archives of wargaming material, which will no doubt lead to further books. I guess this explains why I do not tweet much.

Sunday, 29 October 2017

Military History Through the Prism of Wargaming


Col Richard Kemp and John Weigold have been investigating Alderney, Channel Islands and found several previously unrecognised V1 launch sites. The key factor to me is the tunnel configuration is similar to those in mainland Europe. The conclusion of the two historians is that the launch sites were almost ready and using nerve gas they could have fired at Plymouth and Weymouth. They conclude this would have thrown the Allied invasion plans into chaos, D Day would not have happened on the 6th June 1944 and the whole course of WWII would have been drastically altered.

What does wargaming add to this analysis?

If a V1 had launched from the Channel Islands, the islands would have been subject to bombardment by sea and air. Based on my WWII bomber command games, I know that targets were selected in the morning for the night time raids. So it would take 10 hours to direct England’s heavy bombers to the new target. Based on my naval games I also know that heavy cruisers with 8 inch guns were available the RN Channel flotilla. They could get up steam in a few hours and they could fire from 17 miles away. It would take 24 hours to get battleships into position to hit the islands.

Alderney is approximately 100 km south of the English coast, so in 1944 the Allies would have achieved air superiority over the islands within hours. This would allow daylight bombing raids and daylight ship to shore bombardment.

The conclusion is the island of Alderney would have been destroyed within a few days and the threat of V1 rockets with Sarin from them would have been ended.

Wargaming experience also allows the history to be explored further. If the Germans used Sarin, they would fire it from as many of their V1 sites as the German chemical industry could supply. How would the Allies retaliate? Having explored this in a very dark committee game of the English War Cabinet in 1944 I would say Anthrax. The Allies would have dropped Anthrax on cities and random agricultural areas. This would have been likely to have created a panic such as the world has not seen in modern history. It would have ended the war in Europe quite suddenly.

To understand military/ political history requires, reading, lectures (for the stuff no yet published), seminars (to discuss the reading/ lectures) and I would also add wargaming to the list. Having sport with ideas is the way to wisdom and serious historical wargames are certainly having sport with ideas.

Friday, 29 September 2017

John Candler's (1964) Miniature Wargaming:

John Candler's (1964) Miniature Wargaming: Napoleonic Wargaming du temps de Napoleon.

Without the literary charm of Featherstone, Grant or Young, this book was none the less a key one in the early development of American Miniature wargaming.

My next book is on Duke and early American wargaming