Bolt Action WWI

Found this with a quick search:

http://www.gajominis.com/blog/scenarios/bolt_action_ww1.pdf

The GAJO Games adaptations are a very good starting point for Bolt Action v2. The rules as published do not need significant changes to reflect World War One actions. Here are some additional comments and suggestions, FWIIW:

1. Air Support was divided into two broad categories:

a. Artillery fire control, typically controlled by aerial observers in aircraft and/or captive balloons. Normally this type of fire was directed at enemy forces identified off-table. Firing at enemy in close combat with friendly forces, which is what Bolt Action represents, was not encouraged because of the very high risk of blue-on-blue. That said, Bolt Action is about introducing a taste of some of these elements of battle. The variant, as described, is ok from this perspective bearing in mind that the Air Force Forward Observer would actually have been in the air in reality.

b. Strafing and low level bombing runs from ground attack aircraft. Fighters and dedicated fighter-bombers began operating this way in 1916.

2. The Chauchat LMG has been given a ‘jam’ Special Rule. All LMGs were prone to this in muddy conditions. There is a famous video of a German MG08/15 being set up and fired in a training exercise. It jams multiple times in the minute or so of the clip. The French army conducted a thorough review of all weapons systems, including the Chauchat, when Pétain took over in 1917. There were lots of positive reports about the Chauchat. The issue of maintaining cleanliness during battle was emphasised but this was not unique to the Chauchat. Furthermore, the Chauchat was highly prized by Stosstruppen, who would receive financial and other rewards for capturing these weapons for re-use in their units. I recommend not using this Special Rule.

3. ‘Infiltration Tactics’ are frequently referred to in relation to German Sturmtruppen. The term is used to imply that units could slip between frontline defences. The attacks on British Fifth Army during Operation Michael in March 1918 are often cited as an example. The ‘infiltration’ achieved by German attackers was not down to something inherent in the units themselves. It represented the very dispersed nature of the British defences. In other words, you would model this by spreading out the defender rather than apply a Special Rule to the attacker. Operation Mars was a complete failure because ‘Infiltration Tactics’ could not work against normal defences.

4. Mk V* (often referred to as Mark Five Star). Apply the same stats as the Mk V but add the ‘transporter’ Special Rule. It transported MMG teams. The A7V transported a wider range of assault troops.

5. Captured Weapons – also allow the Germans to swap for the Chauchat LMG. The Madsen LMG can also be used.

6. Stosstruppen, Elite Stormtrooper, and Assault Squads should not have different Special Rules from their British, Dominion, and French counterparts. German histories refer to these counterparts as ‘Sturmtruppen’, reflecting the similar nature of assault tactics across all major nations on the Western Front.

7. Granatwerfer should have 3 crew, mirroring the requirements for the 37mm Infantry Gun Team.

8. Americans and French should have the Schneider as an option: 1 x MMG on each side; 1 x light howitzer – otherwise same as Char St Chamond Tank. Note that French tank forces used pioneers to turn difficult terrain into ‘normal’ terrain.

9. All tanks can disembark MMG teams when bogged.

10. The French should have the equivalent of ‘elite’ assault troops, reflecting the dedicated assault teams and/or the use of colonial troops such as the Sengalese for this capability.

11. Bergmann SMGs were very rare. I would leave them out or make them much more expensive to include in a squad.

12. Flammenwerfer are better modelled as separate teams IMHO. The French and Americans should have an option to include dedicated flamethrower teams as well (French flamethrower teams were attached to the Americans, eg the Big Red One’s attack on Cantigny).

Robert

Phew, apologies for all the edits with the previous post but I was trying to create a link to an image elsewhere.

Robert

A lot of work put into that Sturmtruppen man. Nice one.

To do it right, an awful amount of work. Very different helmet shape and all the details.
I must confess I doubt that it is worth the time. There are perfect ones available on the market.

It would be similar with the round WW I Brodie helmet. Some Museums made displays in the 100 years exhibitions with oval WW II ones. Brrrrr.
OK; I’m a nerd. 😉

There was a version of the Chauchat where the Americans attempted to re-chamber the munitions. This did not work well.

With respect to American use of standard Chauchats, the following was collated together by Demaison and Buffetaut. The latter is particularly well known for his work on French military history:

“There is an interesting contrast between the routine disparagement of the Chauchat rifle in modern times and the dearth of negative comment in vintage American military literature.

There are very many Chauchat rifle references sprinkled through virtually all World War I US Divisional Histories, and in veterans’ memoirs. However, in none of these is to be found a reference derogatory to the 8mm Chauchat.

To the combat veteran writing his memoirs in the postwar 1920s or 30s, the Chauchat was a familiar fixture that helped him to get the job done.

Naturally, when the BAR appeared in limited numbers during September, 1918 it was preferred by the few who used it. Nevertheless, the 8mm M1915 ‘Chau-Chau’, as the Doughboys called it, was a familiar presence everywhere in the AEF Infantry and Marine divisions in France, during 12 months of warfare.

The following excerpts are quoted from the History of the 26th Division:

..April 29, near Secheprey: McMahon, an automatic rifleman, stood off many attempts at the wire on his front. When he finally ran out of ammunition the wire was hung with dead Boches… Ryan fed an automatic rifle till every other man of the team had been killed, and then fought out his own way to the Company…

..June 1918, near Chateau Thierry: Alfred Hall, of Hingham, armed with an automatic rifle, stood on the railway track. He was a fair mark for the Boche snipers on the hill and their bullets kept singing around him, but they never got him. As the Boches ran out of the railway station, Hall would line them up as on running rabbits. His automatic rifle would briefly remark ‘pup-pup-pup’ and Mr Boche would go down.

On the same battlefield, Lawrence Stallings’ Doughboys also describes the actions of Colonel McAlexander’s 38th Regiment, 3rd Division, which gained the name ‘Rock of the Marne’ by successfully defending the river crossing at Mezy, east of Chateau Thierry, on July 15, 1918:
..Corporal Connors with his squad of two Chauchat teams and their buddies from three companies killed twenty boatloads of the boys in the new leather belts before all but Connors were killed or wounded. Connors had no more clips for his hiccupping Chauchats, but there were still some grenades…

Several further Chauchat testimonies can be found in Fixed Bayonets, written in 1925 by US Marine Captain W J Thomason Jr. The longest one recalls an event which took place near Belleau Wood in July, 1918:
..One lieutenant found himself behind a woodpile with a big auto rifleman. Just across from them, very near, a German machine gun behind another woodpile, was searching for them. He picked up the Chauchat [when the gunner was killed]… laid the gun across the woodpile and sighted three Boches… He gave them the whole clip and they appeared to wilt.

Incidents quoted from the History of the 42nd Division…
July 16, 1918: Pvt Michael Toody, automatic gunner, shot down an enemy plane later that afternoon.

Eight of the enemy approached a post which was occupied by Private Thomas Mead, who was alone. They approached with their hands up. Seeing that Mead was alone, one of the enemy reached for and threw a potato-masher [grenade] which overshot its mark. Mead opened up with his Chauchat and cleaned out the lot.

July 28: My attention was attacted by the reports of rapid fire on the left flank. It was one of C Company boys with a French chau-chau who had tumbled a German with a light Maxim…

Another quote, this time from the 28th Division:
July 28, 1918 near Sergy, north of Chateau Thierry: After an unsuccessful attack on Bois des Grimpettes, Mechanic Beer went out alone in front of our line, in plain view of the enemy, under heavy machinegun fire from the front and flank, and gathered up the Chauchat rifles and Musette Bags of ammunition that been abandoned by the men. He made several trips, distributing the badly needed equipment to the advanced elements of our line.

Other examples, from the 3rd Division, are reported by Colonel Butts in his famous account The Keypoint at the Marne. In July, 1918,
…Lieutenant Savage, a man among men, who had in an unusual degree the desire to serve his country, died at one end of the bridge, firing a Chauchat rifle after the Gunners were killed.

…The automatic rifle squads were making their Chauchats rattle like machineguns. Gunner Parson, when he could no longer see the enemy from the trench, climbed up on the parapet and fired his heavy Chauchat from his shoulder.

…On our side it was strictly rifles and Chauchat fire; machineguns were used by the Germans…”

Robert

A good collection of voices from the trenches. Good research, well done.

The French in general claim it to be great in defense. But a LMG has to work well outside too. And there we often find: ” Disadvantages: becomes fouled and prone to stoppages in contact with mud and dirt projections.”
None of the WW I LMG was really good.

I guess you found in the French reports „la gifle“.

I must confess that the vintage American military literature made me smile. It is typical for the storytelling style of US war literature. Like: ”As the Boches ran out of the railway station, Hall would line them up as on running rabbits. His automatic rifle would briefly remark ‘pup-pup-pup’ and Mr Boche would go down.”
Yes, they went down. And up “Sprungauf marsch”. And down. Closing. “He was a fair mark for the Boche snipers on the hill and their bullets kept singing around him, but they never got him..” That he stood on the railway track like a god of war ………. I know that Americans love these stories. In German dime novels we have a similar style, but not in history books. Band of……

It’s not lying or just boasting but a way of telling entertaining stories. Few American authors wasted time by cross checking with sources in German archives. Distance (that small bit of water) is one of the reasons. I rarely met US historians in European archives. So we often read of body counts that even exceed the start number of Germans present. Fortunately normally enough survived to tell the “other story”.

In Quality US sources one gets a slightly different picture. In the official “History of the Third division, United States army, in the world war : for the period, December 1, 1917, to January 1, 1919” the Mezy story sounds a bit different. There the US artillery played a big role in stopping the crossing. Only in part of the report the MG played a bigger role, all types of MG.

“Another regiment, after three attempts had been made, gave up the plan of crossing opposite the 38th infantry, due to our heavy artillery and machine gun fire and moved to the east where crossing was finally effected…..” A look in the unit report shows, There was nothing like 20 boat loads / (120-180) kia. And esp. not by LMG alone.

The German 36. ID was forced back next day by counter attacks from two US and one French divisions. The “Rock of the Marne” sounds good. But one should not ignore that the 36.ID was weak in numbers and that the Mézy-Moullin crossing was a “Scheinangriff”, a demonstration, the main attack was on right flank of 7. Armee.

German wartime reports prefer the Lewis. And even the 08/15. Many Chauchats being badly made, causing jams. Esp. those by Gladiator. (French and US amo ones)

“Beute” was used by all. 8. May 1917 at Fresnoy I. Bat Königlich Bayerisches 19. Infanterie-Regiment „König Viktor Emanuel III. von Italien“ took 15 Lewis and 2 MG 08 (!) . Used by the Tommies. The type of the 4 “Minenwerfer” captured is not stated. German or Stokes?
The unit in that action is called in some books a Sturmbataillon but was nothing like that. Just an ordinary IR unit. Typical for the confusion about Sturmtruppen.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 3 months ago by invisible officer.

That the A7V transported MG troops is a half myth. The Crew had a LMG 08/15 (300 rounds) and 6 K98 for dismounted use if the tank broke down

My specific reference to transporting MG troops related to the British MkV*. I was more careful in my wording related to the A7V:

The A7V transported a wider range of assault troops

A7V crews trained with Sturmbataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr). They were trained in Sturmtaktiken and could/did dismount from A7Vs during action to engage enemy troops that were under fire from the tank itself. Hand grenades were used but in at least one case (A7V Nr. 501 ‘Gretchen’) Flammenwerfer were carried in the tank and dismounted for use during battle. ‘Gretchen’ had a different layout, being a ‘female’ A7V without the 57mm gun.

Robert