Retired in Newman, CA: Model 1890 7” Siege Howitzer

 Although not of naval origin, this piece is rather unusual and worth taking notice of.  

In Pioneer Park in the small, West San Joaquin Valley town of Newman, CA, I found this rather striking piece of artillery.  I had never seen one like it, but, using the markings on the piece, itself, I was able to find out what it is.  Like most complex machines, a artillery piece is a sum of components, chiefly the gun barrel and the carriage.

The barrel is a Model 1890 breech-loading 7” rifled siege howitzer. It was produced at Watervliet Arsenal, NY in 1900, and is #39 of those produced. The trunnion is marked “B.A. & I. Co. Steel Model 1890”; I have been unable to trace the steel manufacturer.

The carriage is a Model 1893 manufactured at Rock Island Arsenal, IL in 1901, and was #38 of those produced.  Presumably, the weapon also had its final assembly at Rock Island.  

Although I have been unable to trace any of the history of this piece so far, it can be assumed that it never saw combat.  The gun was extant at the time of the First World War, but it was far too heavy to have been used as field artillery; the barrel, alone, is almost two tons (3,710 pounds, as marked.)  The carriage would probably add at least another ton, by my estimation, so this is not a gun to be towed around frequently. 

The gun required 6 horses to tow.

This weapon was designed to be used with fortifications, with its height allowing it to be fired over an embrasure while allowing the crew to remain behind cover.  As far as I have been able to determine, these guns were produced until at least 1913, and possibly after.  

I will post updates on this weapon if I discover anything more about it. 

(Historical images courtesy of the National Archives)

At War with the Evil Empire: A Review of "The Red Storm"

Yaquinto Games, 1983

Last year in a fit of 80s nostalgia I acquired a copy of J. Michael Hemphill's The Red Storm unpunched and in very good condition, albeit yellowed with age (it is pushing 40, after all...). Since I like historical wargames, I was curious as to how accurate the designer's unit designations and overall historicity fared thirty years after the Soviet Union collapsed and the scenario was relegated to "alternate history" status. 

 On the NATO side, Hemphill really did his homework; considering that he had to have developed the game between 1979-1982, his unit IDs and their placement for 1983 is excellent with very few errors. I am particularly impressed with his inclusion of the six established West German Heimatschutzbrigaden (HSchBrig), or Homeland Security Brigades. These were units consisting of mostly reservists that provided rear-area security and defense against para-troops or infiltration groups. While he chose not to reproduce what was called NATO's "layer-cake defense," he did assign initial unit placement with the proper army groups, dividing the map into BALTAP (Area K), NORTHAG (Area N), and CENTAG (Area C) and assigning units with almost complete historical accuracy. In my setup, I went one step further and ensured that my divisions were placed within their proper "layers" in each Area Command. I also researched the location of numerous army airfields and bases so my placement of the various air assault and attack helicopter brigades would be a bit more historical. 

The calm before the storm: initial NATO unit placement

On the Pact side, however, Hemphill is on shakier ground. To be fair, the up-to-date placement and assigning of Soviet and Pact divisions within the German Democratic Republic (DDR, aka "East Germany") would have been difficult to obtain in the late 70s-early 80s. Still, Hemphill does get quite a few of the units right, in particular the Soviet divisions present in the DDR, but there are inconsistencies in the OB although they do not affect the game in any significant way. 

The game, itself, was very well produced, and bears the trademarks of Yaquinto's all-too-brief history: double-thick counters, and maps of heavy, coated paper that neither tear nor wear easily. The artwork is well-done, with the map featuring a somewhat-abstracted West Germany divided into scaled hexes, with top-down views of terrain features and surrounded by both allied and enemy countries. For the counters, the designers chose to go with silhouettes for the various unit-types, rather than the NATO Standard symbols, and the unit nationality is indicated by color variation. This makes the game more approachable and easier to play, especially for new or first-time players not familiar with wargaming. Personally, I could have gone either way as I am comfortable with either format. 

The game is played at the operation-scale with most units at the division level, with a small number of brigade-units when necessary, or when breaking down Airborne or Air Assault divisions. Combat is resolved using an Odds system. Provision for counter-assault is made by allowing a defender to engage an attacker, although at slightly reduced effectiveness. Terrain effects are straightforward and easy to remember. Airborne drop survival rules are a weak point, in my opinion, since distance from friendly units would have no bearing in drop survival unless the division is being dropped in "Indian country." There is also no provision for drift. 

There are a number of ‘special’ attacks that can be made, either before or during the Ground Combat phase for each side. Close Air Support (CAS) can be used, with the number of units determined by die roll and Turn number, and modified by Weather variables. Artillery barrages can be called by the Pact player, either as its own attack or in conjunction with a ground assault---but there must be sufficient ammunition, and the supply is finite. The use of special, high-tech munitions by NATO against mass Pact formations fall under the abstraction of Assault Breaker attacks; they, too, are of limited supply, and become less numerous as time goes on. NATO also has the option of assaults by Attack Helicopter battalions, which have the key strength of being able to assault a single division while it is in a stacked formation; unfortunately, AH units can be savaged and Disrupted by divisional AA, and can (unlike CAS units) be destroyed.

After all of the “special” attacks like possible CAS, Attack Helicopter, Artillery Barrages, Assault Breakers, and possibly Chemical/Nuclear, it still comes down to armor and ground-pounders shooting at each other. An attack against a ground unit takes into account relative Attack/Defense Factors, terrain, external support (CAS, Artillery, etc.), and previous levels of Disruption, if any. All of these are then combined to determine the Odds between the two forces, then rolling for results on a table, both for the Attacker’s assault and for the Defender’s counter-attack. I have always liked and preferred the “simultaneous damage” approach, and it works well in RS. 

The storm front: PACT positions on the eve of invasion.

Victory for either side is determined by a point system. For the Warsaw Pact, points are accrued by taking and holding West German population centers, each of which has a specific point value. For both sides, points are accrued by the number of enemy units eliminated. So, NATO achieves victory by minimizing the number of points accrued by the Pact, either by successful defense or retaking of urban centers, or by eliminating enough Pact units to put a dent into the Pact’s score when the results are tallied.

The weakest area in gameplay is Air Warfare. There is an optional Air Superiority system which relies more on luck than technology and other factors, and which is also somewhat clunky to use. It is the least attractive part of the game mechanics, in my opinion, and it skews the game in that air superiority and CAS were primary to NATO defensive strategy, and would be tilted in NATO’s favor. This is one area when Hemphill’s apparent desire to avoid a lot of “chrome” actually shortchanges the game. For the purposes of my game, I chose to use CAS only, ignoring the optional rule.

One optional rule that makes life harder for the NATO player is the French Intervention Rule (17.0). In essence, France holds its units back and avoids involvement until Turn 3, when France examines the current strategic situation and decides whether or not it will support NATO, and to what degree if the answer is positive. While the fickle nature of the French is well-known, and de Gaulle’s withdrawal of French military forces from NATO is equally well-known, the Intervention Rule was based upon incomplete knowledge on the designer’s part; we now know that France had signed classified agreements with the US to honor its military commitments to NATO in the event of war with the Pact. While an interesting “what if” and, in its way, darkly humorous, it is not historically accurate.

On the whole, the game is solid. There are, however, several weaknesses which can affect gameplay and which (to me) hurt the game’s authenticity. It’s not a bad game to play, and it moves with speed since chrome is kept to a minimum, but I usually prefer a bit more detail and complexity in my games.  It will be interesting to compare it with The Third World War, which will be re-released by Compass Games later this year. 

‘Die Stunde hat geschlagen’: A Review of "The Hunters: German U-Boats at War, 1939-43."

"The Hunters" (GMT Games  1317-19)

When Gregory M. Smith’s game The Hunters was first released by Consim Press in 2013, I was busy with life and my youthful interest in wargaming had been long-neglected. Upon my rediscovering of the hobby a few years ago, I was just in time to catch his second title, Silent Victory, but Hunters was long out of print, and even a second printing had come and gone.  Fortunately, the game’s popularity prompted a third printing in 2019, and I was able to reserve a copy.  It’s been sitting on my shelf since then, and I finally decided to punch out and submerge myself in the Battle of the Atlantic.  

Hunters is not a traditional hex-map-and-counter wargame; it is a narrative-driven game that has its roots in both wargaming and role-playing games (RPGs).  In his “Designer’s Notes,” Greg Smith states that the initial impetus for the game came from the Avalon-Hill game B-17: Queen of the Skies which has some similar design elements and mechanics. Hunters, however, has a different focus from B-17, and it is reflected in the way the game flows.  

Hunters is not a complex design, and has a gentle learning curve.  I started with one of Smith’s other games in the series, Silent Victory, and I picked up the basics of the game within an hour.  It’s simplicity is deceptive, however; it is not an easy game to win.  Designed as a solitaire game, Hunters puts the player in command of a German U-Boat from September of 1939 until June of 1943.  The U-Boats were best suited to waging handelskrieg (“commerce war”) and that is the primary focus of your command: sink as much Allied commercial ship-tonnage as you can while keeping your crew and boat alive.  Success is rewarded in the form of decorations, rank increases, and better equipment.  Failure is punished by being removed from command.  

The game is divided up into month-long patrols, in which your boat navigates one of several historical (albeit somewhat abstracted) patrol routes.  During each patrol, you may encounter enemy anti-sub aircraft, solo merchantmen, escorted ships, convoys, or even military capital ships with their escort screens.  It is up to you to look carefully at each encounter and consider the potential risks along with the potential gains of engaging a target because every decision in The Hunters has consequences.  Play too conservatively, and you may end up losing your command for lacking aggression.  Play too aggressively, and you may lose your boat and your life, or bring home a boat so damaged that you face extended refit periods which limit your number of patrols in the course of the game.  Challenging the player to make difficult decisions is exactly what Smith set out to do when designing the game: “I wanted the player, as the U-boat commander, to be confronted with a continuous stream of decisions” (Designer’s Notes).

Die-rolls, of course, play a significant role in the game, but they are not such that they negate the player’s ability to influence the game-play by competent and intelligent decision-making; the game does not boil down to ‘the luck of the roll.’  Rather, the numerous die-rolls are the abstraction of many different elements inherent in the combat: equipment failure, human error, unforeseen consequences, etc..  Tables laid out on a number of reference cards govern Combat, Detection/Evasion, and potential Damage to your boat.  The cards, along with a patrol map and a Combat Mat, are standard Letter size, and the game fits easily on an average table top or desk.  

From a historical perspective, the game is well-researched, but the designer, himself, is quick to point out that he wanted to achieve a balance between historical accuracy and a game that was enjoyable to play.  Personally, I think he has achieved that objective.   If you immerse yourself in the game as you would a RPG, you definitely get a feel for the pressure command decisions place on those who are responsible for fighting a ship while keeping their vessel and the men who crew her alive.