The ‘Machine Age’ is a term I coined to cover warfare during 1900–1939, when an industrialized form of military activity based upon weapons technology, became even more significant than the preceding epoch of Rifle and Sabre.
The influence of industrialization led to a profound, indeed symbiotic link between warfare and politics. Otto von Bismarck’s success in forging German unity on the back of Prussian military triumph, led to the singularly dangerous belief that warfare was the answer to all social problems. European conservatives thought that socialist tendencies would always be neutralized if the future of the nation was held to be at stake – an analysis that proved to be vindicated at the outbreak of the First World War, when all classes of society proved to be distinctly bellicose.
The Great War should have provided a cautionary lesson for political advocates of homicide on a continental scale: the conflict saw the defeat and disintegration of three great European monarchies – Germany, the Hapsburg Empire, and Russia. Mass ideologies of a decidedly authoritarian stamp did however fill the void, in the shape of fascism and Nazism on the right, and communism on the left. These soon acquired all the militarized qualities and rhetoric of the old regimes, and the conflict engendered by their bellicose outlook led ultimately to the cataclysm of the Second World War.
Any set of wargames rules for the Machine Age must take account of the devastating effects of firepower, which saw the definitive end of hand-to-hand combat. These effects were similar to those of the American Civil War, for all that the latter’s recourse to firepower owed more to the indiscipline of its participants, rather than the excellence of its weaponry. Such differences are of great interest to the military historian, but of peripheral significance to the wargame designer: what matters is the fact that the practical consequences were the same; the American Civil War rules can therefore act as a template for any wargaming rendition of the Machine Age. The latter was characterized by rapidfiring magazine rifles, powerful artillery, and the terrifyingly potent machine gun. All this produced a tendency for all troops to effectively adopt skirmish order, in the hope that dispersal would reduce casualties. As with all my other rulesets for this book, I have chosen to depict four common troop types in the Machine Age wargame.
1. INFANTRY
These had exactly the same battlefield effects as their predecessors from the American Civil War. They were equipped with deadly magazine rifles, and adopted dispersed formation in order to reduce the effects of enemy fire.
2. HEAVY INFANTRY
These units represent Infantry with significant support from attached machine guns. This is the best way to reflect the effects of the latter; they were present in most units, but there were never quite enough to go round: it does accordingly make more sense to provide an enhanced combat capability to those few units who engaged the services of a larger than average machine gun allocation. In wargame terms, they enjoy a bonus to all combat dice rolls.3. ARTILLERY
This category covers light field guns of 75mm calibre, engaging in direct fire at visible targets. They can be treated as having the same range as American Civil War ordnance (they could fire further, but their crew would be unable to see their targets at these longer ranges), but their greater potency means that their combat dice rolling is no longer penalized.
4. CAVALRY
Horsemen still had a role on the battlefields of the Machine Age, albeit solely as mounted infantry equipped with rifles – the days of cavalry charges were well and truly over. Mounted troops generally operated in smaller units than Infantry; this, combined with the fact that some men had to hold the horses when the rest were shooting, means that Cavalry fire is rather less effective than that of Infantry. It can therefore be treated exactly as its American Civil War predecessor, and suffers a reduction in all combat dice rolls accordingly.
Some of you may wonder why I have not included tank units in this wargame. This is mainly because although present, armour was still generally uncommon – albeit spectacularly unwelcome for anyone on the receiving end. Wargamers who absolutely cannot resist including tanks in their games might like to try the following rules: armour has a movement allowance of 9”; it has a firing range of 12” and adds 2 to all combat dice rolls; it also only suffers half casualties when fired upon, thanks to its armoured protection.
One significant change from the American Civil War rules lies in depicting the twentieth century tendency for troops to dig trenches, and for enemy heavy artillery to try to blow them apart. This is simulated by having optional rules for entrenchments and barrages, whereby one side operates a defensive posture by having all troops in open terrain dig entrenchments, which have the same effect as being under cover. The attacker does however enjoy the benefits of a preliminary barrage from heavy ordnance (these weapons have such a long range that they are always deployed off the table; no models need be provided to depict them). The barrage affects 1–3 units, with each victim
automatically suffering 1–6 hits. This variability reflects the unpredictability of the artillery barrage: it could potentially decide a battle prior to the assault; it could conversely be so ineffective as to leave the defenders almost entirely intact (as was the case most notoriously with the Battle of the Somme in 1916). The rule for entrenchments and barrages can add a good deal of period flair to Machine Age wargaming but, as is the case with any optional rule, should only be used if both players agree.