Issues 433 and 434 of Wargames Illustrated magazine ran two articles titled, “The Battle of Gallabat” and “The Attack on Fort Gallabat.” The articles provide background, orders of battle, a map of the operational area, and some guidelines for running a one-day campaign based on this WW2 battle. Those articles inspired us to run a short multi-day campaign, using Flames of War to play the tactical battles. This report describes how we organized the campaign and played the first game.
Background:
The Gallabat-Metemma campaign was fought between British-led and Italian-led forces in early November 1940. We say British-led and Italian-led because most of the fighting was done by Indians and Eritreans. Gallabat was a small village on the Sudanese side of the border between British-occupied Sudan and Italian-occupied Ethiopia (then called Abyssinia). Metemma was a larger village on the Ethiopian side of the border. Before the war, small forts had been constructed near both villages (the Sudanese and Ethiopians had fought a very large battle at this same location in 1899).
In June 1940, the Italians crossed the border and captured the fort at Gallabat. They strengthened its defenses by encircling the fort with a low wall constructed of logs and rocks, with machine gun positions placed in the “foreground”. The outer perimeter was encircled by barbed wire and a zariba (a thorn-bush stockade). The entire area covered roughly 600 X 400 meters. Fields of fire were cleared on all sides, although the line of sight to the northwest was blocked by a small hill on that side of the fort. A brigade of Eritrean colonial infantry defended the Gallabat-Metemma area.
By early November 1940, British forces in the area had grown to a brigade of Indian and British infantry supported by three batteries of artillery (24 guns) and twelve tanks (six Mk. VI Vickers light tanks, and six Mk. I Cruiser tanks), and the British were ready to launch a counteroffensive. Our campaign begins with the attack to recapture Fort Gallabat on 6 November 1940.
Sources:
We supplemented the information provided by the two articles with our own research.
Our favorite source was a chapter on Gallabat in Field-Marshal Sir William Slim’s book titled, “Unofficial History”. In this delightful memoir, Slim relates some vignettes of his service in Mesopotamia in WW1, in India between the wars, and in Sudan, Syria, and Persia in WW2.
This link is to the official history of the Indian Army in WW2 which provides a description and map of the battle:
HyperWar: East African Campaign, 1940-41 (Chapter 3)
This link is to another account of the battle, which includes the citations of the Indian and British soldiers and airmen who were decorated for gallantry:
The same webpage provides this link to a map of the operational area, which is also found in Slim’s book, and which is the map that we used for our campaign:
http://www.kaiserscross.com/96801/571722.html
We also found some newsreel footage and a few photographs that were taken during and after the battle, plus a pre-war photo of an Ethiopian delegation posing in front of the fort at Gallabat, but these only provided a few small glimpses of the fort and the surrounding terrain. We also consulted Google Maps, but unfortunately, there appears to be no trace of either fort, and both villages have greatly expanded. Thus we had to cross reference all of our sources and then make our best guesses as to look of the forts and the terrain.
Terrain: The border is formed by a dry riverbed called a khor. The khor runs through a shallow depression into which some smaller dry streams flow. (That said, November is the end of the rainy season, so there likely would have been some water in the creek beds.) The undulating terrain on both sides of the border gently rises up from the khor and is dotted by several small hills, as shown on the maps. Any uncleared ground is generally covered by elephant grass and brush. Acacia trees grow here and there, and some palm trees grow near the watercourses. The ground was noted as being rocky and very hard, creating a hazard for vehicles and making digging in a very slow process.
Forces:
At the start of our campaign, the Italians have three Eritrean infantry battalions (ten rifle companies). Each battalion has 8 heavy machine guns. In general support are two platoons of captured Boys antitank rifles (crewed by soldiers of the Granatieri di Savoia Division), and two batteries of light artillery (8 total guns). The Italians will also receive air support that will arrive in several waves. A strong column of reinforcements is expected to arrive at Metemma on 8 November.
The British have two battalions of Indian infantry (8 companies of Garhwalis and Baluchis), and one battalion of British infantry (4 companies of the Essex Regiment). Each battalion has 8 heavy machine guns, and in Game 1 we used one 3″ mortar battery. In general support are six Vickers light tanks and six Mk. I Cruiser tanks, three batteries of artillery (24 guns), and a sapper company. Limited air support will conduct a preliminary bombing of Fort Gallabat prior to the first scenario.
Campaign Objectives:
The British objective is to recapture the fort at Gallabat, then cross the border and capture the fort at Metemma. To win, the British have to drive the Italians out of both locations. The Italians just have to hold.
Campaign Notes:
The first two scenarios of our campaign were designed to replay the first few hours of the historical attack on Fort Gallabat on the morning of 6 November. The first scenario would be the attack on the fort itself, and the second scenario would be the Italian counterattack. The available forces in both scenarios were dictated by the historical events, although the British commanders could choose to commit additional troops from their British battalion (which was held in reserve nearby). After the first two games, the campaign would be more free-form. Losses and other results from the first two games would carry over into any additional games that we played. Any additional scenarios would be designed with prior input from the two sides’ commanders regarding their intended maneuvers, the timing of those maneuvers, their objectives, and the forces employed to achieve them. The campaign would continue until one side admitted defeat.
Battle Report:
The first game represented the attack on Fort Gallabat. Our 9X5 foot table was set with long axis running NE-SW. The small fort was placed in the center of the table, and its surrounding defenses occupied the middle third of the table. On both sides of the fort were large areas of cleared ground, dotted with a few acacia trees, with thick bush and elephant grass beyond the cleared ground. The crest of a hill was in the center of the British baseline, and the NW end of the fort’s defenses abutted the base of this hill. Behind the fort was a strip of cleared ground that sloped down toward the khor, which was off the table just behind the Italian baseline.
Historically, the British attack started with an aerial bombardment at dawn, followed by a 75 minute artillery barrage, concentrated on the fort at Gallabat. This caught the defenders by surprise, inflicted numerous casualties, and created a low-lying cloud of smoke and dust. While the barrage was falling, two companies of the Royal Garhwal battalion approached the fort, supported by ten of the tanks. The other two companies of this battalion, with two light tanks, bypassed the fort and moved toward the boundary khor with the objective of establishing a bridgehead. These two companies were met by a counterattack coming from Metemma (which will be the subject of our second scenario). Our first scenario began at the moment the barrage lifted; the attack went in as the smoke and dust still hung in the air.
The Garhwalis were seeing their first combat, but were well trained and aggressive, so we rated them as Fearless Trained. The Indian soldiers also benefitted from the “War Cry” special rule, which required enemies in an assault to re-roll successful tests to counterattack. The British tank crews were rated as Confident Trained. The British infantry performed poorly in the historical battle, and at one point broke and ran. They were rated as Reluctant Trained. We did not own enough Indian figures to represent this force, so we used our Australian figures as the Indians (at least their slouch hats resembled the hats worn by the Garhwalis!).
One of our players happens to own seven platoons of WW2 Libyan askaris, which are a close match for Eritrean askaris, so those were used to defend the area around the fort. Seven platoons represented the remainder of the defending battalion after suffering losses from the preliminary bombardments. The defense was bolstered with 8 HMGs and 4 ATRs. To determine the pregame losses among the heavy weapons and senior leaders, we resolved one artillery attack against each of these targets. Two HMGs, two ATRs, and two company commanders were lost to these attacks. To reflect the shock of the sudden and intense bombardment (and their not-so-good performance in the historical battle), the Eritrean askaris in this scenario were rated Reluctant Trained. The elite grenadiers crewing the antitank rifles were rated Fearless Veteran.
The last preliminary bit of business was to test to see whether the Italian battalion commander ran away (as he did historically). We had him take a Motivation Check, which he failed — so off he ran to Metemma, leaving his garrison to its fate! (In designing historical scenarios, we like to include the possibility of historical incidents like this happening, while allowing for the chance that things might happen differently. So a dice roll is often employed.)
The British players had to decide where their units would enter the table. They were not told this, but if the tanks moved off the road into the bush, they would have to roll for breakdown. The brush and the tall grass hid large rocks that disabled most of the tanks in the historical battle. Fortunately for the British, they chose to move all of the tanks along the main track, entering the table near the northern corner of the defenses. Unfortunately, the track was mined! The mines destroyed two Cruisers and disabled two Cruisers and two Vickers, leaving half of the tanks still operational. Meanwhile, one infantry company moved onto the table across the central hill, while the second company entered the table on the British right, moving toward the SW side of the defenses.
The cloud of smoke and dust started to slowly move to the north, which gave concealment to the Garhwalis on the hill as they made some gaps through the zariba. Then they assaulted the NW side of the defenses, somewhat hindered by the barbed wire. In addition to the smoke, the assaulting troops were aided by the fact that some of the askaris were still pinned after the bombardment. Despite these advantages, the Garhwalis were only successful at the western corner of the fort. The other assault troops fell back and regrouped.
Meanwhile, the defenders were shaking off the effects of the bombardment and firing every gun at the Indian infantry. One askari platoon sallied out via the gate near the southern corner in order to engage the Indian troops on the SW side of the perimeter. Indian casualties started to mount.
The operational tanks successfully got out of the minefield, and began to move across the cleared ground on the NE side of the defenses, firing as they went. The heavy machine guns and mortars also got into action. The low wall around the fort was no protection from indirect fire, and Eritrean casualties began to mount.
After bombarding the fort at Gallabat, the British artillery shifted its fire to the fort at Metemma, which served to suppress the Italian artillery there. The guns at Metemma only managed to get off a few salvos in response.
The high morale of the Garhwalis enabled them to rally and renew their assaults. The northern corner of the defenses was breached. However, losses to the Indians were severe enough to cause the British commanders to commit one company from the Essex battalion that was off-table in reserve.
The arrival of fresh troops gave impetus to the attack. The remaining defenders along the NW wall were mopped up, and the British and Indians started to roll up the defenders along the NE and SW walls. Four Vickers tanks breached the gate near the eastern corner, and soon the light tanks were overrunning the defenders along the SE wall. Very soon, the only coherent defense was within the small fort itself, which was now isolated in the center of the compound.
Every gun in the British force was now turned against the defenders of the fort, but those defenders died very hard. One HMG team at the top of the fort shrugged off every hit that it took. Once the defenders were reduced, the final assaults began. One British platoon briefly entered the fort before being thrown back. Finally, the light tanks breached the gate, and all four tanks stormed into the courtyard of the fort. At that point, the remaining defenders surrendered. The first game was over.
Counting the cost, we judged that a platoon-sized group of defenders might have fled to Metemma, but the rest of the defending battalion was a complete write-off. Among the attackers, the two Garhwali companies took heavy casualties; only two platoons remained out of the six platoons that made the attack. Casualties among the Essex company were relatively light. Two tanks had been destroyed, and four tanks were disabled; repairs to them could begin once the mines were cleared and the mechanics’ truck came forward.
On to the next game!
- TJ