Donate to the Lead Adventure Forum to keep it alive!
You can see them in a lot of pictures of the period. They are cans fixed to the MG, as mrcleh has said, to reduce stoppages.A great touch from Empress/Paul Hicks. I was thinking about to make them, if they were not included with the miniatures.
I don’t claim to know very much at all I’m learning too
@Empress - please thank him from us for his insight.
Actually true credit should go to Ian Armstrong who did the weapons for this range as he mentioned it to me. Stating the obvious if you do not want to have the field modification on just cut it off the belt.A little story;We have a secret advisor in a way. In the village that we live in on the edge of the glorious Cotswolds also lives an American chap who potters about and looks after the village war memorial for the village. All unpaid. Lovely guy. He chats to the Empress Christine when she is queuing up in the local post office. He was fascinated when she explained what was in all the boxes that she takes down every day and about 6 months ago he suggested we pop along to the village history group meeting as he was doing a talk on Vietnam. Intrigued we did and was welcomed by Pfc John Lindquist in his full Marine dress uniform. He then spent the evening talking about Tet and how he arrived at the very end and then did his tour in a firebase in the DMZ until he was bombed out then sent to recoup in logistics convoys of which he did over 100 journeys sitting in the lead vehicle. We now chat about the details of the conflict and he LOVES the figures. He especially liked the detail of the can on the ammo belt. He is currently checking out a special detail on the use of the 60mm mortar for us. Very useful contact and I am still stunned that we met in the village. Kismet?
Well my base of knowledge is (if put politely) limited and is affected by films and the writings of a former enlisted interrogator (not writing about Vietnam) so on a good day nothing ^___^.Carlos mentions doctrine being largely unchanged since the '40s, I asked as from limited (WW2) reading individual initiative amongst the rank and file was limited. British squads broke down into two commanded by an NCO.Was it that the USMC were better trained and four marines could be left to command themselves? Or am I misunderstanding the term "fireteam"?
Small world! As I child I lived in Bourton on the Water. Perfect spot for gamers. Laurie Lee, the SCW veteran and noted author used to take his constitutionals along the Windrush, Peter Scott, the chap that designed the Western Approaches camouflage scheme lived in the village and of course there was the model village. Mind you, I’m not suggesting you upscale to 1/16 figures to fight your way through the model village.
On paper each of those USMC fireteams was headed up by a corporal (in the real world, what anyone else would call alance corporal). That’s not to say they were independent entities any more than the rifle, scout or gun group of a contemporary Australian section were. They were more convenient groupings that could act in concert to create fire and movement.