Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Conflicts that came in from the Cold => Topic started by: commissarmoody on January 18, 2018, 02:27:38 AM
-
Hello all.
I am looking for information as to what was standard French squad and platoon doctrine post WW2 for some French Indo-china action. Did they use gun groups? When looking up the Chatellerault FM24/29 it honistly really did not seem much better then a BAR so i was thinking of useing it as such. Instead of as a LMG. Thoughts?
I notice they still loved the grenade projector's (some thing that pretty much every world war 2 game systme seems to ignore or forget about).
-
For flavour (and with opponent's consent) you could give it variable fire, BAR ROF no problems, LMG ROF cumulative chance of failure. Still going to need a loader.
It was based on the BAR and had a non field replaceable barrel. Continuous fire of magazines was possible but not recommended- Wikipedia (for anyone who has not looked it up).
-
For flavour (and with opponent's consent) you could give it variable fire, BAR ROF no problems, LMG ROF cumulative chance of failure. Still going to need a loader.
It was based on the BAR and had a non field replaceable barrel. Continuous fire of magazines was possible but not recommended- Wikipedia (for anyone who has not looked it up).
That's what I was thinking, I was an automatic weapons guy for a bit in the army and also a M240B gunner in the weapons squad. So I know how much lead those things can lay down, and those were both belt-fed. I also know how fast a M4A1 on auto with piss thru ammo to.
So a weapon based on the bar with a 25 round mag with 450 round cyclic rate, wont have the suppression factor that a regular belt fed MG will have. (baring misfeds, jams..etc)
but I will still take it, reliable, accurate, just be careful you don't melt the barrel.
maybe have it so if the guy in stationary and their is a loader it can count as an lmg, thus taking the loader out of firing line as he has to change out spent mags. But if the gunner is firing by himself for what ever reason or moved its back down to a BAR. Has to reload a 20Lb brick.
I might add a higher chance to jam while doing that, or not. all depends on how finicky I want that rule to be. (double fed, goof's changing out the MAGs or barrel got to hot)
-
As far as tactics/doctrine goes, I'm not sure it changed at all initially, apart from the detail, from 1944. In the main it doesn't go that far from the U.S. Manuals of c.1944 (FM 7-10 etc), themselves somewhat derived from Interwar French tactics and doctrine.
The gun group - manouvre group combi seems constant, but the numbers in each varied over time/unit. I have read that there was a switch from three squads of 12 in 1945, to two squads of whatever after '50-ish, so as to reduce the numbers of squad leaders needed and allowing the 'spares' to be bumped up to platoon sergeant and so-on up the scale.
This knock-on effect often promoted guys beyond their experience/ability and it was a case of 'sink or swim' at each leadership level. Certainly it was not until company commander level that you found commissioned officers who had both (some) experience and training for the role. That of course didn't mean that they made good company commanders.
There are some 'tables d'effectif' here: http://1project2far.blogspot.co.uk/p/indochina-war-ressources.html
From what I can see on the last para one, the platoon became one two-gun LMG squad, a light mortar team and a large 'voltigeur' or manouvre squad. I imagine that if these broke down into smaller teams in action, it would very much depend on the presence of guys capable of leading those teams.
-
That sound interesting, but can also get pretty unwieldy. :D
I can see why it didn't last. I can see doing some thing like that to deal with casualties, and lack of experienced NCOs.
Currently rereading "street with out joy" and units seemed to be continually under manned and used up.
I am Imaging One new Sous-Lieutenant arriving to take over his platoon, to be greeted by a newly promoted 1 sergeant, 1 Caporal, and a few grizzled privets in charge of a gaggle of inexperienced Viet replacements. Half of who only know only the most rudimentary French. lol
-
Yep, you've got the idea Chris, although I fear the Sous-Lieutenant might as often find himself drafted in as the Coy Commander's 2iC and the newly-promoted sergeant set as platoon leader.
lol
It was unwieldy, but as was the case with some U.S. Units in WWII, if you haven't got guys up to breaking the squad down like the manual says, you don't break it down like the manual says.
In effect the tactical base of the French in Indochina effectively went from being the squad to the platoon, with the platoon running like a really big squad, complete with its gun group and manoeuvre group. This was okay as they weren't fighting adept German micro-platoons, but the Vietminh, who did everything (in the North at least) as companies and battalions; it's all relative.
In '50 however, the more usual three squad platoon was still running, which will be more suited to working with teams within squads. With the mix of figures you have though, you can set them up for the full range of options, depending on how hard you want to make life for yourself in a game.
Street Without Joy is about as good as it gets and my French isn't up to anything not translated into anglais. The Centurions by Jean Lartéguy was recommended to me as a fictionalised account. I haven't read it, but apparently it was read a lot by troops during the Vietnam War. It also covers Algeria as part of the story too. The Anthony Quinn movie Lost Command was based on it.
-
Try here:
http://daniel.rabbe.free.fr/organisation/section.htm
-
Ok I think I am getting a good picture here. Now to figure out any, "national" characteristic' s I should apply to the french union forces.
I was looking at trying out Chain of command, 5 core, but other generic rules can work.
Should their be a difference between diffrent groups like between colonial paras vs legion ones? Or say between Moroccan, Algerian, Senegalese and the diffrent Indochina ethnic units?
And what "special" rules should the Viet-minh have? I am thinking for them, good forward deplomets, .camouflage, and ether some thing that allows them to break contact very well or to be realy hard to break once they where committed to an attack.
Reading about mobile groups, forts, and tanks being swarmed by infantry is sobering.
-
Chain of Command DMZ has some National Characteristics for the Viet Cong that may suit your Viet Minh?
-
Chain of Command DMZ has some National Characteristics for the Viet Cong that may suit your Viet Minh?
Thanks for reminding me. So his site states.
These look just fine for Regional force Vietminh.
NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
A VC Senior Leader can use all of his Command Initiative to order all the units within his Command Distance that haven’t been activated yet in that Phase, to assault the enemy. Any troops so activated can choose to move up to 4D6 straight towards their chosen enemy (terrain dependant), each squad dicing for its own movement. They halve their Shock for Movement purposes (rounding up). Any Squad or Squads which gets within 4” from enemy initiates Close Combat. Defenders will count any unit that moved 4D6 as 3D6 for defense purposes.
Hard to Detect
The VC tactics of dispersal, rapid concentration and excellent camouflage mean they are hard to target during their build up. If an opponent takes a pre-game game barrage the VC player will add +1 to their dice when attempting to bring forces onto the table.
Our Land
VC Patrol Markers use 14” as both their move distance and the distance from a friendly Patrol Marker within which they must remain.
Other than this additional 2” they operate as normal Patrol Markers.
Main force Vietminh force will not have as many characteristics as the local and regional force. But will have access to more and heavier weapons.
Human Wave
An NVA Senior Leader use all his Command Initiative to order all the units within his Command Distance that haven’t been activated yet in that Phase, to assault the enemy. Any troops so activated can choose to move up to 4D6 straight towards their chosen enemy (terrain dependant), each squad dicing for its own movement. They halve their Shock for Movement purposes (rounding up). Any Squad or Squads which gets within 4” from enemy initiates Close Combat. Defenders will count any unit that moved 4D6 as 3D6 for defense purposes.
Hard to Detect
The NVA tactics of dispersal, rapid concentration and excellent camouflage mean they are hard to target during their build up. If an opponent takes a pre-game game barrage the NVA player will add +1 to their dice when attempting to bring forces onto the table.
And local force Vietminh get.
Local Force VC use the Irregular Rules.
(See Irregular Rules reproduced courtesy Happy Wanderers Abyssinian War Rules at the bottom of this article)
The default Local Force VC motivation starts on Motivated (4).
NB: The Irregular Force rules do not apply to crew served weapons which are treated the same as in the main rules.
Local Knowledge
Allows VC player to either deploy one unit an additional 6” further from a Jump-Off point than would normally be the case OR to move a jump-off point up to 18” in any direction, so long as it is further than 12” from any enemy troops or Jump-Off Point.
Our Land
VC Patrol Markers use 14” as both their move distance and the distance from a friendly Patrol Marker within which they must remain.
Other than this additional 2” they operate as normal Patrol Markers.
Di Di Mau
Local Force VC Leaders can spend a Chain of Command pip (not dice) to leave the table with a unit which can include themselves in contact with a JOP provided they are outside of line of sight of any enemy within 12 inches. This can be done before or after movement. They can then re enter at another jump off point (as for a normal unit placement) in a subsequent phase.
Poor Shots
All Local Force VC units including crew served weapons and snipers suffer a +1 penalty to all shooting to hit.
Now to figure out how to flush out the French Union forces. :D
-
Probably at a higher level than you're looking for but here's a detailed study of French operations in Indochina https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM5271.html
-
Probably at a higher level than you're looking for but here's a detailed study of French operations in Indochina https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM5271.html
Thanks.
-
CoC is my preference for most things, but I also think national characteristics can be laid on a bit too thick sometimes and are hard to quantify when balancing forces out.
The DMZ ones are good, but I wouldn't provide more than two per side myself.
I'm sure there was one that allowed the VC to withdraw unit by unit and claim victory by doing so, if they reduced the enemy force morale to 3 or below and providing their own was higher. That would work well for local force VM quite well.
It also gives the FEFEO player chance to grab victory from the jaws of defeat in like measure, by causing VM force morale to drop equal or below theirs before the withdrawal is complete.
Didi Mau might produce a bit of a whack-a-mole game.
The first rule would work well for VM assault units though.
I might allow the VM an extra patrol marker, rather than 14", but your mileage and all that.
Bear in mind local forces were like 'basic training' entities and through survival and need, were 'promoted' to the regional forces. VM units in the North benefited from training by the Chinese and where more like regulars than guerrillas. The opposite was true in the South.
-
I might just keep locale force actions for smaller actions with skirmish rules. And I think that more accurately would represent most actions local force's would be used. Snipe at or set up booby traps for big formations while providing info to your regional forces and do proper ambushes on small patrols and isolated posts.
And keep the main force and regional force one for COC and I like the idea of having one more jump off points to represent a better local knowledge, no need to complicate things any more then need be.
-
Sounds reasonable to me. I certainly wouldn't think of piling on all sorts of special rules to CoC, as they aren't really required. Dropping in an extra marker/JOP, or allowing a re-alignment of one or more JOPs at the end of the Patrol Phase, for example, can enhance the game for unusual settings/scenarios, while being relatively un-intrusive to the flow of the game.
-
Agreed, national characteristics are cool, but should not be the main focus. Of course I need to figure out what ones work best for French regulars, legion, North African units etc.. lol
-
Well would you apply different characteristics to a U.S. Army unit raised in Maine, compared to one raised in Oregon or Texas?
Wherever troops were raised in 'France', be it Algeria, Morocco, or Senegal, the same training programme and doctrine existed for all. Granted the Legion had esprit de corps in spades.
You might make allowances for the ratio of Vietnamese conscripts in the mix maybe, but overall skin colour and uniform differences are as deep as differences go overall otherwise. Obviously those don't make one man fight better than another.
Now if you were to apply a characteristic to differentiate between a unit with a fair amount of experience, compared to one straight off the boat, then I think you might be on to something!
-
I see your point, i was not trying to imply a speration of ethnio groups and combat abilty. Espeicaly since as you pointed out that the Profesinal units from France and units tranined in the Africa colonies where trained to the same standard, with diffrence more along of what branch of service they where. (Infantry, Army, Para..etc)
I think the Vietnamese conscripts might add some flavor, but I think that is more of rating some units as green vs regular to represent the increase of new troops into the unit. Might even rate some of the late war Para units as veterans and regulars instead of elite because of their over use and high turn over rate of casualties.
Just like Legion will be regulars and vets, but not Elite.
I think I need to reformat my question.
The US for COC WW2 get "scout" and "marching fire".
The Germans use Maschinengewehr and Handgranaten!
The French for COC get the fallowing rules.
TROMBLON VB
LA BATAILLE CONDUIT
And I just do not see the french troops trying to recrate verdun in indochina dispit the DBH feasco, They just seem more fluid is all. But hampered by a shoe string budget, constantly changing governments at home, ect, etc.
But I am also not sure If i should use Marching Fire! and Scouts.
-
Yeah I'm much more onboard with using 'characteristics' to model what is actually combat effectiveness differences. Few gamers opt to play a unit 'past its best' for some reason though.
The Scout rule seems reasonable for the French, but I'm not even sure Marching Fire is even valid for the U.S. Army beyond Patton's 3rd Army and one of his successor generals in Korea. Although I do recall a 'Big Picture' platoon attack video from c. 1962 that featured one.
Rich tends to give characteristics as 'options' that give players some benefit for 'historical play' in certain instances, which of course gives players the choice of doing without them and going their own way too.
I guess identifying the common French traits in Indochina will be the name of the game. I'm sure at least one will probably jump out from Street Without Joy, although its unlikely to be relevant for the entirety of the war.
-
Agreed, about the marching fire. No infantry man with half a brain will walk and fire from the hip. That was the half baked dream of a cavalry men. This is a decent modern video about US squad tactics from world war 2.
https://youtu.be/MPBztuaDNhM
One thing I have noticed about the French forces at least from my reading is that they fight tell almost being completely destroyed. I guess this is because they have no place to retreat to and because it really depends on the VM's mood as to weather they will take you prisoner or not that day. Of course the same could be said about the Vietminh when they are cornered and have no way to escape.
Maybe count French units as "Diehards" if in a defensive position? (Bunker, trench, fort). might be a good counter to the VMs human waves. Of course that might be better for scenarios only and not every game.
I am listening to "Hell in a very small" place now on audio book and they are saying that Many of the Parachute and French units by that stage of the war where almost 40 if not 50 percent Viet's. And that those units seemed to preform "better" then none mixed fully European, African, or Viet units. I think this is down to the Africans and Europeans not being as adopt of reading the locales and terrain. Europeans where also more prone to succumb to the harsh topical climents and strange food then the locals. And the full Viet units, being more prone to infiltration and maybe suffered some bias from other units in the theater.
Since the french seemed to like the idea of puting a rifle gernade projecter and at least one scoped rifle in their rifle squads, maybe some thing to do with that?
Also, do you think I should cross forums and ask folks in the colony forum? Seems Like there are lots of French speakers posting on the Tonkin 1883-85 thread.
-
Paras - Aggressive/stubborn. MASCHINENGEWEHR.
-
Paras - Aggressive/stubborn. MASCHINENGEWEHR.
Not bad idea the Para battalions. Why would you think Maschingengewehr vs the English option of Concentrated fire?
this was the standerd Light MG of the french in the 50s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_24/29_light_machine_gun
-
Aggressive/Stubborn is preferable to 'Diehard' imo - which really throws a game off-kilter. The Viet Minh took some 40k-ish prisoners over the years (2k-ish of whom survived to be released). 8k prisoners were taken at BDP alone (around 50% of the total defenders iirc), so last bullet and last man stands are seemingly a myth.
Maschinengewehr or more appropriately 'Mitrailleuse' in this case, works for me though, good call! Concentrated Fire could work too. Perhaps the squad leader could choose his preference each time he expends his CI and actually does direct the fire of the LMG?
On top of that, for French veterans/elites, dropping in an inferior junior leader (1 CI) to take some of the weight off the squad leader, will also work. It represents either good deputy squad leaders, those natural leaders others coalesce around, or others who step-up to back the squad leader's play and make life easier.
The player can put him with the gun group or manouvre group, wherever the squad leader isn't in other words, which will enhance the 'fire and movement' doctrine of the squad. A far better buff for the unit than the more unimaginative but common 'make them six dice'.
Rifle grenades and snipers (aka 'squad marksmen' if we're honest) are covered already, no special rules needed imo. Check the recent FAQ for rifle grenade changes.
To be honest there is unlikely to be much in the way of new CoC special rules that can be created, given that;
a) Post-WWII was mostly derivative of the lessons of WWII for many years after.
b) A shed load of special rules etc have already been created across CoC as a whole.
I won't say don't try to come up with new ideas/rules, but if one already does what you need, use it as it is! Different rules to do the same thing create 'rule fatigue' in players that do several sub-periods and it becomes hard to remember what rule to use in which incarnation of the game.
I don't recommend going to the Colonial Board, as cross-posting isn't allowed, plus it would dilute the conversation across two boards on top of that. Going to the TFL Forum with it is perhaps a better option, particularly with reference to the possible impact of rules, if not Indochina itself.
-
Thanks. I do like the idea of a junior leader. And Mitrailleuse, only reasion I was question maybe useing consntrated fire was becase of the realitvely low valume of fire the FM24/29 could put out compared to the belt fed german Mgs. I was a automatic riflemen in the army and a 240B machingunner. They can put out a hell of alot more lead and for a longer time then my M4 on auto. Also with out makeing the barrel glow. lol
So maybe Concentrated fire in the squads and Mitrailleuse in the LMG/MMG teams.
I also like Paras being Aggressive or stubborn. Now if only I can find those damn rules in the book. Thing needs an Index. lol
And your are correct about making to many more rules. I was not trying to reinvent the wheel just pick peoples minds for ideas.
So it would seem I need to pick up the new FAQ.
Also your are correct about the amount of prisoners taken. I guess i was thinking more about the battles along the Red River delta and the "De Lattre Line". Or listening to the accounts of the mobel groups being taken apart. In these cases of course the men did fight until they were over run or pushed out of the forts. That being said, even those actions usually produced a few survivors and prisoners.
And in the case of DBP, the French had fought to the last of their ability to resist. Any more fighting would have just been a form of suicide.
I think there are examples of the full range of human experience in this conflict. Part of what makes it interesting.
One thing i can say is that I have learned to respect the VM command and common solder, they out marched and out fought the French union forces on many occasions. Only to be under estimated time and time again by the French Leadership, who where very experienced solders in there own right.
Thank you all for your help so far.
Now to figure out the support lists. :D
-
Aggressive and stubborn rules are in the close combat section of the rules.
This site is handy for support and TOEs
http://indochine54.free.fr/vm/chuluc.html
-
Aggressive and stubborn rules are in the close combat section of the rules.
This site is handy for support and TOEs
http://indochine54.free.fr/vm/chuluc.html
Thanks, and I got that site favorited now. lol
-
Concentrated Fire in terms of the rule itself is little more than the squad leader telling the guys to focus on one element, rather than a broader front, nothing particularly British about that. Even the Handgranaten rule is not particularly German, who doesn't toss a few grenades in before the assault? That rule just allows gambling on getting more or less grenades on-target when assaulting. Do you suppose that squad leaders didn't order their men to give it "all they had" at times too (Five Rounds Rapid)?
I'm sort of thinking a lot of this through as I type it, but having looked sideways at the 'book' today, I don't see any 'national characteristic' that isn't just a case of the squad leader using his head, regardless of his nationality and in the process making his unit more combat effective in the process. People like their supposed 'national' differences, but other than the rule titles themselves and their by-line, I'm not seeing any really.
It might seem too much, but allowing any (regular? elite?) squad leader to utilise any of the book 'National Characteristics' "ain't no thang" really, it's not like he can use them all at once, nor are they battle winners in their own right; they also use CI which can't then be used to remove Shock from the unit - and there's the rub, how does he employ his leadership skills in that phase to best effect?
-
True, honinstly just about every post WW2 western army uses the same tactics perfected in that conflict. With only very slightly different service characteristics. Useally down to the individual then say the army as a whole.
Most troops would love to lead an assault with gernades, any squad or team leader can order troops to focus fire on one group of enemies, or just power every thing you have at a target.
And most armies know in theory how to delegate to their NCOs.
Guess trying to find some thing that is uniquely French at this time will be found off the battlefield, not on.