Vietnam Rules

[Andrew_McGuire]

I take it you have high grade intel. I don’t expect you to put your asset at risk. He / she’s doing good work.

[NurgleHH]

I take it you have high grade intel. I don’t expect you to put your asset at risk. He / she’s doing good work.

I will order it, sure. Warwick Kinrade is always doing great rules. And one of his good work is the playtesting. So you get nothing untested. In C19-times this is very hard to do, I‘m afraid

[Andrew_McGuire]

So you get nothing untested.

Words that Robert McNamara would have done well to bear in mind when procuring the M16, I feel.

[NurgleHH]

Words that Robert McNamara would have done well to bear in mind when procuring the M16, I feel.

But without this problem half of the vietnam-movies wouldn't be that good, I think

[Andrew_McGuire]

True enough. Which reminds me to repeat my hope that we’ll see more US Marines with M14s and ARVN with M1 carbines. This is relevant to rules as well, these being very different weapons, which shouldn’t be lumped together at the tactical level as generic assault rifles.

[NurgleHH]

True enough. Which reminds me to repeat my hope that we’ll see more US Marines with M14s and ARVN with M1 carbines. This is relevant to rules as well, these being very different weapons, which shouldn’t be lumped together at the tactical level as generic assault rifles.

Do you think that so many gamers can see the difference between a M14 and a M16 in 28mm??? In the moment I try to come back to Disposable Heroes and the Long road South (without the modern supplement). In this rules the M14 and the M16 will handled quiet simular, which works good. Often to much love for the details from reality kill the fastness and the flow of a game. I think for more detailed game it would be better to use a ruleset like Skirmish Sangin, which is more a roleplay system.

[Andrew_McGuire]

Given the quality of the best of the current 28mm ranges I feel the difference would be very apparent, and I’d be very surprised if customers and manufacturers alike didn’t think it worth representing. Empress and Gringo 40s both seem intent on making their ranges as comprehensive as possible, though the latter currently is focused on one particular phase of the war.

As far as representing the differences in a rule set is concerned, of course it largely depends on the command level of the scenario being played. There’s enough discussion of the effects of various weapon types in histories - even those covering the entire war at the strategic and political as well as operational levels such as Max Hastings’ book - to make me feel it’s a factor to be taken into account, though how granular the treatment should be is another matter altogether. Nobody wants games depicting firefights to be slowed down to a crawl by constant reference to charts, but I think modern game design is sophisticated enough to portray at least the psychological effect of troops depending for their lives on what they perceive to be an inferior weapon to the opponent’s, whether or not that perception could be backed up by technical analysis.

[SJWi]

I must admit I would think it worth showing M14s and M16s as “different” in any scale above 1/300. I certainly remember having USMC figures with M14s and US army with M16s with my Platoon 20 figures 30+ years ago.

 As for differentiating in rules...another kettle of fish entirely.

[NurgleHH]

You are right, the different between m14 and m16 should be recognized. When you see all these Vietnam-movies you feel like m16 is the only weapon... my fault, sorry

[Andrew_McGuire]

And don’t forget poor Marvin the ARVN with his feeble M1.

[NurgleHH]

And don’t forget poor Marvin the ARVN with his feeble M1.

The only one without jamming, I think. And a good rifleman is very fast. We know it since sharpes rifles...

[AlexM]

I think the argument for M14 vs M16 is valid, but based on first hand info from guys like Dale Dye, the M14 was not in WIDESPREAD use by 1967 (having gone out of production in 1964 and largely replaced by the M16), and while realism and accuracy is great, modelling a single or pair of guys in a squad with M14s and everyone with M16s is going to bog down all but the most elegant of rulesets.

[Andrew_McGuire]

I was thinking mainly about the Marines, who were still issued with the M14 for quite some time after the adoption of the M16. As the latter was plagued with problems it also seems likely that many would have preferred to stick with a weapon they trusted when possible, though I don’t know what statistical support there is for this supposition. Incidentally a version of the M14 is still in use today as a sniper weapon, or at least has been used in Iraq and, I would assume, Afghanistan.

I agree that attempting to depict the mixed use of M14s and M16s within a squad would have the effect of over-complicating the rules, at least when fielding more than a platoon, but it would also seem odd not to reflect the considerable variety of weapon types used by the NVA and VC. As I’ve mentioned before, the issue is not in any case just about technical performance.

[commissarmoody]

Hi All,

I am responsible for The 'Nam rules, and have re-joined LAF after being away for a while.

The helicopter rules are optional, but will be revised in the first supplement, Fallen Dominoes, which I'm starting work on this month. This will cover the ANZACs, Montagnards, South Koreans and some other force org lists, plus the French Indo-China Wars and the British, Japanese and French War in 1945.

However, what I'll also be doing is adding a new reference sheet for some of the transport and AFVs that are relevant to the above, plus stats based upon the various helicopters used by the different forces.

Hope that helps,

Wayne

Looking forward to seeing these expansions. 

[AlexM]

I was thinking mainly about the Marines, who were still issued with the M14 for quite some time after the adoption of the M16. As the latter was plagued with problems it also seems likely that many would have preferred to stick with a weapon they trusted when possible, though I don’t know what statistical support there is for this supposition. Incidentally a version of the M14 is still in use today as a sniper weapon, or at least has been used in Iraq and, I would assume, Afghanistan.

I agree that attempting to depict the mixed use of M14s and M16s within a squad would have the effect of over-complicating the rules, at least when fielding more than a platoon, but it would also seem odd not to reflect the considerable variety of weapon types used by the NVA and VC. As I’ve mentioned before, the issue is not in any case just about technical performance.

Worth keeping in mind, depicting whole squads issued with M14s covers only the first year or two of the full US ground involvement. M14s went out of production by 1964 because McNamara killed the procurement of them based on a report that sold the M16 as superior. Realistically, you can have them for 65-67, but if you look at the photos and footage from the fighting in '67 and later, you're almost exclusively seeing an M16 in the hands of Marines and Army.  Dale Dye tells a story about marines trying to hide the M14s when the switch over order came down.
The M14 in use today was reintroduced in the early 2000s, with a metal or composite receiver and  other bits of modernization, but you're absolutely correct - the US Navy and Coastguard used the M14 throughout the 80s and 90s too.

Getting back on topic a bit - I think effectively, it's an either/or for M15 or M14s for a squad, depending on the year of the war. The M14 is going to have a longer effective range and accuracy, slower rate of fire vs the M16.