Vietnam Rules

[Andrew_McGuire]

Thank you for that information which essentially tallies with my understanding. I’m reminded of the marines in Full Metal Jacket training with M14s, while in the battle scenes in Hue they have M16s.

A previous post seemed to suggest that both weapons might coexist within the same squad, which would indeed complicate matters and leave the choice of either averaging the effect out to depict the squad’s firepower - presumably taking into account the small number of grunts who would actually fire their weapons in the typical firefight - or having each man fire individually (or not). In either case, however, or for that matter when the same rifle is in use, the really devastating fire would come from the M60, and in some situations the grenade launcher, so perhaps the type of rifle isn’t so significant after all. My reading leads me to believe that at least before its flaws were fixed, US troops with M16s - and perhaps M14s too - felt they had an inferior weapon to the AK47, though in reality the Communist forces had a wide variety of firearms, many of them antiquated. It’s a possibly analogous situation to late WWII in the west, where every sound or glimpse of a German tank heralded a Tiger.

[Andrew_McGuire]

While browsing Dishdash Games’ site in a search for their Ultracombat Modern rules, of which, typically, I have only just become aware, I noted some notes in the downloads section for a set of Vietnam rules called, I believe, Ultracombat Quang Tri. I may well be the last interested person to have heard about these, and it certainly seems likely that they are among the prospective sets previously mentioned - though not named - by Paul of Empress Miniatures.

I’m not familiar with any of Dishdash Games’ rules, whether in the Ultracombat or Skirmish series. I’d be interested to hear opinions from anyone with experience of these as to their potential suitability for gaming in the very different environment of Southeast Asia.

[Ultravanillasmurf]

Re: DishDash Ultracombat - it might be worth asking ChargeDog of this parish about the rules.

[carlos marighela]

Really it comes down to the level of granularity (not realism) that you seek.

What are the principal differences between an M14 and an M16, leaving aside things like weight, length and the weight of ammo? I’m also going to jettison the ballistic effects of 7.62mm vs 5.56mm, that’s almost certainly too granular.

Really it comes down to range and cyclic or theoretical rate of fire. Practically speaking effective range isn’t going to be a factor in most Vietnam games and the capacity for the average punter to effectively engage beyond 300 metres, without modern day optics is generally not that flash so range is a moot point.

Theoretical or cyclic rates are pretty irrelevant too. Unless you have unlimited ammo and multiple weapons or a quick change barrel maintaining sustained automatic fire is impractical and it’s not what the weapon or the doctrine supporting it is designed for. Then there’s the issue of effective suppression of well placed aimed shot vs automatic fire.

The record of US doctrinal, materiel and actual experience lends weight to this. Theoretically in each US fire team of the period there was an automatic rifleman. The M14 was essentially uncontrollable in automatic fire, to the extent that the US developed and introduced, on a limited basis, the M14E1 which came with a pistol grip and bipod. It wasn’t a success. It’s replacement in Vietnam was  a mickey mouse clip on bipod for the M16, also not a roaring success. This lead to quite a number of units attaching M60s directly to the squads, something that had been suggested in trials conducted before and after the Vietnam War.

In all but the most theoretical sense I doubt that there’s much difference betwixt M16 and M14. The old saw in the Australian Army was that the machine gun (M60) made up 90% of the weight of fire available to the section. The Australian Army also had a mixture of SLRs and M16s in each section, typically 6-7 of the former and two of the latter.

The VC and NVA also would also often have mixes of weapons, AKs and SKS, so if you are going to faff about with having different stats for US squads, you nee to do so with the opposition and also some of their allies.

Bottom line, it really isn’t a distinction worth drawing. The only distinction that is worth drawing at least for squad and platoon based games is that made on the function of the weapon. In that sense a different set of figures for a machine gun capable of putting down sustained fire vs rifles that aren’t.

Modelling wise, in 28mm definitely there’s a noticeable difference in the look of the bang stick the figure is holding.

[carlos marighela]

By the by the Yanks considered the AK a better weapon for a variety of reasons. Firstly there was the issue of fouling, caused by shit quality ammo and poor maintenance. That was largely fixed with upgrading the ammo, modifying the weapon with a chromed chamber and bolt-assist and actually teaching their troops to maintain their weapons. This was done by issuing a fucking comic book to their troops. 

Oddly enough, apart from initial shortages of cleaning kits and the fact that many of the first batch of M16s fielded by 1RAR were worn out by the time they were handed on to 5RAR, you find relatively few complaints by Australians about the M16 apart from some typical soldier grumbles. * Of course the Australian Army is, quite rightly, a bit OCD about maintaining your weapon in the field.

Just as importantly IMO is ‘the enemy’s weapon is always cooler’ factor. Worth noting that the VC never turned their noses up at captured M16s. In practical terms both the AK and M16 have their pros and cons but are functionally about the same.


* By the 1980’s some of the M16A1s were totally clapped out. I can remember more than one that required an elastic band to hold the magazine in its well.

[Paul @ Empress Miniatures]

While browsing Dishdash Games’ site in a search for their Ultracombat Modern rules, of which, typically, I have only just become aware, I noted some notes in the downloads section for a set of Vietnam rules called, I believe, Ultracombat Quang Tri. I may well be the last interested person to have heard about these, and it certainly seems likely that they are among the prospective sets previously mentioned - though not named - by Paul of Empress Miniatures.

No it was not on my list.

I still know three rule sets being produced.

The Battlegroup set by Warwick and Piers.

A set that we are developing at Empress which is based upon the Danger Close mechanisms but very heavily developed. That's still being written although already play tested internally. Aimed at Platoon to company sized actions including full support such as artillery aircraft etc.   

And another set that I am not at liberty to say but they are a development from existing Moderns set and that worked well so its Vietnamese development has lots of promise.

     

[Andrew_McGuire]

Thank you Paul, that’s....intriguing. As it happens, I’ve just ordered The ‘Nam from Caliver which should scratch the itch for the time being.

[Paul @ Empress Miniatures]

Thank you Paul, that’s....intriguing. As it happens, I’ve just ordered The ‘NM from Caliver which should scratch the itch for the time being.

Yes it will and it was on my initial list of impending rules and as you will see when you open it the pictures are from Empress Miniatures so we were kinda involved.

Wayne is currently working on the first supplement so more to come on that front.

[NurgleHH]

A set that we are developing at Empress which is based upon the Danger Close mechanisms but very heavily developed. That's still being written although already play tested internally. Aimed at Platoon to company sized actions including full support such as artillery aircraft etc.   

[/size][size=78%]Hmm, I had a look at my copy of DC2. There are stats for Nam, so what do we need more??? It is the simple way why I love the rules, please don’t boost it too much[/size]

[Andrew_McGuire]

There are no vehicle rules in DC as I recall. That would be a minimum requirement for anything beyond a patrol or ambush scenario, I’d have thought, as would heavy weapons.

[Paul @ Empress Miniatures]

There are no vehicle rules in DC as I recall. That would be a minimum requirement for anything beyond a patrol or ambush scenario, I’d have thought, as would heavy weapons.

Yes there are in DC2 

[Andrew_McGuire]

Is DC2 currently available? I can’t even find my copy of v 1 anyway so I might buy it.

Belay that - I can see it on the site. £8 in hard copy - two laminated sheets, I assume?

Are the vehicle rules the only additions or changes?

[Ultravanillasmurf]

By the way, thanks Carlos, that was an interesting read. It is useful to get a non American view of the conflict.

[Andrew_McGuire]

I fully agree, and accept the arguments about the relative unimportance of technical differences between M14, M16, and AK47, though there’s little question that many US troops, at least, felt otherwise.

It may not apply much to Vietnam, but I was struck by a comment I heard yesterday in a YouTube review of the Contact Front rules - of which, incidentally, almost 18 months after release, one still hears very little - in which the reviewer said that those rules’ lack of differentiation between different models of assault rifle or light machine gun was perfectly sound, but he felt quite strongly that this should not apply to the sniper rifles employed by the US Army and Marines (respectively M14 and M107, I think). He seemed to know what he was talking about.

[carlos marighela]

A sniper team is effectively a support weapon so, in a sense it is a different case but I would question what rules differences, different models would require. Range? Accuracy modifiers?  there might be an argument for a different approach for a designated marksman within a section as opposed to a dedicated sniper team.