Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

dwtaylor0
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by dwtaylor0 »

Thanks for all the info!

In regards to the ARVN organization, is there a specific source you're getting it from? The only source I've been able to find is the Force on Force 'Ambush Valley' supplement, and I just copied the TOE from there.

As for how to represent the HEAT rounds, would either decreasing the number of defense dice the tanks roll, or maybe decreasing the armor save to only 6s rather than 5s or 6s.

I've definitely been having trouble with figuring armor penetration. Remembering your advice, I've been looking at the angle specified and found that it's often quite different or not even mentioned.


So would something like AP: 14 HE: 7 be accurate for the M20?


Would the M41 Walker Bulldog perhaps have a gun stat-line more like the 76mm Shermans? (AP: 10 HE: 5)

User avatar
Arlequín
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: King's Vale Royal

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Arlequín »

I read a book once. :D

The best one-stop resource for the ARVN is actually the Osprey on them... price and accessibility considered amongst other things. While I'm usually dubious of them, I rate Gordon Rottman very highly and it compares to other stuff I've read like Don Storry's Armoured Combat in Vietnam, which is probably out of print.

Like almost anything else though, there's a lot of conflicting info out there and while I've no doubt the FoF guys have done their reading, relying on someone's interpretation of what someone else has interpreted in the first place, has the potential to compound an error... a common feature of wargame lists and articles.

If you can't go to original source material, go for secondary sources at worst and no further - most people nowadays tend to list their sources, so you can see where they got their information from and judge it on that. If there a load of official looking documents or war diaries listed, as opposed to just other people's books, you're usually on safe ground.

The armour save suggestion is another way of doing it and on the face of it seems to work just as well as my suggestion... your project, your call. :)

HE 7 seems high for the M20 (I presume we're talking the RCL?), it only had HEAT rounds... likewise the M20 Bazooka if we're talking about that. I have an aborted post-war 'arsenal' list for CoC, which while not entirely accurate in CoC terms, they are comparable within that list... so it will give an idea of how they work as regards each other at least.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/104 ... rsenal.pdf

The APs given are 'pure' i.e. the weapon's 'best ammo', which is usually HEAT in the '60s, so some back-working will be required if you want to treat those rounds separately. IIRC only the 20pdr on the Centurion did not have a HEAT round. Comparing things like the T34/85 in the CoC rules to that given in my list, will give some idea of the difference HEAT makes at least.

Yourself, or anyone who wants to use them, change them, correct them, or whatever, is welcome to do so.

dwtaylor0
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by dwtaylor0 »

Thanks for the thoughts and link to your work! ARVN TOEs seems pretty difficult to track down, I might try and find some Korean War era US Army TOEs since it is my understanding the ARVN organization was based on that.

While it's probably true for basically all armies ever, I get the impression that ARVN and their northern foes tended to make due with whatever was available/could be scrounged up.

Edited to add:
It's interesting, I've been googling around and have found some things that purport to be TO&Es for NVA, but nothing for ARVN.

Edited again to add:
Okay so I just found a US Army document that specifies the organization of a Popular Force platoon, but still no ARVN infantry.
(http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collect ... 11/id/1395 page 37)

rim66
Posts: 686
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:09 am

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by rim66 »

I'm pretty sure I have some ORBAT stuff, including ARVN, kicking around. If you email me at morr2212 @ yahoo.co.uk (no spaces) I'll send on what I can find.

Kind regards,

Richard
Monty's Wargaming World
www.montyswargamingworld.co.uk
Blog: http://theratreport.com/
EBay: http://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/rmor2212
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/101018826@N02/

User avatar
TroubleAtTheMill
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:50 pm
Location: Peterborough, UK
Contact:

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by TroubleAtTheMill »

siggian wrote:I'm not so sure that shock is the best way.
Except that:

a) shock is an abstraction. It measures the reduction in combat efficiency of a squad or team due to enemy fire, be that light wounds, a desire to keep their heads down
b) kills are an abstraction too, they cover both killed, too wounded to fight on, too scared to fight on, assigned to carry a teammate back to aid station, all manner of 'no longer a combatant'
c) shock is fundamentally the core concept behind TFLs rulesets
Mike Whitaker
Blog: http://troubleatthemill.blogspot.com/
Podcast: The Miller's Tale (see blog)
Club: http://www.peterborough-wargames-club.org.uk/

User avatar
Arlequín
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: King's Vale Royal

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Arlequín »

dwtaylor0 wrote:Thanks for the thoughts and link to your work!
You're welcome and it saves me doing it at some vague future point. ;)
dwtaylor0 wrote: ARVN TOEs seems pretty difficult to track down, I might try and find some Korean War era US Army TOEs since it is my understanding the ARVN organization was based on that.

While it's probably true for basically all armies ever, I get the impression that ARVN and their northern foes tended to make due with whatever was available/could be scrounged up.
Indeed, few 'Western' armies did not adopt the American style organisation in the post-War period, albeit with some small differences. In the case of the ARVN it was 'French-style' cavalry organisation, rather than the US style, but even that wasn't far off and at small unit level there was not so much difference other than naming conventions.

Older kit was retained, but wear and tear also took its toll and even during the Indochina War the half-tracks struggled to keep pace with the armour and trucks were used in the units that accompanied them then. Barring the M-16 SPAA (I think, but not certain), the ARVN did not use the half-tracks after '62 and I doubt there were that many before that.

The Osprey book does have pretty much all you need to know for CoC though.
TroubleAtTheMill wrote:
siggian wrote:I'm not so sure that shock is the best way.
Except that...
I'm with Mike on this, 'Shock' is an abstract of a number of things which prevents a unit doing what the player wants. However when we add a label like Shock we tend to pay more attention to the word itself than anything and forget it's a wide-ranging concept that takes everything in from bullets to dysentery as reasons why a unit might be less effective than a supposed norm at any point in time.

siggian
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:22 am
Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by siggian »

Whoa Mike!

That's something I said way back on page 2. My primary concern was that mucking about and adding extra shock might imbalance the game.

I look at kills as being deaths, incapacitating wounds, or rendering otherwise capable soldiers incapable. Basically permanent in the context of the game. I look at shock as confusion, perhaps minor minor wounds, or guys ducking from close calls. Something that could be temporary.

In terms of handling casualties, it depends on whether you think dealing with a heavily wounded soldier is a permanent event (in the ground and time scale of CoC) or a temporary event. I was suggesting that it might be better modeled as a permanent event, and thus a "kill" rather than a "shock". Two kills on a unit might be one guy wounded and his buddy tending to him but both are out of the game.

User avatar
Arlequín
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: King's Vale Royal

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Arlequín »

I'm now sat on the fence... as Siggian's point makes sense too. :|

A kill in one respect has less effect on a unit as a rule. Traumatising certainly, but you can't do anything for a corpse and of course they don't scream either. A wounded man in a team not only uses up another to attend to him, but also distracts his team mates out of natural concern.

When the time comes to move the stabilised casualty out of harm's way to the CCP, it's usually a two-man job, three if someone is needed to hold up a plasma pack, or if he's a really big guy. One lucky shot, or a booby trap, has just taken out a whole fire team effectively, despite only causing a single real casualty.

Some forces might do things differently, or an officer/NCO may instruct them to just stabilise the guy and move on, or maybe leave one guy, or one of the walking wounded to act as security for a consolidated group of stretcher cases. I suspect it would depend on the situation, the numbers of men and of course how hard the enemy are pressing the attack.

All things being equal then, some units might indeed theoretically take more shock from what is in effect a single actual casualty, than another might. Without going down the road of racialising the argument, some 'military cultures' might regard taking care of casualties with differing degrees of importance too.

Tricky one... :?

dwtaylor0
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by dwtaylor0 »

I'm inclined to agree with both Mike and Siggian.

I think that the abstract and elegant simplicity of shock is fundamental the design of CoC and Lardy games in general. For the scope of this project I think it might be wise to stick with that.

I do think that a more detailed and specific could be very cool and could offer interesting differences in how different forces handle casualties. But I think it might be a bit ambitious. Essentially if this turns from a CoC add-on into a full separate game then it should absolutely be there.

Of course I'm willing to be proven wrong :)


Unrelated note:
Arlequin, the HE for the M67 Recoilless Rifle is 25. This seems pretty intense, is it representing flechette/canister rounds?

User avatar
Arlequín
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: King's Vale Royal

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Arlequín »

Oops... that should be 7... or maybe 8. That's what you get for c+p values in a chart. :roll:

I didn't do anything on Flechette or Beehive rounds, I was going to do them under a special rule, somehow. Everything there is AP/HE only.

Post Reply