Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Seret »

AndyG wrote:7 AK47s and a RPD = 27 with the consequent high casualty rate which seemed extreme even for modern.
Only at close range. Rest of the time they'd be 13 dice (or 15 if you're calling the RPD belt fed). I guess it depends on what kind of terrain you're talking about. It wasn't all fought in super-dense jungle, and where it was engagements tended to be very short sharp ambushes.

I like Arlequin's suggestion of 2/1 firepower for assault rifles and 3/1 for SMGs.

c0cky30
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by c0cky30 »

What about assault rifles and close assault. The rules allow 2d6 per assault rifle. With that kind of bonus it is very swayed against the ANZACs.

Any suggestions?

Also how would you treat HQs

The ANZACs ran:

Platoon HQ
1x Officer
1x NCO
1x RTO
1x Runner

I am assuming the Officer and NCO would be treated as Senior Leaders but what about the RTO and runner. Do you deploy them and if so how? Or are they assumed to be incorporated into the leaders?

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Seret »

c0cky30 wrote:What about assault rifles and close assault. The rules allow 2d6 per assault rifle. With that kind of bonus it is very swayed against the ANZACs.


Keep them out of close combat then. They did start using M16s too, for exactly this reason. SLRs have a serious edge over AKs at range, but the reverse is true up close.
what about the RTO and runner Do you deploy them and if so how? Or are they assumed to be incorporated into the leaders?
They've got no real function in the game, they're abstracted away into the deployment and command dice mechanism. If you look at the WW2 platoons they always had runners, medics, orderlies, etc but the game just treats HQs as an SL or two plus any attached weapons teams.

If you really want you could put extra miniatures on the SL bases to represent them.

c0cky30
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by c0cky30 »

Cheers Seret,

Much appreciated.

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 concur... if you have the advantage of range, you keep the enemy at a distance as much as possible.

Iirc the U.S. supplied ANZAC with M16 and M60 to ease supply (which seems wrong as the M60 used 7.62mm NATO anyway), but they insisted on keeping some of the SLRs to give them some reach. I'm not sure but didn't ANZAC retain the heavy-barrel FN too? On top of that I seem to recall Owen or F1 smgs in the mix?

Ah.. yes...

Image

There's actually another guy to the right with an Owen besides the RTO, you can see him better by viewing the pic at the url: http://www.army.gov.au/Our-history/Prim ... x357px.jpg

Image

rim66
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:09 am

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by rim66 »

For 'Red Dawn' (Cold War CoC) I faced the same firepower issue and rewrote the whole arsenal table, changed the 'effect' results and modified close combat factors accordingly and it all seems to be working well.

Kind regards,

Richard/Monty Lardo

poiter50
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by poiter50 »

While the Owen gun was replaced by the F1, the Aussies initially acquired their own M16s including ammo, particularly for scouts. Later, a higher up decision caused the phasing out of the F1 apart from training. When I started basic training in 1970, we were shown the F1 but the Infantry instructors were quite disparaging and later instructors said that it was now obsolete. We were still using the SLR but the heavy barreled FN was a rare bird with the M60 preferred for volume of fire. The FN had a larger mag but suffered like the BAR in WW2 in being awkaward to change mags in a "contact". Belt fed was preferred for firing on the move and sheer volume of fire.

Nice board, there is hope for my 28mm Nam gear yet.

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4115
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by Seret »

AFAIK the kiwis never used heavy barrel SLRs. They had M60s. Sterlings and 7.62mm Brens were in general use, but I don't know if the units that served in Vietnam used 'em.

sid
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:32 am
Location: Sunny Swansea

Re: Trying to adapt CoC to the Vietnam Conflict

Post by sid »

Do u know why the Aussies went for the m60 rather than the better GPMG which was also made by Fabrique Nationale like the SLR.

The single shot use of the SLR/L1A1 was better suited to Australian doctrine and considered by the troops as more reliable than the M16 and the bigger round guaranteed a kill and (whether or not it is true) they thought the round would penetrate better through trees and jungle.

Years ago at staff college I heard a presentation by the Australian attachment officer and aside from the highly effective close arty support he rated the SLR as one of the reasons for the success of D Coy at Long Tan. Apparently the use of aimed single shots rather than the spray and pray of the M16 meant that ammo was conserved (and it nearly ran out anyway), it was harder to spot the positions of Australians and the fire was more effective. He also reckoned the Commonwealth/British tactics helped as the Australians reacted more aggressively than US forces which confused the NVA who were moving slowly to encircle and did not expect the contact to come so quickly. Also the Aussies were more spread out so confused the NVA who thought they were fighting a battalion not the reality of a company as they estimated En force size by the frontage they occupied.

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 »

Well the SLR was made under licence in Australia by Lithgow, likewise the HB version (c. 10k). I don't think anyone liked the HB much, the British never adopted it and kept the L4 Bren, the Rhodesians were apparently hot and cold on it over the years too. As far as I know only South Africa and Canada produced and issued it in quantity.

The 'GPMG 7.62mm M60' was adopted by Australia in 1960, but I can find no reference to it being manufactured in Australia on Lithgow's site (http://www.lithgowsafmuseum.org.au/milproduction.html). I'm guessing therefore that the Americans gave them a better deal than either RSA Enfield or FN Herstal.

Given that they also virtually stopped buying British vehicles except the Land Rover, after discovering the maintenance nightmares that were the Saladin, Saracen, Ferret and Champ, in favour of diesel M113s from GM and International trucks, there may have been an air of "ffs don't buy British" at the time too. I would like to hear the real reason though, purely for curiosity's sake.

As for the M16, the Australians had been using the SLR since 1958, so if the M16 was so bad as claimed, I doubt they would have issued it at all. That they did says it had its uses. As the pics above show Owens, M60s, SLRs and M16s, they were at one point all in use at the same time too. If the SLRs were running low on ammo, it was more likely because they had loaded up on spare belts for the M60, rather than two pouches of SLR mags.

Post Reply