Huertgen Forest - November 1944
Live Stream at 9:00 PM UK time (4PM ETZ) - ANZACs in Vietnam
Good afternoon, OTT! We have a live stream going on the Sitrep Twitch Channel at 9:00 PM UK time, where we’ll see if @elessar2590 can lead his Australians in a successful “seek and destroy” patrol against my National Liberation Front Viet Cong (Phuoc Tuy Province, summer, 1968).
The game system, will be Valor & Victory, adopted and expanded to Vietnam. Vietnam-specific rules will include civilians, POWs, casualty evacuation, booby traps, helicopters, and obscured / hidden movement for the Viet Cong.
Check out the stream and see how we do! Hope to see some of you there!
Is there going to be an after action report for this? Still pissed off I don’t have enough bandwidth to participate! Looks like a fun tilt! 🙂
Thansk, @cpauls1 – actually, there sort of is a report already – the recorded live stream at Twitch.
https://www.twitch.tv/sitreppodcast/
But yes, there will be a blow-by-blow AAR on this, as well as YouTube highlights, probably in the next day or two (definitely before the weekend). 😀
G’Day @oriskany and others.
For Australian troops and their mobility say vs US troops as we preferred to carry about only half the war-load of US troops on patrol. The Australians literally carried only half the ammunition the standard load of US troops. This gave us more maneuverability in the bush and a better endurance to boot. This is perhaps why the Australian fire was more controlled as they did not have the ammo to spare.
Thanks for the comment @jamesevans140 – and good to hear from you again! Yeah, the Australians have been tough here from an expansion design perspective. So the math for Valor & Victory suggests a semi-automatic rifle or bolt-action rifle gets a 0.5, x8 men in a squad = 4 APFP (attack value) in the original published WW2 game. All automatic-armed squads (Soviet PPsH, late War German StG-44s, etc) get a 6. So that suggests 0.75 for automatic weapons. So an American Vietnam squad should start with a 6 as well (all automatic weapons), just with a bump in range. In… Read more »
Thanks for your really @oriskany. I personally think that on the tabletop there would be not enough difference to have effect so I would not bother. However on the size of a V&V board there would be a noticeable difference between a US and Australian unit doing a full more. Over time this gap would open. The difference in the weight of the war load being carried is the issue, the problem being is this is an endurance thing. This is the problem, if these were D&D or Traveller rules dead easy as endurance is part of the rules and… Read more »
Thanks again, @jamesevans140 – You bring up a very good point about the movement. In Valor & Victory – all movement for infantry units is always 4, unless there is a “leader” with them, in which case it is 6. This is modified for terrain, caution (assault movement rules), elevation, enemy opportunity fire, etc. When @aras and I first started with Valor & Victory Vietnam we tried giving all Vietnamese units a 5 and 7 instead of a 4 and 6 – to reflect the exact kind of thing you’re talking about. Nothing wrong with the rule, it had no… Read more »
Thanks for your great reply @oriskany. In the past when talking to Vets and my brothers one thing sticks out is that movement was a big thing. Making contact was easy but maintaining contact was not, especially when they wanted to bug out. In our first contacts both the NVA and VC were taken a bit by surprise when they discovered that the Australians moved faster over distance that the U.S. troops. Officially our infantry weapon was the SLR, Self Loading Rifle. Which was our version of the FN FAL, the average Australian only knows it as the SLR. It… Read more »
Thanks, @jamesevans140 – Movement in Vietnam – Yes, I’m totally in agreement with you there. Like I said, I HAD rules for VC / NVA enhanced movement in my V&V Vietnam Expansion, I just keep forgetting to actually USE it on the table. =( So I’m going to (a) start using it if and when we do any more Vietnam gaming and (b) add that rule to the Australians. SLR – yep, that’s the rifle I have in art for my counters and I am baking back into the combat values (10-5*-6 for full squads and 5-5*-3 for half squads).… Read more »
Thanks for your great reply @oriskany. Not for even a second have I ever consider the Australian military a super elite. That is what North Vietnam had talked themselves into. Once we found out about it with the help of SASR, we did our best to reinforce their misconceptions. It is usually hard to place Australian forces in wargames as just like the Finns and Israelis we a bit of an odd ball lot. There is much about our way of War that does not easily fit into a mathematic equations. Myself when in doubt start with the U.S. Marines… Read more »
@Jamesevans140 – Australians in Vietnam: Please don’t get me wrong, I would totally agree that the PAVN HQ / COSVN would consider the 1st ATF as “top tier” forces compared to other Western threats they were facing, had faced, or were likely to face. I mean, let’s look at them. British: no show. French: already sorted. ARVN: please. 🙁 Philippines and Taiwan contingents: not the best, and too small anyway. About 5000 South Koreans fought in Vietnam, and they were definitely badass, but there were not enough of them, and who knows if I would call them “western.” And again,… Read more »
Thanks for another great reply @oriskany. Yeah the Assies are just a mad oddball fit. As one US veteran put it that I spoke to who worked with us and was impressed enough to move here. The Assies ain’t Brits. They are kinda like our little brothers, but man can they punch well above their weight. On the table they should be not taken too seriously but get the job. They are a force you should have fun with while looking for humour whole knocking back a few shots. If you do this your gaming with the Spirit of ANZAC.… Read more »