"French Indochina vs Vietnam War" Topic

Writing in issue 69 of the Journal of the Society of Twentieth Century Wargamers, Huw R. Davies provides a solo mini-campaign set in the French Indochina War, and points out how it differs from the later Vietnam War:

The French Indochina war was very much a small unit war, fought in towns, villages, paddy fields, & jungles throughout Vietnam. Unlike the later American war the French had much less of a material superiority over their opponents. What they did have was an abundance of colourful units & interesting equipment.

Which war would you rather game?

* French Indochina War
* Vietnam War
* neither
* not interesting in modern wargaming

French would be different

Really, if I were inclined to do jungle warfare in southeast asia, I would want to do both. I am passingly familiar with the American military operations over there, and would be interested in exploring those simply as a bit of my own country's history. I know NOTHING about what happened with the French, and that piques my interest on its own merits.

Both.

With CDS just around the corner, I'm building up a company of Marines and NVA. Soon as that's done, Eureka will be getting a chunk of my money for Foreign Legion & Viet Mihn. I hope they do some of the other Indochina stuff, particularly the really colorful colonial units

French Indochina because most Vietnam War games I have seen the NVA and VC get pounded by air and artillery.

Even though I'm an American … I find the study of France's War in Indo-China pretty interesting. The unique and colorful units and WWII vintage equipment, etc. certainly helps make it so. I've studied both Wars. And the US War there still resonates a bit here in the US. So with the French it's a bit easier to be detached for gaming purposes … And I've always been an FFL fan …

Vietnam just because the American preconceived notions were better than the French preconceived notions.

I plan to do both. I like the allure of gaming Air Cav vs NVA circa Ia Drang, Grunts vs NVA in Hue, AND the FFL vs the VM…so when I find the money, maybe all of them.

Both. I already do the US part of the war.

Thanks,

John

Interest in both but think I am more inclined to do the French though I do aircombat games of US/NVN. Dien Bien Phu has always fascinated me.

Both, someday.

Already game the US involvement in 20mm and 1/300th……..may make the jump with RH Models French and Viet Minh…..

French Indochina for all the reasons stated in Huw's article.

Like Allen57 – Dien Bien Phu – though not typical of the conflict – has fascinated me since I was a small boy starting out in wargaming.

Cheers
Mark

Have done both in 20mm, am building forces in 15mm for the Lardies CDS and have added some of the Eureka 15mm Indo China range to a Fighting 15's order. I think that you would have problems gaming the conflict with any of the current period specific "Vietnam" rules.

Fatman

Fatman – as the guilty party (!), here are some suggested rules modifications, including for TFL's IABSM, which should make them equally adaptable for Charlie Don't Surf. link

Huw nice site thanks mate

Fatman

I would game the French war if I could get it in 28mm.

Gray Ghost,

I believe there's some discussion of 28's from Eureka club 100

I opted for the American war, but may add the French war later. I consider the equipment equally interesting, and am kind of curious what he means by "colorful units".

doing both…

also I do not think it was a small unit war, Dien Bien Phu was not the biggest operation and there were several pretty big battles, the french at start even use the Richelieu to provide NGF. Then she was replaced by cruisers.

Yet the equipment on both sides was inferior and the airpower the french had was much less developped.

Colorful units:

FFL (minority of the CEFEO)
French Regulars
French Paratroopers
Dinassaut
Moroccan Goums
algerian regular infantry
Tirailleur senegalaise
central african artillery
BPVN (Battalion Parachutiste vietnameise, 5 operational the 5me was pretty good at DBP)
Local units with Thai, Lao and Meo
Groupement Commando Mixtes aereoprtée

Dragons and Cuirassiers with M24.
2 REI with LVTs and Crabes
RBEO (Regiment Blindée Extreme Orient) witnh M36 and M4A3 105
Groupe Mobile with old Stuart, M8 HMC and halftrack

in the first years mix of old prewar french stuff (h39 for example, P178 and japanese armor…)

Vive le CEFEO!

I game the American war using Ambush Valley, These rules make playing VC/NVA fun to play as they have an equal chance of pounding the Americans….Mikey

I game both periods, French Indo-China and US actions in Vietnam. Each are unique in thier own way.

ONe friend does French, one does American. I play both as the mood strikes.

Both, that way get 2 war with one set of terrain

If someone would come out with a nice 28mm Indochina range I'd be all over it.

Great list Arrigo !! You left out the Mobile Bordellos at DBP … one Asian, one North African, IIRC … Yes, as goofy as it sounds, the French had thoses. If you doubt it, check out Fall's Books "Street Without Joy" and "Hell In A Very Small Place" … The French are so romantic ! The "Ladies" were used as nurses at the field hospital, too. When things went from bad to worse. And among the soldiers woes, add VD … I wish I was making this up … but I'm not … sadly. IIRC, the surviving "Ladies" were executed by the VM once DBP was overrun … Just adding to the tragedy …

I Like to play both for sure. But I feel that the French added a little more "flavor". Like some have mentioned about the types of units. I have found this site very useful and interesting,

Indo : Wargaming the First Indochina War, 1945-1954
link

Robert

I have a lot of 28mm for US/Vietnam, and would love to do French Indo China; hopefully Eurika will satisfy that need.

Both. I already have some 15mm Peter Pig miniatures for Vietnam, and a few suitable rules (the Piquet module, Forgotten Heroes; FNG; FNG Operations for campaign games; soon CDS.) And Indichina is in my "to do" list, with Eureka miniatures and IABSM, TW&T, or maybe BattleFront WW2.

Legion4

the ladies were not used only as nurse, at a certain point the 120mm Legion mortar company had a mix of legionaries, PIM (prisonnier internée militaires, Viet minh prisoners) and ladies. The story come from the company commander and it is quoted in Windroow "The Last Valley" (think of fall with much more sources, awesome book), there a couple of pages that have made me cry (like when the 5me BPVN assaulted an hill chanting the Marseillaise, the acocunt of Lieutenant Brundock gun battle, when some of the laides jumped in a mortar pit during one of the vietminh bombardment and the crew had been hit and started to serve the piece…).

One thing about the CEFEO we have forgotten in all that crap about the FFL was that the CEFEO was a multinational, multicultural army that held togheter in a very difficult situation. Two year later France had to use metropolitan troops in Algeria, bin in indochine the colonial army held to a good standard.

By the way no VD beacuse the ladies had been screened before (call me cynical but in war zone I prefer mobile brodelloes with military medical control than the alternative).

Some ladies were able to run away with the few who made the break out.

Yes, I believe I remember the Ladies being part of FFL Mortar Crews. I'm sure the Ladies had grew some what "fond" of the troops. And they too knew that they're fighting for their lives as well. I heard before of Windrow's book. And was told the same, that it was very good. And yes, not only were there German, Belgium, etc., serving in the FFL. But many of the French forces were from their North African Colonies, T'ai Partisan Co./local tribesmen, etc. … it was quite a mix … And generally held together very well … Save for the 3000 or so deserters from a variety of units, "The Rats of Nam Yum". Hiding out at a separate camp. In the center of the perimeter. That further added to the "mess". As far as VD, I can't remember the source of that information. But I'd imagine as the supply situation became more dire, medical checks, sanitation, etc. probably suffered greatly … And I'm sure some of the ladies did manage to escape some of garrison … It would be an interesting story of all those who did escape.

Indochina is "Underground" and "The Nam" is more "Mainstream". But I'm a bit partial.

link

Not into modern gaming, though if I were I think it would be French Indochina War of the two.

Interesting site King …

A 28mm range for Indochina would be fab -especially if there were separate heads to show all the different head gear available.
Worth keeping an eye on Inkerman Castings I'd say.
link

A 28mm range for Indochina would be fab -especially if there were separate heads to show all the different head gear available.
Worth keeping an eye on Inkerman Casting I'd say
link

cannot agree more. I plan to flesh my 15 indo, but a 28mm range will be wonderful.

great minds think alike!

Legion4

the rat of nam youm were a mixed bag, they were not full deserters, they were in part people who had collpased, especially survivors from units that collapsed. Again in a nroma situation they would have been sent to depots and reorganized, DPB was not normal as you pointed out.

Get Windroow book, you will not be disappointed. I read it before moving from archeology to "official" military history, and when I started my Ph.D my supervisor (at the time she was still teaching a class about indochina and vietnam conflict) recommended it to me, I said "already read". She was pleased.

For your information Martin Windrow has just released a book on the Legion before WW2. There is also a chapter on Tuyen Quang. Must have!

Arrigo

Thanks Arrigo, I'll check those books out … Yes, as things continued to go from bad to worse it's surprising that more men didn't break or desert. Especially the North Africans, they, like the Europeans, were a long way from home and had no where to go. Especially since there were no rear areas to recover. I am an amatuer historian comparted to you … I'm more like a former Infantryman with a working knowledge of History. Of course at our officer train courses we did study a little history. But most of my knowledge is from my own study … personal as well as professional interest. Again, thanks for the intel …

Legion 4,

you make an interesting point, I am right now wading through some material on Indochine and I am comparing what the US army learnt and teached on the indochina war from 1954 onward. It was a very interesting approach. Almost everything came straight from Fall and Davidson, they usually refused to get french material (even if the french were duly sending them a lot of material during the conflict). Even today they are still giving lectures with a flimsy historical base (they are perpetuating the same myths about DBP without any critical approach). Then compare it to algeria when they disseminted french material, invited a lot of french officer to give talks and work on field manuals… incredible.

Bt the way myths are slow to die. Several years ago at a conference in france about Indochina after a presentation on the armored force someone from the public said more tanks would not have made any difference because all tanks had been lost in the first Viet Minh bombardment. Sadly the presenting officer (three tours in Indochine) make the point that only one was destroyed by artillery, and the balance of tanks were operational almost until the end… again myths, once established never dies (and it is interesting to see the myths the French army has on Korea or the American engagement in Vietnam…)

Arrigo

From the Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library

Generalship of General Henri E. Navarre during the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.

link

Robert

the same paper we were talking…

very interesting one… if not a lot of things are resting on myths. The french historians debunked the idea of the Paratroop mutiny, DeCastries had his bad moment after the first bombardment (the leader of the GM9 was a personal friend and he was one of the linchpin of the command chain) but Langlais and him worked togheter until the last two days when they differed on the las action (langlais wanted to break out, DeCastries was concerned by the wounded). Langlais admitted that was de Castries that ensured the majority of the ocunterattack were tank supported. Also the point about the artillery is wrong. Everyone knew what Giap was doing, but there were limits in what they could do to counteract. Also in the end the colonial artillery was much more effective than the Viet Minh one. Using undergound fire positions and allowed to avoid french CB fire, but ment that guns were able to engage only pre registered targets and the french had sever alternative arty positions and keep the guns moving during the siege. There is another article from the filed artiller journal criticizing french arty at DBP, but again if failed to take into account real datas.

If you look at the sources of the CARL article it almost everything secondary sources except some transalted documents.

The author understood the campaing plan but failed to expalin that DBP was conceived mainly to distract the enemy from the big operation Atalante designed to clear southern Annam. Again is not history, is military produced military history in Mahanian sense.

you use/create an historical example to further your thesis. Interestingly enough the same errors attributed to Navarre in the thesis can be attributed to Eisenhower in Sicily (to even a greater scale), but the officer in question preferred to use a foreing example.

Also he praises Giap without really describing him (from my reading Giap was not that genius… and his command at DBP was from average to stupid… there is an interesting controversy with him and chinese historians who assert the chinese officers had to take charge beacuse he was making a mess and he instead says the chinese officers were making a mess and he had to replace them).

Also I think Davidson is often overrated. I have read hsi book and it is not overly realiable, also davidson was "part" of the historical process in the second indochina war so he is hardly unbiased.

Yes, it is well documented in a number of sources, that the M24s were little by little attrited to the very end. But as has been said, say something enough even myth becomes fact. I have a unique prespective on the US in Vietnam. I started cadet training in '75 just after graduated high school. Almost all our Army Instructors had served 2 or more tours in Vietnam. Including Special Forces NCOs. Much of our training was based on what happened there. As well as fighting Warsaw Pact Forces and Red China. Then after graduating from the Light Infantry Officers Course, in '79 I was assigned to an Air Assault Bn in the 101. And many of the senior NCOs and Officers in that Bn,served in Vietnam. So in many ways I felt like we refought the war in our training and exercises. Since the 101 was much like it was in Vietnam, an Air Assault Div. Using Loaches, Hueys and Chinooks. However, we knew that if we did go to war, in many cases we'd be fighting Mech/Armor Forces. In Europe or the Desert. As well as the possibly of guerillas in Central and South America. I was only in the 101 3 days when I was sent to Central America/Panama with my Bn to jungle training and Canal Zone Defense. And it was very reminicent of what I had seen in the news and read about of the jungles of SE Asia. Helicopter insertions, amphibious and riverine operations … and a lot of dismounted patrolling in the jungle … In my time with the 101 we deployed to Panama 3 times …

"So in many ways I felt like we refought the war in our training and exercises."

When I was in the bulk of our training was oriented towards a Vietnam style insurgency and I think they were looking hard at Central and South America at the time…

Dragon Gunner,

when you were in? I am in terested in seeing for how long vietnam related training was in use in the Army.

I don't know about Dragon … I was with the 101 from '80-'83, and deployed to Panama, as I said, 3 times. Then with a Mech Bn in the 2ID '84-'85, in ROK … our mission was to fight a conventional war against the NKPA. As well as running continous dismounted patrols on the DMZ … From '86-'90 I was with the 197th Mech Bde, a separate Mech Bn attached to 18th ABN Corps. Where we concentrated on Europe (Reforger'88) and the Desert (2 trips to the NTC)… So as time went on we evolved. However, as a Mech Co Cdr, I still used some of the tactics and techiques, I learned from the jungles around the Canal Zone … Stealth, camo, deception and dismounted operations is the basis for all infantry operations. If an infantry unit can't effectively operate dismounted when the situation calls for it, the Cdr is not doing his job, IMO …

1984-1988

The bulk of our training operations revovled around small unit tactics and aggressive patroling using techniques from the Ranger handbook. We would jump in as a larger formation then quickly breakdown into platoon (sometimes squad) sized formations to conduct ambushes, raids, grid searches (movement to contact / search and destroy) etc… Our OPFOR opponents most of the time were classified as irregular light infantry with little or no vehicles. The irregular OPFOR was encouraged to dress however they wanted with no uniformity. The OPFOR was frequently given names like Bannarama, San- something or EL- something. Like Legion I went to jungle warfare school in Panama. Part of the training in Panama were classes on booby traps.

Our senior leadership were still Vietnam vets but rapidly approaching retirement age and many did retire while I was in. Was it Vietnam style training? I thought so based on things I have read and experiences the leadership tried to teach us before they departed.

Its not to say we didn't train for conventional warfare with traditional battles. We practiced airfield take downs and repeling large counter attacks. We practiced defense in depth against armored formations. Large set piece battles against large regular units. We even did a rotation at NTC. The issue was nobody believed we would last longer than a day in a Fulda Gap style conflict. We used to joke we would be nothing more than a speed bump to the Soviets.

Thanks very interesting stuff.

Arrigo

"If an infantry unit can't effectively operate dismounted when the situation calls for it, the Cdr is not doing his job, IMO …"

I've seen some mech units that acted like they had an umbilical cord attached to their track.

So it appears both Dragon and I started out in light infantry units. I'm guessing you were with the 82D … And as a matter of fact, while as a Company Cdr, my Company deployed to the Ranger Camp, Camp Rudder, at IIRC Aux Field 6, at Eglin AFB, FL in '88 or '89. We were tasked with training with El Salvadorian Military, and provide OPFOR. And as OPFOR we to wear a mix of civilain and military clothing. To simulate the irregular/guerilla forces the "Salvos" were likely to encounter "back home" . We were also tasked to train the US Army SF that was training along with us, on our AT weapons like the M47 Dragon MAW. And some of our AT techniques. As a Company Cdr, I guess, because of my previous 3 deployments to Panama, and 2 Tours in the ROK/DMZ and some other training like USMC BAT. My Company was always getting tasked with "special missions". So as I said, my training in the jungles and else where and skills in dismounted infantry ops, even as a Mech Cdr, paid off many times. And yes, we "cut our umbilical" as the situation required. But at the same time took advantage of the mobility of our M113s, when needed. But were not afraid to leave them behind like when we were at Eglin … And I'd like to think still were effective …

Yes 82nd 1/504

I also spent time at Eglin AFB conducting similar training. We even helped the USAF train Spectre gunships to hunt insurgents.