"and FoW is trashing Vietnam... (evil intended)" Topic

Ok,

I am a FoW hater but…

I have just looked at the preview of the T-54 box on Flames of War website. The tank looked nice but comparing it with the captured Type 59 on display ant Puckapunyal (hopefully right spelling):

or another example:

While the bore evacuator is right it is still missing the ventilator. I have checked several other pictures and while the evacuator is not always present the ventilator it is. I guess I will have to modify them… umpf…

Now in the fluff the T-54 is equipped with a stabilizer (ok it had one, but not a full stabilizer) and is able to fire on the move. Sadly the T-54 had not turret basket (the T-55 had something similar and the T-62 introduced the basket).

Ok it seems they could have used a bit more of research considering the ask me for 54 Euros…

Arrigo

OK for government work,

Tally Ho!

Don't buy them?

Arrigo, now you're just being mean. :)

unless you are going to do the Xuan Loc battle or the fall of SVN why spend the $$$. Very limited IMHO.
Also the Pt-76 were in only a very few encounters.

Use them for AK-47. Dictators need mo armor.

I guess you'll just have to use it as a T-55 then…

Damon.

All my T54/55's are Quality Castings. Or you could get the QRF ones. IIRC Peter Pig makes them also.

If FOW is "trashing Vietnam" by producing a T-54 model that doesn't have all the correct details then I guess PSC is trashing WW2 by producing T-34's that have the wrong rear deck vent meshes, etc.

It's a wargames model and it's good enough.

Why don't you complain about something more egregious, like all the armored battles that FOW fans will fight in Vietnam, a war in which there were only a handful of them.

Ah, but then how would they sell tanks? :-)

This is the rumor going around about why they haven't done the Pacific in WWII yet; tanks. A HUGE miss so far…. There were probably more battles with tanks involved in the Japanese theater than Viet Nam.

One day at guard mount at NKP in 72 we were briefed that intel had picked up on an NVA force, with tanks, that was closing on the base. After a frantic giving out of LAWs and much scrambling to recall how to use one with a prayer of hitting something, our vaunted intel types announced that the tanks were Thai Army and they were simply having some kind of political disagreement.

Other than that, I don't think I ever heard of armor, even from the guys working/bombing the Trail.

Don't be so fixated on US involvement in Vietnam. There were plenty of armor clashes, from the Cambodia incursion by US troops, but especially during Lam Son 719 and especially in the '74 and '75 offensives against the South.

Damon.

It was evil intended… and it was a reference to someone that say "FoW will trash modern now" in a previous thread about Tour of Duty. I can be classified as a FoW hater by someone but i tend to be moderate in my hating.

Anyway I think the ventilator is a defining characteristic of the T-54 turret and after reading all the hype on FoW website I was not so impressed with them missing such a thing especially at the price…

Still the fluff on the tank is quite out of place. Sometime I would be glad if they made a bit of serious research before talking.

Considered I published a game on An Loc and I exchanged mails with James Willbanks I will definitely go for the K-2. I will hadd the ventilators by myself. 72 was pretty high on armor involvement, An Loc, Kontum and the battle around Quang Tri.

Plus Cambodia in 1970 was a near miss. The Incursion was launched just before the PAVN shipped the tanks south (they were preparing their own offensive). The us forces captured loads of 85mm and 100mm shells in the depots and M48 were bombed up with APDS in expectation of tank on tank engagements.

Arrigo,

Glad you pointed out Cambodia 1970. I have 3 of the Jungle Rot PT-76s on order (should be here today) and was hoping to have a reason to be able to field them against U.S. regular forces.

Vince

Ok, so which maker has the most accurate turret shape for the T54?

Yes an opportunity for one and all to demonstrate their sophistication and deep knowledge of military history by laughing like drains at FOW players the second a single armoured vehicle is placed on the table…

"Jeez, US infantry using tracks – how stupid , yuck-yuck-yuck! Vietnam was completely covered in jungle, Yah!'

On the WW2 boards I used to produce statistics on how many TIgers were operational month by month, and that tended to shut 'em up till the next time, but its a tiresome business…

Haters gotta hate….

I think those of us who indulge in an FOW game from time to time should just take it all as inverted compliments to the success of FOW and the fun we are having…

He said he didn't like the tanks.
Meh! They look OK to me.
Whatever…

Not sure what that has to do with Tiger Tanks and your ability to count them.

Not sure what that has to do with Tiger Tanks and your ability to count them

No? Well, never mind…

I was always wondering how somebody can claim to hate something as innocent as a game. :--)
I however value historical accuracy in scale-models, so this particular tank is indeed missing something quite important.

Does that matter to me on a wagaming-table?

Sh*t no.

Part of the problem is there is a massive amout of confusion out there. For example:

"A good identifying feature of the T-54 was the lack of a bore-evacuator, the spiderweb wheels similar to those on the T-34-85, and the turret roof vent just in front of the loader's hatch. The T-55's most prominent identifying features are the 100-mm gun with bore-evacuator near the end, starfish-type roadwheels, no turret-roof vent."

So it probably should have wheels like this:

(That is allegedly a T-54B, introduced in 1957)

That said:

1. A lot of the photos available are mislabelled, with T-54, T-55, T-54A, T-59 (and even T-62!) being used almost randomly.

2. The Soviets were little devils for reusing and upgrading, so you may find T-54s and T-55s had lots of overlaps.

We are aware that the T-54 started with a rounder turret, then changed to a more 'egg-shaped' turret with a notable ridge, very noticeable in Nick's photo. However take a closer look at this Chinese T-59 (Chinese copy of the T-54A)

Note the engine deck arrangement, which differs significantly from Nicks photo above, but is much closer to the BF "K-2". However it does show that it should have a distinctly 'oval/egg' turret shape.

Did the NKs have T-54s, T-54As or T-59s?

The only thing I Hate of Battlefront going into Moderns is that they have started with Nam, instead the Arab-Israeli Wars or Korea (how cool would it be to field the Glosters, with Belgian Centurions in support?)

I think that description of the T-54 is off Geoff!

T-54s certainly received bore evacuators, and "starfish" wheels, even before production switched to the T-55. The only sure-fire way to differentiate between types is by the dome ventilator on the turret…ALL T-54s (and Type 59s, the Chinese copy) had these, while ALL T-55s did not.

Additionally there were 3 turret designs used for the T-54: the more "rounded" design (looks like a hybrid between the Horseshoe turret and the T-44 turret), the Horseshoe turret with a prominent bulge in the rear, and the final design that eliminated the bulge in the back.

Aside: this isn't the first time BF goofed up on the details of one of their models. I have quite a few of their pz IIIMs, all of which lack the watertight vent covers over the air intakes. Not much use in having a wading muffler if the engine gets flooded from the intakes! Hoping that PSC addresses this if/when they do Ms…

Damon.

Precisely. You can almost pick your source to prove your point (I will dig out all my Janes books later, and the Russian encyclopedia, see what they say) but you must be careful with photos as many are mislabelled adding to the confusion, and articles often end up with circular source evidence! Which is fine if that origination is correct…

'Belgian Centurions'

The Royal Irish Hussars will not be pleased…

as their ancestors in the King's Royal Irish Hussars…

plus the Centurion never got so far as Gloster Hill. They attempted a relief and failed. The Centurions instead ably supported the Belgian Infantry at the bridges…

it would not be cool because it would be silly… can people do some reading before writing?

Any advance on the 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars? :-)

"Captain Ormrod's tanks had forced their way down the last lap of the valley through milling Chinamen. They could see what was estimated at 2,000 more, swarming down the western hillsides, from the heights where they had been held up all day. The Centurions came through, crushing enemy under their tracks. Sgt. Cadman found a Chinaman battering at his turret to get in, and directed the tank straight through the wall of a house, to brush him off, and then ran over an M.G. post beside the road. Cornet Venner, who had behaved with great gallantry at every stage of the day's fighting, lost his scout-car, but guided one Centurion out of trouble and escaped, wounded, himself. Captain Ormrod was wounded in the head by a grenade. Three platoons of Infantry suddenly appeared, in parade-ground order, out of the river bed – and were blown to confusion with some of the last ammunition the tanks carried. Some tanks took to the paddy and were ploughing-in Communists, crouched under every bank. The firing was a continuous iron rain on the outside of the tanks, and only a small proportion of the Infantry on the top survived this death-ride. The tanks came out of the valley to see the Belgians leaving their ridge, that all day had guarded this southern opening."

Still, not a lot of tank-on-tank action there.

This is the breakout of the brigade. Look's like Andy's book… great action, great battle, Sooner or later I will do it… need hordes of PLA… of course I will use Geoff's centurions!

Sparker- I think most people know that there was some armor in Vietnam.

My chief complaint with the FoW approach is the rules total disregard for historical tactics. And now that they're moving into moderns, it'll only get worse. (And yes, the 'haters' are only going to get louder. Because, some of us (a lot of us), SERVED in modern armor and infantry and artillery units and KNOW how the stuff works).

Can't wait for some FoW fanboy to field a full up NVA vs USA armor battle in I Corps with ON BOARD M109s and D-30s…..

Coastal, remember it is a game, with plenty of abstraction to allow plenty of stuff on a table get involved for a few hours.

Tally Ho!

I wonder if they're going to re-introduce the 'Across the Volga' rule for artillery, or if I'm going to have to insist on it (seeing as they took that rule out in v3).

I wonder if they're going to re-introduce the 'Across the Volga' rule for artillery, or if I'm going to have to insist on it (seeing as they took that rule out in v3).

They *broadly* did in Tropic Thunder, the prior Vietnam book.

The US could buy 105mm howitzers or M109 batteries, but had to keep the guns off-board.

I wonder if they're going to re-introduce the 'Across the Volga' rule for artillery, or if I'm going to have to insist on it (seeing as they took that rule out in v3).

Most Artillery in "Tour of Duty", the new FoW Vietnam Rules supplement uses the Fire Base rules which require them to be off board. There is one mission, also called "Fire Base" where one Allied artillery battery is on the board…and it's the target the PAVN are trying to take out.

I know of no one, even among FoW fans, who is exited about trying to recreate massed armor fights in Vietnam. Those few who play PAVN forces in FoW-Nam, like myself, are probabaly far more excited about the addition of VC/Local forces options.

@VonBurge: Thanks for the update. Might have to get that book.

And more options for Main Force/Local Force VC is always good.

But weren't there some 'RoKs' also fighting in Vietnam? South Koreans?

Yes. ROK Marines at least, and they were mean. Maybe the ARVN Airborne list in the new book would be a close approximation.

There is a list for PAVN armor. It is possible for the PAVN to buy a crapload of cheap T-54s or PT-76s with this list. I still have mixed feelings about this, but I'm beginning to think it was a very clever move on the part of the designers.

On one hand, it isn't impossible. Historically there WERE big tank battles of a sort in the time frame covered in the game. Dewey Canyon II/Lam Son 719, for example, which is explicitly covered in the rulebook. I'd love to do that as a wargame.

However, having tanks available as a PAVN support choice all the time seems a bit – off. Tanks just weren't part of the equation for the overwhelming majority of the battles in Vietnam.

But the more I think about it, the more I think that giving the PAVN the ability to buy a cheap tank horde is a clever move.

One of the fundamental principles of warfare is Economy of Force. As Clausewitz put it, "No part of a force should ever be left without purpose." This is one of the most important parts of a points-buy wargame. You have to get the most out of your purchases.

The US has the ability to buy anti-tank weapons that will absolutely slaughter PAVN tanks. M-48s, 106mm and 90mm Recoilless guns, LAW rockets, you name it.

What better tactic than to threaten to bring a bunch of tanks to the fight, thereby forcing the US player to buy pricey anti-tank toys, only to not bring a single tank? All of that expensive anti-tank capability is wasted.

It's a perfect example of the way the war went down – "sure, you've got all of those expensive toys; too bad for you that they're useless against peasant infantry."

At least the 90mm recoilless has a nasty antipersonnel ability (beehive rounds!), so it's not completely worthless if the PAVN player doesn't bring tanks. At least it really SHOULD have a nasty APers ability, not sure if it does.

Need to see if the book is at my FLGS yet.

…and remember, how many German armored reconnaissance units were used in WW2? Compared to the number of grenadier companies very little. Yet if you do a WW2 rule-set and do not include appropriate statistics and organization people will think you are weird at least.

I do not disagree in Having PAVN armored units in FoW hybrid scale you can have a full company in the table without too much problem, I am more interested on how they are modelled both rule wise, )still unknown) and model wise (where they have already shown off how much accurate are their T-54 tanks…).

'What better tactic than to threaten to bring a bunch of tanks to the fight, thereby forcing the US player to buy pricey anti-tank toys, only to not bring a single tank? All of that expensive anti-tank capability is wasted.'

It is a company commander war… these thing are more apt to demonstrate how ill conceived are some ideas about FoW from both sides rather than add to the discussion.

How would you handle it differently?

Dunno. I mean, there were at least a few significant armored clashes. I remember seeing something on either Discovery or History (before it turned into the Hitler channel) about a unit calling for air support and getting a Cobra driver saying he had a load of HEAT rockets.

But I'm certainly not likely to buy any PAVN armor.

Same here. I **might** pick up some PT-76s to do a Lang Vei type battle some day, but I won't buy a T-54 horde.

Frankly, I'm just happy to see Vietnam getting some attention. Even though, yes, Flames of War is a flawed system it has done more to get people in my area into the era in a few weeks than my recruiting efforts have in a long time. It's also spurred my building and painting, and got me to pick up a copy of Charlie Don't Surf as an alternative game to play with my armies. So I'm glad to see it.

>Why don't you complain about something more egregious, like all the armored battles that FOW fans will fight in Vietnam, a war in which there were only a handful of them.

So we can only game the actual battles – and not any what-ifs? And we can only fight one armored battle for every 100-odd non-armored ones we game?

And I keep defending FOW by pointing out that the rules are simple, but decent. Where the gamey aspect comes in are with the points list driven scenarios – but that, of course, is what makes the game so popular among non-grognards.

Treat it like what it is – a great introductory game that brings a lot of people into the hobby. Do you really want miniatures gaming to go the way of historical boardgames? Pretty soon the last boardgamer is going to die, because there's nothing to bring younger ones into the hobby.

Ordered my copy (FoW hasn't been selling well at the FLGS for a while, so they pulled it off the walls).

And Khurasan is working on a lot of moderns for 1973 Arab-Israeli wars, including the T62, T55, and Type 59. TMP link