"Fireteams in Vietnam?" Topic

I'm finally getting back to working on my 15mm Vietnam collection and it's got me thinking about rules and tactics. Specifically, the use of fireteams by US forces in Vietnam. I know it is fairly normal doctrine to split a squad into two teams (or three in the case of USMC squads), with one team acting as fire support while the other maneuvers/assaults the target. However, how often were fireteam tactics actually used in action in Vietnam?

Essentially, how realistic is it to have US Forces units operate as fireteams as opposed to operating as full squads in a Vietnam wargame? And if fireteams are used, should there be some sort of coherency between the teams within a squad? How independently would the teams within a squad operate from each other?

A squad split into teams to facilitate fire and maneuver, but never acted independently (the exceptions being small patrols, OPs, etc. that did not require a full squad). The teams stayed within mutual supporting distance, seldom more than 25-100 meters apart, depending on the terrain. One team would provide a base of fire while the other maneuvered forward or back as appropriate, then they reversed rolls. The teams were almost never out of sight of each other. The squad leader moved with the team from which he could best control both with hand signals.

That's how I imagined it would work. Which begs the question, is it worthwhile then to have the teams within a squad as separate units or just have them activate as a whole squad? If the latter, perhaps allow for the detachment of part of the squad for fire and maneuver on a very local and situational basis, rather then strictly sticking to the two team system on the tabletop?

I suspect it depends upon the scale of the game, and the rules you are using/creating.

For Platoon level and under games, I think separate fire teams make a lot of sense, for a "more realistic" (I know some will quibble with that term) feel, of fire and movement, and real-world tactics.

Perhaps even usable up to Company level, if you have the time.

For games with larger numbers of forces, Company level and beyond, having them as a single squad probably makes more sense for simplicity's sake.

Are you playing at Platoon or Company level? At Platoon level IE a player controls a single platoon then yes, while Squads should be your Man' unit of choice you should be able to split them if need be. If Company level then no, platoons are your focus and squads should be the lowest level you should even consider.

Fatman

Over 10 years ago I did quite a bit of research into USMC company TO&E for the Vietnam period. My uncle (USMC Vietnam, 19 months combat, ya, the fool did he 13 months then extended for another 6) put me in touch with many veterans.

Often due to manpower shortages the Marines would operate with understrength fireteams as they just didn't have the bodies.

Even Army rifle companies were constantly short personal. I was able to have an interview with Hal Moore (We Were Soldiers Once, and Young). He told me that the rifle companies in his batt going into the Ia Drang were at about 75% strength.

I talked with one Army platoon leader in the 9th ID (4th Corp – Mekong Delta). On one operation his platoon was only 22 men. He said he broke the platoon down into 2 squads and a command group.

From my conversations, it seems that the Army was more flexible on platoon / company organizations while the Marines tried very hard to maintain the 3 fireteam element in a squad, with fireteams being only 2 or 3 men at times.

Other little items, no M-60 machines guns in a platoon or squad, unless you are Areo-Rifle (the Blues) then it was common for each 6 man group to have one. M-60 teams were company level assets, 6 teams per company in the weapons platoon. Almost always they were broken down and op con'd to the rifle platoons (2 M-60s per platoon).

Another platoon leader told me he always assigned a M-60 team to the squad who was on point that day under the direction of that squad leader. The other M-60 team he kept right next to him for deployment as he saw fit.

I asked him about the M-60 in a fire fight and he stated they were "pure gold". Many of the veterans I interviewed also stated that if you could beg, borrow or steal another M-60 you would do so in a heartbeat.

Seems the guys on the pointy end of the spear really liked them.

Another issue was radios at squad level. It was not until April / May '66 (They had M-14 rifles until about a year later), that each squad in a Marine platoon got a radio. Up to that point the platoon leader and senior NCO had a RTO assigned to them.

One guy I talked with became the radio operator for his squad. They were in the field on an operation when a couple of techs showed up and he got picked to be a radioman. No previous training. In the field he got a couple of hours and then it was on the job work.

He stated he hated that radio as before he was just another riflemen, but with the radio the enemy always seemed to shoot at him first in an ambush. He didn't call them "the enemy", but I'm not going to use the term he did.

Sorry, didn't mean to go on for so long.

I found this a very interesting read on fireteam usage:

link

Oddball
Don't apologise these snippets of information are always welcome.

I remember reading years ago, I think in PLATOON LEADER by James R. McDonough, that the most men he ever had in the field from his platoon, technically 44 strong, was 33. The average was 27 or 28 ans at one point he only had 18 men available under his command.

Fatman

Ah, the M60. A great weapon to shoot, a bear to lug around. I spent my 21st birthday in a foxhole with one.

As has been said, if you play at platoon level, it's worth incorporating, if you play at company level, it's probably worth overlooking

PLATOON LEADER by James R. McDonough
Currently on Netflix!

He was my TF Commander during an NYC rotation with 2AD. His "Defense of Hill 691" pretty much sums up that rotation

Thanks for all the replies so far, some great info here.

I am planning on playing games at the platoon level, so it seems some ability for squads to act as teams should be included. How strict was the organization of fireteams in action? Would ad hoc groups of men from a squad be formed into teams during a firefight, or would they be more likely to just stick to the structured fireteams?

I read Platoon Leader years ago, planning on re-reading it soon. I tried to watch the movie, but turned it off after about 10 minutes because it was awful!

"Other little items, no M-60 machines guns in a platoon or squad, unless you are Areo-Rifle (the Blues) then it was common for each 6 man group to have one. M-60 teams were company level assets, 6 teams per company in the weapons platoon. Almost always they were broken down and op con'd to the rifle platoons (2 M-60s per platoon)".

An interesting point, and as you mention in the next few sentences, it does appear that either the commanders, and/or troops really worked hard to circumvent that, so they'd have them in their squads, for additional firepower, at the sharp end of the units.

From what I've read, frequently two of the three squads in an infantry platoon would usually end up with the M60s, for additional firepower.

Ah, the M60. A great weapon to shoot, a bear to lug around.

Yeah, I loved shooting the M60E4 we got issued in 2002 (needed something with more reach and punch than an M16 on the water). I *hated* carrying that pig and a box of ammo up 40 feet of vertical ladders to get to "work."

An interesting point, and as you mention in the next few sentences, it does appear that either the commanders, and/or troops really worked hard to circumvent that, so they'd have them in their squads, for additional firepower, at the sharp end of the units.

From what I've read, frequently two of the three squads in an infantry platoon would usually end up with the M60s, for additional firepower.

I think you're conflating splitting the company's MGs out to the platoons with the platoons or squads actually being assigned an M60 in the TO&E, with more M60s held by the company in the weapons platoon.

It was standard practice to split up the company's weapons platoon, or most of it.

Only the Aero Rifles (Blues) had M60s in their squad TO&E, with two more M60s assigned to each slick. Lots of firepower available, but they were the QRF and often the rescue crew. So massive firepower was required.

Other little items, no M-60 machines guns in a platoon or squad, unless you are Areo-Rifle (the Blues) then it was common for each 6 man group to have one. M-60 teams were company level assets, 6 teams per company in the weapons platoon. Almost always they were broken down and op con'd to the rifle platoons (2 M-60s per platoon).

For the Marines, that is.

As far as I have read, in the army the pigs were to be found in the rifle platoon weapons squad, together with the 90 mm recoilless rifles. The later might not have been a common sight when humping in the jungle, though.

I was referring to parceling out the 2 x M60s from the heavy platoon's weapons squad out to the squads.

I've read it was pretty standard to leave the recoilless rifles back at base.

Thanks Oddball, I've copied and made a note of your post.

I enjoy playing Vietnam Company sized engagements with fireteams as the minimum 'element' size …I feel this is the most realistic level of abstraction, and not too hard to manage on the table. It gets more complex when you add support arty/ aircraft/ helos/ medevac and/or engineers/ scouts/ interpreters … but hey !…"Vietnam" is a complex theatre to play at Company level !

Of course "what level of minimum element" depends on your rules and how long (or complex) you want the games to be.

May I offer that for US Army and Marine Units the M60's are attached to the rifle squads, but the Platoon commander ideally retains control of these for Platoon fire support. So I'd suggest at a minimum, the M60 teams should be separate elements from the rifle squads…that's how the Company Commander would view them…as a 'Company' asset.
For line US Infantry Units (Army and Marine) the M60 machinegunners are "specialists" …it shouldn't be assumed that their skills are transferable to basic rifle infantrymen.

Exceptions like the ARPs prove the rule.

It was also true that US riflemen might recall that their might 'normally' be only one M60 attached to their Platoon for a routine patrol, if there was another attached,.. that meant to expect trouble.

There was a saying in the Australian Army of this period that; "the rifle section is just a life-support system for the 'gun" (the M60)..I dare say all Company-level Infantry Officers (of this period) were required to think like this.

I hope this is useful.

A squad split into teams to facilitate fire and maneuver, but never acted independently (the exceptions being small patrols, OPs, etc. that did not require a full squad). The teams stayed within mutual supporting distance, seldom more than 25-100 meters apart, depending on the terrain. One team would provide a base of fire while the other maneuvered forward or back as appropriate, then they reversed rolls. The teams were almost never out of sight of each other. The squad leader moved with the team from which he could best control both with hand signals.

Pretty much Cold Steel is right on with this post. And in Army Infantry Platoons, the M60 was organic to the Platoon. As Griefbringer noted. Not attached from a Weapons Plt, like the USMC, IIRC ?

Ah, the M60. A great weapon to shoot, a bear to lug around.

Yep hence the name "Pig", and the Gunner was sometimes called a "Hog Humper".

It was also true that US riflemen might recall that their might 'normally' be only one M60 attached to their Platoon for a routine patrol, if there was another attached,.. that meant to expect trouble.

Yes, this was especially useful in an Ambush Patrol. The L-Shaped Ambush along the bend of a trail with two M60s along the base/short end of the L. Firing into the Kill Zone along the long leg of the L. With Grunts firing across the Kill Zone from the long side of the L. The M60s used aiming stakes, etc. to limit their fire so as not to shoot the Grunts along the long leg of the L. With the M60s firing up from the base of the L into the Kill Zone. And the Grunts firing across the Kill Zone creating flanking/ a cross fire. That was the way they taught us. I started Cadet training in '75 right after the end of Vietnam. And as a PL in the the 101 '80-'81. My experience was you can't have too much firepower. But with that train of thought, you still need to carry those heavy weapons along with ammo. So much for being called "Light Infantry" …

The Osprey book ; "The US Army in the Vietnam War 1965–73 (Battle Orders 33) by Gordon Rottman" has a wonderful discussion of this…and just how far 'real practice' differed from tabled organisation at Platoon level , especially once leadership attrition (ie team and squad leaders) was a factor.
…deserves a look !