"No Response from BF on the TY M60 MG Issue" Topic

As some of you suggested, I have yet to hear back from Battle Front on the M60 Cold War machine gun issue, and the fact that no M240s or M249s were used by the infantry squads, before the end of the Cold War (some were mounted on vehicles, but the troops didn't use them on the ground, apparently).

I suspect that doesn't bode well for getting that corrected before the rules come out.

If that's an issue that bugs you, you might want to raise it directly with them as well. I suspect they'll need to hear from a number of people, before they'll consider making a change.

Same goes for the incorrect data for the Soviet MG platoons, where they've only got one MG in the TO&E for each of the two vehicles, when it really should be two to three per vehicle (four to six in total), for the two-vehicle, MG platoon in the Motor Rifle companies.

The figure problem won't be fixed anytime soon. The OOB issue is likely to be resolved when the full Soviet book is released.

The figure issue's easier to fix I suspect, than the stuff in print, since they can just make more Vietnam M60 figs to replace the others. They've already got the molds for them.

The M240s and M249s can be sold separately, for the post-Cold War units.

But do they feature in the Team Yankee book?

Tally Ho!

They could, but perhaps that ship has sailed.

This is always going to be a challenge for publishers coming from WW2. WW2 is probably the most thoroughly covered war in history as regards the level of literature/research/interest. Late eighties peace time militaries…not so much.

But really I wouldn't sweat them on the missing M60 minis. Rules wise there would be zero difference between the weapons.

Regarding SAWs and M-60s, we've got Mech Infantry guys from the 1980s saying they had M-60s and SAWs in this thread:

TMP link

I also agree with McWong's statement:
"But really I wouldn't sweat them on the missing M60 minis. Rules wise there would be zero difference between the weapons."

V/R,
Jack

We had the SAW in the Marines in the 80's and the Marines are typically the last of the active units to get stuff at times. I know when I went into the guard, we had the M-60 and that was in the 90's.

In 15mm the differences between them are pretty small. So really I just might need some extra figures. No big deal…

M60 machine guns, not M60 tanks, kyote.

We trained with the SAW in infantry training in late '89 so I would bet at least some units in the US Army had them by then.

Well, yes, but the Cold War essentially ended in 1989 too, with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Of course, there was a lot of tension and worry for a few years after that too, due to attempted coups, etc..

From what I've read on other threads, any SAWs issued prior to 1989 were primarily installed on vehicles, and not carried by the troops on the ground.

IIRC, that included the Marines as well, but I guess perhaps some did get them in advance of that.

My point is/was, that the M60s were the main squad-level infantry MG used during the Cold War.

I'm less concerned about the minis, since those can easily be swapped out, though it is an added expense people shouldn't have to bear, that don't want to.

My major concern is the inaccuracy of the unit cards, and the rules.

I'm hoping BF will correct the issue at the earliest opportunity, for historical accuracy.

But really I wouldn't sweat them on the missing M60 minis. Rules wise there would be zero difference between the weapons.

Yup. Not an issue. Storm in a teacup!

And, as I think Nick was trying to point out, not mentioned in the Team Yankee Novel the starter sets are based on. And certainly not in the wider book 'The Third World War'. Far too granular.

And I suspect that's why the guys at Battlefront aren't rushing to answer this level of criticism. Much as they might like to, I guess there are only so many hours in the day, and this level of trivia is way, way down the priority list.

Unlike, say, getting cracking on the BAOR models!

No M249 in the '80s? Really?

not what some of these guys recall? TMP link

Legion 4 mentions there were none in the early 1980s, and there's a question mark behind his listing of it for 1984 – '85. My guess is that means he's unsure of when they got them.

He does mention he had them in his unit in 1987 – '89. Which of course could mean they got them in '87, '88, or '89, at the very tail end of the Cold War.

A number of others have stated in several postings that they didn't have them at the squad level until 1989, but that some vehicles were equipped with them, in response to previous queries made by me.

It appears that they were quite rare, if they were available at all, in the mid-1980s, based upon comments from others that served in the European Theater.

Of course, perhaps I have that wrong. If so, I'll be happy to be corrected.

There doesn't seem to be any dispute regarding the 2 – 3 machine guns per vehicle, in the two-vehicle Soviet APC/IFV machine gun platoons, instead of just the one listed there by the BF unit cards, thus far.

Fair enough. That'd match my reading of it which is that they were around from 84/85 but in limited numbers.

My 'really?' was a panicked response at the thought I'd wasted money commissioning one in 28mm for our Cold War US :)

Nah, they won't go to waste.

Lots of people like the really late Cold War, ultra-modern stuff.

Me, I'm a bit of a dinosaur, so like most of the 1950s – early 1980s kit.

My 'really?' was a panicked response at the thought I'd wasted money commissioning one in 28mm for our Cold War US :)

Pretty sure they were fielded in the invasion of Panama, so it's not a waste. Definitely fielded in Somalia (still in Cold War uniforms/equipment).

Will do, though I'll warn you, Vulcan, B-47, and B-52 sorties may be involved too.

;-)

Will do, though I'll warn you, Vulcan, B-47, and B-52 sorties may be involved too.

On the tabletop mate? Be sure to post some photos now, won't you!

Apparently there were about a 1000 M249 in service c1985. link

Yes, and the M240 was "in service" about 5 – 6 years before that (according to Wiki, which is where I got my original info on this, and the M249), but then someone here on TMP responded, and said most of those were really only mounted on vessels, and vehicles.

He told me the squads didn't have them until about 1989. IIRC, another person or two may have confirmed that as well, and/or said that the M60 was THE MG for the US Army and USMC squads during the Cold War (ending in 1989).

The article you cite on the M249 says they were used in Panama, in 1989 (end of the Cold War).

Further, the same article you cite states "The M249 SAW was not used heavily before the 1991 Gulf War, though it has been used in every major U.S. conflict since".

So, as you can see, apparently before that, they were rather rare, if they were issued to the guys on the ground, in their units, at all.

In 15mm the differences between them are pretty small. So really I just might need some extra figures. No big deal…

I agree with Extra Crispy. Not a big deal.

My major concern is the inaccuracy of the unit cards, and the rules.

What might be the practical effect on unit cards and rules?

I guess it depends on the TO&E used to determine unit firepower. You'd have to look at distribution of belt-fed MGs at platoon level when the M60 was generally relegated to the weapons squad and parceled out to the rifle squads and compare that to every squad having two M249s per squad as they do today.

During Team Yankee's time frame, were they still essentially pure M16 rifle squads with just 2 or 3 M60s in the platoon weapons squad? If that's the case then you're looking at something like a ratio of just 1 belt-fed MG per two or three teams (Rifle/MG teams in FoW WWII terms).

Today the ratio at platoon level is 1 SAW (MG) per team plus 2 or 3 more MGs (the M240) in the weapons squad, at least for light infantry. Mech infantry shows at least one TO&E where you have 3x MGs (2x M249 and 1x M240) per squad! (That would be at least MG teams in FoW WWII terms).

Otherwise I wouldn't get hung up on the differences between the weapons given FoW's scale and scope. I think the functional and organizational differences are more important in light of FoW's approach at modeling unit firepower (ie squad level MGs are NOT specifically modeled on a per stand basis but abstracted across the platoon's total firepower).

Well, TY is set 30 years ago, so today's TO&Es aren't really relevant to that.

Mako11 the M240 was the standard coax MG from the 70's but the M60 was the infantry LMG until after the cold war. Infantry should NOT have the M240 in 1985.

The M249 is trickier. There were a small number (1000) issued and used and certainly at the time everyone expected they would be widespread very soon but there were problems with it so the 7000 or so that hadn't been issued yet were held back while the problems were being fixed. A few years later the improved version was widely issued. They were first used in combat in 1989 in Panama but the only reason they weren't used in action prior to that is there was no fighting for them to be used in.
For 1985 the problem is who used the 1000 or so that _were_ in use and what were they used for. The M249 _can_ be mounted on a vehicle but that certainly wasn't it's intended use. I suspect they were issued to certain units as their SAW in place of the M60, but the majority used the M60. If "Team Yankee" purports to represent one of the "lucky" units issued with the early M249 then all is good.

Thanks for the note.

Yea, someone else mentioned that, when I thought the M240 was available back as far as 1979, due to its production back then. I was corrected by another former soldier who had direct knowledge regarding that.

Obviously, people can use whatever they want in their games, that makes them happy, but I do appreciate your added info on the M249 as well.