Help support TMP

"Send in the Marines!" Topic

20 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board

Back to the Modern Scenarios Message Board

860 hits since 19 Mar 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Mako11 Supporting Member of TMP19 Mar 2017 4:35 p.m. PST

This posting has me again pondering a good, Cold War, USMC scenario, which I may just have to try out:

TMP link

The one in the link is for 1985, and is using 6mm terrain and troops, over a very large, impressively wide, beach landing area.

Not sure I'll be able to duplicate that level of size, since I'm using 1/144th scale (and perhaps some other scales too), but I am considering a number of different scenarios for the games. Linked ones would be nice, for a mini-campaign, but we'll just have to see.

One of the scenarios will be the presumption that the surprise attack(s) by the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies have at least partially succeeded in rolling back NATO forces, so the USMC is called upon to help try to redress that a bit.

I'm thinking they'll be deployed to help defend, and/or retake Jutland from the Poles who've been encouraged to attack there.

Haven't settled on the exact date yet, but it looks like M48A3s and LVTPs vs. T-54s/T-55s and BTRs, I suspect. Might spice things up with the odd, surviving Danish force too, just for a little color, and interest.

Personal logo Weasel Supporting Member of TMP19 Mar 2017 4:57 p.m. PST

T55 is wonderful in the sense that they can show basically anytime after their introduction.

pmwalt Supporting Member of TMP19 Mar 2017 7:05 p.m. PST

1985 the USMC was fielding M60A1 RISE passives. LVTP-7s were in service

Mako11 Supporting Member of TMP19 Mar 2017 7:18 p.m. PST

Yea, that's why my scenario will be in the late 1960s – early 1970s, I suspect.

Oberlindes Sol LIC19 Mar 2017 8:59 p.m. PST
Old Wolfman20 Mar 2017 7:26 a.m. PST

The old professor,Tom Lehrer. Always good to hear.

capnvic20 Mar 2017 4:01 p.m. PST

If you have any M103A2's… The USMC, had one Company in each of its tank Bns. They were withdrawn from service in 1974. I believe they kept them in reserve at Barstow.

Mako11 Supporting Member of TMP20 Mar 2017 11:37 p.m. PST

Sadly, I don't but would like some of those to oppose the T-10s I do have.

Taking those on, and/or T-54s/T-55s with 90mm pop-guns should be a good challenge.

I suspect I need M60A1s first though, since they served for so long, in numerous units I'm interested in.

Amphibious landing forces vs. amphibious landing forces. What's not to love about that?

Legion 421 Mar 2017 2:21 p.m. PST

Would be interesting to see some M103s in this scenario. IIRC the US ARMY only had about 1 Bn's worth too …

Just went to Wikipedia … interesting …

In Europe, the US Army fielded only one battalion of heavy tanks, from January 1958, originally assigned to the 899th Tank Battalion, later re-designated the 2d Battalion, 33d Armor.[3] The US Army heavy armor battalion, in contrast to other armor units, was organized into four tank companies, composed of six platoons each, of which each platoon contained three M103s, for a total of 18 tanks per company. Standard US Army armor battalions at the time had three companies per battalion, each with three five-tank platoons, with 17 tanks per company (two tanks were in headquarters platoon). The US Marine Corps assigned one M103 company to each of its three Marine tank battalions, including its Marine reserve units.

Mako11 Supporting Member of TMP21 Mar 2017 6:15 p.m. PST

An old Table Top Games Cold War org. publication I have lists a choice for the US Marines of up to 5 x platoons of 5 vehicles each for the tank units. IIRC, in the notes section, if you take 2+ platoons of them, you need to add in a company HQ of 2 x tanks to that.

LVTP "platoons" consist of 11 x vehicles in them, with 44 to a battalion (perhaps several more for the HQ). That corresponds with one photo I ran across in a search the other day, showing 11 of them lined up on a beach, when doing an image search for them.

ScottS21 Mar 2017 6:16 p.m. PST

ea, that's why my scenario will be in the late 1960s early 1970s, I suspect.

Then you'll want LVTP-5s, perhaps the ugliest armored vehicle ever made…

Mako11 Supporting Member of TMP22 Mar 2017 1:50 a.m. PST

I do want a small number of those, but they are very utilitarian looking (rather like a large brick with treads), as far as armored vehicles go, so my scenario will be after the Corps gets those sleek, lovely looking, LVTP-7s.

Bet you didn't think you'd ever hear them called that, but, compared to the '-5, they certainly are.

Legion 422 Mar 2017 7:45 a.m. PST

Yeah … the LVTP-5 was one "ugly" design … like a shoe box on tracks. But I kind of like it … huh?

The LVTP-7 looks like a much better design. When I was in the 101. We cross-trained with the USMC at Little Creek VA. The -7 was absolutely "room" compared to the M113. But the -7 could carry a lot more troops than a M113.

* Note: the 101 didn't have M113s but we were attached to ARMY Mech units at times. And later I commanded an M113 Company. [must make notes around here before the trolls start sharpshooting at my posts !]

ScottS22 Mar 2017 7:46 a.m. PST

I've never heard 'tracks described as "sleek," and I was a crewman on them…

Legion 422 Mar 2017 2:32 p.m. PST

Sleeker than a 113 ! wink And as I said, much more "Roomy" !

Mako11 Supporting Member of TMP22 Mar 2017 9:52 p.m. PST

Compared to that LVTP-5, they're positively "skinny".

Only thing the '-5s have going for them is they can carry like a platoon of troops, IIRC. Would hate to be in an armored box with that many guys though, at sea, or going through a surf zone on anything but a completely calm day.

Legion 423 Mar 2017 6:57 a.m. PST

M113s can "ford" once properly "prepped". But it occurs occasionally where an M113 "sinks". In the ROK another Mech Bn was practicing swimming the Imjin River. Just South of the DMZ in the US Sector of the UN Line. One M113 sank and it's 3 crew members drowned. What some forget … even in training for combat … Soldiers, Marines, etc. can still die.

ScottS23 Mar 2017 1:04 p.m. PST

Would hate to be in an armored box with that many guys though, at sea, or going through a surf zone on anything but a completely calm day.

Here, hold my beer…

YouTube link

Mako11 Supporting Member of TMP24 Mar 2017 12:03 a.m. PST

Wow, that's gotta suck!

Hope they have seatbelts in those things.

ScottS25 Mar 2017 9:42 a.m. PST


That said, that sort of thing isn't typical. That's a vehicle from AVTB – Amphibious Vehicle Text Branch. This is a small unit – mostly civilians from the company that makes AAVs (FMC) – set up to test new 'tracks and systems. They're like test pilots for amphibious vehicles. They're deliberately taking that 'track out and trying to flip it in plunging surf to see how it will do in those conditions.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.