Help support TMP


"Battlefront/Osprey's 'Nam is around the corner" Topic


24 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 Flames of War Message Board

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



1,455 hits since 22 Nov 2017
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tgunner22 Nov 2017 7:29 p.m. PST

I just saw this on Osprey's site:

link

‘Nam gives you have everything* you need to take command of one of these forces. Building on the success of Battlefront's Team Yankee, these rules and forces are easy to learn and use. Within these pages you can find all of the scenarios, missions, and notes on terrain to fully brief you before you step onto your Huey to lead your troops to the landing zone!

*Well, almost everything. A groovy playlist of 1960s tunes is compulsory for maximum playability.

That is February 22nd. Interesting that BF is hooking up with Osprey for this one. They've flirted with each other before (there are Osprey Publishing pics in Team Yankee), but it is interesting to see that Osprey is publishing this. Interesting indeed.

Achtung Minen23 Nov 2017 5:20 a.m. PST

'Nam gives you have everything

Yes, but what does it mean?

Lion in the Stars23 Nov 2017 9:33 a.m. PST

Someone didn't proofread.

Hopefully this is limited to the preorder and not the actual book.

Also, book needs to include USMC forces on the DMZ (it's the one area of the ground war that hasn't been covered yet). This would be fun because the Marines actually deployed a company of M103 heavy tanks to the DMZ!

Nick B23 Nov 2017 12:17 p.m. PST

But just "Team Yankee'd" FOW rules? Any actual changes to the mechanisms or just a new publisher?

In the race to streamline does that mean that all the special rules which gave some flavvour to the original FOW version disappear?

28mm Fanatik23 Nov 2017 9:40 p.m. PST

In the race to streamline does that mean that all the special rules which gave some flavvour to the original FOW version disappear?

BF is giving Vietnam the same streamlining (some call it dumbing down) as FoW with its current 4th edition. After that I'm sure the Arab Israeli "Fate of a Nation" will get the same treatment. Expect lots of cards.

Appears everything is getting Team Yankeecized for "maximum playability."

BTW I play TY and have armies of every nationality so far.

Eumerin23 Nov 2017 11:08 p.m. PST

Also, book needs to include USMC forces on the DMZ (it's the one area of the ground war that hasn't been covered yet). This would be fun because the Marines actually deployed a company of M103 heavy tanks to the DMZ!

The USMC is supposed to appear in the upcoming book. No idea if they'll include the M103s, but there will be some marine lists.

Dennis030224 Nov 2017 9:59 a.m. PST

The M103 was never in combat or Vietnam.
link

ScottS24 Nov 2017 11:22 a.m. PST

I have VERY mixed feelings about this. I love FoW: Vietnam; I think it is the best iteration of FoW due to the asymmetrical forces involved. But I really don't like FoW 4th edition; it seems very flat, uninteresting, and sloppy.

I want to see them continue the Vietnam line, even though I already have more than enough models. I'd like to see USMC, especially if they cover the fighting in Hue. But I think the cards are unnecessary, and there's no way I'm buying cards to cover models I already have…

Here's hoping it's good.

Eumerin24 Nov 2017 4:43 p.m. PST

The books include the stats for the models. So unless they do a wholesale list revision like they did with Mid-War that leaves out old stuff (but based on what Battlefront has stated so far, everything that was in Tour of Duty and Brown Water Navy will be included in the new book), you won't need the cards.

Lion in the Stars24 Nov 2017 4:43 p.m. PST

@Dennis0302. Your source just says 'never in combat'.

It also says that every Marine tank battalion had one company of M103s in it. If the Marines deployed a tank battalion to Vietnam (which they did), then it's extremely likely that the M103s would go to Vietnam with the rest of their battalion.

Dennis030224 Nov 2017 6:37 p.m. PST

@ Lion in the Stars,
I had the honor of serving in Vietnam with the USMC as a platoon leader and Company XO with 1st Battalion 9th Marines. The 3rd and 1st Tanks Bns. who supported us had M48A3's. The M103 never served in Vietnam due to its size and weight. As an example,when the 1st Tank Battalion was ordered to Vietnam in 1965 they were directed to leave their M103 Company at Camp Pendleton.The recovery version of the M103 did serve in country. For an accurate account of the M 103 see the Osprey on the M 103.

Eumerin24 Nov 2017 6:48 p.m. PST

There's a good chance that any M103s in the units shipped to Vietnam were left back in the States. This was not exactly unheard of. For instance, the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment was apparently ordered to replace its tanks with additional M113s (later on, the unit swapped out the extra M113s for M551 Sheridan tanks) when it deployed to Vietnam. Given that a heavy tank's primary purpose is to defeat other tanks, and given that the North Vietnamese wisely avoided using their own tanks until after the US was gone, M48s would have made much more sense than M103s. M48s were just as invulnerable to VC and NVA infantry. And the bigger gun on the M103 wouldn't have made that much of a difference.

I did perform a quick search to try and see if I could find any mention of M103s in Vietnam, but was unable to do so.

Edit – Looks like Dennis beat me to it, with accurate information (versus my speculation) to boot.

28mm Fanatik24 Nov 2017 6:54 p.m. PST

It doesn't matter if the M103 was actually used in 'Nam or not.

The USMC wasn't a major player in the US deployment in Europe facing off the Warsaw Pact either, and the Sgt. York air defense system never even entered service, but these little details didn't stop BF from releasing them anyway for TY: TMP link

Historical accuracy in TO&E is no longer a requirement for BF.

Dennis030224 Nov 2017 7:01 p.m. PST

The M48s were far from invulnerable to NVA anti tank weapons. Both the RPG 2 and 7 as well as the infrequent recoiless rifle rounds would penetrate the turret and hull armor. One of the problems with the M48s in I Corps was bogging down in rice paddies or at river crossings during the rainy season. Recovery vehicles weren't always available and I spent the most frightening night of my life when my platoon had to protect a bogged M48 until the next morning. Not an experience you would ever want to repeat.

Eumerin24 Nov 2017 11:01 p.m. PST

The USMC wasn't a major player in the US deployment in Europe facing off the Warsaw Pact either, and the Sgt. York air defense system never even entered service, but these little details didn't stop BF from releasing them anyway for TY

The difference being that the Vietnam War actually happened, but World War III didn't start in 1985. So BF can't use the "They would have gotten them into action if an emergency had arisen" excuse that they gave for the Sgt. York in Team Yankee. There was no emergency severe enough to justify the M103 over the course of the Vietnam War.

Recovery vehicles weren't always available and I spent the most frightening night of my life when my platoon had to protect a bogged M48 until the next morning. Not an experience you would ever want to repeat.

If anything, I would think that the even heavier M103 would be even more likely to bog than an M48.

Wargamer Blue25 Nov 2017 12:30 a.m. PST

I'm really looking forward to this book. V4 has definitely improved FOW so Vietnam should be amazing.

Lion in the Stars25 Nov 2017 9:51 p.m. PST

@Dennis0302: OK, I may stand corrected. Will have to hit the library for the Osprey on the M103s.

My friend wants to field them in Nam, and is really looking forward to them with the Marines in the DMZ. I suppose that if the North Vietnamese fielded tanks while the US was still in country, the M103s might have seen action against the T55s.

28mm Fanatik26 Nov 2017 10:53 a.m. PST

The difference being that the Vietnam War actually happened,

But that doesn't mean you can't game "what if?" scenarios like Cold War Gone Hot. If the US did not completely pull out in March of 1973 and continued to support the ARVN instead, the north would have found it much tougher to roll into Saigon two years later with their T-55's when they had to face M103's.

If it's reasonable to assume that Sgt. Yorks could have been employed in Europe in 1985 had the Soviets invaded, it's equally reasonable that M103's could have been employed in the field against the NVA had the US not withdrawn prematurely.

The inclusion of Sgt. Yorks and M103's both broke with history as it happened.

ScottS26 Nov 2017 11:00 a.m. PST

Yeah, it would have taken them several seconds to swerve around the abandoned, fuel-starved wrecks.

Bigger is not always better. The M103 was not a good tank; it was an expensive white elephant. It wouldn't have done much good in Vietnam.

LDC27103 Dec 2017 5:33 p.m. PST

The bigger problem for Nam was how long does it take before you got bored of the Blue on Blue actions.
It was absurdly unbalanced in Nam, still significant in AIW (Jordanians kind of leveled the playing field but that requires Arab players to buy a new army), and now BF is still pushing that REDFOR horde train down the TY track.
Good luck finding that masochistic VC player.

Lion in the Stars04 Dec 2017 6:41 a.m. PST

Friend of mine has the horde of "black PJs" (Local Force VC). He really enjoys playing against my Air Cav. He's less impressed with playing against ground pounders, says it feels like playing WW2 still.

And for what it's worth, I'm also slowly working on a Local Force VC army. And I wanted to play Jordanians in AIW.

Eumerin04 Dec 2017 7:03 p.m. PST

Some people like it. Some don't. My local store has players that enjoy playing the North Vietnamese. And there's never a shortage of players playing Warsaw Pact for Team Yankee. Apparently there's at least a few people over at the official Battlefront forums who don't.

Charlie 12 Inactive Member04 Dec 2017 8:27 p.m. PST

If the US did not completely pull out in March of 1973 and continued to support the ARVN instead, the north would have found it much tougher to roll into Saigon two years later with their T-55's when they had to face M103's.

Except the M103 was already out of the inventory by 1973. And the M48 (even with the 90mm) was more than capable of handling the T55. To say nothing of the TOW equipped Cobras.

If you're going to insist on M103s for the USMC, then the NVA should have JS3s/T10s. Both make equal sense (or lack of same) …

LDC27104 Dec 2017 9:26 p.m. PST

Plus we already had TOW carrying UH-1s in 1972, which were used to great effect in stopping the Easter Offensive.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.