 deadhead  | 12 Aug 2019 7:10 a.m. PST |
Nicely painted Gringos 40 28mm US Marines from the Hue 68 set. But these chaps are getting mud on their boots it seems
|
jammy four  | 12 Aug 2019 7:49 a.m. PST |
|
| Bismarck | 12 Aug 2019 11:11 a.m. PST |
Darn, do those look great!
The figs are well posed and sculpted and there is no apt superlative for the paint job. Loved seeing my good old M14
included in the figure range. I has thought that TAG had cornered the market on Vietnam Marines, but you guys sure are
giving them a run for their money. Hope the line does well for you. Sam |
| jammy four | 12 Aug 2019 3:19 p.m. PST |
thank you Sam…much appreciated..
.interesting the comparison between the really reliable M14 and the lighter and eventually better M16…did you use an M16 eventually? ( better in as much as it jammed less eventually)
cheers
Ged gringo40s.com |
| Bismarck | 12 Aug 2019 4:21 p.m. PST |
Ged, I did use both. The Corps held on to the 14s later than the Army did and support personnel were still carrying them even after '69. Two entirely different weapons with different purpose. After losses with the first 16s, the M16a were more reliable. Biggest advantage over the M14 was full automatic fire. Great weapon for the bush. They didn't have the punch or range of the M14. Even with the selector capable M14s and the weight of the bipod, recoil was so strong that you could not control it on full auto. One joke floating around was that a fully automatic firing M14 was the best anti-aircraft weapon the North Vietnamese had. |
| Just Jack | 12 Aug 2019 5:46 p.m. PST |
Those do look fantastic, very nice. V/R,
Jack |
| Skarper | 12 Aug 2019 10:01 p.m. PST |
The M-14 full auto version was still in use with the USMC long after it was supplanted in Army units. It must have made an extra headache for ammo resupply. I wonder if it was worth the hassle? More M60s might have been a better option in hindsight. I guess despite all the money and resources poured in there were still shortages? The big USMC platoons only got 2 M60s in the weapons squad though I read many 'found' another and left the recoiless rifle behind, ending up with a more army style squad organisation. The only reasons I can imagine for keeping the ungainly M-14 in use are 1] Shortage of M16/M60s
2] Inertia and not trusting the M16 to do the job
3] The traditional USMC fireteam structure with 1 x AR [BAR in WW2 and Korea] plus lighter rifles/smgs/carbines continuing on due to doctrine. There does seem to be an ongoing debate about how squads/fireteams should be organised and armed and I daresay there is not a one size fits all solution. I read somewhere the larger USMC squads are more capable than the smaller US Army squads due to being able to continue the mission after 1 or 2 casualties. It's harder to do this if you only have 6-7 infantrymen in a squad since if one gets wounded it takes another 2-3 to evacuate or secure/treat the wounded man. Thus leaving only 3-4 to keep pressure on the enemy. Another casualty and you're reduced to a defensive posture. The trade off is you have fewer squads with the same number of men….so maybe it's moot. |
| jammy four | 13 Aug 2019 2:12 a.m. PST |
Sam
fascinating reply…thanks…was wondering about the stopping power of the M16..fuller auto ,with a smaller round ? or the larger round of the M14? Cheers
Ged
gringo40s.com
gringo40s.blogspot.com |
| jammy four | 13 Aug 2019 2:13 a.m. PST |
|
| jammy four | 13 Aug 2019 2:15 a.m. PST |
|
| Garryowen | 13 Aug 2019 6:39 a.m. PST |
The Marines, in my opinion, were the poor step children of the U.S. Navy. They were under the Navy budget. It took them longer to get jungle boots (they had to use the old leather boots for longer) and Hueys (still using the H-34 for longer), besides the M-16s. Tom |
 Legion 4 | 13 Aug 2019 7:02 a.m. PST |
Looks great !!!! When I was an ARMY ROTC Cadet, '75-'79. We initially were issued the M14 and the M16 about '77(?).
was wondering about the stopping power of the M16..fuller auto ,with a smaller round ? or the larger round of the M14? Of course the M16 being 5.56 vs the M14 7.62 NATO there is a firepower difference. Albeit both have the same Max Rg of 460m. An M16 with loaded mag weights about 7.5 lbs vs. the M14 w/ loaded mag @ 11.5, roughly …  With modern tactics of fire & maneuver, having more ammo to suppress is a factor. And the M16 and it's ammo is lighter than an M14 and it's ammo. Both carried 7 mags of 20 rds each. 3 in two ammo pouches and one in the rifle was the standard. With the M16 later going to 30 rd mags. Which made a difference in total rds carried. The M14 = 140 rds vs. the M16 = 210. Full Auto was generally not used at frequently. Some feel the 7.62 rd was better than the 5.56 for man killing and generally it is. But generally you don't need 7.62 rd to kill a human. A 5.56 will do, but some felt that double-tapping with the M16 was a good standard. But basically you'll keep shooting at a target in a firefight until it goes down, regardless, AFAIK. Something to remember the Infantry needed a big .30 cal round to kill a horse as we saw in WWI and before. As a Cav charge vs. Infantry could be quite effect. Hence even as far back as Napoleon and further forming a Square gave Infantry some measure of protection vs. a Cav charge. But with the advent of MGs in WWI , etc. Horse Cav was little by little phased out generally. And by the time of the Wars in SE Asia is was no where to be found AFAIK. As modern tech and tactics evolved more ammo and lighter weapons for the Infantry were generally the norm. You don't have to kill horses anymore. But do need more ammo for fire & maneuver, etc.
1] Shortage of M16/M60s
2] Inertia and not trusting the M16 to do the job
3] The traditional USMC fireteam structure with 1 x AR [BAR in WW2 and Korea] plus lighter rifles/smgs/carbines continuing on due to doctrine. Possibly … I really think it came down to as always – $$$  . And the USMC felt the M14 good enough and it worked. There was some problems with M16 initially. But were worked out and it became the effective weapon as it's newer versions are today. The discussion of Squad and Fire Tm organizations/TO&Es between the ARMY and USMC is another thing to consider. And as always in comes down to TTP of the individual soldiers and it's leadership. |
| Just Jack | 13 Aug 2019 9:15 a.m. PST |
Jammy Four, Certainly looks it to me, though I'm a much younger vintage ;)
Makes me want to start 28s, they're truly beautiful. V/R,
Jack |
| jammy four | 13 Aug 2019 2:50 p.m. PST |
|
| brass1 | 13 Aug 2019 6:28 p.m. PST |
Legion 4 But with the advent of MGs in WWI , etc. Horse Cav was little by little phased out generally. And by the time of the Wars in SE Asia is was no where to be found AFAIK. Admittedly, the Meo montagnards were mounted infantry but they rode to war against the Viet Minh, supporting the French. In 1979, the vanguard of the Chinese army that invaded Vietnam was a force of somewhere around 30,000 mounted cavalry (3 divisions). So, yes, there were still mounted cavalry in Southeast Asia well past the end of WWII, few and far between though they might have been. LT |
| Legion 4 | 13 Aug 2019 7:28 p.m. PST |
Thanks for that LT, I did not know that the Montagnards or the PRC still rode horses in both of those wars ! |
| jammy four | 14 Aug 2019 6:08 a.m. PST |
|
| Legion 4 | 14 Aug 2019 7:31 a.m. PST |
Yes, I'm going to have to read up on those Horse Cav in SE Asia ! The PRC still using large Cav formations in '79 … wow ! |
| jammy four | 16 Aug 2019 3:36 p.m. PST |
|
| Legion 4 | 17 Aug 2019 4:32 a.m. PST |
|
...
