Vietnam and modern combat

Does anyone know of some rules based on Stargrunt for Vietnam or modern
gameing.

Thanks in advance.

Rick,

Killzone is quick and dirty - with some minor adaptation you could use
it for 20c modern combat.

You can download here:
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Corridor/3588/index.html<http://www
.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Corridor/3588/index.html>

Or try AK47 - I have had some fun games with it.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/cree3000/ak47/rules.html<http://members.lycos
.co.uk/cree3000/ak47/rules.html>

R
[quoted original message omitted]

Of course, he's asking specifically about Stargrunt variations, and I'm fairly
certain these have strong differences. To the good for many folks,
but...

While I'm just a vacc-head, I thought Stargrunt, inspite of the FM
weapon
descriptions, was pretty good as a straight near-modern game. I'd
suggest digging in the archives for discussions on just that point.

Ok, let's make the question: are there any sites with special rules,
variations, and scenerios for Stargrunt, for things like jungle, desert, and
similar situations in the style of Viet Nam, Fulda Gap, Gulf War,
and...?

The_Beast

owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU wrote on 04/22/2004 03:59:58 PM:

> Rick,

> --- Rick Mower <m0bey@comcast.net> wrote:

You could more or less use the rules as written, with the modification Los
came up with for GPMGs. d8 firepower, d10 firepower when they have a second
crewman. Assault rifles all have d8 firepower, d8 damage, d10 for weapons
using long 7.62mm cartridges
(M-14, M-60, PK).  Drop the EW rules, and go to town
with booby traps and mines.

That will work pretty well for straightforward fights
between US Army/USMC and PAVN/NLF Main Force fighters.

The problem in simulating the lower-level stuff is
that guerilla warfare is, like special operations, impossible to simulate on
the game table. Both depend on the reality that for most of the time, nothing
happens. You do 30 patrols down the same stretch of road and nothing happens,
it takes a dedicated professional to stay alert the 31st time. But by its very
nature, the game table is only out if something is going to happen. You can't
simulate that tendency towards complacency nor the vigilance of leadership to
prevent that comlacency. And if you try, what you end up with are a handful of
dice rolls by the 'conventional' player before the game starts
determining whether or not the guerilla will win--and
after that it's hardly worth it to play.

***
And if you try, what you end up with are a handful of dice rolls by the
'conventional' player before the game starts
determining whether or not the guerilla will win--and
after that it's hardly worth it to play.
***

Which is why it can work fairly well as a PC game: the enemy is a bunch of
'dumb' robots. You can build a game like that, as sort of solitaire, but you
have to write rules for the target force to be robots.

It seems the game of hunting bugs I run was simple to figure out, as the bugs
are stupid but fast. Working out even a relative inept army, with individuals
showing occasional flashes of inspiration, would seriously be difficult.

I've mentioned before playing in blind games, with each side getting it's own
maps, but it seems an awesome burden on the GM.

The_Beast

I haven't written anything down, but I have done a little bit of work on a
Vietnam War scenario for SG2 (using other things as well; those who
know what I mean when I say "Tcho-tcho" and "Delta Green" will probably
smile at this...).

SG2 will work well "out of the box" for Vietnam. I was planning on
giving M16s and AK-47s FP 2, Imp. D10. M60s would use the SAW stat. I'm
still working on other weapons. Armour would be D4 if unarmoured, D6 if
wearing an actual helmet, and D8 for helmet/flak jacket combination.

Most of the rules, including aerospace and artillery, look like they'll work
with very little modification. I just need to come up with stats for the
helicopters (probably use the Grav stats, with a little modification). I
didn't bother doing tanks or APCs as my scenario won't use them, but they
shouldn't be hard to figure out.

There are pre-game pseudo-campaign things you can do to simulate this.

For instance, you can assign the American or Conventional troop commander a
certain number of "patrol" or troop points to assign over a
period of time - for instance 7 days.  The commander decides when (what
days) and where to assign the patrols ( for example there might be a village,
two main roads and two secondary roads). The unconventional player also picks
when and where he will attack, assigning points (booby traps, troops,
equipment). Then the referee or players then reveal their choices day by day
to determine if an encounter occurs.

Some gameplay balances - the unconventional forces gain "prestige" or
"propaganda" points for occupying or certain areas (villages or roads) while
conventional forces gain points for days with no activity and controlling
villages and road. Control being defined as being the last group to pass
through the area. These points are then converted to additional troop points
for the next time period (week).

Additional factors (like fatigue) can be modeled by having some sort of
"reaction dice roll" when a unit is attacked - for instance for every
patrol a unit was part of that week, it needs to roll higher than that number
on a d6 or d8 to activate the first time.

This allow some tactical "psychological" factors to come into play and would
keep the players involved making choices and fewer "random dice rolls" at more
stages of the game.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----

> The problem in simulating the lower-level stuff is

> At 5:34 AM -0700 4/23/04, John Atkinson wrote:

Handle that with Quality.

SAS troopies are going to be a bit more on the ball than conscripted US Army.
USMC should be better. Some of the US Army units should be quite good however
if they've been it it for a while.

> At 3:54 PM +0000 4/23/04, agoodall@att.net wrote:

Impact should be lower. The FALs and M14s should be higher. (Don't forget the
Aussies! You don't want the diggers cross with you!)

.223 carries a lower impact than a 7.62x51 and that's lower than.50.

I'd say impact of D8for the 223 and 7.62x39. D10 for 7.62x51 (or.303) and D12
for the.50. Remember, the Body armor of the day didn't do squat for rifle
rounds.

Little 38s would be would be D4 and the M1911 would be D6 impact. Same for M1
carbines. The flak vests should have a chance for stopping the 38s to some
degree.

Since you're doing Vietnam, you might want to draw a difference
between the Full and Semi-auto M16s where appropriate. The same goes
for the M14s.

Firing those on full auto should raise the FP, but lower the accuracy some
how.

The SAS Diggers had some FALS that were heavy Barrel models with more ammo and
a higher FP die.

There's also the M79 Grenade launcher (Blooker as a Marine upstairs calls it).

The US and British troops with body armor would have a D4 armor value.

> Most of the rules, including aerospace and artillery, look like

ACAVs, M47s and M48s. The odd thing is that in Vietnam the standard method of
handling a tank was as follows:

Driver Drives Loader loads Gunner stands on back deck and fires an M60 or an
M79 (one or the other depending on the situation) TC controls and fires the
Main Gun with his override, Kicks the coax back plate to fire it and also
handle's his.50.

That had a lot of not so accurate but very aggressive fire from every tank
with all weapons firing. When you add Behive to the mix, it was awful for
those down range. Based on books I've read, an ACAV troop could handle a
regiment or three of NVA or VC all by it's self.

The ACAVs with the.50 run by the TC, two M60s run by the "not
dis-mounts" and an M16 and M79 run by another "not dis-mount" was
pretty hot to handle as well.

Anyone want to work up SG stats for an Ontos? 6 106mm Recoilless Rifles and 4
.50 cal spotting rifles.

> Impact should be lower. The FALs and M14s should be higher. (Don't

I thought, perhaps, going with D8 impact, but then I thought that D6 would be
too high an armour rating for someone who just had a metal helmet. I like the
idea of differentiating armour types in a particular period. It sort of bugs
me that some troops have helmets and others don't when there is no difference
within the rules. I know, not strictly legit, but I wanted a feel of the
period using SG2. SG2 doesn't really have the differentiation of armour to
that degree, so I was going to fudge things for the benefit of "feel".

I wasn't going to bother differentiating different makes and models of weapons
of the same "class", though. For one thing, I was planning a scenario with a
limited number of weapon types, not an era sourcebook. Second, SG2 doesn't
differentiate between makes and models of weapons.

> Since you're doing Vietnam, you might want to draw a difference

This, to me, is too much detail for SG2. I would think the use of full
and semi-auto would be abstracted into the to hit roll. This would be
more appropriate for FMAS.

> The US and British troops with body armor would have a D4 armor value.

D4, per the rules, means "no armour".

--
Allan Goodall agoodall@att.net
http://www.hyperbear.com   agoodall@hyperbear.com

> At 3:54 PM +0000 4/23/04, agoodall@att.net wrote:

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

Again, you reduce the entire scenario to a single dice roll. Hooray.

> --- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:

<snip>

Sounds interesting as an add-on.  Call it
Counter-Insurgency Mini-Campaign, and write it up in
more depth, I'll be happy to review it and sharpshoot throughout.:)

Yes and no. If you are willing to abstract things that much, pretty much any
(war)game comes down to a few critical dice (chance) rolls and it isn't
necessary to actually play the game, just roll some dice. For instance,
equally matched chess masters should just flip a coin or toss a die to
determine who wins since it will produce similar results. But that misses the
point.

The point is, the journey is, just as or, more important than the result. How
you get to the result (win, loss, moral victory) is determined by the path you
chose to get there, not just a die toss. That is why it's important to have
player participation at various levels, so they have a chance to influence the
die toss or to make the choice to even have to the toss dice.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----

> At 10:38 AM -0700 4/23/04, John Atkinson wrote:

Not really lots of victory conditions to work with. Think outside the box
there John...*ducks*

For example, Move across this area and break contact. A big board is pretty
much required, as are lots of VC types. But the VC types have low training and
confidence whereas the SAS types are
Orange/Confident. The VC types will have re-inforcements randomly
appear on the table every turn based on a roll of dice and that could help or
hurt them. Allow the SAS types to call for fire and supporting barrages per
doctrine. Lots of chances for this to go either way.

I refed something like this on a Dirtside table with the SAS types possibly
hidden in one of many points. The Red force had to find them and kill them
before the relief force could get in and help them extract. Lots of soft
troopies mounted in trucks against a few well trained troops with limited men
and lots of support from off table. It was touch and go the whole game.

It all depends on how you write the scenario.

G'day John,

> The problem in simulating the lower-level stuff is

I'm going to have to disagree with you John, at least its not the way its come
down for us in Tassie. It can be easier with a GM, but we've done it without a
GM (often you have to trust the other player(s) to be honest during truly
hidden movement). Yes you know something has to be up at some point, but when
the game notes given to the conventional side is "patrol to point A and back
again" and then nothing happens immediately you'd be surprised how the mind
can slip in to auto mode and the subsequent attack catch them wrong footed.
For instance, I played a
game with one of the regulars down here where we had a similar set-up,
after about a turn of activating squads he stopped expecting to spot stuff and
about lost all his victory points when he was surprised by some farmers and
opened fire. He was even more surprised when within one turn of completion of
his patrol my guerrillas sprang the ambush and had a fight on his hands. He
had superior fire power I had the numbers, in the end he lost, just. Despite
the initial inactivity he thought it one of the best games he'd had, because
it had tested him... he was also amazed at my patience as I'd let him walk
through the ambush point twice before I acted.

As an aside I think the best example of this kind of thing is an anecdote from
Adrian who had some players who had their figs start a soccer match while they
waited for an attack;)

It does come down to playing with people who don't have to be entertained with
action from the first activation, but can put up with some inactivation. It
can also come down to some scenario design skill. If you want to represent a
lack of "on the ballness" then start off giving them poor unit rating, with
the potential to upgrade if they start to take the situation seriously (or
conversely a chance to degrade if things happen unexpectedly and go against
them). Another alternative is to start the patroling side with suppressions
(they can still patrol, they can take cover but they can't actually
offensively react until they've cleared them). Dawgie has also put up some
interesting scenario ideas in the past that can be both challenging and fun.

Also don't be afraid of taking the context of the fight into account when
setting up the quality of the different forces. When playing a
black-hawk down-like scenario I'd actually give the locals fairly decent
ratings just because of local knowledge rather than conventional training.

Lastly, if you do really think the conventional forces will just roll over the
opposition then give the opposition lots of figs, define victory points based
around objectives like "conventional force must take building x with minimum
loss of life on either side... While the other side has to stop them for as
long as possible at whatever cost". Those kind of games can be a lot of fun
and a big challenge, though they can take people of a particular mindset (I
happen to like trying to see what I can pull off with crap troops, but I know
that's not for everyone).

With a little thought you can end up with a game that does capture the
features of 'unconventional' warfare, while still providing for fun games.

Cheers

A group that I used to game with put on some of the most Challenging wargames
(Vietnam or other period) I have ever played in. The reason for this, I
suspect, was because the people who put on the games were Vietnam veterans and
knew what a SNAFU it could be. Some of the things that were used that made it
interesting were:

All blind plus - each side/group would get a map
of what they "knew" the terrain was and plans would be drawn up and then the
game would be set up on the table. You would have to follow your plan until
you couldn't. VC has map with trails and roads, US gets map with roads, NVA
gets same map as US but guide who will take you where you want to go (unless
guide gets shot) but you may not know where you were on the table, LURP has US
map with some of the trails but can't show it to other US players.

SNAFU - All messages would get through or lost or
delayed or scrambled (erase every third, forth or fith word) depending on the
judge (dice?). In one game a call for fire got delayed 10 turns and arrived
just as the grunts were entering you-know-where.

What you see is what you know - If you can't see
the other guy you don't know what happened. I was VC and had a heavy weapoms
section and was trying to escape across a ford. I heard the tanks and APC's
comming up but every time I tried to cross I took fire from the other side. I
spent the whole game and all the Recoiless rifle and mortor ammo hitting those
#*+%&*_) across the river and still was taking fire.
At end of game one RPG hit on a tank stoped the armored column, I was facing 5
recon types who had 2 dead and 3 wounded by my fire but were still firing (but
couldn't call for help due to como mixup). I ended up burying the heavy
weapons and sneaking away with my wounded. I didn't make my objective but I
got away somewhat intact.

Ghosts for the green - Less well trained soldiers
will suddenly see the enemy (judge gives ghost soldier to player to put out)
and start firing. When a more expierenced soldier comes by the target
disappears. That assumes, of course, that the gamer actually askes if more
experienced soldier can see a target.

Scott,

These are some good ideas and ones I will have to incorporate. The only
problem I see is with players that are more into winning than with playing the
game and having fun with it.

Ideas like these (FUBAR) make for a great game for folks who are into
simulating what might have actually happened but can be very frustrating for
someone used to the "My men go where I tell them and they stand to the last"
sort of gamer.

I side strongly on the simulation and love this sort of stuff. I remember a
few ECCs ago when I was able to make it and I was in an FMAS game. One of my
figures I was modeling on K'rrt (Weaselboy). Each turn he would move and then
go In Position. Our team leader urged me to move him faster as we could use
his heavy weapon in the firefight to soon develop. I told him that this was
the way this troop would operate and until action was joined he would continue
his cautious movement. Fun stuff.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 04:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Robert Makowsky
> <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> writes:

I wish I had the problem of frequent winning <grin> but there is a balance (on
a sliding scale between a game that rewards good real world
tactics/strategy and one that kills the fun with a slavish process that
tries to fit the details ad infinitum ("Your #3 private has 20/40 vision
and that's a -.25 to your roll.")

> Ideas like these (FUBAR) make for a great game for

Okay, now how do I answer what FUBAR means when my daughter asks?

She listens to my war game rants on occasion...

No, I know what the first part means (and she's aware the word exists -
she's not that sheltered) -  it's the last three letters i forget!
Beyond All Recognition? Doesn't sound right...

> I side strongly on the simulation and love this sort

Fools rush in where live men fear to tread?

> Bob Makowsky

Gracias,

> >Ideas like these (FUBAR) make for a great game for

"frustrating" or "enlightening"

> Okay, now how do I answer what FUBAR means when my daughter asks?

Fouled Up Beyond All Repair

***
> >to the "My men go where I tell them and they stand to

"frustrating" or "enlightening"
***

Tis a reason for all the discussion of morale, and why you're top kick has to
spend an action to get a unit to do something extra, of course. These are
rules to take the troops out of mindless automaton status. Some of it's
already in there...

***
The problem in simulating the lower-level stuff is
that guerilla warfare is, like special operations, impossible to simulate on
the game table. Both depend on the reality that for most of the time, nothing
happens. You do 30 patrols down the same stretch of road and nothing happens,
it takes a dedicated professional to stay alert the 31st time. But by its very
nature, the game table is only out if something is going to happen.
***

The other point I wanted to make earlier was that scenarios tend to be set up
to start after it hits the fan. A scenario description up to the start of
action can point out this was a normal patrol, and it's the reason everyone's
out of position, you are short action points, why these troops take and get an
automatic minus on their morale check at the sound of first fire, etc...

Using the rules as they are in novel ways can go a long way. Least, from
the vantage of this vacc-head.

The_Beast

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:44:40 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> >Ideas like these (FUBAR) make for a great game for

Yes to both in varying degrees.

> Okay, now how do I answer what FUBAR means when my daughter asks?

Repair! Muchas Gracias.

I've been thinking about how to answer this one for a couple days. It ain't
easy. I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place.

Beth:
> up at some point, but when the game notes given to

Primarily because you're dealing with amateurs who do have have the edge that
adrenaline gives their RW equivelants.

First, let me make some distinctions:

Terrorist incidents: Suicide bombings, single IEDs or mines, attacks against
unarmed civillians. These are not suitable for gaming purposes, but make up
the primary component of the fighting in Iraq, and were a constant "background
noise" in Vietnam. I am not making a moral judgement here, just using a
convenient label for the tactics. Of course, if it's good Greeks shooting up
Turks, that's Heroic Freedom Fighters (substitute those who appeal to your
personal prejudices for Greeks and Turks) but that's a label.

Conventional Forces operating with infiltration tactics: These are PAVN and
NLF Main Force units operating as batallion and larger elements using terrain
and ambush tactics to their advantage. I do not believe this is possible any
longer, but it was the major thrust of the Vietnam War. Not really guerillas,
but convention light infantry living off the countryside for the most part.
Suitable for gaming and generally pretty easy to convert, although you need
good Fog of War rules and some restrictions on the US's firepower or LOTS of
minis. Remember that in Ia Drang 3 US batallions fought and defeated 3 PAVN
"Field Forces" which are large brigade-equivelants.
At no time did the PAVN or NLF actually fight and win a tactical victory.

Guerilla War: Everything inbetween. This is what I mean is nearly impossible
to game in a manner that is both realistic and even remotely balanced.
However, I find myself at a loss to explain exactally why without going into
specific TT&P from Iraq and a detailed discussion of the ROE. I cannot and
will not do that in public. And anything on the Web is public. Let's just say
that the average "ambush" the Iraqis attempt to spring results in no
casualties to the US and numerous Iraqi casualties.

> a fight on his hands. He had superior fire power I

Then he either had unrealistic limits on his firepower, or the disparity was
far less than it is in Real Life (or any reasonable approximation thereof)
between professionals (or conscripts with professional leadership) equipped by
a first or second rate power and guerillas.

> inactivity he thought it one

I hope that's a pre-2000 scenario.  Thermal imaging
makes this sort of thing nearly impossible nowdays. And we are finally getting
thermal imagers down at the
infantry platoon/squad level.  Let's also simply say
that aerial surveillance (manned and unmanned) dealing with anything less than
triple canopy jungle is going to screw that plan. Besides which, guerillas
generally don't have the discipline to do this.

> As an aside I think the best example of this kind of

I have three words for the senior NCO and the commander of that force:

RELIEF FOR CAUSE.

> Also don't be afraid of taking the context of the

Not really. Somalis can't shoot for shit and have very primitive tactics. What
you need is about a 50 or 100 to 1 figure ratio. That's what it took in
Mogadishu. Conventional training exists for a reason. It makes troops far
better than the linearity of the Stargrunt troop quality system represents.
Your average Fedayeen is probably rolling a d2 for troop quality at best.

> Lastly, if you do really think the conventional

On either side? I can't legally or ethically get into a detailed ROE
discussion. Sorry.

G'day,

> I've been thinking about how to answer this one for a

How can you avoid it when discussing a Nam application of SG?

> Primarily because you're dealing with amateurs who do

I'm not doubting you have the advantage on me here Jon, but just from talking
to my relatives and other vets from earlier wars (WWII, Nam, Korea etc) it can
and does happen. I wasn't trying to say this will happen every time and this
is exactly the way you should do it every time I was tossing up examples of
ways you can do it.

> Terrorist incidents: Suicide bombings, single IEDs or

And this is exactly how I have had them in games in the past, background noise
not the main feature.

> Conventional Forces operating with infiltration

Without any access to classified stuff its also what the Aussies APPARENTLY
did at least in the early stages of their involvement in the
latest round of Middle eastern hostilities. Also thinking on to sci-fi
and the potential for a wide range of potential conditions (economic,
technological and physical) they are still justified in a sci-fi
setting.

> Guerilla War: Everything inbetween. This is what I

This may be were my view on gaming diverges from others. I don't mind
exceptionally unbalanced games, even ones where I will more than likely lose
regardless. Its the challenge of what I can pull off with what I've got that I
enjoy. When framed in the right way a lot of people can actually enjoy it, but
it does take some design skill I'll admit.

> Then he either had unrealistic limits on his

I had D4 armour, crap weapons, green and yellow troops, mostly 2s and 3s. It
can be done. He assumed I would have done one thing and I had done something
else. That happens in war... ask the French in Indochina how likely it was the
Vietnamese would have man handled artillery pieces through the jungle to the
top of hills.

> I hope that's a pre-2000 scenario. Thermal imaging

I had to pass tests to make sure it didn't happen... bit like the ghost
soldier example given in another post. As to the tech justification, he didn't
use his drones, they didn't spot effectively. Not everything goes the way it
should every time. The other possibility is that something in the enviro
screws it up, foliage might contain blocking agents or put out warm gases or
some such, not common in terrestrial foliage but not unknown either. Its
science fiction so there could be many reasons and maybe I'm just perverse but
I tend to think toward the scenario and
what-if situations rather than assume technology will be infallible.

> I have three words for the senior NCO and the

Does that mean you wouldn't have let it happen? Given that the players knew an
attack would come (its a game after all), but "in reality" it was a surprise
attack why would the troops not have been letting their hair down, we've seen
plenty of pics of Brits and Iraqi children playing soccer, for example.

> Not really. Somalis can't shoot for shit and have

I agree the average rabble would be, but I respectfully disagree that it will
apply to all individuals, you don't grow up in that situation
without getting some smarts. Have 10 squads of Yellow-2 with improvised
or basic guns and then the single "body guard" group that are much better
"trained" (by life). I have read a lot about various situations now and in the
past and I'm yet to find one that breaks the pattern.

> On either side? I can't legally or ethically get into

I'm not asking you to mate, it was a simple example of potential objectives.
My philosophy in this hobby is play what you want at the level of detail and
using the type of scenarios that you want. Its supposed to be fun after all;)

Have fun

> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

Yeah, during the first few weeks. That stuff is pretty unhealthy without the
triple canopy to hide under. After all, how many Aussies were killed? Compared
to how many hundreds of bad guys?

> I had D4 armour, crap weapons, green and yellow

Sounds like you are describing incompetence on the part of the government
commander.

> I had to pass tests to make sure it didn't happen...

Of course, my next question in the AAR would have been "where was his flank
security"? Should have walked more or less through your ambushing force. Not
healthy, but would have woken up the main body.

> bit like the ghost soldier example given in another

Geez... Sounds like he did EVERYTHING wrong. I guess I should add blundering
around like a drunken brontosaur to the list of things that enable effective
guerilla war.

> > I have three words for the senior NCO and the

Sure. And it's truly irresponsible if no one is pulling security while they
do. Perhaps not in the pictures the newsies take, but some people should be in
gear and watching for people taking advantage of the situation.

> At 2:04 PM +1000 4/26/04, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

Those froggie forces made the following mistakes:

1. Let their artillery get captured the first or second day. 2. Had next to
nothing for airpower in theatre. 3. Allowed themselves to get encircled and
baited into staying (One Marine buddy upstairs who spent a lot of time in ARVN
said the VC had mostly sappers on sight after the first couple of days for
working at the perimeter vs lots of regular infantry).

> Does that mean you wouldn't have let it happen? Given that the

Peacekeeping mode vs area warfighting mode. It's two distinct situations.

> > Not really. Somalis can't shoot for shit and have

I'm probably pretty damn good compared to the average Somali and I probably
only rate a D4 with my lack of training (self study only helps so far). Real
soldiers like the US army get months of intensive training such that as a
group they perform better than the other group. 16 Weeks on how to be a
rifleman in an infantry unit that's just the basic course is far more than the
average somali gets. They survive in a nasty environment because their
opposition is just as crappy too.

Once you get your basic training in the US Army, then you get your AIT
(Advanced individual training) for your field of work (All marines go through
the equivalent as a rifleman, then go to their specialty). Once you get posted
to a unit, the unit spends lots of time getting training as a unit. Fort Irwin
(NTC) is where the US Army sends Mechanized forces (and light infantry I
believe, John will correct me I'm sure) for intensive training.

Units deploying to Iraq aren't activated shoved on a plane and shipped, they
run through training for several weeks or more (John, how long did you guys
run around in field training working out the kinks before you shipped out?).
They go through so much training that when they're in country most of the
basic tasks in real combat just come naturally.

Heck, responses to fire have gotten so rote that our guys are nailing Iraqi's
with single shots or 3 round bursts regardless of situations. Accuracy or
riflery has risen to an unprecedented level in Veteran units in the Army. The
Army and Marine forces can tell if it's Feyadeen or not based on the use of
the automatic mode of the rifle. If it's the majority of the magazine, it's
Feyadeen (regardless of sound of the rifle).

With the Urban Fighting the USMC has been in, compare the casualty counts to
other Urban combat situations. If we were fighting some European Power it'd be
different, but it's in the order of 100's to 1
Marine on average. Arnham was probably closer to 1-2 for the Armored
(Gerry) Vs Airborne troops in and around Osterbeek and Arnham. The 1st
Airborne guys were grossly outgunned, but still acquitted themselves to the
Germans.

In military combat training beats will. What was it I saw on TV last night
from some 3rd ID commander, "insane devotion gets you killed and gets you
minimal results" or some such. Training trumps that most if not all of the
time.

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> time getting training as a unit. Fort Irwin (NTC) is

Lightfighters mostly go to JRTC, and so do heavy units on occasion.

> Units deploying to Iraq aren't activated shoved on a

Ah. . . We did a really intensive brigade-level set of
exercises in the October-November time frame, took
Christmas off, and were starting the January-Febuary
set when we got the go order. But after we got the vehicles loaded up we spent
a lot of time on battle drills and MOUT training. Training also doesn't stop
in combat--although it is then called 'rehearsals'.

> much training that

True. There's a lot more too it as well. No one can function at his full
effectiveness as an individual because individuals have to do everything,
watching their own back so to speak. An ad hoc formation is a pack of
individuals. But when you know the guys in your squad and platoon, and you
know they have the training to do their job, you can focus on your job and
your job only. There's a lot of trust involved. There's also the team bonding
issue. Most heroism is done out of a sense of loyalty and duty to your
teammates. There's nothing to substitute for that, and bonds formed in
training and solidified by combat have become almost a cliche of the genre.
They are no less real. A pack of thugs hopped up to the gills on khat and with
no real ties to each other will not perform on that level.

> In military combat training beats will. What was it

There's a definite sense among the 4th ID that as long as you look mean, and
keep alert, generally the Fedayeen won't mess with you. And if you are on your
toes, you can often beat them to the punch (their
first-round accuracy blows chunks) and rack up some
kills nice and easy. IF you are doing what you are supposed to be doing.

Now, that attitude goes a long way to explaining why we kept the Sunni
Triangle under control. These jokers who thought they were going to be doing
"peacekeeping" don't have a killer mindset and so got suckerpunched.

> At 10:19 AM -0700 4/26/04, John Atkinson wrote:

I agree with this in part, but I have to point to the WWII German ability for
units that were previously broken and fragmented, to be reformed from what
ever was at hand and almost magically form a cohesive fighting unit and go
back on a counter attack. A great deal of training and a great deal of
determination go a great deal together than one or the other alone.

I certainly agree that loyalty to a group of guys you've trained and fought
alongside does increase the tendancy for heroic acts.

> There's a definite sense among the 4th ID that as long

Interesting analysis. In some respects, the more calm appearance for
peacekeeping does lend that question. However, the British have lots of
experience in that part of the world and they were very quick to go to "beret
order" as quick as possible.

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I agree with this in part, but I have to point to

Generally, as I understand it, that was at a higher
level--brigade and division-sized, right?  The
companies and platoons were rarely ad hoc. That's where the team cohesion is
most important. However, what's important in that level is standardized
doctrine and officer training, so that when a colonel from the 4th Neblingen
Nebelwerfer Brigade issues orders to the 2345th Provisional Panzer Platoon he
doesn't have to explain precisely what he means in minute detail, just give an
intent and a sketchy FRAGO and off they go through the Red Hordes a'slaying.

> peacekeeping does lend that question. However, the

There is a world of difference between a village full of restless unemployed
and unemployable Ba'athist thugs tied to Saddamn by personal loyalty and
blood, and a bunch of Shi'a who, OK maybe aren't 100% happy about things since
the war, but overall are thrilled
to not have the al-Tikriti clan in charge of the
country. The US deliberately puts troops from our
client sta--"loyal allies" in lower-threat areas.
Lessons from Basra are not necessarily applicable in Samarra or Fallujah.

> At 12:21 PM -0700 4/26/04, John Atkinson wrote:

Its my understanding that even platoons and companies of different arms could
be pushed together to make some kind of force for counterattack on very short
notice. I might be wrong however.

> where the team cohesion is most important. However,

In one case or as it was, even more confounding for US and British troops
after an Artillery Stonk blew the majority of a combined arms force to bits.
They reform and counter attack with a spoiling effect when they had been
forming up for an actual attack.

> There is a world of difference between a village full

Granted, however the tactics in the early phases as I've seen them and what
they're using now, tends to leave them dead 75% or better of the times.

> country. The US deliberately puts troops from our

OH, most granted. Basra is a different place than Fallujah. However, I suspect
we had to have made some sort of conciliatory gesture. Though, given how much
spin Al Jazeera is putting on it, I have to wonder why we haven't put them out
of business.

If lord Haw Haw had been transmitting from the Republic of Ireland, I'd
suspect a flight of mosquitos would have been detailed to put the transmitters
down and out.

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

I'd have to look into it further.

> Granted, however the tactics in the early phases as

Or better indeed.

> I suspect we had to have made some sort of

This Fallujah thing should have been over long ago. I can just imagine what
would have happened if some
two-bit band of thugs decided to try to keep my unit
out of one of our towns. They'd probably still be finding pieces of it.

Three provinces over.

> Though, given how much spin Al Jazeera is putting on

That level of politics is above my paygrade.

G'day,

> Yeah, during the first few weeks. That stuff is

I must admit to being a little confused here. I was referring to our SAS in
Iraq, but I think you're referring to Vietnam, or am I just getting stumble
footed? As to Aussies killed its none, I don't know how many Iraqis they
engaged or killed sorry.

> Of course, my next question in the AAR would have been

He started off with two squads on the path and one squad either side in the
jungle trying to look out for stuff hiding off the edge, but walking through
jungle is slow going and he felt his troops on the path were too exposed
creeping along at the same rate. End result he brought them all on to the
path, trying to keep to the edges to be as "covered" as possible. I gambled
he'd do something like that, the gamble paid off.

On to another post:

> The US deliberately puts troops from our

I know you're doing this to bait John, but I would respectfully ask you not to
make these kind of comments. Regardless of how "client" out governments may be
acting the citizens of countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia find
such comments highly insulting.

Thanks

> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:

I'm sorry. What I meant was that unlike Vietnam, the 'guerillas' in Iraq do
not have a triple canopy jungle to hide under. Therefore grouping in large
units and trying to duke it out with conventional troops is distinctly
unhealthy. Never mind special operations with entire squadrons of close air
support on call.

> > Of course, my next question in the AAR would have

Yet another point to bring up in the 15-6 for that
guy's Court Martial.

> At 9:28 AM +1000 4/27/04, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

He's just pulling your leg Beth, he just doesn't use Smilies.

For reference on who really counts, I look at the countries that we fought
along side to stop the Japanese and Germans with out any fail or question.
Austrailia, New Zealand, Canada, India and the UK are held in my highest
regard. The occupied low countries that fought with determination and resisted
while occupied (the Dutch for example) are next in my regard.

I'm gladdened to know that the Aussies have some diggers and other chaps
patrolling the same ground that our men are. The same goes for the Aussie
Airdales and Navy ships that are helping in support of the ground ops or other
SETO related ops. (Is SETO still in effect?)

> At 7:04 PM -0700 4/26/04, John Atkinson wrote:

Hell, the AC-130s are even deadlier than they
were in the Vietnam day. They're pressurized, the armament is trainable, they
have radar directors for adjusting rounds out to put them on target regardless
of turbulence and crosswinds, and the
pilot isn't aiming with a stick and cross-hairs
on his left window.

They can put rounds down more accurately, with better sensors (ground mapping
radar, Thermal Imaging, Low Light Cameras, GPS and all sorts of other cool
doodads. Hell, the pressurized "gun deck" makes it even easier for the rear
crew to serve the armament.

A Gyrene that's working in Kabul now watched an
AC-130 work over an area North of Tikrit (iirc)
for several days running. He said it was the most awesome and grim thing he'd
seen yet.

There's video running around of an AC-130 hunting
Afgani's that are fleeing a compound that it lit up. There's a ground
controller that guide's them initially and then gives them clearance to fire.
There was no hiding from that aircraft that the guys on the ground probably
couldn't even hear until it started dropping 40 and 105mm HE on them. A grim
thing to watch men die that way.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:04:30 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> Yet another point to bring up in the 15-6 for that

Good thing this was a game. Of course there may not have been a officer
to court-martial when the shooting stopped in real life.  The line "War
is for soldiers, not farmers" comes more true every day. Professionals have
the edge. Without the modern 'toys' we think of as the weapons of
war.  The real weapons are the warriors - the second most important
thing a culture needs to survive.

Gracias,

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:10:37 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:

You were there and I wasn't so I can only nod sagely and pretend to
understand.

Probably should have kept my mouth shut and let it blow over.

I'd say kids are a pretty good Humint source. Not that anyone actually does
that for that reason of course. And not that I'd ever be allowed within 100
miles of a Humint operation. Never send dachshunds to race whippets.

Gracias,

G'day,

> I'm gladdened to know that the Aussies have some

I'd love to answer you, if I could, but I don't know what SETO is;)

Cheers

> I'd love to answer you, if I could, but I don't know what SETO is ;)

I think he means SEATO, SouthEast Asian Treaty Organization. Sort of like
NATO, about 180 degrees away.

> From the Columbia Encyclopedia (Online):
Unable to intervene in Laos or Vietnam due to its rule of unanimity, the
future of the organization was in doubt by 1973, and SEATO was ultimately
disbanded in 1977.

The_Beast

> At 9:36 AM +1000 4/28/04, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

South East Asian Treaty Organization. Perhaps with the Cold war over it's
defunct unlike Nato? Ahh. Its SEATO....

G'day,

> South East Asian Treaty Organization. Perhaps

Yep defunct. We have a fair few economic alliances popping up ASEAN, pacific
rim ones, and a coming together of the Pacific island nations and Australia
(almost feels like an OU forerunner). Military wise though we're still all
over the shop (as far as I know).

Cheers

> At 10:17 AM +1000 4/28/04, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:

Ahh. I hadn't heard anything for quite some time, but I'd figured it'd be good
to still have what with the Chinese Mafia^h^h^h^hCommunist^h^h^h^hCapitalist
doing their thing and wanting to do their thing to Taiwan.

> rim ones, and a coming together of the Pacific

And still very happy to have USN presence in the region I'm sure. Still, from
what I've heard, your sub forces are cheekey bastards that like to take
pictures of USN Carrier hulls from underwater.

From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>

> And still very happy to have USN presence in the

I can neither confirm nor deny... except that I think some pictures actually
got printed in one of our newspapers, so that's a bit silly.

G'day,

> Ahh. I hadn't heard anything for quite some time,

Politically that's an issue, but militaryily it doesn't appear much on our
radar, seems more a US concern, at least the way our pollys and media paint
it.

> And still very happy to have USN presence in the

Now would we do that? (Bruce I thought I told you to be discrete!);)

Have fun

From: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>

> (Is SETO still in effect?)

SEATO - South East Asia Treaty Organisation.

Extinct since about 1976 IIRC.

SEATO RatPacks were great - Dogbiscuits, Tinned Butter, Jam Concentrate,

> Ryan Gill wrote:

> And still very happy to have USN presence in the region I'm sure.

> like to take pictures of USN Carrier hulls from underwater.

Sounds like the Dutch ones, too;)

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
I'd figured it'd be good to still have what
> with the Chinese

Why is it that no-one calls the Chinese Communists
what they are morphing into, I.E. Facists?

The REAL difference between the real world communist and facists is rather
minor differences in economic policy.

Bye for now,

From: "Derk Groeneveld" <derk@cistron.nl>

> > And still very happy to have USN presence in the region I'm sure.

> From some of the pictures I saw while working at Hollandse Signaal

My favourite was the one taken through the periscope of a German U-206
class
boat, showing the very slavic features of the pilot of a Ka-25A
HORMONE-A ASW
helicopter, staring impassively at the scope. The helo must have been all of
20 feet away. I've often wondered what's Russki for *GOTCHA*

> > And still very happy to have USN presence in the

I dunno~ I've heard stories outta San Diego that would rival that. One of my
friends told me that there's a tradition down there that any ship coming into
port has to be boarded (by navy SEALS or something). The ships literally call
in and mention when they're coming in so they can be boarded. Happens to
civvie boats too, though they get treated to steaks and beer at the end of it,
and are generally courtiously treated.

Anyway, so one day a ship heads in and the SEALS go to board it. One of em
gets on deck and finds a lookout literally sleeping on a cot or somesuch on
deck. Seal pokes him and wakes him up, and says Hi. Crewman responds and goes
back to sleep. Seal strips outta his wetsuit and tanks and then pokes crewman
again. He asks the crewman what he's supposed to be doing. Crewman responds
with "keeping unauthorized personell off the ship" Seal states "do
I look authorized?" Crewman tries to go for his M-16 but the Seal
already moved it outta the way. Crewman is then stuffed into a duffel bag and
hung upside down off a derrick (I think it was a derrick.. might have been
something else).

While on the subject of getting rather close to other ships, I do believe also
that several USN admirals have "sunk by canadians" in their records. Seems our
old diesel subs like to sneak up under people and pop a torp under the
keel.... quite embarrasing <G>

SEATO - SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization???

> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:36:29 +1000 <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> writes:

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:54:26 -0700 (PDT) John Leary
> <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> writes:

Tradition?

> Why is it that no-one calls the Chinese Communists

> John Leary wrote:

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
They call themselves Communists, and if you don't use the label they coined
for themselves in public, they get upset and stop talking to
you...

From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>

> Impact should be lower. The FALs and M14s should be higher. (Don't

> The SAS Diggers had some FALS that were heavy Barrel models with more

And rather more Bren guns converted to fire the NATO 7.62mm instead of the old
.303.

A 30-year-old Bren firing the old .303 round is still the most accurate
weapon I've ever fired, even firing 3 rounds automatic. Easy to get a
saucer-sized
grouping at 200 yards on a 3-second pop-up target. Of course I was
firing
from a prone position, and no-one was firing back. But I still did
better than
with a Lee Enfield of similar vintage, 73% on a pop-up instead of 32% at
a stationary target at 200 yds, the first time I'd fired anything larger than
a.22

There's the silenced 9mm F1 SMGs for SAS work, and some even older Owen SMGs.
See http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/allied_ww2.htm

Not just the SAS either, unsilenced version was standard issue for scouts,

> At 4:57 PM +1000 4/28/04, Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:

What's german for "oh shit!"

> At 9:32 PM +1000 4/28/04, Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:

Oh, most assuredly!

> A 30-year-old Bren firing the old .303 round is still the most accurate

Have I not expressed to you how much I want a Bren gun to go with my WWII
Dingo?

From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>

> >I've often wondered what's Russki for *GOTCHA*

Ach Du Schiesse! Literally "Oh You Shit", but applies to situations as well as
objects, but funnily enough, not people.

Working amongst German Software Engineers was a real education in all manner
of Teutonic scatology.

> Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:

> From: "Derk Groeneveld" <derk@cistron.nl>

Nowadays Thales Netherlands BV - but m ost people often seem to forget
that and still call it Signaal. Similarly, most every department change names
at least once or twice over the last 8 years. Most people stop keeping track;)

But yeah, there's some pictures, and many more in Den Helder (Dutch naval
base). Also, there's one sub's crew that at some point took to wearing caps
with their sub "eating" a Nimitz class carrier...
Apparantly they'd "sunk" it during an exercise and got away to boot -
much to the US admiral's displeasure. Diesel subs in shallow waters can be
downright nasty....

> My favourite was the one taken through the periscope of a German U-206

Lol. That must've been bad for someone's rep, too...

Cheers,

i have not pulled a trigger in combat for 34 years, and although some things
change (technology, uniforms, ombat zones, and rules of engagement just to
name a few), for any unit to be combat effective, the soldiers need to be well
trained, and to trust themselves, their mates, and their leaders.

mostly they fight for themselves, their mates, and their unit, rarely if at
all for such lofty ideals as flag, mom and the girl next door.

short of a no holds barred and winners write the history conflict, or a
payback is a bitch combat environment there are always gonna be those damned
rules of engagement that always work to the advantage of your enemy....

seems to be a sad but true commentary that most of the 3rd through 7th
world fighters operate  without any regard to the so-called rules of
warfare or geneva accords. barbarity is an excepted way of life, with
racial and religious differences   spreading the joy.

modern soldiers from civilized countries, unless they go rogue, or are
operating with the full knowledge and permission of their goverment or chain
of command, are gonna always be saddled with rules of engagement that a times
seem more appropriate for use in civilian law enforcement instead of a combat
zone....

on the table top, this can be depicted by placing fire, foot, vehicle and
aircraft movement, building search and entry, individual detention
and search  of suspects, as well as operations  date/time restrictions
on the soldiers, while placing no "official" restrictions on the.

or giving the soldiers civics action project missions in hostile areas in an
effort to win hearts and minds that are nothing but live fire exercises for
the bad guys who do not care who gets killed as long as they kill the hated
foreign soldiers.

or you can really screw the troops up by letting the civilians and politicians
in the chain of command ignor wise advice, or saddle them
with career orientated officers and NCOs who cannot/will not speak up
when they know something is wrong, because it is not militarily "PC".

bad media info or sourcing or conduct can be a real bitch too. i like many a
soldier despised the media in the RVN WAR, and after one particularly replsive
encounter with TV journalists actually caught myself seriously considering
wasting the bastards if they were around during the next firefight.

also the bad guys like to whack the media idiots and any innocents and lay the
blame on soldiers. this way they can to stir up crap big time.

bad planning can screw the pooch for modern soldiers.

this can include not preparing folks at home for the sight of bodies coming
home or wounded coming home to no first class medical care facilities or a
shortage of same due to "budgeting".

witness events in iraque and afghanistan where-in there are not enough
troops, armor, artillery, aircraft, logistics support from the get go.

or in the RVN where WESTY (i heard him say it on TV with his own mouth)
decided it would not be a "wise move" to give the boss (JOHNSON) realistic and
even bad info. "WHO WANTS TO GIVE THE BOSS BAD NEWS?"

my thoughts, no flame war intended.

DAWGIE

> At 11:44 PM +0200 4/28/04, Derk Groeneveld wrote:

When I poke my dilettante, military, hobbyist head into naval affairs, the
articles I see in things like Proceedings and other Naval Journals seem to
indicate a big concern over littorial combat and how to handle it with a blue
water navy.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 22:26:49 -0400 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com>
writes: <snip>
> When I poke my dilettante, military, hobbyist

As well it should.

That said, no brown water navy versus blue water navy fight has gonme the
distance so it's still just rtheoretical worries. So far...

Subs might not get away from a force with a SSN escorting that force but it
doesn't help the guys on the CV or LHA that the guy that got them is sunk.
Missile boats become more then targets in some conditions. Same logic, you
sink all thrtee missile boats but lose a Cruiser, CV or major
amophibious unit - fair trade?

THAT said, The blue water force needs 1) all weather/night capable
(infrared/radar/ESP!?!) capable air units scouring the surface (and
underwater as much as possible, 2) Vigilant surface and subsurface ASW forces
preceding and flanking major forces, 3) CAP in sufficient numbers (or air
bases suppressed into impotence,) and 4) SAMs that are good
enough to keep the pesky MBs/SSBNs/SSBs lurking in their lairs/hide outs
from scoring a hit. Expensive, untested (in real combat currently) and
unpredictable. I do not expect the third world SSs to be up to Dutch,
Brit, Aussie, German standards.   But Napoleon said to plan on being
lucky.

Sweat now or bleed later.

Gracias,

> --- DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:

> mostly they fight for themselves, their mates, and

Very true. On the other hand, they join for a variety of reasons, and those
who join for idealistic reasons
(majority of the kids we have gotten since 9/11/01)
tend to, IMHO, make better Joes.

> short of a no holds barred and winners write the

Lots has changed in the past 34 years. I can't answer this in detail, but let
me repeat what our Brigade Staff Judge Advocate always said during our Law of
War briefings.

"At no time are you authorized to get killed for lack of shooting back. If you
feel threatened, shoot the guy. If anyone has a problem with it, it's my job
to come up with the legal reasoning for you."

Our ROE, in its entirety, fit on the front/back of a
3"x5" card.

You have to remember that you were serving at the absolute lowest point in the
US Army's history. We had our historically worst: Equipment Training Soldier
quality Leadership quality Motivation Drug usage rates Desertions Fratricide
etc, etc, etc. Further you were working for a prez that had no respect for the
military (oddly enough...) and
overruled/ignored/never asked for advice from his
senior military leadership. Unclear mission with impossible political
constraints. This does not normally happen.

This is certaintly not the case today. I do not think you would recognize the
Army today.