Re: Vietnam and modern combat

> 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!)

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 
> between the Full and Semi-auto M16s where appropriate. The same goes 
> for the M14s.

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:
> >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.
> 
> 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 
> >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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> -- 
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> -		    Data Center Operations Group		-
> -		  http://web.turner.com/data_center/		 -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> - Ryan Montieth Gill			 One CNN Center SE0813 E -
> - Internet Technologies   --	 Data Center Operations Manager  -
> - Hours 11am - 7pm Mon - Fri	      (8Sdc, 10Sdc IT@3Ndc)	 -
> - Cellular: 404-545-6205	       e-mail: Ryan.Gill@cnn.com -
> - Office: 404-588-6191					 -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> -		Emergency Power-off != Door release!		 -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------