Infantry 62B vs Claymores vs SetIED

[Ronzy]

Hi Jason,

Don't know if this needs something in an update, but posting FYI.

I am currently playing "Ring of Fire" (and loving it ... as I was {am for life} a Cavalry Scout in the Army 83 - 87).

This is the second scenario where I have found US units that list "Claymore" in their weapon layout, yet are not given "SetIED" capability.

Bottom Line = Infantry 62B lists "Claymores" in their armory, yet do not have "SetIED" as one of their capabilities.

Ron

[Jason Petho]

OK! Glad you're enjoying it!

Thank you for that, I will remedy that in the next UPDATE!

[Jason Petho]

Ahh, I don't think the 62 versions should have them, maybe?

I found information that Claymores weren't used in Vietnam until 1966. Can anyone confirm that?

[Ronzy]

Hi Jason,

Whichever way it goes with research is good by me (i.e., if they shouldn't have the Claymores so be it ... ) ... but they have the M14s which were a much superior rifle for accuracy and penetration than the initial versions of the M16 (though the M14 was a heavy weapon to carry compared to the light "toy like" weight of the M16 that was much prone to misfire until the M16A1 version with the forward assist bolt push mechanism came into play {which is what I trained with and used in the Army}) so the 62Bs are still awesome in my book.

RE: the "Ring of Fire" scenario ... AWESOME scenario for people who want a relatively short deep thinking scenario (big decisions on which unit to fire first versus second versus third, etc ... because nearly every fire will trigger enemy Opp fire on who knows which friendly unit) on a limited time budget. It took about 3 hours for me to play it start to finish this morning (and if I had less distractions could be played even quicker).

I played with Zero play balance adjustment (as I have been playing for the past many weeks {I found the play balance adjustments are too overcharged = a 10% adjustment results in "cake walks" and what is the fun in that, and even 5% adjustments can do the same thing}, so I just play at Zero default and accept whatever that gives ... sometimes a hard fought minor defeat or draw is a much more satisfying achievement than questioning yourself on the role of any play balance adjustment).

After a hard fought but very interesting and educational "Major Defeat" on the "Alabama Ticks" scenario, I pulled out a "Major Victory" on the "Ring of Fire" this morning. This is an interesting scenario because the ACAVS and M113s are great for offensive fire, but vulnerable as all hell to incoming fire. At mid-game, I thought I made a major strategic/operational blunder by NOT moving the southern infantry company on the turn it was released (a common affliction on forgetting something was released and no reminders before you quit the turn that you have not attended to a recently released unit). But neglecting that actually worked in the US favor. On the following turn after release, I charged them forward at the double-time and the timing was such that the major second (or was it third?) wave of VC decided to break contact against the Cavalry base and charge south towards the released infantry ... who then immediately redeployed southward into a village complex to draw the current main VC force even further south and away from the near collapse Cavalry base camp. It worked out splendidly.

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/7931556/aslisthebomb

[Ronzy]

Jason,

I just did some research for you regarding Claymore use in Vietnam.

While the famous version of the Claymore (M18 .. that I trained on in the early 80s) was not available in Vietnam until early 1966 (Spring '66 per Wikipedia), the history of the Claymore includes previous anti-personnel mine versions used by the US Army back to the 1950s (issued from 1955 on .. see M14 anti-personnel mine).

So while the specific M18 "Claymore" was not available until early 1966, my research so far shows that the M14 (which was kind of similar, but not necessarily as effective ... as it was weight tripped rather than trip wire tripped/remote ignitor trigger) was in use with US Army from 1955 on.

So at the moment (pending further research), seems like SetIED might be a legitimate part of the arsenal of a US 62B infantry platoon (since in US Army use from 1955 on).

Ron

[And wow! Here I am on Christmas Eve discussing the history of certain anti-personnel mines with a relative stranger on the internet. Wargamers can be weird that way.]

[Jason Petho]

Good to know, thank you so much.

I will revise it then. Positive vibes!

Merry Christmas and thank you for the help!!

[Ronzy]

Good to know, thank you so much.

I will revise it then. Positive vibes!

Merry Christmas and thank you for the help!!

Jason,

Thinking it through more, perhaps the only revision necessary is in the Infantry 62B description (i.e., removing "claymore" from the armory list/description in the upper left corner of the Unit Handbook description), and NOT giving the Infantry 62B SetIED capability.

The reason I say that is that my research is not conclusive that the M14 toe poppers were carried by Infantry Platoons (like the claymores). It is possible that they were only carried by and placed by Engineer units (as Minefields in game terms).

Unless there is historical evidence out there that M14 toe poppers were carried as an Infantry Platoon's loadout prior to introduction of the claymore in early '66, the more prudent thing would be to NOT give pre-'66 Infantry SetIED capability.



Ron

[Jason Petho]

Ah yes, OK, good point.

That is easier indeed!

[Ronzy]

Ah yes, OK, good point.

That is easier indeed!

REVISED thought to consider though - In the Hill50 scenarios using the Infantry 62B platoons, the scenarios are set in March 1966. Even though the use of Infantry 62B platoons seem to be primarily about the unit's historical main battle rifle (M14), if they are being used in a Spring '66 or later scenario it seems historically feasible that they could have been issued and trained on the claymore by the date of the scenario.

Perhaps something to look at is in which scenarios do the US Infantry 62B appear in the game? If all the scenarios are early '66 or later, then perhaps Infantry 62B SHOULD have SetIED capability for recent issuance of the claymores.

It's almost like there should be further US Infantry platoon type(s) to cover Infantry platoon with M14 rifles, but no claymores vs infantry platoon with M14 rifles and with claymores.

[Jason Petho]

The main issue with that is that the 62B will also be used for Cold War, so I have to make sure that the 62B platoons don't have capabilities they shouldn't have early in the 60's for scenarios I design then.

Ahh, the challenges! *chuckles*

[Ronzy]

The main issue with that is that the 62B will also be used for Cold War, so I have to make sure that the 62B platoons don't have capabilities they shouldn't have early in the 60's for scenarios I design then.

Ahh, the challenges! *chuckles*

And my point is not to nitpick the design too much, but there is where my suggestion of a separate unit type for '66 that has M14 rifles, M79 grenade launchers, M60 MGs, and claymores (compared to a '62 unit type that has all those except the claymores) lays.

And an FYI on what it takes to train a unit on claymores, we are talking less than a day (half a day at most) to train claymore use. In my training as a Cavalry Scout circa late '83/early '84 it took the Drill Sergeants less than a day to train us on the claymore mine (perhaps 1 hour in classroom in the morning, and 2 hours in a field environment in the afternoon). So I would imagine a similar brief training to a unit in Vietnam being issued new claymore mines.

[Jason Petho]

Definitely all good. I'll have to go through the OOB's and see what platoons I have. If it isn't there, then creating it can be done.

Excellent points and advice about the teaching! That's fantastic news indeed!