I think you'd need to keep some kind of suspense, and have the enemy use mines, claymores, ambushes, etc... Another thing to consider is having them being attacked by their own gunships. Will they shoot it down or hope it goes away?
A series of just battles will get boring for the players.
Make sure that you have a good plot:
Maybe some of the players buddies from their company have been captured and the campaign is about trying to find out where those POWs are and get them back before it is too late.
The players could encounter ambushes on the trail.
Search a village for clues to their buddies location.
Take out a SAM site.
Rescue a downed pilot.
Deal with moral delimmas (such as being shot at by 12 year olds or an old woman).
Deal with an a**hole Lt. back at base camp.
or Make an unauthorized visit to Cambodia for the final rescue.
Make sure that you have well delveloped BBEG ( probably a VC officer).
Good luck with this idea, it sounds like it could be a fun game.
The military genre offers a refreshing take, allowing players to engage in action-packed counter-terrorist operations, classic historical conflicts, or mercenary work in the world’s most thrilling hot spots. Military function is almost diametrically opposed to that of most cinematic espionage organizations, following a strict hierarchy with stringent behavior codes, and often undertaking enormous overt engagements. The main difference between military and special operatives is the nature of their assignments. Military teams tend to be single squads assigned to a particular duty, unit, or base. They can vary from the most elite Special Forces troops to the dogfaces and doughboys of the trenches. Personal motivations rarely run deeper than a strong sense of duty, but the brotherhood forged during the heat of battle is as strong as any, perhaps more so.
The true villain of a military mission is rarely ambiguous — it’s the guy on the other side of the battlefield, firing back — though things get slightly more uncertain in a modern setting, where the line between enemy and bystander has blurred. Insurgents, guerillas, and terrorists are excellent tools for shaking up any long-term military campaign, striking unexpectedly at civilian and other targets, and drawing the characters into protracted campaigns away from the typical fields of war.
Inspiration for military genre missions is everywhere, from current events to history books, newspapers, and cable shows. All that’s required is devotion to real-world causes and conditions, leaving speculation, bizarre enemies, and hyperbolic action to genres less fixed in the real world. Assuming the player characters are soldiers, their duty compels them to undertake any mission provided, so the GM doesn’t need to worry about mismatched operations; his biggest concern is presenting believable events and reactions, which requires a little research or a working knowledge of the genre. This makes the military campaign a difficult endeavor for some GMs, but the experience is its own great reward, providing a level of intensity and mortality unseen in many other genres.
No one is safe in war; military campaigns are characterized by the frailty of mankind and the horror that accompanies the human condition.
---
Common Objectives: Because military teams are often small parts of a much larger force, their objectives and required methods are typically very specific, and deviation is frowned upon. Thus, the excitement of most missions is in the action itself — the skirmishes with enemy forces, the covert insertions into hostile territory, and the raids through target installations — and in the mix-ups, mistakes, and unexpected complications along the way.
• Capture: These missions are often the most dangerous, as the team must overcome an enemy target without destroying it. Commonly, this mission objective involves a display of clear superiority and the hope that the enemy is wise enough to surrender.
• Destroy: Sieges upon fortified positions, attacks upon armored columns, and frontal assaults upon enemy encampments are all straightforward military objectives.
• Observe: Reconnaissance missions are often the province of military intelligence, but occasionally fall to other branches as well. Such objectives might include probing enemy lines for weak points or locating and guiding friendly forces to a hidden target.
• Transport: Infrastructure and supply lines are a vital part of keeping any military force at top strength. Characters assigned to transport missions might also escort secret technologies, prisoners, or VIPs through dangerous territory.
Something interesting I found.
We're on patrol in the delta. Search and destroy. Not making any contact.
So the Lieutenant, he says to me "You get out there and draw their fire!"
I tell him, "It's never going to happen sir"
"Are you refusing an order, son?!"
"Yeah it looks that way, sir!"
Haha. "Yeah it looks that way, sir!" !! ;) Good one...
But until then: I believe it was because the army felt that they needed an intermediate cartridge. Something like the 7.92mmK, the .30 Carbine, etc...
But damn! Now they're all whining about the .223/5.56mm not killing people. I read about a 6.8mm, supposedly the "missing link" between .223 and .308 ...
In Denmark, we just went from G3 7.62mm to C7 and C8 5.56mm. Just as I'm about to join. I'd prefer a battle-rifle sized cartridge anytime, but on the other hand, I haven't humped around with heavy 7.62mmNATO rounds, so I wouldn't know how big a pain in the a*s it is...
The players could be a Special Forces Observation Unit sent to find and destroy the ties between Ho Chi Minh and the Chinese. Or better yet, they could be part of the "Military Advisors" sent to help the South Vietnamese plan a reverse Tet Offensive or something. A couple of infiltration and subversion missions later the plan fails miserably at the eve of some large battle, but the players recover information about a deal Ho Chi Minh is about to make to get a great deal of tanks, AA Batteries, arms, food and other support. This kind of thing would end the South Vietnamese right quick, so the players and a couple ARVN units get orders to go behind enemy lines and sabotage the deal before it gets to the NVA. Bonus points if the whole second half goes down in Cambodia.
The switch from M14s to M16s...was it merely due to weight, or because the caliber was deemed "too strong" for the average infantryman? Perhaps both or neither?
It is because US infantry weapons had longer range than they actually needed.
They were lugging around a heavy rifle that was effective out to 6-800m, when they almost never had a shot over 250m.
This is why the US (grudgingly*) settled on the smaller cartridge. by giving up the long range capability (which they almost never used) they reduced the load on the soldier and increased his ammo load, and gave him a weapon that was easier to shoot.
* the generals in the 50s were LTs in the 20s. They trained to re-fight WWI...
It is because US infantry weapons had longer range than they actually needed.
They were lugging around a heavy rifle that was effective out to 6-800m, when they almost never had a shot over 250m.
This is why the US (grudgingly*) settled on the smaller cartridge. by giving up the long range capability (which they almost never used) they reduced the load on the soldier and increased his ammo load, and gave him a weapon that was easier to shoot.
...but didn't kill people. ;)
...but didn't kill people. ;)
Yeah, well, that's what happens when you use semi-AP rounds against people in t-shirts...
The current NATO 5.56mm bullet is designed to go against Red Army infantry in body armor, not insurgents in civvies.
I would LOVE to see field trials of plain old copper jacketed lead bullets.
Even better, issue each infantryman 1 mag of honest-to-god AP bullets, and the other mags loaded with hunting bullets.
If you wanna shoot people in body armour, wouldn't a 7.62 be better?
If I don't have to march around with the ammo, then you betcha.
I have to think about it when my 100lbs of gear can include either an 11 lb rifle with 200 rounds, or a 8lb rifle with 400 rounds.
Having had very little experience with the military yet, I believe I'd go with an M14 and 200 rounds. But as stated, I'm no soldier (yet), so I do not have the professional expertise some of you guys have.
...but didn't kill people
Stoner was a marketing genius as well as a pretty good engineer.
He spun that flaw (or critical flaw to most soldiers) into a new desirable feature: Rather than kill one enemy, it ties up 3... one is injured and 2 have to take care of their injured buddy.
The Army just say how well the sweet little 30Carbine did in Korea against guys wearing blankets & rugs to keep warm. Little bullets did little harm. So they were not interested in another cute little gun. Stoner got the cold shoulder ( remember Gatlin & Thompson?) so he went to hobnob & schmooze the guys that make the decisions. Laying fat fairytales about KineteicEnergy (like 9mm vs 45 hype), taking 3 enemy out of combat with each Wounding of the little caliber, and the classic hands on comparison of a bandolier of 7.62 vs 5.56 weight... and plenty of bottles of scotch, he won the folks rather than the facts.
5.56 is not a good long range caliber. (All it has is velocity, which it loses rapidly)
5.56 is not a good brush/jungle caliber (deflection/deviation is 3x that of 7.62)
5.56 is not a good killer (specialty ammo to be as good as 7.62 could also make the 7.62 a UberKiller)
5.56 large loadout doesnt justify poor performance (loss on each sale, but make it up in volume?)
The 5.56 makes a nice non-infantry troop carbine. Great for guys like Arty & Engineers & Mechanics to defend themselves.
I've said this before,
We really need to define what we want the gun to be good at, and use one that does that well. It is folly to declare one gun must be the best at everything.
The M14 was a good idea, that was proven to have bitten off more than it could chew... or more accurately, more than the troops could hold onto. The concept of putting the firepower of a BAR into every soldiers hands was kind, but in practice it was too much on fullauto, short mags, low loadout for grunts. It was too much gun for GI. Too heavy for a rifle, too light for a 30cal AutoRifle. It was a good gun, but only Mongo could use it to its fullest: Accurate ranged semi that goes to heck in auto... because the USER couldnt keep the gun accurate in auto.
It would be great if we could invent a caliber that was between 5.56 & 7.62 but we cant invent that... it was invented by the russians & put in the AK. The 30Carbine failed because it was underpowered, so to use an even less killful caliber is crazy. We watered down the 30-06 to 30Carbine, but we went too far, the obvious solution would be to water it down less... something between the 30Carbine & the 30-06 : 7.62x39 AK. If we cant just admit that what we want already exists, lets just make the 30-08 (2008) that is smaller diameter body than AK, slightly longer, 90% AK power, in the Mini14 (Ruger made a small M14, rod op instead of venting gas into the action)
PS:
Oh come on!!!
I'm at 1280 res & I have to scroll side to side to read the danged posts
a US army SF ` A detachment `
it gives the players issolation - independance - etc
they are not just cogs in a massive machibne sat in huge bases - surrounded by hundreds of men - they are the out in the sticks - almost alone - help will take hours to arrive - and could cause more problems than it solves
ie - having a friendly village bombed by ` mistake ` will not make them many friends - and might drive previously loyal vilages to the VC
the players maintain a real sense of progress - as they track the acreage they and thier loyal vietnamese allies control - and how many village headmen they deem loyal
also the head count of VC , and the NVA they capture - tonages of equipment siezed / destroyed etc
provide benchmarks of sucess or failure
enemies abound
from the local VC leader - to is NVA inteligence / political officer , the VC paymaster / tax collector
even on thier own side there are unfreindlies
corrupt south vietnamese officials
incompetant asshat REMFs
army officers whith the attitude that ` the only good gook is a dead gook `
the list is endless
politics - too can play a big part - not just fighting - you cannot just shoot the idiot ARVN commander of your sector in the face cos he is corrup , incometant or what ever - you have to work around him - maybee even engineer his removal
moral ambiguities abound : like - let the team develope a VC turncoat contact - then spring the order that the turncoat is to be assasinated under the pheonix program - will the team allow a valuable informant to die? - subvert the order? - heaven forbid they send a message back to HQ explaining the situation - cos then the turncoats status will be leaked to the VC via corrupt ARVN officers - and he will die at the hands of his ` own ` people
as the team are the experts out in contested terretory - theuy are naturally called upon for such things as
pilot rescue , aircraft recovery - the USAF lost its first F111 in vietnam - and it was so new / secret - that it had to be recovered before soviet ` advisors ` got a look at it , acting as path finders for a major offensive
also the CIA plaid a big part in the lo- intensity war - both good and bad
the cia can get them equipment / supplies and money - that are unavialiable through regular chanels
but being ` in bed ` with the spooks has its own drawbacks too
will the team uncover the CIA drug plot? - what will they do about it ?
will the CIA want them to kill someone they consider a friend ?
if they pioss off the CIA the funds / equipment might stop coming
oh the joy
i could go on - but that should set the ball rolling - ping me if you want more ideas - we cid run a campaign based on this model - and it did work
1st) @Stabby :
I was driving home when you typed that but thanks for the textbook definition. You illustrated the 3:1 arguement I was talking about. I had a rifle at Ft Sill that had a Singer(the sewing machine) stamp on it. Stoner also decided to cater his rifles to the SEALS after a brief falling out with Colt. Oh, I agree. THAT PICTURE NEEDS TO BE RESIZED!!!2) SCALE. SF teams, CIA, Ph-O-E-nix Program, MACVSOG, Operation Pegasus, CSAR, and all the other Super Troop missions NEED a start point. Your players have NO concept of the levels of importance or coolness when you start AT the top. The only place to go is down.
I can't believe this next wasn't mentioned. Try out LRRP teams if Army, Special Boats for Navy, Riverine patrol for Marines, Resource Aquisition and Delivery for Air Force. ALL of these have missions that go to support the SOF guy on the ground. (SOF support was NOT the main mission in Nam'.) Also a good part to make necessary contacts when climbing the ranks and getting into schools or foriegn countries where Anglos ARENT WELCOME.
Folks in the alphabet organizations are more likely to treat with you if you are NOT a greenhhorn. Have your guys be part of some lost patrol or a surviving member of a Firebase that nearly got overran. Your buddy Jim was alongside you the entire time and tells Everyone what a hero you were. Stories have people Talking. Makes getting selected for SF school easier or an intro to the Black Market more accessible. Repeated strings of wisdom (or luck) might even get noticed by the MACVSOG guys because you have an "Operational Understanding" of the area. Bring the alphabet soup from here on.
Movies in no particular order here are: Platoon, Go tell the Spartans, Hamburger Hill, Apocalypse Now (watch this one at least three times), Casualties of War, Gardens of Stone, Jacob's Ladder, Air America, Operation Dumbo Drop, Flight of the Intruder, We Were Soldiers.
3) Players want these Super Tough Guys but don't want the hassle of CREATING them. That's like walking in halfway through the movie. From personal experience I can tell you the Real Life versions are Made, Not Born. Gives a player more chances to get some school or course that they needed.
The military is famous for sending thier folks to schools. It makes the service member much more adaptable to a situation and can make the difference of sending Joe instead of Jim. Jim's a great guy and has more goodies than Batman but he doesn't have Airborne school so he makes the ground convoy out.
4) Contacts. Jim is a right swell guy with family in Virginia and is "connected" someway. Too bad his convoy was ambushed and hasn't been heard from since. The local you guys picked up came over on the Chieu Hoi program and he thinks he has cousins in the area. Problem is he wants the team to evac his family back to the states. Another problem is that he steal glances at the LT's map and sometimes makes stick figures...
This rodeo wouldn't be complete without Bunker Complexes and Spider Holes.
Do yourselves a favor. Don't start at the top. My players in Colorado Springs used to say, "You're never too young to have a Nam' flashback" but thats only if you do it right.
Don't mind me. I'm just a guy with a limp and some CRAZY stories.
Doug
.---
IMHO - and personal experience an ` ideal ` campaign format for vietnam is
a US army SF ` A detachment `
it gives the players issolation - independance - etc
they are not just cogs in a massive machibne sat in huge bases - surrounded by hundreds of men - they are the out in the sticks - almost alone - help will take hours to arrive - and could cause more problems than it solves
ie - having a friendly village bombed by ` mistake ` will not make them many friends - and might drive previously loyal vilages to the VC
the players maintain a real sense of progress - as they track the acreage they and thier loyal vietnamese allies control - and how many village headmen they deem loyal
Do you think insubordination and possibly "mutiny" will always come up? Should the player in charge (assuming I don't have an NPC Lieutenant or Sergeant) be cruel from the get-go?
3) Players want these Super Tough Guys but don't want the hassle of CREATING them. That's like walking in halfway through the movie. From personal experience I can tell you the Real Life versions are Made, Not Born. Gives a player more chances to get some school or course that they needed.
I was considering having them start low level instead of mid, but how do you realistically put them in a position where most intelligent players won't get killed by a random sniper or landmine?
What I mean is, things weren't exactly "balanced" there.As for who to play, dumb-ass conscripts are fun sometimes: start each player with a little vignette depicting their life stateside. One guy plays through his arrest for a petty theft turned manslaughter and summary remanding to Uncle Sam. Another guy snaps at his convenience store job, having taken it from his boss once too many times and seen his girlfriend making out with the local beat poet in the parking lot. Another guy graduates from West Point and is given his great-grandather's class ring at his celebration party in the Hamptons: his beaming family exhorts him to uphold the proud tradition of service.
On the other hand, if your PCs want to be stone-cold killers, turn your game into LARP campaign. No, not live action role playing (shudder!) but rather, long range patrols, a la the ranger actions. Again, Herbert is a great source for this.
Since its easy to get tied up, bound and gagged by historical campaigns, why not add a note of alternate history to it? Why not start the campaign after the first hydrogen bombs are dropped on Hanoi and military "advisors" from Big Red are starting to show up in record numbers?
On a microcosmic level, he has a fine understanding of assymetrical warfare and you'll learn a lot about outmanuevering a supposedly superior guerilla force and realistically engaging the natives against them. Rangers lead the way.
Non-Linear Combat also the strategy we used in 'Nam. Important to have an understanding of this.
As for who to play, dumb-ass conscripts are fun sometimes: start each player with a little vignette depicting their life stateside. One guy plays through his arrest for a petty theft turned manslaughter and summary remanding to Uncle Sam. Another guy snaps at his convenience store job, having taken it from his boss once too many times and seen his girlfriend making out with the local beat poet in the parking lot. Another guy graduates from West Point and is given his great-grandather's class ring at his celebration party in the Hamptons: his beaming family exhorts him to uphold the proud tradition of service.
Backstory for creating your Tough guy. Everyone needs some kinda motivation to kill.
On the other hand, if your PCs want to be stone-cold killers, turn your game into LARP campaign. No, not live action role playing (shudder!) but rather, long range patrols, a la the ranger actions. Again, Herbert is a great source for this.
Thats what LRRP is. Long Range Reconnassaince Patrol. Not only did Rangers do this.
Since its easy to get tied up, bound and gagged by historical campaigns, why not add a note of alternate history to it? Why not start the campaign after the first hydrogen bombs are dropped on Hanoi and military "advisors" from Big Red are starting to show up in record numbers?
I don't recall hearing of American GI's wandering the irradiated streets of downtown Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Don't know how well that would fly. GM like me would have the group start coming downwith a "sickness".
Doug
* Elite team formed for off record deep extraction operation
* Orders are to extract a 'Consultant' who has been captured
* Small skirmishes along the way to the site reveal subtle clues
* Smelting equipment
* Scales and Ingot molds
* Books and records detailing amounts in Troy ounces etc.
* Cursory observation of the site reveals the 'Consultant' isn't a captive
* The site is actually a the foot of a mountain where some advisors struck a massive gold vein while digging out tunnels for military purposes
* Locals who found out were killed / captured as manual labor
* The 'Consultant' has struck a deal with a rogue Vietcong leader
* The VC leader would provide protection, manage the labor and keep his superiors unaware of the gold
* The 'Consulant' claims to have connections in Phnom Penh that can move the gold
* The plan involves moving the gold via land to the Mekong and taking it down river
The PCs are soldiers with orders, do they follow the straight and narrow ? Can they strong arm the 'Consultant' into cutting them in ? Do they scorched Earth the camp and try to extract the gold themselves ? Do they take out the 'Consultant' and align with the rogue Vietcong commander ?
What are the NPCs motivations outside of $$$ ? Do they have family they want to get out of war torn Nam ? Who is moving the gold ? Is it all a setup ?
Sorry about the image guys, I didn't realize it would cause a problem. No worries though: I scaled it down
Much grass, senor. Its still a cool image. Move out and draw fire? Yeah, right.
Do you think insubordination and possibly "mutiny" will always come up? Should the player in charge (assuming I don't have an NPC Lieutenant or Sergeant) be cruel from the get-go?
One of my favorite literary characters is Captain Ahab from the book Moby Dick. He was re-casted in the form of SSG Barnes in the movie Platoon. We all remember that SSG Barnes was a "take no mess" kinda guy. Probably even shoot you if you breathed funny...
Insubordination USUALLY comes up but not so much Mutiny. These insubordinate joes usually get the smelly end of the stick when it comes to assignments and most times nobody in the alphabet organizations will even want to deal with you cause you aren't a "team player". Team players say, "Yes sir, three bags full." and then move out smartly to the mission. Those sorts of guys get picked up by the SOF "scouts".
The trick is finding the "middle ground.
I was considering having them start low level instead of mid, but how do you realistically put them in a position where most intelligent players won't get killed by a random sniper or landmine?
The blonde haired SSG from Hamburger Hill pointed out this exact concept with the line, "In the A Shau valley, if your time is up then your time is up. Ain't nothing stopping that". Those are the breaks and GI's die. Even paper ones. That doesn't help much, I know.
Thats where doing those Other types of missions come into play. Gets the party a bit more used to "keeping thier head in the game". I purposely DON'T give out magic items in my 1st Ed. AD&D game until the characters are 4th lvl. This helps keep the magic stuff valuable and important. By doing this, it allows for my players to concentrate on character development. You think the bad guys have a steady supply of Snipers hanging out waiting for the number to be called? Of course not. Wait till the characters have some of that red dirt and firefights to stain them a bit till they're 4th lvl.
On that note, Counter-Sniper ops were a realistic occurrence that plagued many a Firebase, Airfield, or Port facility. The usual method of dispatching these nuisances was to send out CAS and let them deal with it. But thats like using a sledge hammer to swat a fly and NOT guaranteed to work in built up areas where there is friendly civilians intermingled.
Landmines, Punji Traps, and other nasty lethal/nonlethal devices should require a spot check with some difficult penalties. Its THEIR turf therefore the Bad Guys get the home field advantage. Thats life, GI. Suck it up and Drive On.
Just watch out for the tree mounted claymores.
Doug
Stoner was a marketing genius as well as a pretty good engineer.
He spun that flaw (or critical flaw to most soldiers) into a new desirable feature: Rather than kill one enemy, it ties up 3... one is injured and 2 have to take care of their injured buddy.
The Army just say how well the sweet little 30Carbine did in Korea against guys wearing blankets & rugs to keep warm. Little bullets did little harm. So they were not interested in another cute little gun. Stoner got the cold shoulder ( remember Gatlin & Thompson?) so he went to hobnob & schmooze the guys that make the decisions. Laying fat fairytales about KineteicEnergy (like 9mm vs 45 hype), taking 3 enemy out of combat with each Wounding of the little caliber, and the classic hands on comparison of a bandolier of 7.62 vs 5.56 weight... and plenty of bottles of scotch, he won the folks rather than the facts.
5.56 is not a good long range caliber. (All it has is velocity, which it loses rapidly)
5.56 is not a good brush/jungle caliber (deflection/deviation is 3x that of 7.62)
5.56 is not a good killer (specialty ammo to be as good as 7.62 could also make the 7.62 a UberKiller)
5.56 large loadout doesnt justify poor performance (loss on each sale, but make it up in volume?)
It would be great if we could invent a caliber that was between 5.56 & 7.62 but we cant invent that... it was invented by the russians & put in the AK. The 30Carbine failed because it was underpowered, so to use an even less killful caliber is crazy. We watered down the 30-06 to 30Carbine, but we went too far, the obvious solution would be to water it down less... something between the 30Carbine & the 30-06 : 7.62x39 AK. If we cant just admit that what we want already exists, lets just make the 30-08 (2008) that is smaller diameter body than AK, slightly longer, 90% AK power, in the Mini14 (Ruger made a small M14, rod op instead of venting gas into the action)
I always found the wound them and two have to go out of combat to help theory flawed. #1, what if he keeps shooting? Look at the Somalians in Mogadishu and the perps in the North Hollywood and Miami shootings, the somalians were drugged up so they didn't drop until their nervous system stopped, and the guys in the FBI shootouts were too stubborn to stop, in Miami one of them regained consciousness after a headshot and the other was shot six times as he charged the cover the FBI agents were using, but still killed two and injured others. In the North Hollywood shooting, the perps were shot 11 and 29 times, the one shot 29 times only died after surrendering, before the ambulance got there. Give me a gun that makes as big a hole as possible, so that blood loss and hopefully nervous damage get them before they can get to me, I don't want to shoot a guy and hope that he decides to stop shooting back because it hurts. And why would the guy having to drag him to cover not be the medic? It would still only require two people, not three.
The problem wasn't with the .30 (look at the Box O' Truth tests of it), the problem was more likely with people that couldn't aim (if they were primarily supposed to be shooting, they would have had Garands) blazing away on full auto, missing, and blaming the ammo. The .30 will punch IIIA, just like the .223 and 7.62, it won't penetrate as much after that as the 7.62 or .30-06, but with FMJ, frozen jackets won't cut it, and I doubt it would even with JHP.
About the Mini-14, how is it in reliability? I have heard "If you are in a jam, grab a Garand, because it won't", and I know the AK is similar in design to it, so do the M14 and mini-14 have similar reliability to the AK, if built to the same tolerances?
I would rather have a bigger round, even if it means toting heavier stuff, but I am not military, and I will never be, if I ever have trouble, it will be coming to me (giving me a nice chance to pick it off as it comes uphill for me), or I will be riding most of the way (though that is even less likely), and it will be over a short period, not a hundred pound load for months on end.
As for using the same technology in the 7.62 as in the 5.56, that is what the Germans did inadvertently, but they are still switching over with most everything.
Grunts have always liked light guns. That was why the M1 carbine was so popular in WW2. (and all sorts of guns supposedly failed to penetrate chinese winter clothing, including thompsons and greaseguns) many troops would swap for M1 carbines or 'combat losss' a garand and gab one when possible. They generally believed that the M1 carbine was plenty enough gun, if you held your sights on target. And it was, at close range. (and at long range, fighting multiple people, it is hard to tell if that guy was hit and dead, and then one of his squadmates appear close by, or if the shot was a miss, and the target hit the dirt for a few seconds and then got back up) Plus, it helps a whole lot if you are NOT a fanatic. A single gunshot wound, even if you COULD keep on fighting, you probably wouldn't unless it was truely truely just a scratch. That both sides were being at least somewhat nice to their prisoners helped a lot on that angle too. (facing the VC and NVA, no US troops had any delusions of how they would be treated when captured. See the movie The Great Escape for an idea of US troops held in Germany life)
The first AR-15s showed up in the hands of guys guarding the airfields, who would probably never go in the jungle, and from there it moved into the hands of some of the special forces, who had great results and definately appreciated a light gun.
At this time and with this level of technology the individual rifle really didn't mean all that much. You had planes that reached out and got targets 50 miles away, artillery that got targets 10 miles away, mortars that got targets 1 mile away, heavy and medium machineguns that hosed down to find range for targets 100 to 500 yards away (or for heavy, 1000 yards away) THOSE were the tools that were being used to stomp the enemy. The infantryman's rifle was no longer the weapon that won wars, it was for those enemy that somehow got past all that serious ordinance, and would be attacking the guys using the MGs mortars, and all the rest.
Of course, that kind of concept worked with battle lines, which really didn't exist in vietnam. Still, the concept in general held up pretty good, even when we were dropping airborne units in off of hueys, they were supposed to be under the "umbrella" of artillery units, and beyond that, also under the "umbrella" of aircaft assetts. Problem was, politics and beaurocracy kept those umbrellas folded sometimes. That wasn't a fault of the M-16, that was a fault of the system.
Granted, any time you are going to be somewhere with no big guns to back you up, you want the 7.62x51 for it's greater range and punch. But when you have mortars a few hundred yards back, and Medium Machineguns on tripods and bipods, and spare guys tasked to get the barrels switched and the belts linked, everyone else is best served by a nice light weapon with good ammo capacity that can take care of any minor problem that arrises.
Think of it this way. In combat, you'd never tell the assistant to the MG gunner 'stop helping him, come shoot some guys with your infantry rifle!' It's the other way around. The assistant gets shot, some infantry guy drops his rifle and goes to replace him.
It's all about keeping the big guns running
(except when you are tasked with playing delivery boy or traffic cop like our troops are today in a-Stan and i-Raq, but again, that isn't the fault of the M16, that is government and beaurocrats putting a round peg in a square hole. Military is to kill people and break ****, not play nanny. If we want a nannyforce/policeforce, we need a whole different skillset and a whole different age group is ideal. 18 year olds are great to get all fired up and tell em to break ****. They don't think so good, too many hormones, got to keep it simple. Keeping the peace, befriending your enemy and putting his life back in order, treating him with respect even though his neighbors were shooting at you last week, that takes a much more mature mind, and a whole different skillset. We turned to the draft in vietnam and selected 18-19 athletic boys. Today, we should use the draft again, but select 35ish middle managment types. Constitution says anyone 15-65 is 'milita' and that is what makes the draft legal. No one says we have to follow the exact same rules we did in vietnam. And guess what, bushwars and involvment as peacekeepers would be viewed a lot different if john Q middle managment though he might get his 37 year old butt drafted and sent over.)
And I am pretty sure that in reality, after the escape attempt in germany, they didn't kill huge amounts of the U.S. prisoners, I am pretty sure that part was made up.
."and they forgot to take any cover at all"
So, they died from Natural Causes:
They failed to take cover when getting shot at
which naturally casued them to get shot.
And we all know Razoreface was talking the truth with his infamous
"Try getting shot less"
You guys seem to have a solid dynamic going in your thread, so I hope adding my own ideas doesn't hurt it any.
I'm a fan of characters starting at lower levels (even if I end up accelerating them to a higher level faster for game purposes). With that in mind, I'd probably start the campaign out with your combat team being choppered into a patrol area, something solidly remote in the jungle, and the chopper is taken down by unexpected enemy fire. These wouldn't be 100% green troops, just less experienced, you could even assign a leader player with a higher level, to indicate how long he's been in the suck.
Make the combat section 1.5x bigger than the number of players, with the intent of killing a few in the crash. Once you're down, the obvious thing to do is get home and get safe right?
Throw in some encouragement not to stay at the crash and get the team moving. For various obstacles, I'd probably throw in a Soviet training camp, fox holes, those nasty little warrens the VC used for field camps and such. You could basically add anything from start to finish (including, but not limited to poppy fields and drug runners, some Wolfenstein style secret facility in an Angkor Wat sorta temple, derranged french ex-pats or even an Apocolypse Now kinda nut job, etc etc).
You'd have some fairly basic soldiers starting out who could "learn by doing" as they progress home. As the GM don't be afraid to kill a man, you can always bring him back as some wild-eyed French survivor from Dienbienphu or another American soldier.
And I'd assign a player as the man in charge, be he a Sarge or LT. It'll add a lot more RP elements to the game.
Just a few missions that the PC's can be dispatched on...
1.While on patrol the unit comes across a VC tunnel system
2. The unit discovers the VC attempting to buy an A or H-bomb
Nothin says "You're in the army now"
like droppin some arty on them.
Use my Shelling formula to make it survivable (excluding really bad rolls),
can be used in conjuction with tasks the PCs have to do, forcing them to bug out fast or embrace their Concentration skill just to dial a phone under fire
backstabbist, who are you kidding?
Haven't you ever caught a bullet with your teeth 
?
Taking cover is for atomic bombs and cold nights.