Jump to content

CMBN: Dien Bien Phu!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Violating the rules I just laid down here (i.e. this subtopic isn't directly germane to CMBN design for DBP), but this is actually quite interesting as a point of military history

John Keegan and Gwynne Dyer among others have hailed this shot of a French counterattack near one of the Huguettes as the only 20th century live combat photo to show both attacking and defending troops in the same shot (NOTE: if you know of others, PLEASE don't slap them up here. Links will do!)

biennguoi2.jpg

However, some doubt has also been cast as to the authenticity of the shot, given that the Viet Minh also filmed a detailed onsite recreation of the battle for propaganda / historical purposes some months later, using (mostly North African) prisoners. For example:

IMG_3140.jpg

Interestingly, a Vietnamese scholar who has done a lot of research on DBP claims that the (first) shot is not only real but is a still from a live action film (JK, if you can come up with that film, I will be impressed :P):

The photograph was taken from Vietminh position when period fighting at airport, French paratroops counterattack at DBP, not in Elian 2. French spray smoke to isolate Vietminh in warzone then assault. It was a real battlefield photograph. And, this photo was cut from a film. After that photograph, a mortar shell exploded nearly French solder and they lieing the ground. I posted this photograph with mean: "humanwave" is actual tactic, all side used it. And kill a solder who have skill and tactic in action never easy.

So what do you think?

For me, one personal reason for skepticism: most of the "French paras" don't seem to be wearing helmets (consistent with PoW reenactors). But I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure..I'd be more likely to believe it was a photo of the action..some war photographer holding his camera above his foxhole and taking some quick shots and got lucky..but a film? Someone was standing there filming it? Hmmmm...

Then again reading the caption one minute he says it's a photo and then a still from a film. Confusing.

If it is a combat shot it's a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The men by whose fault battles are lost are not those whom they kill. - Jules Roy

General Navarre: "[Operation Mouette, Oct-Nov 1953] demonstrated... that if we sent out infantry, given its present quality, outside the (six mile) radius in which it enjoyed artillery support, then if it encountered Viet Minh infantry, it would be beaten.... A few parachute battalions remained the only units of superior value."

I am now trying to reconstruct a tactical TOE for the CEFEO forces, understanding that the true bayonet strengths of units engaged at DBP will be quite different.....

Per Martin Windrow's book:

Battalions:

- HQ/Services company, including heavy weapons. 2 man FOOs were attached to battalion CPs.

- 3-4 rifle companies of 150-200 men in 3 platoons led by sublieutenant or senior sergeant.

- Each platoon: 3 sections of 10-12 "copains" (squaddies), including an LMG.

- CEFEO battalion establishment 18 officers and 60-80 French NCOs. Actual strengths seldom exceeded 12 officers / 40 noncoms. Many infantry battalions had half the officers they needed, many were transferees from other arms and many company COs were older men. A couple of the North African units at DBP had only one officer per company.

- Many NCOs were themselves raw recruits, selected in training.

- French ranks were entirely volunteers; tours were extended to 30 months. Avg age 29!

- 30-50% Vietnamese personnel. More Vietnamese than Frenchmen would be killed on the French side at DBP.

- Some squads had Vietnamese "supplementifs" -- many began as Vietminh PoW porters, graduated to scouts and translators and finally became full-fledged and often distinguished squad members ("autocthones").

Weapons:

- Tardy standardization in arms: MAS36, FM24 LMG, MAT49, and Browning .30; also Thompsons, Stens and German weapons.

- Para Cos had 2 x 60mm, 1 x .30 MG and 1 x 57mm, and at Bn 4x81mm and 2 x .30s.

- The French at DBP had no 75mm RCLs or bazookas (unlike the Viet Minh); tank guns were their only long range flat trajectory weapons.

At night, the French made extensive use of snipers and listening posts (mortar FOs) to detect and harass the enemy.

This data from the "Free Indochina" miniatures wargaming site:

"Far East" Pattern Infantry Battalion

Apart from the Moroccan Tabors and Static Battalions, all infantry battalions had a standard paper structure as:

1 HQ and Service Company

4 Rifle Companies, each with CHQ, Support Platoon, plus 3 Rifle Platoons (each of 3 Squads)

The H&S Company was allocated four 81mm mortars (though often only two were taken on mobile operations), and later four 57mm recoilless rifles (manned by the pioneer platoon, but often handed down to the rifle companies).

The rifle companies were often re-organised into four platoons in early operations, to provide more flexibility. However, this reduced their combat ability which became a problem later in the war. Platoons were often formed into "fire" and "shock" elements.

The company support platoons had a machine-gun squad and a 60mm mortar squad on paper, but this was often reduced to a single MG and 60mm mortar with large stocks of ammunition (due to personnel shortages).

Throughout the war, the main problem for infantry battalions was one of manpower shortages. Battalions were often at 300-400 men, with companies of 90 men or less.

Foreign Legion Paratroops

1er Bataillon Étrangers de Parachutistes (1948-55):

HQ Company (HQ Platoon and Service element; Support Platoon with 81mm Squad, .30 MG Squad, and 57mm RCL Squad)

4 Para Companies, each with:

HQ Platoon (60mm mortar squad, .30 MG squad, 1x57mm RCL)

3 Rifle Platoons (HQ Squad, plus 3 Rifle Squads at about 15 men each)

1er CIPLE (from April 1951 - Vietnamese Coy, as Para Coy. above)

2e Bataillon Étrangers de Parachutistes (1948-55):

As 1er BEP, but with only 3 paratroop companies, and the 2e CIPLE (from April 1951).

This from that French "lessons learned" document:

The structure of airborne battalions:

- Headquarters Company equipped with 4 light machine guns and four 81 mm mortars.

- Four Paratroop Companies comprised of:

- A Headquarters platoon with two 60 mm. mortars, one light machine gun, a 57 mm. recoilless cannon.

- Four combat platoons, consisting of a firing force (two automatic rifles, a grenade launcher) and a shock element.

[Compared] to the Indochina-type Infantry Battalion, the Airborne Battalion presented the following differences:

-it was better staffed: 22 officers, 110 NCOs.

- the total numerical strength was larger: 979.

- the ethnic belance was different: 50% Frenchmen or Legionnaires and 50% indigenous.

- the weapons were better adapted to shock combat: only half as many rifles but twice as many automatic pistols and a large number of carbines.

- the radio transmitting means were twice as numerous.

On the other hand, the firepower of the heavy weapons was the same.

Mortarmen of 1BEP prior to siege. Good shot of uniforms and gear.

800px-1er_cepml-63ef0d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After battle equipment reviews from the outstanding French document cited above. Very comparable to the SLA Marshall review of US weapons in Korea, one of his better works.

"The MAS 36 rifle has proven to be of disastrous inefficiency against a massive attack such as the Viet-Minh attacks. Being too heavy to be used as an individual weapon, it is totally ineffective for combat, both because of its lack of accuracy and its rate of fire....[At typical combat ranges, which are less than 100m due to vegetation and/or darkness], the essential factor was the number of bullets which could be fired within a few seconds.

The MAT 49 machine pistol is unanimously praised as to its value. Nevertheless, two criticisms are made of it:

- the fragile nature of some parts: peep-hole protector, shutter, cartridge clip spring,

- the difficulty in refilling the cartridge clips. "This difficulty", writes Commander X, "is probably the cause of the success of Chinese-style attacks". The first wave causes an emptying of the cartridges, the second wave passes unharmed.

The 1924-1929 machine rifle "is an accurate, sturdy, powerful and light weapon, remarkable in its simplicity. But our good-old machine rifle has a weak point: its cartridge clips are heavy, burdensome and rather fragile. It is these cartridge clips which cause most of the firing accidents.... "

The 31A machine gun (Reibell) "permits... firing at night. In an established position it is advisable to use the round cartridge clip. The 40-round cartridge clip is very satisfactory when moving....[but] the tripod mount is heavy and difficult to handle.... The U.S. 30 machine gun is not better than the 31 A, and, besides, it requires more complicated supplying of ammunition".

"the 57 mm. S.R. cannon has been greatly valued.... (in flat regions in particular).... Others, however, object to the fact that it is too heavy and too easy to be spotted. They believe that the 73 mm. antitank rocket launcher would replace it quite well.

"The 60 mm mortar, which is ineffective in humid rice-fieldý, has proved to be quite interesting on the defensive. It can be fired in one minute and should be used #or reconnoitering fire or-for immediate explosiVe fire in front of the position of the unit: 80 to 100 meters. The 81 mm. mortars of the Battalion and the artillery should be used for more distant missions". Battery operation was difficult on wet terrain and the enemy often appeared at a very short distance. "It is preferable to have only one mortar available with a good supply of ammunition than two mortars with only a few shells".

For distances greater than 400 meters it was quicker to use a 105 mm. fire, which is almost always well adjusted, than to adjust a 60 mm. fire and, even more so, than to adjust an 81 mm fire".

"When I took command of the battalion, I was surprised by the slight confidence which the cadre had in their 81 mm. mortars which systematically required artillery fire whereas mortar fire was often sufficient to reach the objectives.... the lack of training: everything which does not have to do with direct view flat-trajectory fire should be the domain of the specialist.... Nevertheless...the 81 mortar is the salvation of a unit which is not provided with artillery."

"American 105 H. M. 2 and 155 H. M. 1 howitzers have proven entirely satisfactory because of their sturdiness during movements and the case of repairs on damage resulting from enemy fire".

The M24 tank and the T.D. M36 tank (converted into a medium tank) had unit [ground] pressures which were just about the same and which gave them a mobility which was generally considered to be satisfactory.... Their protection proved to be sufficient and pierced armor was an exceptional occurrence. The response of this equipment to mines can be considered as being satisfactory. Losses in personnel sustained by the tank crews were low and generally were not very serious despite the size of the explosives used by the enemy. This feature can be explained by three facts:

- the location of the track as regards the body (along the armor and not under it),

- sufficient armor on the floor-board, which was sometimes put out of shape but was not pierced,

- holds to the ground effectively.

Wear and tear, however, was often considerable: several double rollers, the suspension bracket and the shock absorbers were frequently out of order.... The M24 tanks underwent thick and numerous artillery fire at Dien-Bien-Phu. Their behavior was satisfying because only two of them (out of ten) were seriously damaged by 105 mm. fire which hit the target. The metal caterpillar tracks proved their superiority. "They alone resisted the shell bursts and the 57 mm. S. R.'s direct fire."

To fight an enemy who was primarily a foot soldier, the crews only had flat-trajectory fire cannons and nondelay fuse sholls. Thus, they found it impossible to continue their action in covered terrain which could not be penetrated by armored equipment.

NOTE: Since I'm using the more powerful Brit 2lber ATG (reskinned) to represent the 57 RCL and the Panzerschrek for the VM 90mm "super bazooka", in light of the above statement that armour penetrations were rare (consistent with the DBP combat record), I'm leaning toward using a (thick-skinned) Panther "reskinned" as a M10 (closest resemblance to Chaffee in terms of silhouette). I don't think the Sherman will be sturdy enough. sticking point is the absence of a AAMG on top -- that weapon figured prominently in the fight for Eliane 2 and elsewhere. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LongLeftFlank,

If asking for an explanation of the major caption on a DBP map's a crime, then color me guilty! I didn't know the term, and I failed miserably in terms of what I found. I never studied French, either. I'd argue the map caption is a reasonable thing to ask about, but you clearly don't agree.

I read the analysis of what I years ago thought was a Viet Minh human wave attack and noted, as did you, it was supposedly from a film shot as it happened. Shall see what I can turn up.

mjkerner,

I've seen it on numerous occasions and can practically draw it from memory--if I could draw decently. I remember when I first realized that hummock was a bunker. Any doubts were removed by the ventilator pipe at the top.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and they had m24s there right? IIRC? so a stuart is out of the question right? i mean its smaller but the M24 is technically a replacement for the stuart. sorta.. I said M10 because even though its open topped size and weight wise its like a chaffee. I think you should probably go with a sherman then. Just for performance. Its just my opinion but a panther seems too much. Then again since there will not be tank on tank action maybe your right a panther would be more appropriate. but like you said, it doesnt have the flexible mount .50 and since that did figure prominently..

And the M36 did have an open top. however the French AAR does say 'converted to a medium tank' did this mean they welded some armor over the open top?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LongLeftFlank,

I think the still is real. For one, much of the available Viet Minh film is of poor quality, and this still certainly fits that model. If you watch this Battlefield Vietnam doc segment "The Legacy of Dien Bien Phu," starting at around minute 12, you'll see not only the French counterattack segment, but the exploitation phase by the Viet Minh after destroying the French counterattack. This episode has some great footage in it, showing, inter alia, the hell the Viet Minh went through to get the guns into the position and some of their emplacements, too. A segment showing hauling a 105mm howitzer up the hill is particularly telling, especially after reading the account of a Viet Minh soldier who was drag when bringing a 105 down a mountain. By no means are the French neglected in this program, either. The actual DBP portion runs from minutes 12-24.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LongLeftFlank,

This is a full length North Vietnamese doc, "Victory at Dien Bien Phu," which was apparently released in 1964 and snagged by the CIA. This is from a NARA copy.

From the little I've seen, it appears to be the source for the Viet Minh footage in the "The Legacy of Dien Bien Phu" piece for which I previously provided the link. The DBP material proper starts around 20 minutes in.

Regards,

John Kettler

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good eye, John, well done. The THC/TMC documentary doesn't include anything factually new, and as you observe, it basically lifts footage from the Vietnamese documentary. The producers are more concerned with a rapid fire series of action-packed images that supports the dramatic narration than with strict authenticity, so this kind of "evidence" needs to be carefully sifted. A snip of the film clip in question is displayed from 19:23-19:26. I'd guess those explosions in the foreground are smoke grenades -- if you look at the still, it looks like at least one figure is throwing a grenade as they come over the crest.

A slightly longer clip (still broken into bits) goes from 45:15-45:34 of the VN documentary. It shows

(1) The French first scrambling around in plain view of bo doi (!) for several seconds on the blockhouse (?), then rapidly ducking under some incoming rounds -- they vanish in a split second, amazing to watch! My best guess is that they've just stormed the blockhouse after ascending the forward slope.

Footage-1.jpg

(3) then charging in a broad skirmish line over the crest (per the famous still above) -- those white puffs are definitely smoke grenades, not counterfire -- a continuation shown here. Their skirmish line enters enfilade of the VM in the foreground

Footage-2.jpg

(4) then going to ground under heavy fire and finally retreating in the haze (you can dimly see figures running backwards in the last second), The editing makes it look like the bo doi then advanced in turn and retook the position, but that isn't totally clear. Keep in mind that the VM generally attacked only at night and the French by day.

Viewing these clips several times does seem to me to strengthen the case for its authenticity as combat footage. However, the graininess of the footage and jittery camerawork doesn't itself testify one way or the other IMHO; there is equally grainy footage elsewhere in the program that was clearly "replay" for propaganda purposes, even if some of it was on the same day by the actual participants, as opposed to the detailed reenactment. Kind of like the two flag raisings at Iwo Jima.

That's my take FWIW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sublime,

With no Chaffees available, the closest thing which is available in CMBN would be an M8 HMC. The armor's not as good as a Chaffee (a direct replacement for the M5 Stuart); worse, it's open topped, but the size is about right, it has a 75mm weapon and the all-important Ma Deuce. Armor's about the same for an M8 HMC (p.41) and an M24 Chaffee (p. 11).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13810463/Standard-Ordnance-Items-Catalog-1944-Vol-1

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LongLeftFlank,

Happy to assist! I wonder whether the reason so much of the Viet Minh footage is so awful is simply because it was a terrible environment for cameras, particularly without good maintenance and protected film stock? There are some crisp, clear sequences, but they're the exception, rather than the rule. In my view, the French assault still taken from the full length doc is legit.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, the M8HMC packs a 75mm howitzer, not a flat trajectory tank gun. That would give it a far greater HE punch than a Chafee, plus a bigger HE load and indirect fire capability, none of which the Chaffee offered.

And as I said before, to get historical results I need to "bump up" the tank's armour, since I'm using a 57mm ATG to represent a RCL. The Brit 2lber shells will make mincemeat of a HMC or a Stuart. Using the much thicker armour of a medium tank restores the historical balance (and doesn't have an open top). Matching the historical specs is not the issue.

But for DBP, tanks are the least important weapon among those I mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily directed at LLF but does anyone have any good info on the French decisions to withdraw from Indochina, US to French aid (specifically money, etc), and other political level information? Well, anyone besides Kettler? Kettler no offense, but almost all the links you get me are useless in a scholarly atmosphere. there are no citations or proof added, and if the info I wanted could be gleaned from a 2 second google search I wouldnt be asking. Also someones opinion on a message board isnt going to help me either, unless they back it up with factual information. I.e. proof.

Thx in advance.

Also LLF - it just occured to me. Maybe a good way to offset the Brit 2lber being substituted - if you could edit the ammo levels (if you're doing a scenario) perhaps you could only provide the gun with HE. Then it would have no penetrative effect...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LongLeftFlank,

It was a proposed idea intended to get a certain in-game effect. The gun in the Chaffee was derived from the one installed in 75mm armed B-25s and quite obviously isn't a howitzer. I get that. Am not sure I follow the capable of indirect fire argument, though, in that I'm unaware of any gun or howitzer in the game which can shoot indirectly while on the map. Both the M24 Chaffee (p. 11) and M8 HMC (p.41) are capable of indirect fire. Also, both AFVs are fitted to conduct indirect fire.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13810463/Standard-Ordnance-Items-Catalog-1944-Vol-1

The M24 shoots the same ammunition as the 75mm armed Sherman, but not at as high a velocity, given the shorter barrel, which is more of the Grant/Lee type. The below link draws from TMs, ordnance reports and observed examples.

http://panzerfaust.ca/AFV%20interiors/m24b.html

Nor is main gun ammunition much of an issue, either. The M24 Chaffee has 48

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m24chaffee.html

and the M8 HMC 46.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/75mmhmcm8.html

The 2.25" M18 RR has a maximum penetration, using HEAT, of 75mm at normal, with an effective range of ~400 meters.

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/usa/m1-recoilless-rifle-e.html

As a design for effect problem, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. You can certainly get the range from a 2 pr, but you won't have the penetration or the portability (shoulder fired by one man; normal crew 2 using shoulder rest as bipod). Likewise, a bazooka is a bit too much on penetration, yet lacks the range. That second "R" in the acronym makes a big difference. I read a period piece from POPULAR SCIENCE online about both the 57mm and the 75mm RRs. The latter, firing from 1 1/4 miles away, put 5 shots in a row into a Japanese tunnel entrance measuring 2' x 5'! That was from a tripod, but it does give some sense of point fire accuracy.

Sublime,

For someone who writes "no disrespect," you come off as doing the opposite. Suggest you take a look at this rework from Sami Abouzahr's prizewinning dissertation. It addresses aspects of the French Indo-China policy in the context of the economics of the Marshall Plan.

http://www.historytoday.com/sami-abouzahr/tangled-web-america-france-and-indochina-1947-50

His dissertation, "The European Recovery Program, and American Policy Toward Indochina, 1947-1950," took Joint First Prize in the Royal Historical Society/ History Today Prize for Best Undergraduate Dissertation at University College London in 2003.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kettler I guess then Ill just be honest. Upon reading your views online about the existence of aliens on mars, and your posts here vis a vis the US faking the moon landing I've lost all respect for you academic credentials and you have no credibility with me. take it as you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sublime,

I much prefer honesty to taking continual indirect potshots from you over something other than the topic to hand. Clearly such things as you cite are not at all to your liking and/or belief, but that in no way invalidates my contributions, dating back to 2000, to the Battlefront Forum.

Rather than do a blanket rejection of anything coming from me, I suggest you instead look at the information. I recently had someone I've long known flip out on FB and reject solid, historically documented materials simply because he didn't like the URLs on which they appeared. By doing so, he rejected a powerful 1934 speech by a brave Congressman and a 1974 report prepared for the House as part of confirmation hearings.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good! Since you.re being honest you can also start adressing the other 3/4s of the forum that 'takes potshots' at you. I could care less when you joined the forum. I was here then too. That doesnt make you better than me or anyone else, nor does the fact that I was here then make me better than you or anyone else. It has nothing to do with my liking or belief, it has to do with credibility. If you.re creating webpages espousing 'panzers on mars' and bull$hit like that.. Well why should I believe anything you say? You've been known to do this quite a bit actually. Your Grossdeustchland reference a few weeks ago. Any proof? Any evidence of that whatsoever? I'd be interested where you read that. If you can produce evidence I'll apologize on being wrong on that. However, you posting about the US faking moon landings has nothing to do with the topic at hand, nor does your entire second paragraph. All I did was post a request, and because I knew you.d be the first to respond with a wiki entry and ten youtube videos that may or may not have anything to do with what I was asking, I was telling you to not waste your time.

p.s. I could really care less about your 'sensitive contacts' and your history as an analyst. Are you by any chance John Clancy's model for the analyst who also runs around doing black ops shooting people? Plz dont send the UFOs to abduct me ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LongLeftFlank,

I took a peek into the F8F Bearcat situation as it applies to DBP. What a strange aircraft, with 50% fewer guns than an F6F Hellcat! 4 x .50 MG, plus 2 x 1000 lb. bombs. This conclusion is based on direct observation of period imagery of DBP F8Fs at the link.

http://www.frenchwings.net/indochina/gallery/displayimage.php?album=9&pid=306#top_display_media

From what I can tell, either the P-47 or the Typhoon can carry the F8F's bomb load, but the P-47 has twice the MG armament of the Bearcat. I have no idea, though, how the Typhoon's 4 x 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannon compare to the Bearcat's 4 x .50 MGs in terms of firepower.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily directed at LLF but does anyone have any good info on the French decisions to withdraw from Indochina, US to French aid (specifically money, etc), and other political level information.?

Jules Roy talks a lot about the policy context and got facetime with many of the major players. On the other hand, he also editorializes a lot and takes sides, so he cannot be considered authoritative. There is a recent book out on the French Indochina war but I can't recall the title. I suspect there's a lot of stuff out there in French if you parlez...

JK: Thanks for the thoughts on the tanks, RCLs and fighter-bombers. Owing to the distance from Hanoi airfields and weather problems, Tacair participation in battles at CM scale was purely accidental. The only incidence I recall offhand of bombers being explicitly part of an attack plan was the failed 2BEP attack across the airfield, although there were other occasions where FBs showed up to strafe VM positions at the time of a French attack.

As to tanks and RCLs, the fights I'm depicting are infantry vs fortification fights -- old fashioned trench warfare. Those gun platforms are supporting players in those actions, with a few exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...