NVA with M-60s (instead of RPDs and PKs and such) - Hamburger Hill (1987) Discussion

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

Well it was filmed in the Philippines so the M60s were probably easier to find; I too noticed it...it's a minor quibble for me but I accept it...I think the ONLY Vietnam film I've seen an RPD in was the Aussie SAS movie 'Odd Angry Shot'..

NM

reply

[–] JonnyCarducci 14 years ago

yeah that bothered me quite a bit.

reply

[–] swat412 14 years ago

Actually...not quite...this was 1969. The use of captured weapons was on the way up then, The NVA and others did use weapons which they captured from the ARVN forces, in later years this practise went up even further to some tanks, APC's, trucks, M2's and 60's.

I was recently going through an historical picture book (by a famous NVA photographer) that depicted the war from Tet until the fall of Saigon. In the pictures taken from around '72 on the use of American made weapons of every kind went up. It was something to see NVA troops driving and riding on not only one of our APC's but also M48 tanks.

reply

[–] hmun01 14 years ago

I imagine it was fairly accurate. My interpretation of the way VC/NVA etc conducted themseles was very much fighting a guerilla war. The idea being to hit hard and vanish and rarely get caught in a stand up fight for any length of time. Move light and quick, use anything from the enemy against them, become stronger while the ememy gets weaker etc.

With that in mind, I'm sure they would have used any weapons, ammo, food etc they came across or took it from the dead. I remember seeing a program about an American pilot who was shot down and walked out coming across US food, he presumed was from a special forces patrol deep in country, and knew it would be unedible before he looked, it wasnt buried so the enemy didn't know they were there, just left out. Unused food seems to have always been pierced to make it go off and deny the enemy.

I've also read accounts of American granades being used as booby traps by pulling the pin and inserting it halfway into a tin can or beer can with the spoon holding it in on the spring. From what I've read and seen, it looks like the VC/NVA used everything they could get their hands on against the Americans, considering their numbers with practically everyone wanting to fight, I'm not really suprised.

reply

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

Munns;

Further South all that was true but this battle took place in the AShau Valley--a famous/infamous NVA Base area right on the Laotian border & even in range of NVA Heavy Artillery--in addition to being a 'terminus' for the 'Ho Chi Minh Highway' supply & troop network; if anyplace would have stuff that would be brand new, this was it;

That being said I didn't REALLY have a problem with it---almost certainly the film company simply couldn't get their hands on any Com-Bloc Machineguns & the like;

NM

reply

[–] OzarkGrey 14 years ago

I have numerous pictures of VC and NVA with all sorts of weapons. The Chinese and Russians gave them everything they could get their hands on. The VC/NVA often had British Enfields, French MAS rifles, Japanese Arisaks and Communist bloc weapons as well as captured American weapons.

The movie was really quite well done. Not preachy as someone mentioned, just a war movie. A very young Don Cheadle really stood out. I served in the Guard with a former soldeir who fought in that battle and he said all in all it wasn't too far off.

reply

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

Agreed & the smaller local force VC units are notorious 'scroungers'--they'll take possession of any weapon they'll get their hands on...and I also agree that Hamburger Hill is a HELL of a good movie;

NM

reply

[–] Balcones 13 years ago

"I was recently going through an historical picture book (by a famous NVA photographer) that depicted the war from Tet until the fall of Saigon."

What is the name of the book, please?

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 13 years ago

About as inaccurate as one of the US troops picking up a dropped AK47 and using it during the last contact.
People pick up and use whatever they can get, especially if it is better. The M-60 is a good weapon.

The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/

reply

[–] overninethousand 13 years ago

Actually in Vietnam it was notorious as a bad weapon, prone to jamming. It was very unreliable and too heavy for the infantrymen walking through the jungle, and ironic it was a re-design of an excellent MG-42 (instead of making it fire a NATO round, like the Germans did and made MG-3, the Americans instead made a vastly inferior product, with much lower rate of fire, that jammed every few hundred rounds, or would alternatively continue to fire even when the trigger was depressed).

With no gas regulator on the gun, however, there were drawbacks to the mechanism. Accumulated dirt or dust could slow down the piston and result in the M60 jamming or “running away”—continuing to fire even when the finger was removed from the trigger. This could prove unnerving during the heat of battle, when the assistant M60 gunner would be forced to hold onto the ammunition belt manually to stop it from feeding. One distinctive feature of the M60 was the chromium-plated barrel and satellite liners for the first six inches along the muzzle from the chamber. The nonferrous lining considerably increased the lifespan of each barrel although there were complaints that the barrel was heavy. The most common complaint about the M60 was that it was heavy, particularly when humping through the Southeast Asian jungle. It was also prone to jamming, especially when dirty. The safety was awkward to operate and worked opposite the M16 rifle, requiring an upward movement of the thumb to free the safety and make the gun ready to fire. Fired cartridges could also become torn and required extra time to remove an empty case—a less than ideal situation in combat. Marine units in particular resisted using the M60, preferring their longtime BARs.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 13 years ago

The same was said of the M-16... until they learned to clean it properly. Admitedly, this one was first hyped up as not requiring any maintenance (how they figured that, I don't know), but both M-16 and M-60 were pretty darn good if used properly and I've read acounts from those who loved it as well as those who hated it.

The weight, fair point. That's one of the reasons they call it The Pig. Not as heavy as the Stoner one often favoured by the SEALs, but that's all par for the course with belt-feed weapons.
Time was it was top of the list for support weapons until the Minimi and the L86 came along. Before then the UK was supposed to be getting a batch of M-60s as possible replacements for the L7A2 GPMG.

Either way, it's still very reasonable for soldiers in combat to pick up enemy weapons, particularly when resupply of ammunition is irregular (like if your hill is continually bseiged).

The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/

reply

[–] libertarian45 12 years ago

It is absolutely true that the NVA would be using captured enemy weapons (as stated by many on this thread). That said, I bet the movie makers didn't do that deliberately with that fact in mind. Support weapons are a little harder to obtain for films if they are out of the ordinary. It was likely just a reality that they couldn't get their hands on proper Commie MGs and used M60s instead.

David Lean made 2 films that are considered some of the best ever: Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. In BRK, the Japanese use Sten guns, some Enfield rifles and a Vickers MG. In LoA, the Turks alternate between Mausers (proper) and SMLE Enfields. It depended on whether the scene was one filmed in Jordan or in Spain. You also see M1919 30 Cal MGs used by both sides. A good trick considering it wasn't invented yet. I still love these movies (as I do HH) despite the weapon infractions...

In the made for TV, 2 part interpretation of Philip Caputo's "A Rumor of War" the producers had difficulty obtaining M 14s (the USMC used M14s up to late 1967 and Caputo served in 65, 66). So, an enterprising armorer doctored M1 Garands by chopping back the front stocks and adding fake magazines. In the long run, it would have been much better to use the real thing. However, one has to admire the attempt at making it almost look right. Same could be said for the "Tiger" tanks in Saving Pte Ryan....

reply

[–] nickm2 12 years ago

"In the made for TV, 2 part interpretation of Philip Caputo's "A Rumor of War" the producers had difficulty obtaining M 14s (the USMC used M14s up to late 1967 and Caputo served in 65, 66). So, an enterprising armorer doctored M1 Garands by chopping back the front stocks and adding fake magazines."

I remember the 'documentary' on Rumor of War that I saw on PBS--the funny part that stood out was the armorer's advice to 'remember only to fire 7 times' so the Garand wouldn't do it's trademark 'ping' as it ejected the clip.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil 8 years ago

In the made for TV, 2 part interpretation of Philip Caputo's "A Rumor of War" the producers had difficulty obtaining M 14s (the USMC used M14s up to late 1967 and Caputo served in 65, 66). So, an enterprising armorer doctored M1 Garands by chopping back the front stocks and adding fake magazines. In the long run, it would have been much better to use the real thing. However, one has to admire the attempt at making it almost look right. Same could be said for the "Tiger" tanks in Saving Pte Ryan....

Why would he have had trouble getting M14s? They have been available off-the-shelf at gun shops since 1974, in the form of the Springfield Armory, Inc. M1A:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory_M1A

Early ones were even built primarily with surplus USGI M14 parts. Of course, the M1A is semi-auto-only, but so were nearly all M14s. M14s were manufactured as select-fire rifles, but in practice, firing them full-auto was pretty much uncontrollable, so by default they were issued without the selector switch installed, which limited them to semi-auto. The selector switch could be installed by an armorer for designated individuals authorized to use the M14 in full-auto mode.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

reply

[–] nickm2 8 years ago

Well it was 1979-1980; I'm sure budget & availability had something to do with it.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] MaximRecoil 8 years ago

SA, Inc. M1As have never been particularly expensive and have been readily available since they first started selling them in the mid-'70s. Here's a 1974 gun magazine article about them:

http://i.imgur.com/i8BBBra.jpg

In the lower right-hand corner it shows the MSRP: $269.95, which means they would have sold at gun shops for about $225. I doubt if it was much, if any, cheaper to buy M1 Garands and then pay people to mock each one up to resemble an M14. I'm guessing they simply weren't aware of the M1A, for whatever reason.

They probably only asked about actual military-issue M14s and found out that very few of those ever made it into civilian hands (and probably none at all did legally), because, unlike M16s, most of which were made by a private company willing to sell NFA items to civilians (Colt), most M14s were made by a government arsenal (the real Springfield Armory; no relation to Springfield Armory, Inc., which simply commandeered the name), and other companies that made them did so strictly under government contract, and as such, they weren't sold to civilians. And because they were either full-auto-capable or able to be readily restored to full-auto capability, they would have been NFA items, and the government has never made NFA items available to civilians via surplus sales or the CMP like they did/do with M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, '03 Springfields, etc.

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

reply

[–] kb01 11 years ago

I served during the transition from the M-60 to the M-240B.

I think the biggest drawbacks of the 60 was that belts of ammo were loose (no drum) and you absolutely needed an AG to keep them from binding up or picking up debris on the ground. In addition, swapping barrels was a PIA. The 240 was a vast improvement.

reply

[–] Gmork76 11 years ago

Did US and ARVN troops use captured NVA/VC weapons like the AK47 and Type
56 ? I've seen pictures of SOG troops using VC clothing, AK's and ammo belts. But I don't know if it was common practice to use captured weapons.

reply

[–] nickm2 11 years ago

Some guys liked to carry AKs due to the reliability factor but it was frowned upon in larger units because the sound of an AK firing tended to draw fire from your own people...

reply

[–] kb01 11 years ago

I'm drawing a blank on the specifics but I've read about SF soldiers who carried AKs on infiltration missions. It was a was done in order to match the silhouette of enemy forces and to cause confusion during contact.

reply

[–] Gmork76 11 years ago

I think that is very interesting. I bought an Warriors series book "US MACV-SOG Reconnaissance Team In Vietnam" which cover some of the special use of enemy weapons and even clothing on their long range missions in above the DMZ. Highly recommended and you can find it on Amazon

reply

[–] nickm2 11 years ago

Yeah...the SOG teams usually had Montagnards or Chinese Nung Mercenaries--THEY usually dressed in NVA uniforms & kit AND Weapons; traveling with a small unit behind the lines in an enemy border sanctuary was a dicey business & sometimes having your point man dressed as an NVA could divert suspicion or give your team a split second's advantage in the start of a firefight or ambush. Oh and according to SOG Vet & Author John Plaster, lots of teams liked to 'beef up' their firepower using an RPD drum-fed SAW (light machinegun); it's firepower, reliability & ammo capacity often came in quite handy-even after the barrel & buttstock gets cut back a bit.

reply

[–] Gmork76 11 years ago

Ok. Thanks for the information regarding the use of captured equipment. Soviet supplied NVA handguns had some value as trophies I've read somewhere like them
belts, am i right?
Interesting, you seem to know a lot :-)
Are you a Vietnam war veteran?

reply

[–] nickm2 11 years ago

Pistols have always been considered valuable 'trophies' in all the recent wars-it represents the holder of the gun is an officer/commisar/VIP;
Not a Vet but an armchair historian.

reply

[–] kazm2000 10 years ago

They also use RPD's in the movie.

reply

[–] nickm2 10 years ago

They also use RPD's in the movie.

Really? What scene were they in? The only Vietnam movie that I ever clearly saw with an RPD LMG was in the Australian SAS flick 'Odd Angry Shot'.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] crazydave682000 10 years ago

Some guys liked to carry AKs due to the reliability factor but it was frowned upon in larger units because the sound of an AK firing tended to draw fire from your own people...

Another reason the AK was frowned upon by higher command was Project Eldest Son (also known as “Italian Green” or “Pole Bean”) which was a program of covert operations conducted by the United States Studies and Observation Group (SOG) during the Vietnam War. The project focused on placement of exploding cartridges into supplies used by communist combat forces in southeast Asia. United States technicians assembled 11,565 7.62x39mm cartridges for AK-47 rifles to detonate in the weapon when firing was attempted.
So that weapon you picked up from the enemy might blow up in your face.
The AK used by Special Operation in Vietnam had vetted ammo supply.

Just thought I'd share.

Dave

reply