You're about to be attack a huge group of crazed gunmen

If both groups are skilled equal I would choose vietfags

Nam every time.

>>34147178

Each group is trained as they would have been during their era.

>>34147197
By far nam. Most the ww1 vets knew how to shoot because life not training. So their rifle practice wasn't as intense or focused on.

Pretending their training is all they had. Lax training who can't make use of range advantage vs better training more fire power and better team work ie fire and bound.

Nam for sure.

>>34146548
Honestly in a long range engagements the bolt actions and the number of infantry would destroy the nam vets.


But yeah, i would pick the nam vets if each one gets trained as for the era. As time went on training became better worldwide for all armies. If the 6 'nam soldiers are LRRPs then range is not an issue. We can sneak past the jungle and strike them from inside.

Definetly WW1 soldiers, they are too many for the nam vets. Specially if I am the one who makes all the tactics of my group.

File: BbqjIsYCcAAV6Ak.jpg (40KB, 540x359px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 540x359px

>>34146548
Pic related

File: sogloadout.jpg (77KB, 524x650px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 524x650px

>>34146548
>2. 6 Vietnam-era soldiers armed with M16A1 rifles.
Do we get to pick the outfit and do they have their supplementary kit? Because if that is the case I'm going with 6 MACVSOG guys. Pic related.

If not I'm still going with the Nam soldiers.