James Maliszewski of GROGNARDIA fame has been doing a series on the Holmes Basic "blue book" edition of D&D, reading it from cover to cover. I've been following it, but hadn't read through the comments on his posts until today. His post on blue book combat in particular got a lot of comments, especially -- predictably -- about the Holmes/LBB approach of having all weapons do 1d6 damage.
I've covered my thoughts on d6-only weapons extensively already, but I thought I might specifically address two issues raised from the viewpoint of how the rules as a whole fit together. One commenter stated that "obviously" bigger weapons do more damage. Another raised the old issue of, if a fighter is limited to doing 1d6 damage no matter what the weapon, why isn't the MU's Fireball likewise limited? What both are ignoring is the rest of the rules.
A Fireball spell does damage based on an MU's level -- but so does a fighter's attack, when directed against 1 HD monsters and normal men. A fighter can simultaneously attack a number of 1 HD opponents equal to the fighter's level; he is, basically, his own Fireball spell, except he can do this multiple times per day or even per combat, unlike the MU who can only cast multiple Fireballs when memorizing more than one 3rd level spell, or when using a wand of fireballs.
Weapon damage in the d6-only system works because hit points equal luck, a "to hit" roll is the chance of dealing a blow that would kill a normal man, and armor reduces the likelihood of dying, rather than reducing the force of a blow. Thus, "damage" in the original model doesn't mean what those who prefer variable weapon damage thinks it means. If you switch to variable weapon damage, you should also switch to armor reducing damage, to strength-based weapons, and to fixed hit points based on size and Constitution instead of level and class.
Basically, you should be using the Melee (TFT) combat system as a plug-in for your D&D, if you want realistic damage.