BF2S Forums Vietnam war

It's gone, move on. You arn't going to bring back though soldiers lives! If you care  so much you need to protest for the next war you don't agree with..

Why'd we (yes, we. Even though I have a VN background) lose?

We had completely misread the conflict.

1. This is not a war as such. It was more of a CIVIL war which had little to do with 'communism'. The majority of the NLF were south vietnamese peasants who were fed up with their corrupt government and wanted a reunified Vietnam.

2. We didn't know which tactics to use or how to use them. We didn't know how to counter the NLF on their own turf. We didn't make any attempts to stop the flow of peasants to their side.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

-EcS-Blade wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I remember they made a movie about it. Well, maybe two...

Forrest Gump and Three Kings, right?

three kings was about saddam and 3 guys tryin 2 steel gold or somin. but full metal jacket , platoon , Hamburger hill , we were soldiers , Bat 21 , apocalypse now and good morning vietnam were all films about vietnam

Oh, dear. I hope you recognized the sarcasm in my post...but beings that you've 'corrected' me, I suppose you haven't.

My DVD collection spans 700+ titles, and all those are included.

ok......

$kelet0r wrote:

Poland, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan I consider to be within the USSR's borders

You are applying a double standard.  This is an untenable position.

$kelet0r wrote:

Then you look further afield at America destroying -
Iranian democracy
Installing Saddam Hussein in Iraq
Syria
Egypt
Lebanon

Not a single one of those countries was a functional democracy before US involvement (although you will have to refresh my memory as to when the US got involved in Syria.  I don't think it ever did), and the US had absolutely nothing to do installing Saddam Hussein.

$kelet0r wrote:

Not to mention SE asia
Vietnam
Laos
Camobodia
The Phillipines
South Korea

What about them?  Be specific.

$kelet0r wrote:

And the USSR's aggresive foreign policy?

So, what, it's ok for the USSR to act through agents, but when the US does it they are evil imperialists?  Again, that positon is untenable.  Hungary?  Czechoslovakia?  Cuba?  Nicaragua?  North Korea?  Ethiopia?  Afghanistan?  North Vietnam?  Angola?  You are applying another double standard.  If you want to criticise US actions in some countries, that is understandable, but to hold the Soviets blameless is simply ridiculous.

$kelet0r wrote:

As a rule i despise apologists for this war criminal and monster - no insult intended
He is perhaps one of the most evil men in post WW2 politics - saying he was a politic realist and a genius is like saying that Mao Tse Tung was a gifted philosopher and visionary nation founder

Despise away.  This position can hold no merit without specific accusations.  Kissinger is one of the worlds foremost authorities on international relations, and, your opinion notwithstanding, is widely recognised as such.  I'm sorry you don't like the man's politics, but that doesn't make him evil, or a war criminal.

$kelet0r wrote:

And the domino theory was rubbish - correlation does not mean causation

Sorry, but the history of French Indochina shows that the domino theory was far from rubbish.  North Vietnam was instrumental in the creation, organisation and supply of the Pathet Lao - which was the ultimately successful Communist revolution in Laos.  And although they did not create the Khmer Rouge (which was the temporarily successful Communist revolution in Cambodia), that group was made possible by the de facto Vietnamese invasion of Eastern Cambodia.  After the group was formed, they were encouraged and supplied by the North Vietnamese.  This is PRECISELY the type of activity the Domino theory predicted, and that is PRECISELY what happened.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

War Criminal and ruthless politician, most definitely.

Ruthless, one can hardly argue with.  War Criminal?  Specifics please.

Spearhead wrote:

For those of you saying that it was a 'political' defeat, why couldn't we win when we had over 500,000 troops, COMPLETE air superiority, and according to us the best military in the world?

The problem in asymmetrical warfare, in Iraq, just as in Vietnam, is that the stronger nation is constrained, politically, from destroying the enemies supply base, and personnel pool.  If the politicians had said, "Do what needs to be done to win this conflict..." the military, in both cases, could make it happen.  It would be (or would have been) very ugly, but it is (was) entirely possible.  Especially in Vietnam, where the supply base was definate and known.  An invasion of the North would have brought the war to an end.  For political reasons, this was off limits to ground troops.

$kelet0r wrote:

This shows you know nothing about the Vietnam War which I did an extensive mini-thesis on a few years ago

Myth - The Americans were fighting Insurgents who they couldnt see
Fact - The Viet Cong were defeated utterly by 1965/66

Close.  1968.  Tet '68 was a gamble by the North.  They bet the VC, and lost...unless one believes they deliberately sacrificed the VC to utterly destroy public opinion in the US....in which case they might have won.  One should not forget, Vietnam was the Democrats' war.  Nixon came to office promising to end the war, but with honor.  He began a steady drawdown of troops after he came to office, which ended most US forces being gone by 1973.

$kelet0r wrote:

Myth - The war was one of insuregnts and terrorism which a modern army cannot fight
Fact - The war was fought very conventionally with American units regularly engaging North Vietnamese Army battalions deep inside South Vietnam's borders

Us engaged both VC and NVA.  VC without question conducted terrorist actions in the provinces, and in the cities.  Most large scale battles were against NVA, but the VC ran a shadow government which collected taxes and recruited forces, and occasionally did engage US and ARVN.  They were used basically as 'shock troops' by the NVA and suffered horrifying losses.

$kelet0r wrote:

Myth - The Americans were fighting a losing war
Fact - The Americans were fighting a limited defensive war. They were terribly outnumbered in the field, the US Army of 12m never had more than a million personnel in Vietnam while North Vietnam with a population of 30m was waging total war

Peak US troop strength in Vietnam was somewhere over 500,000, and Total US military strength was in the neighborhood of 2 Million.

$kelet0r wrote:

Myth - The American technology should have won the war
Fact - American weaponry was inferior to that of North Vietnam. Sure the latter had no Air Force to speak of but Rolling Thunder and its subsequent campaigns were civilian orietated. The Ak weapon family was vastly superior to the Brand new M16 which jammed regularly and was far less effective. US forces had no answer to NVA platoons with RPGs. Soviet Artillery was out of US bomber range. Soviet Mortars were more effective in the field and far more portable. Soviet made SAMs proved highly successful at defending NV while of course Vietnams natural terrain neutered American air power

I could go on for hours about the purpose of small arms (i.e. M-16 vs. M-60), and standard procedures (which aren't radically different today), but this post is long enough.  Simply: The failures of the early M-16  were hardly enough to cancel the technical advantage of the US.  As far as artillery goes, if Hanoi was within range of bombers, how could the artillery be out of range?  Any decisions regarding what was 'in bounds' was political.  'Wild Weasel' ops were reasonably effective against the Soviet SAM's, and the SAMs weren't why Rolling Thunder was stopped.  You do, however, have a valid point about the terrain, and that the technical advantage alone wasn't enough to win it.

$kelet0r wrote:

Myth - The US military lost the war
Fact - US politicians lost the war. The US army was forced to fight restricted warfare while NV could attack at will. When the US invaded Laos to wipe out the NV units and effectively end the war, they were ordered to stop. US soldiers were forbidden from entering NV. Yet American soldiers won the majority of engagements and responded equally to all NV offensives.

The war was lost in DC by politicians in Congress and the Pentagon who refused to prosecute the war in full which meant that the killing blow could never be used. Blaming the media is ridiculous - they didnt end the war at all, hell it lasted from 1963 to 1975, great job hippies and media. The media merely reported what was happening and what was happening was that US soldiers outnumbered and outgunned and forced to fight constantly on the defensive were being attacked with great regularity because they were prevented from engaging the enemy with the intention of winning.

Mostly correct: I would only say the US was 'outgunned' because the enemy troops had more guns.  Not because they were more effective at using them.  Combat statistics show that GEN Abrams strategy of going after the enemiy's supply, rather than simply increasing 'body count' (as was the strategy under Westmoreland) was showing positive results.  Melvin Laird, Nixon's secretary of Defense recently stated in 'Foreign Affairs' that had Congress not cut off funding to South Vietnam (and thus, effectively, the ARVN), they could have withstood the attacks from the north indefinately.  That is debatable, but cannot be dismissed, given the timing of events.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-04-13 11:37:51)

I'm no expert in Soviet tactics, but I believe this is one of the big problems they had in Afghanistan.  The enemy adapted tactics their doctrine couldn't handle, and they suffered because nobody was willing, or had the authority, to act in a way other than that prescribed by doctrine.   I also know that acting contrary to what is on paper was a much bigger deal in the Red Army than it is in the US Army.  Political officers were notorious pedants, and one had to be careful NEVER to do anything which they might find objectionable.  Doing so might see one off to the Gulag...or not, but who would want to test the system?

As you noted, one of the big advantages of the US army is flexibility.  You can know our playbook inside out, but that isn't going to help much, because chances are the senior NCO on the ground is going to throw it out the window if he feels like it; so if you count on your knowledge of the published tactics to defeat the US Army, you're screwed.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-04-13 11:54:19)

$kelet0r wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

For those of you saying that it was a 'political' defeat, why couldn't we win when we had over 500,000 troops, COMPLETE air superiority, and according to us the best military in the world?

assymetrical wafare: a conflict in which a much weaker opponent uses unorthodox or surprise tactics to attack the weak points of the much stronger opponent, esp. involving terrorism, guerilla warfare, etc.

We were fighting a losing war, and we're fighting a losing war today, in Iraq.  I don't mean any offense, but how can you kill an enemy that you cannot see?

And don't give me a BS excuse that we lost the war just because liberal hippies in college were protesting the war.  Do you think Nixon gave a shit?  No.

Full Metal Jacket is one of my favorite movies

This shows you know nothing about the Vietnam War which I did an extensive mini-thesis on a few years ago

Myth - The Americans were fighting Insurgents who they couldnt see
Fact - The Viet Cong were defeated utterly by 1965/66

Myth - The war was one of insuregnts and terrorism which a modern army cannot fight
Fact - The war was fought very conventionally with American units regularly engaging North Vietnamese Army battalions deep inside South Vietnam's borders

Myth - The Americans were fighting a losing war
Fact - The Americans were fighting a limited defensive war. They were terribly outnumbered in the field, the US Army of 12m never had more than a million personnel in Vietnam while North Vietnam with a population of 30m was waging total war

Myth - The American technology should have won the war
Fact - American weaponry was inferior to that of North Vietnam. Sure the latter had no Air Force to speak of but Rolling Thunder and its subsequent campaigns were civilian orietated. The Ak weapon family was vastly superior to the Brand new M16 which jammed regularly and was far less effective. US forces had no answer to NVA platoons with RPGs. Soviet Artillery was out of US bomber range. Soviet Mortars were more effective in the field and far more portable. Soviet made SAMs proved highly successful at defending NV while of course Vietnams natural terrain neutered American air power

Myth - The US military lost the war
Fact - US politicians lost the war. The US army was forced to fight restricted warfare while NV could attack at will. When the US invaded Laos to wipe out the NV units and effectively end the war, they were ordered to stop. US soldiers were forbidden from entering NV. Yet American soldiers won the majority of engagements and responded equally to all NV offensives.

The war was lost in DC by politicians in Congress and the Pentagon who refused to prosecute the war in full which meant that the killing blow could never be used. Blaming the media is ridiculous - they didnt end the war at all, hell it lasted from 1963 to 1975, great job hippies and media. The media merely reported what was happening and what was happening was that US soldiers outnumbered and outgunned and forced to fight constantly on the defensive were being attacked with great regularity because they were prevented from engaging the enemy with the intention of winning.

Look, all I did was give a short paragraph answer to the original posters topic.  I stand corrected, however.

Read Christopher Hitchens' book, "The Trial of Henry Kissinger."  I hate to promote a Chris Hitchens book, but in this case it is a good read, and he brings up some great arguments....arguments that I do not have the time or energy to reproduce here.  Kissinger's role in Op. Condor was much bigger than having knowledge of its existence.  To say otherwise is narrow-minded.  Look up any open legal proceedings against Henry Kissinger, and you will see there are a great many people across the world who share my thoughts.  Distasteful to me is wearing a pink suit to a wedding.  Distasteful is quite an understatement for having explicit knowledge that human-rights abuses are being committed, and turning a blind eye to them in the pursuance of politics.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-04-13 12:23:14)

I won't respond to the earlier points because they are a conflict of opinions
To me Kissinger should be in jail for life and he would be if he werent American
To me the Domino Theory doesnt hold - like I said it is correlation and not causation

whittsend wrote:

$kelet0r wrote:

This shows you know nothing about the Vietnam War which I did an extensive mini-thesis on a few years ago

Myth - The Americans were fighting Insurgents who they couldnt see
Fact - The Viet Cong were defeated utterly by 1965/66

Close.  1968.  Tet '68 was a gamble by the North.  They bet the VC, and lost...unless one believes they deliberately sacrificed the VC to utterly destroy public opinion in the US....in which case they might have won.  One should not forget, Vietnam was the Democrats' war.  Nixon came to office promising to end the war, but with honor.  He began a steady drawdown of troops after he came to office, which ended most US forces being gone by 1973.

This is a lie and I'm suprised you don't know that. Nixon won the election on a promise of ending the war and then increased troop levels to their highest level ever. He then went for re-election under the same promise and promptly after increased troop numbers again before agreeing a peace deal in 1973 in Paris.

whittsend wrote:

$kelet0r wrote:

Myth - The war was one of insuregnts and terrorism which a modern army cannot fight
Fact - The war was fought very conventionally with American units regularly engaging North Vietnamese Army battalions deep inside South Vietnam's borders

Us engaged both VC and NVA.  VC without question conducted terrorist actions in the provinces, and in the cities.  Most large scale battles were against NVA, but the VC ran a shadow government which collected taxes and recruited forces, and occasionally did engage US and ARVN.  They were used basically as 'shock troops' by the NVA and suffered horrifying losses.

$kelet0r wrote:

Myth - The Americans were fighting a losing war
Fact - The Americans were fighting a limited defensive war. They were terribly outnumbered in the field, the US Army of 12m never had more than a million personnel in Vietnam while North Vietnam with a population of 30m was waging total war

Peak US troop strength in Vietnam was somewhere over 500,000, and Total US military strength was in the neighborhood of 2 Million.

This is incorrect. Peak Cold War troop deployments totalled 12m US troops worldwide. The maximum recorded number of US personnel in Vietnam stands at 1m.

whittsend wrote:

$kelet0r wrote:

Myth - The American technology should have won the war
Fact - American weaponry was inferior to that of North Vietnam. Sure the latter had no Air Force to speak of but Rolling Thunder and its subsequent campaigns were civilian orietated. The Ak weapon family was vastly superior to the Brand new M16 which jammed regularly and was far less effective. US forces had no answer to NVA platoons with RPGs. Soviet Artillery was out of US bomber range. Soviet Mortars were more effective in the field and far more portable. Soviet made SAMs proved highly successful at defending NV while of course Vietnams natural terrain neutered American air power

I could go on for hours about the purpose of small arms (i.e. M-16 vs. M-60), and standard procedures (which aren't radically different today), but this post is long enough.  Simply: The failures of the early M-16  were hardly enough to cancel the technical advantage of the US.  As far as artillery goes, if Hanoi was within range of bombers, how could the artillery be out of range?  Any decisions regarding what was 'in bounds' was political.  'Wild Weasel' ops were reasonably effective against the Soviet SAM's, and the SAMs weren't why Rolling Thunder was stopped.  You do, however, have a valid point about the terrain, and that the technical advantage alone wasn't enough to win it.

NV Artillery was out of range of US bombers, Hanoi has nothing to do with it. That doesnt counter the point either that Soviet infantry weapons were superior in firepower and reliability to any US weaponry including the M60. Rolling Thunder wasnt stopped, it constantly evolved into new campaigns under similar names right until 1972. What Soviet SAMs did do is help down 8000 US helicopters and force the US to target civilians rather than the heavily defended factories etc. I've no idea what 'wild weasel ops' are - if they are spec ops then you are seriously mistaken.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Read Christopher Hitchens' book, "The Trial of Henry Kissinger."  I hate to promote a Chris Hitchens book, but in this case it is a good read, and he brings up some great arguments....arguments that I do not have the time or energy to reproduce here.  Kissinger's role in Op. Condor was much bigger than having knowledge of its existence.  To say otherwise is narrow-minded.  Look up any open legal proceedings against Henry Kissinger, and you will see there are a great many people across the world who share my thoughts.  Distasteful to me is wearing a pink suit to a wedding.  Distasteful is quite an understatement for having explicit knowledge that human-rights abuses are being committed, and turning a blind eye to them in the pursuance of politics.

I'm going to have to defer to your knowledge on the subject of Operation Condor, as it is not an area where I have more than basic knowledge.  Most often I hear Kissinger accused of war crimes because of US activities in Cambodia and Laos.  That is a subject upon which I would classify my knowledge as substantial, and would be on better footing for a debate.

Nevertheless, are you suggesting that Kissengers role in the operation consisted of actual aid?  Personnel?  Funds?  What could he have done that would justify classification as a war criminal?

Kissinger's role in Operation Condor is circumstantial, basically because he refuses to answer questions about it in legal proceedings and most documents related to it are still classified.  That being said, there have been more than a few claims that Kissinger himself gave specific orders to have certain generals and high-ranking officials in unfriendly regimes removed from office (physically and otherwise).  Like I said, he refuses to answer questions in legal proceedings that would seemingly absolve him from wrongdoing.  This does not absolutely make him a war criminal by definition, but demands a look into the guy's policies while he was in office.

$kelet0r wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

For those of you saying that it was a 'political' defeat, why couldn't we win when we had over 500,000 troops, COMPLETE air superiority, and according to us the best military in the world?

assymetrical wafare: a conflict in which a much weaker opponent uses unorthodox or surprise tactics to attack the weak points of the much stronger opponent, esp. involving terrorism, guerilla warfare, etc.

We were fighting a losing war, and we're fighting a losing war today, in Iraq.  I don't mean any offense, but how can you kill an enemy that you cannot see?

And don't give me a BS excuse that we lost the war just because liberal hippies in college were protesting the war.  Do you think Nixon gave a shit?  No.

Full Metal Jacket is one of my favorite movies

This shows you know nothing about the Vietnam War which I did an extensive mini-thesis on a few years ago

Myth - The Americans were fighting Insurgents who they couldnt see
Fact - The Viet Cong were defeated utterly by 1965/66

Myth - The war was one of insuregnts and terrorism which a modern army cannot fight
Fact - The war was fought very conventionally with American units regularly engaging North Vietnamese Army battalions deep inside South Vietnam's borders

Myth - The Americans were fighting a losing war
Fact - The Americans were fighting a limited defensive war. They were terribly outnumbered in the field, the US Army of 12m never had more than a million personnel in Vietnam while North Vietnam with a population of 30m was waging total war

Myth - The American technology should have won the war
Fact - American weaponry was inferior to that of North Vietnam. Sure the latter had no Air Force to speak of but Rolling Thunder and its subsequent campaigns were civilian orietated. The Ak weapon family was vastly superior to the Brand new M16 which jammed regularly and was far less effective. US forces had no answer to NVA platoons with RPGs. Soviet Artillery was out of US bomber range. Soviet Mortars were more effective in the field and far more portable. Soviet made SAMs proved highly successful at defending NV while of course Vietnams natural terrain neutered American air power

Myth - The US military lost the war
Fact - US politicians lost the war. The US army was forced to fight restricted warfare while NV could attack at will. When the US invaded Laos to wipe out the NV units and effectively end the war, they were ordered to stop. US soldiers were forbidden from entering NV. Yet American soldiers won the majority of engagements and responded equally to all NV offensives.

The war was lost in DC by politicians in Congress and the Pentagon who refused to prosecute the war in full which meant that the killing blow could never be used. Blaming the media is ridiculous - they didnt end the war at all, hell it lasted from 1963 to 1975, great job hippies and media. The media merely reported what was happening and what was happening was that US soldiers outnumbered and outgunned and forced to fight constantly on the defensive were being attacked with great regularity because they were prevented from engaging the enemy with the intention of winning.

You are correct on all fronts.

The NVF in North Vietnam was dead. In South Vietnam, well, that's a different story.
This was not an insurgent war as the NVF behaved and operated as if it were a professional army.
The Americans would not have lost. Or won. This was a war of hide-and-seek
The US' techonolgy was not equipped to handle with the rough conditions. Weapons constantly malfunctioned and failed in the humidity. The M16 became notorious for jamming. The NVF, on the other hand, used USSR-built weapons which were designed to be used easily in any situation.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

what is the NVF? is it another name for the NVA?

Sorry. getting mixed up (combining NLF and NVA)

-EcS-Blade wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I remember they made a movie about it. Well, maybe two...

Forrest Gump and Three Kings, right?

three kings was about saddam and 3 guys tryin 2 steel gold or somin. but full metal jacket , platoon , Hamburger hill , we were soldiers , Bat 21 , apocalypse now and good morning vietnam were all films about vietnam

Don't you dare forget Green Berets! Who can forget the only movie about the Vietnam War filmed during the Vietnam War? It even has John Wayne in it.