The Vietnam War

[Gen. Sandworm]

Split some posts from bomb debate about the Vietnam War. Thought it would be nice to have an off topic section on this.

........ These were the days prior to Agent Orange and Napalm............

Just so you know napalm was developed and used during WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm

I agree with you but just an FYI :wink:

[Bluffcove]

Ok thanks for that,
was juts suggesting the airpower used in Vietnam was not comparable to the air power in the pacific theatre. Troops on the ground would be needed in both cases.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Ok thanks for that,
was juts suggesting the airpower used in Vietnam was not comparable to the air power in the pacific theatre. Troops on the ground would be needed in both cases.

Interesting fact. The Americans dropped more bombs in Vietnam than we did in all of WW2. :shock:

Plus it was a good thing that the Japanese didnt know that we only had 2 bombs to drop on them. Would have taken a couple of more months to make more.

[Preatorian]

Interesting fact. The Americans dropped more bombs in Vietnam than we did in all of WW2. :shock:

Plus it was a good thing that the Japanese didnt know that we only had 2 bombs to drop on them. Would have taken a couple of more months to make more.

Few another facts.
Japan lost during WWII about 2.5 mln people (is it about 3% from whole populaton).
USA lost during WWII about 410 000 people (is it about 0.3% from whole population)

During Vietanam war around 2.5 (From 1.5 to 3 mil.) millions Vietnameses was killed (military and civilians both), 56 226 americans was KIA and MIA... (by wikipedia.com)

Vietnam War looks more successful... :wink: Same damage, but less casualties from USA side.

[South African Military]

Interesting fact. The Americans dropped more bombs in Vietnam than we did in all of WW2. :shock:

Plus it was a good thing that the Japanese didnt know that we only had 2 bombs to drop on them. Would have taken a couple of more months to make more.

Few another facts.
Japan lost during WWII about 2.5 mln people (is it about 3% from whole populaton).
USA lost during WWII about 410 000 people (is it about 0.3% from whole population)

During Vietanam war around 2.5 (From 1.5 to 3 mil.) millions Vietnameses was killed (military and civilians both), 56 226 americans was KIA and MIA... (by wikipedia.com)

Vietnam War looks more successful... :wink: Same damage, but less casualties from USA side.

Am I wrong? but I thought the U.S didnt exactly "Win the War" they managed to keep half of Vietnamn from being Communists but the other half could not be taken. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Preatorian]

Am I wrong? but I thought the U.S didnt exactly "Win the War" they managed to keep half of Vietnamn from being Communists but the other half could not be taken. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Nope. You right.
At my look USA don't loose this war exactly, but i can't say that USA win this war too.
I'm a bit mad about Vietnam-War history - and i sure to unable lose whole that damned war without any losed battle-grunds. It was not militery loosed war for USA, it was political loose. No one can win a war fightng at side who don't really need win.
In right terms - South Vietnam loosed that war completly. By a lot of reasons. And USA do help for helpless part of country and tried fight against commy without mention one thing - for Vetnam wasn't matter - communism or capitalism... they really fight against alliens, without distinction - americans, french... they just need clear he's country from alliens. Commys helped them manage with this, and price was - communism. They stil pay for it.
It biggest difference between Korean war and Vietnam war - south koreans fight against commys and China, and South Vietnam fight against... not sure, i guess they just tried hold preferable own goverment.
By the way - send when an opportunity occurs my great respect to your frends, who fight in Vietnam.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Getting a bit off topic

But it is my understanding that the US(and allies) where just helping South Vietnam keep from being overrun by the commy's. So this war was very different from the Korean War in which we were allowed to go in to North Korean without a problem. As far as I know there werent any major combat operations in North Veitnam. Now we did bomb it and send special forces into just about every part in that region. But there was not stalled push on Hanoi. There could be no "great landing at Inchon." So very confusing. I think this was what the major problem was is that we spent years over there and lost 58,000 lives just because Washington had this domino theory on Communism. They felt if it spread there it would keep spreading. This was not the case.

Let me know if you all want to discuss this further and ill split these posts off.

[Preatorian]

...
Let me know if you all want to discuss this further and ill split these posts off.
With my great pleasure i will discuss that !

[Gen. Sandworm]

...
Let me know if you all want to discuss this further and ill split these posts off.
With my great pleasure i will discuss that !

Wish Granted :)

[FW-190 Pilot]

o lord no, another place for flame battlefield :?

[Preatorian]

o lord no, another place for flame battlefield :?
Who will flame there ?
I'm absolytely on American's side in this case.

[FW-190 Pilot]

what i know about vietiam war is, americans really like to use helicopters to transport soldiers, when the soldiers have done their objective, they go back to the helicopters to carry them back to base, slowly the vietiam has learn from that and follow the amerians back to the helicopters site for close combat, air supeiority for the americans would be useless because the splash damage from air attack would just hurt americans soldiers as well

[Gen. Sandworm]

o lord no, another place for flame battlefield :?

There will be no flame war or you will have to deal with......

http://home.uchicago.edu/~davidr/arnold.jpg

ARNULD aka the Govenor of Californya. :D

[Preatorian]

In sovier era i was sure by our propaganda - Vietnam was just a country, where american army went...
After time i was surprised - all Vietnam hystory just hystory of war with occupants, japans in WWII, frenchs befro war and after war too...
Somebody hawe heard about battle near Dien Bien Phu in 1954 ?
That story got own pre-story...
Japan occupated Vietnam during WWII by reason "Asia for asians" - in this time Vietnam was french colony. But japans not better that frenches, nipps just destroed whole economical basement of Vetnam and in 1944-1945 ithere were great starvation, worth for Vietnam about 2 millions lives.
During war vietnamese nationalistic coalition under local commys manadgement (Viet Min) fight with japans.
USA Office of Strategic Services, OSS have a contacts with Viet Min (VM) and cooperated with VM. USA side helps to VM by weapons and intelligence information and VM helps to USA with intelligence information from own side and helps to US AF pilots surivie in jungle if pilots was battered over Vietnam.
After war amercans become gteatest frends to all vietnameses - 'cos USA helped manadge with both occupants - France and Japan.
In 2 september 1945 Ho Chi Minh proclaim new country - Democratic Republic of Vetnam...
Yeah, Ho was commy and Ho was nationalist (he really belive that was inseparability things), but Ho was pragmatic as well and was ready to cooperate with any country wich will help'em fight for independance of Vietnam. In 1945 in he's eyes that country could be only USA...

But shit happend.
Big War ended, but Cold War started and USA needed make in Europe anty-communistic coalition. USA needed support of France in Europe.
So, Truman decided allow France occupate Vietnam again...
With support of US MC in Vietnam from France was delivered about 13 000 french troops... a lot of US marines was against it and sended fwole lot of letters to Truman, but USA officially accepted Vietnam as french colony... it was direct treachery for Ho Chi Minh and whole vietnamese people.
France start war against VM and asked to help with it USA... USA does not help, but later, in 1950 weapons from USA started provided to France. Why USA help France ? Just because France show he's colonial war as great fight aganst communism.
In China in 1949 Mao Zedong wins civilian war (with support from USSR side) against Chiang Kai-shek (supported from USA)... it was a start of great panic...
USA support rise to 80% from all war-spends of France in Vietnam. USA become a enemy of Vietnam in eyes of vietnameses...
In 1954 near Dien Bien Phu VM beat out all shit from french army and soon Frace run out from Vietnam, in 7 may 1954...
In 8 may 1954 9 countryes representatives meet in Jeneva and get an agreement that Vietnam should be splitted by 17 parallel...

[Ale]

I think Praetorian has a point in that the USA did achieve a significant level of tactical success in the Vietnam war, but this does not mean that they won. War is essentially a political act, as Clausewitz put it; "war is a continuation of policy by other means". The policy objective of the US was to prevent South Vietnam from becoming a communist country, and this it failed to do. Even during the US presence in Vietnam, massive swathes of the south vietnamese countryside were under effective communist control; yes, the communists melted away when the troops arrived in an area, but the rest of the time, they were there, running schools, indoctrinating peasants and even collecting taxes! IMHO the failure of the US was to appreciate that it was a very political war; both sides wanted control of the vietnamese countryside and its inhabitants, but in order to gain that kind of control you really need to gain the trust and loyalty of the civilian population; and this is where the US failed. They also failed to stop the Communists from gaining said trust and loyalty from much of the population.

A big part of the problem seems to have been that the Diem (and subsquent) regimes that the US were supporting did not have the support and resources they claimed to.

I am by no means trying to insult the GI's who fought there, but I feel they were let down by there high command and political masters, who did not appreciate what they were getting into.

[Preatorian]

ARNULD aka the Govenor of Californya. :D
Oh... seem like americans finally upgraded Terminator's firmware... :lol:

I like that man. Good for Californya.

[Preatorian]

I think Praetorian has a point in that the USA did achieve a significant level of tactical success in the Vietnam war, but this does not mean that they won. War is essentially a political act, as Clausewitz put it; "war is a continuation of policy by other means". The policy objective of the US was to prevent South Vietnam from becoming a communist country, and this it failed to do. Even during the US presence in Vietnam, massive swathes of the south vietnamese countryside were under effective communist control; yes, the communists melted away when the troops arrived in an area, but the rest of the time, they were there, running schools, indoctrinating peasants and even collecting taxes! IMHO the failure of the US was to appreciate that it was a very political war; both sides wanted control of the vietnamese countryside and its inhabitants, but in order to gain that kind of control you really need to gain the trust and loyalty of the civilian population; and this is where the US failed. They also failed to stop the Communists from gaining said trust and loyalty from much of the population.

A big part of the problem seems to have been that the Diem (and subsquent) regimes that the US were supporting did not have the support and resources they claimed to.

I am by no means trying to insult the GI's who fought there, but I feel they were let down by there high command and political masters, who did not appreciate what they were getting into.

I agree with your point of view and whole text of your post... USA lost this war as political act.

[Gen. Sandworm]

The US did most of the fighting but along with U.S. troops, you had the other members of SEATO (treaty that called for defense of other members in Asia), including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Phillipines, and Thailand. South Korea had the second largest contingent of "allied" troops (approx. 50,000), followed by Australia (approx. 7,000). Of course, you also had the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN).

On the other side, you had North Vietnam (with military aid & advisors from Soviet Union and China).

Also sucked into the larger conflit was Cambodia and Laos. (both countries had their own civil wars going on).

Of course, prior to U.S. involvement, France was fighting the communist rebels in Vietnam (their former colony).

Comes from http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_were_the_countries_involved_in_the_Vietnam_wa r_and_when_and_why_did_they_get_involved

[Gen. Sandworm]

Just some interesting info about the "other side".....

This man was the commander that defeated the French at Dein Bein Phu and led the assualt/siege against the Americans at Khe Sahn.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/peoplescentury/episodes/images/gwgiap.jpg

Vo Nguyen Giap

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/giap.html

Site looks a bit shady but the info is good.

[Preatorian]

Good links - official web site of Lt. Gen HAL MOORE (USA-ret.) and JOE GALLOWAY.
Site dedicated to La Drang Valley battle.
http://www.lzxray.com/

[Sturmtruppen]

anybody has pics of american or vietamites soldiers/tanks ??

[Gen. Sandworm]

ARNULD aka the Govenor of Californya. :D
Oh... seem like americans finally upgraded Terminator's firmware... :lol:

I like that man. Good for Californya.

Do not knock the Govenator :D


But on the Subject. I mentioned before that we droped more bombs in Vietnam than we did in all of WW2. Here is one of the reasons why:

B-52 Strato-Fortress

http://www.europa1939.com/aviones/bombarderos/b52-4.jpg

http://www.stratofortress.de/image/b-52d_01.jpg

[Preatorian]

Do not knock the Govenator :D


But on the Subject. I mentioned before that we droped more bombs in Vietnam than we did in all of WW2. Here is one of the reasons why:

B-52 Strato-Fortress



Okay, i'm don't like mess with Arnold... :D I like myself in one pice.

I guess reasons why in Vietam was able to drop more bombs than in WWII - weakness of North Vietnam air forces. Yep, they got soviet MiG 17, modern soviet anti-aircraft rocket systems and etc. - but not in huge quantity ant not everywhere... situation with AA forces for NV was whorse than same situation in WWII.
And US AF done great job in Vietnam - sure, better drop on enemies heads more bombs than lose there more own troops.
And

[IRONMAN]

Am I wrong? but I thought the U.S didnt exactly "Win the War" they managed to keep half of Vietnamn from being Communists but the other half could not be taken. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are correct. Nobody in the US thinks of Vietnam as a war that was won. it was a war that the US fought with half-assed dedication. This was because of 2 problems I think. Firstly, a ground offensive with huge numbers of troops was difficult and would have been very costly in the largely jungle environment, and it was hard to see where the enemy was, so a lot of bombing was simply wasted resources. (hence the defolients, which did more harm than good if you ask me) Secondly, it was a war that the US tried to fight with a smaller land force and a lot of air power. And again, because of the heavily foliated landscape, this had limited effectiveness.

It was a blunder. It should have been fought with different strategies I guess.

[student-scaley]

I personally think one of the major turning points that lost the political war, or at least gave the impression that the Americans were losing the war was the Tet offensive. Even though Tet was a resounding success militarily, considering the Viet cong were virtually wiped out ant the NVA took heavy casualties, it was still portrayed as a loss mostly due to the fact that the US embassy was attacked. It was individuals such as Walter Cronkite that really turned the American people's opinion against the war thus making it impossible to win, unpopular wars at home can have stark effects on battlefield morale. Cronkite really does have a lot to answer for.

[2nd of foot]

Scally you have hit the main point. The media think, and will tell every one who will list the US was being beaten. I heard the same thing on the anniversary of the fall of Saigon 2/3 weeks ago by reporter who were there. 99% of people who know what the Tet offensive was will tell you that it was a US defeat. As you say this is totally wrong. Because it was a surprise attack and had early success they believe the VC (not many know it was an NVA attack) won.

There are little, if any engagements at large unit level (and moat small unit engagements as well) that the US did not win. The primary tactic of the US was to find, pin, and then use its vast air and artillery power to destroy the enemy. The NVA counter to this was to get in close and stay close so that the US could not use its big guns or air power. The Australians on deploying to the area were surprised by the noise the US troops made when moving around. They had recently been in Malaya and moved quietly so as to catch the CTs unawares. When asked the patrol commander said, “we want them to find us, then we blow the shit out of them”. Having had it explained the Aussy Sgt could see the logic behind it.

The bombing of Hanoi and the supply route south was effective and caused the NVA to move them out of country. The war of attrition on the north was bleeding it dry of manpower the recruiting age was going down and replacement to front line unit was very poor.

The media gave the impression that the US was loosing. Not many of the press ventured out into the field to see what was actually happening. They relied on info from the military and who they did not believe. The press say or do things to make the headlines. You may not remember this but in GW1 a US reporter gave a report live on air (CNN I think) in full IPE (NBC black) following a missile attack. Telling every one that a chemical attack had happened. It caused panic and was totally untrue. But if the TV said its true then it must be.

Maybe Cronkite should be hung along with Fonda. :twisted:

[student-scaley]

Taking your examples further, look at GW2 during the build up in Kuwait headlines such as 'Brit troops under attack by scud missiles' yeah right, they were missiles all right but ground-to-sea being used in the ground attack role. Showing images of Brit troops cowering in bunkers donning their NBC suits as if a real chem attack was taking place when it was actually a drill. The media have and will twist images to make a good story, although its not always malicious more about presteige and money. Did a module on war & media this year very interesting.

[IRONMAN]

Taking your examples further, look at GW2 during the build up in Kuwait headlines such as 'Brit troops under attack by scud missiles' yeah right, they were missiles all right but ground-to-sea being used in the ground attack role. Showing images of Brit troops cowering in bunkers donning their NBC suits as if a real chem attack was taking place when it was actually a drill. The media have and will twist images to make a good story, although its not always malicious more about presteige and money. Did a module on war & media this year very interesting.

I agree. The press seems to always have everyone's best interest put behind sensationalism. The press can be almost evil in their concotions and slanting of the truth. Most people do not begin to see the sheer level at which or volume of slanting of the truth put out by the media untill they are way past their 20's. I guess when you see enough of it, and then see the real story of what they were talking about enough times, you start to read between the lines of it, and other things about life as well.

I saw some pictures of prominent politicians on CNN.com once that were a bit odd looking, so I saved them and zoomed in on them, and low and behold, someone had used a graphic program to slightly elongate this one's chin or the size of that one's mouth, etc. Anything to make them look like a goofball. Even if it meant tinkering with their photo. It made me sick.

I hate the media. They slant everything they can, even with carefully crafted word choices, to distort the truth, if it will make them a fast buck. To me, that is the selling of one's soul.

[Bluffcove]

No its true John Kerry has a huge chin!
and Cherie Blairs mouth is a medical marvel!
.
The media in Britain are fairly balnced as a whole. Reading the mirror and the Mail in direct comparison to one another keeps you somewhere around the middle and for balanced reporting you cant beat the Torygraph (!)

[2nd of foot]

if you want ballance it must be the Sun, :lol:
they do have th ebest pictures. :D

[Bluffcove]

tits and arse in equal proportion?

[Gen. Sandworm]

If you all get a chance you shold what a movie/documenty called "The Fog of War" Its mostly an interview with former US Secratary of Defense Robert Mcnamara. (personally i think he was a bastard) He reflects on the confusion of the time and what he and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson thought about the situation in Vietnam. I think its very informative to see the retrospective views of a man that was apart of one of the greatest messes in American History.

[student-scaley]

for balanced reporting you cant beat the Torygraph

Couldn't agree more a fine outstanding paper that tells the tommies the truth about the war! :lol:

(Or alternatively the greatest work of fiction since vows of fidelity were included in the French marriage service)

[reiver]

My favourite exchange from "Yes, Prime Minister" :
Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"
Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

[IRONMAN]

My favourite exchange from "Yes, Prime Minister" :
Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"
Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I like that.

[Canaris]

I would also recomend Fog of War. Its one of those films that everyone should watch.

[SMLE]

I would also recomend Fog of War. Its one of those films that everyone should watch.

I watched this the other day. Outstanding. McNamara, whatever his faults, was a superbly intelligent man, and to see him speak in such depth is not to be missed.

[ArmyDude1973]

im reading the post but one thing i noteced is that canadians are not talked about but canada was there as volinter group of men i under stand 4 every 1 draft jumper 10 canadians went in his place is this true ive herd it from a few canadians that went there but they wernt sure on the number of canadians were in country then