VietNam War Thread

[Kylepl]

I personally think that the Vietnam war was embarassing for the United States of America just like the war in Afghanistan by the Reds was a failure also. They're both failures because the indegenious population (therefore the North Vietnamese and the Mujahideen) were able to fend off a much more advanced force and, sorry to say it, a cocky one at best. Both the Americans and Russians had not felt defeats for some time and therefore thought that victories in both wars would be quick and decisive. Both obviously didn't do enough research and ended up being stuck in a pointless and bloody war that cost the lives of thousands of Americans and Russians for what gains? The Americans went into Vietnam to fight off the commies but instead they instagated them and caused them to rally even more support than before which allowed them to take power by the end of the war/the retreat of the Americans. Vietnam was supposed to be a democratic and "free" country after the war, but all it became was more communist, the complete opposite of what the Americans aspired to gain. Therefore, the Vietnam war was a failure by the American government (Not the troops or the people) and should be remembered as such forever.

 

[pardus]

I personally think you should do some research before you decide to post again about subjects like this on this board.

Read more, post less.

 

[Gypsy]

 

[Kylepl]

Explain to me where I went wrong Pardus.

 

[QC]

In light of the above, were there valuable lessons learnt in COIN that we're missed in Vietnam and not acted upon?

 

[pardus]

Explain to me where I went wrong Pardus.

You posted that horseshit above.

Go do some research to find out on your own why, like I suggested before.

 

[Etype]

I personally think that the Vietnam war was embarassing for the United States of America just like the war in Afghanistan by the Reds was a failure also. They're both failures because the indegenious population (therefore the North Vietnamese and the Mujahideen) were able to fend off a much more advanced force and, sorry to say it, a cocky one at best.

There isn't a single example of the US being "fended off" or defeated in anyway in Vietnam. We were defeated by politicians and by a gov't and a people (RVN) who lacked the will to win.

You know, I had an epiphany while I was in Afghanistan about 6 months ago. I was looking over our ALP candidates talking them over with a friend and said, "are there no men in Afghanistan who are willing to stand up for what they believe in?" Then I immediately answered my own question- "yeah, they are called the Taliban." So in the same light, through talking to my father and other Vietnam vets, my theory seems to be somewhat true there as well. Aside from some loosely organized tribes, the people that had staunch beliefs and decided to stand up and fight for them in The RVN were called Viet Cong.

It's very hard to kill an idea, that's what makes UW successful- whether we are promoting it or fighting it.

I think it was Ho Chi Minh who said this- He was being talked to after the war and someone confronted him with the fact that his forces had never dealt a defeat to the US in any single battle, his response- "that's irrelevant." Well put, sir.

 

[SpitfireV]

Erm, HCM died before the war ended...

but it's a salient point nonetheless.

 

[QC]

Yes Etype, valid point. You can always kill an idea with a better idea.

 

[Etype]

Erm, HCM died before the war ended...

but it's a salient point nonetheless.

Good catch. I admit, I'm not sure who it was- but I do know it was said...

 

[HOLLiS]

I was in-country for HCM funeral. IMHO, problem with remembering that war is all the propaganda, not only do we have East VS West but we have good old down home partisan politics. Kerry called our soldiers, something in the order like Genghis Khan.

http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id27.htm

I posted this site and it is a good read. The parallels to Iraq and Afghanistan is not the battles, how the military does things, logistics, none of that. It is propaganda and partisan politics. Like what Kerry said, "I voted for the war before I voted against the war." I have a loathing for our politicians, their own political welfare, getting elected is more important than the lives of men and women who are put into harms way. That partisan politics is a ally to our enemies.

Sat Cong. The indigs were not rice paddy daddies. another myth.

 

[Etype]

Here we go, I was way off- but I maintained the gist.

One of the iconic exchanges of Vietnam came, some years after the war, between Col. Harry Summers, a military historian, and a counterpart in the North Vietnamese Army. As Summers recalled it, he said, "You never defeated us in the field." To which the NVA officer replied: "That may be true. It is also irrelevant."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/30/obama-s-vietnam.html

 

[Etype]

And from Kerry's site that HOLLis referenced-

If the Vietnamese communist military were such a superb, uncanny, divinely lead fighting force, that always outfoxed the Americans, how come they didn’t take more prisoners? It’s because the communists were defeated on the field of battle in every single major engagement of the War. In order for the communists to have taken significant numbers of prisoners, they would first have to win battles and overrun American positions.

 

[Kylepl]

There isn't a single example of the US being "fended off" or defeated in anyway in Vietnam. We were defeated by politicians and by a gov't and a people (RVN) who lacked the will to win.

You know, I had an epiphany while I was in Afghanistan about 6 months ago. I was looking over our ALP candidates talking them over with a friend and said, "are there no men in Afghanistan who are willing to stand up for what they believe in?" Then I immediately answered my own question- "yeah, they are called the Taliban." So in the same light, through talking to my father and other Vietnam vets, my theory seems to be somewhat true there as well. Aside from some loosely organized tribes, the people that had staunch beliefs and decided to stand up and fight for them in The RVN were called Viet Cong.

It's very hard to kill an idea, that's what makes UW successful- whether we are promoting it or fighting it.

I think it was Ho Chi Minh who said this- He was being talked to after the war and someone confronted him with the fact that his forces had never dealt a defeat to the US in any single battle, his response- "that's irrelevant." Well put, sir.

When I said fended off, what I meant was not defeated but more like brush off. Obviously the Americans were a superior force to the Viet Cong but it was the tactics that the Viet Cong used against the Americans that were effective. Obviously all major battles between them ended with the Vietnamese on the killing end but you could relate these tactics to wars before Vietnam such as wars in North America like the beginning of colonization and the war of 1812 etc. Don't quote me on those exact references, but I remember hearing somewhere that the reason why the Americans won some battles in that war was because they used tactics that were not common to the battlefield of the day because the Americans were on the less superior side at the time. Such as the tactics used by the Viet Cong were not common of the day.

I do agree with you though and it was very well said Etype!!

 

[HOLLiS]

Part of the myth was the RVN soldiers where worthless. With out resupplies and all by themselves (meaning no Western support at all) they held the North Viet-Namese for two years. The NVA was still being supplied and supported by the communist block countries.

Look into the Viet-Namese Airborne Commandos. They were dedicated.

There is a myth about the Viet-Cong, VC regulars and NVA (plenty of them) did most of the heavy fighting and they did it as modern military not a guerrillas or indigs irregulars.

Sat Cong.

BTW toi tieng biet

 

[pardus]

When I said fended off, what I meant was not defeated but more like brush off. Obviously the Americans were a superior force to the Viet Cong but it was the tactics that the Viet Cong used against the Americans that were effective. Obviously all major battles between them ended with the Vietnamese on the killing end but you could relate these tactics to wars before Vietnam such as wars in North America like the beginning of colonization and the war of 1812 etc. Don't quote me on those exact references, but I remember hearing somewhere that the reason why the Americans won some battles in that war was because they used tactics that were not common to the battlefield of the day because the Americans were on the less superior side at the time. Such as the tactics used by the Viet Cong were not common of the day.

I do agree with you though and it was very well said Etype!!

You need to think more about what you post before you post it.
You have big opinions that are backed by nothing but your ego for the most part, that is based off of your posts thus far.

Such as the tactics used by the Viet Cong were not common of the day.

Bullshit, we'd been engaged with those tactics on one side or another for the previous 20 years, in that region alone.

 

[AWP]

When I said fended off, what I meant was not defeated but more like brush off. Obviously the Americans were a superior force to the Viet Cong but it was the tactics that the Viet Cong used against the Americans that were effective. Obviously all major battles between them ended with the Vietnamese on the killing end but you could relate these tactics to wars before Vietnam such as wars in North America like the beginning of colonization and the war of 1812 etc. Don't quote me on those exact references, but I remember hearing somewhere that the reason why the Americans won some battles in that war was because they used tactics that were not common to the battlefield of the day because the Americans were on the less superior side at the time. Such as the tactics used by the Viet Cong were not common of the day.

You have a very poor grasp of history and appear to be operating from hearsay rather than any understanding of your examples.

The Revolutionary War did see the US using guerrilla war tactics but it was the set piece battles, and the US lost quite a few, with European politics that brought the French into the war. There's a myth that the Colonists ran around like Viet Cong or Taliban or ninjas and did all of their fighting in that manner and it just isn't true. If anything, the Colonists were at times their own worst enemy and early in the war George Washington's tactical brilliance coupled with British ineptitude prevented the war from ending in 1776.

War of 1812? Ditto. The US did so well that the UK sacked and burned our capital.

Insurgent tactics are new? The Viet Cong were doing something different or uncommon? In the 1940's-60's alone you have numerous insurgencies or unconventional warfare examples, even Wikipedia will help with that. As for history, Alexander faced an insurgency in Bactria and I'm sure if I did 5 minutes of research I could find more examples of insurgencies/ UW in Antiquity.

And for the love of the deity of your choice, man, do some research and stop swallowing whatever it is you've been fed all your life. I was there once at your age so I know what it is like.

Go read.

 

[Etype]

but it was the tactics that the Viet Cong used against the Americans that were effective.

I'd say the only tactics they really used effectively were promoting their ideas and staying in the fight through adversity, to the end.
The fact that the VC didn't go completely underground and fight the same way the Taliban does is incredible. It's either a testament to their lack of intelligence or their fanaticism. All they had to was keep the idea alive and enough of a semblance of resistance to promote the revolution in others. Using Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as historical lessons, I don't see a need for any revolutionary group anywhere around the world to ever actually engage in combat until the very end. You only need a couple well placed explosives or sniper rounds each month to keep the big green war machine running in circles and chasing their tail. If you have the support of the populace and can keep a leg up on recon teams, the only fear you have is SOF elements and ISR.

 

[HOLLiS]

Etype, If you notice after the fall of the South, the VC flag was completely gone. The VC were pretty much gone by the end of 1969. The Nam Biet and Bac Biet where not the best of friends. United in the war, The VC wanted to control South Viet-Nam and the Bac Biet want to unify and control all of Viet-Nam. The consensus of the VC and Nam Biets (South Viet-Namese) was that Tet '68 was planned in a way by the North (Bac Biet) to end the VC problem.

IMHO, the abilities of the VC were greatly exaggerated. VC Regulars were a standard fighting force, like the NVA.

 

[pardus]

IMHO, the abilities of the VC were greatly exaggerated. VC Regulars were a standard fighting force, like the NVA.

They never posed a serious threat to the ANZAC sector. The NVA gave them a good scrap on occasion but didn't pursue it meaningfully after they were given a few black eyes.