Wars and Conflicts听 permalink
Vietnam
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by Adebayors Gangly Legs (U2863008) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
In my opinion the following were all equally important reasons for the u.s defeat in vietnam
1) strenght at tactics of vietcong
2) lack of public support in u.S
3) involvemnet of china
do you agree with this statement? -
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
I am going to put the cat among the dicky birds, and suggest that the U. S. Military did not loose the war. My reading suggests that following the B 52 raids on the north, Hanoi came to France to except unconditional Surrender, and could not believe that Kissinger was talking about withdrawel, if the North Promised etc. He also promised the south that if the North broke their promises, he would send troops back in. Which proves, if a politican tells you its raining, make sure he is not..... on you.
Fred -
Message 3
Posted by wyn8126 (U2577714) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
North Vietnamese regulars were arguably the best infantry in the world at the time....remember Dien Bien Phu...French Foreign Legion wiped which was no cake walk.....
just another reason
RIP my buddy Mike Kennedy -
Message 4
Posted by mik366 (U2920296) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
vietnam won only because of U.S. withdrawl! After the Tet offnesive the viet knong were over as an effective force!
The outocme of this war had less to do with tactics, rather it was strategy! the Tet offnesive sapped the last bit of will of the U.S. goveremnt to except any more U.S. dead! So it was a master stroke by Ho Che Min! In sacrifiincg his troops in one almighty thrust he achived his strategic goal of ending U.S. assititance to the South! Which made complete vicotry much eaiser!
mik366 -
Message 5
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
the main two reasons were lack of a long term commitment on the part of the US administration and # 2 - leaving the war to the military rather than to special forces and the CIA which would have done much better counterinsurgency while keeping Us casualties to a minimum which in turn would have made the public at home less interested in the whole affair.
-
Message 6
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
the main two reasons were lack of a long term commitment on the part of the US administration and 听
I guess 15 years was kinda like a long weekend.
# 2 - leaving the war to the military rather than to special forces and the CIA which would have done much better counterinsurgency while keeping Us casualties to a minimum which in turn would have made the public at home less interested in the whole affair.听
Last time I looked special forces were a part of the military. The military (Westmoreland) had nothing at all to say about anything. LBJ and McNamara called the shots. LBJ boasted 鈥渢hey cant bomb an outhouse without my permission鈥 Henry I wish you would do at least a little research before consistently making an ass of yourself.
Grumpy,
You have some good points on your post. Had we accepted an unconditional surrender (which was not on the cards) it would have made us responsible to rebuild North Vietnam. There is nothing like losing a war to the United States to get you on your feet.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 7
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
Hi Matt,Thanks. Wasn't that a theme for a film. I think The Mouse that roared. Peter Sellers. A little country hard up decide to declare war on the U S.
Fred -
Message 8
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
The 2 'sides' had different motives .
Ho's struggle dates back to preWW2, then fighting against the Japanese, then the French. That is what the US and its allies were facing - a protracted 'whatever it takes and for how long it takes' conflict.
I believe the figure for North Vietnamese deaths is 3 million. -
Message 9
Posted by YellowSnow (U3136538) on Monday, 6th February 2006
exactly
if when the US withdrew they were replaced by another foriegn army, the vietnamese would still fight and probably win
they had been fighting foriegn invaders ever since they can remember, japanese, french, americans -
Message 10
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Monday, 6th February 2006
North Vietnamese regulars were arguably the best infantry in the world at the time....remember Dien Bien Phu...French Foreign Legion wiped which was no cake walk.....
just another reason
RIP my buddy Mike Kennedy听
At the risk of having my ignorance exposed, I was under the impression theat the French failed at Dien Bien Phu because a) The Viet Cong artillery was superior, both in terms of numbers and siting and b) the French air force was unable to accurately drop supplies to their troops or bombs on the enemy.
Plus the Legion were in a minority, compared with regular and local troops plus colonial forces. -
Message 11
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Monday, 6th February 2006
I guess 15 years was kinda like a long weekend.
听
and how long did it take the brits to settle things in Malaya?
Last time I looked special forces were a part of the military. The military (Westmoreland) had nothing at all to say about anything. LBJ and McNamara called the shots. LBJ boasted 鈥渢hey cant bomb an outhouse without my permission鈥 Henry I wish you would do at least a little research before consistently making an ass of yourself.
听
them being part of the military was what finished thema nd tied their hands by basically relegating them to the status of refined recon units. The whole idea behind the green berets as special forces was to use them for unconventional warfare. In the early 60's they were under CIA's command and were training and organizing locals inthe mountains for on foot patrols in the jungle and for the defense of their own villages and hamlets. Soon as the army moved in and the sf were made part of it, they pulled a plug on the whole idea. the army instead indulged in large scale sweeping operations that consumed lots of ammo, killed lots of civilians but did only limited damamge to the VC as the VC were always aware of these ops before hand thru their RVN sources and would often simply leave the area.
I did read a fairly serious book on Vietnam where basically the author conludes that the army blew it primarily because they were fighting a large scale WWII style of war with massive air raids while they should have been doing small scale rifle and foot patrol counterinsurgency and while they paid plenty of lip service to "pacification and winnig the hearts and minds" of the population in actuality very little was ever done along these lines, the army preferred to simply ignore this whole issue as for them the main focus always remained on chasing the VC thru the jungle and the war of attrition which was unwinnable under the circumstances.
so Buckskinz, brother, I'm really sorry if all you can see is my ass. -
Message 12
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
I would argue that the NVA were far from the best infantry in the world, they could accept casualty figures that would have been deemed unacceptable to the US public, nothing more.
There is not no aspect as to why the US failed in Vietnam (I say failed rather than defeated as the aim of keeping SV out of the hands of the NV failed, and they were far from defeated militarily).
I鈥檇 say a combination of the following points;
Politicians had to much control of military matters, which puts the military in a situation of fighting a war with one hand tied behind their back. The Government dictates what they wish the outcome to be, let the military get on with it.
Conscription 鈥 A huge no-no with me and most ex, or current professional soldiers. As a rule, one man who wants to do the job is better than three that don鈥檛.
Poor leadership on Junior level 鈥 The 鈥榯our鈥 system deprived the Army of experienced Junior officers. Jungle warfare is practically impossible to train for, the US had a tendency of pulling out officers or men after a year, once they had gained the experience necessary for Jungle warfare, thus being in a vicious circle of having inexperienced men on the front.
Changes in Society 鈥 With the advent of TV journalism as we know it today, Joe public was given a more gritty version of what war is, rather than the diluted government friendly version they were previously given. Society was changing rapidly and turning against the War (Especially after Tet) having a negative influence on Moral on the front and the conviction of those above dictating the war.
The end strategy of the government was poor. You need to be decisive in what you want to achieve鈥
In answer to your question, the tactics of the Vietcong weren't a key, just their ability to absorbe huge casualties. -
Message 13
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Very good point Mani about conscription - though I do believe the NVA were conscripts?
Neil Davis (combat cameraman without parallel) wrote many letters to his aunt in Australia stating that the war was essentially a civil war and for the US and thier friends essentially unwinnable - unless you call a nuclear wasteland home. I must confess he did not go that much with either Aussie or US troops. The Aussies were not freindly to the press at all, and he saw the US troops as not having heart or real committment to the war, as it was not thier country. He mainly went with South Vietnamese forces and sometimes with the Koreans. And a few times with the VC and later the NVA. In fact he was carpet bombed by B52s. -
Message 14
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 6th February 2006
I would argue that the NVA were far from the best infantry in the world, they could accept casualty figures that would have been deemed unacceptable to the US public, nothing more.
There is not no aspect as to why the US failed in Vietnam (I say failed rather than defeated as the aim of keeping SV out of the hands of the NV failed, and they were far from defeated militarily).
I鈥檇 say a combination of the following points;
Politicians had to much control of military matters, which puts the military in a situation of fighting a war with one hand tied behind their back. The Government dictates what they wish the outcome to be, let the military get on with it.
Conscription 鈥 A huge no-no with me and most ex, or current professional soldiers. As a rule, one man who wants to do the job is better than three that don鈥檛.
Poor leadership on Junior level 鈥 The 鈥榯our鈥 system deprived the Army of experienced Junior officers. Jungle warfare is practically impossible to train for, the US had a tendency of pulling out officers or men after a year, once they had gained the experience necessary for Jungle warfare, thus being in a vicious circle of having inexperienced men on the front.
Changes in Society 鈥 With the advent of TV journalism as we know it today, Joe public was given a more gritty version of what war is, rather than the diluted government friendly version they were previously given. Society was changing rapidly and turning against the War (Especially after Tet) having a negative influence on Moral on the front and the conviction of those above dictating the war.
The end strategy of the government was poor. You need to be decisive in what you want to achieve鈥
In answer to your question, the tactics of the Vietcong weren't a key, just their ability to absorbe huge casualties.听
Henry, this post by Mani is reflective of an individual who has done his homework, and knows what he talking about.
Hi Mani,
About the only point I would tend to disagree with is your conclusion regarding the abilities of the NVA. They were well trained, superbly led, motivated and had the best small arms around. They had been fighting for generations and it showed in their professionalism. As General Harold Moore said, 鈥淕ive Charlie half a chance and he will hand you your ass鈥
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 15
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Hi Matt,
Is that Colonel Hal Moore the same bloke that you refer to? Although I would say that 鈥楥harlie鈥 and the NVA were a different kettle of fish
You are right in what you write, although I have explained my position in a particularly poor manner!
What I intended to get across was given a different environment, a different goal, the NVA wouldn鈥檛 have been as effective, they were of their time and objective but not the best infantry in the world.
They were ruthless, well motivated, single minded in completing their objectives and given what they were fighting for, prepared to take disproportionate casualties.
Given that they never beat the US forces in open field and were bettered by The Aussies, Kiwi鈥檚 and Koreans I wouldn鈥檛 say they were the best infantry in the world鈥 The Parachute Regiment is!!!!*
* - Biased Brit strikes again
I would disagree with you about the weaponry, the AK, Simonov, MAT, RPG etc were far from the best weapons available, but given what the NVA were, the best for them.
The Stoner weapons system used by some of the US Special Forces is a far superior weapon, but you need to know how to use it, and how to clean it, the conscripted NVA knew neither (Generally) -
Message 16
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Monday, 6th February 2006
I wouldn鈥檛 say they were the best infantry in the world鈥 The Parachute Regiment is!!!!
听
Sorry Mani, just spotted a typo in your post - you've spelt Royal Marines incorrectly... -
Message 17
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Oh Hello! We have a slimey on board do we?
I've just spotted your typo, were you meant to say 'Royal Moron'?
You lot wish you could be... How can I say here, Bird Excretia?
-
Message 18
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Touche!
-
Message 19
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Wouldn't it be correct in saying though that the US never could win in Vietnam? They never really had a clear mandate from the inept politicians at that time.
How could you stop the North taking over the South without physically invading North Vietnam, which the US never had a mandate to do! Thus the war was winnable.
But as has been pointed out in previous posts, from a military point of view, NVA and Viet Cong casualties were far higher than the US and I don't believe the US were "millitarily" defeated, they just lost on politics! -
Message 20
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 6th February 2006
In my opinion the following were all equally important reasons for the u.s defeat in vietnam
1) strenght at tactics of vietcong
2) lack of public support in u.S
3) involvemnet of china
do you agree with this statement?听
Adebayors: Actually with respect, I would not.
After the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong were never again an organzied fighting force. From that point on North Vietnam had to carry the load.
I would like to propose the following reasons:
1: The failure of the U.S. to actually declare war.
2: Fighting an unpopular war with conscripts.
3: Limiting tours of duty to one year.
4: Routation of personnel individually rather than as a fighting group.
5. Failure to invade the north.
6: Failure to cut off sea and land resupply routs.
7: Failure to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
8: Failure to show where we were making real progress. We nlw know that in 1970 the North was seriously considering sueing for peace. But we failed to carry through.
9: Finally, the U.S. never took the war seriously. -
Message 21
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Monday, 6th February 2006
How seriously would have you liked them to take it?
Should they have made a desert and called it Peace?
Unfortunately due to a succession of very corrupt and inept governments in the south, that were clearly puppets, things were never as clear cut as North vs South. It was muddled beyond belief and the people that primarily suffered were the Vietnamese, of all political stripes. -
Message 22
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 6th February 2006
I wouldn鈥檛 say they were the best infantry in the world鈥 The Parachute Regiment is!!!!
听
Sorry Mani, just spotted a typo in your post - you've spelt Royal Marines incorrectly...听
LMAO, Good one. -
Message 23
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Hi Matt,
Is that Colonel Hal Moore the same bloke that you refer to? Although I would say that 鈥楥harlie鈥 and the NVA were a different kettle of fish 听
Yes it鈥檚 the same guy. He retired a Lt General.
I would disagree with you about the weaponry, the AK, Simonov, MAT, RPG etc were far from the best weapons available, but given what the NVA were, the best for them.
The Stoner weapons system used by some of the US Special Forces is a far superior weapon, but you need to know how to use it, and how to clean it, the conscripted NVA knew neither (Generally)
听
Mani as you know the Stoner is what evolved into the M16. When it was first fielded it was a pile of junk. There was no cleaning kit as it was touted to be maintenance free. It was not until too many lives later it came out with a chrome breech and barrel. There is something about the SKS that I really like. I have several and love to shoot em up, although I would by no means want to fight with one. IMO the AK47 was the best weapon in the world in that time frame.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 24
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Monday, 6th February 2006
I'm no expert on guns, hell I have never even fired one, but I saw a documentary on the Kalashnikov and it was such a simple and rugged thing. Looked like you could drag it through the mud and it would work fine. Mr K was a bit of a genius apparently.
-
Message 25
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Hi Matt,
Actually it was the AR-15 that developed into the M-16, the Stoner weapons system was developed by Eugene Stoner, but it was far from the same as an M16. It wasn't a weapon, but a weapons system, it had interchangeable barrels, locks, breaches etc, it could be Magazine, belt or box fed, could be a LMG, GPMG or an assault rifle.
It was designed after the M-16.... Various US special forces used it.
The problem in the M-16 wasn't the design, but the change of powder and grain weight in the rounds from Stoner's design. and also as you said, in-correct maintenance.
I wouldn't say the AK series were the best, they were cheap, reliable and easy to use, excellent for conscripts, but it wasn't the best... Even the FN FAL was a better weapon all round in the right hands. Horses for courses really, I found the AKM inaccurate as hell. -
Message 26
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Didn't some german researchers in WW2 work out that accuracy is not that important? Lots of people shot by bullets not even aimed at them or something like that. And the german aussault guns were modelled on that idea, andthe Kalashnikov a simplified version of that!
But yeah I know nothing about guns - motorcycles, surfing, George Orwell and bagpipes, but not guns! -
Message 27
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 6th February 2006
My father served in the finest fighting force in the WHOLE WORLD. The British Royal Marines. And if you ask any service pilot,he will tell you, there is no good reason on earth for jumping out of any working aircraft. If you look at any crashed service aircraft. you will see the finger marks, were, after triggering the ejector seat, the pilot decided. "I'VE CHANGED MY MIND." The Royal Marine had two main duties. One Keeping sailors out of trouble, (And away from guns. If god had meant for sailors to have guns, he would have not invented Royal Marines) and two Getting the Army out of trouble. My father spent some happy days on a beach at Dunkirk in 1940. Men with strange helmets kept shooting at him. Must have known he was from Liverpool.
Fred -
Message 28
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Jez Fred, a Marine AND a Scouser? An vil mix if ever there was one...
All Joking apart, the Green Slime are a fine regiment, they (Deep breath) are just as good as the Paras, but we have different roles.... -
Message 29
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
... And for the record, we jump oit of planes because marines haven't got the balls to do it!
-
Message 30
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Brevabloke,
They worked out that the power in the German 7.92 round was too much as most firefights took place well under the capable distance of such rounds, they didn't conclude accuracy isn't important - Accuracy is everything, although some armies (US and Soviet in the cold war) preferred the 'Lead shower' method.
The German's developed the 7.92 Kurtz round, which used the same bullet as their standard rifle, but a shorter casing with less powder, the Soviets used the same idea with the 7.62 round, nato were late developers to this concept, only adopting the 5.56mm years later.
Although the Sturmgewehr and AK series look similar, their workings are completely different... -
Message 31
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Tell that to the marines. A friend of mine (A Royal Marine) almost killed himself jumping out of a plane. Failed to listen, and landed hard. The instructor, an ex para stated that as a Royal he would have been alright if he had landed on his head.
-
Message 32
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Mani,
you are correct about the Stoner. I confused it with the AR15 because of Eugene Stoner鈥檚 involvement. I HATE IT WHEN I鈥橫 WRONG. Never mind, the M16 was still a pile of junk initially.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 33
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Grumy fred,
I did some jumps with Marines, they were being taught HALO Jumps, also some Guards who wanted wings... The Marines, as you would expect, had an arogance about them, and thought they knew everything, but much like us on Water, you have to bow down to masters of their environment.
We're better in the air, they're better on water, we're both as good on the ground - And it pained me to say that! -
Message 34
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Don't worry Matt, simple mistake to make... Many people only associate Gene Stoner with the M16, but he made many excellent designs, after John Browning and Mr Kalashnikov, I'd say he was one of the best designers of the last century.
Most weapons aren't that good initially, it takes time to smooth out all of the teething problems -
Message 35
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 6th February 2006
This is true. I used to ask my father why the R M badge only showed half the world. He said it was the only half that mattered. HA HA I friend of mine was a Royal Marine Sniper, and he told me of laying in a hide for a week just to take one shot. I also heard a cracking story from an R A F pilot, a bit long, but he reckons ALL Papal pilots are Ex Royal Marines. This is why the first thing the pope does when he leaves an aircraft is kiss the ground. I have flown (ONCE) in the back of a helo piloted by a royal. The words interesting, and where did you say that sick bag was? spring to mind.
Fred -
Message 36
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 6th February 2006
Oh, A Royal Marine Officer (A Friend) doing duty with a guards Reg. went in for bgreakfast. He saw all the tables where full, except one that had an officer sitting wearing his gloves and hat. My friend sat down.
"Could you pass the salt please." He asked the Guardsman. Nothing. He asked again. Nothing. On the third time of asking, he got this reply. "When a Guards Officer is sitting in the mess wearing his hat and gloves, it means he neither wishes to talk to or be spoken to by anybody, but you being a bloody marine would not know that." My friend climbed on the table. "And when a Royal Marine sticks his boots in your breakfast it mean PASS THE BLODY SALT PLEASE."
Fred -
Message 37
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
Correct me if I am wrong, but the problem with the M 16, was not the gun, but the fact that somebody back in Washington stated that it did not need cleaning, and no cleaning kits were issued. I believe the best jungle weapon was the Owen. You could grind it into the mud, and it would still fire without exploding.
Fred -
Message 38
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
Fred, That was half the problem, the other half being that the changed the charge powder from stoner's prototype and the weight of the round, the powder they used left more soiling on the barrel...
-
Message 39
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
and if you are not issued with cleaning gear, you end up with a fowled barrel. every soldier, or antbody who uses firearms know that a dirty gun is likely to jam, or even blow up in your face. I can remember the cleaning kit on the Lee Enfield. The old pull through and cleaning 4by 2s but even then, when ever I got the chance, I would pour boiling water down the barrel. The S A 80 had a tendency to jam Would you believe the makers tried to say it was being used in the wrong type of sand. Good excuse for not going to war. "Sorry sir wrong type of sand out there, gun wont work.
Fred -
Message 40
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
Buckskinz, the factors cited by Mani each played a role and I agree that there wasn't one single reason for the failure. Although that failure vs defeat bit is a rationalizing play on words, because ultimately another word for failing to win is defeat.
Yet, there seems to be a general belief that if only the US army had been given a carte blanche it could have won the war. This is simply not the case, as the US army of the 1960's was organized around the doctrine of large scale WWII/Korea style warfare against well defined regular enemy forces. In fact the two army shortcomings that Mani mentions, short tours of duty and conscription stemmed directly from this established doctrine. Conscription was used to ensure the large numbers of troops, tour system was used as a means of providing personnel with battle experience before posting them to places like Europe which remained the main focus for the army the whole time.
You can't train for jungle warfare but you definetely can train for counterinsurgency warfare. Key to counterinsurgency is denying the insurgents access to the population, something that was never viewed as a priority by the army brass, they kept pushing for escalation of the scale of the operation, being obsessed with the idea of taking the fight to the enemy. In this respect the Tet army, which the army to this day counts as its victory, was really a defeat because even though the VC probably had half their force depleted, they managed to clearly demonstrate both to the south Vietnamese and to the rest of the world that in spite of the considerable US military presense they were still able to strike at will anywhere in the country including the capital and even the US embassy. The main objective of the Tet was never to kill as many US personnel as possible but rather to send a clear unambiuguous message to the south vietnamese that the VC had them by the balls and that the US army could do nothing to stop the VC from coming into even a major city and executing a bunch of people who dared to disagree with them (the Hue executions), they were targeting the public opinion and they succedded at that. In the mean time the US army totally missed the point getting obsessed with the number of kills they got and fighting gallantly over remote God forsakent patshes of the bush. That's why imho the US army of that period was not the right choice for the task, they could just as well have nuked the whole country, chances are there would have been less casualties, at least on the US side.
Failure to see the real mistakes that were made in nam ultimately leads to the same mistakes being repeated all over again. Once againt in Iraq the US army locks itself up in fortified compounds leaving huge poupulated areas under the insurgents' control. Every once in a while they plan and execute a large scale sweeping operation like the one in Falluja (although that particular one was done by the USMC it doesn't really affect my point) where tonnes of ammo gets used and thousands of kilos worth of bombs get dropped, then the ground troops move in and declare the area clear. A week later they move out back to their compounds and the insurgents are back. This strategy can only lead to failure, firepower is not enough, in counterinsurgency you've got to use your head every once in a while. -
Message 41
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
The problem in the M-16 wasn't the design, but the change of powder and grain weight in the rounds from Stoner's design. and also as you said, in-correct maintenance.
听
the M-16 design has one flaw that's still there, namely the direct gas system. It keeps the number of moving parts to a minimum which results in better accuracy, but the downside is that the system naturally gets fouled up all the time and has to be cleaned religiously. Cleaner powder solves the problem only partially. It'll work ok for soldiers who've had it drummed into them that they have to keep cleaning it whenever they get a chance but not all soliders are like that. -
Message 42
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
Hi Henry,
I don't know whether it's the environment i was brought up in, but not cleaning your weapons at every conceivable interval would result in a sergeants size eleven up your arse.
If some weapons designer said it didn't require cleaning, I'd being doing it even more so.
As Fred said, who used the old Lee Enfield, he鈥檇 be cleaning his and that was without half the working parts鈥 -
Message 43
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
Henry,
Your last two posts are full of B.S. and utter nonsense. I realize that is not very constructive criticism but it could become a full time occupation just rebutting your opinions.
Cheers. -
Message 44
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
apart from the fact that america was, as usual, not following the conventions of war. i mean, technically n. vietnam was not involved in the war, yet th yanks bombed the crap out of it. and didnt they bomb laos too? and the various atrocities and massacres of villages even suspected to have viet cong members in them?
-
Message 45
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
marduk_report,
I think to single out the US in such a manner is un-fair and incorrect regarding the Vietnam conflict.
North Vietnam was involved, initially through supplying the VC then regular NVA regiments joined the conflict.
Neither side followed articles of war, and in reality in EVERY war on every side they are not followed. Yes, there were atrocities like Mai Lai, but for every atrocity committed by US forces, there were two just as and if not more severe perpetrated by the NVA or VC.
Technically, Laos was bombed which was illegal, but also technically, Laos was being used by the North and VC to run supplies (Which was illegal).
The ordinary Vietnamese peasants were the one鈥檚 who suffered, the VC came along, of the village didn鈥檛 support them, the killed and tortured villagers until they did support them, at which point the ARVN, US, Aussie, Kiwi, Korean units came along and nailed them for supporting the VC/NVA, the opposite was slightly different in that the US didn鈥檛 demand support, but villagers were executed by the VC for offering support or accepting anything from them. -
Message 46
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
Hi Henry,
I don't know whether it's the environment i was brought up in, but not cleaning your weapons at every conceivable interval would result in a sergeants size eleven up your arse.
If some weapons designer said it didn't require cleaning, I'd being doing it even more so.
As Fred said, who used the old Lee Enfield, he鈥檇 be cleaning his and that was without half the working parts鈥
听
see you need to have been brought up in the right envirnement for that and that's why the AK-47 is considered as the best weapon for conscripts, it has lousy accuracy but it will keep functioning even if you forget to clean it for a week. Also that's got to be the reason why pros tend to prefer something other than the AK-47, as they usually have no problems with keeping their weapon clean and have higher demands for accuracy.
Think about the kind of recruits that the VC would have had to deal with, some of them were pheasants with only enough time to teach them how to aim and shoot. Sure they'd have been given lessons on how to clean their AK's but with this sort of people who are basically non military the importance of cleaning your weapon often won't sink in until it jams on them a couple of times and then it might be too late. AK's too have their limit but they're generally a lot more forgiving in this regard. -
Message 47
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
Henry,
Your last two posts are full of B.S. and utter nonsense. I realize that is not very constructive criticism but it could become a full time occupation just rebutting your opinions.
Cheers.听
well, pal, if my posts tick you off so much, it's your problem so deal with it and spare me your UNconstructive critisism. I suggest you just refrain from posting unless you have something more interesting than bullcrap and nonesene to say. You know, do breathing excercises or count to 100, or maybe to 1000 or some such thing.
all the best. -
Message 48
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
Henry, I'd have to agree with you as that's what |I've already writtren on a previous post...
-
Message 49
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
Henry, I'd have to agree with you as that's what |I've already writtren on a previous post...听
at least I wasn't repeating myself. btw you also cited conscripts previously as one of the factors contributing to the eventual US failure to pull it off in Vietnam. Obviously conscripts were also the reason for the M-16's bad reputation in Vietnam because when they were told their new rifles didn't really need cleaning, which far as I recall was mentioned in the ensuing inquiry into the M-16's poor preformance, they actually believed it. -
Message 50
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
Hi pal
Although that failure vs defeat bit is a rationalizing play on words, because ultimately another word for failing to win is defeat.听
That would be the henrylee word, failure to win does not at all equate to defeat.
Had the JCS been given cart blanche the entire war would have been over in weeks. You cant win a war with armchair generals (LBJ McNamara) calling the shots and declaring Laos,Cambodia,and half of N Vietnam no fire zones. Short tours of duty were defined by the two year duration of the conscripts obligation and not to established doctrine or post them to Europe afterwards. A European tour is a minium of one year and in most cases for 3 years. When a Vietnam returnee was back in CONUS many of them were given drops as they had so little time left to serve. During the Vietnam war Europe was not at all the main focus as you describe it. Any combat zone has a much higher priority for personnel and logistics than a non combat theater. During this time frame USAEUR was almost a skeleton force. How in the heck do you figure 鈥測ou cant train for jungle warfare鈥? You go on to say 鈥淜ey to counterinsurgency is denying the insurgents access to the population鈥 Vietnam is not Malay. Relocating the Vietnamese did not work because the entire countryside would have to be shut down. Programs like Strategic Hamlet were in place, it all meant little. Malaya was not an insurgency, it was a handful of communists never amounting to more than a couple of thousand. Your Ideas on the tet offensive are unique to say the least. The V.C. were not out to impress the locals. It was Giaps hope that it would cause a popular uprising all over the country, that failed to happen. The VC were decimated during Tet. It was a victory for them because that was a turning point for the American people to shut it down.
The M16A1 or any other Assault rifle is not designed for accuracy, it is designed for ASSAULT, IE plenty of firepower, auto and semi. There is no design flaw. There were several many years ago long since corrected.
You know about as much about M16A1 as you do about the Vietnam war or anything else. Sweet F.A.
Cheerz.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.