Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

Air War over North Vietnam

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Monday, 20th February 2006

  Hi all,
  
  This might have been done to death earlier but it's something I'm interested in so here goes - the USAF used their strategic bomber force earlier in the war to attack VC/NVA positions is RSVN (e.g. formations around Khe Sanh) but used targeted attacks by F-105's etc. on strategic targets in the North e.g. Paul Doumier bridge - this was before LBJ suspended attacks in 1968 - Nixon authorised in 1972 Operations Linebacker I and II in 1972 using B-52's, the aircraft from carriers on Yankee Station (as used during Rolling Thunder and Flaming Dart e.g. A-4's, F-4's and A-6's) and the same tactical strike fighters to attack the North and it wasn't too long before the North said we need to talk. I read that a key factor was the mining of Northern ports stopping a lot of supplies. (Before the road/railway net was improved this would have been fatal in 1965/6). Although I do understand technology had advanced between the times e.g. the 1965 strikes on Than Hoa bridge used 3000lb dumb bombs and Walleye guided weapons, the 1972 strikes used Paveway I LGB's Do you think that a style L/Backer I and II campaign should have been used to end the war earlier?
  
  I think yes ( i think the advance in technology during the Vietnam Air War was amazing - just think the first strikes were done with A-1 Skyraiders and A-4's - by the end the USN were dropping LGB's in the dark with A-6's and the USAF were hitting targets with F-111's at 100ft - simply amazing.)

  Link to this forum: Air War over North Vietnam

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by 123stopthatabc (U3275257) on Monday, 20th February 2006

  i dunno
  
  they were a resisstant lot those NVA
  
  i remember reading a book by kissinger on the negotiations with le duc tho, he said that everytime he went t sit down to talk with him le would go off on a tangent talking about how they had resisted imperial foreign agressors for decades and now that the US was here nothing was going to change
  
  kissinger notes how much this used to annoy him, "le duc tho 'stonewalling'" is what he said
  
  another thing about the bombing offencives was that some gernerals opposed them as they were so expencive and would divert resources from their special programs
  
  ie, general such and such wants his new range of ballistic missiles and he wants the money that linebacker would get
  
  so the reason there weren't more linebackers and such was that there wasn't enough support for them
  
  they may have worked but would never have happened
  
  all the US had to do was once the NVA/VC forces had massed at the borders for their umptenth offencive was to have a massive bombing offencive, this would give them another few years before the NVA got back on their feet
  
  i don't think they could have been beaten unless they were invaded
  
  ps. just remembered the name of the book 'ending the vietnam war', very good but obviously puts kissinger in a very good light

  Link to this forum: Air War over North Vietnam

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by 123stopthatabc (U3275257) on Monday, 20th February 2006

  on another note when the b52s used to do their bombing runs early in the war the biggest thing they had to worry about was when they let the bombs go there would be a sudden leap upwards from the aircraft due to the weight loss and this, if you were drinking a cup of tea that may be in your cup holder or something, could make you spill it
  
  this was ended once the russians shipped the NVA their latest range of SAMs and started to knock them out of the sky

  Link to this forum: Air War over North Vietnam

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Monday, 20th February 2006

  I understand the whole point with the SAM's and that tactical strike fighters i.e F-105 along with ECM support were supposed to be more survivable - do you therefore think the whole issue was a matter of a concept I can only describe as "technological cross-over" - the fact that the USAF felt that they couldn't protect bomber streams over N Vietnam (when SAM protected) without heavy ECM/ECCM support and until that time came the "Alpha-strike's" by the USN and F-105/F-4 stikes were the best bet (and quite effective)?
  I still can't understand why something as fundamental as mining a few harbours was neglected though? Maybe they just didn't see it as "high-tech" enough? Although I guess the USSR wouldn't have been too happy in a merchantman had been sunk delivering "medical supplies" had been sunk by a US mine.

  Link to this forum: Air War over North Vietnam

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006

  NEWCFalcon
  
  Technology wasn't the real issue - politics was. The US decided to to regard Vietnam as a counter-insurgency campaign, to be fought in the south, while only targetting sites in the North directly connected with the southern fighting.
  
  Only when considering withdrawal (from Nixon's election) did the gloves come off and the full weight of USAF applied, which did indeed bring the North vietnamese to the tabl

  Link to this forum: Air War over North Vietnam

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006

  Hi C3Square again,
  
  Yeah I understand what you are saying as I know from sources that after WW2 the US SAC bomber people said SE Asia was an area devoid of any military targets of real significance but by the Vietnam war a couple of hundred had sprung up and when Rolling Thunder started in 65-66 the USAF started with targets closer to the DMZ on the northern side and worked upto Hanoi and Haiphong including the large MiG bases as opposed to doing it the other way round.
  
  This is a suprise though because whereas in the early days the USAF could have been just about free ranging over NVN they waiting until one of the most sophisticated Anti-Air nets the world has ever seen was installed.
  
  Has anyone ever considered why the North Vietnamese Air Force never flew missions over the South? I would have thought the chaos caused by a few bombs being dropped over somewhere like Bien Hoa or maybe an airstrike on the Yankee station would have been worth their weight in gold as propaganda.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Air War over North Vietnam

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006

  Link to this forum: Air War over North Vietnam

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006

  Hi C3Square again,
  
  Yeah I understand what you are saying as I know from sources that after WW2 the US SAC bomber people said SE Asia was an area devoid of any military targets of real significance but by the Vietnam war a couple of hundred had sprung up and when Rolling Thunder started in 65-66 the USAF started with targets closer to the DMZ on the northern side and worked upto Hanoi and Haiphong including the large MiG bases as opposed to doing it the other way round.
  
  This is a suprise though because whereas in the early days the USAF could have been just about free ranging over NVN they waiting until one of the most sophisticated Anti-Air nets the world has ever seen was installed.
  
  Has anyone ever considered why the North Vietnamese Air Force never flew missions over the South? I would have thought the chaos caused by a few bombs being dropped over somewhere like Bien Hoa or maybe an airstrike on the Yankee station would have been worth their weight in gold as propaganda.
  
  Μύ
  
  Quick answer - because the North didn't want to give the US an excuse to turn it into an conventional war, which the US would win. The NVAF put up a good fight over their own territory, but the USAF and USN had air supierority. With the gloves off (which was what Linebacker was about), they would have been overwhelmed. and as they were winning the ground war, thwy didn't need it.

  Link to this forum: Air War over North Vietnam

  Report message8

Back to top