Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
Americas loss in vietnam
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by gun boat diplomat (U1942190) on Monday, 29th August 2005
Hello,
Im wondering what people views are on Americas not being able to win the Vietnam war,
was it just militery inefficiency or was there many other factors to it,
ill be interested to hear people views -
Message 2
Posted by _A_J_A_ (U1908577) on Monday, 29th August 2005
Hi
I'm not American, but think that any army through the ages has always found it nearly impossible to 'beat' a guerilla force that knows it's own terrain.
The Viet-cong were also supplied militarily and trained covertly by the USSR.
Look at post-1066 when the English revolted against the 'Conqueror' on several occasions, plus their guerilla-style warfare('silvatici' the Normans called them).
Look at Iraq today- riddled with insurgents that blend in with their home terrain and society? -
Message 3
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 29th August 2005
IMO it is almost impossible to defeat an insurgancy if the following exists:
First: There is a "Root" cause to support the insurgancy.
Second: The are properly supplied/funded and it is all but impossible to "Cut" their supply lines.
Third: The country(s) fighting the insurgancy aren't 100% behind their government in its decision.
I know this sounds redundant, but I am afraid the U.K. and U.S. are making the same mistakes today that the English made in the 1920s. (If I have upset anyone, I appologize) -
Message 4
Posted by Ninja-Badger (U1689794) on Tuesday, 30th August 2005
The British did alright in Malaya and Borneo though, didn't they?
Was the problem in Vietnam not the fact that the politicians kept interfering in military decisions, restricted areas of operations and reinforcements, prevented pilots from taking targets of opportunity etc and basicaly tied one hand behind the military's back?
I guess a contributing factor is also the use of draftees in an unpopular war against native troops fighting for a cause they believed in? -
Message 5
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 30th August 2005
The British did alright in Malaya and Borneo though, didn't they?
Was the problem in Vietnam not the fact that the politicians kept interfering in military decisions, restricted areas of operations and reinforcements, prevented pilots from taking targets of opportunity etc and basicaly tied one hand behind the military's back?
I guess a contributing factor is also the use of draftees in an unpopular war against native troops fighting for a cause they believed in?Μύ
Ninja-Badger: IMO it is very difficult to make an unbiased assessment of an event until at least fifty years after the death of the last person who actually witnessed the event.
Actually I don't think it was the politicians who lost the Vietnam war for us. I am a Vietnam veteran who was there in 1969 and I told my CO then that we were beat. Here are my reason why (and remember, I am a nobody)
1: Failure to declare war.
2: Fighting an unpopular war with conscripts.
3: Limiting the "tours" to one year.
4: Failure to invade North Vietnam.
5: Too many "Light at the end of the tunnel" statements from the leaders.
6: Churchill's statement: "A Republic can't fight a six year war." The people get tired of it.
Remember; these are just my observations. I may be completely wrong. -
Message 6
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Tuesday, 30th August 2005
Yes, jesw1962,
And the six valid points you make were by and large the fault of the politicians. So both you and Ninja-Badger are right.
Cheers, Jozef -
Message 7
Posted by Ninja-Badger (U1689794) on Tuesday, 30th August 2005
<quote
</quote>
Remember; these are just my observations. I may be completely wrong.</quote>
If you had first hand experience, then I doubt you're completely wrong!
It was all over before I was born and I must admit I've only recently become interested in this war, so my knowledge is restricted to a fairly narrow list of reference materials, which hopefully I'll be able to broaden! I'm about 3/4 of the way through Hal Moore's "We Were Soldiers" and my comments largely reflect what he says in there - not sure how accurate a picture that is though. -
Message 8
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 30th August 2005
<quote><quote
</quote>
Remember; these are just my observations. I may be completely wrong.</quote>
If you had first hand experience, then I doubt you're completely wrong!
It was all over before I was born and I must admit I've only recently become interested in this war, so my knowledge is restricted to a fairly narrow list of reference materials, which hopefully I'll be able to broaden! I'm about 3/4 of the way through Hal Moore's "We Were Soldiers" and my comments largely reflect what he says in there - not sure how accurate a picture that is though.</quote>
Ninja-Badger: (Please forgive my spelling) If I remember correctly that is a story about the fighting in the Ir Drang valley in 1965. At that time the U.S. was firmly behind the war. While it was a U.S. military victory, there was no way to "Follow up."
Remember, there is no case of the North Vietnameese defeating the U.S. in a battle. But they were able to keep in the field and ultimately we got tired. -
Message 9
Posted by Little Enos Rides Again (U1777880) on Wednesday, 31st August 2005
I think the US "technically" lost, albeit N. Vietnamese casualties far outweighed American because -
1. Primarily - As has been said the U.S. did not invade North Vietnam, which would of been essential to actually win the war.
2. U.S. Never used any nuclear weapons, could of been an option (albeit at the threat of WWIII), i.e. a TNW launched at Hanoi or Haiphong for example could of made the N. Vietnamese surrender, in much the same way Hiroshima & Nagasaki did the Japanese in WWII.
3. The U.S. arguably lost the support of the civillian population in the South.
4. The South Vietnamese Government was corrupt and their army pretty ineffective. -
Message 10
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
I don't think invading North Vietnam was necessary a prerequisite to winning that war. I don't think it was lost by politicians either. I read a book some time back in which a retired US army officer who was there at the time, tries to analyze why the 'Nam campaign went so hopelessly FUBAR toward the end.
The conculsion he makes in his book is that the war was lost due to the US amry's stiff necked insistance on applying tactics that were part of the accepted military doctrine at the time. That doctrine was based on the WWII experience of large scale operations with heavy reliance on fire power and emphasis on taking the fight to the enemy. It was later streangthened in Korea, where too the Americans had to face off with regular army units, Chinese, Koreans, and in the 1950's military planning for large scale operations against the USSR in Europe.
In a counterinsurgency conflict, one has to be willing to make a long time commitment- the brits took quite a while before they were able to get things sorted out in Malaya and Borneo-, and number too is one has to focus on denying the insurgents access to the population. The second is very important because the population is the main support base, source of recruits and intellegence information for the insurgents.
Ironically securing the population against the insurgents, especially in rural areas, was something that the US military pretty much ignored in Vietnam, for example even before the infamous Tet offensive there were certain historical sites in the city of Hue where tourists had to pay tax to the Viet Cong. The whole time the civilian population of South Vietnam was pretty much at the mercy of the VC, they were free to carry out propaganda among them, recruit young people, terrorize them etc while the US military flew in their helicopters to remote jungle areas to chase the elusive VC in large scale ops like Junction City and the like. Yet when push came to shove during Tet it all of a sudden turned out that not just villages and hamlets but the cities were swarming with VC. Militarily the americans prevailed during Tet, far more VC got killed that were the US losses, but strategically the VC accomplished their mission just fine, because the Tet show down sent a clear message to the south Vietnamese civilians that the US army was not able to protect them even in the cities - the notorios execution of US sympathizers in Hue comes to mind here.
In that book the author also looks at some stats that show that especially during the early stages of the conflict the help coming from the north was very limited and thus was not a deciding factor. The war could have been won even without unleashing hell on the north, had proper tactics been used, in reality the US army was fighting a different kind of war and so they lost it primarily thru being inadequate to the real situation. Say if you compare the brits' tactics in Borneo and Malaya with their reliance on small scale infantry and special froces ops to what the US did in 'Nam - carpet bombings of the jungle and the north, large scale air cav sweeps and the like , their defeat begins to make sense. -
Message 11
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
Henrylee100: No one has ever accussed the U.S. of having "Forward" thinking Officers. Basically we have a military that says your career depends on having your bosses like you. I agree completely with your post.
However, I think (I am be completely wrong) that if we had invaded the North, it would have taken a lot of pressure off the South.
Once again, IMO, the two "BIGGEST" mistakes were using conscripts and only keeping people "in country" for one year at a time. A soldier was just learning the ropes and he was looking forward to going home. -
Message 12
Posted by Duke of Northumberland (U1751006) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
very good point I'm sure I saw a program and one of the verts had said that all the knowledge that was aquired during that one year had gone. A new recruit could not deal with the hardend VC. I suppose its a bit like me playing chess against the great Kasperov. Even though I could start with more pieces it I don't suppose it would take him long to inflict heavy damage. Do I think the usa could have won? yes I think so with the right will and strategy. There are effective and proven ways to fight this type of warfare sending lots of troops isn't always the answer.
-
Message 13
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
If you go to:
www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/AMH/Amh-28
you may find the answer to the question.
Let us know what you think. -
Message 14
Posted by U1969296 (U1969296) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
hi henrylee
What a good synopsis I think you summed it up very well Just a thought there was a units of British and Australian SAS soldiers in Vietnam at the beginning of the conflict as advisers and allegedly they advised the same tactics used in Malaya and Borneo.
I think if they would have gone in with jungle craft warfare experience and an attitude of kill or be killed there might, just might have been a different outcome to that tragic episode.
I don't think invading North Vietnam was necessary a prerequisite to winning that war. I don't think it was lost by politicians either. I read a book some time back in which a retired US army officer who was there at the time, tries to analyze why the 'Nam campaign went so hopelessly FUBAR toward the end.
The conculsion he makes in his book is that the war was lost due to the US amry's stiff necked insistance on applying tactics that were part of the accepted military doctrine at the time. That doctrine was based on the WWII experience of large scale operations with heavy reliance on fire power and emphasis on taking the fight to the enemy. It was later streangthened in Korea, where too the Americans had to face off with regular army units, Chinese, Koreans, and in the 1950's military planning for large scale operations against the USSR in Europe.
In a counterinsurgency conflict, one has to be willing to make a long time commitment- the brits took quite a while before they were able to get things sorted out in Malaya and Borneo-, and number too is one has to focus on denying the insurgents access to the population. The second is very important because the population is the main support base, source of recruits and intellegence information for the insurgents.
Ironically securing the population against the insurgents, especially in rural areas, was something that the US military pretty much ignored in Vietnam, for example even before the infamous Tet offensive there were certain historical sites in the city of Hue where tourists had to pay tax to the Viet Cong. The whole time the civilian population of South Vietnam was pretty much at the mercy of the VC, they were free to carry out propaganda among them, recruit young people, terrorize them etc while the US military flew in their helicopters to remote jungle areas to chase the elusive VC in large scale ops like Junction City and the like. Yet when push came to shove during Tet it all of a sudden turned out that not just villages and hamlets but the cities were swarming with VC. Militarily the americans prevailed during Tet, far more VC got killed that were the US losses, but strategically the VC accomplished their mission just fine, because the Tet show down sent a clear message to the south Vietnamese civilians that the US army was not able to protect them even in the cities - the notorios execution of US sympathizers in Hue comes to mind here.
In that book the author also looks at some stats that show that especially during the early stages of the conflict the help coming from the north was very limited and thus was not a deciding factor. The war could have been won even without unleashing hell on the north, had proper tactics been used, in reality the US army was fighting a different kind of war and so they lost it primarily thru being inadequate to the real situation. Say if you compare the brits' tactics in Borneo and Malaya with their reliance on small scale infantry and special froces ops to what the US did in 'Nam - carpet bombings of the jungle and the north, large scale air cav sweeps and the like , their defeat begins to make sense.
Μύ -
Message 15
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
This subject came up a while ago as a development of British defeats. There was an Alan on these pages (he does not seem to be on these days which is a pity) who argued long and hard that the USA did not lose the war, he did not get much support but his arguements were soundly based.
-
Message 16
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Re: message 15.
Tim,
yes Allan D. Yes a lot of good one's seems to have deserted for one or another reason.
Our Mitch, made a short reappearance on these new boards, but I don't see him anymore.
Steve P. made already a lot of good contributions on the new boards, as usually. But now it is a time since I saw him. I think however that he has too much work for the moment, as it was on the old boards the same. John Hyatt promised to me to come back on the new boards, but under another name.
ALLAN D., MITCH and especially STEVE P., WHERE ARE YOU? JOHN HYATT YOU PROMISED TO COME BACK UNDER ANOTHER NAME.
Of course Tim, I appreciate very much all your contributions too, as from Jozef, lol beeble, gilgamesh, Oximandes and my two devilish friends Gareth and John Hes and Tas and Hasse and the new and old women (I mean old: not recent contributors (thin smile)) and of course all the others that I forgot, especially the Americans, and Australians/New Zealanders who stayed on the new board.
Kind regards to all,
Paul.
BTW: RUSSIAN GRAINDER AND MY DEAR GERMAN THOMAS WHERE ARE YOU? -
Message 17
Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
most of the communist troops in malya were from a chinese ethnic minority who did not have widespread support. this made them easier ti target and isolate the the vc.
-
Message 18
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 12th September 2005
replying to message 16
Paul
As I said elsewhere I've been away but catching up now and the next couple of days - I hope. Very interesting debate.
I also agree that while far more difficult than the situation in Malaya Vietnam could have been won by the US and S Vietnam. Some good points have been made about the inappropriate tactics and I hadn't realised how crucial the use of drafted troops were. Realised this meant problems in terms of moral but simply never occurred to me about the problems in terms of unskilled troops as a result! Also the Viet Cong had the advantage of external aid from the north and the US didn't have the same status as Britain did in Malaya, one advantage of being the colonial power rather than a friendly protector.
I think it was mainly a question of attitude. The US was used to powering their way to victory by using overwhelming firepower against visible enemies and just didn’t have the experience to handle low level combat. The worrying thing is that not we seem to see the same sort of things in Iraq. However, given that the insurgents have tied themselves very much to the Sunni Arab minority, it does make it far more difficult for them to do more than terrorist attacks on the Shia and Kurds.
Steve -
Message 19
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 15th September 2005
A major contributing factor was President Johnston thinking he was a brilliant tactician and qualified General. One of his boasts was "They can't bomb an outhouse (latrine) without my ok") I find that a common thread in military misadventures with like minded civilians. A few that come to mind. Hitler, Operation Barbarossa. Churchill, Gallipoli/Market Garden. Saddam, Anything he thought up. Gen Westmoreland was too much of a politician to stand up to President Johnston.
Unfortunately I concur with a previous comment that to have a career in today's U.S. military you can't piss off your boss.I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall however when General Schwarzkopf was told to shut it down in Desert Storm.
There never was British S.A.S.in Vietnam, although the Aussie S.A.S. (God bless them ) performed magnificently. We never won the Vietnam war, but we never lost it in the field. It could be argued bleeding the Soviet economy during this conflict hastened the fall of communism.
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 Μύto 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
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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.