Trump says We Have Much Better Weapons than Russia

[harmonica]

The main difference between the Soviet - and Chinese - military and the US is simple - the education level of the operators. Also the command and control strategy.

Soviet and Chinese people cannot make any decisions for themselves. Even the most simple of changes has to be approved by "higher headquarters" often going to the very highest level.

Americans can and often do make instant decisions based upon their view of the situation.

You can have all the technology in the world. But, without the ability to use it wisely and in a timely manner, it's worthless.

what exactly are you saying?
1. all that education and all that technology and the HUGE advantage of air and naval supremacy did not help in Vietnam or Korea
2. the Chinese gave the US a monumental ass whooping in Korea--not once, but twice--except for the Marines ..and this was 1950
..the Chinese are not stupid
.....MacArthur underestimated the Chinese right before they kicked our asses--twice--kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula--plus beating the crap out of the other units

1. You do not win wars when politicians thousands of miles away micromanage and ignore the military situations. We did not lose a single engagement in Vietnam. Not One. Even the Tet Offensive was a massive loss for the VC and north.
2. We had the North whupped when, knowing that our political leaders didn't have the guts to finish the war, the Chinese unleashed a massive influx of troops. While our losses were terrible, the Chinese lost tens of thousands. We cared about our troops while the Chinese threw theirs into the meat grinder.
Dugout Doug knew exactly what to expect of the Chinese and Truman tied his hands - before firing him.

Take the time to study a little history before spouting off.

hahahhaahaha
Vietnam was unwinnable --see my thread on it
we had 500,000 men there..carriers..amphib ships...air .....and still lost = unwinnable
....they also beat the French
you can't accept the fact that the US couldn't win

.....it doesn't matter if we won every engagement ---the North did not have to beat the US to win

.....now I KNOW you don't know shit--MacArthur fked up big time in Korea --we'll discuss that in another thread

 

[Bleipriester]

The main difference between the Soviet - and Chinese - military and the US is simple - the education level of the operators. Also the command and control strategy.

Soviet and Chinese people cannot make any decisions for themselves. Even the most simple of changes has to be approved by "higher headquarters" often going to the very highest level.

Americans can and often do make instant decisions based upon their view of the situation.

You can have all the technology in the world. But, without the ability to use it wisely and in a timely manner, it's worthless.

what exactly are you saying?
1. all that education and all that technology and the HUGE advantage of air and naval supremacy did not help in Vietnam or Korea
2. the Chinese gave the US a monumental ass whooping in Korea--not once, but twice--except for the Marines ..and this was 1950
..the Chinese are not stupid
.....MacArthur underestimated the Chinese right before they kicked our asses--twice--kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula--plus beating the crap out of the other units

1. You do not win wars when politicians thousands of miles away micromanage and ignore the military situations. We did not lose a single engagement in Vietnam. Not One. Even the Tet Offensive was a massive loss for the VC and north.
2. We had the North whupped when, knowing that our political leaders didn't have the guts to finish the war, the Chinese unleashed a massive influx of troops. While our losses were terrible, the Chinese lost tens of thousands. We cared about our troops while the Chinese threw theirs into the meat grinder.
Dugout Doug knew exactly what to expect of the Chinese and Truman tied his hands - before firing him.

Take the time to study a little history before spouting off.

Helicopters unloaded US soldiers without cover and anything. The US lost over 8000 aircraft. These soldiers then had the task to elicit the enemy forces that then would be subjected to airstrikes.
There were no Chinese forces in battles.
Out of the 300.000 North Vietnamese troops, including Viet Cong, 1,1 million died or were wounded, lol.

Vietnam was unwinnable --I just created a thread on it

Afghanistan also. Trump is talking to Taliban.

 

[ABikerSailor]

''''air superiority is nothing''''???!!!!???????
it was the NVA that won the war--not the VC!!!!

Dude, the NVA wasn't the main enemy in Vietnam...the VC was and the Ted offensive was mostly composed of VC (even though NVA officer and specialists were send down to participate)...as I said and that was a fact: the VC was cripploed after Ted...yet Ted was the turning point....NV won the war on the backs of the corpses of it's guerilla organisation...simple as..

Yes, rotation was a big problem..what was considered to be morale boosting just led to a drain of skilled personnel and yes, it had a bad effect..yet, training and doctine adjustment did make up for it to some extend...the biggest effect on the war was morale and once morale was broken at home, the war was lost.

You have to see the upside of the rotation policy as well: you rotate people, who are sick and tired of the quagmire out and rotate people with high morale in...it became a problem once people realized that nothing moved...you kill VCs ion one place, fly out and they occupy the same territory over night again...

Big diffenrence when you can pin needles in territory conquered and move these needles towards the enemy's heartland every day.Vietnam looked to the people more and more like a senseless cause with rising costs of money and lives

Not for nothing Lincoln, but if you are going to try to sound like you know your history, it would be helpful if you could talk about the TET offensive, and not the TED offensive. One was a major campaign in the Viet Nam war, and the other is a dude's name, or the name of the talks that are held about various subjects.

If you had said "ted" only once, I would attribute it to being a typo, but you repeatedly referred to it as the "ted offensive" repeatedly. Again, it's tet, not ted.

 

[ABikerSailor]

..I'm nice and civil--until someone starts talking crap

crap is everything, someone else disgrees with you on, is it?

As was stated by Longknife: the NVA lost every major engagement and after Khe Sanh, The NVA layd low. Ted was their big gamble and militarily, it back fired...or do you dispute that?

Politically, it succeeded in doing what North Vietnam wanted to achieve: it knocked the US out of the war...the picture you've posted is that of the storming of the presidential compound and that was after Januarly 1973 now, was it

Again, it's "tet" not "ted".

 

[harmonica]

..I'm nice and civil--until someone starts talking crap

crap is everything, someone else disgrees with you on, is it?

As was stated by Longknife: the NVA lost every major engagement and after Khe Sanh, The NVA layd low. Ted was their big gamble and militarily, it back fired...or do you dispute that?

Politically, it succeeded in doing what North Vietnam wanted to achieve: it knocked the US out of the war...the picture you've posted is that of the storming of the presidential compound and that was after Januarly 1973 now, was it

Again, it's "tet" not "ted".

and he's the ''spanker''??!!

 

[DrainBamage]

..we had a HUGE advantage with air and naval supremacy --and the NVA still kicked some ass in Nam..if he wasn't for choppers and air, it would've been a lot different
...no--you hold your horse---the Chinese kicked our asses in Korea--plain and simple--when we had air and naval supremacy!!

This isn't true, look at the casualty counts.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

If we have such great weapons, why haven't we won a war since WWII?

Because we stop fighting wars to win.

 

[harmonica]

..we had a HUGE advantage with air and naval supremacy --and the NVA still kicked some ass in Nam..if he wasn't for choppers and air, it would've been a lot different
...no--you hold your horse---the Chinese kicked our asses in Korea--plain and simple--when we had air and naval supremacy!!

This isn't true, look at the casualty counts.

what's not true?

 

[harmonica]

..we had a HUGE advantage with air and naval supremacy --and the NVA still kicked some ass in Nam..if he wasn't for choppers and air, it would've been a lot different
...no--you hold your horse---the Chinese kicked our asses in Korea--plain and simple--when we had air and naval supremacy!!

This isn't true, look at the casualty counts.

.....again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
what does this mean?????!!!!!! if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have

 

[DrainBamage]

what's not true?

That North Vietnamese ground forces were on par with US ground forces.The only thing North Vietnam had an advantage in was numbers, they consistently came out on the losing side in casualty/material losses even when combat occurred without air support.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

what's not true?

That North Vietnamese ground forces were on par with US ground forces.The only thing North Vietnam had an advantage in was numbers, they consistently came out on the losing side in casualty/material losses even when combat occurred without air support.

There is a reason for that. During WWI, it was noted that the Americans could win when all others couldn't. We were listed by the others as a bit crazy in a battle. We still are. I guess it's almost genetic. I can't explain it but I've seen it. In a pitch battle, the other side had better bring a whole week of lunches to defeat what is thought to be an inferior American unit.

 

[harmonica]

what's not true?

That North Vietnamese ground forces were on par with US ground forces.The only thing North Vietnam had an advantage in was numbers, they consistently came out on the losing side in casualty/material losses even when combat occurred without air support.

...you obviously have no knowledge of the NVA

 

[Lincoln1976]

the NVA won--not the US
..how did it backfire??--they WON
..you say you can ''spank'' on history = you are talking crap
--hahahahhahahaha

How did the Tet backfired? You don't know that? really?

Because it was defeated and the VC lost most of it's trained personnel...that's why! And I've stated that before: they lost the battle but won the war....simple as

Tet Offensive - Wikipedia

They didn't intend it that way, yet unexpectedly it did sway US public opinion aganist the war...it also brought the end for Gen. Westmoreland..if you don't understand that very importand fact about the Vietnam war...how can you accuse anyone of "talking crap"?

It is THE most importand event and one of the reasons, NVA and VC forces lay mostly dormant for the remainder of the sixties and early seventies...
The VC provided most of the personnel yet the overall losses weren't just 80 000 (as I always thought) but according to Wiki 111 000 KIA, wounded or missing.

The only place which held out quite long was Hue while everywhere else, hostile forces were expelled quite quickly.

As for your "limited tour of duty" argument: have you ever considered, that the modern US army has the SAME system in place?
"A general tour of duty for soldiers comprises service that can last from half a year to four years. Generally, duties that last longer than two years are eligible to receive medals of merit related to their service. Tours of duty can also be extended involuntarily for service members, such as in September 2006, when the tour of duty was extended for 4,000 US military personnel in Iraq.[8] They were increased up to 15 months for tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.[9] As of 2018, typical tours are 6-9 or even 12 month deployments depending upon the needs of the military and branch of service. Soldiers are eligible for a two weeks of leave after six months of deployment.[1]

In the UK, tours of duty are usually 6 months.[10] In 2014, UK army tours in Afghanistan were extended to 8 months.[11] Army doctors accompany their regiments on tours of duty for up to six months every two to three years.[7]"

How come it doesn't have an effect on combat effeciency today?
How come the killing to casualty ratio in Vietnam was favourable towards the US and NOT the VC or NVA?

I am telling you the whole time: Vietnam was about civil morale...it sparked the f*ing hippie movement for crying out loud...
and the reason for that was the fact that you can't have a war on low simmer with no fixed objective to be taken.

Btw: I've heard ones, that the US employed night ground attack fighter on the Ho-Chi-Minh trail at the very end of the war and it proved devastating for the VC since it cut off their supply from the north via Cambodia pretty good, but I haven't heard too much more than that.

 

[DrainBamage]

...you obviously have no knowledge of the NVA

Well there's a non response.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Btw: I've heard ones, that the US employed night ground attack fighter on the Ho-Chi-Minh trail at the very end of the war and it proved devastating for the VC since it cut off their supply from the north via Cambodia pretty good, but I haven't heard too much more than that.

At Ubon, RTAB, we had AC-130s and RB-57Gs that did night attack on the Ho Trail. Only about 1 out of 200 supply vehicles got through. This included heavily loaded bicycles, elephants, and more. Let's face it, at 2 am, and you were out on what was more a glorified jeep trail you were probably transporting supplies or at least up to no good. It was also a favorite place for Anti Aircraft Guns and Sams. If the attack on Hanoi was lessened, they would take X number of those ground to air assets to the trail. The AC and the RBs starved out the southern NV Fighters. AS dangerous as 1965 to 1970 was, in 1971 Gen Abrams said he could fly anywhere in South Vietnam in a Chopper in complete safety. The VC were virtually wiped out and the Villages were killing the NVA reps that were being sent to stir things up. As screwed up as the SV Governments were, in the US controlled area, the villagers and farmers were well treated and allowed to go on with their lives for the first time in decades. The mistake the US made was allowing the corrupt South Vietnam Government to even exist. We should have set up our own government until everything settle down. We broke it, it was up to us to fix it. We never did.

 

[harmonica]

...you obviously have no knowledge of the NVA

Well there's a non response.

..I suggest you read Operation Buffalo by Keith Nolen since you obviously do not know anything about the NVA

 

[harmonica]

the NVA won--not the US
..how did it backfire??--they WON
..you say you can ''spank'' on history = you are talking crap
--hahahahhahahaha

How did the Tet backfired? You don't know that? really?

Because it was defeated and the VC lost most of it's trained personnel...that's why! And I've stated that before: they lost the battle but won the war....simple as

Tet Offensive - Wikipedia

They didn't intend it that way, yet unexpectedly it did sway US public opinion aganist the war...it also brought the end for Gen. Westmoreland..if you don't understand that very importand fact about the Vietnam war...how can you accuse anyone of "talking crap"?

It is THE most importand event and one of the reasons, NVA and VC forces lay mostly dormant for the remainder of the sixties and early seventies...
The VC provided most of the personnel yet the overall losses weren't just 80 000 (as I always thought) but according to Wiki 111 000 KIA, wounded or missing.

The only place which held out quite long was Hue while everywhere else, hostile forces were expelled quite quickly.

As for your "limited tour of duty" argument: have you ever considered, that the modern US army has the SAME system in place?
"A general tour of duty for soldiers comprises service that can last from half a year to four years. Generally, duties that last longer than two years are eligible to receive medals of merit related to their service. Tours of duty can also be extended involuntarily for service members, such as in September 2006, when the tour of duty was extended for 4,000 US military personnel in Iraq.[8] They were increased up to 15 months for tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.[9] As of 2018, typical tours are 6-9 or even 12 month deployments depending upon the needs of the military and branch of service. Soldiers are eligible for a two weeks of leave after six months of deployment.[1]

In the UK, tours of duty are usually 6 months.[10] In 2014, UK army tours in Afghanistan were extended to 8 months.[11] Army doctors accompany their regiments on tours of duty for up to six months every two to three years.[7]"

How come it doesn't have an effect on combat effeciency today?
How come the killing to casualty ratio in Vietnam was favourable towards the US and NOT the VC or NVA?

I am telling you the whole time: Vietnam was about civil morale...it sparked the f*ing hippie movement for crying out loud...
and the reason for that was the fact that you can't have a war on low simmer with no fixed objective to be taken.

Btw: I've heard ones, that the US employed night ground attack fighter on the Ho-Chi-Minh trail at the very end of the war and it proved devastating for the VC since it cut off their supply from the north via Cambodia pretty good, but I haven't heard too much more than that.

please read post # 63 again
--it's TET, not Ted

 

[harmonica]

the NVA won--not the US
..how did it backfire??--they WON
..you say you can ''spank'' on history = you are talking crap
--hahahahhahahaha

How did the Tet backfired? You don't know that? really?

Because it was defeated and the VC lost most of it's trained personnel...that's why! And I've stated that before: they lost the battle but won the war....simple as

Tet Offensive - Wikipedia

They didn't intend it that way, yet unexpectedly it did sway US public opinion aganist the war...it also brought the end for Gen. Westmoreland..if you don't understand that very importand fact about the Vietnam war...how can you accuse anyone of "talking crap"?

It is THE most importand event and one of the reasons, NVA and VC forces lay mostly dormant for the remainder of the sixties and early seventies...
The VC provided most of the personnel yet the overall losses weren't just 80 000 (as I always thought) but according to Wiki 111 000 KIA, wounded or missing.

The only place which held out quite long was Hue while everywhere else, hostile forces were expelled quite quickly.

As for your "limited tour of duty" argument: have you ever considered, that the modern US army has the SAME system in place?
"A general tour of duty for soldiers comprises service that can last from half a year to four years. Generally, duties that last longer than two years are eligible to receive medals of merit related to their service. Tours of duty can also be extended involuntarily for service members, such as in September 2006, when the tour of duty was extended for 4,000 US military personnel in Iraq.[8] They were increased up to 15 months for tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.[9] As of 2018, typical tours are 6-9 or even 12 month deployments depending upon the needs of the military and branch of service. Soldiers are eligible for a two weeks of leave after six months of deployment.[1]

In the UK, tours of duty are usually 6 months.[10] In 2014, UK army tours in Afghanistan were extended to 8 months.[11] Army doctors accompany their regiments on tours of duty for up to six months every two to three years.[7]"

How come it doesn't have an effect on combat effeciency today?
How come the killing to casualty ratio in Vietnam was favourable towards the US and NOT the VC or NVA?

I am telling you the whole time: Vietnam was about civil morale...it sparked the f*ing hippie movement for crying out loud...
and the reason for that was the fact that you can't have a war on low simmer with no fixed objective to be taken.

Btw: I've heard ones, that the US employed night ground attack fighter on the Ho-Chi-Minh trail at the very end of the war and it proved devastating for the VC since it cut off their supply from the north via Cambodia pretty good, but I haven't heard too much more than that.

In the UK, tours of duty are usually 6 months.[10] In 2014, UK army tours in Afghanistanwere extended to 8 months.[11] Army doctors accompany their regiments on tours of duty for up to six months every two to three years.[7]"

hahahahhahahahahhah!!! you made a mistake there
that's usually for the WHOLE UNIT--not officers by themselves
Army Announces Troop Rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan
Troop rotations set for Iraq, Afghanistan
not even CLOSE to the same thing

 

[Daryl Hunt]

...you obviously have no knowledge of the NVA

Well there's a non response.

..I suggest you read Operation Buffalo by Keith Nolen since you obviously do not know anything about the NVA

I do. I know just enough to have stayed alive like millions of others. Kieth Nolan never served a day in his life in Vietnam.

 

[harmonica]

...you obviously have no knowledge of the NVA

Well there's a non response.

here--Operation Buffalo by K Nolan page 40:
'''a note about the NVA;the Marines hated, feared and respected them. Like the Japanese the Marines had faced in the Pacific, the NVA were expert at the basic warrior skills'''
bold mine
etc etc details in the book