harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,010
- 2,300
hahhahahah--\---the South was shit-----they were never going to be able to defend themselveshhahah stop the bullshit---either you know what I mean, or you are not smart, or you are bullshitting:--you people don't know much about wars/history/etc-..what's your point? the US could've won??!!plain and simple --we ''lost'' in Nam--it was unwinnableRussia is a pale shadow of the WWII USSR. And the only reason the USSR survived the first year of the German invasion is that the Germans sucked at logistics. Most of the German army used horse drawn wagons to haul supplies. As for the PRVN standing off the USA, that only happened because we allowed the Soviets and Chinese a free hand in supplying the PRVN with everything from food to SAMs. When we finally decided to close the rail links to China and block Haiphong harbor with mines, the PRVN begged to sign the Paris Peace Accords because they were out of munitions and the North Vietnamese population was nearing starvation. The PRVN stood off the USA for the same reason the thirteen American Colonies stood off Great Britain; the war wasn’t very important to the great power, it was unpopular at home, and the Colonies (and the PRVN) were receiving monetary and military support from a major power that was free from attack by the great power involved in the war.???!!!.....they withstood Germany and Germany's AliiesA really simple reason that Russia cannot withstand a long term conflict with the US is the size of the Russian economy, and the inefficiency of Socialist warcraft manufacturing.
..tiny North Vietnam withstood the MIGHTY US for a VERY long term conflict AND Vietnam withstood and defeated France....with France and the US using much:
more sophisticated/more lethal/etc weapons
Naval and air supremacy
..stone age Afghanistan withstood the MIGHTY Britain and Russia
--Russia was too big with too big of a population for Germany to defeat
here is the thread on Nam
Vietnam War was unwinnable
www.usmessageboard.com
Okay, let's look at the blunders.
The US Ground Pounders ALWAYS defeated the enemy. But the enemy was allowed to resupply over and over again. Now we come to the real failure and that was in the Air Power both USAF and Navy (including Marines). They were NEVER allowed to do what they knew how to do with the exception of the two Linebackers.
We lost more F-105 Pilots than we had. WE ended up training Cargo Pilots to pilot the Nickels. Why was that? The Nickels always flew the same racetrack flight paths at the same time every day. All the enemy had to do is position their ground installations along those paths and wait. There were viable targets that were placed off limits like Dams and Power Plants. We didn't touch the railroad from China to Hanoi. The Missions were micro managed by the McNamarra and Johnson. Johnson even bragged about it. Then came Nixon and Abrams. Abrams was asked what they should do and he said, not in his exact words, do what you need to do. That means, as of 1969, the Racetracks ended and we started hitting those off limits targets. China was told that the Railroad was going to be destroyed. They complained that the Railroad Workers were all Chinese. Nixon told them they needed to get their Chinese Workers out of there if they didn't want to lose them. All of a sudden, the resupplying was cut deeply and the Air Attacks could come at any time from any direction. The NV had to cover a much larger area with their Sams and AAs. All of a sudden, they weren't effective anymore. And the Buffs started hitting hard as well. In 1971, Abrams made the brag that he could fly in a Chopper anywhere in South Vietnam safely without fear of being shot down. He was right. And the Caches just outside of South Vietnam were being destroyed as they were being built up. In late Dec 1972, Nixon allowed the USAF, Navy and Marines to do Linebacker II because the NV were refusing to go to the Paris Peace Talks. It took them 11 days to decide to reenter the peace talks. The War was won.
Now for how it was lost. In the Peace Talks, the agreement didn't have anything preventing the NV from building up supplies and forces in Laos and Cambodia. By then Laos had changed in government where it was sympathetic to the NV and not the SV. Late 1972, the USAF was asked (demanded) to leave Laos. And Cambodia didn't have much of a government to begin with to have any say in anything. So in 1973, the US does a drastic troop reduction. The US promised that we would resupply the SV and provide Air Power in the event of the NV attack.
When the NV attacked with a well trained and battle hardened army of 550,000, they came up against a 1.3 million SV army. The math falls apart on this one. The SV had only enough rifles for 400,000 troops and enough ammo for a Mag for each one. Plus, their Fuel for their trucks,tanks and recips were all but depleted. They had almost no Jet Fuel either. The promise of the resupply was withdrawn by Ford. Plus, the Air Power that was sitting in Thailand wasn't used either. I knew it was lost when a captured F-5 with a Red Star painted on it's tail attacked the SV Palace in Saigon. The NV took those 2 years and built up hard in plain friggin sight.
Ford, Congress and the American People threw the South Vietnamese under the bus.
The US could not win. It never could win. The only way for the US to win would be to completely take over SV like the French did. Then, all of a sudden, even the friendlies ain't so friendly anymore.
If we had flattened Hanoi in 1965 I would bet good money that the North Vietnamese would have thrown in the towel. They would've spent the next ten years rebuilding their capital and would've had no energy to wage the war in South Vietnam.
With a ten year respite, South Vietnam would probably have straightened itself out and been too strong for the communists to attempt to take over.
I've taught virtually every history class offered for a dozen years. And I don't get how you can say that Germany and Japan did not surrender. They most certainly did.
you said if we '''flattened Hanoi'' they would surrender---NO Germany and Japan did not surrender after we ''flattened'' their cities
Except I DID NOT SAY that the North Vietnamese would have "surrendered". I said they would've "thrown in the towel". By that I meant with their capital effectively destroyed (by effectively destroyed I mean 25-40% destroyed by the way) they would no longer have had the resources to provide much support to the enemies of the South Vietnamese government and the South could've held on.
Sorry I confused you.
read this
and:A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That's just one battle and the SV won it at a high cost. You need to learn from your mistakes. When Tet happened, the blood was sucked right out of the NVA. They were never a viable force again after that. The VC were NEVER SV, they were NVA sent down to terrorize the South and force young family members to fight for them at the fear of their families lives. At some point, it got to be very suicidal for the NVA to send those "Representatives" down south as the villages would kill them. This was the time to take it home to the North with taking out their dams, powerplants, manufacturing and transportations. But Johnson wouldn't do it. And many lives were lost in the process. Yes, the Rolling Thunder should have been done in 1968 and continued until the North sued for peace. Not surrendered, but sued for peace on the terms that gave SV a chance to establish itself as a viable nation.
You keep saying that we had to win. We weren't there to win. We were there to stop Communism from flourishing, as dumb as that sounds. And Johnson's fear of China was a very large driving factor which turned out to be false when Vietnam handily handed China it's ass in the 70s. The point here is, Johnson was an idiot and wouldn't listen to his Military. He listened to McNamara who has his own brand of insanity. Our heavy influx of ground forces were NEVER needed as the South always had the numeric superiority. What they lacked was Air Power and we had that in spades. But due to the two Washington Idjits, that air power was severely mismanaged. What would have happened if, in 1965, had we started a Rolling Thunder Campaign and kept it up? Would China have become as invested? Probably not and the outcome would have been much different for not only Vietnam (both sides) and over 50,000 Americans.
1. I never said we had to win = you are babbling
2. NOT A BOARD GAME--you just don't ''take out powerplants/etc'''
3. ok, so we take out their powerplants/etc--then what?? they just rebuild/wait it out/etc
4. you use the words '''Would China''' and ''probably'' --HAHAHAHH = your unsubstantiated opinion/thoughts/babble
5. how many times do I have to say it!!????????
history shows us the North is NOT going to sue for peace
6. if you knew history, you would know the Chinese sent hundreds of thosuands of soldiers into NKorea because we crossed the parallel......Johnson had good reason not to ignore the Chinese
--what does Vietam handing the Chinese a whoopass got to do with Johnson not wanting the Chinese to get involved in the Nam War???!!
plain and simple---we couldn't win or stop communists ....