"My understanding of the Vietnam conflict is that it was mostly a series of guerilla encounters, and on the whole we mostly wore each other down much as the armies did in the trenches of WWI. There were exceptions like the Tet offensive, but on the whole I picture it as mainly being skirmishes in the jungle rather than armies & tanks & what have you."
A common fallacy is the belief that the Vietnam war was a series of skirmishes. Most of the battles in vietnam where fought against the N. Vietnamese who where (in all senses) a conventional army. These mainly consisted of infantry battles (with an almost 100% victory rate to the US and its allies) although their were a few noted armour battles (although the antiquity of the N. Vietnamese tanks meant that these battles where usually very short and one sided).
Guerilla battles were performed by the Vietcong (S. Vietnamese equipped by the N. Vietnamese), who had a very low rate of success. In one engagement 1000 vietcong guerillas where beaten off by 100 Australian troops in thick jungle terrain. In general, the superior equipment and training of the US (and allies) meant that even jungle experience wasnt a great advantage.
Also you mentioned the Tet Offensive. This was the one time the Vietcong openly attacked towns and cities. It failed amazingly. Most people seem to think that it was a Vietcong victory because of the embassy assault, well this was the high point of the offensive. In general the attacks were un-coordinated and lacking in planning. The resulting slaughter of the Vietcong meant that they never were able to operate correctly again.
Agree with most of your post, but Ive got to pull you up on your point of North Vietnam.
From a military prespective, the US (and various allies) never lost a battle against the North Vietnamese army or their Vietcong allies, in fact in every major battle the US humiliated the enemies facing them through superior equipment, training and manoevribility.
The two main reasons most Americans see Vietnam as a loss are:
1. Lots of US soldiers got killed - true, but somewhere in the order of 1,000,000 N. Vietnamese soldiers were killed.
2. South Vietnam fell. Only after the US army left though. At this point N. Vietnam couldnt fight anymore and the US thought it safe to leave. However a year or two later the Israeli-Arab war of '72 started up and almost all the weapons and vehicles promised to S. Vietnam went to Isreal. Also the soviets had launched a major effort to re-equip N. Vietnam. This left S. Vietnam wide open for invasion.
Its sad that so few americans (Im from the UK) actually spend some time learning the full history of the vietnam conflict.
Slashdot Mirror
"My understanding of the Vietnam conflict is that it was mostly a series of guerilla encounters, and on the whole we mostly wore each other down much as the armies did in the trenches of WWI. There were exceptions like the Tet offensive, but on the whole I picture it as mainly being skirmishes in the jungle rather than armies & tanks & what have you."
A common fallacy is the belief that the Vietnam war was a series of skirmishes. Most of the battles in vietnam where fought against the N. Vietnamese who where (in all senses) a conventional army. These mainly consisted of infantry battles (with an almost 100% victory rate to the US and its allies) although their were a few noted armour battles (although the antiquity of the N. Vietnamese tanks meant that these battles where usually very short and one sided).
Guerilla battles were performed by the Vietcong (S. Vietnamese equipped by the N. Vietnamese), who had a very low rate of success. In one engagement 1000 vietcong guerillas where beaten off by 100 Australian troops in thick jungle terrain. In general, the superior equipment and training of the US (and allies) meant that even jungle experience wasnt a great advantage.
Also you mentioned the Tet Offensive. This was the one time the Vietcong openly attacked towns and cities. It failed amazingly. Most people seem to think that it was a Vietcong victory because of the embassy assault, well this was the high point of the offensive. In general the attacks were un-coordinated and lacking in planning. The resulting slaughter of the Vietcong meant that they never were able to operate correctly again.
Sharlin
Agree with most of your post, but Ive got to pull you up on your point of North Vietnam.
From a military prespective, the US (and various allies) never lost a battle against the North Vietnamese army or their Vietcong allies, in fact in every major battle the US humiliated the enemies facing them through superior equipment, training and manoevribility.
The two main reasons most Americans see Vietnam as a loss are:
1. Lots of US soldiers got killed - true, but somewhere in the order of 1,000,000 N. Vietnamese soldiers were killed.
2. South Vietnam fell. Only after the US army left though. At this point N. Vietnam couldnt fight anymore and the US thought it safe to leave. However a year or two later the Israeli-Arab war of '72 started up and almost all the weapons and vehicles promised to S. Vietnam went to Isreal. Also the soviets had launched a major effort to re-equip N. Vietnam. This left S. Vietnam wide open for invasion.
Its sad that so few americans (Im from the UK) actually spend some time learning the full history of the vietnam conflict.
Sharlin
Just cause you pulled last night! Give it a week or so, you'll be back to a pathetic nerd like the rest of us.