Vietnam 2010
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
- E5
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:08 am
- Location: Jacksonville
Vietnam 2010
Would the Vietnam war haves turned out any differently using today's weapons and tactics?
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:03 am
An argument can be made that Iraq and Afghanistan haven't turned out much differently, so my guess would be "no". It is a hearts & minds issue rather than a raw combat issue, and with rare exceptions like the Malayan Emergency the west has had a very poor track record in those kinds of campaigns.
That being said there are some significant differences between now and then, though. South Vietnam finally collapsed from a combination of internal issues (corruption, insurgency, etc) and an external invasion from the north. Iraq only has to deal with the internal issues (assuming Iran doesn't decide to do something... unfortunate). Afghanistan I think is not going to get better this generation.
That being said there are some significant differences between now and then, though. South Vietnam finally collapsed from a combination of internal issues (corruption, insurgency, etc) and an external invasion from the north. Iraq only has to deal with the internal issues (assuming Iran doesn't decide to do something... unfortunate). Afghanistan I think is not going to get better this generation.
-
- E5
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:20 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
- Contact:
There are several technologies that would allow the US to be more precise in interdiction and suppression but without a completely different political climate the end would probably be the same. Political advantage, by one side or the other, most often trumps any military advantage. The political side of any conflict is the most difficult to quantify from a gaming standpoint even though politics often determines the most basic of necessities to sustain it.
We tried to include the "political will" of the combatants in our North Africa campaign which eventually caused the British to withdraw their forces because the Axis was far luckier than the Allies at one or two critical battles even though commanders switched sides often to try to even out gaming skills. Will


Campaign as of December 1942...
Axis point total: 2,989 (- Axis losses + Allied losses) Reflects casualties on both sides
Axis Political Will: 998 (Out of 1000) Reflects the mood of the Italian High Command
Axis Commander Rating: 9 (The Germans put the final nail in the coffin)
Allied point total: -2,088 (-Allied losses + Axis losses)
Allied Political Will: 0 (Out of 1000) Reflects the mood of Winston Churchill
Allied Commander Rating: 2 Too many set backs, ...even for Monte.
No American landings in North Africa. Campaign over
We tried to include the "political will" of the combatants in our North Africa campaign which eventually caused the British to withdraw their forces because the Axis was far luckier than the Allies at one or two critical battles even though commanders switched sides often to try to even out gaming skills. Will


Campaign as of December 1942...
Axis point total: 2,989 (- Axis losses + Allied losses) Reflects casualties on both sides
Axis Political Will: 998 (Out of 1000) Reflects the mood of the Italian High Command
Axis Commander Rating: 9 (The Germans put the final nail in the coffin)
Allied point total: -2,088 (-Allied losses + Axis losses)
Allied Political Will: 0 (Out of 1000) Reflects the mood of Winston Churchill
Allied Commander Rating: 2 Too many set backs, ...even for Monte.
No American landings in North Africa. Campaign over
Last edited by opsctr on Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The three most important words when trying to make a decision are: communications, communications, communications, ...in that order" MGen BG Hollingsworth USMC (retired)
-
- E5
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:26 am
The loss was entirely political. That wouldn't have changed with different weapons and tactics. At the end of the Tet offensive the Viet Cong were pretty much eliminated as a serious force. The NVA had to give up the pretense of the war being a Civil War of the South. Yet Tet also was the high point for the Allies politically. It was the realization that the U S Government was not being quite honest with anyone about what was going on that moved war protest from the hippy "weirdo" fringe to the more mainstream populace and doomed U S participation.
It can never be proved but I've wondered for years what the result would have been if the political handling would have been different. Most, if not all, of the people on this website would understand the differences between Vietnam and earlier wars, but most of the population (I'm mostly speaking of the U S of course although I'm sure it is true in other countries at that time) didn't get why we weren't "securing" areas but rather destroying forces and moving on. There was no real education of the population just an "I'm the government therefore I'm right" attitude toward any dissent. Had that been different I suspect Tet would have been seen in its correct light and championed. Unfortunately, as the military and CIA were correctly saying we have broken the Viet Cong, the event was seen as proof that we were being lied to. Just like all the earlier lies that said we were already destroying the enemy. And honestly, a number of people in both the military and civilian intelligence agencies which said we were overplaying what we were accomplishing were also caught of guard by the sheer size. So, even some of the nay-sayers were unprepared.
If the political climate had been better maybe we would have been had a troop surge, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, we have the government giving in to the demand for immediate withdrawal. Although, it of course didn't happen overnight. Certainly there was a minor surge but it was obvious that politically the end was near for U S participation. I don't think anyone had any doubts what would happen once the U S left. The "Peace" Accord was only truly worth the paper it was written on.
And as a caveat no I did not serve there just lived through that time. And was never happy with the handling. I had too many friends there and heard too much of the "disinformation" being sent home for the people. Though I'm sure all wars have some, most aren't built on it.
It can never be proved but I've wondered for years what the result would have been if the political handling would have been different. Most, if not all, of the people on this website would understand the differences between Vietnam and earlier wars, but most of the population (I'm mostly speaking of the U S of course although I'm sure it is true in other countries at that time) didn't get why we weren't "securing" areas but rather destroying forces and moving on. There was no real education of the population just an "I'm the government therefore I'm right" attitude toward any dissent. Had that been different I suspect Tet would have been seen in its correct light and championed. Unfortunately, as the military and CIA were correctly saying we have broken the Viet Cong, the event was seen as proof that we were being lied to. Just like all the earlier lies that said we were already destroying the enemy. And honestly, a number of people in both the military and civilian intelligence agencies which said we were overplaying what we were accomplishing were also caught of guard by the sheer size. So, even some of the nay-sayers were unprepared.
If the political climate had been better maybe we would have been had a troop surge, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, we have the government giving in to the demand for immediate withdrawal. Although, it of course didn't happen overnight. Certainly there was a minor surge but it was obvious that politically the end was near for U S participation. I don't think anyone had any doubts what would happen once the U S left. The "Peace" Accord was only truly worth the paper it was written on.
And as a caveat no I did not serve there just lived through that time. And was never happy with the handling. I had too many friends there and heard too much of the "disinformation" being sent home for the people. Though I'm sure all wars have some, most aren't built on it.
"It is a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step into the road and, if you do not keep your feet, there is no telling where you might be swept off to."
Bilbo Baggins to Frodo Baggins.
Bilbo Baggins to Frodo Baggins.
-
- E5
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:08 am
- Location: Jacksonville
While Vietnam was arguably the first war in the information age and therefore subject to intense scutinybon the homefront, I am not a subscriber to the belief that we could have won had the political will been stronger. A troop surge may have delayed the inevitable but we already had 500,000 troops there and it didn't make any difference in the outcome. I am wondering if today's technology may have allowed us to accomplish some of the results seen on the ground with fewer troops. Maybe then the north would have had a more difficult time convincing the population that it was another struggle against imperialism.
-
- E5
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:20 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
- Contact:
As a combat veteran of the Viet Nam conflict who has worked extensively for and still works with the US/NATO military on a daily basis there is one huge difference in that conflict and those since. Political leaders aren't actually directing the war by picking targets, etc... Yes, politicians have had a say in the direction of the wars since VN but they do not normally micro manage the daily events, ...as did the administrations of the time.
I do believe we are much more accurately lethal now with the ability to place weapons on target as the result of several factors, ...boots (SOF) on the ground for one and new guidance systems for another, ...but any public opinion savvy opponent knows how to manipulate the press by misdirection and self inflicted atrocities.
We, and most civilized societies, don't have the political will to conduct war in the manner necessary for total victory without "real" provocation. I expect that will change after the first US city is nuked regardless of which political party is in power. Let's hope whomever is in charge is able to figure out the real author of the attack for everyone's sake.
General Giap: "We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel.... Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. ... The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory.... The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion."
Will
I do believe we are much more accurately lethal now with the ability to place weapons on target as the result of several factors, ...boots (SOF) on the ground for one and new guidance systems for another, ...but any public opinion savvy opponent knows how to manipulate the press by misdirection and self inflicted atrocities.
We, and most civilized societies, don't have the political will to conduct war in the manner necessary for total victory without "real" provocation. I expect that will change after the first US city is nuked regardless of which political party is in power. Let's hope whomever is in charge is able to figure out the real author of the attack for everyone's sake.
General Giap: "We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel.... Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. ... The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory.... The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion."
Will
"The three most important words when trying to make a decision are: communications, communications, communications, ...in that order" MGen BG Hollingsworth USMC (retired)
-
- E5
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:08 am
- Location: Jacksonville
Will, first thanks for your service and happy Veterans Day. You make a good point about politicians picking targets during Vietnam. Do you believe that if the Administrations at the time had allowed the military to select their targets with the same autonomy as their afforded today it would have made a difference? It seems to me that the North was prepared to fight as long as they had to to win and had proven that they were capable of outlasting all comers to that point. What could the US have brought to the table militarily or politically that would have changed the outcome? My original question focused more on being able to wage an Afghanistan (circa 2001) with small SOF teams and airpower to achieve our goals rather than the large commitments we made in Vietnam and Afghanistan 2001 - 2011. With fewer targets for the enemy to hit, the fewer propaganda victories there are to be had thus the political will to continue fighting remains stronger for a longer period of time.
By the way you have a job I would love to have!
By the way you have a job I would love to have!
-
- E5
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:20 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
- Contact:
Thanks! This is super simplified:
Christian (mostly Western) Civilizations look at LIFE differently than most Eastern Civilizations so it is difficult for us (Western Christians) to wage an effective campaign that guarantees success.
On the one hand you have a society where life is nearly worthless because there is so much of it. Most of the people are extremely poor and live in conditions Westerners find horrendous, ...and totally unacceptable. But the people get by helped along by their religious beliefs and lack of a worldly education that could expose them to a better life. Their leaders don't want them to be better educated in the Western sense but they do get an indoctrination into either the "Party" way or their "Religion's" way, ...which is all they learn and includes the prejudice and hatreds of the teacher or the teachers sponsors. Both these "educations" are not intended to help them "think' about anything but those things their Leaders want them to think, ...and be willing to sacrifice themselves for the "cause". As long as the leadership remains above the masses either through power or religion they will be able to control them. The "People", those being governed, have very little to no say in whom leads them.
On the other hand you have Democracy, where most of the people have an "opportunity" to get an education, most of the people value life highly, and most of the people have the "opportunity" to participate in the government that governs them, ...if they are willing to take advantage of their opportunities.
Western Warfare, to be truly successful, depends on the ability of enemy soldiers up through the company grade to think for themselves! Morale is a "weapon of choices". Give your enemy the option (opportunity to change their mind) about how important hill 465 is and you (we) don't have to SPEND as many lives and treasure taking it...
I'm not sure much of our leadership truly understands that, ...still. I realize there is much more to this and a good discussion could go on forever: ...but as I noted, this is a simplification.
It is very difficult to fight a "limited war" when both sides view things so differently, especially when one side is fanatical. To win one side (US/NATO) must eliminate the leadership and change the thinking of the people who provide the bodies the leaders use up without thinking. The other side only has to hold out until political pressure forces the US/NATO to withdraw. To increase that pressure all they need to do is cause us to spend lives and treasure...
To win in the time frame 2001 - 2011.
Completely occupy the entire country with a huge display of force.
Eliminate any military opposition through whatever means necessary.
Change the economic system completely away from the existing culture.
Establish a real "world view" education system.
Establish a semi-western Style Democracy with all that entails (laws, courts, etc.).
Be willing to maintain a serious military presence until all of the above was completed, ...say two/three generations.
Could we accomplish this task? In my opinion, ...NO!
Could SOF units accomplish this task with precision weapons and all the support possible? In my opinion, ...NO!
Could "limited warfare" ever accomplish the transformation from a feudal theocracy to Democracy? In my opinon, ...Maybe in a 100 years.
Will
Christian (mostly Western) Civilizations look at LIFE differently than most Eastern Civilizations so it is difficult for us (Western Christians) to wage an effective campaign that guarantees success.
On the one hand you have a society where life is nearly worthless because there is so much of it. Most of the people are extremely poor and live in conditions Westerners find horrendous, ...and totally unacceptable. But the people get by helped along by their religious beliefs and lack of a worldly education that could expose them to a better life. Their leaders don't want them to be better educated in the Western sense but they do get an indoctrination into either the "Party" way or their "Religion's" way, ...which is all they learn and includes the prejudice and hatreds of the teacher or the teachers sponsors. Both these "educations" are not intended to help them "think' about anything but those things their Leaders want them to think, ...and be willing to sacrifice themselves for the "cause". As long as the leadership remains above the masses either through power or religion they will be able to control them. The "People", those being governed, have very little to no say in whom leads them.
On the other hand you have Democracy, where most of the people have an "opportunity" to get an education, most of the people value life highly, and most of the people have the "opportunity" to participate in the government that governs them, ...if they are willing to take advantage of their opportunities.
Western Warfare, to be truly successful, depends on the ability of enemy soldiers up through the company grade to think for themselves! Morale is a "weapon of choices". Give your enemy the option (opportunity to change their mind) about how important hill 465 is and you (we) don't have to SPEND as many lives and treasure taking it...
I'm not sure much of our leadership truly understands that, ...still. I realize there is much more to this and a good discussion could go on forever: ...but as I noted, this is a simplification.
It is very difficult to fight a "limited war" when both sides view things so differently, especially when one side is fanatical. To win one side (US/NATO) must eliminate the leadership and change the thinking of the people who provide the bodies the leaders use up without thinking. The other side only has to hold out until political pressure forces the US/NATO to withdraw. To increase that pressure all they need to do is cause us to spend lives and treasure...
To win in the time frame 2001 - 2011.
Completely occupy the entire country with a huge display of force.
Eliminate any military opposition through whatever means necessary.
Change the economic system completely away from the existing culture.
Establish a real "world view" education system.
Establish a semi-western Style Democracy with all that entails (laws, courts, etc.).
Be willing to maintain a serious military presence until all of the above was completed, ...say two/three generations.
Could we accomplish this task? In my opinion, ...NO!
Could SOF units accomplish this task with precision weapons and all the support possible? In my opinion, ...NO!
Could "limited warfare" ever accomplish the transformation from a feudal theocracy to Democracy? In my opinon, ...Maybe in a 100 years.
Will
"The three most important words when trying to make a decision are: communications, communications, communications, ...in that order" MGen BG Hollingsworth USMC (retired)
-
- E5
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
My recollection of history is that the US forced NV to the peace table in 1971/72 and made them sign the Paris peace accords. The subsequent invasion by NV into SV was after the US relations with the Soviet Union and China had deteriorated and allowed the north to re-arm. The lack of political will to defend the south with the subsequent invasion was the real end game. In short, the allied forces led by the US successfully defended South Vietnam from northern invasion until 1972 and then lost interest. An entirely political outcome which to my mind makes the question a moot point; it isn't whether military equipment or methods have changed, but whether politicians have. My guess would be no.
Oh, and to respond to OPCTR's comments, my stand at present regarding North Korea would be to invite China to administer NK with a view to eventual reunification with the south (if the opportunity arose); this would gain significant brownie points for China on the world stage and would be far less traumatic for the average NK resident than just being exposed to the 'decadent' western values of SK. They'll need therapy, and what more comfortable therapy than from a communist country that is embracing the might of money.
Not intended to start a political thread here!
Oh, and to respond to OPCTR's comments, my stand at present regarding North Korea would be to invite China to administer NK with a view to eventual reunification with the south (if the opportunity arose); this would gain significant brownie points for China on the world stage and would be far less traumatic for the average NK resident than just being exposed to the 'decadent' western values of SK. They'll need therapy, and what more comfortable therapy than from a communist country that is embracing the might of money.
Not intended to start a political thread here!
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:39 am
This! This is exactly why we will not win another conflict, especially one of insurgency, until something radical changes our collective Western view on war. You cannot wage war, especially a non-conventional one against radical extremists while worrying about looking like the good guy on the world stage. Eliminate the threat first, then win back brownie points in the world view AFTER the opposition is completely neutralized, by aiding the surviving 'non-threat' elements within the affected region. Look at our post-war handling of Japan and Germany as examples (not talking about the splitting of Germany here, that's another topic). Granted, this would be more difficult in a region of religious extremists, but I still contend there is a fair percentage of even those populations that want peace and prosperity, if shown how.opsctr wrote: We, and most civilized societies, don't have the political will to conduct war in the manner necessary for total victory without "real" provocation. I expect that will change after the first US city is nuked regardless of which political party is in power. Let's hope whomever is in charge is able to figure out the real author of the attack for everyone's sake.
I don't know what percentage of the population you would have to get down to for this to work, but...

I don't wish to start a political flame war either, and these are solely my opinions. And yes I know it sounds hawkish and even brutal, but that is WAR. If the indiginous population doesn't want to become collateral casualties, then teach them not to harbor hostile (to themselves as well as our troops) elements. We have a pretty effective propeganda machine too...
Perfect example of Sun Tzu 101...opsctr wrote: General Giap: "We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel.... Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. ... The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory.... The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion."
Will
-
- E5
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:20 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:03 am
You are absolutely right that when you are in a war you have to play to win. But I think the key is to make it more attractive to help you than the other guy, as opposed to the solution of making it worse on you if you help the other guy. Trying to rule through fear only works as long as the bully is around.I don't wish to start a political flame war either, and these are solely my opinions. And yes I know it sounds hawkish and even brutal, but that is WAR. If the indiginous population doesn't want to become collateral casualties, then teach them not to harbor hostile (to themselves as well as our troops) elements. We have a pretty effective propeganda machine too...
If the West wants to win the current wars they have to:
- work with whoever they can in their client states to reduce corruption
- help institute the rule of law with a strong and independent judiciary
- help give the average Abdul a way to feed his family without having to grow dope or run guns, and to have pride in how he does it
These will all take generations.
The trick is to do it all behind the scenes and with as low a body count among the locals as possible.
-
- E5
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:20 am
- Location: St. Louis, MO
- Contact:
When less than 28% of the population knows how to read you have a more basic, and difficult, task at hand than just finding work for the indigenous population.
Everything follows being able to read... and write. It could take decades if it can be accomplished at all.
There is no easy or "canned" answer. Many, many innovative ideas have been tried but most have failed. Another basic need is roads but the Taliban (students) or the Warlords keep blowing them up so very few are truly operational without constant partolling... Will
Everything follows being able to read... and write. It could take decades if it can be accomplished at all.
There is no easy or "canned" answer. Many, many innovative ideas have been tried but most have failed. Another basic need is roads but the Taliban (students) or the Warlords keep blowing them up so very few are truly operational without constant partolling... Will
"The three most important words when trying to make a decision are: communications, communications, communications, ...in that order" MGen BG Hollingsworth USMC (retired)