Vietnam War

[Marlon23]

What made it so different than most wars? For those who are a bit older that maybe served in it or know someone who did.... love to hear your input...

Thanks!

[Bengalzona]

Several things made the Vietnam War different and unique at that time. They range from the tactical to the political to the social.

Tactically, we had new weapons and tactics. The first that probably everyone can identify with is the massive use of helicopters. Helicopters had been around since the very end of WWII. And they had been used in Korea, but only on a limited scale for evacuating wounded (a la M.A.S.H.) and for observation. But in Vietnam, the helicopter came into its own.

The Army procured fleets of Hueys to transport troops into and out of combat zones. In addition, they turned some helicopters into floating weapons platforms to provide support for the 'air assaults'. This would lead to the development of the Cobra attack helicopter, the first of its kind purpose-built designed. The concepts of 'air mobile' and 'air cavalry' were born.

Now, to be sure, most Army units in Vietnam were not air mobile. But we had whole brigades and a division which were. We could move vast numbers of troops hundreds of miles within a couple of hours. This changed the way both sides approached and fought the war.

Air defense became a priority among the North Vietnamese and they eventually created an advanced air defense network (this was also to defend against our Air Force ground support and the B-52 bombers). Helicopters are a lot easier to shoot down than aircraft, and we lost a lot during Vietnam. Also, the North Vietnamese dug large networks of tunnels and moved many operations underground.

Rather than having infantry take and hold large swaths of land identified by battle lines (always impractical in rainforests anyway), we created the concept of firebases. Firebases were isolated forts with artillery batteries, command centers, barracks, and landing pads for helicopters. Just like in the castles of medieval times, small units of troops could patrol the area around the firebase with the support of artillery and return home to the security of the base. And, like the old castles which used to be at ports and resupplied by sea, firebases could be resupplied by air.

Interestingly enough, despite the advanced weaponry, some of the tactics and strategies reverted back to medieval times: us in our 'firebase' fortresses and them in their underground maze fortresses. A lot of the actual combat was between small groups running out on forays and patrols and running into each other.

[Bengalzona]

The set of political circumstances which created the conflict were quite unique. The only thing really similar was our own revolution and the Iraq War.

Politically, there was the whole question of "Why are we even there?" This question was the precursor to the question "Should we even be there?" and was never answered adequately for the majority of people here.

The government basically said we were going there at the request of the South Vietnamese to help defend their country from invasion. This was true on face value. The South Vietnamese did request our assistance and they were, in a sense, being "invaded". But there was much more that went into this story.

The Vietnamese had been ruled by foreign powers for centuries: China, France, Japan. But they had retained their independent identity as a people. The Japanese kicked the French out during WWII. After WWII, the French came back to reclaim their possession. The Vietnamese, having battled the Japanese during occupation, were not interested in being occupied again. So they battled the French, and won in 1954 at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. The French pulled out and the Vietnamese prepared for a national election.

But there was a problem here, in the eyes of the U.S. Many of the people in the country favored communism, influenced by the Chinese during WWII. Those who favored communism were particularly strong in the north of the country, but there were groups throughout the country who sided with them. In fact, it was generally felt that the majority of the country favored communism. The U.S. was at the height of the "Red Scare" and feared more communist governments being formed around the world. Basically we thought they were all friendly with each other and would band together to fight us. Soviet rhetoric at the time played to this fear. As a result, we went to the U.N., got a resolution to postpone the election and went about setting up a separate nation in South Vietnam. In reaction, the people in the north of the country (who didn't necessarily see themselves as another country) went ahead with elections there, set up their own government and decided that the first order of business was to re-unify the country. The Soviets, seeing that the government in the north was a thorn in our side, were only too happy to support ad help them. Thus both, North and South Vietnam became proxy states in the Cold War.

But the South Vietnamese government was a big problem for the U.S. It was corrupt and flawed. The President and much of the appointed government were Catholic, a very small minority in Vietnam. Most people there are Buddhist. And the government began instituting policies which promoted their religion and values on the rest of the country. The Buddhist majority opposed this and this led to coups, dissatisfaction and even to some choosing to support the north and reunification. The only reason South Vietnam existed ultimately was because we created them and propped them up. And even that wasn't enough.

So, we went because it was in our interest to go. But our interest was based upon objectives which were based upon a flawed assumption. And we went to support a government that the people there didn't even want.

[SunsetBengal]

Much applause to Bengalzona, he explained that entire scenario better than I've ever heard it told in print, or documentary.

Kudos!

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2015, 08:48 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The concepts of 'air mobile' and 'air cavalry' were born.

Great analysis Zona. My last taste of combat was with the last Air Cav unit in the Army. Of course we didn't use UH-60s or Cobras; we had OH-58s.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2015, 10:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Great analysis Zona. My last taste of combat was with the last Air Cav unit in the Army. Of course we didn't use UH-60s or Cobras; we had OH-58s.

[Bengalzona]

(05-16-2015, 10:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote:

"Scouts Out!"

[Nebuchadnezzar]

One of the things I never understood about the strategy in Vietnam was why the US built camps in defensive positions and go out on patrols and set up ambushes in South Vietnam rather than go on the offensive and push into the north and crush the the People's Republic of Vietnam. It makes no sense to me why they would do that.

Were the US Commanders afraid of the Chinese crossing the boarder to fight with the North against the US like they did in Korea?

[Bengalzona]

(05-16-2015, 11:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: One of the things I never understood about the strategy in Vietnam was why the US built camps in defensive positions and go out on patrols and set up ambushes in South Vietnam rather than go on the offensive and push into the north and crush the the People's Republic of Vietnam. It makes no sense to me why they would do that.

Were the US Commanders afraid of the Chinese crossing the boarder to fight with the North against the US like they did in Korea?

Yes. That was part of the reason.

It was also a question of legality. In the court of the U.N. and in world opinion, our pronounced reason for being there was solely at the request of the South Vietnamese to defend their country. As long as we stuck to that, we were legally in the right and other countries like China and the Soviet Union had not recourse to intervene. An intervention, of course, would have meant a broader conflict and possibly another world war and nuclear war. Staying straight in the world court of opinion was very important.

[HarleyDog]

Ok, no BS people. Read BZ's explanation visualizing the narration of the words by Brian from half baked. Heres the video to get your brain primed before re-reading.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhHRt2PpHsQ

Trust me - you will love it.

And no I don't think Vietnam was a joke.

[Ryuko]

Zona hit a lot of important points, but I think a major part of it was the widespread use of television. Having the war broadcast directly into your living room removed a lot of the heroism that went hand in hand with war through all our previous wars. Old-fashioned patriotism and idealized heroics were up against images of kids getting their limbs blown off while you are eating dinner. Add in the fact that it was a war against an ideology, it required a draft, and there was a major bungling in the way that protestors were dealt with at home, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Previous wars had an immediate, visible threat as well as our own propaganda machine banging on all cylinders to rally home support. TV made all of that impossible by Vietnam.

[HarleyDog]

(05-17-2015, 12:14 AM)Ryuko Wrote: Zona hit a lot of important points, but I think a major part of it was the widespread use of television. Having the war broadcast directly into your living room removed a lot of the heroism that went hand in hand with war through all our previous wars. Old-fashioned patriotism and idealized heroics were up against images of kids getting their limbs blown off while you are eating dinner. Add in the fact that it was a war against an ideology, it required a draft, and there was a major bungling in the way that protestors were dealt with at home, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Previous wars had an immediate, visible threat as well as our own propaganda machine banging on all cylinders to rally home support. TV made all of that impossible by Vietnam.

Kent State was a perfect example.

[Bengalzona]

(05-17-2015, 12:14 AM)Ryuko Wrote: Zona hit a lot of important points, but I think a major part of it was the widespread use of television. Having the war broadcast directly into your living room removed a lot of the heroism that went hand in hand with war through all our previous wars. Old-fashioned patriotism and idealized heroics were up against images of kids getting their limbs blown off while you are eating dinner. Add in the fact that it was a war against an ideology, it required a draft, and there was a major bungling in the way that protestors were dealt with at home, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Previous wars had an immediate, visible threat as well as our own propaganda machine banging on all cylinders to rally home support. TV made all of that impossible by Vietnam.

Absolutely.

This was the social aspects that I mentioned in the first post. And TV may have actually been the most important.

I remember being at a barber shop when the war was going on and seeing a news broadcast with scenes of severely wounded soldiers being evacuated from the field. In color. It was a bit shocking at the time seeing all of that blood. I can still remember it vividly 45 years later. You wouldn't have seen that in World War II or Korea unless you were actually there in person.

[magikod]

Great post Bengalzona, couldn't have said it better myself.

[Harmening]

I always liked how they called it a 'conflict', and not a 'war'.

[BmorePat87]

Zona pretty much covered it. From someone who didn't live through it and only studied it, here's a take. From a cultural standpoint, Vietnam was a stark contrast to WWII.

In WWII, we had a defined enemy that had attacked us. Defeat these nations and you win the war. In Vietnam, we didn't have a defined enemy. We weren't attacked. There was the North Vietnamese Army, but there was also the Viet Cong. As Ho Chi Mihn said, the occupying force loses if they don't win. The guerrilla wins if they don't lose. He said that even if they lose 10 for every 1 of ours, they'd fight to the end or until the US grew tired of the war. It ended up being closer to 60 Vietnamese killed for every American. And we couldn't just drop a bomb on the North to end it. The enemy was also in the South. Even in the North, our tactics of destroying their infrastructure was ineffective because they had Chinese and Russian engineers come and repair their cities. We couldn't risk killing them and draw those forces into the conflict. If they weren't involved, we would have starved the North into surrender within a year. Our advance weaponry and better tactics provided no advantage in this type of war. As Zona stated, it came down to skirmishes while on patrol.

Vietnam wasn't the first Cold War era war. Korea was. Korea was actually far more destructive in terms of American casualties per year there than Vietnam. 36k deaths in 3 years (and 4k missing) compared to 58k over 11 years (if we count from the time of the GoT resolution) with 2k missing. Korea was very similar too. The Communists in the North invaded the Democratic people in the South. China supported the North, we supported the South.

Vietnam was a completely different generation, though. The guys who fought in Korea were either veterans of WWII or guys who were 5 or so years younger than the WWIII veterans. They were pretty much the same generation. Vietnam, however, was mostly the children of that generation. Huge cultural shift from '42-'53 to '64-'75.

[Ryuko]

(05-17-2015, 12:28 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Kent State was a perfect example.

I was trying not to be too on the nose with it, but yes.

[Bmoreblitz]

Great post Zona! I commend those vets. They didn't get the respect that we get today. They were spit on, cursed at, assaulted, shamed We have an all volunteer Service today but many in that era were drafted or voluntold.

[Belsnickel]

(05-17-2015, 11:49 AM)Bmoreblitz Wrote: Great post Zona! I commend those vets. They didn't get the respect that we get today. They were spit on, cursed at, assaulted, shamed We have an all volunteer Service today but many in that era were drafted or voluntold.

My father attempted to enlist in the Air Force upon his high school graduation. He had his appointment to swear in and sign all of his paperwork. While waiting, he received his orders for the Army via the draft. When he spoke with the recruiter he was told there was nothing he could do now.

At least my father escaped the infantry as his skill set was needed for him to be an engineer. Though being attached to the 4th ID he was still in the thick of it, and being in the generator corps he would be dropped in the bush with two other guys to run wiring for FOBs that SF groups would be using, usually in enemy territory. He's proud of his time in the service now, though I doubt that was always the case. I think it is somewhat him trying to look at the positives as he carries with him a lot from over there. This Thanksgiving will be 13 years since he was diagnosed with leukemia that the military has confirmed is due to his contact with large amounts of Agent Orange while at LZ Oasis. He and so many like him fought a war that many in our public were primarily against, and they didn't volunteer to do it. That has to be a tough thing to carry with them.

[*jason*]

Vietnam in HD on Netflix will pretty much bring all of your posts to life for people who know very little about the war.

Excellent posts guys...