Why Couldnt the US win the Viet Nam conflict?

Wallabies said:
I think that's a bit of a cop out for the generals. They did not have the right training and neither did their troops in this type of war. You can't blame the soldiers for what training they received though or what discipline they operated under.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that the training of our troops and their leaders in the field was without peer. Our troops were recognised as some of the best jungle fighters in the world at that time, and we punched well above our weight considering the size of our force in the field. I hope that I'm not being parochial when I say that.

To my way of thinking, the whole thing seemed to go pear shaped somewhere further up the line.
 
Last edited:
The US Army did not lose the war in Vietnam, they never lost a major battle and never gave up any ground, the battle was lost by the politicians and not the army
 
LeEnfield said:
The US Army did not lose the war in Vietnam, they never lost a major battle and never gave up any ground, the battle was lost by the politicians and not the army
Click to expand...

True, in addition I think that they also failed to sieze key terrain and dominate the vital ground. Despite the best efforts of the troops on the ground the strategy was flawed, exacerbated as you point out by lack of political will. Never a good idea to let your enemy run around unchecked.
 
I would have thought that the training of our troops and their leaders in the field was without peer. Our troops were recognised as some of the best jungle fighters in the world at that time, and we punched well above our weight considering the size of our force in the field. I hope that I'm not being parochial when I say that.
Click to expand...

I of course was talking about the US military.

The US Army did not lose the war in Vietnam, they never lost a major battle and never gave up any ground, the battle was lost by the politicians and not the army
Click to expand...

Ground was given up as soon as the latest patrol moved on.
 
Wallabies said:
Ground was given up as soon as the latest patrol moved on.
Click to expand...

10/10 Wallabies, go to the top of the class.

We could always gain ground, but we were never able to hold it... Such is guerrilla warfare. This is the same problem that will defeat us in Afghanistan, but we deserve no better because we are too stupid to learn from previous mistakes.
 
Last edited:
When you are fighting a fluid kind of war where there is not a clearly defined front line it is impossible to put troops on to every part of the ground that you have covered or fought over. Basically the American tactic's were correct in search and destroy. The only problem was that they were expected not to cross international borders while the VC could go where they liked and do what they liked in any of the surrounding countries. What you needed was a bit of the Nelson touch where a blind eye would have been turned to troops getting lost and running in an enemy patrol and having to fight to defend them selfs even if it was on the wrong side of the border

c
 
The only problem was that they were expected not to cross international borders while the VC could go where they liked and do what they liked in any of the surrounding countries. What you needed was a bit of the Nelson touch where a blind eye would have been turned to troops getting lost and running in an enemy patrol and having to fight to defend them selfs even if it was on the wrong side of the border
Click to expand...

So this sole fact lost them the war? The politicians decided to end it, the military lost it. Billions of dollars, manpower, technology a hundred years ahead, could not defeat a peasant carrying around a rifle? Explain not losing a battle in a decade and then losing the war.
 
Wallabies said:
So this sole fact lost them the war? The politicians decided to end it, the military lost it. Billions of dollars, manpower, technology a hundred years ahead, could not defeat a peasant carrying around a rifle? Explain not losing a battle in a decade and then losing the war.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that you cannot understand that the politicians lost the war, not the troops.

BTW I was one of those troops.
 
Your problem is that you cannot understand that the politicians lost the war, not the troops.

BTW I was one of those troops
Click to expand...

The military backed the politicians into a corner by creating the **** fight that the Viet Nam war became. 360 000 casualties by the end and nothing to show for it.
 
A few thoughts

Politically it became very difficult to sustain casualties and maintain an army in a country with no direct threat to the US itself. In previous centuries empire's didn't have TV camera's peering at their activities and bringing the realities of war into civilians living rooms. Neither was the vote so universal.

The terrain made it very difficult to utilise any technological advantage particularly at night.

Modern 20th century armies actually used very few combat troops I recall only 50 000 US infantry were available to cover the whole of South Vietnam, the rest were support in one form or another.

The South Vietnamese became dependant upon technology to fight whereas the NVA adapted to fighting it, when the US left the communists were battle hardened, ostensibly 'trained' by the US.

The US were effectively fighting the Soviets and China as well, not just the NVA and Viet-Cong, the latter two simply supplied the troops. Worse still the US were politically restricted were and when they could strike.

The more the US bombed NV the more the population supported their nationalist cause.

The battle for heart and minds was poorly thought out. The South Vietnamese could afford to live in luxury for a fraction of US spending on the war itself, yet the villagers still lived in poverty and were terrorised by the VC and sometimes by the South Vietnamese and US as well.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
The battle for heart and minds was poorly thought out. The South Vietnamese could afford to live in luxury for a fraction of US spending on the war itself, yet the villagers still lived in poverty and were terrorised by the VC and sometimes by the South Vietnamese and US as well.
Click to expand...

Perseus, I agree with your points - I would like to highlight the last one as I personally feel that the aspect of Hearts & Minds was only paid lip service. I think that this has been addressed to some degree but not sufficiently. To my mind there should civilian development / re-construction and education teams embedded within the forces for certain phases of battle.

I have to query that the politicians were completely to blame, after all they had the political will to send the troops & sustain them & the war for 9 years. I think that the military command must shoulder it's share, for its failure to adapt the strategy, in the early years & not fighting to allow the ROE to include targets of opportunity & strike at the NV rear areas.
 
We lost Nam because the US govt didn't fully commit like it did WW1 and WW2, we never won the Korean war either, there has been a cease fire in effect for so long now that some people thing the war is over, but technically its the longest war in modern history.

If your country doesn't fully commit and fully support its war effort, chalk it up as a lose.
 
Come on wolf, you were up against guys in sandals. The troops were there, the resources were there, the time was there. The whole of America's industrial might did not need to be mobilised against a peasant army.
 
Wallabies.............It is difficult to defeat an enemy who will blend in with the population and will cross international boundaries into safety when you are forbidden to pursue them or even shoot in that direction.
 
It's impossible to win a war where everything that needs to be done to win it is off limits.
An invasion into North Vietnam was what was needed, an action that would take the fight to the enemy and not the other way around. Once that was ruled out, I think it pretty much ruled out victory in Vietnam.
 
Wallabies said:
Come on wolf, you were up against guys in sandals. The troops were there, the resources were there, the time was there. The whole of America's industrial might did not need to be mobilised against a peasant army.
Click to expand...


Ya can't kill what ya can't see. just like if I come to your neighborhood and try to find you, and you don't want to be found then my odds of finding you are slim to none, while you can watch me make every move I make, add that to the fact that nobody in my country likes me being there or acres if I'm there, and you have the perfect recipe for total lose of moral. Lose moral, lose the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top