Originally Posted by Wallabies

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

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

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.

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

Ground was given up as soon as the latest patrol moved on.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

Ground was given up as soon as the latest patrol moved on.

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.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

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

Right Le. That's the way it goes.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

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.

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

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.