Guerilla Warfare - Page 2

March 14th, 2004  
What about our elite FA? I'm thinkin they probably beat that ratio.
March 14th, 2004  
I bet the air force could rack up ratios like that pretty easily.
March 14th, 2004  

Topic: yes.

well, when using bombs dropped from planes the ratios are diffrent...
March 14th, 2004  

Topic: sorry

I am sorry for the way I have been acting lately. I was being stupid. Yoyu guys are making me mature. To guys I am only a kid. But in reality you gus are making me more mature. I joust want strict knowledge.(formerUSMC cadet) (Present usaf cadet) I just want to become smart so in the near future I could answer questions. Please forgive for taking up time and space. You are the only guys that understand me. It wont happen again. Stupidity will not come from me no more.
March 14th, 2004  
All the ratios would vary, but the best is when no one is lost!

Stupidity will not come from me no more.
Incorrect grammer, give me ten push ups!

March 15th, 2004  
Special forces where born out of guriller warfare,in WW2 the SAS spent months out in the desert conducting hit and run raids on german positions (they did it again in the gulf war), and conducted anti gurriller warfare again in malaya when the SAS was reformed to fight communist gurrilers and since most special forces are based on the SAS, they probably have the ablility to fight and perform gurriller warfare alredy.
March 23rd, 2004  
I can speak about the Viet Cong in Vietnam at least during the time I was in country and in my AO. I spent a year traipsing through the Central Highlands of that place in an Army Scout Platoon. FYI, our mission required us to be on recon patrol for the vast majority of the time. In other words, our mission was to observe and report on all the activities, movements, and resources of the enemy. I never once encountered any evidence of any VC units or activities. It is my considered opinion that by the time I was deployed to South Vietnam (1970), the Viet Cong, as commonly perceived, no longer existed as a viable fighting force. We saw plenty of North Vietnamese trying to give the impression that they were VC but after some investigation they were all found to be NVA (North Vietnamese Army) that had recently been sent south. So much for that guerrilla force.
March 24th, 2004  
Top, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the VC demonstrate my point very well. They were primarily concerned with keeping the Americans off balance, rather than winning decisive battles. Their strategy was as much political and psychological as it was military. And, (this is the point) ALL of this was a build up to the point where they could stage an actual knock down drag-out decisive battle. That's what the Tet Offensive was SUPPOSED to be. But wasn't, because it fell flat on it's face.
March 25th, 2004  
You're right except about the head to head battle. VC and NVA would go out of their way to avoid taking on the Americans in an open battle. Without exception, they were outgunned and over-matched and they were well aware of that. These simple facts of life left them with little alternative but to stage a guerrilla style war.
The Tet offensive took place before I got there but it was clearly an attempt to do what we had been doing to them all along. That was to give the impression that they could take any place at will. We would do that all the time by air assaulting onto a hilltop well within their AO and set up a fire base wherever and whenever we wanted to.
During Tet 1968, the VC and NVA didn't stand a chance of holding any of the cities they attacked. They sure as hell weren't even close to holding Saigon. Their concept was that the people of South Vietnam would join them against us. That went over like a lead balloon. They weren't even close to taking Saigon. 19 VC reached the American embassy grounds there but never even gained entry. But I remember the news media portraying it as virtual defeat of the Americans.
For background you should realize that through 1966 N. Vietnam suffered huge casualties and devastation of supplies through bombing in the north and fighting in the south. Just 10 days before Tet, the battle of Khe San took place. The same General (Giap) who had defeated the French at Diem Bien Phu (1957) also conceived Khe San. His purpose at Khe San (besides victory) was to distract the Americans from the cities of South Vietnam.
It was that very Tet offensive that inflicted such heavy casualties on the VC that they were not considered a viable fighting force after that.
The misreporting, along with Communist North Vietnamese agents in the United States, led to demonstrations in the streets by Americans in protest of the war. Gen. Giap later wrote in his book, that the news media reporting and the demonstrations in America surprised them. Instead of seeking a conditional surrender, they would now hold out because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of victory could be theirs.
Here's another bit of info for you. Bui Tin (the guy who received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam) had this to say when a Wall Street Journal reporter interviewed him. Tin said, "America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Tin went on to say that Gen. Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) had advised him the 1968 Tet Offensive had been a defeat.
So, to answer your question, no the VC's intent for Tet was victory and they got their collective butts handed to them. Their greatest weapon turned out to be the sensationalist American media not guerrilla warfare.
Sorry for the long winded post but I am not sure how much background information people who read this might have.
March 25th, 2004  
Hi DTop, Welcome to the forum.

A long but very interesting post.

Originally Posted by DTop
Their greatest weapon turned out to be the sensationalist American media not guerrilla warfare.
Sadly enough, this seems to be the case in most modern conflicts/wars..
(not only American media...)