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.

Originally Posted by perseus

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.

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 is difficult, no reason to go with the same wrong tactics and strategy for a decade.

Wallabies.......Just what do you think that the Americans should have done then

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

Wallabies.......Just what do you think that the Americans should have done then

And don't forget Wallabies, Australia was with the US in Vietnam also, along with Korea, Thailand and the Philippines and New Zealand..

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.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

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.

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.