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

And all the US did was press for a higher body count. The difference between US and Aus/NZ tactics was night and day and I believe the war could of been won if the US had adopted them.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

And all the US did was press for a higher body count. The difference between US and Aus/NZ tactics was night and day and I believe the war could of been won if the US had adopted them.

And what do you base that statement on?

Several Vietnam vet members of this forum would like to know.

Everything I have heard from Australian Vietnam vets and read about the Vietnam war.

tomtom they did use completely different tactics.
My cousin went over there and said the Australian forces wanted to know why the US forces were still using WW2 tactics in a place where the "open field" war tactics just didn't quite work.

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.

Wow where have you been in the past 40 years. Russia did the same thing in Afghanistan and lost to the "peasant" army. Its hard for a country to win a war 3000 miles away (or whatever the distance is). Besides with certain tactics off limits and going against and enemy that new the land and terrain, it was going to be a defeat for anyone anyways. The French lost in vietnam, Russians in there own vietnam (afghanistan). Just becuase and army wears sandals and pajamas doenst mean they cant fight or win a fight.

Wow where have you been in the past 40 years. Russia did the same thing in Afghanistan and lost to the "peasant" army. Its hard for a country to win a war 3000 miles away (or whatever the distance is). Besides with certain tactics off limits and going against and enemy that new the land and terrain, it was going to be a defeat for anyone anyways. The French lost in vietnam, Russians in there own vietnam (afghanistan). Just becuase and army wears sandals and pajamas doenst mean they cant fight or win a fight.

I was replying to wolf's belief that the US lost in Vietnam because it did not go for Total War.

Of course you can win if you are prepared to do what it takes to win.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

I was replying to wolf's belief that the US lost in Vietnam because it did not go for Total War.

Ok mate here's the scenario. I'm coming to your country to attack you, I've never been there before and I have no idea whats in store for me there, my country back home calls me a baby burner and hates me for even going in the first place, I'm sent by a govt that really doesn't give a dam if I live or die, and really doesn't want to be involved to begin with. I am led bu idiots, I have no moral cause I'm using WW2 tactics against the first jungle Guerrilla warfare in the world, every body looks alike, both friendlies and the enemy, I shoot its 50/50 of which one I'll hit.


That is why the US lost Nam.

am led bu idiots, I have no moral cause I'm using WW2 tactics against the first jungle Guerrilla warfare in the world

This is what I've been saying.

Wolfen.... Whats all this crap about it being the first jungle Guerrilla war since WW2, I wonder what ever happened out in Malaya, which some how the British & Commonwealth forces managed to win, mind you it took 16 years to do it, but win we did.