Originally Posted by LeEnfield

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.

the crap is that since 07/04/1776, the United States military has been experts in warfare (according to ourt govt) in every area EXCEPT a jungle enviroment.
I was trained to fight in every city enviroment, house to house door to door, desert, mountail, woodland, swampland, "the hood" or the burbs, but I was never introduced to the proper techniques needed to remain alive in a jungle enviroment.

Wolfen....You did state the following
Using WW2 tactics against the first jungle Guerrilla warfare in the world, every body looks alike, both friendlies and the enemy.

Also you are forgetting the Jungle war fought by Britain and the Commonwealth in Borneo from the early 1960's and we did not lose that one either

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

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.

True enough Le. Not the 1st Jungle war since WWII. But the 1st for the US since WWII.

03usmc.......Agreed, but I was trying to make the point that there have been other conflicts going on in the world apart from the ones that the US is involved in.

Originally Posted by wolfen

the crap is that since 07/04/1776, the United States military has been experts in warfare (according to ourt govt) in every area EXCEPT a jungle enviroment.

Not a very accurate statement.

You left out the Spanish American War. Fought in the Philippine Jungles and Cuba.
Maybe missed the actions of Island hopping and Okinawa in the Pacific during WWII.
Retaking of the Philippine's during WWII.
The introduction of Helicopter Warfare in Vietnam.

Basically your statement is crap.

Vietnam was lost on the political front;
"By early 1965, U.S. combat troops begins arriving in South Vietnam to counter the threat imposed by both the local Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese troops in the border areas. As the fighting escalated, widespread bombing of North Vietnam by the U.S. Air Force and Navy escalated as Operation Rolling Thunder. Hồ remained in Hanoi for most of the duration of his final years, stubbornly refusing to negotiate with the Americans and demanded nothing but an unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops in South Vietnam. By July, 1967, Hồ and most of the Politburo of North Vietnam met in a high-level conference where they concluded that the war was not going well for them since the American military blunted every attempt by the Peoples Army of Vietnam to make gains, and inflicted heavy casualties. But Hồ and the rest his government knew that there were two weaknesses: there was still no disguising the continuing ineffectiveness of large portion of the South Vietnamese army, shielded by U.S. firepower, and that American public opinion was not wholeheartedly in favor of the war. With Hồ's permission, the North Vietnamese army and politicians planned to execute the Tet Offensive as a gamble to take the South by force and defeat the U.S. military.
Although the offensive was a huge tactical failure which resulted in the decimation of whole units of Viet Cong, the end result was a moral victory for it broke the U.S. will to fight the war and public opinion in the U.S. turned against the government which resulted in the bombing of North Vietnam halted, and negotiations with U.S. officials opening as to how to end the war."
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh#In_the_USA

US troops get additional training based on the types of warfare they are expected to deploy to. Emphasis on jungle warfare has been less since Desert Storm.

The jungle war in Vietnam was completely different to the battles in WW2. The US military has gotten off free of blame in recent years for losing the Vietnam war because of how servicemen were treated when they first got back.

In 1966 journalist Gerald Stone described tactics then being used by Australian soldiers newly arrived in Vietnam:

"The Australian battalion has been described …as the safest combat force in Vietnam… It is widely felt that the Australians have shown themselves able to give chase to the guerillas without exposing themselves to the lethal ambushes that have clamed so many American dead… Australian patrols shun jungle tracks and clearings… picking their way carefully and quietly through bamboo thickets and tangled foliage… .It is a frustrating experience to trek through the jungle with Australians. Patrols have taken as much as nine hours to sweep a mile of terrain. They move forward a few steps at a time, stop, listen, then proceed again.

Another perspective on Australian operations was provided by David Hackworth, Vietnam’s most decorated US soldier.

"The Aussies used squads to make contact… and brought in reinforcements to do the killing; they planned in the belief that a platoon on the battlefield could do anything."

Former VC Leader.

"Worse than the Americans were the Australians. The Americans style was to hit us, then call for planes and artillery. Our response was to break contact and disappear if we could…The Australians were more patient than the Americans, better guerilla fighters, better at ambushes. They liked to stay with us instead of calling in the planes. We were more afraid of their style"

The most supportive case on Australian tactics in the Vietnam war is this, we still use them today. Can the US say the same thing?

Originally Posted by Wallabies

The jungle war in Vietnam was completely different to the battles in WW2. The US military has gotten off free of blame in recent years for losing the Vietnam war because of how servicemen were treated when they first got back.



The most supportive case on Australian tactics in the Vietnam war is this, we still use them today. Can the US say the same thing?

Most vets will tell you that the war fought by the US in the RVN was fought in a screwed up manner. It's not the military that got off it's the planners and the generals that got off. Planners that thought war could be waged in increments and generals still wedded to WWII type tactics. Certain elements such as SF, LRRP, NSW fared well in a COIN enviroment because they had no need to be wedded to WWII/Cold War tactics.

The Aussies came to RVN with experiance in Borneo and Mayala, they had evolved from the WWII tactics to a more modern COIN LIC warfare.They had commanders that understood thru experiance the US had no commanders outside of the SOF community that were even versed in the theory.

Can we say what? That we use the same tactics as we did then? That would depend on the AO, the threat and the terrian.

It's not the military that got off it's the planners and the generals that got off. Planners that thought war could be waged in increments and generals still wedded to WWII type tactics.

Yes that is who I am to referring to.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

The US military has gotten off free of blame in recent years for losing the Vietnam war because of how servicemen were treated when they first got back.

The US military did not lose a single battle in Vietnam. The Vietnam war was lost in the end by the South Vietnam Army (ARVN) in 1975, 2 years after the last US combat troops left in March of 1973. You can say that US politicians lost the war, but do not say that the US military did. It just isn't so.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

The jungle war in Vietnam was completely different to the battles in WW2. The US military has gotten off free of blame in recent years for losing the Vietnam war because of how servicemen were treated when they first got back.

Please supply sources for your contention,"The jungle war in Vietnam was completely different to the battles in WW2". Not aware the North Vietnamese or VC developed different tactics.

Originally Posted by Wallabies

In 1966 journalist Gerald Stone described tactics then being used by Australian soldiers newly arrived in Vietnam:

Quote:
"The Australian battalion has been described …as the safest combat force in Vietnam… It is widely felt that the Australians have shown themselves able to give chase to the guerrillas without exposing themselves to the lethal ambushes that have clamed so many American dead… Australian patrols shun jungle tracks and clearings… picking their way carefully and quietly through bamboo thickets and tangled foliage… .It is a frustrating experience to trek through the jungle with Australians. Patrols have taken as much as nine hours to sweep a mile of terrain. They move forward a few steps at a time, stop, listen, then proceed again. "The Australian battalion has been described …as the safest combat force in Vietnam… It is widely felt that the Australians have shown themselves able to give chase to the guerrillas without exposing themselves to the lethal ambushes that have claimed so many American dead… Australian patrols shun jungle tracks and clearings… picking their way carefully and quietly through bamboo thickets and tangled foliage… .It is a frustrating experience to trek through the jungle with Australians. Patrols have taken as much as nine hours to sweep a mile of terrain. They move forward a few steps at a time, stop, listen, then proceed again."

Another perspective on Australian operations was provided by David Hackworth, Vietnam’s most decorated US soldier.
Quote:
"The Aussies used squads to make contact… and brought in reinforcements to do the killing; they planned in the belief that a platoon on the battlefield could do anything."

Former VC Leader:
Quote:
"Worse than the Americans were the Australians. The Americans style was to hit us, then call for planes and artillery. Our response was to break contact and disappear if we could…The Australians were more patient than the Americans, better guerrilla fighters, better at ambushes. They liked to stay with us instead of calling in the planes. We were more afraid of their style"

The most supportive case on Australian tactics in the Vietnam war is this, we still use them today. Can the US say the same thing?

And if you had read further in your Wikipedia source it was also stated:
"Overall, the tactics used by the Australian Army in Vietnam were not successful. Like the Americans, Australian tactics were focused on seeking to engage the Communist forces in battle and ultimately failed as the Communists were generally able to evade Australian forces when conditions were not favourable. Moreover, the Australians did not devote sufficient resources to disrupting the logistical infrastructure which supported the Communist forces in Phuoc Tuy province and popular support for the Communists remained strong. After 1ATF was withdrawn in 1971 the insurgency in Phuoc Tuy province rapidly expanded."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...r#cite_note-29

Quite simply the Australian tactics might have been better than the US. But ultimitely since Australian's and other allies served in Vietnam if you wish to blame the military for the loss, the allies would have to be included.

The training the US, for that matter Australia, or any other Country supplies it's soldiers is constantly undergoing review and change. If they do not adapt their chances will not be good.