Did America beat Vietnam?

[Shadow]

Just a question.

[Saranof]

No, the US just bombed the crap out of everything.

[Fargin]

Oh I want the best seats of the house, when this one unfoulds.

[ShotOver]

This should be a good fight...

*Gets front row seats*

[lefador1]

Theoretically VietNam was never a war, so it can not be won or lost (I don't think there was an armnistice). As far as we know, Americans left the country and the VietCong took over, so I guess there is no point in asking if the US won the war is it?

[vryhpyammoadded]

Beat? Sam beat old Nam night and day for about 15 years. It was an ugly one-sided fight but Nam's a tough little guy. He even managed to hit back a few times. Sam gave up and went back home forfeiting the match.

[HumanShield]

It also depends who you ask.
Alot of people that were in Vietnam will tell you that we lost.
But alot of other people will tell you that we won.

It all depends who you are asking.

[Henk]

They won in Nam but lost at home.
__________________________
He who wants peace must prepare for war.

[Barabas]

It was scheduled for 15 rounds but the U.S. was handed a TKO in the 12th.

[usa320]

"They won in Nam but lost at home."

Exactly. From a military standpoint we would have won eventually- towards the end things were improving. The AIM-7 air to air missiles were improved, guns were added to the F-4E's, Top Gun training was formed, laser guided bombs and Night scopes were beginning to be phased in large numbers for the first time ever. The AH-1 gunship helicopter came about.

Had the politicians not screwed around so much, we could have won that war, but incredibly strict ROE as to what could be struck from the air really limimted the effetiveness of the campaign, for example anything withing like 10 miles of Hai-Phong was off limits for quite some time. This really hampered the Air forces and Navy's abilities to inflict severe damage to the Vietnamese command and control system, their air defense grid and air force, and their infrastructure and miitary industry.

Had the ROE been not as tight, we could have won.

It was a military victory, but a political failure.

[Fargin]

One can't liberate people who don't want to. Unless you go for the death shall set you free solution.

[budanski]

A police action that proved that micro-management of a war by civvies from Washington should be let run by generals who know the business.

[Kriz]

You lost big time because the goal of the Vietnam war was to prevent communism from spreading further and it failed. Besides from that it was a waste of human lives and money.

Allthough they did make some good movies about it !

[budanski]

You also forgot alot more came out from Vietnam. The introduction to alot of innovative weapons, the M-16, gunships, smart bombs, claymore mines, to name a few and most important of all, Me.

[tally]

How can anyone possibly say we won? We where helping the South fight Communist North Vietnam. We left after loosing approx. 60,000 Americans and allowed the North to take over. Today Vietnam is still run by Communist North Vietnam.

[Jooglae]

Winning the War: Won

Winning the Hearts and Minds: Lost

It's as clear as that.

[Haiw]

the USA weren't defeated by the north, they were defeated by war...

[tally]

I don't understand. If we never had control of the country, and the communist North who we where fighting took over the day we left, and still rules today, how did we win?

It is a communist country, been that way since the moment we got there till the moment we left, and still today, and some of you are saying we won?

[budanski]

Tally up! The U.S. were successful with most of the battles in Vietnam. It was only lost years after the U.S. pullout due to problems back home and under the incompetant South Vietnamese military.

[Jooglae]

I guess we could say that the US eventually lost.(Along wih their allies from Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and South Vietnam)

The actual combat statistics will prove that the US was successful in Vietnam conflict for the most part, but then the American people are so impatient. And mass media played quite a role in rousing up anti-war sentiment among the public.

[tally]

You are right, we won some battles, but for sure we lost the war. I don't think it would be a communist country if we won. We were there to help the South and they lost so big they don't even exist anymore.

People will say we lost it at home, or we lost it in the media, but bottom line is any way you loose, you still loose!

[budanski]

Lets not forget why we were there in the first place....
The thread should read: Did Vietnam beat France?

[tally]

Budanski,

Where did you get that picture? It's pretty funny.

[budanski]

One of the kids i've adopted via Sally Struthers for tax purposes. I send him 60 cents a month and some clothing. ;)

[tally]

I am sure the teachers love the shirt you sent him. Does he have beer in that lunch box?

Anyways, this thread is nothing new, the debate over the Vietnam war has been going on for a long time. In most debates though the question is not whether we won or not, because it is very clear we lost the war (Its a communist country today), but, like Budanski said we won some hard fought battles. The question that is debated a lot is why we lost the war.

Everyone has a different opinion. One I have heard a lot is LBJ micormanaged the heck out of the war. Early on after we entered Bahgdad I heard George W get asked why this is so different from the Vietnam war and he said something like "I don't micromanage, I set the strategy, and the military leaders under me make the plans and execute them"

[to free the oppressed]

The Troops won the war,The Politics lost the war. And rembemer General Patton speech "America never has and never will lose a war".I think we won the war in Vietnam.

[Ratamacue]

We won the battles, lost the war. Simple as that. And we did win the hearts and minds of many South Vietnamese people. Anyone remember the mass evacuations in 1975? South Vietnamese people just pouring into helicopters?

[Haiw]

all the south vietnamese wanting to get in the choppers was not cus they liked the americans, it was just cus they were afraid of the north vietnamese; they'd have been just as eager to get on a french, german, dutch, british, swahili or whatever country's chopper

[to free the oppressed]

if you look back in 1975 the President never did close the Vietnam file even Mr.Clinton amited in 1996 that American SF were still operating in Vietnam.

[vryhpyammoadded]

It was scheduled for 15 rounds but the U.S. was handed a TKO in the 12th.

I've always kind of pictured the Crusher vs Bugsbunny..

[ScoutRanger]

Won the battles and lost the war.

[Shadow]

Does he have beer in that lunch box?

Does he look like 21?
In Germany we are allowed to drink beer in the age of 16. :D

[Desert-Fox]

Scoutranger said it best!

Won the battles and lost the war.

Very True

still i think many americans aren't aware that they Lost in vietnam!
The almighty america Lost to a technologically inferior army!
that's a Fact ! You Lost ! and still many of you simply Deny it!

[California Joe]

still i think many americans aren't aware that they Lost in vietnam!
The almighty america Lost to a technologically inferior army!
that's a Fact ! You Lost ! and still many of you simply Deny it![/quote]

That's a simple, prejudiced, somewhat overly dramatic, and mildly retarded view of a complex subject.

We killed more of them than they killed of us. Usually means we won. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. It must be one of the strangest "wars" ever engaged in.

[Nite]

Well, the aim of the Americans in Nam was to prevent the Commies from getting South Vietnam too. But in the end, South Vietnam was overrun by the communists, so the USA lost the war.

[Machine]

A few of you have it right: We dominated in battle, but lost politically in that we failed to preserve South Vietnam from North Vietnamese Communist aggression. So, we lost the war.

Some of you do not understand this, especially you non-Americans. Unfortunately, many Americans don't fully understand the conflict so you think we are in denial. No one who knows a bit about the war denies that we lost.

What's interesting is that we chose to defend South Vietnam, this wasn't like we were attacked and forced into war ie Japan, Taliban Afghanistan, Great Brittian, etc. Those were "wars" and we won them all. This was an action that we chose to take and we did not reach our objective. So it was more so a case of failing to do what we wanted than losing. My two cents.

[NotoriousTFB]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the vietcong were fighting over there long before we even managed to get involved, thus they had much more experience in that style of unconventional warfare in the jungles. They knew how to be quieter, and maneuver a hell of a lot better than us from when we first got there. In the big picture, we won a lot more of the offensives, and managed to fight well until our casualties piled up to the point where we had to leave the region because of the hell it was causing back on our own soil. But hell, it was hard enough to even tell who was the enemy and who was your ally. Children with grenades going kamakazee....crazy.

[GazB]

Does the Phrase "Won the Battles, but lost the war" ring a bell?


"Ironic isn't it, that, according to some colonels of the NVA, the war would have been shorter, less destructive, and have caused fewer casualties, were it not for the peace protesters."

But is it true?
There were no peace protesters in France when the French were fighting the VC and NVA. The Americans said at the time that it was about communism, but I think we can all agree that communism spreading rampantly throughout Asia never happened... why not?
McNamara wrote a book about it... he seemed to think it was more about freedom than communism. Communism supplied the weapons, but it was about the Vietnamese getting rid of the French and then the Americans and also to get rid of the corrupt government in the south.

"We killed more of them than they killed of us. Usually means we won."

No it doesn't. Only 11 million Germans died in WWII... over 30 million Soviets died... I guess Germany won?


Those who say it was the the politicians that lost the war for America... wake up. The Generals method was to kill everyone in North Vietnam and most of those in South Vietnam. I'm sure Hitler would have been impressed by carpet bombing...
I even heard some US generals wanted to use nukes.
You shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

[James]

In 1945, when Ho Chi Minh was leading the Viet Minh against the JAPANESE, he met with some American OSS officers. They asked him what his objective in (then) French Indochina was. He wanted an independent nation, free of colonial rule. The war ended soon thereafter, and this information didn't get to all of the people it should have. THe French returned, and fought the Viet Minh until 1954, when they were defeated at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. THere were peace talks, and Vietnam was divided in two. Enter the American idea of the "Domino Effect". Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist, and wanted all of Vietnam united. Some policymakers in the U.S. gov't read this as socialism/communism (this was the same time period when the U.S was causing mischief w/ Arbenz in Guatemala and Mossadegh in Iran). The U.S began providing aid to S. Vietnam, both with equipment and advisors. In 1963, the U.S. was involved in the assassination of S. Vietnamese President Diem. Curious, when you look back - America was supporting the fight against the North, but was involved with the killing of the president in the South...
U.S. Aid increased. In 1964, a couple of U.S. Naval vessels were ostensibly attacked in the waters off of N. Vietnam. Commence major air raids against Hanoi and Haiphong... In 1965, U.S. Installations in S. Vietnam were attacked by the (Now) Viet Cong. Enter regular units of the USMC and USA. Their mission expanded from security to search and destroy over the next few years.
Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968, partly on the promise that he would end the war in VIetnam. The last regular American military forces were withdrawn from Vietnam in 1972, though the U.S. continued providing logistic and air support for the ARVNs. Vietnamization was the plan to gradually turn over the major effort to S. Vietnam. They were (20/20 hindsight speaking) unable and unwilling to make the effort required. In the Spring of 1975, the NVA launched the offensive that took them to Saigon and victory.

I apologize for simplifying things so much. It appears to me, from looking at history that:

GazB is correct we (the U.S.) shouldn't have been there - we could have supported Ho Chi Minh and independence in 1945 and prevented both the French and American wars in Vietnam.

The U.S. did win the battles, and also lost the war. That has been said once or twice in this thread... I sat that based on the objective being to maintain the security and territorial integrity of S. Vietnam. What muddies the situation is that the U.S. more or less pulled out in 1972, and S. Vietnam wasn't defeated until 1975. I am inclined to see the situation as one where American policy makers at the time believed that it was an unwinnable fight, and that they pulled out in order to prevent more discontent at home and loss of American lives in Vietnam.

Those are my thoughts, but what do I know? I wasn't even a twinkle in my father's eye until 1973... :D

[Seiyuuki]

In 1945, when Ho Chi Minh was leading the Viet Minh against the JAPANESE, he met with some American OSS officers. They asked him what his objective in (then) French Indochina was. He wanted an independent nation, free of colonial rule. The war ended soon thereafter, and this information didn't get to all of the people it should have. THe French returned, and fought the Viet Minh until 1954, when they were defeated at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. THere were peace talks, and Vietnam was divided in two. Enter the American idea of the "Domino Effect". Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist, and wanted all of Vietnam united. Some policymakers in the U.S. gov't read this as socialism/communism (this was the same time period when the U.S was causing mischief w/ Arbenz in Guatemala and Mossadegh in Iran). The U.S began providing aid to S. Vietnam, both with equipment and advisors. In 1963, the U.S. was involved in the assassination of S. Vietnamese President Diem. Curious, when you look back - America was supporting the fight against the North, but was involved with the killing of the president in the South...

Diem was against the election for a President to govern a unify Vietnam on the basic that he knew or afraid he was going to lose. Second, my uncle was Buddhist during that time and Diem and his Catholics bastards had him arrested, last we checked, he was still in his grave since that unfortunate day!!! If the U.S. didn't took him out, eventually, some Vietnamese is going to do it himself/herself. After all, Buddhist monks burning themselves to death, protesters on the street, military soldiers rebelling couldn't persuade Diem, what would?


Richard Nixon was elected President in 1968, partly on the promise that he would end the war in VIetnam. The last regular American military forces were withdrawn from Vietnam in 1972, though the U.S. continued providing logistic and air support for the ARVNs. Vietnamization was the plan to gradually turn over the major effort to S. Vietnam. They were (20/20 hindsight speaking) unable and unwilling to make the effort required. In the Spring of 1975, the NVA launched the offensive that took them to Saigon and victory.

Yeah...thank you to Congress and the damn peace protesters that persuaded them to cut aids to S. Vietnam and leaving us to hang. My father was one of the few thousands that decided to stay behind and fight while most were scrambling out of Saigon in 75's, but in the end there isn't much you can do against an army that greatly outnumbered you and Soviets' tanks chasing you down without some heavy artillery of your own. So, again, thank you to Congress, he had to rot six years of his life in the N. Vietnamese so-called "re-education" camp.

Though maybe I should consider that as a fortunate incident for when the U.S. began opening its door for emmigration from Vietnam, one of the criteria for those that don't already have direct family member in the States was that one of our direct family member must be a former soldier of the Republic of Vietnam and have rotted for at least 5 years in "re-education" camp...or something close to that. One of my uncle was an MP, he was screwed over in the process 'cause he got out of the N. Vietnamese "re-education" camp early.


I apologize for simplifying things so much. It appears to me, from looking at history that:

GazB is correct we (the U.S.) shouldn't have been there - we could have supported Ho Chi Minh and independence in 1945 and prevented both the French and American wars in Vietnam.

The U.S. should have been there, BUT not in the capacity that history had shown...granted the performance of the army of S. Vietnam was not exactly great and that our leaderships were corrupted; instead of fighting the war FOR the S. Vietnamese, the U.S. shouldn't have given up on us. Give us time, and we'll be ready to invade France if the U.S. wanted us too. Hell...they could have reform the our entire military infrastructure without much objection, after Diem's death, the next President was pretty much a "yes" guy to the U.S. The Vietnamese are the same people that successfully fought back against the Mongols, survived 1000 years of Chinese's oppression and kick their behind, survived under the Japanese and well...the French wasn't that big of a feat. So...U.S. shouldn't have fought the war FOR the S. Vietnam, the better thing they should have done is have some more faith in the S. Vietnamese arm forces, more aids, more advisors, reforms, etc. etc. etc.

[martinexsquaddie]

no

[[AFSOC]]

They won in Nam but lost at home.
__________________________
He who wants peace must prepare for war.

RIGHT ON THE MONEY

[Royal]

You also forgot alot more came out from Vietnam. The introduction to alot of innovative weapons, the M-16, gunships, smart bombs, claymore mines, to name a few and most important of all, Me.

Don't know about you, but M16's, Claymores and gunships were being used by us (the Brits) in Borneo, long before they were in the 'Nam. The French were using gunships in Algeria long before that.

I agree with Tane, the SF/CA Ops in the early 60's were textbook. IMHO it was the Generals (initially at least) who were the problem - regularising and controlling the SF OPs. It was only the politicians and public opinion later on.

[Seiyuuki]

I believed what budanski meant by "gunships" was the AH-1 Cobra...it was the first helicopter designed and built just for the purpose of blowing up thing. Not strapping on some guns and missiles to a helicopter like the Huey, that concept, of course, has been around for a while.

M-16 used by the Brits before Vietnam??? More info. please!!!

[Royal]

British involvement in the Borneo conflict began in 1963. The M16 (or AR15, not sure exactly which) was adopted as the standard UK weapon for jungle Ops, and remained in that role until a while after the L85 was adopted (can't remember exactly when it was dropped).

To the best of my knowledge the M16 wasn't adopted by 'conventional' US units until '65 at least.

[garyfanclub]

British involvement in the Borneo conflict began in 1963. The M16 (or AR15, not sure exactly which) was adopted as the standard UK weapon for jungle Ops, and remained in that role until a while after the L85 was adopted (can't remember exactly when it was dropped).

To the best of my knowledge the M16 wasn't adopted by 'conventional' US units until '65 at least.

I highly doubt that, M16 was initially a weapon developed for the USAF for their security guards in Vietnam. Initially the M16 was a terrible weapon and soldiers weren't taught how to clean it, hence the Army and Marines refused to adopt it until around late '66-'67 when the A1 model began being issued to line units. Even after that many USMC units retained their M14s because they preffered the stopping power of the ol' Mr. 7.62. So my guess is that in '63 the Brits were using Stens and other WW2 era automatic weapons, considering it would be very difficult to use an SLR in thick jungle terrain like that.

There is however some validity to your statement because the British (the SAS in particular) began using the M16 in SE Conflicts, and to my knowledge they continue to use it. I also don't understand how it could be the British Army's 'standard' jungle fighting weapon. From this statement I infer that /every/ British unit (including regular infantry units!) would trade in the SLRs for M16s if they were going to fight in the jungle. :o

[Royal]

I also don't understand how it could be the British Army's 'standard' jungle fighting weapon. From this statement I infer that /every/ British unit (including regular infantry units!) would trade in the SLRs for M16s if they were going to fight in the jungle. :o

You are correct - they did (as did the Royal Marines). They were also used extensively in the rural areas of Northern Ireland, particularly South Armagh in the days of the SLR.

As for the Sten Gun, it was abandoned in the late 1950's by the British Armed Forces. The Australian Owen Gun was used in Malaya, but as far as jungle work was concerned it was M1 carbines in the '50s and M16's from the early 60's on.

Sorry to disapoint you, but apart from US SF, the Brits were there first. We didn't experience the same problems either, maybe because of better enforced cleaning routines, or the fact we used different (cleaner) ammo.

[Scrim]

USAF was reluctant to commit to the AR-15 as something new and controversial, one of the first buyers was the British Army who issued it to the SAS in Borneo.

[Royal]

USAF was reluctant to commit to the AR-15 as something new and controversial, one of the first buyers was the British Army who issued it to the SAS in Borneo.

It wasn't just SF (the SBS operated in Borneo too). Line infantry battalions and Royal Marine Commando's used it too.

[Scrim]

Thankyou Royal, thats just what my little weapon book says, you know how they love the SAS. SAS this SAS that.....

[Royal]

Sorry, Budinski but you manage to contradict yourself in the one quote. Whether it was the AR15 or the M16, it was being fielded by British units long before 1968...


The M16 was FIRST issued to American Soldiers in Vietnam in 1968. Since then, it was adopted by a dozen of military and police forces throughout the world. Operation Desert Storm was one of the more current situations were the M16 has proven itself to be an excellent rifle. The military is discussing to adopt a new rifle as their standard issue rifle. The M4A1, a variant of the M16 rifle has a shorter barrel and an adjustable buttstock. Even though, the M4A1 is not a newly designed weapon, rather a modification of the M16 rifle.

The operational debut of the M16 appeared to go quite well when the rifle was first issued to troops in the battle in the Ia Drang Valley of Viet Nam in early November, 1965. Lieutenant Colonel, later Lieutenant General, Harold G. Moore Junior reported "brave soldiers and the M16 brought" the allied victory. But as the number of M16s "in country" increased, so did the reports of their failure in combat.

[budanski]

History of the M16/AR15 (http://gunlover.8m.com/custom4.html)

[budanski]

got that here (http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Ss5UyvurtCUJ:www.star-spangled-site.com/60_nam_m16.htm+M16+History&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8) Royal.

Still waiting for you to come up with your sources besides heresay.

[Royal]

Like I said, your quote contradicts itself.

I don't collect books on the subject, and it doesn't bother me enough to surf the net looking for it. My main corroboration is a Company photo of my old Company (long before I was in it, or even born) taken at Gunong Gajah in '64 with the majority of the lads carrying 16's.

Sorry...

[budanski]

Background Information on the UNITED STATES RIFLE CALIBER 5.56mm M16 (http://mwilson.hypermart.net/views/guns/m16.html#DEVEL)


On 16 June 1962, one platoon from the 340 Ranger Company was on an operation...and contacted three armed Viet Cong in heavily forested jungle. Two VC had carbines, grenades, mines and one had a sub-machinegun. At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one Viet Cong with three rounds in the first burst. One round in the head took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took it completely off too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter...it can be assumed that any one of the three wounds would have caused death.

Did I tell you the time when the U.S. fielded the Eurofighter before the Europeans?

[budanski]

Sorry the quote contradicted itself hence the reason I pulled it to put up a better source. I suppose that quote meant it as it being mass produced in quantities of 85,000 in '68 and not during the field testing.

[Andyman]

I love the pro Americanism in this site its funny to the point where it dont make sense. They failed in their objectives which I've heard a few people on this post say already and the Americans were not hugely successful the fighting was different and many Americans died I believe somthing like 43% were friendly fire casualties. The U.S definately failed on all fronts and there is no denying that and if you guys start swearing and name callin and all that crap I aint even gonna listen to your defence.

[GazB]

"Sorry to disapoint you, but apart from US SF, the Brits were there first."

I Haven't heard about British use of the AR-15 (M16 is what the americans called it in service, so if they didn't have it in service then it must have been called AR-15) which of course doesn't mean it didn't happen. It was my understanding that they were not popular and were initially handed out to the south vietnamese due to the smaller stature of these soldiers meaning the smaller M16s were a better fit than the M14 which was the other rifle the Americans could have issued them with.

"Initially the M16 was a terrible weapon and soldiers weren't taught how to clean it, hence the Army and Marines refused to adopt it until around late '66-'67 when the A1 model began being issued to line units. "

There was nothing wrong with the initial weapon... the only major change was the addition of a bolt closure device... if you cleaned it properly then that little addition did F all. If it wasn't cleaned properly then being able to close the bolt on the first round is not going to help it close on the second round... ie it won't stop the weapon jamming.
The problem was that the soldiers were told they didn't have to clean the rifle... and if the powder wasn't changed they still might have gotten away with not having to clean it.
Not new mistake of marketing, and hardly the fault of the rifle.

The underlying problem was that many of the US troops were conscripts. Even Russian soldiers are screamed at if they don't clean their AKs and there are no PR guys saying the new weapon is a wonder weapon... just political officers saying it is a soviet design... therefore it must be the best in the world. Not every unit in Vietnam had problems with the M16. Spec Ops and professional units did well and had few problems, though parts still broke too soon as the new powder burned quicker and increased the rate of fire to much higher rates.