|
Post by Arya Stark on Jan 31, 2019 2:10:28 GMT
That's kind of strange in the American Revolutionary War (something that probably every American hears about in School) Nathanael Greene did exactly the same thing in the southern theatre. He didn't win any decisive Battle but he was a thread because of his presence in the area. The British Army couldn't defeat him. The US didn't learn from there own History? People are for facts only if it serves them. But the moment facts threaten their identity, then they just toss it aside. Unfortunately, thats how we as humans are.
|
|
|
Post by Arya Stark on Feb 2, 2019 15:45:47 GMT
Hey Deleted , should we start another discussion about history? I'm thinking these would be interesting subjects to post on this forum
|
|
|
Post by sb1sw on Oct 10, 2021 16:29:11 GMT
Basically they lost the morale to fight the war after fighting for so long, even though they were superior compared to Vietnamese in many aspects
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2021 17:07:06 GMT
Basically they lost the morale to fight the war after fighting for so long, even though they were superior compared to Vietnamese in many aspects Yeah, militarily speaking, if it was conventional warfare, Vietnam would've been destroyed, and they were in direct combat. It wasn't the name of the game tho, and the politics back home due to the brutality of the footage shown by the media during the Tet offensive caused widespread anti-war protests in the US. That and the US doesn't really have the support of the locals due to the constant raids if a suspected Vietcong member is in a village. Even if US had won, it would most likely be just a Pyrrhic Victory as they don't really have any solid plans or goals in Vietnam other than stopping the spread of Communism and helping the South establish itself. Any victories against Guerrilla forces is usually short-term, especially one who's dedicated to their cause.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2021 17:07:51 GMT
Hey Deleted , should we start another discussion about history? I'm thinking these would be interesting subjects to post on this forum Also, almost 2 years late reply, but sure. I actually have something planned about that, just making sure i got the time.
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Oct 11, 2021 5:34:24 GMT
This video might be relevant here
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Oct 11, 2021 5:38:54 GMT
This video might be relevant here no. use this:
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Oct 11, 2021 13:19:29 GMT
Was the US really complety superior in technology? How much did the US' "superiority" really influence its performance?
There are articles that claim that the support from the communists, especially the USSR and PRC, helped to even the odds in this aspect when defending against the USA on North Vietnamese soil. "Technical advisors", trainers and weapons and other personnel were shipped in. These eventually enabled the North Vietnamese to build up a complicated anti-air network as well as an air force capable of guarding against US bombings.
Even as we accept that the US held advantages in the air, the US supposedly did not want to risk war against China and so, vital regions close to the Chinese border were not bombed / bombed to a lesser degree. Being unable to use its full might likely hindered the US' ability to wield its air advantages in levelling North Vietnam, unlike Imperial Japan and North Korea. The US military's ability to crush North Vietnam's (as well as the Vietcong) economy and war-sustaining capability was weakened.
The loans and funds from North Vietnam's allies enabled it to sustain the war in spite of US bombings. In other words, the "less developed" North Vietnam could continue fighting even with the US' air advantages. Plus, this also allowed the Vietcong and North Vietnam to sustain a war of attrition against US assets in the region, wearing down US public morale and determination at home. Think of how Grant's war of attrition was criticised during the "final phase" of the American Civil War and the demoralising effects of the "money sink" of the continued US presence in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
On the ground, the US' ground superiority was arguably foiled by Vietcong guerilla warfare. If the guerrillas did not want to fight and actively avoided fighting the US troops or US-backed ARVN, the land advantage the US held was unusable. Moreover, the Vietcong's tunnel systems could have given the German trench engineers of WW1 a run for their money. Clearing the tunnels neutralised numerous US ground advantages (unless the US could send armour or support aircraft inside the tunnels) and these tunnels were used to good effect as bases.
We can acknowledge that the US' ground technological advantages brought the US to victory in conventional ground engagements and warding off guerilla strikes, but the Vietcong would keep coming back and wear the US down. Key strongholds could be cleared in a brief offensive, but the US ground forces could not hold all of South Vietnam alone when it also had other tasks to execute. The US would be forced to abandon the cleared strongholds, only for the Vietcong to likely return and continue using it as a base. This would lead to a repeat of the attrition argument.
Tl;dr:
- The US did have some technological advantages which allowed the US to perform well under some conventional circumstances. - However, these would limited by / offset by the enemies' advantages and other US limitations. - The US' war efforts and advantages were undermined by long-term attrition which devastated support for the war.
|
|
|
Post by Hobo Joe on Oct 11, 2021 14:20:52 GMT
I don't know about the whole ideological point, I always thought the overall consensus was that the US had extremely minimal experience with asymmetric warfare and hadn't yet developed an appropriate strategy. Same with other countries that have lost wars against smaller nations, like how the English lost against physical force Republicanism in Ireland.
The US is extremely talented at conventional warfare, particularly in the modern very air-focused camp. But time and time again, the US Armed Forces has proven to be fairly inept in asymmetrical warfare. The best they can tend to get out of it is a neutral retreat, peace deal, or armistice, like Korea, VietNam, and Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ต๐ด๐ฌ๐บ on Oct 11, 2021 15:17:16 GMT
My opinion is that the usa have lost because they have not understood that you don't win wars by mere strength of troops and technology alone. Morals, knowledge of the Country (and culture) espionage and to bring the local population on your side is also crucial. They fight alongsiede the Vietnames people but not for them and the Vietnames know it. Short and excellent analysis - you honor your avatar Clausewitz.
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Oct 12, 2021 5:23:33 GMT
Maybe they (Probably even all countries for that matter) need to change their strategies to fight the guerilla warfare and fighting insurgents and limit conventional warfare towards defending only. It still has a flipside though. In a guerilla warfare, the population of that country suffers a lot, especially if the invading country is like the Nazi Germany
|
|