Vietnam

[Zed Snardbody]

It has become common belief among many that if the white house hadn't interfered in the war fighting in Vietnam that the US could have easily won.

I was reflecting on this the other day and I began to wonder, would that really be possible? The North Vietnamese were committed to bringing the South under their control. In the short term their objective was to drive the US out, which would make their over all goal easier. So I ask the question. Could the US have won the war? Keep in mind the following restrictions.

Stabilize the region. South Vietnam must exist as an independent nation, as must North Vietnam.

Nuclear weapons are not allowed.

Massive civilian casualties are still a no no (No wiping cities of the map with conventional weapons)

The US must eventually withdraw.

For the purpose of this argument, lets assume that DC has given the military free reign in mid 1965.

[HemlockGrey]

I think it would be possible to force out the North, if Washington basically let the army cut loose and fight as dirty as they could.

[HemlockGrey]

Although the reports of the Tet Offensive as a crushing US defeat certainly didn't help.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

If the military can do what they want and get the support they need without the hippies bitching about this and that, then probably. It would be tough with the relatively poor training of US troops and the massive guerilla resistance but I think the good ol' US of A can bash up some pissant old-school commies.

[Sea Skimmer]

Basically the problem with the war was US commander adapted an aggressive approach meant to end the war in six months. The problem is such an approach only works if you have an advantage of 15-20 to 1 and American forces never had more then a 3-5 to 1 advantage over the VC in the country. What was needed was a defensive approach but one with a timeline or more like three years, which would have been historically unacceptable. The result was the US spent years trying to win the war aggressively until it became to late to win it any way. Politics made it all the worse.

What I've said above is arguable however. Its possibul to US could have searched out an obliterate the VC sufficiently to collapse the insurgency before the NVA become a major factor, its just highly unlikely and didn't happen historically.

Now onto my plan.


The US's best chance for winning would be a massive fortified hamlet program, the people of the country side must be defended and armed for there own defence. Search and destroy operations are worthless except those with a clearly defined objective and goal, otherwsie they serve only to expose US forces to excessive losses. The VC could sustain their losses from such operations quite easily.

The end result of this will be a weakened VC cut off from much of its food supply. It will then have no choice but to launch attacks against well-fortified positions, which will basically have the same result as Tet, will the near annihilation of all VC forces. The problem is by 1965 the VC had sufficient strength that they could overwhelm many such fortified positions. Such a program was need much earlier in the war, it was tired using Special Forces on a limited scale in the early 60's but the ARVN didn't provide the weapons needed to make it work. Providing weapons to the civilians also shows government trust and will greatly increase the support of the countryside for the government as opposed to supporting the communist. This brings up another issue, which is that the ARVN and Vietnamese government often would not cooperate with US forces. The plan as laid out above was successful in Thailand and to a lesser extent in Malay though that war was of a much lower intensity.

Such a plan must also extend into Laos and Cambodia, to choke off external supplies to the VC forces. The weaker the VC get the easier a hamlet program is since smaller villages can be defended.

In the air over the North planes where being lost in 1965 but the mining of all ports and rivers and the total destruction of the railway to China will massively reduce losses, the NVA went through thousands of tons of ammo every day. The MiG menace will never evolve as every airport will be kept shutdown. While the original US plan for intervention had a contingency for an invasion of the North I wouldn't exercise it on any really large scale. The combination of several mobilization heavy cruisers and a battleship combined with a brigade-division sized raiding force would rapidly erode the NVA's strength and prevent it from moving South.

The best bet would be to seize a number of off shore islands, set up heavy artillery and use that along with naval gunfire and bombing to dominate areas of the coast and force the NVA to maintain large forces beyond local militias in case of an invasion.

If the situation in the South can be stabilized and then turn back towards Americas favor then I'd look into an invasion of the North, but not before the South has been decisively won. However I suspect after a few years the North would grow tired of the conflict and agree to some form of cease-fire. If the South along with Laos and Cambodia have been decisively won by that point then its very likely such a ceasefire would hold long term.

[MKSheppard]

Invade North Vietnam. Problem solved

[PrinceofLowLight]

Invade North Vietnam. Problem solved

But then we have the million dollar question..."What Will China Do?".

[MKSheppard]

But then we have the million dollar question..."What Will China Do?".

Not very much if we threaten them with nuclear annihilation if they
intervene THIS time...

[Sea Skimmer]

Invade North Vietnam. Problem solved

Except for the hundred thousand VC still running around the rest of Indochina and all the NVA members and local militia we didn't kill in the invasion who are now also fighting a guerrilla war. Invading North Vietnam gives the US millions more people, which it must guard a larger percentage of whom will be hostile. It also means there supply lines a coming only a short distance China which greatly reduces the time we have to interdict them. If they all flow through an unoccupied North Vietnam first we can have a fun unrestricted time bombing them when there concentrated along roads and railway lines and can't be used against our forces. With unrestricted bombing North Vietnam will become more of a bottleneck for supplies rather then a haven for them as it was historically.

And with no search and destroy ops we could better watch the borders for what does come through.

[MKSheppard]

Except for the hundred thousand VC still running around the rest of Indochina and all the NVA members and local militia we didn't kill in the invasion who are now also fighting a guerrilla war.

Where did the NVA and VC supplies come from? Do you think AK-47s and
23mm AAA guns grow on trees?

Cut off them from their supplies and you can win, eventually forcing
them down to a starvation level guerilla war relying on rifles, not
a well trained force armed with all manner of weapons up to light anti
aircraft artillery.

You'll notice that this is pretty much what the Russians did in Afghanistan
and Chechenya...only this time in Chechenya, the Chechens have no super
power sponsor handing them free Stinger missiles and money for weapons
from pakistan.

[Sea Skimmer]

Where did the NVA and VC supplies come from? Do you think AK-47s and
23mm AAA guns grow on trees?

Cut off them from their supplies and you can win, eventually forcing
them down to a starvation level guerilla war relying on rifles, not
a well trained force armed with all manner of weapons up to light anti
aircraft artillery.

The terrain along the Chinese/Vietnam boarder is awful for military operations and out ability to seal it off would be very limited, at least with a blockade across Vietnam and Laos we can bomb and shell anything on the other side.

You'll notice that this is pretty much what the Russians did in Afghanistan
and Chechenya...only this time in Chechenya, the Chechens have no super
power sponsor handing them free Stinger missiles and money for weapons
from pakistan.

Unless you count Russia and China..

[Knife]

Wow, I agree with Shep. In an all out senario, taking and holding North Vietnaum would have starved the insurgency in SV. While I have no doubt that alot of people would have kept the revolutionary spirit in the south, with out the support of the North they would eventually dwindled and died.

As to superpower support, holding the major towns and cities in the North would stiffle the ability of China to get supplies to the south.

[MKSheppard]

Wow, I agree with Shep. In an all out senario, taking and holding North Vietnaum would have starved the insurgency in SV. While I have no doubt that alot of people would have kept the revolutionary spirit in the south, with out the support of the North they would eventually dwindled and died.

Yeah, that was the big problem - we'd kill all of the VC in an area off,
and then a new group of VC/NVA assholes would come down from the North
with men, equipment, supplies and ammo and the entire process would
start all over again.

[Raptor 597]

Also, to make sure more men were active fighting daily and screw the air conditioned son of a bitches send them too fight. Also, bomb the hell out of the north while invading it. Imagne Operation Christmas 24/7.

[Slartibartfast]

This kinda should be in politics, because it annoys the hell out of me.

[The Yosemite Bear]

As we would find out under the Carter & Regan Administrations, an invasion by China would be in our best interests. The Vietnamiese have been invaded by China so many times that they get along like greeks and turks/persians.

If China invades all of vietnam will join to fight off China, if we are helping them to fight off China they will be on our side.

[Vympel]

*thinks about starting Afghanistan 79-89 thread*

Anyways, some questions:

"The US's best chance for winning would be a massive fortified hamlet program, the people of the country side must be defended and armed for there own defence."

What was the scope of the original fortified hamlet program, and why did it fail? Arming for their own defense won't work, they'll probably just give those weapons to the VC- in many cases the VC were from the village in the first place. As to defending them, what would the manpower requirements for such an operation be?

[Stuart Mackey]

*thinks about starting Afghanistan 79-89 thread*

Anyways, some questions:

"The US's best chance for winning would be a massive fortified hamlet program, the people of the country side must be defended and armed for there own defence."

What was the scope of the original fortified hamlet program, and why did it fail? Arming for their own defense won't work, they'll probably just give those weapons to the VC- in many cases the VC were from the village in the first place. As to defending them, what would the manpower requirements for such an operation be?

Give the South Veitnamese something decent to fight for and you are halfway there. The sohtern government was a rotten, corrupt mess, its no wonder the south was so apathetic.

[Crown]

*thinks about starting Afghanistan 79-89 thread*

No correlation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was next to flawless. It was only when it became a guerilla war, and the Soviet 'central' military command idea, did they start getting fucked over by the Mujhadin (sp?).

And as Shep said, a superpower providing them with free arms.

[Vympel]

No correlation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was next to flawless.

Naturally

It was only when it became a guerilla war, and the Soviet 'central' military command idea, did they start getting fucked over by the Mujhadin (sp?).

And as Shep said, a superpower providing them with free arms.

Yeah, that's why I was thinking about starting the new thread- how to deal with the guerilla war. Of course, the Soviets lost jack shit in the Stan compared to what America copped in Vietnam, in both men and material, but it'd still be an interesting exercise.

[Crown]

Ahhhh, I see!

Pardon me for doubting you, I should have realised.

[phongn]

Give the South Veitnamese something decent to fight for and you are halfway there. The sohtern government was a rotten, corrupt mess, its no wonder the south was so apathetic.

Not killing Diem would be a good start.

[MKSheppard]

Not killing Diem would be a good start.

Thank JFK for that fuckup

[Sea Skimmer]

What was the scope of the original fortified hamlet program, and why did it fail?Arming for their own defense won't work, they'll probably just give those weapons to the VC- in many cases the VC were from the village in the first place.

Its scope wasn't very large thought it did score a number of success. Its eventual failure was because the VC had already grown strong enough to overwhelm most small villages if fortified so only a fraction of towns could be protected via these means. That meant they could still obtain plenty of food which defeated much of the propose. The ARVN also made a habit of either not supplying arms to the people or even collecting up ones American forces issued. They're never where any significant problems with the people trading over arms to the VC because the villages selected for the limited program hated the communists. That was true of a quite large chunk of the South's population. And as I said, the same thing did succeed in Thailand because it was implemented before the communist grew too strong.

As to defending them, what would the manpower requirements for such an operation be?

About a million men ought to do it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yeah, that's why I was thinking about starting the new thread- how to deal with the guerilla war. Of course, the Soviets lost jack shit in the Stan compared to what America copped in Vietnam, in both men and material, but it'd still be an interesting exercise.

The Soviets also faced a tiny fraction of the manpower with lighter weaponry and next to no threat of large conventional attacks on their bases. The situations aren't really comparable because American forces had to deal with a large preexisting guerrilla force when they arrived; one that was already fielding troops in regimental strength. The afgan resistance had to build up after the Soviets arrived and didn't start getting much American support until 1984 and no Stingers until around 1986.