The Only American General to Lose a War Dead at 91

[Wezil]

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311



yet another brilliant quote from someone who has never researched authoratative sources on the subject....

right up there with the journalists who continue to perpetuate myths as facts, journalists who have never even read a book on the war

Care to point out one of the "myths" from his post. I'm curious...

[sprucemoose3311]

Originally posted by Geronimo


US 'lost' vietnam because we fought a huge war which didn't achieved any of it's objectives. This was probably inevitable since the US failed to actually define any objectives that could be achieved through such a limited war.

No question there was a war and we didn't win it, so trying to argue we didn't lose it is basically pointless regardless of the lopsided endless series of (ultimately irrelevant) total military victories on the battlefield.

the goal set forth by lyndon johnson was to fight a war of attrition to force the north to the bargaining table and force a peace settlement. we were afraid to have the chinese enter the war like korea. the north did not want to recognize the south as legitimate and the south felt the same. it took years before all three sides even agreed upon how to start peace talks.

Nixon came in and created a policy of vietnamization. us troops would be replaced by vietnamese troops. this worked well, by the time of the peace treaty, the vietnamese made up large percentages of active combat units. when aided by air cover they were just as effective as US troops. then peace came.

preemptive:
no one has brought it up yet but i will preemt it:
The tet offensive was a US victory. initially the NVA succeded in certain areas. HOWEVER at the end of the battle the North had lost so much man power and resources that they could not launch an offensive until 1975.

[Wezil]

That's all good but you quoted Kontiki with your sarcasm then, when questioned, you came back with a rebuttal to Geronimo.....

What gives?

[sprucemoose3311]

Originally posted by Wezil


Care to point out one of the "myths" from his post. I'm curious...

he didnt post a myth nor did i say he did...

i said his quote is comparable to those who dont know much about vietnam

[Wezil]

Implying he was somehow wrong....

I ask again, where and how?

[sprucemoose3311]

Let's see: 11 years, 58k dead, 153k wounded, a huge stain on the US military credibility and morale, massive distrust of the government at home, alienation of returning servicemen and the take-over of the south by the communists anyway. Yep, you guys won the **** out of that war.




lets break this down: 11 years... thats 2 years too many... unless you count covert operations during french/indochina war... then thats not enough years. the first us troops killed was in 1956.

how was the military's credibility hurt: the us won against a strong NVA that had:
MiG-21
The Soviet MiG-21 served as the primary high-altitude fighter in the North Vietnamese arsenal. Capable of flying more than twice the speed of sound and armed with a 30mm cannon and air-to-air missiles, the MiG-21 disrupted American bombing raids, shooting down bombers and engaging in furious and often victorious dogfights with American fighter planes. The highly-maneuverable MiG was also easy to maintain and could operate from unimproved airfields. The MiG-17, an earlier model in the MiG fighter series, also saw frequent service as a fighter/interceptor in North Vietnam.

Specifications for the MiG-21:

- Year: 1955
- Engine: Tumansky R-11F-300 with 12,675 lbs. thrust (with afterburner)
- Span: 23 ft. 6 in.
- Length: 51 ft. 9 in.
- Height: 15 ft. 9 in.
- Weight: 18,080 lbs. max.
- Maximum speed: 1,300 m.p.h.
- Cruising speed: 550 m.p.h.
- Ceiling: 50,000 ft.
- Range: 400 miles
- Crew: one
- Armament: one NR-30 30mm cannon plus two K-13A air-to-air missiles

The N.V.A. relied on the Soviet-made T-54/55 as one of their main battle tanks. Fitted out with a 100mm, turret-mounted main gun, the T54/55 fired anti-armor and high explosive rounds at a range of about 16,000 yards. A four-man crew controlled the tank, which traveled at a top speed of about 50 m.p.h. The tank's armor varied in thicknesses from 20mm on the underside to 203mm at the turret. The T54/55 weighed 36 tons.

BTR 60 Armored Personnel Carrier
The Soviet-made BTR armored personnel carrier served as the Vietnamese counterpart of the M113. Several different models of the BTR series were used, including the BTR 60P, an eight-wheeled amphibious vehicle with a crew of two, which carried up to sixteen soldiers. While the sides of the vehicle were protected by armor in thicknesses of up to 10mm, the roofless BTR 60 offered no cover for attack from above. The BTR 60 traveled on land at speeds of up to 50 m.p.h. and in water at about 10 m.p.h.

DP 7.62mm Light Machine Gun
The North Vietnamese used the DP light machine gun as their squad-level, automatic support weapon. This counterpart to the American M-60 fed cartridges using a pan magazine or belt, and had a range of about 875 yards. Based on a Soviet design, the DP 7.62 was provided to the Vietnamese by both China and the Soviet Union

SA7 Grail Anti-Aircraft Missile
In North Vietnam, American pilots faced a deadly barrage of radar-guided, base-stationed anti-aircraft fire. In the South, one of the biggest threats to American aircraft was the SA7 Grail. A shoulder-fired, portable weapon, the Grail could be moved quickly and concealed easily, making it difficult to deter. Grail missiles downed numerous American planes and helicopters

both sides were well equipped with modern weapons


alienation of returning servicemen: not disputed... but i question how much of this was actually present versus what our modern interpretation is.


so the US lost because the south collapsed anyways after the US left. i guess that means if a former british colony falls to communism britain loses also.

[Wezil]

Okay, thank you.

So you quibble over the length of time. Too little or too long depending on your interpretation of when US involvement began.

Casualties you don't mention so I assume you have no big differenece with those numbers (this was the only part I was questioning myself...).

You dispute it had an effect on US military credibility - I disagree but it is a debatable issue methinks.

You don't mention morale - You agree it was bad on military morale then?

Distrust of government - again not mentioned so presumed not to be in dispute.

Alienation of returning servicemen - Was present. Again we can debate scale but you accept the point.

Yes, when the south collapsed you lost. If a former Brit colony falls to communists after that much blood and gold spent to "save" it then yes, they too would have lost.

So, in effect you agree with most of his post but disagree on time involved (as you admit - would depend on interpretation) and whether it adversely affected the credibility of the US military.

Sorry but hardly "right up there with the journalists who continue to perpetuate myths as facts, journalists who have never even read a book on the war".

Kontiki was more accurate than not from what I see.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311

preemptive:
no one has brought it up yet but i will preemt it:
The tet offensive was a US victory. initially the NVA succeded in certain areas. HOWEVER at the end of the battle the North had lost so much man power and resources that they could not launch an offensive until 1975.

Almost correct. The Tet Offensive was a Viet Cong operation, not an NVA operation. After the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong no longer had an effective fighting force.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

how many migs, tanks, and such did vietcong/nva have in south vietnam?

[Last Conformist]

how was the military's credibility hurt: the us won against a strong NVA

As far as credibility goes, what counts is perceptions, not kill ratios. Most people came away with the perception the US lost.

[Patroklos]

Didn't Britain fight pretty damn hard for India?

His point stands, the American's objective was to prevent South Vietnam from being communist, which they did while involved, and in fact it maintained iteself for two years when we left.

58K killed and 130K wounded over the 11 years given is actually not bad at all when you considered how many servicemen fought/scale of the operation. But if us acheiving our pimary objective (as often as it was changed) and suffering those casualties costitutes a defeat, how does suffering 2-3 million casualties and your country being a smoldering ruin but having gotten South Vietnam consitute a victoy?

Unless victory simply means controling the territiry, in which case alot of people here a hipocrits concerning some other conflicts.

[Last Conformist]

The US achieved their war aims and the North achieved theirs. Huzzah! Love all around and happiness for all.



You just have to wonder why a war was necessary in the first place then ...

[Patroklos]

I do.

And I think neither won. It is a bit insincere on the part of Americans to crush the NVA enough so that it takes a few years to rebuild, leave knowing that the South could hold out for a few but not forever.

And of course if your country is left in the state North and South Vietnam was in, especially when your military was rendered impotent every time you tried anything, it is a bit insincereto call that victory too.

The whole thing was stupid, especially since the North will end up a capitalist democracy eventually anyways, just like everywhere else.

[Hueij]

His point stands, the American's objective was to prevent South Vietnam from being communist, which they did while involved, and in fact it maintained iteself for two years when we left.

Yep, great show But from my POV I'd say that "58K killed and 130K wounded" is too big a prize to pay for just eleven years. Plus the fact that the US lost a lot of credability in the rest of the world.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The whole thing was stupid, especially since the North will end up a capitalist democracy eventually anyways, just like everywhere else.

I wish I shared your optimism.