vietnam war

[betaalpha5]

lets say that during the vietnam war, our military had public support. meaning that the public at home felt the war was just, thousands of people line up to join the army etc.

so do you believe that we might have won the war? i mean we could fully have the support of the people, we wouldn't have needed the draft, and people might have fought harder to end communist.

i mean surely the war would have gone on for many many more years but do you believe we could have won? we would have been able to send in a large invasion force into north vietnam, maybe enter the other neighboring countries without the public feeling like the army was out of bounds. and maybe have other countries come in england french(<- they did lose first but still) etc

[Venice_native]

No, because there still wasn't enough point behind the war. It's like, just because you have 40 people thinking you can fly by jumping off a roof, doesn't mean you're going to fly because they think you can and support your choice to try.

[munchyman]

I highly doubt public support could have turned the tide of the war. It was really a combination of favorable conditions for the NVA, bungling of the deployment of troops by the armed forces brass, growing expense, and the unpopularity of the american presence amongst south vietnamese that led to the US withdrawal.....not the peace marches and hippies.

[Emperor Pan I]

That is quite impossible to have won, you would have ended up with a situation like Iraw right now, you can't win no matter what you do.

[Static]

Originally Posted by betaalpha5

lets say that during the vietnam war, our military had public support. meaning that the public at home felt the war was just, thousands of people line up to join the army etc.

so do you believe that we might have won the war? i mean we could fully have the support of the people, we wouldn't have needed the draft, and people might have fought harder to end communist.

i mean surely the war would have gone on for many many more years but do you believe we could have won? we would have been able to send in a large invasion force into north vietnam, maybe enter the other neighboring countries without the public feeling like the army was out of bounds. and maybe have other countries come in england french(<- they did lose first but still) etc

No matter how much support the soliders had, they were still getting decapitated in their sleep by the VC.

[Pale_Horse]

As stated priviously, this question is a mirror of what happened at the beginning of this damn Iraq war. After 9/11 so many people were for the war ... "yea lets go kick some terrorist ass", and look whats going on now.

The Kamakazies are as prevelant then as they are now in Iraq, only now we call them by a different name. Either way, they are still giving up their own life to take out at least 1 of our soldiers, because they believe that we are "evil", "trying to control them", or whatever they are told this week.

In both cases, we are/were the invading army, and can't compete with the numbers of people. We would have to deploy roughly everyone in New Jersey (which now that I think about it, isnt a bad idea) just ot have a fighting chance. We have maybe half of that scattered around Iraq now.

In Vietnam, I think the ration was 15 of them for ever 1 of us over their fighting. Not to mention by day they were friendly, and by night they were firing at our forces. Again almost the same situation with iraq.

So to answer your question, no, I do not think support would have played a role any differently. Only thing it would have changed would be the way they were welcomed back into the country after fighting.

[Bret]

Lets take a look back. Vietnam and WW2. WW2 vets are considerably a lot more sound minded. Nam vets are on all types of pills, more so than WW2 vets. Why?
Was the war any different? A little, but I believe that the support (or lack there of) had a great influence of our troops.
WW2 vets didn't come home on ships at night because people were going to throw stones, spit, and curse at them. It's hard to believe people on the same team could dothat to each other. Then again, it was college students, and we all know what public education is like.

Would the war have been won if there was more support? I believe so, maybe it would have helped a little. But overall the war would have been lost.
I agree, somewhat, with Pale_Horse on how our troops were treated when they returned. Shame on all of them who disgraced and continue to disgrace their own troops. They can burn in hell....

[Pale_Horse]

Originally Posted by Pause

Lets take a look back. Vietnam and WW2. WW2 vets are considerably a lot more sound minded. Nam vets are on all types of pills, more so than WW2 vets. Why?
Was the war any different? A little, but I believe that the support (or lack there of) had a great influence of our troops.
WW2 vets didn't come home on ships at night because people were going to throw stones, spit, and curse at them. It's hard to believe people on the same team could dothat to each other. Then again, it was college students, and we all know what public education is like.

Would the war have been won if there was more support? I believe so, maybe it would have helped a little. But overall the war would have been lost.
I agree, somewhat, with Pale_Horse on how our troops were treated when they returned. Shame on all of them who disgraced and continue to disgrace their own troops. They can burn in hell....

WW2 and Vietnam were vastly different. One major reason, was the WW2 fight was a "just cause" to were Vietnam, their was no real purpose for us being there. It wasn't our fight or place to be there.
That said, the times were different as well, as you stated, most were college age kids. This time period of hippies and drugs being ordered into battle from a draft, were a big factor in the moods, and mindset of the fighters, to were WW2 was mostly barely men of 18 who willingly signed up to defend what they thought was right.
My crazy ass grandfather on my dads side was in WW2, and signed up for 2 extra tours. He told me once, the only reason why he did so, was because he felt he HAD to save them. He returned a hero.
My father, was in Vietnam, and said if their was truely a hell on earth, it would be found in Vietam during that war. He returned as a killer.
Both my grandfather, and father signed up for the wars at age 18. That should give you a glimpse at what the mindset was for each one.

[betaalpha5]

but hey we had to stop communism from spreading over asia. ooooo no we must save capitalism kill them all. we must "save" the people from the evil ideas of communism.

sometimes i think political ideas get in the ways of war. i mean think about it if you were fighting and people were killing you everywhere to be safe you would just blow everything up. villages, forest, make the place into a desert. but we can't do that because it isn't moral and politics would get in the way.

i was just saying that if there was public support than peopel would be willing to just line up in the thousands to fight. i mean that is a lot of people

just my 2 cents. thanks for you inputs, i was just curious.

[Durr]

Originally Posted by Pause

Lets take a look back. Vietnam and WW2. WW2 vets are considerably a lot more sound minded. Nam vets are on all types of pills, more so than WW2 vets. Why?
Was the war any different? A little, but I believe that the support (or lack there of) had a great influence of our troops.
WW2 vets didn't come home on ships at night because people were going to throw stones, spit, and curse at them. It's hard to believe people on the same team could dothat to each other. Then again, it was college students, and we all know what public education is like.

Would the war have been won if there was more support? I believe so, maybe it would have helped a little. But overall the war would have been lost.
I agree, somewhat, with Pale_Horse on how our troops were treated when they returned. Shame on all of them who disgraced and continue to disgrace their own troops. They can burn in hell....

Are you seriously saying fighting in Vietnam was about the same as fighting in Europe and Africa? You are aware of the landscape in Vietnam right? In Europe and Africa you would usually have good visibility, in Vietnam you wouldn't be able to see people 100 yards away. You would have to be watching your back 24 hours a day. You'd never know when you would get swarmed, run into a boobytrap, or get in the crosshairs of a sniper.

[betaalpha5]

which if politics never gets in the way of war, the military can just blow everything up they don't be much of a problem. but then again we know we can't

[Jessanima]

Originally Posted by betaalpha5

lets say that during the vietnam war, our military had public support. meaning that the public at home felt the war was just, thousands of people line up to join the army etc.

so do you believe that we might have won the war? i mean we could fully have the support of the people, we wouldn't have needed the draft, and people might have fought harder to end communist.

i mean surely the war would have gone on for many many more years but do you believe we could have won? we would have been able to send in a large invasion force into north vietnam, maybe enter the other neighboring countries without the public feeling like the army was out of bounds. and maybe have other countries come in england french(<- they did lose first but still) etc

When you are trying to survive in a situation like that, I don't think your main though is "I wonder what the people at home think about all of this." Sure, the military personnel questioned the morality of the war but on the front lines, I don't think there physiological mindset would get in the way of doing their job. Alls they had time to think about was getting their job done as fast as possible, and staying alive.
We lost at Vietnam for many reasons. One of the most notable being that there were vast numbers of the VC. The inexperience of the solders was probably another factor. They were a bunch of 17yr olds from across America. I think that the solders did the best they could in there position and no amount of support could have changed the outcome. OH, and someone said something about how the Vietnam Vets are all screwed up. I think that is because with, say, WW2 the solders came back as war heros and received great respect from everyone; the Vietnam Vets came back as sort of failures, they felt as if there sacrifice was worthless. Do you blame them for the problems they developed? So, I guess my answer is no, support wouldn't have changed the war, but perhaps it could have changed the life of the vets when they came back.

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by Venice_native

No, because there still wasn't enough point behind the war. It's like, just because you have 40 people thinking you can fly by jumping off a roof, doesn't mean you're going to fly because they think you can and support your choice to try.

That's quite possibly the worst analogy I've ever heard. People flying is impossible. Winning a war with better equipment, and better trained men (for the most part) is very possible. The only reason the war in Vietnam didn't succede militarily was the lack of troops, which was a direct result of the public not supporting the war. If Johnson had put as many troops as he had wanted into Vietnam, I think the war, from a military perspective, would have gone very differently. The only problem is, if the war had dragged on much longer, who knows what could have happened in respect to the Soviet Union and such.

[Pale_Horse]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

Winning a war with better equipment, and better trained men (for the most part) is very possible. The only reasonthe war in Vietnam didn't succede militarily was the lack of troops, which was a direct result of the public not supporting the war. If Johnson had put as many troops as he had wanted into Vietnam, I think the war, from a military perspective, would have gone very differently. The only problem is, if the war had dragged on much longer, who knows what could have happened in respect to the Soviet Union and such.

One thing my CO told me once was, that no one ever wins a war, you simply survive it.
The number of soldiers was a very small part of why things went the way they did. You could have had 5x the numbers their witht the draft in effect, but that does not mean everyone there would be fighting with the best of their ability. Now a days people willingly sign up for military service, and willingly put their life on the line to defend what they beleive is right, but you put someone that doesn't want to be there in the first place, who knows what will happen in the time of war. I heard stories where in the middle of a firefight, some people loose it, freak out, and stand up to run away only to get shot dead in the back. All that is doing is raking up the bodycount.

Moral, mindset, training, willingness to take anothers life, planning, communication, amount of soldiers, transportation, and so forth are all factors into what would also be the outcome of a war. To say that it would be won on a larger amout of soldiers is only one small factor.

Look at Pearl Harbor. That was a suicide mission, no one was expected to survive, but yet, many did. This was because of training, proper transportation, communications, planning, and the men that fought wanted to be there. Yes the numbers were large, but, it was not the only factor.

Another example, would be small deployment teams like 5 men to take out something. A army is not needed to do so, but, would make things easier. That is where planning, training, willingness, moral, mindset, ect are important.

Look at the current situation in Iraq, their will be no way in hell, that that war will ever be over, to the point that we declair victory. I am not saying what you see on the news is lying, but, being there first hand it is vastly different. We could have 50 million soldiers there and the things would be the same. Who do you fight, when all you see is smiles in the daytime, and those smiles turn to rage filled screams of gunfire at night?
In Vietnam, most of the kamakazis were friendly faces to the armed forces. Then all of a sudden one night those faces come running into camps blowing themselves up along with others.

Nuber of troops is not everything their is to winning a war. If you believe so, go to anyone that served in a war, and ask them if that is true. You will learn alot.

[betaalpha5]

well maybe i wasn't clear on my idea which is probaly my fault. this is what i had in mind
you have public support, everybody is for the war effort in vietnam. factories are cranking out tanks more than during WW2 people are making equipment faster than ever.
with public support a lot more people are willing to get in line behinds thousands of others to join the military.

this will increase man power and a lot more troops would be willing to fight. thus higher moral and people wouldn't be shooting their own leg to get away.

so i was pondering with public support a lot more manpower would enter vietnam and maybe win. just my thoughts

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by Pale_Horse

One thing my CO told me once was, that no one ever wins a war, you simply survive it.
The number of soldiers was a very small part of why things went the way they did. You could have had 5x the numbers their witht the draft in effect, but that does not mean everyone there would be fighting with the best of their ability. Now a days people willingly sign up for military service, and willingly put their life on the line to defend what they beleive is right, but you put someone that doesn't want to be there in the first place, who knows what will happen in the time of war. I heard stories where in the middle of a firefight, some people loose it, freak out, and stand up to run away only to get shot dead in the back. All that is doing is raking up the bodycount.

Moral, mindset, training, willingness to take anothers life, planning, communication, amount of soldiers, transportation, and so forth are all factors into what would also be the outcome of a war. To say that it would be won on a larger amout of soldiers is only one small factor.

Look at Pearl Harbor. That was a suicide mission, no one was expected to survive, but yet, many did. This was because of training, proper transportation, communications, planning, and the men that fought wanted to be there. Yes the numbers were large, but, it was not the only factor.

Another example, would be small deployment teams like 5 men to take out something. A army is not needed to do so, but, would make things easier. That is where planning, training, willingness, moral, mindset, ect are important.

Look at the current situation in Iraq, their will be no way in hell, that that war will ever be over, to the point that we declair victory. I am not saying what you see on the news is lying, but, being there first hand it is vastly different. We could have 50 million soldiers there and the things would be the same. Who do you fight, when all you see is smiles in the daytime, and those smiles turn to rage filled screams of gunfire at night?
In Vietnam, most of the kamakazis were friendly faces to the armed forces. Then all of a sudden one night those faces come running into camps blowing themselves up along with others.

Nuber of troops is not everything their is to winning a war. If you believe so, go to anyone that served in a war, and ask them if that is true. You will learn alot.

With the exception of moral, and even then, only in the late war, we had everything you listed as being important to winning a war. I'm quite sure, that if someone is shooting at you, and you have no other option, you are going to try your best to stay alive, which in most cases would mean shooting back. The troops in Vietnam we're just as effective at what they were doing as any other time in history.

As to small deployments such as the navy SEALS and Delta Force, it is alot easier to send in those groups then to send in an entire army. For 1, the enemy would certainly notice your entire army mobilizing. For 2, mobilizing an army requires vast amounts of resources. For 3, The small teams are elite, and likely to be undetected. For 4, There is a much smaller risk involved. Losing 10-20 men worst case, is nothing compared to the 500-1,000 best case if you chose to do something with your entire army.

In WWII, there was a draft, and I think it's fair to say we had fairly good men in service at the time.

I'm just saying, that if Johnson had the troops he had wanted to do the job, things would have gone very differently.

[Pale_Horse]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

With the exception of moral, and even then, only in the late war, we had everything you listed as being important to winning a war. I'm quite sure, that if someone is shooting at you, and you have no other option, you are going to try your best to stay alive, which in most cases would mean shooting back. The troops in Vietnam we're just as effective at what they were doing as any other time in history.

As to small deployments such as the navy SEALS and Delta Force, it is alot easier to send in those groups then to send in an entire army. For 1, the enemy would certainly notice your entire army mobilizing. For 2, mobilizing an army requires vast amounts of resources. For 3, The small teams are elite, and likely to be undetected. For 4, There is a much smaller risk involved. Losing 10-20 men worst case, is nothing compared to the 500-1,000 best case if you chose to do something with your entire army.

In WWII, there was a draft, and I think it's fair to say we had fairly good men in service at the time.

I'm just saying, that if Johnson had the troops he had wanted to do the job, things would have gone very differently.

A good majority of this is true, I will admit, but, I have seen first hand a soldier loose it in a firefight, and he was the last person I thought would have done so.
This guy was so gung ho so to speak, that he started shooting at anything that moved. Luckily he didn't kill anyone/anything and was section eighted out.
The draft system for WW2 and Vietnam were vastly different. Those that signed up in the first place far out numbered those that signed up for Vietnam, not to mention, the times where different, and situation pertaining to the war itself. Not to mention our technology was far better then the enemies during WW2. In Vietnam, they didn't rely on technology as much as simple but very effective methods.
With all this aside, the fact still remains, that, a good majority of the people fighting in Vietnam didn't want to be over there, nor did they get the proper training, resources, support (meaning backup) and many other things.
You could of had a ratio of 1 million of our troops to one of theirs, but if none of us fought, that one soldier on the opposite side would eventually wipe all one million out.
Another factor I touched on briefly, was the time were different, this includes drugs. During WW2, most of the drugs we know today were not even known, or were used. In Vietnam, they were shipping over drugs back and fourth in bodybags. A soldier learned to cope with the situations of extended war, by being under the influence of something. I'm sure this added to the number of dead as well. They even put some brands of hard liquor (I have heard, of course I don't know first hand) in the MRE'S to keep soldiers warm during the monsoon seasons.
I forgot to mention this in my other posts, the field of battle was hugely different. WW2 was 99% urban, to Vientnam was jungle. This adds a lot of factors into things. A nervous soldier might give away his position firing at a brnch blowing in the wind, to where that same wind won't budge a concrete building. Less of a cover, in a jungle, but enough that you can't roll tanks threw. WW2 you could see a good portion of the land from the air, to where trees blocked much of that in Vietnam. This created a major problem with air support, deployment, liftoffs, supply drops, firing on the enemy, and ect. Vietnam they dug into the ground creating networks of tunnels that blended into the rest of the enviornment. WW2 they had tunnels, but, those were covered to look like a shelter in the middle of a battlefield. Stood out like a sore thumb. Or the enemy was held up inside a building. Thats not a problem take the building down. Thats alot easier to hit and destroy a hill of dirt, that you had no idea how far down the tunnel went without getting close.

Another factor, for the first time in history, people could see first hand what war was sort of like do to the media, this caused a good portion of the backlash in Vietnam. During WW2 they had video footage that was at least a few weeks to months old showing in movie theaters. Those were edited for content to depict us having very small resistence, and often people knew what happened from radio news ahead of time so it had time to sink in and not be such of a shock to the system. Vietnam footage was available more, so the shock of it was still fresh when they saw the next clips. Their was no time to really take it all in.

To reinterate, the number of troops played a factor in the war, but, it was not the only thing, nore was it the most important.

[AZN_FLEA]

the americans were using plastic m16s in the war of vietnam while the vietnamese were using ak47, made of steel and wood. they were much more durable and never jammed. m16 broke easily and jammed if a bit of dirt was inside it.

the vietnamese were much better equipped in terms of guns. now lets look at the vehicles.

vietnamese had ummm....no vehicles apart from bicylces. US had helicpoter, planes, bombers, cars etc. the helicopter was a huge advantage in the war. the ability to quickly deploy teams and winch them out of fights. the bombers bombed the **** out of vietnam. too bad the vietnamese situated they're bases underground. the cars were great but the jungle terrain didnt allow much cars.

so basically, the only asset to the US was the helicpoter. vietnamese were underground so the bombers were ineffective.

now lets look at the terrain.

as i said the vietnamese were underground and could ambush US troops easily. the vietnamese were tiny compared to US marines so the US couldnt follow the vietnamese into the bases either ( if they actually found the bases). the terrain had alot of dirt which got into the m16 and jammed them.

vietnamese>US again. sigh.

even if the US deployed more troops the vietnamese would have won. there was no way that the US troops could do **** about the situation there especially when there was no definite just cause. the US troops were scared out of their minds because of the vietnamese tactics.

overall vietnamese>US funny how a poor ****ty country beat a superpower