curious about vietnam

[toexist]

Just wondering...since many members of this forum seem to be around Vietnam veteran age and lived through that era. We supposedly took out over a million Vietcong during Vietnam. Are these numbers accurate? Assuming they are...how did we miscalculate the number of their forces by such a significant amount?

If we could go back in time with same technology and resources...could we have done anything differently to win? I know we shouldn't have been their in the first place. I'm just speaking hypothetically here.

These numbers just seem off to me. I mean these people were operating in shtf like conditions. Nothing about that conflict seems to make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Brent S]

I was luckily too young for it, but worked with many that were there while I served in the army. I always felt that our govt didn't really want to win it, but was just half heartedly engaged to show that we were protecting the world from the evils of communism. I say if you do have to go to war, then go all out to win the damn thing. There is no right or fair way to fight a war. The very idea of a civil way to kill people is idiocracy. Win the damn thing, anyway you can. Of course I still feel that the best war is one that's avoided to begin with though.

 

[Maverick]

View attachment 7850

Just wondering...since many members of this forum seem to be around Vietnam veteran age and lived through that era. We supposedly took out over a million Vietcong during Vietnam. Are these numbers accurate? Assuming they are...how did we miscalculate the number of their forces by such a significant amount?

If we could go back in time with same technology and resources...could we have done anything differently to win? I know we shouldn't have been their in the first place. I'm just speaking hypothetically here.

These numbers just seem off to me. I mean these people were operating in shtf like conditions. Nothing about that conflict seems to make a whole lot of sense.

Vietnam was a little more complicated, percentage wise the 3 year korean were more costly

Number are fairly accurate, the north-vietcong were supported by both china and russia. We didn't miscalculate the numbers even though intel was ****** at best. Also keep in mind the french were fighting the viet minh for almost 8 years (known as the french indochina war) before we even got their also keep in mind this is a third world country where the condition of the time were normal to them. Nixon was on the verge of bringing north vietnam to its knees through it's bombings such as operation linebacker 2 or what was dubbed the christmas bombings unfortunately with civilian casualties mounting from the bombing thus the American people lost it's will to continue (thanks to the kgb help in supporting anti-war movement) putting pressure on the government to stop the bombings.

I supported the war for several reasons primarily keeping communist influence at bay which was the whole point of the cold war. I lost family who survived the korean war and family friends in the vietnam war. Too this day I have a deep hatred towards war protesters!

 

[toexist]

I believe regardless of public opinion if we engage in war/conflict our troops should be supported 100% without question.

With that being said the Vietnam war was being fought on some capacity for almost 20 years without resolution. The problem with war is that ones who wage it often aren't the ones spilling their blood. I doubt many politicians who supported the war would have supported it had they had to send their own kids to fight it.

 

[Maverick]

I believe regardless of public opinion if we engage in war/conflict our troops should be supported 100% without question.

With that being said the Vietnam war was being fought on some capacity for almost 20 years without resolution. The problem with war is that ones who wage it often aren't the ones spilling their blood. I doubt many politicians who supported the war would have supported it had they had to send their own kids to fight it.

True, though through the ages many influential families kept their kids out of war even just wars, it's a given even though it isn't right but a fact I except (unfortunately) Our calling is much higher than personal feelings of politicians.

My sentiment, this is from a card I keep in my wallet.

 

[Silent Earth]

I was luckily too young for it, but worked with many that were there while I served in the army. I always felt that our govt didn't really want to win it, but was just half heartedly engaged to show that we were protecting the world from the evils of communism. I say if you do have to go to war, then go all out to win the damn thing. There is no right or fair way to fight a war. The very idea of a civil way to kill people is idiocracy. Win the damn thing, anyway you can. Of course I still feel that the best war is one that's avoided to begin with though.

From a British point of view we often say that the US politicians lost the Vietnamese war not the US forces because the Brits fought and won in places like Burma etc in a similar type of conflict, It appears to have been a consensus that the US military had to fight with one arm and one leg behind its back, Aussies who also fought in Nam also commented that the war was winnable if the US govt let slip the dogs of war.