why do americans always joke and make sarcastic comments but

Yes, and factor in the vast amount of material and technical aid Hanoi was receiving from the Soviet Union and China.

/thread

Vietnam did literally nothing wrong, they fought a war to liberate themselves of French and American imperialists

Proxy war between the US and USSR.

lmao gooks are so funny

>>69774307
You're a disgrace.

>>69774109
Hi, Xiang.

>>69774109
>A few hundred

Officially we killed close to half a million gook combatants.

Total dead civvies is something like 600k, but that's counting both North and South Vietnamese dead.

>>69774109
>this thread again
Lmao

>>69774672
>>69774549
>>69774273
Autism

File: NVA illustration.jpg (54KB, 450x620px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 450x620px

Hey americas...

Boo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>69774672
It's a fucking joke image, you retard.

File: 1481193875784.jpg (61KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1000x800px

>>69774307
You're not a disgrace

I like you

An evil foreign army has left and the people have triumphant.
great vietnam

>>69774672
>muh kd
>we killed more (civilians)
Every time.

Oh look, another leaf obsessed with America.

Imagine that's you're some rice farmer. You're having a bad day, your wife is fat, your 7 kids are annoying and crops died because of hail. And then some helis arrive and bunch of fatties get onto your land, and you suddenly remember you have a rifle in your home left from your granpa.
Murricans are lucky some of them made out of there alive.

>>69776436
>Murricans are lucky some of them made out of there alive

>50,000 American casualties versus 1 million gooks
>also some 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed or mangled by unexploded ordnance since the end of the war
>not to mention the generations of Agent Orange babies

I say they suffered more than us desu.

Wait, I read on Watchmen that the US won the war.

File: 1482227712669.jpg (355KB, 1158x1600px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1158x1600px

>>69774273
Also from Sweden.
>>69774307
this is true

>>69776599
Wow, bombing a million civilian farmers and losing 50k trained soliders to sticks with poo is quite an accomplishment indeed.

>>69776706
>and losing 50k trained soliders
Army training in the Vietnam era was not as good as today's standards, or medical care for wounded soldiers. When you have a conscript army, they tend to be treated as disposable bullet sponges. Note that we lost only 3000 or something men in Iraq with a professional volunteer army and modern battlefield medicine.

You also would not have as many civilian casualties today because of precision-guided bombs instead of the caveman method of cluster-bombing cities.

>>69776599
>believing murrican propoganda
Lmao.

>people ITT white-knighting commies
Please consider suicide.

>>69776841
But cluster bombs are so much more fun to watch

>>69776890
I'm gonna say they're underage. They could also be that Panamian nigger with a bunch of proxies.

>>69776890
>some poor farmers defending their homes against invaders
>le commies
Please, choke on the dick you currently have in your mouth.

File: image.jpg (93KB, 402x669px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 402x669px

>remember Vietnam white boi? I do

File: 1467169068240.png (616KB, 960x799px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 960x799px

>>69776890
It's less about white-knighting yellow reds and more about bantering America tbqh

>>69776983
Last I check North Vietnam was Russian puppet state just like they put commie puppets in my country 1948 to 1989.

>whole

>>69777069
Kind of...but it's complicated...

>>69776968
For those who don't know, he's this dude whose father was some minor government official who lost his job after the CIA evicted Noriega, so he's forever anus hurt at the US and posts rambling, poorly spelled butthurt.

>>69777002
I don't get the butt hurt over pearl harbor the most. It was a military target anyway.

>>69777069
Last I checked up it's not a reason to invade a country and bomb people to oblvionz

>>69776890
Meh, consider that we tried to kick the Frogs out because of nationalism (Hồ Chí Minh was a nationalist, first and foremost). Then i don't think we kicks Americans out because for communism.

These wars are seen as patriotic wars in Vietnam.

>>69777212
Please explain why Russians invade my country and occupy it for 40 years. Please explain what happen in 1968.

>>69777002
Yeh but it's not even good or original bantz.

>>69777247
>get invaded
>protect the invaders in Vietnam
I think I know the answer. It's that you're dumb.

>>69777266
>implying any original content happens on this shithole anyway
I already made thread complaining about how boring and repetitive /int/ is. be thankful he didn't post a shart thread. at least Vietnam threads have some interesting /his/ discussion.

>>69777290
We were invited by the VNCH to defend them from Hanoi. Also since we never launched a ground invasion of North Vietnam, the term "invaded" is misleading.

File: 1452514484422.jpg (189KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1462x1462px

Because they got absolutely destroyed had got sent running with their tail behind their legs.

They also got reminded of how a war against anyone with a modicum of equipment would go for America. Hence today they stick to bombing goat herders in the middle east who are not backed by major powers.

>>69777176
There isn't a lot of "national butthurt" about it. What is there is due to the fact that it was a sneaky backhanded attack by a country who had ambassadors in DC assuring America that errything was fine.
Warfare is always ugly, but the Japanese Empire circa 1930-1945 was especially nasty and flippant regarding conventions of "fair" war.

>>69777368
+15 Putinshekels for this post

>>69777266
It's a solid classic

>>69774307
This. Fuck the USA can't wait til we collapse into separate states.

Vietnam were the real losers in the end because of the massive destruction and loss of life caused by the war, and that they became an impoverished commie shithole.

Supposedly when NVA troops capture Saigon in the spring of 1975, they were stunned at the higher living standards there and the tons of goods for sale in shops, since they'd been told that South Vietnam was this awful gulag where US imperialists enslaved everybody.

>>69777702
When commies win, everyone loses. Want me to post Czechoslovakia's GDP per capital in 1938 and 1990?

>>69777366
>We were invited by the VNCH to defend them from Hanoi.
And I were invited by my neighbor to rape his sister. I'm sure police will take it as a proper excuse.
>Also since we never launched a ground invasion of North Vietnam, the term "invaded" is misleading.
>semantics to the rescue, yay

>>69776968
Wait, wasn't Azerbaijan a part of the USSR?

>>69778096
His dad was probably communist party official.

>>69778191
Yeah probably.

>>69776106
>the beat America starter pack

>>69774273
>can't beat some ricefarmers because they have guns from the USSR
>thought they could actually do anything in a war against the USSR

If the cold war went hot, you Americans wouldn't have lasted a week.

>>69777997
Except South Vietnam was a sovereign country at this point and it was the North Vietnamese who started invading them.

>>69774109
Have a (You)

>>69778191
You're not only dumb, but you possess most dumb trait of all: speaking without knowledge.
Father was a teacher. He never got professor degree because he refused to join communist party.

>>69778096
>was
And it still is.
When they discover oil in our country/region you are doomed.

>>69778588
Oil was discovered before soviet was even a thing, you fag.
>you are doomed.
Yeah, look at norway, how bad it is...

>>69778637
Calm down, i didn't want to be rude. You are right about Norway, but Norway might one of the very few exceptions. Oil brings in money, but not for us normal people. Corruption on all levels will rise, one of men's worst scourges.
Oil is the economy's cocaine, it destroys societies and corrupts everyone

>>69778342
The one time when the USSR could have beaten us in a war was the 1970s when the US military was in disarray following Vietnam. Any other decade of the Cold War, not a chance. A document circulated in the Kremlin in the early 80s painted a defeatist assessment that Moscow could not win the superpower confrontation in the long run, lacking the technological or economic strength of the US, or an appealing, marketable ideology.

>>69778771
That's pretty much blamin a knife because of murder, m8.
Oil is really a great thing, without it we would probably not be that advanced now.
But you're completely right about greed around it. My diploma work was "Alternate power sources and it's influence on oul/gas" industry, and reseach I had to do gave me much about what it means.
Also, sorry for jerk response, sometimes I forget about manners.

>>69778342
And also we could have completely reduced North Vietnam to ash if we'd wanted to. A ground invasion was ruled out early on because of paranoia of Chinese intervention (the Korean War was still fresh in memory in the 1960s).

>>69779162
This is correct. It had everything to do with LBJ and McNamara not wanting a repeat of the Korean War. They assumed if we invaded SRV, the Chinese would definitely intervene and possible the Soviet Union as well. Beijing had issued veiled warnings that they would act to prevent an armed US presence on their border. It's possible they were just bluffing and wouldn't actually do anything, but why take the risk?

US policy in Vietnam was mostly based around two theories: the containment theory and the domino theory. The first was that the US would act to prevent the spread of communism, but let it go in places it was already established. The domino theory held that if South Vietnam fell, there was nothing to stop the entire region of SE Asia from falling to communism.

Hence the ultimate failure of the war effort. We did not want to risk a ground invasion of North Vietnam, but withdrawing from the South would hand them over to the enemy and render the whole effort a failure. Thus the years of a futile containment war.

The Vietnam War had a deep effect on the US military and government--a stalemate had been achieved in Korea and South Vietnam had been lost entirely, a far cry from the triumphant US victories in WWII and earlier conflicts. The argument was that the war effort had been micromanaged by the White House and if LBJ had listened to the generals, we could have won. This POV has been passed down since then and still lingers in the US military today.

It's a speculative question--some generals did advocate for total war on North Vietnam, even a ground invasion. However, the course of the war was dictated by political goals, namely defending South Vietnam. Fear of Chinese and/or Soviet intervention kept us from going all-out.

If we had been able to do what the generals wanted, maybe the war would have come out differently, maybe it wouldn't have. Many military officers certainly told themselves that if they'd been allowed to do it differently, it would have come out differently.

>>69779688
>decimate North Vietnam's infrastructure with more bombs than we'd dropped in WWII
>still can't break this one little country supplied by backwards China
Uh...

>>69779758
We actually destroyed less infrastructure than it's commonly believed, and not a lot of what we did bomb were factories/military installations/whatever. Actually, most of those bombs were dropped on suspected supply paths.

I find the whole "The military could have won in Vietnam if civilian politicians hadn't tied their hands" story to be verging on Dolchstoßlegend territory.

>>69779926
It's hard to say exactly how much of that is true, although the military doesn't like to admit when their strategies failed.

China and the USSR in the late 60s were at each other's throats, and there was a border clash in 1969 that killed 1000 people.

There was something of a contest between the two to supply Hanoi with armaments and military advisers, although North Vietnam received most weaponry and munitions from the USSR due to their much more advanced technology (most Chinese equipment were just clones of Soviet hardware anyway), but China had a much bigger personal stake in defending North Vietnam due to being right on their border.

Chinese and Soviet involvement in Vietnam was small-scale against the US, but they were there, and also North Korea took advantage of the chaos to send waves of infiltrators across the DMZ into South Korea during 1967-69.

>>69780416
Actually, it came out after the fall of the USSR that there were several thousand Soviet troops in North Vietnam, some of which participated in combat actions against the US, and Soviet pilots also shot down a number of US aircraft. The US military almost certainly knew about this, but kept quiet about it.

>>69780523
Soviet support for Hanoi was actually done with a slight bit of reluctance because they didn't completely trust the SRV from an ideological standpoint, and doubted if they were really communists. They also suspected that the North Vietnamese were a Chinese puppet.

Of course they were wrong on those counts. China quickly restored ties with the US in the 70s and Vietnam turned out to not be any friend of Beijing at all. Moreover, Vietnam proved a very reliable Soviet ally, and they still have very amicable relations with Russia to this day.

>>69780523
>Actually, it came out after the fall of the USSR that there were several thousand Soviet troops in North Vietnam

That's nothing. It's estimated that China had close to 170,000 (!) troops in North Vietnam. Supposedly Mao Zedong told Pham Van Dong "I don't understand why we have 100,000 men there helping defend the country, train troops, and maintain infrastructure, yet the Americans have said nothing about it."

>>69780890
Easy--we had good reason not to say anything even though we perfectly well knew about all those troops.

File: hmmm.png (149KB, 1285x806px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1285x806px

Leaf was right.

File: 1483844713159.jpg (4MB, 3456x5184px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3456x5184px

>>69774307
Good opinion

>>69780523
>Actually, it came out after the fall of the USSR that there were several thousand Soviet troops in North Vietnam, some of which participated in combat actions against the US, and Soviet pilots also shot down a number of US aircraft

As was true in the Korean War. The Soviets supplied a lot of pilots who flew in aircraft with Chinese and North Korean markings, in fact probably a majority of pilots on the communist side were Soviet.

>>69781077
just a bunch of /k/fags having a circlejerk

>>69781077
kek

>>69776890
>being agaist glorifying the unjustified murder of millions of civilians
>hurr just edgy commies xDDD

>>69781228
+15 Putincoins for this post

Apparently, a total of 320,000 Chinese troops were in North Vietnam at various points during the 1960s. It's pretty hard to hide an army of that size, so you better believe Washington damn well knew they were there. It's hard to say just what Beijing would have done if the US invaded North Vietnam, but they were definitely worried about it and the Sino-Vietnamese border area was strongly fortified during this time. Probably if we invaded, the NVA and government of North Vietnam would retreat into China where they had a safe sanctuary, since we sure weren't going to risk attacking anything on Chinese soil.

It all boils down to a simple non-desire to have a repeat of the Korean War. We lost 135,000 men in that conflict, and the stalemate that ensued also helped the GOP retake the White House for the first time in a generation. China could likely fight us to a standstill again with their almost bottomless pool of manpower.

Also it was assumed that bombing and destroying North Vietnam's infrastructure was enough to compel them to give up the war effort, although this assumption proved false. In any case, direct ground invasion of North Vietnam was considered too politically and militarily risky to attempt.

>>69781278
>"lel, you ruski for not glorifying death XD"

File: 1483752132152.jpg (381KB, 1147x1000px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1147x1000px

>>69781278
>anyone who is mildly critical of the US is automatically a paid Russian shill

Aren't you supposed to be hiking in the woods, Hillary?

>>69781618
>>69781228
>>69776706
>>69776877
All samefag. All proxying Kremlinbot.

>>69781604
China was engulfed in the Cultural Revolution during that time, correct? Seems like their ability to wage an external war would have been badly compromised.

File: Screenshot_20170111-160608.png (197KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1080x1920px

>>69781787
He's an idiot. Those Chinese troops were in Vietnam because of the American intervention, not the other way around. The Pentagon Papers are publically availible, you can see it for yourself.
>>69781745

File: 13750360875_347de7518f_b.jpg (238KB, 1024x905px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1024x905px

>>69774109
Is this what winning looks like?

>>69781787
This is true, but it didn't affect the PLA as much as it would appear, besides China still had a ridiculously huge amount of bodies to throw into battle and a far bigger stomach for casualties than the US, also the totalitarian Chinese government did not have to answer to the voting public about the human/material cost of a war (one of the big things that wrecked the US war effort in Vietnam--the simple fact that we're a democracy).

>>69781891
My dad knew a guy who took a Vietnamese bride over there (she was actually Hmong, but w/e).

Cutting off the Ho Chi Minh Trail should have been a primary objective and the need was understood at the time. However it was never done. I have never heard the official explanation for this. Presumably it would have required even more troops than were deployed to Vietnam and there was always the concern about provoking the Chinese or even the Russians. Might it have been possible to accomplish with the troop strength present in Vietnam in 1967? Leave the counter-insurgency to the Saigon forces and concentrate US forces on cutting the HCM Trail? Occupation of the Laos Panhandle would likely lead the NVA to move into the rest of Laos with their Pathet Lao allies. Also, how was this to be justified at home? The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was used by President Johnson as the basis for sending US combat forces to Vietnam but invading Laos might have been a tough sell.

>>69781891
We lay off with the napalm, they let us lay with their women. It's a good trade.

>>69777638
This.
The federal government is just a bunch of scumbags.

File: 1465346294348.png (51KB, 445x396px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 445x396px

>>69774273
>were aided with inferior soviet and chinese technology
>this is an excuse for americans

Henry Kissinger in his "On China" book claims that journalist Edgar Snow was told by Mao Zedong in a 1965 interview that China would not engage the US in a direct conflict unless we actually invaded their soil, and they weren't going to die for the sake of North Vietnam. Of course, they would still dispatch troops there to maintain infrastructure and provide training and logistic support for the NVA.

>>69782157
Soviet equipment at that time, while not as high tech as the US military, was still definitely something to be reckoned with, and the USSR was far from a caveman-tier country technologically. I mean, they were launching stuff into space.

>>69782266
that's funny cos they did exactly that in Korea

>>69774109

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA


AMERIFATS GOT FUCKED.... BY..... PFFUPFJHAH ... RICE FARMERS... AAHAHSHJAHAHAAHAHJAHAHAA

>>69776890
regardless of whether they're commies, it's still a patriotic effort to kick out a foreign invader you dumb nigger

Yugoslav Partisans might have been commies, sure, but you know what? They put up tremendous resistance against the kraut niggers who were invading their lands. They eventually kicked them out, but even while they were occupied, they kept resisting, for an independent Yugoslavia void of all subhuman G*rman presence.

We didn't have the ability to invade North Vietnam with the existing troops stationed in the South. At the peak, we had 530,000 men which seems like a huge number, but in practice only about 25% of them were actual combat troops, most of the rest consisting of support and logistics. They would have had to mobilize the Army Reserve and National Guard to invade the place, also draft considerably more men.

We actually did not have to invade the North. We could have been as effective at stopping the North by mining the harbors at the beginning. B-52 strikes on the only rail line coming in would also have been effective. We made the mistake of gradually increasing our air strikes and allowed the USSR and China to ship in AAA and SAM missiles. Using B-52's to take out Hanoi and Haiphong would also have been interesting.

>>69782585
I agree with your point that invading the North would require large-scale mobilization and for that reason alone wasn't a viable idea.

>>69781891
>I just killed your entire family let's get married

>>69782335
True. The North Vietnamese coast had a large number of fire control radar stations placed along it, all of them built by the Soviets. Whenever we took one out, it took quite a long time to put back online.

>>69774109
They didn't fight against the whole US army. The force sent there simply wasn't enough to win, but we couldn't just go all in because the chinks would just poor across the border like Korea and probably risk ww3.

Plus it was the first time civilians at home actually saw what war was like and it turns out they couldn't stomach it, not very surprising.

The problem is Johnson thought he was too smart to go to full military strike. If he had done this in say 1965, we might not have had to send so many troops. We may have been able to do with several elite Brigades. The 1st CAVDIV, a brigade of the 82nd Airborne, a Marine Division and those two Light Infantry Brigades that got thrown in the 23rd Division might have helped the ARVN clean out some VC areas before we brought them home.

The North Vietnamese would have turned around to start re-building and start a new plan to invade the South.

File: 1482858545122.jpg (63KB, 592x492px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 592x492px

>>69774109
>mfw burgers ITT got serious and technical

>>69776983
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?

There are only two major ports in North Vietnam. These are Hanoi and the smaller Vinh. If major B-52 raids had started hitting these ports and the rail line from China, how are they going to get munition and arms? Mining these harbors would also have helped.

A raid across the DMZ would have worked as well as the Invasion of Cambodia or the ARVN invasion of Laos. The problem is there is nothing of military value there.

>>69782839
>These are Hanoi and the smaller Vinh. If major B-52 raids had started hitting these ports and the rail line from China, how are they going to get munition and arms?

It would have "worked" about as well as it did in Korea, which is to say not at all, and that's considering Korea was a lot smaller than Vietnam, a peninsula, and not covered in dense jungle. Yet UNC air operations not only failed to interdict the flow of supplies into the battle area, but by the end of the war the communists had far greater logistics capabilities than they did at the beginning.

>>69782585
Of course, we didn't want a repeat of Korea so we tried to be involved as little as we could escalating more and more.

>>69782895
I am aware of the Korean War interdiction campaign in North Korea. It is not that easy to feed a large civilian population and manpack supplies from China. For one thing, the Ho Chi Minh Trail is nowhere near at its most developed. It took hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops to make the Trail in the 60's into what it became. Even if you use bicycles would there be enough getting through? I bet it is at least twice as far from China to South Vietnam as the People's Army was able to run a supply line.

Besides, how effective was the bombing campaign in North Korea? The aircraft used were not always good bombers. I would say the bombers in the Vietnam War were better.

With the USAF and Navy also taking out road networks (ie. bridges, crossroads, chokepoints). You would have major problems getting food from the farms to the civilians. Would the North Vietnamese be able to utilize the Cambodian ports if the US is putting B-52 strikes on them? The Cambodians might be scared off.

>>69782983
To effectively shut down supplies from the North, we would have required far more troops in the field than we had. I think the invasion of the North would have had a good effect, making then enemy go on the defensive and it would have required them to tie up manpower of their own to do such. I don't think we needed to drive far into the country and get the Chinese scared to the point that they may have reacted. With more of our own troops in the field, we may have had a much better chance at slowing the pace of their resupplying. We needed a much stronger force to deal with entry points such as the A Shau valley and Hiep Duc valley as examples. We also needed to change how we viewed the way 'truces' were handled. The enemy boldly moved their troops with little or no fear, almost thumbing their noses at us. Why we stupidly sat still and watched them break the truce such as at Christmas or New Years makes no sense.

>>69783072
All this has been understood by the US military already.

In hindsight we know that going full force from the beginning would have been the better option for success but the geopolitical reality at time simply didn't allow for it, which is why they sent the gimped force in, in the first place.

Two points: Clumsy as they were, LBJ's strategies did nonetheless prevent Hanoi from overrunning the South, as did Nixon's. They also succeeded in obliterating the Vietcong as a viable fighting force.

When the Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973, the US clearly had the upper hand and that's why it still took over two years for North Vietnam to overrun the South. It was actually on the advance when the North launched its last offensive, which was actually an act of desperation in some respects. If we had simply provided air support at that time -- just air support, and maybe some naval artillery, but no ground troops, we could have prevented the fall of South Vietnam. So in the end, it could be argued that the strategies we did use actually were working, and the decision to give up on South Vietnam was politically motivated.

As for Korea, China invaded apparently because our troops went right up to their border on the Yalu River and our aircraft may have even overflown Chinese territory. Even then, we forced them back to the 38th parallel with a relatively small amount of troops. A temporary invasion(s) of the North could've destroyed their military capabilities to a large extent, and forced them to focus on their homeland, instead of harassing their weaker Southern sibling. Probably should've been considered.

We didn't give a crap about Soviet pressure either. Pressure from our allies, somewhat. Pressure from all the brainwashed antiwar voters at home, definitely.

>>69782641
As I understand it, China and North Vietnam had a secret mutual defense treaty that became known after the war.
Certainly we know now that the Chinese had as many as 250,000 men in North Vietnam during the peak years primarily setting up and manning SAM and AA sites and building roads and railroads to the north in anticipation of the invasion which they were sure was coming. China would hardly allow that many of their men to be jeopardized in an invasion without reacting.

They already had many divisions and Air armies stationed along the border and in Hainan. they were expecting us to do an invasion and spent years and huge sums of money getting ready for it. They had learned a lot from Inchon too.
It would have been the Mother of All Fucking Bloodbaths for the US, north Vietnam and probably China too. May very well have gone nuclear.
There was not enough popular sentiment for this in the USA which, as has been said above, was downplaying the war, pretending that it was all under control. that would have gotten out of control pretty dam quick.
The USA really had to take a long hard look as to whether it was really worth it for us to do it and decided not.
Wise choice, whoever made it

My uncle was in the Son Tay Raid and said they tried to set down in a compound that turned out to be housing for a battalion of PLA engineers! Any Chinese survivors of that deserve a medal. The PLA were doing lots of maintenance on the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos. If not for the Chinese presence, the North Vietnamese would not have been able to do what they did. They didn't have the manpower.

File: man-screaming.jpg (116KB, 401x299px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 401x299px

>>69776106

File: 023532666623.jpg (87KB, 640x633px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 640x633px

>>69776106
>their water canteen was a coke bottle

>>69783572
True that. nor the money or materials either. Part of Ho and the Central committee's problems were getting material from what were indisputably the cheapest suits in the world at the time. There was plenty of interplay and conflict here that we only have hints of.

Ho Chi Minh was no lover of China, especially as he'd once been jailed by the KMT in the 1940s, but he used them wherever he could.

>>69783572
Gee, my grandfather was in Nam and he never heard from anyone on the STR that the Chinese had an engineer battalion there. That's new or else conjecture.

>>69783741
If I remember correctly I read a book on the raid on Son Tay, and it was also about Bull Simons. The Planners thought the compound was empty, but planned to hit it anyway. Before the start of the raid a Chinese construction unit set up there. From the return fire, they were also armed.

File: 7760314-3x2-700x467.jpg (67KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 700x467px

brb rubber plantation

In December 1966, the Thirteenth Plenum of the Lao Dong Central Committee met in Hanoi. American bombing had exacted a high price from the North Vietnamese people, and in spite of a brave face, the toll was beginning to show. A somewhat stable government under South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu had emerged, reducing Viet Cong control of the rural areas thereby greatly impacting National Liberation Front recruitment, food and tax sources.

Viet Cong guerrilla main force and NVA units were losing an average of 15,000 men per month by the end of 1966. Viet Cong recruiting netted an average of only 3,500 per month and new NVA deployments south only numbered about 7,000 troops per month. The math was easy. More NVA regular units would have to be committed.

One of Giap’s constant concerns was the possible risk of U.S. invasion of Laos or Cambodia to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail, or an invasion of North Viet Nam itself. Indeed, “Operation York” completed at Westmoreland's request was a plan for just such invasions and plans were moving forward.

Generals win battles, and politicians win wars (or lose them, as the case may be.) President Johnson made his famous “I will not seek reelection” speech on March 31, 1968 that promised to halt the bombing and not widen the war, thereby tacitly establishing U.S. strategy limitations for the rest of the war. Operation Pegasus, the link up of the 1st Air Cav with the Marines at Khe Sanh was set to launch. Behind Pegasus was Operation Delaware, a plan for the Cav to continue into Laos, turn down the Ho Chi Minh Trail and enter the A Shau valley from the northwest. The plan was cancelled by Major General Tolson, CG of the 1st Air Cavalry because the president’s speech made the operation politically impossible.

>>69774307
But facts aren't cool anymore in the USA.
Savespaces are the new cool in the USA. Especially since trump got fond to the lefty concept.

>>69783900
But it wasn't a war. It was just a police action.

>low quality troll thread turned into interesting /his/ discussion

Could be worse.

americans are so shit @ war kek its unbeliavable lol

File: comrade_reagan.jpg (164KB, 957x640px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 957x640px

Why do Americans fall for this blatant bait
Every
Single
Time

>>69784448
because its
not
bait

.

LOLOOLOLLOOLOLOLOL

>>69774109
>>69784448
>>69784548

Yep. Americans are The proudest nation in the World. No other nation comes even close.

If you point out that
>something anything essentially American is so much better somewhere else
>something anything essentially American failed miserably somewhere else
you will make it appear. They are containing themselves at first, kinda, but in the end it's going to be a parade of butthurt.

Every fucking time. They just can't help it.

>>69786271
There's really not much butthurt in here desu.

>>69786271
Wait, isn't 1939 the only notable thing in your history?

>>69786737
They were excellent cannon fodder indeed

>>69786271
>Americans are The proudest nation in the World. No other nation comes even close.
France

>>69786737
Like clockwork.

>>69783320

Sure America cared about the Soviet Union, Korea was taking up over 80% of USAF capabilities and Truman was forced to try and take over privately owned steel mills to keep up with wartime demands for such a relatively small military operation if you compare it to WWII

>>69788808
They had to put production caps on civilian automobile production during 1952 as well.