How would things have turned out if the US military were given

>>31995461
More dead civilians

>>31995461
Not much.

Considering who we tried putting in power over there, any government we'd have put in wouldn't last too long anyway.

>>31995461
As long as hippies are bitching and the media encourages them, there isn't much you can do.

The same shit, except the war is lost even faster because modern US population will bitch and whine.

>>31995461
modern training count?

Better communications, more accessible fire support and transport might have caused victory, but it would have dragged on, and Allied losses would only slightly improve.

Remember the shitfit the American public threw?

Now imagine what they would do these days, imagine what SJW would do. The collective butthurt might even be enough to stop the war in its tracks.

>>31995470
>blaming hippies for shit military leadership, literal conscript-tier soldiers, and retarded rhetoric about "muh domino theory" and general foreign policg retardation

shouldnt have poltically exiled kennan, he was always right.

>>31995510
The hippies and the anti-war media are to be blamed, even with the unreliable AR-15, american troops were kicking ass there.

Probably absolutely nothing. The only thing I see having a meaningful effect are drones, but even they would have limited usefulness if they cant monitor what happens under the jungle canopy. Modern casevac would mean less dead guys overall, but more homeless vets harassing you for a quarter on the subway, so its not really a win.

>>31995515
kicking ass is meaningless when the government you're trying to prop up cant do shit,the vietnamese have been fighting the war for 3 decades,even if you put 10 million gooks in a bodybag you still cant count on a victory

>>31995461
The real question is, what technology might we have developed if we spent as much time in nam as we did in the middle East?

What jungle specific bullshit would the us military come up with

>>31995522
Yes, the ARVN is a big ass problem in itself, but the USSR would bankrupt themselves sooner if Vietnam war keeps happening for another 10 years, and when the USSR is dead, so is NVA.

Of course, this would create more suffering on both sides when you realize the North Vietnam is gonna go full Deng Xiubing when Uncle Ho kicks the bucket anyway.

>>31995515

>muh hippies!
>muh liberal biased media!

get right the fuck out of here /pol/tard.

we still dont even know the exact particulars of the gulf of tonkin incident, the military industrial complex was an influential political institution at this point, and who the fuck wants to get drafted into a war effort that has no tangible benefit for the US? besides the contractors making loads of dosh of course.

>>31995461
The problem with vietnam wasn't the military, it was the politics

They hamstrung the military like not letting them bomb the cities where the Russian SAM's were being shipped that would kill them next week.

Silly shit like that

>>31995534
Yeah, no, I'm going to stay.

This is far how the liberal press goes against the war effort:
>In its June 27 issue, Life Magazine published the photographs of 241 Americans killed in one week in Vietnam; this is now considered a watershed event of negative public opinion toward the Vietnam War. While only five of the 241 featured photos were of those killed in the battle, many Americans had the perception that all of the photos featured in the magazine were casualties of the battle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hamburger_Hill#Aftermath

>we still dont even know the exact particulars of the gulf of tonkin incident, the military industrial complex was an influential political institution at this point, and who the fuck wants to get drafted into a war effort that has no tangible benefit for the US?
The war was to stop the ideological spread of communism, which is to this day, a worthwhile cause.

>>31995541
>the entirety of the war was because of a perceived domino effect theory
>domino effect never happened,communism was contained as far as vietnam
you're as dumb as a box of rocks

>>31995570
After the victory in Vietnam, communism spreads to not only Vietnam but Cambodia and Laos as well.

The stop of communism was the bankruptcy of the USSR and the China normalization effort done by Nixon, and even then you still have nigger marxists in Africa.

>>31995578
Laos had commie influence ever since the indochina war and the regime Cambodia was deposed by the Vietnamese,leading to China going to war with them
heck the Americans even hedged fund on the Khmer Rouge since they were salty about losing the war

>>31995591
>Laos had commie influence ever since the indochina war and the regime Cambodia was deposed by the Vietnamese,leading to China going to war with them
And? The point is communism spread.
>heck the Americans even hedged fund on the Khmer Rouge since they were salty about losing the war
Same can be said to the chinese, and they helped fund NVA.

>>31995601
no,the basis on going to war with vietnamese to stop communism is flawed since it was eventually contained there
and many forgot that Vietnam even called on america to aid them during their first war and had a chance but they threw it away

The only tech that I can think of that would have made any small difference would be thermals. You could cut down on ambushes with thermals, but that makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. Might save a few lives but that's it. Technology was not at fault in Vietnam.

File: STAR LIGHT SCOPE.jpg (18KB, 415x182px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 415x182px

>>31995461
The war would be more assymetrical, meaning there would be even less population support for it unless the US military would have crushed all of the NVA a month - which, as I'll show you why, is extremely likely.

Most modern vehicles, even more armored versions of humvees, can survive RPGs unlike the aluminium armored M113.

Aircraft like the UH-60 and AH-64 would have far greater odds of avoiding, eliminating and surviving all sorts of anti air projectiles, quad 50s, infrared missiles, even long range ones at the time weren't match for modern countermeasures and EW.

Body armor and helmets improved signifcantly as well. Soldiers became more expensive and maybe heavier, but they are definetely more protected, have better communications, squad organization evolved a lot and the doctrine became more efficient.

So as you can see the three last paragraphs mean there would a faaaaaaaaar greater survivability for US forces, both infantry and vehicles.

Drones would play a key role too. They would be vastly used, specially the predator, overseeing enemy territory in the north, spotting VC camps, etc, while smaller drones would scout foward areas and forsee VC ambushes.

There wouldn't be much of a use for stealth aircraft, but it would be very fun to watch A-10 fire its cannon against a jungle.

Night vision goggles became portable and personal used, as opposed to the generation zero NVGs. Night ops would become a thing and special forces could raid the enemy at the night. The US military would start acting mostly at night while holding ground during the day.

>>31995461
>And I mean everything, from A-10s and B-2s to MICH and MTP.
Fuck all those platforms, just give them modern ISR platforms and it's over.

>>31995616
>no,the basis on going to war with vietnamese to stop communism is flawed since it was eventually contained there
It was not contained there, the whole of Indochina became fully commie after the war.
>and many forgot that Vietnam even called on america to aid them during their first war and had a chance but they threw it away
This is America's fuckup, but doesn't mean communism is a good choice.

>>31995461
Considering how the current US army has learned from the mistakes of said conflict, I'd say that they'd win by simply doing what they should have done the first time round- destroy the airfields, mine Hanoi harbor, and wreck the rail infrastructure, particularly the links with China.
Bring the north to the conference table under the threat of starving their entire population if they don't agree to cut the bullshit.
If they don't comply, starve them out. No need for pussying around.

>>31995641
Unless of course the US gov't is the same one that was in which case they're still screwed.

>>31995653
Speaking of government, how would a Trump presidency handled the Vietnam War?

>>31995670
By not being in it.

>>31995621
Anyone going "muh hippies" needs to consider this fucking post. The advancement in technology and killing power is ridiculous.

I think it's safe to say that any bombing mission/campaign/CAS would be way more efficient and totally rip anyone opposing US forces a new one.

>>31995675
The US has no problem with battles back then.

The problem is ideological/will, the US will never go full mongol on the North and the war will forever remain defensive, and that means the US has to leave.

The best win, provided if the US is still cuck, is to turn USSR and China against North Vietnam.

>>31995670
>Our agreement with Vietnam is a bad deal. It's a terrible deal. When I'm prsident I will have some of my guys make a new deal, and my guys make the best deals, believe me, believe me. We will work with Chyna to defeat RADICAL WATER-BUFFALO terrorism, which by the way is a term Johnson never uses. Just the other day he was talking on TV, about taking "all necessary measures in support of freedom and in defense of peace"! But, and this was a disgrace, not once did he mention the words "radical water-buffalo terrorism". I don't believe that he'll take all measures if he can't say the reason for what's going on there. What will I do as President? For a start, I'm not going to lay out my plan here, which is what Hillary did, Charlie is listening and knows here entire plan because she said it. When I'm president we will solve it quickly, and stop our involvement in the region.

>>31995621

Wouldn't matter that much. Grandfather was a Vietnam vet and had a Starlight scope in his group. Used it as night when he was on sentry.

Biggest issue he said was restrictions of ROE, same our boys face today. He could spot VC throughout the fucking wilderness with the Starlight but he was not given permission to engage under any circumstance. He said he didn't know how many went by only to probably kill other GI's out on patrol and such.

If our boys had the same ROE in WW2, Hawaii would probably be a Japanese territory today.

File: 1463075802070.jpg (14KB, 240x210px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 240x210px

>>31995751
10/10 post

File: warcrimes pleasure.gif (2MB, 659x609px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 659x609px

The problem with Vietnam war was exactly how the US government didn't really have much of a plan to end the war.

It dragged the war for almost 20 years and it had no end in sight, it was becoming expensive, it was becoming unpopular because the draft and because no one really knew what the US was doing there anymore.

After those 20 years the war would have to end some day and it was 20 years worth of money spent, military and civilian losses and a public that was getting tired of hearing how while the casualties were mounting there weren't any real gains being made. As in the North wasn't suing for peace, the South was still an inept, unpopular and corrupt government and no one in Washington D.C. could tell when the US would win that war.

As much as the pundits blame hippies, it was the loss of the US middle class as a whole and the general perception of the futility of the war that made the public lose the support. The hippies and peace movements weren't a reflection and an aspect of the general dissatisfaction. Maybe the media has a higher share to blame of that notion because they were showing all dead soldiers and the mess they were making thus giving the notion of the pointlessness of the war due to the lack of the Pentagon being able to make major gains to justify those losses.

As much as you'd like to blame the Media and those filthy hippies, it was the lack of specific goal and the political inertia to keep the war going slowing down that made the White House and the Pentagon to pull the plug in a war with no end in sight.

>>31995461
For the most part the weapons were fine. The game changers would be intelligence assets, communications like satellite tracking systems, and the 4 decades of special forces tactical refnments, ala TF88/125.

File: 5.jpg (555KB, 1601x1000px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 1601x1000px

BETTER QUESTION:

Would America win the Vietnam War if they were allowed to invade North Vietnam (USSR and China for some reason do nothing and no escalation is guaranteed).

Is the destruction and occupation of North Vietnam enough to choke out resistance, or will it be guerilla-warfare nightmare in twice the landmass?

>>31995896
I figure it would, if it decides to not occupy.

>>31995896
>Is the destruction and occupation of North Vietnam enough to choke out resistance, or will it be guerilla-warfare nightmare in twice the landmass?

Probably the latter. The Iraq War didn't end when we got Saddam.

>>31995954
It didn't end because the US refused to get the troops out after the invasion was over.

It stayed for over 10 years.

>>31995965

And part of the goal of the US was to prevent the South Vietnam from falling into the Communists hands. Which would have happened as soon as the US troops left.

>>31996010
With what army?

With the North in shambles, there would no NVA to take over the South.

>>31996019

Here is the thing, the NVA was already in shambles since 1960 due to the constant strategic bombing. They weren't an army that fought with tanks and jets, those things helped but they were a guerilla army with lots of cover. From dense jungles to cave systems. Both of which would take a lot of manpower to root out.

Even the North Vietnam plan towards the US was the same thing they did with France, resist them long enough until they lose the the will to keep dragging the war even further, wait them to leave, then reorganize and take the vacuum left by the US or France leaving.

They still had the Chinese and Soviet Union support and they still had plenty of rural villagers to recruit from, that along the Viet Cong in the South would be enough to drive south again after the US leaves.

If the US gets in, occupies and does a long run nation building maybe the Communists and the North don't start the war again but if the US goes to the North, wrecks its shit and then leaves, there still plenty of room and support for the North to rebuild, reorganize and take the South.

Getting in, destroying the urban and industrial centers and getting out, doesn't work against enemies that don't rely on those to begin with.

>>31995461
it wasn't the fighting men or equipment that was at fault OP. it was the lawyers who fucked up.
i'm talkin' rules of engagement and trying to make "war" humane.

File: 1463331547903.gif (4MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x270px

>beat the shit out of the north Vietnamese until they sign a treaty like the Koreas
>pull out cause your job is done for the most part
>North breaks treaty after you leave
>congress stops you from sending support to keep the south afloat.
would have ended exactly the same, just a few more dead Vietcong i wager.

>>31998693
this

>>31995461
Less dead and mutilated American servicemen. Modern medicine, training like combat lifesaver and SABC along with better body armor and helmets would have cut losses down severely.

Also less aircraft losses. SEAD wasn't a doctrine back then and modern SEAD missiles would wreak havoc on North Vietnamese air defenses.

You also have better training on basic shit like how to clean and maintain your weapons and better small arms like the M240b over the M60 that would have impacted mission success.

>>31996530
You are having several mistakes regarding the NVA, it was a conventional army with war and jets, and the strategic bombing only damaged people and infrastructure and did jackshit against them, this is the same strategy that the US is doing against ISIS, bombing campaign to force a conventional army into surrender, it doesn't fucking work.
>
Even the North Vietnam plan towards the US was the same thing they did with France, resist them long enough until they lose the the will to keep dragging the war even further, wait them to leave, then reorganize and take the vacuum left by the US or France leaving.
What the NVA/Vietminh did against France was a massive conventional battle to take them out actually, Hue was supposed to be that for the americans, but the americans prevailed.

>They still had the Chinese and Soviet Union support
Not after the 80s, the chinks and the USSR had a split.
>If the US gets in, occupies and does a long run nation building
No, no fucking more nation building, stop build shit that will be taken over by commies.

>>31995534
>military industrial complex
military industrial university complex

stop giving a pass to the research arm.

>>31995896
the viet nam war would not have happened had harry s. truman not been such a pussywimp during the korean conflict. he shoulda let macarthur cross the 38th parallel and push the fucking yellow horde all the way back to peking.

File: F105 downed over north Vietnam.jpg (47KB, 481x640px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 481x640px

>>31995461
We didn't lose the war from a lack of technology, we lost it because instead setting territory as the objective to expand and perform COIN operations on, the objective was body count, fly into an AO nape everything that looks funny, count the bodies and exfil. Literally just giving civvies more reason to join the local VC to defend their villages from evil Americans instead of gain their loyalty by defending them from NVA brutality and indoctrination. If you were a cute mammasan you had two choices, remain neutral and get attacked by commie enforcers, or pick up an SKS from the local VC stockpile and fight the hundredth foreign army occupying your country in the last fifty years.

>>31995578
>doesn't realize communism took over in cambodia and laos because of the american intervention

40 years of hindsight and the domino theory rear-guard actually got dumber

>>32000440
Actually, without american intervention, communism would still take over Cambodia and Laos.

>>31995767
>every villager is a VC
>why can't i shoot them

old asshole still doesn't get it

>>31995751
>work with Chyna

Nice.

>>32000505
Yeah, because you new asshole gets everything.

It's not the soldiers who lost the war.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1920px

>>31995461
A heavier than air nerve agent would have done wonders.
Except for that whole "Geneva convention" thing.

>>32000491

that is a conjecture. what is demonstrable is the communist insurrections in cambodia and laos materially benefited from the american intervention, so the domino theory as practiced in SE Asia was a total failure and had the opposite effect as intended.

>>32000528
They materially benefit from China and the USSR due to the american intervention.

Without the americans, these countries would just be communist, no need for war.

File: jameson.jpg (22KB, 400x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x200px

>>32000516
>It's not the soldiers who lost the war.
>total failure to devise a strategy and implement appropriate tactics to that end is not the soldiers' fault

>>32000547
>unpartitioned laos and cambodia and their baseless insurgencies would have turned communist because i said so

any more conjectures you would like to pass off as fact?

>>32000558
Uh, yes, that's the brass's fault.

The soldiers were constantly winning battles.
>>32000591
They would be communist because they are funded by communists.

Example? Look at Africa.

>>32000613
Point of order:

Any member of the army is a soldier.

Westmoreland was a soldier.

That guy was dumb as hell

>>31995461
In my view no victory was possible if we didn't invade the north to some capacity. With today's technology we could have probably cleared out the south of insurgents, but they would just come back over time. Counter insurgency tactics can only get you so far if the public mind is not only against you, but has a government fighting for you. Also, we already had a massive technological advantage in the 1960-1970.

BRRRRRRRRRRRT

>>32000613
>constantly winning battles

according to the totally discredited, manufactured body count metric

in the correct context of achieving strategic goals, the US military lost numerous battles, they even lost their first engagement with the NVA

>They would be communist because they are funded by communists.

>Look at Africa

only a half dozen african countries ever went communist in the entirety of the 20th century, in spite of the soviet union funding far more, and said funding is because the USSR exploited the deliberate decision of the "free world" to try to preserve the colonial old order (just like vietnam)

try picking an analogy that actually makes sense

Is lyndon "They can't bomb an out house without I says so!" johnson president with mcnamara still bean counting? If so nope.

>>31995535
there are stories where f-105 pilots would bomb literal telephone poles. They would find SAM sites but weren't authorized to bomb out of fear of russian causalities. So they would basically wait and then when they would finally attack days later the NVA would put telephone poles where the SAMS were. Pilots died bombing telephone poles...

>>31995688
>blame the political realities and limitations of a counterinsurgency as lack of will
>hitler dubs for idiot endsieg philosophy

blaming "lack of will" on the american humiliation in vietnam is an ironclad litmus test for retardation

>>31996530
>the NVA was already in shambles since 1960 due to the constant strategic bombing

this better be a joke.

which US strategic bombing campaign starting in 1960 was a success again?

>>32000682
>in the correct context of achieving strategic goals, the US military lost numerous battles, they even lost their first engagement with the NVA
I don't know what sources you are referring to, but even the NVA realizes they cannot beat the US in a straight fight, Hue proves that.
>only a half dozen african countries ever went communist in the entirety of the 20th century, in spite of the soviet union funding far more,
Which means the communists do fund them, and in turn spreading communist regime, which mean it is necessary for the Free world to strike back.
>and said funding is because the USSR exploited the deliberate decision of the "free world" to try to preserve the colonial old order (just like vietnam)
Yes, oppression logic is how the commies convert people, too bad that the exploitation becomes worse when commies get to power.

>>32000791
Vietnam was a political humiliation, not a military humiliation.

The NVA is competent, but they only wait until the US mil fuck off for them to take back South Vietnam.

>>31995524
>Most interesting question of he thread is completely ignored

>>32002259
>I don't know what sources you are referring to, but even the NVA realizes they cannot beat the US in a straight fight, Hue proves that.

The source would be "I am not an idiot who construes a fake scenario where only straight fights are considered battles, and therefore the US won them all".

The US failed to achieve to achieve their goals at Ia Drang, and their tactics were demonstrated to be vulnerable, ergo the first US battle was a loss for them.

>Which means the communists do fund them, and in turn spreading communist regime, which mean it is necessary for the Free world to strike back.

The real point here is that Soviet funding does not automatically mean an eventual communist takeover, thereby nullifying any claim that Cambodia/Laos would have gone communist regardless of the US intervention.

>Yes, oppression logic is how the commies convert people, too bad that the exploitation becomes worse when commies get to power.

Moronic argument. Western backed oppression is very real, it is not a logical construct. If the "free world" had a shred of decency it would not have tried to re-impose the colonial order thereby giving the communists a massive opening to gain influence.

>>32002277
>world's most powerful military cannot root out a peasant army
>not a military humiliation

topkek

>>31995461
You mean if the US had GPS and B-2s which could kill anyone and anything in Russia, China, Vietnam and North Korea without being detected? And had all our Ohios with Trident IIs?

We would Make Earth Great Again.

>>32002363
>The source would be "I am not an idiot who construes a fake scenario where only straight fights are considered battles, and therefore the US won them all".
So no source?
>
The US failed to achieve to achieve their goals at Ia Drang, and their tactics were demonstrated to be vulnerable, ergo the first US battle was a loss for them.
And? They lost that battle, but doesn't mean they lose the later battles, even the ARVN managed success against the NVA until they run out of fuel.
>The real point here is that Soviet funding does not automatically mean an eventual communist takeover,
Every communists that tried to take over have communist funding, thus proving that they are a danger, and it's not for the lack of trying that some countries remain anti-communist.
>thereby nullifying any claim that Cambodia/Laos would have gone communist regardless of the US intervention.
Except both of those countries would have gone communist the moment the NVA unites the country.
Moronic argument. Western backed oppression is very real, it is not a logical construct. If the "free world" had a shred of decency it would not have tried to re-impose the colonial order thereby giving the communists a massive opening to gain influence.
The free world is about the keeping the world in western civilization and culture, the communist take over and replace them with communist oppression which is worse for everyone but communists.

>>32002382
>cannot root out a peasant army

The sad thing is that a lot of people fell for the "rice farmers in pajamas" meme to explain why T-72s fresh from Soviet factories ended up rolling through Saigon.

Like, nigga, there's a reason CORDS ended in 1973. Get it together.

>>32002382
We have never rooted them out.

For some reasons, the American didn't even political entity such as the Vietcong in the South.

>>31995601
Let's stop calling it communism and start calling it what it really is, socialism. Socialism spread, and it's made its ugly head into every country there is. Socialism's the dominant economic system for the present. The point of socialism might be communism, but communism is fundamentally impossible in many different ways.

>>31995767
shit, kentucky would have been jap territory with modern ROE. we got too fucking soft and forgot the lessons of WW2 and Korea.

my stepdads father was in Korea, the man had nightmares till the day he died from it, and had 3 toes on his left foot from frostbite. he said if we had pulled our head out of our asses and just nuked the chicoms he would still had his fucking toes, and his friends would be alive.

one thing he said that made a bunch of soldier fall out laughing was something to the effect of the worst enemy of the american military is the leadership of the american military.

>>32002596
>They lost that battle

Good, so we can dispense with the myth that the US military won every battle in Vietnam.

>even the ARVN managed success against the NVA until they run out of fuel.

Do those successes include losing the entirety of the Central Highlands to the NVA before their funding was cut?

>Except both of those countries would have gone communist the moment the NVA unites the country.

Conjecture, also does not sync with the African experience. Can be discarded without comment.

>The free world is about the keeping the world in western civilization and culture

Then feel free to stop whining about communist oppression if the western world is free to oppress in their own way.

>>32002662
They called themselves under different names, socialists, communists, marxists, all the same.

All they try to do is destroying the world order settled by white men.

>>32002772
>Good, so we can dispense with the myth that the US military won every battle in Vietnam.
I have never said that.
>Do those successes include losing the entirety of the Central Highlands to the NVA before their funding was cut?
The ARVN only lost the central highlands after the bombing incident that destroys their fuel reverses.
>Conjecture, also does not sync with the African experience. Can be discarded without comment.
The political defeat of Rhodesia ushers the age of communism in Africa. Only to be stopped by the death of the USSR.
>Then feel free to stop whining about communist oppression if the western world is free to oppress in their own way.
Our "oppression" is to bring lesser cultures civilization, your "oppression" is mindless killing.

>>32002610
>rice farmers in pajamas

The Vietcong is literally that, and the US never rooted them out (Vietcong killed themselves during Tet Offensive).

The NVA was better equipped but still nothing like the US military, also their personnel were primarily of peasant stock so "peasant army" still applies.

>>32002847
Vietcong was funded by the NVA which was funded by the Soviet/USSR.

Their standard equipment, infantry-wise, isn't worse than the US.

Their only field that was worse is air support.

>>32002808
>I have never said that.
>constantly winning battles

Is that you? If not, don't butt into other peoples' conversations.

>The ARVN only lost the central highlands after the bombing incident that destroys their fuel reverses.
>not poor leadership
>not poor morale
>not non-existent intelligence
>not because the ARVN was thoroughly infiltrated by northern agents

topkek

>age of communism in Africa

Did you miss the part where only six of many countries were ever communist in Africa in the last century? That is some "age".

>Our "oppression" is to bring lesser cultures civilization, your "oppression" is mindless killing.

Dylan Roof pls go

>>32002924

spot the weasel word

>infantry-wise

Let's just ignore all the other equipment where the US capabilities massively outstripped the NVA.

>>32000657
This.

I read am article written by a Vietcong soldier a couple years back (i am not going to bother trying to find it). The most interesting thing in it to me was that most Vietcong did not know they where fighting Americans, they legitimately thought they where fighting the French still. The NVA also probably had issues of the same sort.

The Vietnamese hated the French but many loved the Americans (we where the saviors from the Japanese). I wonder how much the war would have been effected if we had a decent propaganda machine over there.

Also wouldn't have hurt if we didn't insist on installing a corrupt government.

>>32002925
>Is that you? If not, don't butt into other peoples' conversations.
The US constantly wins battles, not that they win every battle.
>>The ARVN only lost the central highlands after the bombing incident that destroys their fuel reverses.
The ARVN was having small success against the North until the bombing incident happens and fuel price rises.
>Did you miss the part where only six of many countries were ever communist in Africa in the last century? That is some "age".
These six countries situate in countries that were capitalist before.
>Dylan Roof pls go
Killing increases after communist take over.

>>32002943
The only field that the US massively outstripped the NVA is the air force.

>>32003094
>The US constantly wins battles, not that they win every battle.

You might have a point if the quantification for winning a battle was something more useful than the discredited body count metric.

>The ARVN was having small success against the North until the bombing incident happens and fuel price rises.

This is a complete whitewash of the massive deficiencies in the ARVN and the utter failure of Vietnamization.

>These six countries situate in countries that were capitalist before.

6 of 54 countries, so that is an "age of communism" how?

>Killing increases after communist take over.

Stupid, infantile attempt of an argument. By parity of logic, western backed tyrants can kill an unlimited amount of people because a hypothetical communist takeover will kill 1 more person.

>>32003104
>tanks
>artillery
>communications
>gunships
>helicopters
>mechanized/aerial logistical capabilities
>chemical weapons
>riverine navy

could go on, but you should get the point by now

Shouldn't the M14 have had a good showing in Vietnam? Fires the same cartridge as the FAL, which is supposed to be good for thick brush? Were soldiers constantly firing them in full auto or something?

>>32003445
>You might have a point if the quantification for winning a battle was something more useful than the discredited body count metric.
Not really, the US (and allies) objectively win more battles, the tactics were on their side, the strategy is not.
>This is a complete whitewash of the massive deficiencies in the ARVN and the utter failure of Vietnamization.
Doesn't change the truth, the ARVN had their shit together in some months after the departure of the US army.
>6 of 54 countries, so that is an "age of communism" how?
Because before that shit, there was no communist country in Africa.
>Stupid, infantile attempt of an argument.
It's not an argument, it's factual.

>>32003519
>tanks
>artillery
>communications
>riverine navy
Were not massively outstripped, especially artillery.
>chemical weapons
Barely used in Vietnam.
>gunships
>helicopters
>mechanized/aerial logistical capabilities
Which belong to the air force.

>>32004381
>Doesn't change the truth, the ARVN had their shit together in some months after the departure of the US army.

Can you actually name a single strategic success enjoyed by the ARVN in the entirety of the conflict?

>Because before that shit, there was no communist country in Africa.

Alarmist bullshit. "Age of" has implications and your backtracking now is patently dishonest. Also another reminder that your claim of Laos and Cambodia going communist is still horseshit.

>It's not an argument, it's factual.

Pro-tip: conjectures are not factual by definition.

>>32004396
>helicopters belong to the USAF

topkek

>Were not massively outstripped, especially artillery.

Please explain how the NVA/VC, fighting a mobile guerrilla war for the vast majority of the conflict with the US, were able to deploy tanks and artillery at all (instances like khe sanh being the tiny exception)

>riverine navy

NV didn't even have one

>chemical weapons
>Barely used in Vietnam.

What is Agent Orange

>>31995524
You have my interest and I can only assume you have some answers in mind.

>>32004476
>What is Agent Orange
A defoliant you massive egg.
if you want to talk CW, both sides used tear gas at times if I recall

>>32004638

subsequent analysis of agent orange revealed it to be both highly toxic to humans as well as a carcinogen

point being the US having this kind of capability is proof that the US military, despite its massive technological and firepower advantage, was unable to defeat the NVA or root out the VC

>>32000525
Years of healthcare experience here.... a Chem/Bio war is bad shit for everyone involved. I honestly hope this stuff never gets used in modern conflict. It's pretty much nuclear fallout bad.

>>32004819
And before the tear gas anons come after me, We all know that multiple countries have developed things that make tear gas look like bug spray. I'm not including less lethals in this.

File: US Military before and after 2001.jpg (114KB, 960x310px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 960x310px

We get an even more disastrous ass-kicking from the gooks because we trashed all the good equipment we designed post-Vietnam for overpriced crap after 2001.

And unlike the Taliban, the Gooks had Nguyen Giap, probably one of the greatest military minds of the 20th Century.

>>32004435
>Can you actually name a single strategic success enjoyed by the ARVN in the entirety of the conflict?
Simple, the repeal of the Easter offensive in 72.
>Alarmist bullshit. "Age of" has implications and your backtracking now is patently dishonest
Before there was no communist country, now there are 6 communist countries taking place of former colonial powers.
>Pro-tip: conjectures are not factual by definition.
It's factual killing increases after commie dictator takes power.

>>32004476
>topkek
It's still air component.
>
Please explain how the NVA/VC, fighting a mobile guerrilla war for the vast majority of the conflict with the US, were able to deploy tanks and artillery at all (instances like khe sanh being the tiny exception)
The VC enjoyed in guerilla combat, but the NVA enjoys its conventional battles.
>NV didn't even have one
They have small boats with guns on them.
>What is Agent Orange
Pesticide.
>>32004661
>point being the US having this kind of capability is proof that the US military, despite its massive technological and firepower advantage, was unable to defeat the NVA or root out the VC
Because the US has never tried to defeat the NVA, you cannot defeat the NVA without destroying its base in Hanoi.

>>31995524
There were all sorts of ideas floating around, some were SCIENCE! tier.
>irradiate the ho chi minh trail
Failed because cost/couldn't get the fuckton of isotopes needed till 1985.

>>31995524
When it comes to personal equipment. We'd probably be further down the lline of what the Army and USMC is developing now. Everything would probably have an emphasis to be super breathable and lightweight to dry off quickly and not weigh down a person in the ridiculous humidity of a jungle. Camo wise, we'd probably have more patterns based around tiger stripe. More portable and reliable flamethrowers and other incendiary weapons?

>>32005524

Is your example of artillery excluding mortars? Because gook mortars were *wildly* effective during the bush war.

Various first hand account stories from "Where the Rivers Ran Backwards" to "Matterhorn" all speak at length and in detail as to how effective and prevalent VC artillery was. It wasn't common and was generally saved for specific fronts, but when they used it they did so savagely and then hid it quickly.

Your other points are on point, though. THere were some VC tanks but they got smoked by air power or LAWs.

As for how Charlie was able to scramble some field guns around the bush, that shit comes apart and gets put back together real easy. You're a smart guy, you saw how fast they would reconstruct bombed out bridges. Moving artillery in the bush at night was probably cake to them.