Why did morale and military order and discipline break down so

>afghaniland soldiers werent drafted/conscripted
>they actually sort of believed (were led to believe) they were helping/doing some good
>modern soldier has support of his homeland (generally speaking) ie: didnt have to worry about being hit with dog shit as soon as he got off plane
>seriously less amount of time being shot at/exploded/watching friends die
>more morale improving things (a fucking ps4 on the fob? i can jerk off to my super esoteric furry hentai before going out on patrol? AC?!?!

literally could go on for days

>>34538311
Not drafted

>>34538311
As easy as it is to compare Afghanistan and Iraq to vietnam, the scale is totally different. This combined with the factors the two above mentioned

Conscripted militaries suck

>>34538311
They were draftees fighting an undeclared war where your mission was not to win, but to survive your one year so you didn't become the 100 guys who died every week. Shit was completely fup duck.

>>34538354
>>34538370
But conscripts made up only 25% of forces deployed, and shouldn't their commanders have placed them in non-mission critical positions to prevent mishaps? That's just common sense.

File: Omaha_beach_June_6_1944.png (212KB, 600x475px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 600x475px

>>34538448
Not if the war is popular and necessary.

Most of it was probably the fact that infantryman were seeing combat almost every fucking day. Going out on patrols, waiting to get ambushed, hoping it isn't you or your buddies that gets it. I've never seen combat, but I imagine that would wear you out pretty quick.

>>34538311
>our experience in the sandbox is extremely similar
no they are not.

the average US serviceman in Vietnam saw an average of 300 days of combat per year

>>34538460
25% drafted yet 30% of combat deaths were draftees and some 65% of everyone who saw combat was a draftee

shits fucked, yo

>>34538460
Volunteers got first choice of MOS because they were signed for four years and not two, meaning if you were drafted chances are you're going infantry. They're not going to spend ten months training you when you'd only have 14 months left to do your job.

So a lot of the draftees ended up being the ones actually knee deep in the mud and the blood trying to get their M60's reloaded and their M16's unjammed.

>>34538560
>>34538588
Then what viable options would there be for military leadership to improve morale and order? Could they have afforded to reduce time in the combat zone at least?

>>34538656
>Armed Forces Radio Vietnam
>Donut Dollies (dont you ever forget about the donut dollies you fucking faggot)
>Drugs
>some more drugs
>hanging around with the mama sans

There really wasn't much for the front line guys, which is kind of sad. Anything that was a morale booster for them was usually made up by themselves, or letters from home (which more often than not were a detriment to morale)

As it stands due to the positions of the NVA and VC reducing time in the combat zone or even away from the combat zone wasn't logistically feasible. Generally speaking it took too much time to get them back and forth as it was, and combine that with the fact that just as often as not they weren't attacking static targets but chasing groups of VC through the jungle made it a difficult task to have them come back simply for a morale booster.

>>34538837
Fuck. How could we hope to actually beat the NVA then? What tactics could we have employed to flush the NVA and vietcong, without resorting to genocide? Let's say there was the political and material will to carry the war out on a larger scale. How do we stop them?

>>34539080
treat forests like urban combat, and use WWII and Korean war urban tactics

>The fastest and safest way to take a city or move through a city is to level it block by block

>>34538534
>the average US serviceman in Vietnam saw an average of 300 days of combat per year

Not going to do the homework, but I find that statement hard to believe. I'd buy it if you changed it to average infantryman and combat zone.

A few things to remember- tours in Vietnam were for 12 months, 13 for Marines; and if what you said is true, that means that nearly half of all US servicemen in Vietnam saw combat for over 300 days per year.

Yes, I'm aware that average, mean, and median are all different things. There's only 365 days in a year, we cycled 2.7 million men through Vietnam.

File: USARA_Home_Logo3.jpg (53KB, 870x140px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 870x140px

Why did morale and military order and discipline break down so easily in Vietnam?- not a statement you should make if you weren't there....and today's conflict is not comparable.
and for what it's worth, i'm an old combat vet. 2/75th A co.
Life Member #2952195

>>34539689
Presumably "combat" doesn't refer to only literal firefights, but being present in active combat zones, as opposed to being behind the lines. This kind of makes sense considering there was no front line in Nam, just big ass circles on the map marked "HERE BE CHARLIES".

>>34539812
Not OP, but I think the question is not "why were the soldiers shit" it's 'what made it so shitty that good soldiers did shitty stuff'. If you were actually there you might even be able to tell us.

>>34539894
I'll fall back on the idea that shitty orders from shitty brass was a big part of it. Like most of the discussions here, you can't make a good argument either way with our comments, the story/idea is just too massive.

>>34539812
I'd like to clarify a bit more I guess. Vietnam saw a huge breakdown in the command structure, and it seemed that US troop morale was constantly plagued with problems. I'm not saying the men that fought there were in any way lesser, more so that the command and control structure wasn't up to the task.

>>34539935
Would you mind talking about the war a bit? Your own personal experience? Did they really ship ice cream into the middle of the jungle on choppers? Was drug use that widespread? What's the funniest thing you saw during your time there?

it didn't.

don't confuse oliver stone movies for reality.

>>34539937
I agree with you, well spoken.

>>34538311
>but our experience in the sandbox is extremely similar
Vietnam and Iraq aren't even comparable.
Vietnam had 58,000 US deaths with over 300,000 wounded.
Iraq had about half that with about 25,000 deaths and 150,000 wounded.

>>34540068
US deaths in Iraq are 4500, not 25,000.

https://www.google.com/search?q=us+deaths+in+iraq&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

>>34540068
I guess it would be similar in the sense that both experiences were involving an insurgency in near inhospitable/difficult terrain. Of course less soldiers died, this has more to do with better medical treatment, protective armor, advances in faster field triage, etc. than anything else. Tactics may have also advanced, but a considerable reason why the death toll is a fraction of Vietnam is due to those advances. In the steep mountains of Afghanistan, while it may not be wet and muddy like the jungle, it's hot as hell and dry, making for unique logistical problems like Vietnam. The mountains also possess considerable redoubts for insurgents much like the jungle I'm Vietnam. That's why I draw similarities.

>>34538472
Kill yourself Phil

>no real reason as for the US to invade vietnam
>drafts were a thing
>public opinion was poor
>early M16s were known to be on low quality
>enemy soldiers engage with all their anger to damage you instead of kill you, they try any dirty tactic
>you are not allowed to leave because draft
>leftist universities are no joke sending them supplies to help fight the US.

>>34538311
Vietnam was a war to "Prevent the spread of communism" (an amorphous goal if ever there was one), fought at the ass-end of a VERY Long supply line, among people who at BEST made dubious allies (except for the 'Yards, who like the Kurds, hated our opponents even more than we did and were literally fighting for their survival as a culture and in many cases as people.

Afghanistan/Iraq is a "War on terror" whic an even MORE amorphous goal (seriously, how do you declare war on a tactic?), fought at the ass-end of an EXTREMELY long supply line and amongst a people who at best are dubious allies.

Any war where you cannot fully trust your interpreter is going to suck. One in which you goal is not the subjugation fo a specific group or the destruction of a specific force, is doomed to failure.

>>34540206
/thread

>>34540206
>>leftist universities are no joke sending them supplies to help fight the US.
i am aware that the left is always doing some treasonous shit, i recall Jane Fonda and all that shit, but what documented cases do we have of universities sending the reds help?
a simple Wikipedia link should suffice.

>>34540333
There isn't.

All there is are rumors.

However these come from several people with seemingly no connection.

All of them point out to care packages from berkley students.

>>34540333
students for a democratic society types did

>>34538311
read the book 'On Killing' s Vietnam section

>>34538311
heroine

>>34538311
>but our experience in the sandbox is extremely similar

was it ? is it ?

there were 50,000 america deaths in viet nam sometimes at a rate of 1000 week

i'm guessing this contributed to the problem

>>34538311
We abolished the draft (sorta).

>>34538534
If you count "the megaFOB I was on got mortared" as combat (most dont) the average US serviceman in Iraq saw ~350 days of combat per year.

My first deployment my FOB didn't have a single day there was not a mortar strike somewhere inside the wire, and I was there 15 months.

>>34538311
Isn't this basically a fabricated myth by Hollywood and guys like Oliver Stone and libtard media?

Every time you see Vietnam vets discuss this notion they say its a bunch of horseshit and everyone know if they slacked off they would have a much higher chance of dying

>>34540333
Jane Fonda should've been hung for treason

File: hanoi-jane-derp.jpg (48KB, 600x529px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x529px

what a stupid bitch

>>34543224
Has there been a more blatant act of treason and disrespect in modern american history?

>>34543269
Everybody's favorite "Magic Kenyan" and transvestite, donkey witch in a shit-stained pantsuit comes to mind.

>>34539247
that didn't help with the ho chi minh trail

File: hillary_clinton_benghazi_laugh_ap.jpg (81KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1600x900px

>>34543269

>>34543224
>>34543269
http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

>>34538311
>What do we do differently now from then

We use a volunteer force of retards instead of a conscripted force of retards.

The bottom line is that as long as you set your standards high, you can create an effective fighting force from volunteers or conscripts alike. A smart conscript that's in shape and has a good civilian record will figure out that his best chance of survival is to work together as part of the team, so you can work with these guys and turn them into good dudes. Morons and criminals, on the other hand, are too stupid to figure that shit out, and are a detriment to any force, be it conscript or volunteer.

The problem with conscription is that senior military and civilian leaders NEVER set the standards high enough for those they draft for service. The ghetto niggers, white trash morons and criminals they drafted for service made shit WORSE, not better, and yet not only did they draft them, but they kept on drafting them, and stuck them in the fucking infantry of all places. Contrary to popular belief, the absolute last fucking place you want morons, criminals, and unmotivated shitbags is in your infantry or any of the other actual combat arms. Having shitty fighters means you are less likely to complete missions, which means you are less likely to win battles, wars, and will end up spending way more fucking money on your war, and your military, than you would have if you maintained high standards in your fighting force.

It doesn't matter how rich or modern your military is, it's going to be shit if you maintain low standards when the time comes to actually fight.

>>34540068
>the US lost 25,000 KIA in Iraq

lmfao where did you even pull this number from?

>>34543449
she still stared in a propaganda film with the Reds

>>34543269
>>34543206
>>34540333
how has Fonda not been shot yet?

>>34540385
You Americans play your cards right, you can get the Norks to nuke Berkeley.

>>34543489
>It doesn't matter how rich or modern your military is, it's going to be shit if you maintain low standards when the time comes to actually fight.

that's why you use them for the meat grinder, worked well for WWI & II

>>34543645
>worked well for WWI & II

No, it didn't, dipshit.

>>34538311
It didn't break easily.

How about VOLUNTEER FUCKING SERVICE for fucking starters.
Also the average Joe is about an order of magnitude more safer in sand wars than he was in Vietnam.

>>34540120
The enemy in Afghanistan is a goatherder and his buddies taking potshots with half broken rifles.

The enemy in Vietnam was an actual fucking army supplied by China.

They're not similar at all.

>>34543540
>how has Fonda not been shot yet?

I'd be willing to guess it's because everybody's about as big a pussy as you are Mr. All-Talk. Maybe you ought to go be the change you wish to see in the world.

>>34543449
snopes is hyper biased leftist propaganda

>>34543984
>I don't agree with it so it's leftist propaganda

>>34543997
>if it appeals to me it's not propaganda

>>34544077
Follow these two simple rules and everything is propaganda! Doctors hate it!

Conscripts and much more time in the field. Infantry-types in Vietnam spent much more time getting shot at than their WW2 counterparts.

File: image-57.jpg (66KB, 800x471px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x471px

>>34543997
Snopes main writer Kim Lacapria literally whines about how republicans are literally hitler all day on twitter

>>34544343
It's possible to have a personal opinion and not have it reflected in your work, especially if your job is to check and debunk conspiracies and rumors.

>>34538311
Volunteers.

>>34544689
>if your job is to check and debunk conspiracies and rumors.

That's not their job. Their job is to spread leftist propaganda, just like the rest of the MSM outside of a few holdouts.

>>34540206
>early M16s were known to be on low quality
It as actually sabotage but whatever

>>34540333

I thought Sweden or Norway sent aid to North Vietnam, but 'failed' to follow up on whether or not it ended up in nva hands

File: 1496419980640.jpg (21KB, 205x270px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 205x270px

>>34544862
>Everything I disagree with is the "Mainstream Media" including snopes dot com the well known mainstream news source

Okay

File: 3B732FD500000578-0-image-a-1_1481918005219.jpg (127KB, 634x862px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 634x862px

>>34544343
fun fact: she used to be a literal prostitute who reviewed dildos on her blog. the guy who runs snope divorced his wife and married her. the whole site is just that dude and this whore googling shit and writing articles about it. also she said on her porn site before it was taken down that she likes to get high before writing articles for snopes

>>34544998
So which is it, a blog written by a prostitute and her husband Googling things, or an established "Mainstream Media" news source? You can't have it both ways

>>34545050
i'm not the guy who said that. and i got part of that wrong actually, the dudes wife who was a prostitute is just the "administrator" for the site now, and the lacapria chick was the dildo reviewer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html

>>34544965
>well known mainstream news source

Meaningless.

Being "well known" doesn't mean "truthful".

See: CNN

>>34543739
It worked well in the respect that they got rid of the shitbags, lazy, criminals, and generally poor producers. That's why the economy boomed after WW II. More resources left over, decent, hard working, and the smart survived for the most part.
After the Great Plagues in Europe, the clever, clean, and mostly resistant ones were left to occupy an infrastructure with resources that was big enough to allow wealth accumulation.

Some say that certain wars accomplish that kind of human turnover is BY DESIGN of the "masters" and can be fodder for conspiracy theorists.
It does ring true if you look up the good book and it says, be fruitful, go forth and multiply.
So you can work de job, pay the tithes and taxes for church which just happens to be the state at the time. Make lots of babies and ban birth control and abortions so you have cannon fodder. Conscription is just execution of that order.

If anything they should have placed the draftees in rear eschelon positions or in peaceful zones allowing the core trained military soldiers to do their job right.
My brother served as an MP in Korea during the Vietnam war. It probably saved him from the grinder of bad command/control/logistics failures.

>>34545273
You missed the point entirely, I'm saying that Snopes is a web blog, not particularly well known, and not at all Main Stream News

>>34545319
>That's why the economy boomed after WW II

The economy only "boomed" after WW II for the U.S., and that's because we were able to exploit the destruction of Europe for our own benefit via loans and manufactured goods sales. For the Europeans, the post WW II era sucked ass, and was a time of mass poverty well up until the 80's, at least.

Hell, the U.K. maintained a ration system for shit well into the 1954, almost a decade after the war ended.

>>34545368
Regardless, it's still hot garbage, anon.

>>34545368
To elaborate, I'm saying that you and people like you call any source of information you disagree with "Main Stream News" because it's your little sound bite of the month with no regard to whether or not the thing youre criticizing is actually mainstream or even news. It's just like "meme" - definition: "thing I don't like"

>>34538311
As other anons have said, there was no support on the homefront. It was a time of flowers and peace, man.
Vietnam is some of the most humid Fucking bullshit ever. Sure the sandbox is hot too..... But it's nowhere near as humid. The terrain is totally different.
We didn't have to instate a draft for Afghan or Iraq 2.0, that alone makes a hell of a difference in morale.

>>34545411
I agree with you there it just pisses me off to see soundbite phrases like "meme" or "fake news" get overused to the point of meaninglessness

>>34538534
1. It's 240 days
2. That refers to "days of combat" - a term back then meaning - On patrols, on Combat Outposts, in active combat operations, on search and destroy missions, forward deployed, etc.
As opposed to refitting in the rear, on R&R in country (or out of country) and home leave, or reassignment, etc.

It's safe to assume that they saw more combat than nowadays (with caveats) but that depends highly on the year of the war

>>34538837
>or letters from home (which more often than not were a detriment to morale)

Vietnam was probably the first war where leadership realized what an utter double edged sword that could be.
Nowadays emergency leave is easier to attain but that's also because communication is instant and accessible and soldiers with home problems are a threat to efficiency. The military doesn't always handle it well (shit like your wife trashed your on post house, took your kids and fled (after filing divorce); we're pulling you out of country and you have 48 hours to clean this shit)

>>34539894
The experience of a Ranger in vietnam, or a volunteer grunt in a squared away unit is going to be alot different than that of the average draftee

>>34540120
There are other differences as well. The NVA was a uniformed military, and the VC(NLF) itself mostly had training from the NVA/PLA as well as a boatload of Chinese volunteers. After Tet the ranks of the Vietcong swelled with trained Chinese.
The biggest advantage the Vietnamese had was (mostly) small arm parity and the cover of the jungle

>>34543540

>how has Fonda not been shot yet?

She probably realized at some point that she needs 24/7 security - the Fonda's certainly have the money and there is no shortage of 'nam vets that would like to plug her full of holes

>>34538311
No clear objectives
Political interface
Hate at home

>>34540068
If it actually was 25k dead, yes it would be extremely comparable you moron, that's a fuckload of people.

File: 1497804126851.jpg (50KB, 565x311px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 565x311px

>>34539877
>big ass circles marked HERE BE CHARLIES
Kek

>>34540068
>25,000
Are you counting Iraqis too?

>>34538311
In europe, the average days of combat a year an infantryman saw was 10. In the south pacific, it was 40. In vietnam, it was 240. I'd say that probably did it.

>>34538311
The reason behind the war. Oil.

File: 1498666390135m.jpg (172KB, 813x1024px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 813x1024px

>>34543776
No, get back to the front peasant!

>>34543645
Some one didnt read what he thinks he read.
IT COST MONEY TO MAKE SOLDIERS.

>>34538456
fuck you phil you tripfagging fatass

>>34543206
I am not Fonda Jane.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_images(20).jpg (8KB, 292x173px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 292x173px

>>34543269
I can think of one that is worse.

>>34543331
no one want to hear stories about your family, man

>>34550351

His name was Seth Rich.

>>34550539
/pol/ plz

>>34539689
>the average US infantryman in Vietnam saw an average of 300 combat zones per day

Fixed?

>>34538472
Which Vietnam was neither

>>34544965
>media bias is an absurd conspiracy theory
>Russian hackers are not

>>34544343
>Republicans are literally Hitler

Well, they are.

>>34539812

How many Vietnam vets does it take to unscrew a light bulb?

YOU DON'T KNOW, MAN! YOU WEREN'T THERE!

>>34538588
>and their M16's unjammed.
This points to another factor. Vietnam was the first military conflict where Congress had more than budget allocation power in the equipment selection and approval process. A lot of shitty equipment went out because nogunz Congressmen believed every sales pitch thrown their way. It would take decades of work for the military to improve platforms to acceptable military standards.

>>34544343
"Reluctantly took on the case" means she should have let it go to trial and made sure there were no due process violations. A defense lawyer is not bound by any oath or law to plea bargain/seek the best deal for a client; they are not even required under any ethical code or law to call or question a single witness. Their sole job is to ensure due process is followed.

>>34540206
>early M16s were known to be on low quality
A lot of equipment was of low quality. The jets were shit. The newer (for that time period) tanks and helicopters were shit. Basically any equipment procured after 1960 was iffy at best.

>>34550552

reddit pls go away

>>34538311

>gulf of Tonkin was a false flag
>draft mandate
>cannabis