Auschwitz

[Morris]

I was going go into something but first I want to know for sure, do you think Korea was a victory for America or her troops?

Tough call. I guess if you consider that the North initially invaded the South and the war ended with the South still in existence, that could be considered victory. Obviously though the American troops reached the Chinese border and were pushed back by an astoundingly large horde of Chinese forces.

Probably a stalemate, not a victory, although the war aim was partially attained.

As for Vietnam, American troops & their commanders were overconfident, underestimating their enemy - many have testified to this.

Due to the this - & the obvious territorial advantages of the VietCong - American soldiers were tactically outclassed by peasants. On a grander scale than the Japanese did at Iwo Jima, the American soldier is made to look significantly poorer in light of the VietCong.

The Americans were not tactically outclassed by the VC. The United States didn't lose a single battle during the war, and they inflicted 10 times as many casualties on the VC than they suffered. The reason the United States lost in Vietnam was because its entry was a severe strategic mistake from the beginning. Bombing North Vietnam into submission couldn't work, and the VC avoided pitched battles. You shouldn't hold the troops accountable for the Administration's mistakes.

And when we're discussing guerrilla warfare, I don't think the Americans look poor at all. Afghanistan kept the USSR at bay in the 1980s. The VC forced a French withdrawal before American intervention. If guerrillas won't allow a superior army to wipe them out in a pitched battle, it's extremely difficult to militarily defeat them.

And we all know how well they're doing in Iraq.....

Again this is an issue of guerrilla warfare. If you can figure out how to preempt Iraqi guerrillas from hiding within societies, constructing bombs and conducting guerrilla warfare, then you should stop posting here because I guarantee you that you would become the most important military commander in NATO.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

The Americans were not tactically outclassed by the VC. The United States didn't lose a single battle during the war, and they inflicted 10 times as many casualties on the VC than they suffered. The reason the United States lost in Vietnam was because its entry was a severe strategic mistake from the beginning. Bombing North Vietnam into submission couldn't work, and the VC avoided pitched battles. You shouldn't hold the troops accountable for the Administration's mistakes.

VC used guerilla warfare to ensure their survival & inflict many casualties at the same time. The Americans, with all their technological advantages couldn't fathom a tactic that was effect enough - besides the use of chemical weapons.

'We never lost a battle' is a typical American cop out. Well they might not have lost an official battle but they got fucked up pretty bad considering.

Of course the VC lost more, the Americans were better equipped, better financed, better trained (pity pure grit & humility is not instilled in them) & used chemical warfare.

As for the mistakes, I said 'troops & commanders' were arrogant & it's true. Many soldiers have admitted that they either didn't grasp what they were up against - because of either their commander's error or their own mentality - & generally underestimated the VC.

And when we're discussing guerrilla warfare, I don't think the Americans look poor at all. Afghanistan kept the USSR at bay in the 1980s. The VC forced a French withdrawal before American intervention. If guerrillas won't allow a superior army to wipe them out in a pitched battle, it's extremely difficult to militarily defeat them.

I have no problem with this statement as it is true. But the fact remains, America & VC - I repeat AMERICAN - effectiveness was being discussed.

Again this is an issue of guerrilla warfare. If you can figure out how to preempt Iraqi guerrillas from hiding within societies, constructing bombs and conducting guerrilla warfare, then you should stop posting here because I guarantee you that you would become the most important military commander in NATO.

NATO is somewhat of a feeble organisation & thus my mind would not be used effectively there.

That said, even if I had such information & NATO wanted to recruit & I'd be dead in a matter of days.

There are greedy war-mongers salivating over their next windfall, 'little old me' wouldn't be allowed to stand in their way.

 

[Glockmatic]

The United States didn't lose a single battle during the war, and they inflicted 10 times as many casualties on the VC than they suffered.

A great quote comes to mind.

‘You know you never defeated us on the battlefield,’ said the American colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment.
‘That may be so,’ he replied, ‘but it is also irrelevant.’ -- (On Strategy, Harry Summers, p. 21)

 

[Morris]

VC used guerilla warfare to ensure their survival & inflict many casualties at the same time. The Americans, with all their technological advantages couldn't fathom a tactic that was effect enough - besides the use of chemical weapons.

Nobody has yet fathomed a tactic that can eradicate guerrilla warfare. Like I already said, if you knew of one, you'd be a NATO commander.

'We never lost a battle' is a typical American cop out. Well they might not have lost an official battle but they got fucked up pretty bad considering.

It's not a cop out. We lost 58,000 soldiers and lost the war. You said the VC tactically outclassed us. Tactically, never. Strategically, they did what they had to do to win.

Of course the VC lost more, the Americans were better equipped, better financed, better trained (pity pure grit & humility is not instilled in them) & used chemical warfare.

Nothing in the service is tougher than fighting an enemy that engages in hit and run guerrilla tactics while melting away into local societies for cover. I have no idea what basis you're using for making such sweeping generalizations about American soldiers.

And it was not the soldiers' decisions to use chemical weaponry.

As for the mistakes, I said 'troops & commanders' were arrogant & it's true. Many soldiers have admitted that they either didn't grasp what they were up against - because of either their commander's error or their own mentality - & generally underestimated the VC.

It's not arrogant to underestimate the VC. No amount of training can ever really prepare you to fight guerrillas in their backyard. There's no doubt those soldiers who did underestimate them learned quickly not to underestimate the VC.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Nothing in the service is tougher than fighting an enemy that engages in hit and run guerrilla tactics while melting away into local societies for cover.

Living udnerground & fighting when you surface is notably tougher.

There's no doubt those soldiers who did underestimate them learned quickly not to underestimate the VC.

Some learned, others didn't breath long enough to.

 

[Morris]

Living udnerground & fighting when you surface is notably tougher.

Not really. When you're the guerrilla, you dictate the time and place of the attack. Those who are defending their position or patrol have to be on the alert at all times and won't know where when or who.

It's easier to melt away into society, construct a bomb or grab a gun, and then sneak up on a defender and shoot him. It's why the Iraqi resistance can't be completely eradicated militarily. Same thing with suicide bombings in the Middle East.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Morris, I know you are respected on this board so I will refrain from down-talking you, but if you think that living underground in dirty, humid, tight conditions is not any worse than living above ground......I don't know what to say.

I know what you are saying about 'melting' into society, but the VC were under the ground for God's sake!!

They weren't just going about their daily business & then shooting some Americans.

Those who supported the VC maybe, but the actual core of the VC was operating underground.

 

[Morris]

Morris, I know you are respected on this board so I will refrain from down-talking you, but if you think that living underground in dirty, humid, tight conditions is not any worse than living above ground......I don't know what to say.

I don't think the living conditions are that important when we're discussing the military aspect of guerrilla warfare.

In every other form of warfare, the defense has inherent advantages. In a pitched battle, the defense only has to hold its positions.

In guerrilla warfare, the guerrilla has all the advantages of planning the attacks, from time to place to target. Defending against guerrillas or defeating them is not yet possible, or at least nobody's figured out how to do so yet.

Here's the point I'm trying to make, in one succint sentence. Successful guerrilla warfare is easier to accomplish than a successful defense against it.

 

[The.Menace]

It's easier to melt away into society, construct a bomb or grab a gun, and then sneak up on a defender and shoot him. It's why the Iraqi resistance can't be completely eradicated militarily. Same thing with suicide bombings in the Middle East.

I agree.