How would we fight a war in Vietnam Today?

Of course this is a theoretical question, not in anyway saying that we would get in a war with Vietnam. My question is, what units would be used? What countries do you think would join? What would be our main strategies? Of course I think there would be a heavy bombing campaign, and I think we would use a special forces units to call in air support, and to designate targets. Of course this is just a little bit of what would happen, I'll think up more stuff later!

I thnk a thread like this has a great potential to be really interesting. I don't want to hijack the thread with this post.

ALthough I don't have an answer (I know there will be someone here who does) I was thinking along similar lines recently after watching "The Alamo" movie. There the Texans just sat in their fort awaiting the Mexican attack.

The mexicans had a ritual firing of the cannons just before dinner (I think). Neither groups used any tactics that are the norm for today, no psychological warfare, no small groups heading out at night to assassinate the leader and sabotage the guns.

Its amazing how tactics and stratagy have developed, only Housten seemed to really employ military tactics.

Well, today the vietcong will be no match... hehehe or not, depends if we just bomb the crap out of them then they will be no match, but if we do it like taiwan then thats not good...

Read the Vietnam Primer by David Hackworth.

Hackworth was really on to something with his "out G the Guerrilla" tactics.

In his months with the 4/39th, the battalion-along with it's combined arms team-had dispatched more than 2,500 VC KIA by actual body count, in exchange for 25 Hardcore (4/39th) lives.

(Source: Steel my soldiers hearts, By David hackworth. Pg 396)

the most important lesson to be drawn from the war in vietnam is that a lightly equipped, poorly supplied guerrilla army cannot easily be defeated by the worlds most powerful, and sophisticated army, using conventional tactics. To defeat the guerrilla, we must become guerrillas. Every insurgent tactic must be copied, and employed against the insurgent. The marvels of modern technology have caused some to believe that exotic gear has replaced the man with the rifle. It is not true. Never in the history of modern warfare has the small combat unit played a more significant role... and the brunt of the fighting falls squarly on the platoon. The outcome of the war will be determined, in large part, by the skill, guts, and determination of the platoon leader.

(Source: Infantry Magazine article by David Hackworth.)

In the end it doesn't matter how much artillary you fire, or how much air support you call in. Battles have, and will always be won, and lost by the grunts, ground pounders, G.I.'s, joes, troops... whatever you wanna call them. It always come down to the men with guns.

[edit on 6/14/05 by microcosm]

I honestly think that if the U.S. was to fight in Vietnam again then they would get the same result the first time they fought there. One of the reasons is that they would still have to be careful of what they bomb because they still wouldn’t want to get into conflict with Russia or China.

PGM’s, UAV loitering in the air proving real time info all over the battlefield with help from satellites. The ground troops being able to know where they are, and being able to talk in real time to each other and being able to call in air strikes more accurate and faster will help a lot.
Not to mention that we would have air dominance over the skies. But I still think the key would be SF units ad how much they are used. In Vietnam our pilots couldn't even bomb the factories and bases in N. Vietnam because of political “issues”, how do we expect to win a war if we can't even hit the supply centers of the enemy.

If we went in there today, I think the result would be different but it would not be easy or quick.

In Vietnam, the Americans won every battle yet still lost the war. American losses were around 50,000 dead, while NVA and VC losses were at 1.1 million dead. The thing is, NVA and VC continued fighting even with the losses, and never backed down, while to the Americans, every life was precious and could not be wasted. Simply said, the VC and NVA would keep fighting, so America could never win the war. The president realized this, and called the troops back.

NVA and VC main force units were well armed, actually even better armed than the US army at that time. NVA and VC main force (main force was more like NVA, others were regeional or local forces, less well equiped, and disguised as civillians) units had Ak-47s and RPGs, compared to the American M-16s, the NVA had superior firepower, mainly because of the RPGs. Because of that, the US army had to rely on B-52 strikes and Artillery. Even then, B-52 strikes were very limited since they couldn't strike other countries 10km away from the border and 20km away from the Chinese border. Artillery on the other hand, Soviet provided artillery had better ranges.

The war in Vietnam was one where the infantry on foot would find out where the enemy was, and let B-52s and artillery strike the area. In this sense, the war was very limited, and the US were not properly prepared to fight a major ground war in Vietnam.

A modern day Vietnam war just will not happen, but if it did, I am thinking of Special forces landing first, moving covertly and spotting enemy postions, target them, and let precision guided missles and aircraft (A-10s,F-16s,F-15s,F-18s etc) strike the targets. China and Russia might help covertly (arms,training, and people enlisting in their armies pretending to be Vietnamese etc), but war in Vietnam again just will not happen.

just do like in Afghanistan where u use combine conventional forces as well as unconventional forces against the Vietcong. conventional forces like the air force and unconventional forces like the Army Special Forces, Delta, Marine Recon, Rangers, etc. morale on the enemy would go down because they cannot hit back because jet fighters and bombers to high in the sky to reach and Special Forces that moves and hides and no big bases. where conventional army would be useless unless they use massive firepower where it kills everyone, u may win with that type of tactic but at wat cost to the world opinion and to the military and the country's reputation.

I think that with also with the precision weapons we have today there would be alot less colateral damage. And also IMO I think we should if we did use conventional forces, make a base security force and make defenses around isolated rural villiages. And then of course give them food, get to know them, medical care, etc. And then find some Vietmenese leader that would really care for the people, unlike what we did in the last Vietnam war.

Everyone says "America lost" America lost what exactly? We killed more of them, and we signed a cease-fire (just like the Gulf War).

The first thing they would do is go to their library and get all the info they could on the british fighting in Borneo and Malaya!!! They they might learn how to defeat a guerrilla army in a jungle. Dropping tons of bombs just wont do it, no matter how accurate.

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
The first thing they would do is go to their library and get all the info they could on the british fighting in Borneo and Malaya!!! They they might learn how to defeat a guerrilla army in a jungle. Dropping tons of bombs just wont do it, no matter how accurate.

The Australians taught the Americans alot about jungle fighting. I would hvae to say at the time no other western country came close to Australia'a expertise in jungle fighting, especially our SAS. They scared the piss out of the VC.

Back to the thread.

The main question which comes to my mind is ...will the military or the politicians be controlling the war ? As can be seen in Vietnam I, the politicians placed far many many restrictions on the military prosecuting the war. The most notable result of this was the virtual lack of any military action in or over Vietnam. Ships were allowed to bring in supplies and railraod lniks were left intact from China. The US never took the measures necessary to stem the supply flow into North Vietnam.

As for tech, Imaging Infra Red would play a massive role in pinpointing guerilla groups and supply veins coming off the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Precision weapons could then be brought to bear day or night.
There has been a huge increase in the destructive power of cluster bombs as well, allowing a far greater area to be covered in a sortie.

But yeah just a few thoughts.

Originally posted by rogue1
The Australians taught the Americans alot about jungle fighting. I would hvae to say at the time no other western country came close to Australia'a expertise in jungle fighting, especially our SAS. They scared the piss out of the VC.

425th VC and 275th VC outnumbered the Aussies 8:1, but the Aussies held ground, eventually found cover behind a hill, fought until they were out of ammuntion (Australian standard load at that time was 60 rounds per person and 300 rounds per machine gunner, compared to the American 300 rounds per person and 600 rounds per machine gunner). Eventually American choppers volunteered to drop ammuntion for them when the RAAF didn't want to, but the RAAF eventually did, since they didn't want the USAF helping out the Australians with what the RAAF refused to do.

After that, quite a few APCs arrived, 1 ferried the wounded back to hospitals, the rest held ground before advancing, then forcing the VC to retreat. The VC wanted to teach the Australians a lesson, but failed. Since then, the Australians never really had any big ground battles.

And no, the Americans never did lose the war. The media made it seem like America was losing the war, when it was in fact the other way round. The Americans were inflicting huge numbers of casualties among the VC and NVA, but the VC and NVA fought strongly even with those casualties, while even the loss of a battaleon would mean a lot to the American public. End of war, VC and NVA losses 1.1 million, American losses a mere 50,000. The Americans just couldn't afford to keep fighting, while the VC and NVA were ready to continue and eventually take over South Vietnam under communist rule.

we pulled out, actually it was the politicians who pulled the troops out thats still considered losing the war. no matter how many battles u win or casualties u inflicted in the end it depends on the outcome of the war.

The VietCong won the war the same way as the Americans won the war of Independance from the British, they just wore down the opposition.

Troops today would still be faced with getting some jungle time if they wanted to win and not just contain the VC.

The US would still win, just as long as the first Paveway that was dropped was targetted on the home of one Robert MacNamara, with a second sailing silently onto the head of Jane Fonda.

Ground penetrating radar and other sophisticated listening devices would locate the tunnels of the VC if we were to fight today and ground penetrating Bunker buster or bombs would en their tunnel supply routs real fast.

How would we fight a war in Vietnam Today?

First off, for the record, I am not into "what if" scenerio's.

Secondly, the answer is rather simple and only requires the US to do what it did not do in the Vietnam War: take the war to Hanoi: in other words, instead of being defensive and/or restricted, US forces would head straight for Hanoi and take over North Vietnam.

Bye bye Ho Chi Minh.

Nothing fancy required.




seekerof

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
425th VC and 275th VC outnumbered the Aussies 8:1, but the Aussies held ground, eventually found cover behind a hill, fought until they were out of ammuntion (Australian standard load at that time was 60 rounds per person and 300 rounds per machine gunner, compared to the American 300 rounds per person and 600 rounds per machine gunner). Eventually American choppers volunteered to drop ammuntion for them when the RAAF didn't want to, but the RAAF eventually did, since they didn't want the USAF helping out the Australians with what the RAAF refused to do.

After that, quite a few APCs arrived, 1 ferried the wounded back to hospitals, the rest held ground before advancing, then forcing the VC to retreat. The VC wanted to teach the Australians a lesson, but failed. Since then, the Australians never really had any big ground battles.

And no, the Americans never did lose the war. The media made it seem like America was losing the war, when it was in fact the other way round. The Americans were inflicting huge numbers of casualties among the VC and NVA, but the VC and NVA fought strongly even with those casualties, while even the loss of a battaleon would mean a lot to the American public. End of war, VC and NVA losses 1.1 million, American losses a mere 50,000. The Americans just couldn't afford to keep fighting, while the VC and NVA were ready to continue and eventually take over South Vietnam under communist rule.

Battle of Long Tan - the finest Allied feat of arms during the war.

D company 6RAR (100-110 guys) ran into an attack just being put in by a VC regiment (possibly two)! They held out all night against amazing odds 25:1.


www.anzacday.org.au...

America lost in 'Nam by any standard. No shame in it, it happens to the best of countries.

If it were to happen again today and Vietnam were to get Chinese / Soviet supplies & support then you'd probably lose again.

If they didn't have that support it'd be a much closer thing - whether a modern-day conscripted US army would be any more effective and whether you'd be free to use your airpower is very debatable.






[edit on 15-6-2005 by CTID56092]

[edit on 16-6-2005 by CTID56092]

Vietnam is the result when the politicians tie up the hands of the military. That combined with political correctness up the kazoo makes more a very bad ending.

I don't know about anything else, but I am sure of one thing - A Vietnam re-run would not have as much on the ground media coverage these days...I think they have learned that...