How would we fight a war in Vietnam Today?

the vietnam war covers the whole timeline of the vietnamese struggle for independence. 1946 after the french decide to come back to the end of the war with the north vietnamese take-over.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Chinawhite civilians? C'mon please show me where you got your numbers. And the US did not get involved until the mid 60’s.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by chinawhite
the vietnam war was from 1946-1975.. the vietnamese casulties were from that whole era not from american intervention.

the real war between the vietnamese and south vietnamese were

Sout vietnam and america
Total dead: 287,232
Wounded: 1,496,037

NVA / viet cong
Total dead 200,000 to 300,000
Wounded: 600,000

civillian casulities

2-4million



the Vietnamese released their own numbers and hasn't been denied by the US

this is only when american intervention started....

Here is the link to how many causalties there were on the American, VietCong, and NVA. And America's allies, en.wikipedia.org...

1.1 million fighters -- Viet Cong guerrillas and North Vietnamese soldiers -- and nearly 2 million civilians in the north and the south were killed between 1954 and 1975.

Of the Americans, 58,226 were killed in action or classified as missing in action.

There, I got the numbers right at 1.1 million and 50,000 dead, although American losses were closer to 60,000 dead. American estimates according to what the officers gave and what the government put together puts it at 500,000 or 0.5 million, without reducing the number. The agreed number later on was 1.1 million, more than twice the expected number. This supports my statement that the American body counts were actually less than the real dead.

Here are the countries I think would join us, Australia, Britain, New Zealand, Romania, Malaysia, South Korea, and India. Australia would contribute its special forces, of course that being the SASR, same with New Zealand. I think Britain would contribute their SAS, SBS, and Royal Marines. Romania would contribute there scouting platoons, Malaysia would contribute its special forces, that being Paskal Naval Special Forces. And India would contribute Marine Commandos, and Para Commandos.

The only way to win Vietnam would have been to never have fought it in the first place.

Ho Chi Minh was NEVER a hardcore communist, he just saw communism as a way to achieve his goal: a unified Vietnam. Had the US approached Ho Chi Minh, and not been so blinded by the Red Scare, Vietnam may not have ever happened (this is questionable at best, I know).

Now that the Red Scare is no more, and the Cold War is long gone. I think the US would be more willing to aid in the unification of Vietnam, WITHOUT war.

The peoples of Viet Nam have always been warlike, especially when protecting the motherland. They have delivered a kick up the rear end to the French, the Brits (after the French) the Yanks and much more recently, the Chinese.

In my view, any country who takes on the Red Dragon - albeit in a local squabble, and wins, has great kudos.

So to answer yer question about who would win. Simple. Those little varmints from Viet Nam.

U.S has tried fighting with technology like the ADSIDS - now that was a success! All the Main Force VC and NVA did, was to avoid areas seeded with them! How radical.

No. I think they're best lest alone and as this is a hypothetical thread, thankfully there will never be another war!

Incidentally, the RAAF did not refuse to fly in ammo to the RAR engaging Main force VC Regiment at the Battle of Long Tan - Phouc Ty Province. RAAF was operating under strict peacetime constraints and simply had no concept of operational flying in a warzone.

Much the same as Colonel Hal Moore's concept of airborne operations had to be learnt from scratch - see We Were Soldiers - the RAAF had to learn 'on the hoof'. In fact the Battle of Long Tan forced the RAAF heirachy
to reappraise their doctrine and to allow close air support.

This 'peace time flying mentality' was due in no small part, to the fact that the RAAF had so few Hueys and could not afford to replace them if lost.

Originally posted by fritz
They have delivered a kick up the rear end to the French, the Brits (after the French).

Brits? I know we used Japanese POWS to disarm the PLF (or whatever Ho's boys were called) to help the French re-establish their colony. But wasn't aware they beaten us - any source for that?

Only reported Brit involved in the US-NVA war in a shooting capacity I know of was the Embassy security guy who used to go up to the 'front' & shoot at the W/e

CITD, as far as I able to tell, we were involved in several 'small unit' activities - 'contacts', ambushed patrols and i think that at one point, a TA para unit was called on to go in and sort them out.

Allegedly, in 1949 they 'refused to soldier' and mutinied. The then Labour government disbanded this unit, refused to committ any other forces, but kept a small unit for 'protection' duties.

This was indeed the time you were referring to, but to the best of my knowledge, info on this topic is very sketchy to say the least.

However CITD, the French took over by sending in 2 REP and 1 REI who set about rebuilding their old triangular fortification system and soundly thrashing the poor peasants until they could take no more. Result? Dien Bien Phu and the fall of the French Indo China Doctrine.

Our involvement in Viet Nam is still shrouded in mystery and this government will not divulge information - even under the so called FOI act,
and the main anti-guerilla force (presumably SAS/4 Para) will not release their records either.

I am trying to trace Rgt histories for this period and will divulge info on an 'as and when' basis, when I get it.