Vietnam

Well the civis will be hiding in their homes if they know the marines are going to come in to kill the insurgents they wont be walking in the street like idiots the only ones who will be in the streets will be the insurgents and I could care less what this so called warlord thinks if my men are getting killed by insurgents which have found harbor in the city I am going in to get them. Now what would you do devil we all know how it turned out if you let them go they start beheading people and make car bombs and kill more soldiers so let me see my options kill the leader and his insurgents in the city with the risk of some civilians getting killed or let them free so they can keep attacking us make car bombs and kill more innocent people the better choice is going in and taking them out.

i think the results would be the same......................DEATH..................lots of it

I am sure the end results would be the same... With the president, congress and Sec. Def. making all of the calls, instead of the Generals and Admirals, the ruels-of-engagement change on a daily basis (just like they did in my three tours in the Nam) there is no way to get the job done. Even if you had no restrictions, you couldn't kill them all... You just could not find them!

Todays weapons are no better suited for the task than what we had between 1960 and 1975... true they cost more, and they are cuter, but they just go boom. The bottom line on weapons is: In the jungles and on the rivers you can't shoot what you cant see, and when you do see, you are never sure whether they are friend or foe unless they shoot first (sounds like Iraq doesn't it?). Think tunnels and fishing boats and planting rice, etc., etc., etc.,...

I think if you get more special forces S.E.A.L.S. Delta Force, Rangers Green Berets and you give them permission to fight unconventional warfare which they are great at you could probably find these guys hiding in holes like cockroaches like we found saddam. Nice avatar KIA MIA True heroes.

I think people are underestimating the use of thermal imagers. You could be hiding in the deepest part of the jungle with bushes and leaves covering ever part of your body and a thermal camera is going to light you up like a christmas tree. Also night vision is alot better then the limited starlight scope used back then night is a friend of US forces.Those tunnels they used would be prefect for robots like the PACBOT with a gernade launcher to go in and clear out. The attack helicopter was just getting started back then Apaches are a far cry from the Hueys outfitted with guns and rockets. The Cobra would only be more deadly with thermal imagers. Massive tomahawk/B-2 strikes could make short work of SAM sites. Another good advancement that would help troops is the intercepter vest which can stop a AK round compared to the Vietnam era flak vest that a AK round will blow through both sides of. Ofcourse people would die on both sides but alot more of them would die then americans just like the first time around.

To try to say that Vietnamese tech has advanced anywhere near the amount the american tech has is just crazy talk.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I think people are underestimating the use of thermal imagers. You could be hiding in the deepest part of the jungle with bushes and leaves covering ever part of your body and a thermal camera is going to light you up like a christmas tree. Also night vision is alot better then the limited starlight scope used back then night is a friend of US forces.Those tunnels they used would be prefect for robots like the PACBOT with a gernade launcher to go in and clear out. The attack helicopter was just getting started back then Apaches are a far cry from the Hueys outfitted with guns and rockets. The Cobra would only be more deadly with thermal imagers. Massive tomahawk/B-2 strikes could make short work of SAM sites. Another good advancement that would help troops is the intercepter vest which can stop a AK round compared to the Vietnam era flak vest that a AK round will blow through both sides of. Ofcourse people would die on both sides but alot more of them would die then americans just like the first time around.

To try to say that Vietnamese tech has advanced anywhere near the amount the american tech has is just crazy talk.

Shadow: Everything that you say is true, but everything that you said was done, only a different way... instead of looking through the leaves, we removed the leaves (agent orange).

The modern night vission equipment would be of great help, and the robots also... that is if they were long range robots, and they knew which of the numerous tunnels within a tunnel (they went on for miles) to prosicute (I personally did tunnels with 8-inch armor piercing... very effective to the point of det., but the tunnels, as I said, went on for miles).

I admit that the modern helicopters are far better than the Hueys and some of the left-overs from Korea that we had. That would be a real improvement.

Can't argue about Tomahawks v. SAMs, but if you are thinking that the B-2 wouldn't have to put itself into harms way as a plus, you are right; but, someone still has to get up- close up and personal for target acquisition (one school of thought would say that you might as well do both at the same time).

As for the vests... about the only ones that actually wore their vests, were those in gun-implacements, river-boats and on ships. The grunt humping in the bush was usually stripped down to the least that he could get by with (but one would hope that time has brought a better bunch of leaders and followers, and they could come to some agreement to stay dressed).

Again, new is great... but in the end, the new stuff still just goes boom, only in a different way in some cases!!!

Parhelia if you did serve in Vietnam I would like to say thank you. I was not aware that alot of troops didnt wear their vest. Didnt it say right on the inside of the vest that it does not stop bullets.

I wish ever troop back then had a starlight scope even though it was poor
quality compared to modern NV and was bulky it still must have been a big advantage in the jungle at night.

The VCs resourcefulness can not be underestimated in my opinion. The way they could use tunnels to such a extent or the way they could take american garbage like a empty LAW and rig it to hold gernades and then make a boobytrap out of it was pretty amazing.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Parhelia if you did serve in Vietnam I would like to say thank you. I was not aware that alot of troops didnt wear their vest. Didnt it say right on the inside of the vest that it does not stop bullets.

I wish ever troop back then had a starlight scope even though it was poor
quality compared to modern NV and was bulky it still must have been a big advantage in the jungle at night.

The VCs resourcefulness can not be underestimated in my opinion. The way they could use tunnels to such a extent or the way they could take american garbage like a empty LAW and rig it to hold gernades and then make a boobytrap out of it was pretty amazing.

It has been a while ago (I retired from the Navy in 1980), but yes I really was there... Was on a patrol gun-boat in coastal river squadron one, then I spent about a year up on the DMZ (the qua viet river) doing shore bomb for the Army and the Corps... worked for the better part of that year with an Army spotter called 26-charley. Together we messed up some real estate and (unfortunately) people! The last time I was there we were doing a stupid-a$$ search for submarines in the Tonkin Gulf. A few of Admirals thought, for some reason, they were present, and they convenced the CNO and congress that we should take a look... Nada, nothing, zilch, but the mail was free, and I got a whole $60.00 per month hostile-fire pay, and did not have to pay taxes that year... hahahaha!

And, thank you for you showing your appreciation for my service!

Parhelia Out!

In war historically we have lost very few soldiers in comaprision to the rest of the world. In Vietnam War we lost a fraction compared to Viet loses. Check this link out & you will see what I'm talking about.
www.rationalrevolution.net...

We could have won the war back then but like others have mentioned it's a matter of determination. We as a country did not have our hearts in the fight this is why we failed. If our country, our soil was under attack, it would be a different story.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well the civis will be hiding in their homes if they know the marines are going to come in to kill the insurgents they wont be walking in the street like idiots the only ones who will be in the streets will be the insurgents and I could care less what this so called warlord thinks if my men are getting killed by insurgents which have found harbor in the city I am going in to get them. Now what would you do devil we all know how it turned out if you let them go they start beheading people and make car bombs and kill more soldiers so let me see my options kill the leader and his insurgents in the city with the risk of some civilians getting killed or let them free so they can keep attacking us make car bombs and kill more innocent people the better choice is going in and taking them out.

i never said dont go in and not catch them i just said not to go in all guns blazeing
also how are they gona know that the USMC is comeing in ready to shoot the absolute **** outa any guy with a gun?and u think they will care? they'll be in the same danger in a house as they will be in a street.
also id make sure they didnt kill my men if that meant i didnt get the mission done fully then tough ****.
actually if you opress them they start using a guirila warfare style of comabt BUT if you make them think they have the city they will act more openly in combat style's
A. in the eyes of the enemy no one is inocent thats how it is with every country. if your fighting an enemy force you dont care if where there from all you know is that thier the enemy. BUT they might be inocents just caught up so no one is really inocent in thier eyes.
B. personally i would have snipers shoot any guy that acellerated past 10 miles per hour near my troops.
also if i was in the combat zone i actually think i might do what you would do if i seen a soldier under my comand die but frankly getting angry only gets your men killed.

I would drop leaflets droppe by aircraft to warn anyone that doesn't stay inside will be shot. Then of course i would set up sniper positions all around the city equipped with thermal vision. and i would use predators and other small UAV to help my men see what is around the corner and if they shot at the predator they reveal their positions then I would also send pack bots equipped with either for 5 inch rockets or a machine gun into rooms and houses to see what is inside and take them out this way you don't just go in guns blazing but fight a smart urban warfare.

also about the Vietnam topic we would have UCAV's now that can find targets and destroy them with missiles no need to wait for air support or put people in danger. And the pack bot has long range you find a tunnel then send in pack bots to clear the way you can follow after the pack bots to clean any remaining enemies but I doubt they would survive the pack bots which are equipped with machine guns and rockets. Also now we have PGM's that can destroy a target without risk to troops near by.


[edit on 20-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

[edit on 21-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

Gee, that's really cool westpoint. But in the real world, people die, war isn't all fun and games like on your computer...grow up, you're talking about things you can't understand.

Listen shortek if you have nothing to say don't i was explaining to devil what I would do in a urban combat situation then i was referring to some of our modern tech and how it would help us in another Vietnam war. nothing i said was making it seem like a game nor did i not say people don't die in a war so if you just want to try and insult people for no reason that is up to you, but don't make false statements and lies Also instead of saying on war all the time like you im explaining what I would do in a sittuation and I understand it better than you ever could.


[edit on 21-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

Well first off I salute Parhelia. Nice to have a veteran on the board. Well from what I understand Vietnam was hell. And technology won't change that. But if we were to use our heads we could probably win this time. Of course we probably would have won last time if it weren't for battlefield politics.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also instead of saying on war all the time like you im explaining what I would do in a sittuation and I understand it better than you ever could.

Maybe people would think a little more highly of you, if you actually could learn proper grammar past the 3rd grade level. I'm sure the hours of time you've racked up playing war video games online has really given you a lot of knowledge...you have no idea what you are talking about, and you continue to preach your expertise behind your false image of being in the army, or some war hero. I'm just denying your ignorance

You never have mistypes shortek? I have never said that I was in the army, or that I am a war hero where do you come up with these lies? You find me one post on ATS OR BTS that I have said I was in the army, or a war hero. You cant because your statements are false!

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You never have mistypes shortek?

I have never said that I was in the army, or that I am a war hero where do you come up with these lies? You find me one post on ATS OR BTS that I have said I was in the army, or a war hero. You cant because your statements are false!

It is your avatar and signature genius. I have asked you a couple times about that, and you say you are not in the army, but most people who read your posts don't know this and assume that you are...at most boards you would be banned for the army avatar and signature images, either for impersonation, or advertising a third party. Anyway, you're not even worth the time, everyone on this board can see through your bull# posts.

[edit on 21-7-2004 by Shoktek]

Don't you kind of have to be in the Army to go to West Point academy. That or be some nerd who got recommended by a senator. And in that case doesn't that automatically place you in the army. But I agree West Point doesn't exactly act like a war hero. More like a textbook veteran.

Don't get personal.

Stick to the subject, please. Debate and disagreement is fine, but keep it on topic. If someone is violating the ToC, u2u a mod or file a complaint (suggestion), but if they simply annoy you just don't respond.

[edit on 21-7-2004 by Spectre]

Oh yeah that reminds me what I'm supposed to be talking about. Well with better detection technology it would be a bit easier on the soldiers that and the fact that better medical treatment is availible. But non the less we had a huge advantage in the first war. The problem was the wrong kind of training which we fixed to some extent but not completly. The major problem like I said before is politics. It all depends on your rules of engagement. They can change what tactics a soldier will use.