How to handle an Invasion of the North
- Thread starter Tank_Guy#3
- Start date
7ronin
海軍少佐
To answer the intial question:
Pre-invasion Phase
1. Intensive strategic bombing campaign on military targets in the Red River delta. All bridges and rail lines severed; all power stations destroyed.
2. Mining of Haiphong harbor and sea areas north of Haiphong.
3. Active engagment and destruction of all NVN naval assets.
4. Destruction of the NVN Air Force and air bases.
Invasion Phase
1. Special Operations Forces conduct raids on all major POW locations and decapitation strikes on NVN Party and Military leaders. Ho and Giap are major targets.
2. Infantry Division 1: Comes ashore vicinty Thanh Hoa; seizes major air base, air defense center and major bridge; elements moves west to Laos. Will engage any NVN units attempting to move back north from the south.
3. Air Mobile Brigade 1: Lands in southern Laos and Cuts Ho Chi Minh trail.
4. Infantry Division 2 and Armored Division 1: Come ashore south of Nam Dinh and then drive on Hanoi.
5 Infantry Division 3 and Armored Division 2: Come ashore between Nam Dinh and Thanh Hoa; move northwest to engage bulk of NVN army.
6. Three Carrier Battle Groups provide air cover.
7. Submarine screen will sink any vessel entering declared exclusion zone.
South Vietnam Phase
U.S., RVN, and free world forces in SVN engage and hold NVN and VC forces countrywide. Some forces may invade sanctuary areas in Cambodia and Laos.
Diplomatic Phase
1. U.S. strongly warns U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. against intervention.
2. All Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines put to sea.
Pre-invasion Phase
1. Intensive strategic bombing campaign on military targets in the Red River delta. All bridges and rail lines severed; all power stations destroyed.
2. Mining of Haiphong harbor and sea areas north of Haiphong.
3. Active engagment and destruction of all NVN naval assets.
4. Destruction of the NVN Air Force and air bases.
Invasion Phase
1. Special Operations Forces conduct raids on all major POW locations and decapitation strikes on NVN Party and Military leaders. Ho and Giap are major targets.
2. Infantry Division 1: Comes ashore vicinty Thanh Hoa; seizes major air base, air defense center and major bridge; elements moves west to Laos. Will engage any NVN units attempting to move back north from the south.
3. Air Mobile Brigade 1: Lands in southern Laos and Cuts Ho Chi Minh trail.
4. Infantry Division 2 and Armored Division 1: Come ashore south of Nam Dinh and then drive on Hanoi.
5 Infantry Division 3 and Armored Division 2: Come ashore between Nam Dinh and Thanh Hoa; move northwest to engage bulk of NVN army.
6. Three Carrier Battle Groups provide air cover.
7. Submarine screen will sink any vessel entering declared exclusion zone.
South Vietnam Phase
U.S., RVN, and free world forces in SVN engage and hold NVN and VC forces countrywide. Some forces may invade sanctuary areas in Cambodia and Laos.
Diplomatic Phase
1. U.S. strongly warns U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. against intervention.
2. All Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines put to sea.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
AL_DA_GREAT said:
Riesstiu IV said:
Agreed.
If AL_DA_GREAT wants to belittle American and Vietnamese war dead he can do so somewhere else.
American troops were not defeated in Vietnam, but the American people refused to pay the price of victory. That's an important distinction. Several presidents got sucked into Vietnam because, first, they didn't want to offend France, and, later, no one wanted to risk appearing reluctant to confront Communist aggression. And make no mistake, the North Vietnamese were the aggressors in the war.
Once Johnson realized he could not generate enough popular opinion to get the forces he knew he needed to win the war, he simply quit politics and retired. The next president, Nixon, got elected on the promise to "get America out of Vietnam," and he did just that, although it took a long time. This is not without precedence. As early as the War of 1812, the American people showed a marked reluctance to support what it would take to win the war. In 1812, it was the conquest of Canada (or at least some parts of it). In 1952, Eisenhower got elected on the promise of "getting America out of Korea."
It takes a lot to get Americans into a war big time, always has, and probably always will. As the casualties mount and especially if there is no dramatic progress, public support quickly wanes. In our long wars, such as the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II, it became very difficult to keep things going on the home front towards the end.
Americans still commemorate the harsh Winter of 1777-78, when Washington pulled off a seeming miracle by keeping his army together during that season of discontent. Had Washington not been able to hold things together that winter, the British would have likely won the war the following spring and summer. During the Civil War the number of Union voters eager for a negotiated settlement grew as the 1864 elections approached. Lincoln had to jump through a lot of political hoops to head off the peace movement. Even WW2, seen as "the good war," found the American people quite warweary in 1945. Despite what many feel we should have thought then, the use of nuclear weapons was enthusiastically received by a people quite tired of war and its sacrifices.
There's little doubt the U.S. could have defeated the Vietnamese Communists, but it would have meant a risk of war with China and/or the USSR and the application of much more airpower and infantry. There might have been twice as many American dead and many more Vietnamese dead. Still, it was certainly possible. But too many of the people were not behind the war. That's how a democracy works. Sometimes you can't win, or don't want to win. That doesn't mean you're necessarily defeated, but you have to change your goals. This was successfully done in Korea, where the goals were changed from utter defeat of the North Koreans to resumption of the status quo ante. In 1964, America wanted to keep the Communists out of South Vietnam. By 1968, most Americans just wanted to keep Americans out of South Vietnam. The American people got what they wanted.
Once Johnson realized he could not generate enough popular opinion to get the forces he knew he needed to win the war, he simply quit politics and retired. The next president, Nixon, got elected on the promise to "get America out of Vietnam," and he did just that, although it took a long time. This is not without precedence. As early as the War of 1812, the American people showed a marked reluctance to support what it would take to win the war. In 1812, it was the conquest of Canada (or at least some parts of it). In 1952, Eisenhower got elected on the promise of "getting America out of Korea."
It takes a lot to get Americans into a war big time, always has, and probably always will. As the casualties mount and especially if there is no dramatic progress, public support quickly wanes. In our long wars, such as the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II, it became very difficult to keep things going on the home front towards the end.
Americans still commemorate the harsh Winter of 1777-78, when Washington pulled off a seeming miracle by keeping his army together during that season of discontent. Had Washington not been able to hold things together that winter, the British would have likely won the war the following spring and summer. During the Civil War the number of Union voters eager for a negotiated settlement grew as the 1864 elections approached. Lincoln had to jump through a lot of political hoops to head off the peace movement. Even WW2, seen as "the good war," found the American people quite warweary in 1945. Despite what many feel we should have thought then, the use of nuclear weapons was enthusiastically received by a people quite tired of war and its sacrifices.
There's little doubt the U.S. could have defeated the Vietnamese Communists, but it would have meant a risk of war with China and/or the USSR and the application of much more airpower and infantry. There might have been twice as many American dead and many more Vietnamese dead. Still, it was certainly possible. But too many of the people were not behind the war. That's how a democracy works. Sometimes you can't win, or don't want to win. That doesn't mean you're necessarily defeated, but you have to change your goals. This was successfully done in Korea, where the goals were changed from utter defeat of the North Koreans to resumption of the status quo ante. In 1964, America wanted to keep the Communists out of South Vietnam. By 1968, most Americans just wanted to keep Americans out of South Vietnam. The American people got what they wanted.
The bombing was already happening.7ronin said:
Again, already happening7ronin said:
What naval assets? The DRV Navy was a handful of missile boats and other small craft.7ronin said:
Again, this was already happening.7ronin said:
Someone's been watching too many Rambo-type movies.7ronin said:
One infantry division can do all that? Try one or two infantry corps.7ronin said:
I suggest that you do some reading about Operation Lam Son 719 (1971). This was an attempt by the ARVN 1st Infantry Division, Airborne Division, 1st Armored Brigade, and a Ranger Group, supported by American air power, to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail. It was repulsed with over 10,000 ARVN and American casualties.7ronin said:
Are you Rumsfeld's understudy? Why are you being so parsimonious with the troops. Try a couple of corps.7ronin said:
Three carriers at an absolute bare minimum. Let's beef up the air support a whole lot more.7ronin said:
Most supplies entering the DRV came by train from China. Also, sinking Russian ships might not be the best political move.7ronin said:
The American troop cupboard would be getting rather bare at this point.7ronin said:
Or what? We'll nuke you? The Soviets had a credible nuclear force, while the Chinese had the largest army in the world.7ronin said:
Two-thirds of the SSBN force was at sea at all times anyway.7ronin said:
7ronin
海軍少佐
@YNCS. Okay, let's hear your plan.
I don't have one, since I believe that General Dwight Eisenhower was right when he said "Never fight a land war in Asia."
However, any successful plan to invade and subdue the DRV would involve a lot more troops than were engaged in RVN. To give an example, at the height of the war, the summer of 1969, there were 219 U.S. combat battalions, 247 ARVN combat battalions, and 26 Allied (ROK, Thai and ANZAC) combat battalions in RVN. Only about 60% of the NVA combat battalions were, at any one time, in RVN. The rest were training or providing support or security services in DRV or Laos. So it would be reasonable to assume that a successful invasion of DRV would require at least another 500 combat battalions.
However, any successful plan to invade and subdue the DRV would involve a lot more troops than were engaged in RVN. To give an example, at the height of the war, the summer of 1969, there were 219 U.S. combat battalions, 247 ARVN combat battalions, and 26 Allied (ROK, Thai and ANZAC) combat battalions in RVN. Only about 60% of the NVA combat battalions were, at any one time, in RVN. The rest were training or providing support or security services in DRV or Laos. So it would be reasonable to assume that a successful invasion of DRV would require at least another 500 combat battalions.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
i have to say that if you dont have a plan, thne dont criticize others, youve got no basis for an argument
Gee, I don't have a hypothethical plan to do something in a war that ended over 30 years ago. How uncouth of me to point out gaping holes in someone else's hypothetical plan.
Why do you insist that I need a plan? Is that a requirement for exposing flaws in someone else's plan? Where's that written down? Who made that a rule?
Why do you insist that I need a plan? Is that a requirement for exposing flaws in someone else's plan? Where's that written down? Who made that a rule?
Similar threads
