How to handle an Invasion of the North

[Tank_Guy#3]

Judging by the title this doesn't sound history related. That would be only partially correct.

I am posting to hear how other CFC'ers think an invasion of North Vietnam would have gone. How would we have done it, what type of units would do what, etc?

I know I can say with almost certainty that if we did invade North Vietnam the Chinese would have gotten involved (judging only by our almost non existent diplomatic relations), but in this case lets say they wouldn't get involved. But as for Laos and Cambodia, I guess they're fair game.

So how do you think the Invasion of North Vietnam would have happened?


I NOW DECLARE IT OPEN SEASON FOR THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Knight-Dragon]

The US would probably occupy the North easily, but then they would have to hold for indefinitely. Eventually, the Americans would have to depart (due to anti-war protests, the media etc), and leave the country in a bigger mess than it really was (extended, longer period of military occupation and guerilla warfare).

I don't see how the corrupt Southern regime could hold the country together for long, in the face of determined organized Soviet-supplied resistance.

The end result will probably not be much different, except for more casualties on both sides.

 

[superisis]

I believe that the war would've spread as North Vietnamese fighters would've sought refuge in Laos and Southern China. This paired with their deeper ties with North Vietnamese society would caused massive resistance and been terror for the Americans.

 

[Dreadnought]

Meh, the media would kill us....we'd never win

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I thought you meant the North of England. No one can defeat the Commander of the Armies of The North

 

[Che Guava]

I would imagine a relatively quick invasion, followed by years of guerilla attacks, violent protests, and bloody bombings. Kind of like Iraq today, but a little more moist...

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I say invading vietnam is realy easy. but controlling it is another thing. why are the Americans so obsessed with the Vietnam war?

 

[Ace]

Well schucks!!! It would have been a snap. We would have smashed the NVA and than turned "Indochina" over to the French, so they could handle it, while we pull our troops out!

 

[El Justo]

hmm...this is an interesting concept Tank_dude.

my feeling is that the USN would've laid waste to the Haiphong-Hanoi corridor w/ carrier-based sorties and coastal bombardments. of course, the USMC would have played a big part as well. maybe the Army would've crossed the dmz and siezed the n vietnamese areas north of I Corps and into Laos and Cambodia (?)

i also think that an invasion of the north would've stemmed the tide a bit as far as the NVA & VC infiltrating into s vietnam. this was one of the biggest problems for the s vietnamese and the americans.

the blood that would've been shed in such an occurrence would likely have been indescribable. however, i'm not sure how much this would have benefitted the americans b/c, after all, our troops were over there simply to keep the Republic of S Vietnam afloat amidst the commie insurgency.

i have read in a few different books/articles how much the american troops rerally wanted to take the fight to the NVA. i have also been told this by some vets, too. i mean, Vietnam was as much a political war as it was counter-insurgency war.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Why are Americans obsessed with this war?

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Why do you keep making generalizations about Americans?

 

[YNCS]

Why are Americans obsessed with this war?

Because some of us were involved in it.

Why are you obsessed with the American obsession?

 

[History_Buff]

Why are Americans obsessed with this war?

Some people have close ties to it, or participated, but a lot of the attention comes from the fact that they didn't win.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

or is it becaause of Hollywood? Come on 50 000 dead. That isn't much in the Marne. No one exept me cares about the Great war!!!

 

[Riesstiu IV]

The Vietnam War killed more than 50,000 people. Millions of Vietnamese also died. Maybe you don't consider the Vietnamese people worthy of war statistics? If you're just going to ask pointless questions that have little to do with the topic, stop posting.

 

[YNCS]

or is it becaause of Hollywood? Come on 50 000 dead. That isn't much in the Marne. No one exept me cares about the Great war!!!

Obviously you're not paying attention to the various threads discussing WWI, or else you wouldn't make such a comment.

If you're not interested in Vietnam, then there's no compulsion for you to post on a Vietnam thread.

 

[ChrTh]

Some people have close ties to it, or participated, but a lot of the attention comes from the fact that they didn't win.

That's an oversimplification. The US didn't win Korea either and 95% of Americans couldn't give a rat's butt about that war.

The main reasons I see why Vietnam is so popular in the US:

1) The WWII vets are dying, and there weren't as many Korean vets to begin with. Thus, there are a lot of Vietnam vets out there

2) Unlike the subsequent actions in Iraq, Vietnam had a draft. Thus many of the combatants were conflicted even before they went over there.

3) It was deeply divisive in the nation even before it was over. The socio-cultural effects of the war still linger, and that's because ...

4) It happened when the Baby Boom population was fighting age. So your talking the largest generation experiencing the same war. If it had happened ten years earlier or later, it's impact would be smaller.

The reason that I personally don't buy the "the US lost" emphasis is because it's pretty damn obvious to most people that winning was extremely unlikely. It's not like the Civil War, where Southerners can obsess over Lost Orders wrapped around Cigars or the first night at Gettysburg. It's not the losing part that makes Vietnam so pervasive, it's the whole sad uselessness of it all.

 

[YNCS]

That's an oversimplification. The US didn't win Korea either and 95% of Americans couldn't give a rat's butt about that war.

The U.S. (U.N., actually) did win in Korea. At the beginning of the war, the goal was to take over North Korea. When the Chinese entered the war, that goal became unachievable, so the goal of the war was modified to resumption of the status quo ante. That goal was not only achievable, it was achieved.

 

[YNCS]

The reason that I personally don't buy the "the US lost" emphasis is because it's pretty damn obvious to most people that winning was extremely unlikely. It's not like the Civil War, where Southerners can obsess over Lost Orders wrapped around Cigars or the first night at Gettysburg. It's not the losing part that makes Vietnam so pervasive, it's the whole sad uselessness of it all.

Harry G. Summers Jr.'s book On Strategy discusses one reason why the U.S. lost the Vietnam War. Summers points out that the North Vietnamese had a clear, specific goal in the war, while the U.S. did not. Summers, who was a colonel in the Four Party Joint Military Commission overseeing the exchange of POWs at the end of the war, had a discussion with an NVA colonel:

Col. Summers: "You never defeated us on the field of battle."
Col. Tran: "This is probably true, it is also irrelevant."

Vietnam was the first war the U.S. lost. Well, that wasn't exactly the case. U.S. forces were not beaten on the battlefield, they were withdrawn. It was actually the first war the U.S. refused to win. The price of victory was considered higher than it was worth.

America lacked the will to win, to see it out to the end. This had never happened before and there was a reluctance on the part of the government to admit this was where it was all going. American politicians allowed more and more U.S. troops into Vietnam because it was easier to do that than to draw the line and demand that prowar partisans consider the implications of increased involvement. No one wanted to risk a small failure in the short term because, as politicans see it, long term problems will be someone else's responsibility. The troops and the voters slowly came to realize the mess they had gotten into and there were bad feelings all around as a result.

The American Civil War caused a division in public opinion over the wisdom of the war, as did several other wars (1812, Mexican, Spanish, Philippine Insurrection, and Korea), leading to social unrest and violence. But nothing like what was seen during Vietnam. The nation was truly divided and when it was clear that unified support for the war would never be achieved, the practical result was no support at all. One president refused to run for reelection because of the lack of popular support for the war, and another was elected on the promise of getting the U.S. out of Vietnam.

We didn't keep sending more and more troops to the front until victory was won, and then send everyone home to victory parades and civilian life. In Vietnam troops were constantly being transferred in and out of country just like it was another assignment. Even when it was decided to end our participation in the war, the troops came home gradually. And there weren't many parades.

 

[ChrTh]

The U.S. (U.N., actually) did win in Korea. At the beginning of the war, the goal was to take over North Korea. When the Chinese entered the war, that goal became unachievable, so the goal of the war was modified to resumption of the status quo ante. That goal was not only achievable, it was achieved.

I'm not personally a big fan of changing goals mid-stream and then claiming you've met the new ones. Just admit failure and suck it up.