Was Vietnam Misunderstood?

[YotoKiller]

Does the book say 30,000? I don't know the actual number of U.S. troops but from what knowlege I remember from just watching the History Channel it was not over 5,000.

Even if the US forces in Cambodia had been restricted to the 11th Cav and an airmobile regiment from the 1st Cav that would still have resulted in an American strength in Cambodia of well over 6000 men.

Thats about right. 3,000 is probably an understatment. 6,000-5,000 is about right.

The incursion lasted 60 days.

Actually all Americans were gone by day 10. After that Nixon banned further future incursions or raids.

To call Operation Binh tay an "invasion" is laughable. I deplore what the U.S. did in Vietnam but Bugfatty is correct. It was a raid and the people back home called it an invasion.

 

[Bugfatty300]

got a list of units involved from Stanton's 'The Rise and Fall of an American Army'.

It sounds like you are basing your number of troops by how many soldiers make up a regiment, division ect.

You can't just say "Well that's a regiment so it has got to be 1,000 men."

Shelby Stanton is the leading expert on troop movements in Vietnam, and has written both of the two definitive works on this topic ('Vietnam Order of Battle' and 'The Rise and Fall of an American Army') along with excelent books on the 1st Cavalry Division and Special Forces in Vietnam. What's your source?

I'm not disputing that. It realy sounds like you are grossly misinterpreting the data from the book. My source is the book "United States Army by the U.S. Army Historical Foundation." I am willing to bet that both our sources say the same thing.

 

[Case]

It sounds like you are basing your number of troops by how many soldiers make up a regiment, division ect.

You can't just say "Well that's a regiment so it has got to be 1,000 men."

Aside from the fact that a full strength 3 battalion regiment had 3000 men, you most certainly can say that US Army combat units in Vietnam were of a certain size, typically somewhere between 75 and 110 percent of their authorised strength. The US Army put a lot of effort into keeping it's units at something that resembled their TO&E strength, and commanders who messed about with the TO&E generally got into trouble when they were found out. This definetly applies to units participating in a pre-prepared set-piece offensive.

I'm not disputing that. It realy sounds like you are grossly misinterpreting the data from the book.

For the record, Stanton states that the following units entered Cambodia.

Please note that their entry into Cambodia didn't occur simultaneously, as the invasion of Cambodia was carried out in a number of phases.

from 'The Rise and Fall of an American Army' pages 335-339

The forces which initally entered Cambodia on 1 May 1970 were:

-11th Armoured Cavalry Regiment (3 battalions)
-3rd Brigade (+), 1st Cavalry Division (3 integral battalions reinforced with 1 armoured battalion and 1 mechanised infantry battlion)

the follow-on forces were:

-2nd and 3rd Brigades, 1st Cavalry Division (by the second week of the campaign the division had 13 battalions under its command in Cambodia)
-4th Infantry Division (9?/11?/more?/less? battalions, entered Cambodia May 6)
-1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (3? battalions, entered Cambodia May 9)
-2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (3? battalions, entered Cambodia May 25)

Assuming that the entire 4th Division was deployed (Stanton actually implies that it was reinforced with at least one US battalion and an ARVN regiment before entering Cambodia) That gives us a maximum force of 40 infantry and tank battalions in total. Assuming a strength of about 1000 men per battalion it would seem that my estimate of 30,000 men is probably too low. This isn't including the logistics, aviation and artillery units which supported the infantry and armour.

Based on the above, I suspect that the source you're using only refers to the forces which entered Cambodia on the first day of the offensive. As can be seen, those units were just the tip of the iceberg.

For confirmation, see www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/mounted/chapter7.htm This study of US Armoured and Mechnaised operations (and is not a complete offical history of the camaign - AFAIK, this is still to be written) refers to a number of brigades of the 1st Cav along with 2 brigades of the 25th Infantry entering Cambodia. The presence of at least some of the 4th Infantry Division is confirmed at: www.grunts.net/army/4thid.html

 

[Anubisdk2]

I think the saddest thing about this war was the handling of Ho Chi Minh before we let the French back in after WWII. Our OSS (precursor to the CIA) was talking and advising (on some accounts) Ho Chi Minh before WWII had ended. Ho has sent letters to Truman asking for recognition or assisstance, but those letters were never returned. The US was more concerned about building up France's image on the world stage that they didn't care about Vietnam's independence. Ho Chi Minh actually took our Declaration of Independence (from the OSS) and changed it so it could read it and apply it for the Vietnamese.

When we let the French back in, Ho was of course furious. He was a nationalist first. That is one error in our foreign policy. He was not Communist #1, but rather nationalist. He care more for uniting his country under one ruler and getting rid of all of the foreign powers. The Vietnamese had to deal with the Chinese in their history for 100s of years, then the French came...and then eventually the US. They didn't care about who we were, but that we were foreigners on their land.

Uncle Ho's quote about if I lose 10 men for every 1 of yours...even at that odds, I will still win (paraphrase). He was right.

I agree with the person who said the domino theory was paranoia back then, but we didn't live back then. I could not imagine growing up with McCarthyism and the anti-communist ferver. I think because Truman was seen as "losing" China to the communists, and how we were able to stop the communists in Korea, that was could stop them in Vietnam. But, like always, we did not look at the history of Vietnam.

Even still today, Vietnam has a problem with central authority. The village cheifs have the most power and sometimes ignore Hanoi. Ho Chi Minh started to realize this before his death. If we would only look at the history.....maybe we can learn something.

 

[El Justo]

technical advice/suggestions needed for my Second Indochina War scenario development thread. give me your two (or more ) good cents!

Second Indochina War Scenario Development Thread

 

[Verbose]

I think the saddest thing about this war was the handling of Ho Chi Minh before we let the French back in after WWII. Our OSS (precursor to the CIA) was talking and advising (on some accounts) Ho Chi Minh before WWII had ended. Ho has sent letters to Truman asking for recognition or assisstance, but those letters were never returned. The US was more concerned about building up France's image on the world stage that they didn't care about Vietnam's independence.

Interesting that you bring in the French who were very much at the root of the conflict. (Anyone seen Apocalypse Now Redux with more segments with French colonials inserted? The 50 year anniversary of Dien Bien Phu occurred over here recently, with much soul searching in the media. Though some of it was a bit unpleasantly slanted towards the sad fate of all those legionaries and "paras".)

The Japanese seems to have known what they were doing when they officially declared these countries independant in the final moments of WWII.

Still, it would have been hard to prevent the French from trying to reimpose their control. (Lots and lots of wounded national pride there.) And this was very much at the top of the political agenda after WWII for the French government back then, and it had absolutely no inhibitions when it came to giving the army a free hand to do whatever it would take. (Though it might have gotten even uglier in Algeria somewhat later.)

Still the war turned out to be unwinable, and this was clear to level headed military thinkers as early as back in 1945. I remember reading an article in Le Nouvel Observateur about general Leclerc (the French general who actually spent the whole of WWII fighting the Axis ) and the liberation of Paris. Leclerc's last official job was being sent to Indochina (as it was called) with the task of working out how to defeat the communists. He spent a few weeks there getting to now the situation and then reported back that it was impossible no matter what means would be put at his disposal. His suggestion was that the French bugger out immediately. For political reasons this was not an option said the government (de Gaulle), and retired him.

 

[dgfred]

Verbose- I did not know that of the French and DeGaulle . They later
wished they had listened. Dien Bien Phu is one of my favorite war accounts.
The bravery those jumping into the area in the last couple of day was
tremendous, what valor. I the FFL and the paras. I have read
several books on the subject.

 

[allhailIndia]

I think more than the military aspects of Vietnam, the historical aspects of Vietnam should not be forgotten. Don't forget the mistakes made in history, or else you will be doomed to repeat it. France made the mistake, they paid for it, the US and after them the Chinese hardly learnt from these past mistakes and still paid for it.

 

[fazzoletti]

I"m not much of a history expert (certainly not compared to you guys) but I'm not sure that this statement (about historical mistakes) is correct. So far, every one of you have discussed military aspects of the vietnam war, and the behaviour of Vietnam if the US had chosen not to intervene. What you seem to ommit though is the policy consequenses of other nations (such as USSR and lots of African nations) in this scenario. Would the USSR have decided to incite some fresh revolutions in other countries? Did the US interventions, despite of it's tragic outcome, help prevent other nations in chosing sides with communism? Would the USSR have concluded that an invasion of, say, western Germany was feasible because America is 'too scared to intervene anyway'. Frankly, I'm not convinced that the interference in South Vietnam was a mistake at all...(yes I know, some of you will consider this a blasphemic remark)
What do you say of this?

 

[dgfred]

I do not think it was a mistake to intervene, I just feel the actual war was
not handled properly . I would have done as in Korea, started in the
lower country and moved solidly up the peninsula , with continuous
bombing of the North.

 

[sabo]

Er, what's to misunderstand?

A superpower grossly invaded and occupied a country for political reasons. Millions of Vietnamese died. Many died in neighbouring countries too.

Eventually the US realised it's mistake (that the North Vietnamese were vulnerable to invasion) and left.

Ho-hum... another uninformed flammer... *yawn*

We did not invade the North, we were asked by the south to be there to help fight with the south. That is not an invasion. And personally I think the reason we pulled out is the white house discovered that we won't win the war as long as Johnson/Nixon made sure the military fought the war with one hand tied behind their backs, not only that but after tet in '68 the war became very unpopular at home.

I was there
Ton Son Nyet Airport
Siagon, Vietnam 1972

 

[dgfred]

@ sabo- I agree . You sound like a good person for info. on the
Vietnam War, keep us informed all you can , I have read and studied
much of the War . Also my daughter has been a big Viking fan since
she was young, she is 13 now . I'm a Dolphin fan by the way .
She also plays the Wild in her PS2 Hockey games, she liked their uniforms
best .


38% signature is extra also, one of the best around .

 

[Case]

So far, every one of you have discussed military aspects of the vietnam war, and the behaviour of Vietnam if the US had chosen not to intervene. What you seem to ommit though is the policy consequenses of other nations (such as USSR and lots of African nations) in this scenario. Would the USSR have decided to incite some fresh revolutions in other countries?

Probably. Historically, the USSR tried to incite revolutions all over the place. Most of them didn't work for the simple reason that the majority of the population weren't interested in what Communism had to offer. Those that did work generally didn't help the USSR much (including Communist Vietnam). I can't see how the US not massively intervening in Vietnam would have changed this.

Would the USSR have concluded that an invasion of, say, western Germany was feasible because America is 'too scared to intervene anyway'.

Only if the USSR wanted to take the risk that the American doctrine of 'massive retaliation' was a bluff, and that the UK and French wouldn't use their nuclear weapons. Also, it's hard to find evidence that USSR was actually interested in the conquest of Western Europe - their deployment in Eastern Europe was largely defencive (albeit based on the strategy that the best defence is a good ofence).

 

[Inhalaattori]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bugfatty300
Another Hollywood myth is that Vietnam still holds American POWs. All of the American POWs who were not returned in 1973 were kept as barganing chips if the U.S. was to violate the Paris peace treaty. By the time Saigon fell in 1975 the POWs had no other purpose, sadly, instead of revealing the illegal holdings of these POWs, all evidence shows that the remaining POWs were put to death by November 1975.

Sad, very sad...

2 million vietnamese dead and environment destroyed by US Agent orange.
Not sad???

What US military did to vietnamese civilians and POWs? Bullet to brains.

Have seen one film where old US vets talked about their doings... not nice stuff. Killing, raping and torturing of children...

 

[thestonesfan]

2 million vietnamese dead and environment destroyed by US Agent orange.
Not sad???

What US military did to vietnamese civilians and POWs? Bullet to brains.

Have seen one film where old US vets talked about their doings... not nice stuff. Killing, raping and torturing of children...

It's all sad.

But ultimately, the responsibility lies with the North Vietnamese.

 

[mrmitchell]

I'm not a seasoned expert on Vietnam, so I'll just reply to what I can.

The biggest untruth I have seen people swear to is that most of the fighting done in Vietnam was done by people who were drafted. Untrue. Infact 2/3 of Veterans were volunteers. 70% of combat deaths in Vietnam were volunteers.

Let me turn it around for you. 1 of every 3 soldiers in Vietnam were drafted. In any group of 3 guys, one of them didn't even volunteer.

Another big myth circulated mainly by hollywood is that the U.S. military was generaly defeated in the ground war. The U.S. never lost a battle of any consequence. Infact from a military stand-point it was almost an unprecedented performance.

Even without any losses, Vietnam would have been extremely difficult to hold.

America's departure from the war is considered a Vietnamese victory. Infact more Vietnamese(North and South) were killed in the 2 years before the fall of Saigon than durring the entire U.S. involvment.

So us leaving opened up even more slaughter, on both sides? I don't get how this helps the rest of your point

Another Hollywood myth is that Vietnam still holds American POWs. All of the American POWs who were not returned in 1973 were kept as bargaining chips if the U.S. was to violate the Paris peace treaty. By the time Saigon fell in 1975 the POWs had out lived their purpose and sadly, instead of revealing the illegal holdings of these POWs, all evidence shows that the remaining POWs were put to death by November 1975. 2,200 Americans remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam War.

Again, I fail to see how it helps your point that they were merely put to death instead of still being held. And it's awful that we can't account for more than two thousand of our own men.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Thestonesfan: "But ultimately, the responsibility lies with the North Vietnamese."

Why? Excuse me, but I cant understand...

US was supporting a South Vietnamese dictator and most vietnamese backed up Vietkong. I really cant understand your logic.

 

[tonberry]

It's all sad.

But ultimately, the responsibility lies with the North Vietnamese.

Huh? Why is that?

 

[sabo]

2 million vietnamese dead and environment destroyed by US Agent orange.
Not sad???

What US military did to vietnamese civilians and POWs? Bullet to brains.

Have seen one film where old US vets talked about their doings... not nice stuff. Killing, raping and torturing of children...

It's the first I've ever heard of such a thing, and I was there! Was this some kind of propaganda film you were watching Inhalaattori?

 

[thestonesfan]

Huh? Why is that?

Supporting communist insurgents and then invading, perhaps?