Why was the Vietnam War so Complicated?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ค. 2024
- This video explains the military side on why the war in Vietnam was so complicated by taking a look at the non-existence of front lines, force compositions and the scale & scope of Military Operations.
Military History Visualized provides a series of short narrative and visual presentations like documentaries based on academic literature or sometimes primary sources. Videos are intended as introduction to military history, but also contain a lot of details for history buffs. Since the aim is to keep the episodes short and comprehensive some details are often cut.
» HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT MILITARY HISTORY VISUALIZED «
(A) You can support my channel on Patreon: / mhv
(B) You can also buy "Spoils of War" (merchandise) in the online shop: www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
(C) If you want to buy books that I use or recommend, here is the link to the Amazon Store: astore.amazon.com/ytmh-20 which has the same price for you and gives a small commission to me, thus it is a win/win.
» SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS «
facebook: / milhistoryvisualized
twitter: / milhivisualized
tumblr: / militaryhistoryvisualized
» SOURCES «
Thayer, Thomas C.; Daddis, Gregory A.: War Without Fronts - The American Experience in Vietnam
Shulimson, Jack: U.S. Marines in Vietnam - An Expanding War - 1966
Rottman, Gordon L.; The US Army in the Vietnam War 1965-73
Rottman, Gordon L.: Vietnam Infantry Tactics
Articles from Tucker, Spencer C.: The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (Second Edition)
Zabecki, David T.: Artillery Fire Doctrine
Frame, Arthur T.: Fratricide
Laurie, Clayton D.: Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols
Hunt, Richard A.: Pacification
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central...
» TOOL CHAIN «
PowerPoint 2016, Word, Excel, Tile Mill, QGIS, Processing 3, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Premiere, Adobe Audition, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Animate.
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
![[Vietnam] Helicopter Insertion Tactics for Recon Team Operations](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xyH952sWHdo/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Vietnam] Helicopter Insertion Tactics for Recon Team Operations](/img/tr.png)
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 2404707](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Tn3bGHiBWkg/mqdefault.jpg)
We tried killing all the vegetation. Then we learned the real solution was to fight in the desert.
lol
Lmao
In his most recent podcast (about fighting the Japanese in the Pacific) Dan Carlin was rating all to major powers and how they fought in the jungle. When he got to the US he said we would just burn the jungle down (giving us a null result). Had to laugh a little. Seems like America, don't like the terrain, then change it!
But flat desert, mountain desert like Afghanistan...that doesn't count
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualizedI 😮😮
I spent a year in Vietnam Sept. 68-Sept 69. I was not out in the field but stationed at a medical clearing station at Camp Enari in the central Highlands. This camp was 12 miles south of Pleiku City and 30 mile east of the Cambodian border. As an Amateur Historian I was constantly asking the combat troops what was happening and what they thought was good and bad about their situation.
I agree that the situation was very confusing and many of the commanding generals had no real Idea of what to do.
The things that came to the fore for me were that there was great disparity in the experience of the individuals in a platoon or company. This was true of the Officers and NCO's as well as the average soldier. this meant that the most experienced man in a platoon could be a PFC or Corporal this often meant that the operation and communications weren't the best. This was caused by the fact that individual were replaced as they reached their year so changes took place one at a time with no consideration to the knowledge of the area of operation or current tactics. Also by the time an individual had a good Idea of what was going on and the area they patrolled they were rotated home.
Many of the officers and enlisted complained that they kept having to take the same ground time after time against an enemy that knew the territory better then they did. There were also instances of companies directed to establish temporary bases on a hill and found out that they were on top of a enemy base built underground.
They also felt that many of the field grade officers were more interested in intentionally inflated enemy dead to satisfy their higher ups.
This is only part of the many problems in Vietnam.
Thank you for this. First hand accounts are always valuable.
My dad served at the end of Vietnam. For his experience I probably never joined. That being said I appreciate all that is done on my behalf.
I think a bigger issue was the lack of the local support, most Vietnamese didn’t seem to like the Americans, probably because of the former owners of the French, and it’s said somewhere that “our marines know little about the language, history, and culture (of the Vietnamese).”, which like we saw in the Middle East makes it harder for the civilian population to not grow resentful of these foreign ‘invaders’ and gives the idea they’re not there to help them
This just reminded me of a quote from General Mattis; “Culturally savvy marines are a threat to our enemies.”, Americans weren’t cultural savvy in Vietnam, those who did as said and commonly noted, were rotated out of country after a year.
@@looinrims One of the biggest problems in VietNam was the fact the with only one year tours by the time a person understood the people and the country they were rotated home. I am speaking from experience as I spent Sept 68 -Sept 69 in country. I know that Most if not all soldiers felt that 1 year tours was even too much but with people rotating out continually it is hard to keep true cohesiveness in units both large and small.
In Afghanistan and Iraq it was a similar situation. Here units were switched out as well as individuals sometime for as short as 6 months. Again not enough time to really get to Know the lay of the land and people.
Stolen Valor 😂
last time i was this early vietnam was called french Indochina
i should kill myself
:D
Don't bother, Charlie will do that for you.
Last Time I was this early it was called Dai Viet.
No don't die, that version of the joke was actually quite good.
MHV you should make a video on Soviet military tactics during ww2, I don't think most people really understand them
pickles amazing most people think it was just "human wave tactics". I will be happy to see that debunjed
Jakob Maier well in the finno-russian war it was just that. waves of troops sent against finnsish machine guns. the casualty reports are still not available to the public in russia.
*spits out water*
IT WASN'T HUMAN WAVE TACTICS?
Russian attacks in the Winter War usually had armored and artillery support, which disqualifies them from being human waves by most definitions of a human wave attack. I also think that the common image of Russian infantry attacks as being a wave of people running headlong into enemy machine guns without any use of cover or supporting fire is either inaccurate or highly misleading, because it doesn't really make any sense the way it is commonly portrayed.
I don't know, if you check on the internet you can find that ussr lost almost 10mlns of soldiers, while germans, right after them, lost 5mlns.
MK1 eyeball, in use longer than any other military piece of equipment.
truly one of the most advanced pieces of technology ever perceived
Ah yes, good ol' reliable
Unless you have glasses
In which case
FFFFFFFUUUUUUU-
A disaster...
But we got some great movies!
Salokin Sekwah fair shout
The Flight of the Intruder is one of the best I've ever seen.
Ask anyone that actually fought there and they'll tell you most of the movies are nothing like what really happened.
Platoon. only one worth watching.
My dad said the only thing realistic about Platoon was the ending, how even though it was an intense battle, the soldiers were expected to treat it like another day on the job. He said nothing else about that movie, or any others was accurate.
IT AINT ME
IT AINT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I AINT NO FORTUNATE SON
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
love that song!
Some folks are born, made to wave the flag.
Cobraaahhh Stob, blease xD
majik mesa uuuu the red White and blue!!
And when the band plays hail to the chief
I served and in my opinion it was the geography of the land that was the greatest asset of the vc and nva. it gave great cover , and many routes of escape, and provided food and water It took us a long time to cross the area and wore us down. the hills gave the dinks a perfect view of our movements . The soft mud almost negated any firepower from mortars , artillery and airstrikes.The sun also sapped our endurance.
I thought you were intelligent, The marines in the pacific were in a totally different scenario ie islands etc. The Marines in Vietnam were trapped with the land and politics and fought just as well as ww2. Many areas were won just as in ww2, but given up and retaken with horrible casualties. The land scape/weather in Vietnam was by far the worst enemy. The marines took Okinawa once not 5 or 6 times.
Thank you for your service, and the viewpoint of one who was there. Your point about the enemy being trapped on an island in many battles in WWII is spot on, the NVA could always leave (North Vietnam, Laos), and so we could not force a battle of annihilation. To win a war like that required a political and military solution, and (my opinion only) the government of South Vietnam did not offer the political solution. But we did inherit the rotten system, and did not have the guts/political will to rip it up and start again
Is it even possible to win a war like this? What might the Americans have done differently?
Exactely the point ! Everythink was predictable in advance ! General de Gaule from France warned the Americans several times NOT to get involved in that conflict. France knew by that time that it was not winnable . But no, the Americans thought they were just better in that ... Why Americans failed ? Pure arrogance !
I read their strategy was body count; they did not intend to take territory for control, but only to kill the enemy forces there. This aimed at disrupting the communists to the point where due to bleeding out they would not be able to fight any longer. Since a multiple of enemies were killed compared to US soldiers, and still they did not win, this strategy proved not viable.
This strategy involved taking points of tactical advantage by force and then leaving them. This lead to the same places being captured a multitude of times (e.g. hamburger hill)
I guess it is possible, if you throw enormous amounts of people and material at the enemy, they would get wiped out after a couple of decades. Or you could eliminate the enemy with weapons of mass destruction.
That's basically what has been debated ever since.
One argument I usually bring to this is that you cannot win this war conventionally as there are no conventional frontlines or capitals to conquer. You win by not giving up and keep fighting until the other side gives up. It's a sort of attrition warfare and the US lost it once political and popular support was lost and the US-forces were withdrawn. The communists just kept fighting until the Americans were sick and tired of the Vietnam War and went home. The question is: Would they have ever given up? Some guerilla movements last for decades. It is therefore impossible to say what would have happened. Maybe the communists would have given up in the 90s with the collapse of the soviet union, maybe the war would still go on...
Mikaele Baker
There is lot of problems anyway.
United States does not understand the strength of their enemies.
The Vietnamese choose when to fight and where to fight, making the their enemy mostly searching for them instead attackingthem.
Plus Vietnam is a jungle country, technologies is not that advanced, its hard to track the Vietnamese.
The Vietnamese used Cambodia and Laos as headquarter, training their troops, food, weapon storage. Its forbidden for United State to enter the border (this changes in last year of the war, We enter the border anyway). This is also the factor why the Viet soldiers can launch a Tet Offensive. They attacked every cities in the South.
Furthermore, even in the South, the locals can also be your enemies. They knows everything.
United States cannot cover the whole border, thats the problem.
United States solution is only to bomb the shit out of them..but it is not that accurate. Like I said, technology is not advanced, its hard to pin point their movement.
We tried to bomb Ho Chi Minh trails but that doesnt even work at all. The enemies just build a new one instead, they knew the Jungle very well. It is hard to make major operation since its hard to linked from base to base. Helicopters is the only transports, a one way ticket. Lesson learned from the French, at Dien Bhan Phu is a major disaster indeed.
The Vietnamese never gave up, they can pulled tons of artillery using ropes and men just to blast the French. Establishing base inside enemy territory is a complete disaster.
Winning a war like this first is you must annouce to declare war on North Vietnam, but that's a massive problem. You might lose support from the citizen. The world might blame you for territorial expansion. Making an invasion directly on South Invasion is going to be disaster. We doesn't even know what the enemy is about. No american citizen ever think about Vietnam, ever. Its the goverment who afraid that communist will spread in Asia, heck, not.
Vietnam fought to reunite Vietnam, not for world expansion. We make a huge mistake by the way.
I was not going to involve us in this war but...some guy from a 6th story window killed me
Don't lie to me. You stared all this mess...
Kapitain Nemo No I really wasn't going to. The CIA was pushing me to do it and don't get me wrong I didn't want communism to spread but I personally think it would've cost too much both in money and blood.
John F. Kennedy you're the one saying "...we'll pay any price...". Ike had 900 advisors in Vietnam when he left office. You boosted that up to 16,000 personnel.
John F. Kennedy
Yeop...fucked it all up!!
Siggy Reagan
Well, LBJ brought it up to 500,000!!!
For the unfamiliar to US symbol, you should have shown metric units
I usually do, but in this case it didn't really matter.
Vietnamese here ! Thank you for making this videos. It is quite accurate for the situation about Vietnam wars. guerrilla warfare, hit and runs tacts, tunnel wars.
The key elements not mentioned: 1. A large percentage of the Vietnamese -- both north and south supported Independence and favored Ho Chi Minh. (Col. Aaron Bank, the father of US Army Special Forces said exactly that.)
2. The US military senior command tried to fight an insurgency as if it were a conventional war. They forgot that insurgency warfare is really nothing more than politics carried out with violence.
3. The massive US forcé build-up was viewed as just another foreign intervention and the vast majority of US soldiers and officers (with the notable exception of Special Forces) considered the Vietnamese an inferior race.
I love how the more you make, the more German humor that seeps into your videos. Seriously, this is one of my favorite channels on TH-cam. Headbang on, you wonderful human.
can you do an episode on the Portuguese colonial war , i think its one of the most overlooked conflicts of the 20th century and its a very interesting topic
Great video as always
if you have the time, give "Giap: The General Who Defeated America in Vietnam" a read. It delves into both the wars with the French and the Americans, explaining both the military and political war waged by General Võ Nguyên Giáp. his exploitation of the american media was critical towards dampening of morale, both in the field and back on native soil.
You've done something none of our press could do over 40 years, MHV, accurately defined US Exit Strategy in the conflict which almost destroyed one nation from without, and almost destroyed another from within:
Rage Quit.
Good work. It's a fine mind you have there.
thx for doing a video on this topic
Another great video! Thanks man.
Vietnam War + Map = WTF?!?!
Gotte love the visualisation.
Never saw a war video with unicorns and my little ponies before. LOL.
I love this channel. Please keep it up.
love your videos keep up the good work
Any video about Vietnam that starts with a quote from Gen. Westmoreland is like starting a video about WW2 with a quote from French Gen. Gamelin. Both proved to be absolutely clueless about the nature of the war they were fighting and both bear enormous responsibility for their respective countries ultimate defeat. While the statistics you provide on the various types of combat during the war may be true, without context and timeline they obscure far more than they reveal. The overwhelming majority of large unit battles involving US and VC-NVA forces occurred within 18 months of the infamous Tet Offensive. After their crushing defeats all through 1968 to 1969; the NLF/VC forces were incapable of even company sized actions, and the main force regular NVA divisions had been withdrawn to sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos for rebuild and refit.. During the period 1970-71 harassment fire was all they could manage as they waited out the American withdrawal. In 1972 they attempted a conventional invasion and were crushed by SVNAF ground forces and American airpower in battles that would have been familiar to any conventional war theorist. While I realize that Vietnam IS an enormously complex subject; you do yourself and subscribers a disservice attempting to explain it in under seven minutes based on a single reference. The Indo-China Wars lasted from 1948-1975. Twentyseven years of continuous fighting with eight different countries involved cannot be explained in 50 7 minute videos, much less one that examines only the most facile of aspects from a single source.
Given your nationality you might be interested in who was doing most of the really dirty fighting for the French from 1948-1953. It was your countrymen. Captured Waffen SS given the choice of prosecution for "war crimes" as an entire class of soldiers, or enlistment in the French Foreign Legion and immediate assignment to French Indo-China. In fact a strong case can be made that the French were holding their own until they ran out of Germans. Or roughly during the months long battles around the Bien Hoa salient in 1951-52 (see Bernard Fall "Street Without Joy") where over and over the French commanded German manned battalions were literally fought to annihilation. While different sources give different numbers, and the French deliberately obscured the total; it would be safe to say that between 1947 and 1956 between 4-6000 Germans fell in theater. At times up to 90% of all enlisted personnel in the FFL parachute demi-brigades were in fact Wehrmacht veterans. These were the "Forlorn Hope" units of the French miltary and used whenever and where ever the fighting was most desperate. Worse still their original "5 year" enlistments were involuntarily extended essentially til death on the field. That I believe would certainly merit a video on your part.
Thank you for a better picture.
MHV is Austrian, not German.
I really need to upgrade my mark 1 eyeball
Nicely done video, a good attempt to help folks understand some of the basic aspects of this war.
Great analysis!
That unicorn icon got me "D
I wrote my Masters thesis on the Communist infrastructure you describe (known as the VCI). I would recommend reading Dale Andrade's book on the subject, which discussed the Phoenix Programme and it's efforts to destroy the VCI. Very good read, although a little outdated.
thx, can you send me your Masters thesis?
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Happy to. How do I do that?
Its 6 in the morning and im here on this channel looking at battle tactics
Great vid 👍
The reason why the US lost in Vietnam is becaus they hadn any Tigers
Heinz Guderian lol
Heinz Guderian also the controversy of the Black Rifle or so called the M16A1 it jams while you engage the enemy in unexpected ways and no cleaning kits were issued back in the day
Didn't you boche learn the first time? All you need is a few Bren guns in a battalion and you're unstoppable.
Heinz Guderian They also lackeed the bren
and their M-16 lacked pommels, what were they thinking?
random rainbow dash ok
"Harmony" is the new word for Communism! Join the forces of Chaos and Discord and spread Freedom(TM) like US had spread napalm on kids in Vietnam! :D
UPHOLD THE IMMORTAL SCIENCE OF MARXISM-LENINISM-PONYISM!
Actually, one of the episodes was about a town who gave up everything to be equal and how utterly shit the place was and how much of a totalitarian bitch the leader was.
Matt Reilly Thanks for reminding me that bronies exist. I always feel better about myself knowing that there are absolute degenerates still roaming this world.
The Juice wanna help me cleanse their filth from the planet?
You should lookup the Marine Corps' Combined Action Program (CAP). It was a guerilla war led by an Army command prepared for a conventional fight, and had no clue how to fight an insurgency. The Marines on the other hand still had veterans of counterinsurgency campaigns but got sidelined for political reasons. Max Boot's Small Wars and the Rise of American power covers the issue extensively.
If you are really looking for a game on the Vietnam war looking at the frustration and confusion of the situation, there's a (physical) one called Fire in the Lake, by Mark Herman.
All wars are poltical, and US lost the war politically so this absolutely means the military victories are meaningless.
Once you lost political objectives in a war, it is not a war worth fighting for.
Vietnamese did just that to make US not only lose poltical objectives, but also reasons to fight. Regardless on how many American apologists talking about the war, the result is apparent and even many Vietnamese veterans today don't care about how American vets defense their loss in the war. Vietnam achieved an absolute, total political victory, and politics is the core and soul of all wars.
Cyrus The HoonDing
Yeah. The Americans lost not because they weren't strong enough; they just weren't smart enough.
Are those unicorns? Damn, it really must have been a confusing war...
Hey brother. I just wanted to say I love what you did in this video. Had a bit of trouble understanding your English, but it actually is very good. Keep it up man! If you ever wanna have a conversation about previous wars or anything shoot me a comment!
I highly recommend this video for anyone to have a clear overview of the Vietnam war nature and tactics. Good job MHV
"I would probably rage quit during the install..." LOL
Could you compare this to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan?
+Military History Visualised
Nice work on the video and content! But I have a question: how do you know which books are worth reading on a given military history subject, e.g. the Vietnam War? How did you learn of the Thomas Thayer book?
"Fire in the lake", a boardgame by GMT games is about the best depiction of Vietnam i've seen in a game. It deals with the idea of a lack of a front, irregular forces, lack of information and internal conflict betwen US and ARVN as well as between VC and NVA.
Basically, normal military style games just can't do Vietnam justice. So Fire in the lake tried something different. Its very high level, but it needs to be.
I wish the Vietnam War never happened but I wouldn't be in America if it didn't happen.
Vietnam war was about feeding the arms industry. U.S forces could have easily occupied all of Vietnam in a short time. Generals were restricted in what they could do by the politicians.
Mr.Cows yeah they didn’t let the generals do their work
Why be surprised or disillusioned that civilian authorities control the American military?
Do you actually want a world where MacArthur nukes China against Truman's orders?
Western militaries are a tool of democracy, not the opposite.
you should do a video on the history of Electronic countermeasures and anti countermeasure.
Good analysis and quick summary. I would also include the ARVN/South Vietnamese military as a complicating factor in the war. After all, it was a supposed coalition of ARVN, US military, ROK military, as well as a few others in advisory/training roles like the Australians. We could then turn to the North Vietnamese as well who had support from the Soviets, China, and even the DPRK.
Actually, its not complicated why we lost. We didn't declare our intention to stay indefinently. Think about it, You're some dirt poor rice farmer, and you have to choose between the communist , who had no intention of giving up, ever. Or the Americans who were having anti war protest, attempting to make the situation divided like North and south Korea and clearly were not All in so to speak. Hell the Americans might be gone next week. Which side would you choose ?
Most Vietnamese didn't have TV's and thought Communism referred to some guy named Commune or something like that, all they cared about was that it was anti-imperialist/colonialist. The US military was bombing villages without a care and the south Vietnamese regime was it self very repressive.
The US was performing Arc Light strikes seemingly at random and napalming villages on suspicion of harboring communists, while the communists were using their outdated weapons to try and shoot the colonialists with their plastic space guns and give Vietnam an independent government. No shit the populace preferred them.
Dean - Personally, I'd think being unable to pledge indefinite support for intervention that would be a good reason to stop intervening. But, the real-politic approach is apparently to intervene for a while then leave, resulting in failed or balkanized states. So where next? Venezuela, Ethiopia, Turkmenistan?
Clem Cornpone - I guess even though I live in the US, I don't consider it "our interventions". I don't think of it as "we ... stay stupid". I'd say there is large number of folks for whom the interventions have done good. Career military officers, government contractors, politicians, arms dealers, etc. Even from an military strategy point of view, the US is clearly militarily dominant. Poland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are now all allies, and the US was able to use former USSR territory to launch its invasion of Afghanistan. There are definitely factions that view failed and balkanized states as winning.
Clem Cornpone - I guess that I'm a limited government crackpot. If the US population internally doesn't have the desire, let alone the will, to limit the federal government domestically, it certainly doesn't have the ability to drive this powerful organization to have a coherent policy toward foreign interventions. The federal government and its military is powerful enough that it can make all kinds of mistakes and missteps with little consequences. The dollars just continue to flow through.
The reason things turned out the way they did was primarily because the war was basically a Vietnamese civil war in which Hanoi (in contrast to a corrupt Saigon) successfully offered a more credibly organized and dedicated social, and politically-disciplined nationalist ideal. Secondly, South Vietnam and the Americans (remembering the Korean War) refused to directly invade North Vietnam for fear of triggering a massive Chinese intervention. Thirdly, even a million allied troops (many of whom were overbearing foreigners) weren't enough to ultimately hold down a mostly hostile and resentful 42 million civilians. Fourth, those foreigners, while very often successful in engagements, allowed free access to their own civilian media which had no stomach for the realities of war. They transmitted these images and commentary to an equally queasy viewership at home. But there is an ironic post-script. The newly unified Vietnam soon had to deal with a hostile China as well as a psychopathic regime next-door in Cambodia. In the end they had to throw out the Marxist economic playbook and modernize their economy toward inescapable realities. At some point soon they, and the other "Communist" countries (China, Cuba etc.) will have to evolve their political systems to a correspondingly more realistically flexible form.
^ This
Don't forget the religious side of things. The American regime had been trying to forcibly convert the Vietnamese, forcing Christianity onto them.
To most people they were foreign invaders backing a regime that had been waging a war against their national identity for years before the first US soldiers were brought in.
Imagine yourself a Vietnamese citizen at that time. You can choose between a tyrant who wants to destroy your way of life, or communists that you don't really like or approve of, but at least they've made it clear you can keep the things you value the most in life.
No we didn't. That's some BS you've pulled out of your @ss. Like the rest of the sh!t you've been typing.
Vince Klortho , Agree with alot of what you posted. It's like if the French and British landed troops to help the Confederates during the American Civil War, they kill Jefferson Davis for being corrupt and try to win the support of the people after removing the political structure in the South however bad it was thought to be and then put all your faith in the remaining Souths warlords to both win the war and set up from scratch a government. I know the comparison isn't exact but that's sort of what your looking, how the hell were the British/French supposed to "win" in that far fetched and not to realistic scenario....... lol.
Yup. The course of any war is pretty much dictated by the geo-political and societal initial conditions. Historians usually put too much emphasis upon what this general or leader decides or doesn't decide to do. These events are important but are usually secondary (unless we are talking about an Alexander or Napoleon etc.).
Maybe you could do a video about the Marine's Combined Action Program?
Excellent video on the complex threat scenario faced by the occupying US and allied South Vietnamese forces. Now that you have the book, it would be very interesting to learn more about the extent to which the US military leadership understood the threat picture they faced and how this understanding evolved throughout the war.
Those who are relatively well read on Vietnam are probably familiar with both Westmoreland's strategic approach and the diversity of US tactics employed to attempt to draw out conventional Vietnamese forces into open battle. One thing I have not seen much about however is strategies and tactics that were suggested by senior leadership that were either turned down or never used. Where there any such proposed tactics or strategies of historical interest?
Unfamiliar to US
Almost choked on my dinner! :)
:)
DJPhilTBCollins lol
The VC won the war because of the rice they were eating. It's the rice I tell ya! The rice!!
basically it's insanely hard for regular militaries to fight irregulars successfully.
Do you think you could make one about the Air Cav tactics in Vietnam? I would be very great full
As the GI joke went in Vietnam, we were winning.....we just forgot to tell the North.
That's not funny, tell that to a loved one who lost their husband, father, brother etc.....
I know I'm 2 years late but can you explain the joke ?
We where winning no the south Vietnamize army should have been winning their country their war
@@tbone9603 true but it's the truth as south Vietnamize army didn't fight for their country
@@tbone9603 it's a fucking joke and it's funny, the whole point of a joke is to make light of a serious concept...
A good number of Vietnamese people sure didn't feel like they "won" after the USA left Vietnam. After fighting the Japanese, French, other Southeast neighboring countries, USA/Allied Troops, then even there supposed communist allies China........ Having married a refugee from Vietnam, meeting her family and friends....... my former landlord was "re educated" after the North took over the South and having to be ransomed by the parts of his family that weren't killed outright but got away........ having lived and worked in the Chinatowns of 15 to 20 of city's in the US, working side by side dozens of Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodian and other family's fleeing there home countries for the last 30 years. ........ Don't talk to them about how the USA lost and there nations "won" these wars.......... That's for the history books and keyboard warriors on youtube comments to discuss because they know so much about it.......... Congrats All
Kruppt808 that is very interesting, I do remember reading an article for a class (and for a teacher I didn't like very much) saying that modern kids in Vietnam don't care about the past and want to move on, it even pointed out how they were becoming more and more capitalist.
For me, everyone lost the war, Vietnam got got communism, and the US got a generation that hated war but loved drugs, I like to think of it as the start of people trying to stop wars at all costs, which is funny to me, because they will go on about how immoral it is not to go to war, yet never consider how moral it would be to go to war against something like Hitler, Moe, and so on.
Are you able to do videos regarding Australian involvement in the Malayan emergency or the Vietnam war?
Australia!? lol don't be silly they've never accomplished anything in the wars of the 20th century.........
Don't get your hopes up dude, Australia is the most underrated of all unfortunately.
3:39 good thing there’s the Gameplay Overhaul Mod 4 for Rising Storm 2
What do I get for 5 dolla?
No boom boom with soul brother
7 cigarettes, if you steal 2 of them. In the 60s a 3month supply.
What a pointless war for us to join in the first place. All those dead, and for what?
Maybe to not let communists kill 2 million people after the war?
Great video! Because of the unconventional nature of warfare in Vietnam, the US Army Military Police became a direct combat support branch. The actions of "C" Company, 716th MP Battalion, during the TET Offensive, made an impression to military commanders that MPs could be effective force multipliers. The US Embassy was re-captured mainly by elements of the 716th, who also took part in the majority of fighting in Saigon because they were the largest fighting element that the US Forces had when the attack began.
The books I used for research were ones by Gabriel Kolko.
Vietnam war + map = WTF?! :D:D
Like the unicorn
:)
am I allowed to use this for a workpiece on the Vietnam war? only for school.
The guerilla tactics would be a very interesting topic as well. As far as i know the austrian doctrin after ww2 in case of a invasion by the russians would be a upscaled variant of this called jagdkampf. Do you by chance know anything further about it?
Some people like to make excuses that the military wasn't responsible for the loss, but that doesn't really make sense, part of the job of the military is to make the winning of a war politically viable. If they cannot present it this way to their nation's political leadership. If they cannot do that then either the political objectives of the leadership changed, in which case it is only a loss by the sunken cost fallacy, or they simply did not see a satisfactory conclusion to the war.
well, former General Mattis and now Secretary of Defense makes it very clear that the political side sets the objectives and should be very clear on what to achieve. Yet, more often than not, this is not the case. The military is "only" a tool. Politics: Grand Strategy; Military: Strategy, Operations & Tactics. If Grand Strategy sucks, there is a major problem.
Military History Visualized we should study the Art of War by Sun tzu. In it is written that war is a tool to reach a political goal. For the amy to win the war, conventional method or non conventional method should be used when and where it is to the advantage to the amy. The whole of U.S.A amy is trained to fight a conventional war. Then in art of war book, it is written that to win it is not to just fight in the field and win battles, it is attack your enemies in all areas so in the end you gain your political goal. U.S.A is weak in this area.
Military History Visualized - Excellent point, the US Military is a servant of the civilian command, if there is no clear achievable objective for the military, then you have a mess. I am reminded of a quote from von Clausewitz - "War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means. We deliberately use the phrase 'with the addition of other means' because we also want to make it clear that war in itself does not suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. In essential that intercourse continues, irrespective of the means it employs. The main lines along which military events progress, and to which they are restricted, are political lines that continue throughout the war into the subsequent peace."
My opinion of Vietnam dropped significantly when I realized how much it paralleled the American revolution. We were Britain in this scenario. Vietnam was the US. The Vietnamese fought three empires and won every time. I have a lot of respect for the Vietnamese after realizing that.
Sam Lucas Not really because the US never owned Vietnam, while Britain owned the US.
Sam Lucas wait sooo... your opinion didn't drop, it grew. Right??
Sam Lucas I always wondered about how our Communist forefathers like George Washington fought against the capitalist Tyrants of England
We were trying to kick the Americans out... yet millions of us escaped, tried to escape, and are escaping now the treacherous regime. Whoo hoo Communist VietNam
this doesnt make sense sorry
Not relevant to the video but your pronunciation of " Vietnam " were actually pretty on point
this is the 1st time i've heard a foreigner pronounce it correctly
So, for those who actually are interested in more than a 6.5 minute soundbite..."Street Without Joy" Bernard Fall-Indo-China 1947-1956, Mark Moyer- "Triumph Forsaken" Vietnam 1954-1965, Lewis Sorley-:Westmoreland: The General Who Lost the War" Vietnam 1964-1968, Neil Sheehan-"A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and the Vietnam War" 1965-1974, Lt Col Anthony Herbert-"Soldier" Vietnam 1967-1971, Lewis Sorley-"A Better War" Vietnam 1968-1974. For an over view:"Vietnam, The Ten Thousand Day War". On the web the most objective is probably the 12 part series "Battlefield Vietnam" while it deals briefly with events prior to 1963 it's pretty American centric. Also events after Tet are pretty compressed. In fact most histories until recently pretty much ended at Tet and it's immediate aftermath. Mainly because after 1969 the fighting in south Vietnam ended until the north invaded in 1972. By then most reporters had left and even though the ARVN won a crushing victory, since American troops were gone, coverage compared to Tet was miniscule by comparison. Plus the "bad guys" ie. the ARVN won. Which of course didn't fit the "narrative".
Arthur Brogden You can get the Pentagon Papers online. Tells why we were there, how we escalated and why we couldn't win. Your book list is a good one.
I think Gen. Westmoreland's quote entirely missed the point: The Vietnam War was confusing precisely because the media was reporting on it. The MSM's job is (counter-intuitively) to obfuscate, blur, and outright lie about everything so no clear picture of events is possible.
I read that tactics used by the US in the Philippines would have been more effective, where US units would be stationed in villages to protect them and help them form militias. Some USMC units were employed that way in Vietnam for a while, but obviously not enough.
The ironic thing about the Vietnam war was the real slaughter started when it ended and the commies took over. One of the weirder cases in history when peace kills. (War is peace!? Damn you Orwell.)
Ray you should also know that Westmoreland himself completely utterly missed the actual nature of the war. And not only that, pursued a policy of attrition that he knew was failing and lied about repeatedly. Jeez he sued CBS when they revealed his lies after the war and he LOST. But LBJ loved him cause he told LBJ what LBJ wanted to hear. All of his deputies knew what was happening, the South Viets were going through govts every ninety days til Theiu came along so they didn't say anything. THERE WAS NO PLAN. It was all body count and kill rates. Westmoreland ignored pacification and building up the ARVN. He was there to "kill communists" and he spent three years NOT finding them under every rock in the thickest jungles in the country. He'd kill a hundred, the north would send down a hundred. It was the very definition of insanity ie. "doing the same thing over and over and expect different results". Good God, he's looking at Khe Sahn cause Lyndon's scared sh!tless about another Dien Bien Phu, while the VC are closing in on Saigon. Thank God Creighton Abrams replaced him and knew what needed to be done. But "Westy" squandered almost four years reinforcing a failure of vision. Four years and thousands of lives and billions of dollars gone forever.
Complicated? ha try Balkans
If you want a game to simulate the situation in Vietnam that covers the war in much the same way you describe in this video, I strongly suggest the board game from GMT called "Fire in the Lake" It is an abstracted simulation of the war and it does an incredible job of immersing players into the theme & history of that war.
It's also got a solitaire system that works incredibly well if you want or can only play the game on your own. It is even better when played with other players. It's a bit complicated to learn, but well worth the effort. There are also a TON of how to & tutorial videos right here at TH-cam.
I strongly suggest that folks give this game a look, so check out some of the many reviews this game has, again available here as well.
I'm thinking of the guys wildly firing blanks into the jungle in Tropic Thunder as a metaphor for the American strategy in Vietnam.
WTF rainbow dash yes
"The longest war in our history..." Wrong again, Westboor-man! Guess he never read about the Philippines after the Spanish/American war. Doesn't surprise me in the least. Maybe it would have helped the situation had he actually done his homework.
the philippine American war lasted 3 years?
One of the major advents of technology that really put a dent in practitioners of 4th generation warfare are drones. Insurgents rely on their ability to move in small groups undetected by conventional forces. Widespread deployment of drones, especially when they're equipped with night vision and/or IR capabilities, allows conventional forces to detect their movements and intercept them, turning the insurgents' greatest strength into a weakness.
If a wide enough area is covered, this limits the movement of insurgents to attempting to move through areas frequently traveled by the civilian populace. This allows the conventional forces to set up checkpoints in order to screen people or vehicles for weapons and other items that might label one as an insurgent. This means that insurgencies are only capable of operating in towns and cities where it is not possible to screen and or observe everybody at once.
If drone forces were deployed in large enough numbers to put large areas of a theater under constant surveillance (small rigid airships could possibly observe large areas without much need for fuel), you could once again establish 'fronts' on a map as anybody moving into them is instantly interdicted by a QRF stationed in the area. You get the added benefit of not needing a huge garrison patrolling ever inch of the area as the 'eyes in the sky' acts as reconnaissance. A larger reserve force (a QRF for the QRF) could be stationed in a central area in case there was a large-scale incursion.
Would it be perfect? No. Very small groups and individuals might be able to slip through using concealment during times of the day when IR would be ineffective and discerning human heat signatures from the surrounding environment. But the night and movement in large groups would be rapidly detected thus severely inhibiting an insurgent force's ability to alter their tactics to keep conventional forces off balance.
And of course this wouldn't work for forces with the capability to shoot down drones and or observation blimps. But most insurgents lack a large-scale capability for this and the equipment is relatively cheap to replace and no human life is lost (not to mention many drones have the ability to fire back).
I know it's late but thoughts on rising storm 2?
We, the U.S., were never honest with ourselves about the war. We were delusional and deluded, by our own selves. We believed our own B.S. and that cost the lives of over a million people, as well as a huge amount of destruction and wastage of property. I served there in Northern I Corps. The province of Quang Tri was laid waste to . Noam Chomsky argues that that was the intention and goal: to lay waste to Viet Nam and punish the country, and that we succeeded, and so achieved our goal, i.e. won. I don't know about winning, or losing, but, I witnessed it, and we set them back half a century or more.
I am a big fan and subscriber. With the utmost respoct, there are several things that need to be corrected in this video.
The war in Vietnam was a military success. In the Treaty of Paris, the North Vietnamese agreed to not invade the South, halt all hostilities, and there were provisions written into the treaty to provide material and additional support for the RVN "if" the NVA should attack again.
1. The peace was achieved and the NVA gave up, this was the US objective. Politically, the US won.
2. The communist fatalities were over 18 for every 1 American. The casualty count favored the US.
3. The US forces lost no territory or any engagement over platoon size. Geographically and in terms of battles, the US won.
It wasn't close.
The war was over and was in the hands of the RVN and lawmakers in the US. After 2 years of peace, the communists decided to test the Ford administration, an administration hampered by an opposition party in both houses of Congress.
The Democrat party determined that it would not abide by the terms of the treaty and suport the RVN materially. The RVN fought until there was nothing left to fight with, then lost.
Reference Dr. Mark Moyar, Dr. Robert Turner, Marguerite Higgins, and Phillip Jennings for additional information.
Who controlled the territory in 1976? That is who won.
The war had been over for three years, this is not like a statute of limitations here, can you use Google?
Who controlled the territory in 1400? Oh, yeah. . . that is a complete non- sequitur, a lot like who held the territory in 1976.
Are you just a mouthpiece for communists? Even the NVA admitted that they were almost out of HUMAN BEINGS so they had to quit in '73.
North Vietnam gave up on 27 January 1973 because they were being pounded into oblivion by Nixon.
How can the US lose a war where the opponent had already given up, everybody had left the arena, and they packed up and were home?
This is military history! This is not the history of the defeatist failures of the Democrat congress of the USA.
Militarily, the US kicked the living dog manure out of the North Vietnamese. Even the most air-headed approaches by the US theater command were working.
18:1 casualty rates are awfully tough to manage in losses.
Jan, buck up! You too can perform independent research apart from CNN.
It is okay, I get to actually speak with the historians and veterans on both sides as a part of my position; that means that I am cheating.
In summary, you are wrong.
The Germans killed millions of Russians. They still lost the war. General Lee's army killed a lot of people. The Confederacy lost the war. The US lost the Vietnam war.
True in both cases. The difference is that in your two examples, there was a treaty establishing the end of hostilities in which one side submitted to defeat.
You understand submission, right?
There are a number of ways to define victory, all of which take place within the context of time. A treaty establishes the end of the time frame of hostilities.
The reason that North Vietnam signed the treaty to stop attacking the South is because they were being beaten badly, not because they had the upper hand.
I don't care if 2 hours after the US left RVN territory the Chinese, er, I mean the NVA invaded the South. The war was over at that point.
Now, if the US expressed cowardice in not returning to support the RVN, then that is another very important issue in which I would need to be critical of US policy.
That was not your position however.
and you apparently dont understand what lost means.
would love to see a similar video on Afghanistan. how the war was different.
i can't find were i read it but here is a quote that kinda pertains
"those who think they understand the situation clearly do not grasp the scale of it"
or something like that
Vietnam, Kursk battle and many , many more battles are beautiful examples of battles that were won, time after time again, but it lost a war. It is so bemusing to find veterans still being adamant that they really, really won countless battles...and that the "war" was lost elsewhere...
(and you know you have to be carefull, because such thoughts led a certain Onkel Adolf to start another war ..)
Which battle was lost? Tet for example was a massive failure for the NVA and Vietcong but that didn't stop Cronkite from saying it was lost, before the battle ended even.
The Germans were defeated at Kursk
Yup. The real battle was to take Northern Vietnam, which was not done.
Blah b personally, I think tet failed because they didn't capitalize on the surprise attack; they went with the orders and stopped with the orders, they didn't make any moves not already written down for them to make.
Technically no. They were still holding the lines when it ended. Strategically, however, it was a massive defeat because Germany wasted a ton of resources for no achievement whatsoever.
If only the Americans knew that Ho Chi Minh repeatedly lobbied for Truman's support for Vietnamese Independence against the French Colonial Powers and used the American Declaration of Independence as inspiration for the Vietnamese Cause for their Independence. All nationalistic groups,communists, democratic, traditionalists, were keen to set aside their political differences to fight the French as independence was paramount to them. Thanks to Secretary of State Dean Acheson who called Ho Chi Minh greatest mortal enemy of Vietnamese Independence, when it was furthest from the truth, who could have turned Vietnam into an anti-communist ally just like Thailand and Indonesia by pledging support for independence if they were staunchly anti-communist, the Vietnam War may not have happened.
Tropical Magic I didn't realize how old Ho Chi Minh was, damn.
When he was a young man, Ho Chi Minh was at Versailles after the First World War, where he petitioned delegates at the Versailles Peace Conference to demand that the French colonial government in Indochina grant the same rights to its subjects as it did to the French rulers.
Any talks about the difference between blitzkrieg and deep battle doctrine?
Blitzkrieg was NOT a doctrine: th-cam.com/video/LCNw2e-Zehw/w-d-xo.html
Deep Battle might be covered at some point.
Jeff Moore
One added "military" factor that had a persistent tactical impact was that the 16 various "leaders" of "South Vietnam" and the military elements were loyal to themselves, rather than loyal to "South Vietnam" or the US. They fought and sometimes killed each other over the short time "South Vietnam" existed. "South Vietnam" was little more than a US military theme park. The political divisions of the dictatorial "leaders" of "South Vietnam" were constant and violent, making unified command and loyalty any unified structure very sketchy to impossible.
In 1954, before President Eisenhower reversed US support to Ho Chi Minh and an independent Vietnam, and instead provided arms to divide Vietnam he said: "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh".
He knew he had to smash the democratic elections called for by the negotiators at the Hague convention at the time to avoid an independent Vietnam. From 1956 on, after the defeat of the US backed French and Japanese forces, it was a purely US war for US business interests. This is why Military History Visualized says it was - "complicated".
WE LOST.
Objective: Preserve South Vietnam and democracy in Southeast Asia (Vietnam).
South Vietnam no longer exists. It's all communist.
We lost the war.
Stop your nonsense
At the signing of "The Paris Peace Accords", we promised South Vietnam one to one replacement of ALL war stocks consumed defending themselves. After they crushed, with USAF help; the 1972 Easter Offensive/Invasion by the NVA we reneged. By 1975 the US Congress had cut ALL military aid to the SVNAF. By 1975 over 70% of their AF was grounded for lack of parts and their tube artillery had less than 30 rounds per barrel on average. Ammunition stocks were less than 400 rounds per man. The democrats in Congress unilaterally abrogated our sworn treaty commitments. The blood is on their hands; and that goes double for the horror that came to encompass Cambodia. I wasn't surprised when Obama pulled out of Iraq and watched it fall into sectarian chaos; I'm just surprised it took him so long. Surrendering after victory is baked into democrat DNA. They just can't help themselves. Read "Dereliction of Duty" by R R McMasters, and then "A Better War" by Lewis Sorley if you want the "real story" of Vietnam....see also "Triumph Forsaken" by Mark Moyer on how a US Ambassador, Henry Cabot Lodge with the help of a couple of snot-nosed reporters took a war largely over in 1962 and turned it into a 13 year bloodbath. Just to satisfy their egos.
I'm surprised someone as @ss achingly stupid as you has actually mastered turning on a computer, much less typing out the above f@ckwittery. My post above addresses what happened AFTER we left South Vietnam. Let me guess, your knowledge of history comes from Howard (America is EVIL, all the time, everywhere, throughout recorded history) Zinn. You don't have either the historical depth or mental ability to actually make an argument....so you just spew and spit, rant and rave like that's a valid point. You're an idealogue without an idea. A social justice troll in search of a cause. What did your vaunted socialist allies do when they seized Hue during Tet? They took 5,000 civilians, men, women, children. the elderly tied their hands behind their back and shot them in the back of the head. Then dumped them in mass graves. SOP for communists since 1918. Which may explain why the people of South Vietnam DIDN'T rise up against their government in 1968. Why their army crushed the NVA when they invaded in 1972. Why their last units fought to the last man in 1975 north of Saigon so more people could flee. Why over a million of them took to boats to escape. Or why don't you share the achievement of your socialists comrades in the killing fields of Cambodia. How many did the Khmer Rouge slaughter? 2...3..4 million. Hell they were amateurs compared to Stalin...30 million, or Mao....60 million. Yours is a cult of death and slaughter...but America is the bad guy. You unbelievable ignorant F@CK. Why don't you mosey on down to Venezuela and share the burden. Or go try and get cardiac surgery in Havana. Yeah right. You hopeless @sshat. Somewhere a village is missing it's idiot.
Looking at your profile pic, Arthur, I'm just going to assume you're senile and quietly go away...
Of course you don't even bother to answer the for the death toll....100 million plus in less than a hundred years....BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. Nor at any point did you point out a "lie". You just spewed and assume that's an actual argument. Typical progturd. I feel therefore I'm right, I'm important, I MATTER. NO, you're just an idiot. Sport I'm so old my platoon sgts, 1st Sgts; company and battalion commanders were there. Of course I'm sure even being in the same room with a vet, much less a combat vet would give you hives; as distinct from your normal syphilitic rash. So go put on your black leotard get your pasty @ss out of your parents basement and go burn down that Starbucks that fired your worthless @ss . It's what you're good at.
legendofman12 Reading your tag I'll assume that's your age or IQ; either way it works for me.
The U.S. Military walked away from the Vietnam war.
Mcsnowman McGee thats what you do when you lose
This made sense. It explains why SIGMA war games failed even if their proposed strategies even altered. They did overlooked crucial elements to make a proper war game.
It's more difficult to fight the irregular rather then the regulars
The United States did not lose the war in Vietnam. There was a peace treaty that lasted for months after the US removed all their troops from the country.
South Vietnam lost after North Vietnam re-invaded. I believe it was when Nixon was president.
No, a democrat was president. Nixon was republican, I think.
Pulling your troops out, signing a treaty on their terms and letting your enemy invade the south does not classify as a victory. I'm sorry but it doesn't matter how many times an American tries to justify it because they think they won every war, you lost in vietnam and that's the cold hard truth.
Just make up some definitions of "winning" or "losing" and you will continue to win every war.
Haha, USA lost to rice farmers hiding in tree's and hole's in the ground.
The French lost to them too lol
The forces opposing the US in Vietnam wanted their opponent to either underestimate them or be terrified by them. That tactic works to this very day, and you are living proof of that.
Yeah but the french lose to everything.
Holy Titan the French actually has the best battle record
Bullshit, France has the worst battle record in history, shit they even lost to Italy... Here to list a few off the top of my head they have lost. Gallic Wars / Hundred Years War /Italian Wars / The Napoleonic Wars / World War II / Shit they cant even win against terrorism judging by their recent record.
thanks for mentioning Australia
The best explanation I have come across on why the US lost the war...the US was playing a finite game and the Vietnamese were playing an infinite game.
We technically did win tho. We won all the major battles we just decided to withdraw because of the American people
It's the Howard Zinn version of history. Lots of pictures, actual facts....not so much.
Blah b the first one was NOT true. The second two were. We lost logistically, but won in sheer numbers. I call it more of unresolved.
+Blah b
we had no intentions to invade North Vietnam, as our government thought it might spark a war between the Soviets and the USA, not just this indirect war.
Another item that comes to mind is motivation. The Vietnamese were so motivated to kick the Americans out they had men who launched suicide missions.
I learned this from a Vietnam Vet who told me his camp of 200+ Marines was attacked by approximately 20 men who entered the camp and started shooting. All the Vietnamese were killed.
The Marine told me that he realized then that the US had already lost.
Most US troops just wanted to get back home and couldn’t care less.
It’s really even simpler than this. A combination of a guerrilla opponent well-embedded in the population coupled with very thick and widespread tropical vegetation which provided ideal cover for hit-and-run style operations.
Wheres the next Sun Tzu chapter. Only reason why I subscribed. :p