@heroup2112 said:
@abstractraze said:
This is an interesting interview, which explains many reasons why it was a more moral flaw than rather a technical one, besides political obstructions as well.
Americans did not really kill Vietcongs, to the contrary, they created more of them, because Vietnamese citizens which were victims from the American paranoia or psychosis, sided for the vietcongs, we're talking about North and South Vietnamese citizens.
It was a neverending wave of Vietcongs units all around the jungle, I mean, you can have the tech, the Napalm bombs, but there is a point when things go out of control, especially in such guerilla environments, thick vegetation everywhere, 10 meters away from you were 20 units and you never knew till they were there, however, at some point you was heavily injured, then you called for help while a damn Vietcong is somewhere on the trees or in some damn tiny hole waiting of your comrades to come for you and kill you all, at some point there is no mental stability anymore to keep going.
Quoting you @heroup2112, because I think it would be an interesting thing for you to hear a well articulated American veteran.
There are a few things that are true here.
1. The US did a horrible job at fighting a counter insurgency war in Vietnam and did not learn from the ONLY successful counter insurgency war in the last or this century (that being the British in Malaysia in the 1950s).
2. The South Vietnamese were screwed up and down. They had the Vietcong coming and forcing their young men to fight for them, and yes, they had us inciting some of them to fight for them; however the idea that we what we were doing was the primary reason for Vietcong recruitment is nonsense.
3. The Vietcong were no where near our primary adversary. Now they were an important component in the North's over all plan but overall they weren't a terribly effective force. Just take the example this guy gives (I've seen this interview before btw) that Vietcong only inflicted 7.5% casualties (casualties include anything from a small piece of shrapnel in someone's foot to a KIA). The real enemy that we were facing and dealing with were People's Army of Vietnam otherwise known as the NVA, and they were sharp as knives.
4. The reality is, were it not for the presence of China and the Soviet Union (though without them we wouldn't have been in Vietnam anyway) we could have rolled up Vietnam in the matter of a month or three. We weren't France and we never committed more than a little less than 30% of our military ground and air forces (we committed practically zero Naval artillery forces which would have been devastating to their coast lines and coastal cities) to Vietnam at the HEIGHT of the conflict. Pacifying the north of the country would be another job. Sort of the same job we're having in Afghanistan, but Vietnam is no Afghanistan.
You opened my sight a lot, especially when highlighting the NVA as the real threat instead of the sneaky Vietcong divisions, very interesting.
I don't want to make a contest between Soviet and American equipment, but is that true that the AK-47 did a far better job than the M16? especially in wet and marshy environments, everyone knows that the M16 is more accurate, but was it really that necessary in a jungle?
Do you think that the American terrain equipment wasn't well suited for the environment? what are your evaluations or your analysis as a honorable veteran?
PS:
What about the Soviet-Afghan War in 1979, was it the opposite?
I've never fought in the jungle (trained a little in it but never actually fought) so I'm going by some knowledge and some hand me down from Vietnam vets and gun enthusiasts information.
This is what I know from experience: While the M-16 (and it's variants) are definitely more accurate than the AK variants (especially at greater distances, though the AKs can literally shoot farther I think, they don't shoot farther nearly as accurately) as I've noticed this really only matters to the relatively small number of people who can shoot really well under combat conditions (it's a lot harder than one might think). I've known a lot of people who think that because they qualify well (that is to say shooting at paper or pop up targets) that they will be able to shoot this well while being shot at. I could go into all the reasons why this isn't the case but rest assured this isn't the case. Most "accurate" gun fighting is done from around 30-50 meters. Much past that range everyone is pretty much "spraying and praying"...shooting in the general direction of the enemy and hoping to hit them. So, which weapon is more accurate doesn't (and probably wouldn't in Vietnam) make all that much difference as far as accuracy goes.
Now. The AK shoots a larger, slower round which tends to tumble in the body and cause more tissue damage and could cause severe damage and limb loss (certainly death too, but a lot of survivable but trauma inducing damage as well) and that can be a bad thing, but the hyper velocity round that the M-16 variants were very lethal. So that's sort of six of one half dozen of the other.
One thing I can tell you that is for SURE better about the AK than the M-16 is that it's a very simple, reliable weapon, whereas you need to keep the M-16 you gotta keep that thing clean and lubricated. I know in the desert I cleaned my weapon as much as four times a day (some guys didn't only once but I didn't like them covering me). I can only assume it would be similar in the jungle with all the mud, twigs, leaves, and other gunk a jungle could decide to jam up into your bolt, receiver, chamber, barrel, buffer spring or any one of the other moving parts. It'll drive nails if you know what you're doing with it though.
I wasn't in the environment of Vietnam and I don't know all that much about the mechanized "life" over there but I know we used a lot of 113 style APCs which are usually pretty easy to maintain, and are moderately amphibious (though i wouldn't want to be in one when the theory is tested), but their armor is HORRIBLE. We used the M-48 (I think that's the number) Patton tank though I know virtually nothing about them, and the Marines used an AMTRAC amphibious armored vehicle that was a good platform and was in use until the early 80s. Again though, if the terrain had allowed for us to be in a mechanized war we'd have won pretty easily. It was the ability of the enemy to use the terrain and deny us the ability to use our most advantageous assets that let them do so well.
I'll try to sum up the Soviet Afgan war in as few words as I can.
The Soviets had it way worse off than we did in a few ways.
The Soviets doctrine left them in a very bad situation when fighting the Mujahadeen. A Commander gets their orders from a higher element and the commander follows that operations order and does not deviate from it, period. If the enemy does something unexpected? The operation order from above him should have anticipated that and THAT poor dumb SOB will get in trouble for it, not that cammander following orders. Problem with that is that the Mujahadeen excelled at doing things that the Soviets didn't expect.
Afghanistan is some of the worst country in the world for tank fighting and the Soviets were very much geared toward tank warfare.
As far as small arms, both sides used pretty much the same weapons and ammunition it's just that the Soviets had an inexhaustible supply of them (plus food, communications, and medicine) the Afghani's didn't, but what they did have was EVERY single one of them hated the Russians and wanted them dead or gone. Most of them thought it was their Holy Mission From GOD to see them dead or gone. It wasn't like Vietnam were only half the country was fighting them, it was very nearly all of them.
The only truly effective countermeasures to the Mujahadeen raids (they were everywhere, even though they usually couldn't do much major damage at first) were the Russian Sptsnaz Special Forces and the Russian's helicopters, especially the feared Hind series of helicopter gunships, both of which did serious harm to Afghani forces. There is a quote by an Afghani freedom fighter. "We do not fear the Russian, but we do fear his helicopters."
Log in to comment