Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

An underequipped US fought off 300,000 Chinese troops and caused massive casualties in Korea. Its hard to find a battle or even minor engagement where the US lost from 1944-now. I'm not sure what you're really asking for. Man for man worse then others? depends when. Depends on who. But youy have to assign factors youy're discussing first and actual actions where the US lost.

Look up the Battle of Kham Duc in Vietnam. There was also the Siege of Khe Sanh, which is claimed as a US victory, but in reality, we withdrew from and abandoned Khe Sanh (under fire) after determining it was largely and undefendable position.

And those are just off the top of my head.

 CptJake wrote:
No, the Stryker family of vehicles is NOT air drop-able.

Actually it is, but so is the Queen Anne. What happens when it lands however...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

An underequipped US fought off 300,000 Chinese troops and caused massive casualties in Korea. Its hard to find a battle or even minor engagement where the US lost from 1944-now. I'm not sure what you're really asking for. Man for man worse then others? depends when. Depends on who. But youy have to assign factors youy're discussing first and actual actions where the US lost.

Look up the Battle of Kham Duc in Vietnam. There was also the Siege of Khe Sanh, which is claimed as a US victory, but in reality, we withdrew from and abandoned Khe Sanh (under fire) after determining it was largely and undefendable position.

And those are just off the top of my head.

We did not abandon Khe Sanh under fire. It was a defended position and meant to be stuck out their to draw NVA. It worked. You need to check your facts boyo.

 CptJake wrote:
No, the Stryker family of vehicles is NOT air drop-able.

Actually, the AF has successfully done so, they just still haven't been certified for it yet.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm not sure if people are telling me anything!

We have people discussing Operation Iraq freedom, which tells me nothing about the US military from 1945-1972, and we have people telling me things that I already know: the US public weren't happy with Vietnam war. Most posters have provided comments and I'm grateful for that, but on other key questions, there have been inconclusive answers.

For example, I've asked about military philosophy/doctrines of the basic US soldier (training, flexibility, fieldcraft, basic soldiering etc ) and there's been nothing back. I'll stick to my books. This discussion is over!

Stick to what you like, but as sebster pointed out earlier, American kill ratios in the conflicts in question were always in our favor, sometimes heavily so. The wars weren't lost on the battlefield, so the entire premise of, "Why did American soldiers and Marines suck?" is inaccurate to begin with.

Yeah, Khe Sahn, as referenced above, we still inflicted 5 KIA's per 1 received, possibly a lot more.

The Stryker isn't exactly functional on the /deck/ much less in the air.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
No, the Stryker family of vehicles is NOT air drop-able.

Actually it is, but so is the Queen Anne. What happens when it lands however...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

An underequipped US fought off 300,000 Chinese troops and caused massive casualties in Korea. Its hard to find a battle or even minor engagement where the US lost from 1944-now. I'm not sure what you're really asking for. Man for man worse then others? depends when. Depends on who. But youy have to assign factors youy're discussing first and actual actions where the US lost.

Look up the Battle of Kham Duc in Vietnam. There was also the Siege of Khe Sanh, which is claimed as a US victory, but in reality, we withdrew from and abandoned Khe Sanh (under fire) after determining it was largely and undefendable position.

And those are just off the top of my head.

We did not abandon Khe Sanh under fire. It was a defended position and meant to be stuck out their to draw NVA. It worked. You need to check your facts boyo.

Check your facts, boyo. Look up "Operation Charlie", the NVA continued shelling the base after the Siege had been lifted.

On June 19, 1968, another operation began at Khe Sanh, Operation Charlie, the final evacuation and destruction of the Khe Sanh Combat Base. The Marines withdrew all salvageable material and destroyed everything else. The NVA continued shelling the base, and on July 1 launched a company-sized infantry attack against its perimeter. Two Marines died. NVA casualties were more than 200. The base was officially closed on July 5. Marines stayed in the area, conducting operations to recover the bodies of Marines killed previously. On July 10, Pfc Robert Hernandez of Company A, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, was manning an M-60 machine gun position when it took a direct hit from NVA mortars. Hernandez was killed. Ten more Marines and 89 NVA died during this period. They were not included in the official Khe Sanh counts.

On July 11, the Marines finally left Khe Sanh. This is the battle's end date from the North Vietnamese perspective. The NVA 304th Division's history notes that on "9 July 1968, the liberation flag was waving from the flag pole at Ta Con [Khe Sanh] airfield." On July 13, 1968, Ho Chi Minh sent a message to the soldiers of the Route 9–Khe Sanh Front affirming "our victory at Khe Sanh."

Dude that doesn't mean we lost. They achieved a slaughter against the NVA. Seriously, they could be fired on from mountains all around.

And nothing about it supports that the US soldier was poor in any way. Whether they were or weren't they still slaughtered everyone they fought against.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
No, the Stryker family of vehicles is NOT air drop-able.

Actually, the AF has successfully done so, they just still haven't been certified for it yet.

Air landed, yes. Dropped? Yes, they tested the extraction from a C17 and the army has tested rigging/packing/shock protection not using aircraft. They are not close to certification though.

I've seen M551 heavy drop. Pretty awesome. The drop I took part in, 3 of 4 actually were able to drive off the DZ. And with Sheridans, that is good even without the drop factored in.



KM: As for Strykers not doing well on the ground, I know a lot of folks who would beg to differ. They did well both in Iraq and are still being used in Afghanistan, and the SBCT troops give them a pretty good rating over all. The biggest problem is the original suspension didn't handle the extra armor packages. That has been worked out for the most part.

 Seaward wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm not sure if people are telling me anything!

We have people discussing Operation Iraq freedom, which tells me nothing about the US military from 1945-1972, and we have people telling me things that I already know: the US public weren't happy with Vietnam war. Most posters have provided comments and I'm grateful for that, but on other key questions, there have been inconclusive answers.

For example, I've asked about military philosophy/doctrines of the basic US soldier (training, flexibility, fieldcraft, basic soldiering etc ) and there's been nothing back. I'll stick to my books. This discussion is over!

Stick to what you like, but as sebster pointed out earlier, American kill ratios in the conflicts in question were always in our favor, sometimes heavily so. The wars weren't lost on the battlefield, so the entire premise of, "Why did American soldiers and Marines suck?" is inaccurate to begin with.

But my basic premise has NEVER been American soldiers suck.

Maybe the fault is mine for not making my points clear, but the general consensus of most of the books/articles I've read has been the following:

1. The quality of army recruits was lacking compared to other services.

2. The average American soldier did not have the same fieldcraft/camouflage/basic soldiering skills as his Chinese/ North Vietnamese counterpart

3. America placed too much emphasis on technological capabilities, so when Vietnam switched to a counter-insurgency war, the basic US fighter struggled.

Now, I know America had higher kill ratios than the NVA in the Vietnam war, I know that some American units were highly effective (special forces for example) but my purpose was to challenge the consensus above, to get different viewpoints/sources etc.

Maybe the fault is mine for not making my points clear, but the general consensus of most of the books/articles I've read has been the following:

1. The quality of army recruits was lacking compared to other services.
They had the finest in two year draftees and volunteers. Some were good, some were bad, few wanted to be there. Note historically Marines were a volunteer force except the depths of Vietnam.


2. The average American soldier did not have the same fieldcraft/camouflage/basic soldiering skills as his Chinese/ North Vietnamese counterpart
They were better then the Chinese/NK by leaps and bounds. Were they up to WWII vets from December 1944-no. But again NK was more of a fight to survive and WWI situation. Vietnam? Ayah I’d put the NVA and VC as more skilled in fieldcraft/camouflage. They had experience in fighting back to the Japanese. Those that weren’t…died.


3. America placed too much emphasis on technological capabilities, so when Vietnam switched to a counter-insurgency war, the basic US fighter struggled.
Kill rates were still high and lessons were learned. But frankly-how are they not going to struggle? They were in a jungle in a low intensity conflict. Who is going to do well in that environment?
Of course one could argue the way around it would have been invade China in 1952.

 Frazzled wrote:
Dude that doesn't mean we lost. They achieved a slaughter against the NVA. Seriously, they could be fired on from mountains all around.

And nothing about it supports that the US soldier was poor in any way. Whether they were or weren't they still slaughtered everyone they fought against.

Doesn't mean we won either, and again the fact of the matter is we withdrew (under fire), which, traditionally, implies a retreat, i.e. - a loss. I would also question what the "victory" would be if we sustained all that just to fall back. It truly served no real tactical or strategic purpose (and we ended up just setting up a new base a few miles down Route 9) from everything I've read, so, yeah.

The strategic purpose was to kill NVA. Thats what the whole war was about. Not getting your point related to the topic, other than a nice attempted dig at the US.

 Frazzled wrote:
The strategic purpose was to kill NVA. Thats what the whole war was about. Not getting your point related to the topic, other than a nice attempted dig at the US.

Its called "fact checking". Someone implied that the US hasn't lost a battle since world war 2, I pointed out one hard instance (Kham Duc) and one arguable instance (Khe Sanh) where that was untrue. And just to pull a third example from earlier in the thread, there was the Battle of Karbala: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Attack_on_Karbala

And the strategic purpose was to kill the NVA? Really? Well, general consensus in modern times is that war by attrition is your strategic goal, then you've probably already lost the war.

You're defining them as lost battles. Kham Duc I'll give on. Kham Duc is also a small unit action. Meh

And the strategic purpose was to kill the NVA? Really? Well, general consensus in modern times is that war by attrition is your strategic goal, then you've probably already lost the war.

News flash, we lost the war...

I for one, believe that the war was winnable. You'll also note, the war was only lost after we had pulled out following a peace agreement (that neither side really paid any attention to).

chaos0xomega wrote:
I for one, believe that the war was winnable. You'll also note, the war was only lost after we had pulled out following a peace agreement (that neither side really paid any attention to).

Well if you have the will everything is winnable. But with the will comes cost. Would it have been worth it to us to have a major war-perhaps a nuclear war-to end it?
It goes back to the old question-why exactly are American citizens being sent to die again?

See, I don't think that the cost to win the war would have been that much more, if at all, higher than the cost we had actually paid (both in terms of dollars and lives). If we had taken the bombs off and just gone on an offensive against the NVA into the North, perhaps toppled Ho Chi Minh's government... well, we probably would have ended up with a bigger quagmire than we found ourselves in, but I'm reasonably certain that had we then withdrawn following a period of Vietnamization as we did historically, the South wouldn't have collapsed in 1975.

chaos0xomega wrote:
See, I don't think that the cost to win the war would have been that much more, if at all, higher than the cost we had actually paid (both in terms of dollars and lives). If we had taken the bombs off and just gone on an offensive against the NVA into the North, perhaps toppled Ho Chi Minh's government... well, we probably would have ended up with a bigger quagmire than we found ourselves in, but I'm reasonably certain that had we then withdrawn following a period of Vietnamization as we did historically, the South wouldn't have collapsed in 1975.

China was prepared for a full scale war, up to nukes. They had built and extensive series of bunkers to protect important assets.
So no, it would have been a major war, with a WWII like effort on our part at that point.

Well, we expended more ordnance in Vietnam than we did in WW2 anyway, at least if we'd been bombing China it would have been to good use... >.>

Keep in mind that, at the time, China did NOT have the capability to strike the US with nuclear weapons. Also keep in mind, that China developed and tested its first nuclear weapon in 1964, assuming that Chinese nuclear weapons production followed a similar pattern to the US and the Soviets (and bearing in mind that they are believed to only have 100-200 nuclear weapons in the present day, and that the last weapon they tested in 1996 had an estimated yield of less than 5 KILOtons), a "nuclear war" with China at the time would be decidedly one-sided.

Also keep in mind, that Chinese/North Vietnamese relations after 1968 were BAD (due to Vietnams pro-Soviet leaning and refusal on their part to cut relations with Moscow), meaning its doubtful that the Chinese would have got involved had the US really escalated things after that point. The general fear of Chinese intervention during the Vietnam War was largely misguided and probably the result of a lack of serious understanding between the relationships and dynamics of the region, as well as a lack of understanding of Cultural differences between Eastern and Western thinking as it relates to politics.

But they had nukes. Are you going to invade a nuke power? Do you have a wild fascination with dying?

Maybe sometimes, but given that I wasn't born yet... 'meh'. Nobody ever said anything about invading China though, just escalating hostilities with North Vietnam, at a time when it was particularly unlikely that the Chinese would actually directly intervene.

There was no time that the Chinese would not have intervened in the war.

Disagreed. After the Sino-Soviet split in 68 and the Chinese cessation of support for North Vietnam as a result (and their recognition and support of the Khmer Rouge, who were actually an enemy of the North Vietnamese gov't), the Chinese-American rapprochement which was highlighted by Nixons visit to China in 72, etc. ad nauseum, its pretty clear that towards the end of the war the Chinese wouldn't have been involved in Vietnam if the US had gone HAM on the NVA (barring the use of nuclear weapons on the US end, which I think everyone knows would spell doom for everyone involved). The Chinese invasion of Vietnam in the late 70s did not come out of a vacuum.

The scary thing is I think you're serious. Did you miss that whole Chinese army invading to push back US forces from being near the Chinese mainland? What country does NV border again? Oh yea...

 Frazzled wrote:
The scary thing is I think you're serious. Did you miss that whole Chinese army invading to push back US forces from being near the Chinese mainland? What country does NV border again? Oh yea...

What "Chinese army invading to push back US forces from being near the Chinese mainland" thing? To the best of my knowledge, that was never actually a thing, other than an idea that was floated in some circles in the US based on prior experience with the Chinese in Korea, which, in case you didn't notice, was a different war fought under different circumstances, and didn't involve a nation that had long been a traditional enemy of China, aka Vietnam.

It was never actually "a thing" because we didn't invade North Vietnam.

Perhaps Frazzled is channeling the Korean War again.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps Frazzled is channeling the Korean War again.

Frazzled is channeling lessons learned.

 Frazzled wrote:
It was never actually "a thing" because we didn't invade North Vietnam.

And I'm questioning that it would have been "a thing" even if we had. You seem rather committed to the idea, based on... I don't know what you're basing it on because you haven't presented any sort of logical or reasonable evidence that would indicate that they would have intervened, while I'm presenting to you the idea that the Chinese WOULDN'T have intervened based on the reality of Sino-Soviet and Sino-Vietnamese relations during the last half of the Vietnam War.

In essence: I'm trying to have a logical debate based on fact and evidence, and you're putting your fingers in your ear and screaming "LALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING CHINA WOULD INVADE!!!!!" at the top of your lungs.