Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
Vietnam interests me.
There are too many commentaries on Vietnam.
What is the reality in geopolitical terms, geostrategic terms as also from the tactical terms.
There are Vietnam veterans here as also military enthusiasts.
Could you all comment as to what you feel about the way Vietnam was approached as a case for victory and fought? And why was it not a success when the military might was applied in all its glory against the impoverished Vietcongs who were hardly an enemy that required to be defeated since they were so impoverished looking that the wind could have blown them away.
|
I did two tours in Viet Nam. Trust me, the VC were not pushovers. I recall one day, I was leading a two plane section out of Delta Station. We got a call of troops in contact and hustled out to give them a little air support. By the time we got there, a Company of Marines which had been trying to advance up a ridge was in dire straits, with VC almost overrunning them. Things were so extreme, that the CO called for ord on his position. We made three passes, the first, we dropped on the OP. Thankfully, the bombs flew a few feet long. The FAC said, that the drop caused Charlie to retreat a little.
On the second pass, we aimed about 100 yards uphill, trying to encourage Charlie to keep moving back and up the valley. Apparently one of the Mk82s hung up on the rack because it separated at a funny angle and flew way long. Deuce reported smoke from the back side of the ridge line.
On our third pass, we aimed at the military crest and armed tail only. We put the MK82s on target. The whole top of the ridge line blew off with massive secondary explosions and over 100 KBA. Yep, that day, Charlie had lots of ammo and good organization. He needed to be defeated the way that only NavAir and ground forces can.