The New Jersey in Vietnam

[astralis]

BBwarrior,

Yep, Tet was a massive defeat for the North and Viet Cong. Too bad the liberal media and academics (university history professors) usually turn Tet upside down and portray it as a defeat for US policy in Vietnam.

that's because it WAS a defeat for US policy. to the vietnamese, military victory and defeat was always secondary to political effect.

and the US had opened itself up to political defeat because of the tendency of the US military at the time, from commander in chief on down, to portray everything in vietnam as going swimmingly well.

[Bigfella]

Now, just to confuse the issue a bit more, there was an article I read (or a forum posting) that said if we continued the bombings just a few more days, North Viet Nam was about ready to quit.

So, here's a challenge to you mythbusters out there. Is that true or not?

RB,

If you check out th thread you'll see that the claim was made on a Vietnamese language website by a guy (PAVN I think) who said he heard it from an officer at an academy somewhere. I likened it to the 'a bloke in a pub told me' school of history.

It stikes me as credible that the DRV had 'fallback' bargaining positions conceding things they didn't plan to do - like fewer troops in the Sth etc. Someone in the politburo might even have suggested offering a complete pullout from the Sth, but I'm just speculating, and it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

This is one of those myths that appeals to folk who want to believe that tne way to win in Vietnam was just to bomb more stuff. Not so simple. BUSTED.

[Bigfella]

Absolutely Agree with TopHatter. We fought with too many political restrictions.

Yep, Tet was a massive defeat for the North and Viet Cong. Too bad the liberal media and academics (university history professors) usually turn Tet upside down and portray it as a defeat for US policy in Vietnam.

I wish all 4 Iowas were recommed say late in 1965, after we decided to commit combat assets in country like the 101 Air Cav. Thinking about all the targets those big guns could have serviced during say, 1965 through 1968, truly is mind boggling

BB,

Don't want to turn this into a 'Vietnam' thread, but since we're into myths at the moment, you've thrown up one of the biggies.

As Astralis pointed out, Tet was a defeat. As I'm sure you're aware, battles & wars aren't just a numbers game. A favourable 'kill ratio' doesn't equal a win. If so, Germany would have beaten the USSR.

Remember that the people who decided to pull the plug on the war weren't reading papers by academic historians & contrary to some mythology they weren't relying in the 'liberal' media for their info. They were some of the best informed people in the world on the subject. They had access to classified intel, the best military minds & a keen understanding of the resources available for the task ahead. One of them, MacNamara, had already decided that the war was unwinnable before Tet. Others came to agree with him when Tet made it clear that 'victory' by any reasonable definition was distant - perhaps impossible.

Put simply, most American wars are on the clock - time, 'progress' & bodies. Any one can sink a war. Two going the wrong way will sink most wars. By early 1968 Vietnam was sliding fast on all three. Tet made progress look illusory, time look longer & it added a bunch more bodies. It sped up a process that was well underway.

I've wildly oversimplified, but you get the drift. Calling Tet a US 'victory' is true in a way that doesn't help a meaningful understanding of the war.

[Dreadnought]

That's a good point. But if 4 Iowas, rotating 1 every 3 months off shore were there, honoring a peace accord might be a better option than putting pieces of Haiphong back together again.


*I would have liked to have seen all 4 in the van, constantly manuvering up and down the entire coast and delivering what they do best. )

But alas, it never came to be and New Jersey played the Lone Ranger as far as the BB's are concerned.

[BBwarrior]

BB,

Don't want to turn this into a 'Vietnam' thread, but since we're into myths at the moment, you've thrown up one of the biggies.

As Astralis pointed out, Tet was a defeat. As I'm sure you're aware, battles & wars aren't just a numbers game. A favourable 'kill ratio' doesn't equal a win. If so, Germany would have beaten the USSR.

Remember that the people who decided to pull the plug on the war weren't reading papers by academic historians & contrary to some mythology they weren't relying in the 'liberal' media for their info. They were some of the best informed people in the world on the subject. They had access to classified intel, the best military minds & a keen understanding of the resources available for the task ahead. One of them, MacNamara, had already decided that the war was unwinnable before Tet. Others came to agree with him when Tet made it clear that 'victory' by any reasonable definition was distant - perhaps impossible.

Put simply, most American wars are on the clock - time, 'progress' & bodies. Any one can sink a war. Two going the wrong way will sink most wars. By early 1968 Vietnam was sliding fast on all three. Tet made progress look illusory, time look longer & it added a bunch more bodies. It sped up a process that was well underway.

I've wildly oversimplified, but you get the drift. Calling Tet a US 'victory' is true in a way that doesn't help a meaningful understanding of the war.

Cease Fire everyone... I was playing 'devils advocate' a bit. Sorry, perhaps I should have omitted the 'liberal university professors' jibe!

Yes, I am aware that Tet and its consequences turned into a political defeat for American policy which then opened to door to Vietnamization and the eventual redeployment of our forces. All of you make excellent points. However, IMHO I wish that when those same profs teach Tet, they broaden their focus to include the details of the brilliant, (could we say) tactical victory by the US Armed Forces. By focusing so much on the political component and outcomes, could that not have the effect of marginalizing the great valor and sacrifices that our forces endured during the battle?

Just my opinion, of course.

[Officer of Engineers]

It also the wildest stroke of luck for Hanoi that the American population turned against the war instead demanding her armies marched all the way up north. While Tet was described as an American policy defeat, there was no way in hell for Vo and gang to ever plan for it. They were planning another Diem Bien Phu at Khe Sanh and got clobbered instead.

That they snatched a propaganda victory from the jaws of a military disaster should not be used as judgement of their prowness.

And in fact, they were also on the clock. Northern Vietnamese mothers were losing sons to Hanoi incomptetence and with nothing to show for it. Tet could have easily turned into a morale disaster as well as a military one.

[BBwarrior]

It also the wildest stroke of luck for Hanoi that the American population turned against the war instead demanding her armies marched all the way up north. While Tet was described as an American policy defeat, there was no way in hell for Vo and gang to ever plan for it. They were planning another Diem Bien Phu at Khe Sanh and got clobbered instead.

That they snatched a propaganda victory from the jaws of a military disaster should not be used as judgement of their prowness.

And in fact, they were also on the clock. Northern Vietnamese mothers were losing sons to Hanoi incomptetence and with nothing to show for it. Tet could have easily turned into a morale disaster as well as a military one.

Good points, OoE, especially your first paragraph.

[Bigfella]

Cease Fire everyone... I was playing 'devils advocate' a bit. Sorry, perhaps I should have omitted the 'liberal university professors' jibe!

Yes, I am aware that Tet and its consequences turned into a political defeat for American policy which then opened to door to Vietnamization and the eventual redeployment of our forces. All of you make excellent points. However, IMHO I wish that when those same profs teach Tet, they broaden their focus to include the details of the brilliant, (could we say) tactical victory by the US Armed Forces. By focusing so much on the political component and outcomes, could that not have the effect of marginalizing the great valor and sacrifices that our forces endured during the battle?

Just my opinion, of course.

BB,

It has been a long time since I've sat in a class on Vietnam (though I've given a few lectures on it more recently), but they generally tend to focus on the 'big picture' end result of events like Tet rather than the specific heroics of one side or another.

Indeed, if we were picking & choosing heroic stories we could just as easily pick some from the other side too. I can't imagine the courage required to take on a US army that could call on the sort of firepower the US Army could - whether from the air, artillery or even the average combat unit. Further, many of those in the PAVN were in for the duration, so they took a pounding for years on end & kept coming back. (OK, I'm playing devil's advocate now, but you see where I'm coming from).

[Officer of Engineers]

Further, many of those in the PAVN were in for the duration, so they took a pounding for years on end & kept coming back. (OK, I'm playing devil's advocate now, but you see where I'm coming from).

No, they didn't. They died. In 10 hours, the 11th Regiment at Khe Sanh was vapourized. Those who came to reform the 11Regt were not the veterans at Khe Sanh.

[BBwarrior]

BB,

It has been a long time since I've sat in a class on Vietnam (though I've given a few lectures on it more recently), but they generally tend to focus on the 'big picture' end result of events like Tet rather than the specific heroics of one side or another.

Indeed, if we were picking & choosing heroic stories we could just as easily pick some from the other side too. I can't imagine the courage required to take on a US army that could call on the sort of firepower the US Army could - whether from the air, artillery or even the average combat unit. Further, many of those in the PAVN were in for the duration, so they took a pounding for years on end & kept coming back. (OK, I'm playing devil's advocate now, but you see where I'm coming from).

I agree - there was courage shown by the enemy in 'standing up' and 'taking' our overwhelming firepower. It takes courage to continue fighting against overwhelming odds.

My 'beef' if you will, (an older, but recent graduate with a BA in History), is the 'big picture' seems to be all that matters to some profs. It's the same old song and dance in virtually every history course about Vietnam. In upper division collegiate courses, I would expect more detailed info about tactics, troop movements, and how our forces endured, persevered, adapted, and eventually overcame and defeated the Tet attack (that's why I'm a member of WAB - to learn more from our military professionals). The 'big picture' of Vietnam I already learned way back in high school.

Again, I have to agree with OoE - the NVA and it's irregular forces suffered horrendous annihilation. I wonder what the life expectancy of a NVA soldier was when in direct, sustained contact with American firepower?

[TopHatter]

In upper division collegiate courses, I would expect more detailed info about tactics, troop movements, and how our forces endured, persevered, adapted, and eventually overcame and defeated the Tet attack

In a civilian school?

If you find one like that, let me know because I'll finally make up my mind to take some college courses.

[Bigfella]

I agree - there was courage shown by the enemy in 'standing up' and 'taking' our overwhelming firepower. It takes courage to continue fighting against overwhelming odds.

If you have a look on the WAB Amazon website there are a couple of memoirs by former PAVN soldiers. They are worth a read & not at all what you might expect.

My 'beef' if you will, (an older, but recent graduate with a BA in History), is the 'big picture' seems to be all that matters to some profs. It's the same old song and dance in virtually every history course about Vietnam. In upper division collegiate courses, I would expect more detailed info about tactics, troop movements, and how our forces endured, persevered, adapted, and eventually overcame and defeated the Tet attack (that's why I'm a member of WAB - to learn more from our military professionals). The 'big picture' of Vietnam I already learned way back in high school.

TH stole my thunder here. If you are after dissections of military tactics, especially for an individual battle, regular colleges aren't going to help you much. Its a bit like criticizing a military college for spending too much time on tactics.

Again, I have to agree with OoE - the NVA and it's irregular forces suffered horrendous annihilation. I wonder what the life expectancy of a NVA soldier was when in direct, sustained contact with American firepower?

They did when they went up against US forces in the open - especially against prepared positions such as Khe Sanh & the battles near the DMZ. That is why battles like the last 2 were the exception rather then the rule for most of the war. The average PAVN soldier in the Sth spent a lot of time dodging US planes & guns.

A lot of PAVN fighting - especially 1965-68 - involved getting US units to fight on ground the PAVN units chose. This still resulted in heavy losses, but not as bad as Khe Sanh. Unfortunately for the average soldier the PAVN often adpoted tactics that led them to attempt a victory of numbers over firepower. As a strategy this actually worked, but as a tactic it got a LOT of their soldiers dead & wounded.

Once again I recommend some of the books on our website - they give a sense of the impact of facing superior firepower year in year out.

[BBwarrior]

In a civilian school?

If you find one like that, let me know because I'll finally make up my mind to take some college courses.

I know, I know - it was silly of me to expect a course that would elaborate on the details. As I remember, we spent two weeks on Tet and its consequences. What burned me up the most was the particular 'slant' (id I may use that word) his course took. Not much on American valor, but lots and lots of stuff on American war crimes (Mi Ly), drug use, fragging, and protests. Wouldn't it be fair for the prof to have mentioned, just once, that the majority of American troops served in Vietnam with honor?

I understand the war was hell, for both sides. It just got 'old' listening to a certain political view for an entire semester that painted a picture of our involvement in Vietnam as American incompetence, stupidity, and outright criminality.

Again, don't mean to cross anyone here with a differing opinion - this is just mine.

[BBwarrior]

If you have a look on the WAB Amazon website there are a couple of memoirs by former PAVN soldiers. They are worth a read & not at all what you might expect.



TH stole my thunder here. If you are after dissections of military tactics, especially for an individual battle, regular colleges aren't going to help you much. Its a bit like criticizing a military college for spending too much time on tactics.



They did when they went up against US forces in the open - especially against prepared positions such as Khe Sanh & the battles near the DMZ. That is why battles like the last 2 were the exception rather then the rule for most of the war. The average PAVN soldier in the Sth spent a lot of time dodging US planes & guns.

A lot of PAVN fighting - especially 1965-68 - involved getting US units to fight on ground the PAVN units chose. This still resulted in heavy losses, but not as bad as Khe Sanh. Unfortunately for the average soldier the PAVN often adpoted tactics that led them to attempt a victory of numbers over firepower. As a strategy this actually worked, but as a tactic it got a LOT of their soldiers dead & wounded.

Once again I recommend some of the books on our website - they give a sense of the impact of facing superior firepower year in year out.

Thanks for the info! I will check out WAB's book recommendations

[Bigfella]

I know, I know - it was silly of me to expect a course that would elaborate on the details. As I remember, we spent two weeks on Tet and its consequences. What burned me up the most was the particular 'slant' (id I may use that word) his course took. Not much on American valor, but lots and lots of stuff on American war crimes (Mi Ly), drug use, fragging, and protests. Wouldn't it be fair for the prof to have mentioned, just once, that the majority of American troops served in Vietnam with honor?

I understand the war was hell, for both sides. It just got 'old' listening to a certain political view for an entire semester that painted a picture of our involvement in Vietnam as American incompetence, stupidity, and outright criminality.

Again, don't mean to cross anyone here with a differing opinion - this is just mine.

Its OK BB, anyone who doesn't come to WAB wearing their steel-capped boots doesn't last long.