Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can the Baltic Republics, now members of NATO, be defended against Russian invasion?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by JimmyRep View Post
    Yeah, with 7 or so rounds in a magazine that's hard to load that you are always in danger of cutting your fingers. Also it's a way heavy rifle despite being used as a traditional ceremony rifle.
    So what? Weapons discipline.

    Comment


    • #62
      JimmyRep,

      Per Walter John in Rifles of the World South Vietnam used 6,000 M16 and 938,000 M16A1 between 1966–1975.

      The U.S. had provided the ARVN with 793,994 M1 carbines, 942,000 M-16 rifles, 34,000 M79 grenade launchers, 40,000 radios, 20,000 quarter-ton trucks, 214 M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks, 77 M577 Command tracks (command version of the M113 APC), 930 M113s (APC/ACAVs), 120 V-100s (wheeled armored cars), and 190 M48 tanks.

      Go to this page and you will see photos of ARVN artillerymen using M101, M102, M114 & M175 artillery pieces....the exact same weapons used by the US Army and US Marine Corps during that period.

      Miscellaneous Photos of Vietnam War

      Guess what....US squadrons also flew A-37s...I saw them flying inservice all the way to 1988.


      All of that said did you see the green lettering on my previous post? That means that a moderator was politely giving you a warning to follow specific instructions.

      You have yet to follow those instructions.

      This is your only warnining.

      Post again without following the required newcomer steps will find you banned.
      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
      Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #63
        That's a lot of fingers.
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • #64
          The numbers look good on paper but what's about the date of delivery? And notice at peak time 1.1 million US personnel served in the area, not counting civilians. The final number just happens to meet what's left behind.

          The F-4 was denied in 1972 you can read it up on wikipedia or Vietnam / Peace Movement -- Nov 10, 1972 -- NBC -- TV news: Vanderbilt Television News Archive
          Now lets take a look at some listings from "Use Of Excess Defense Articles And Other ResourcesTo Supplement The Military Assistance Program" 1973
          Like in all other reports it's all about excess item being delivered or items left behind.
          This suggests to us that, with the increased
          availability of excess defense articles as a result of
          Vietnam troop withdrawals and other sources, such articles could
          be used to meet many future MAP requirements.
          January 1971 DOD allocated 28 excess observation aircraft in Vietnam, valued at more than $1 million,
          from July 10, 1970, through December 30, 1970
          Vietnam Armed MAP Forces
          Grenade launchers 1,146
          Fork lifts 7
          l/4-ton trucks 292
          Z-l/Z-ton trucks 914
          3/4-ton trucks 751
          Radio sets 1,874
          Semitrailers 2
          Night vision 381
          the rest was deleted

          As to Congress cutting support among other document here's a site with summaries and others
          Myths and Facts
          The United States Did Not Lose The War In Vietnam; The South Vietnamese did after the U.S. Congress cut off funding. The South Vietnamese ran out of fuel, ammunition and other supplies because of a lack of support from Congress, while the North Vietnamese were very well supplied by China and the Soviet Union. The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam.
          See? whenever would have the F-4 been delivered when they were denied in 72.

          Comment


          • #65
            So Jimmy, you stated on 12 MAR 14 in post #48 on thsi thread Aside from that the South didn't get any modern weapons unlike the North. They got WWII carabines against Kalaschinkovs. The US tried to kept the glory to themselves just to betray their allies like so many others when they failed.

            Okay, those are your words, not mine.

            I refuted that statement as incorrect. I showed you where the US did in fact provide frontline equipment, the exact same equipment used by US forces as well as many of our Allies around the globe, to the ARVN beginning in 1966.

            I had a source which said they got F-4s and you have a sourve which said they did not.

            Okay....I will conceed you 1 weapon system which we did not give them. We still provided billions of dollars of equipment...not to mention tens of thousands of lives.

            A case in point on a specific item which we provided. The basic jungle boot worn by the US in Viet Nam was a great boot. The problem was they tended to be made in sizes too large for Asians. The solution? In 1970 a US Army Quartermaster captain was pulled out of the I Corps G4 office and sent with multiple pairs of boots to South Korea to meet with 2 Korean shoe manufacturing companies who licensed made the boots for the ARVN. The first contract was for 50,000 boots and was refilled 4 times. All paid for by US dollars. How do I know this? That Captain retired as a lieutenant colonel....and sat in the desk next to me from 1989 to 1992 as an Army civilian here at FT Lee Virginia. He had the photos and souvenirs from his visit and from the ARVN general who thanked him for his efforts on the behalf of the ARVN.

            Now, did the political climate in the US change and support for the war withdrawn? Yup. No argument there.

            But do not try to say the US did not equip the ARVN with inferior equipment than the NVA/VC....because that is a crock of bull.

            Oh, and as for your comments regarding the M1 rifle?

            Remember those 940,000+ M-16s shipped to SE Asia? That meant the MANY US National Guard and Army Reserve units in the US still had M1s well into the 1970s. Just look at what the Guardsmen were using in the photos at Kent State...

            Attached Files
            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
            Mark Twain

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
              So Jimmy, you stated on 12 MAR 14 in post #48 on thsi thread Aside from that the South didn't get any modern weapons unlike the North. They got WWII carabines against Kalaschinkovs. The US tried to kept the glory to themselves just to betray their allies like so many others when they failed.
              Yeah, you you replied in #49 and me in #57

              Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
              There is just so much wrong with this statement that my hair hurts from reading it......
              ARVN Rangers armed with M16s, M79s and using AN/PRC-25 radios....just like US Marine and Army units used.
              [ATTACH]35879[/ATTACH]

              Here is a SVAF Huey...same model as US Army and USAF
              [ATTACH]35880[/ATTACH]

              SVAF AD-1s
              [ATTACH]35881[/ATTACH]

              SVAF F-4M
              [ATTACH]35882[/ATTACH]
              Originally posted by JimmyRep View Post
              Yeah, only the Rangers, the majority didn't see it at all but they did got it in the last years when it so happens Congress cut support. Got new rifle and new tanks but no ammo and no fuel. In the end they ran away.
              I was consistent and did not change what I said. I only didn't go into the details at first until you brought up the details.
              So you are nitpicking on the undetailed part.


              Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
              Okay, those are your words, not mine.

              I refuted that statement as incorrect. I showed you where the US did in fact provide frontline equipment, the exact same equipment used by US forces as well as many of our Allies around the globe, to the ARVN beginning in 1966.

              I had a source which said they got F-4s and you have a sourve which said they did not.

              Okay....I will conceed you 1 weapon system which we did not give them. We still provided billions of dollars of equipment...not to mention tens of thousands of lives.

              A case in point on a specific item which we provided. The basic jungle boot worn by the US in Viet Nam was a great boot. The problem was they tended to be made in sizes too large for Asians. The solution? In 1970 a US Army Quartermaster captain was pulled out of the I Corps G4 office and sent with multiple pairs of boots to South Korea to meet with 2 Korean shoe manufacturing companies who licensed made the boots for the ARVN. The first contract was for 50,000 boots and was refilled 4 times. All paid for by US dollars. How do I know this? That Captain retired as a lieutenant colonel....and sat in the desk next to me from 1989 to 1992 as an Army civilian here at FT Lee Virginia. He had the photos and souvenirs from his visit and from the ARVN general who thanked him for his efforts on the behalf of the ARVN.

              Now, did the political climate in the US change and support for the war withdrawn? Yup. No argument there.

              But do not try to say the US did not equip the ARVN with inferior equipment than the NVA/VC....because that is a crock of bull.

              Oh, and as for your comments regarding the M1 rifle?

              Remember those 940,000+ M-16s shipped to SE Asia? That meant the MANY US National Guard and Army Reserve units in the US still had M1s well into the 1970s. Just look at what the Guardsmen were using in the photos at Kent State...

              [ATTACH]35921[/ATTACH]
              The question that followed was about the M-16 not being delivered when it was needed but after wards and without ammo.
              You still haven't provided delivery dates to proof me wrong. I on the other hand and showed one report where is mostly says they got excess and leftovers. You can check the other half dozen reports I have but they say more or less the same.

              As to the other stuff I only denied knowledge of the F-4.
              From how I see it I proofed you one item wrong but you didn't proof me anything wrong yet.

              I don't see what National Guards weapons at home have to do with the warzone but...
              from the same document
              In 1969 the Army Weapons Command provided 8,000 M-14
              rifles, with an acquisition cost of about $1 million,
              to the Republic of China as excess that were not in
              excess of DOD requirements at the time of offer or
              at the time of shipment. Similarly, the command
              transferred 300,000 M-l rifles, with an acquisition
              cost of about $28 million, to Korea in 1969 as excess
              that were not in excess of DOD requirements at the
              time of offer or at the time of shipment. In both
              instances the command shipped the rifles to the MAP
              recipients on specific instructions from the Department
              of the Army after the command had stated that
              the rifles were not excess. Although both types of
              rifles are being phased out of the inventory, command
              records showed that a requirement will exist for them
              until they are entirely replaced by the newer M-16
              So they got replace with M-16 by providing Vietnam and Korea.

              Yeah, and I said they were left behinds when the troops retreated in 73'. The same time Congress cut supplies and all.
              So they got weapons but still no ammo and no fuel. So it does proof your point they got all shiny stuff. Happy now?

              Comment


              • #67
                Congress cutting off funding certainly had an effect but not what you alluded to. It gave confidence to Hanoi to start a 2 year campaign and made Saigon lose nerve. Hanoi projected a 2 year campaign. It lasted 60 days. At no time did ARVN ran out of ammo. They gave up two provinces without a fight and when they did put up a fight, ammo shortage was not what done them in.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Before we get any farther, lets get back to the start here.

                  Originally posted by JimmyRep View Post
                  Yep. NATO is unlikely to bomb far beyond the front-lines. It's politically unacceptable, similar to the ROE in the Vietnam war.
                  You may or may not be correct on your prediction, but you are way off on Vietnam ROEs

                  Your next comment was this:

                  Originally posted by JimmyRep View Post
                  You're wrong. Even thought Vietnam got bombed 3.5 times the amount of World War II the bombings didn't hit anything of importance in the North....
                  Among historians the technical term for a statement like this is ‘total bullshit’. I gave a brief response, which you ignored, so here is some more detail.

                  Practically everything of importance in the North was hit during the war, much of it before 1968.

                  During 1965 Operation Rolling Thunder bombed the following:
                  6 power plants; 1 explosives plant; 17% of the DRV’s POL (Petroleum Oil Lubricant) storage facilities; 30 highway & 6 rail bridges; 3 railroad yards (about 10% of rail handling capacity); 2 ports; 12 locomotives, 819 freight cars, 805 trucks, 109 ferries, 750 barges.

                  At this point there were still restrictions on bombing around Hanoi, Haiphong & the Chinese border, but these strikes reached deep into Vietnam proper & caused considerable destruction. Of course, the restrictions existed in part because of a fear of greater Chinese intervention....something that seemed very real barely a decade after the end of the Korean War.

                  During 1966 the campaign expanded. Targets in Hanoi & Haiphong were bombed. By the eld of 1966 the US had bombed:
                  Every known POL site in the country (about 8000 targets, 50% destroyed outright); 9500 water vehicles; 2314 rail vehicles; 4000 motor vehicles; 122 ports; 8300 buildings & more.

                  This was just up to December 1966. So much for ‘nothing of importance’.

                  Originally posted by JimmyRep View Post
                  Yet, they were able to keep going unlike the Nazis.
                  That is because they weren’t fighting the same war Nazi Germany was. In June 1967, after over 2 years of intensive bombing, the CIA concluded that no conceivable bombing campaign could prevent the North from supplying forces in the Sth. At that point the CIA stopped making recommendations on bombing targets. Nth Vietnam could run its war in the Sth on the proverbial smell of an oily rag. All they had to do was keep killing Americans & drawing the thing out. They managed to do this despite the near total destruction of Nth Vietnam's industrial & transport infrastructure.

                  Hanoi & Haiphong were more important but as you say only got serious in the later end when it didn't matter anymore.
                  That isn’t even a little bit close to what I said. It also isn’t factually accurate, as I’ve pointed out above.

                  Outside the first few months of the bombing campaign in Vietnam the ROEs allowed the US to hit deep into Nth Vietnam. If NATO adopts the same rules with Russia the campaign will be wide ranging & very destructive.
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                    ...If NATO adopts the same rules with Russia the campaign will be wide ranging & very destructive.
                    How much ordnance NATO has to hit Russia? I would guess such sparse spaces is very target reach environment.
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by JimmyRep View Post
                      Oh, the SVAF got aircrafts, yes, but just a dozen F-5 only, more A-37 Dragonsflies and the rest all rotors. All countable with your hands. Never heard, they got F-4. Hightly doubt this. Btw. I can't see any of the attachments.
                      This didn't quite pass the smell test, so I did some digging. I swear I saw almost a dozen of the things in just in museums in Vietnam.

                      By 1966 the US had transferred 15 F-5s to the RVN. In early 1973 a further 126 were transferred.

                      F-5 Tigers Over Vietnam - Anthony J. Tambini - Google Books

                      This table shows at least 5 F-5 squadrons operational by 1973, though it could be 7 - I'm not sure if they kept the initial 2 squadrons intact or re-organized. Not sure if I'm counting numbers correctly, but it looks like 80-100 F-5s by some time in 1973 with more planned for delivery.

                      http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a486755.pdf

                      So, by mid 1973 there were more than 10 times the amount of F-5s operational than you seemed to think.

                      As late as April 1975, with combat losses & planes grounded due to parts shortages, there were still 109 operational and the Nth Vietnamese ended up capturing 40ish. Many were flown out of the country right at the end.

                      Northrop F-5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                      sigpic

                      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by JimmyRep View Post
                        The question that followed was about the M-16 not being delivered when it was needed but after wards and without ammo.
                        Again, there was nothing wrong with the M1 carbine. ARVN saw through a lot of successful campagins with that weapon. Ammo shortage was NOT what done ARVN in. Your history is extremely flawed. The M16 was not the saviour weapon you made it out to be. With proper weapons discipline, I take the M1 carbine over the AK47 anyday.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Guys, is this Ukraine situation going to kick start world war 3? Thoughts?
                          Is a conventional world war actually possible, given each side has nukes at their disposal?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Salter View Post
                            Guys, is this Ukraine situation going to kick start world war 3? Thoughts?
                            Is a conventional world war actually possible, given each side has nukes at their disposal?
                            The possibility of war between America, Nato, and Russia depends on the actions taken by the leaders of the great powers, Obama and Europe are unlkely to act in a manner that could trigger a war so the possibility of ww3 depends on how dumb Putin is and Nato's patience with the Russian federation. A coventional war is probably more likely but it is hard to be certain.

                            If Russia were to act quickly and while Nato is distracted they could probably take the Baltics within a week but that would only be possible if they were able to amass troops on the border with those countries without alerting NATO.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by ShiningChinaXZ View Post
                              If Russia were to act quickly and while Nato is distracted they could probably take the Baltics within a week but that would only be possible if they were able to amass troops on the border with those countries without alerting NATO.
                              Not going to happen.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Salter View Post
                                Guys, is this Ukraine situation going to kick start world war 3? Thoughts?
                                Is a conventional world war actually possible, given each side has nukes at their disposal?
                                No one is going to go WW3 for Crimea or even Eastern Ukraine. Russia may be looking at an economic war and a NATO military build up in the Baltic if it goes further thank Crimea in the Ukraine though.

                                Also, consider this, none of Russia's neighbors is happy about this. Not any of its near East allies. Not China, not anybody who borders Russia.

                                Maybe Iran and Syria are happy, but none of Russia's neighbors.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X