Originally posted by JimmyRep
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Can the Baltic Republics, now members of NATO, be defended against Russian invasion?
Collapse
X
-
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
-
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
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.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostSo 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.
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostThere 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 PostYeah, 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.
So you are nitpicking on the undetailed part.
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostOkay, 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]
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
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
-
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
-
Before we get any farther, lets get back to the start here.
Originally posted by JimmyRep View PostYep. NATO is unlikely to bomb far beyond the front-lines. It's politically unacceptable, similar to the ROE in the Vietnam war.
Your next comment was this:
Originally posted by JimmyRep View PostYou'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....
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 PostYet, they were able to keep going unlike the Nazis.
Hanoi & Haiphong were more important but as you say only got serious in the later end when it didn't matter anymore.
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
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View Post...If NATO adopts the same rules with Russia the campaign will be wide ranging & very destructive.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimmyRep View PostOh, 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.
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 encyclopediasigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimmyRep View PostThe question that followed was about the M-16 not being delivered when it was needed but after wards and without ammo.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Salter View PostGuys, 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?
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
-
Originally posted by ShiningChinaXZ View PostIf 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
-
Originally posted by Salter View PostGuys, 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?
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
Comment