Soviet guns in Afghanistan (interview)

**Bill** · 30 Aug 05,, 01:59

"there was not point to be combat experienced in open and plain desert if you are destroyed from air bombing."

The vast majority of Iraqi tanks killed during ODS were killed by other tanks.

"How about comparign North and South Vietnam - those are qutie comparable.... except for South Vietnam army did not want to fight and fled."

If troung sees that comment you're going to get bombarded with accounts of ARVN heroism under fire.

LOL...

**leib10** · 30 Aug 05,, 03:47

Haha... it was a pretty common consensus among US soldiers that they were allied with the wrong Vietnamese. The ARVN has got to be one of the most (generally) inefficient organizations in military history.

**troung** · 30 Aug 05,, 06:00

Haha... it was a pretty common consensus among US soldiers that they were allied with the wrong Vietnamese. The ARVN has got to be one of the most (generally) inefficient organizations in military history.

Normally I would break out the facts and records of varous ARVN units but this time I will just laugh about the MSM putting forth a bad story and catching another goomba...

How about comparign North and South Vietnam - those are qutie comparable.... except for South Vietnam army did not want to fight and fled.

See above...

**Garry** · 30 Aug 05,, 11:55

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The vast majority of Iraqi tanks killed during ODS were killed by other tanks.

I have no much knowledge here but I remember an argument in one of the forus where clearly stated that A-10 and Longbow have destroyed almost 80% of all Iraqi tanks in ODS.... I also remember that there were only several direct engagements with Iraqi tanks in Kuwait by US tank force.

not counting for a thousand of them which were left by enemy on field and roads as their crews realized that attempts to hide from aerial strikes are worthless....

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

If troung sees that comment you're going to get bombarded with accounts of ARVN heroism under fire

but how come that South Vietnam fell in less than 2 weeks? Does this mean that Northern Vietnam was armed better? Then we come to a amrs quality issue.

the fact that much of Sourth Vietnam army fled is not a prove that they were bad soldiers... it is just that they felt that fighting further was pointless...... Same as Iraqi army in Tikrit in 2003

**sniperdude411** · 30 Aug 05,, 17:44

"but how come that South Vietnam fell in less than 2 weeks? Does this mean that Northern Vietnam was armed better? Then we come to a amrs quality issue. "

Ooo, I love those debates!

**Bill** · 30 Aug 05,, 20:18

Because the US congress cut ALL military aid to S.Vietnam, that's why it fell in two weeks.

**Bluesman** · 30 Aug 05,, 21:35

Dead right. While we were in there, the ARVN were givin' it to 'em.

We left - dishonorably - and it was Gotterdammerung.

**leib10** · 31 Aug 05,, 00:49

But while we were there the ARVN put up a poor showing. Granted, there were times when they performed well, but for the most part they were ineffective compared to the Americans or the NVA. Corruption might have had a role in this.

**TopHatter** · 31 Aug 05,, 00:53

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

But while we were there the ARVN put up a poor showing. Granted, there were times when they performed well, but for the most part they were ineffective compared to the Americans or the NVA. Corruption might have had a role in this.

Not to mention little love for whatever government was occupying Saigon any particular week.
The VC and NVA were motivated.

"Got some ARVN rifles....never been fired, only been dropped once...."

**leib10** · 31 Aug 05,, 00:58

Exactly. The ARVN soldiers had little love or support for the regime they were fighting for and I'm sure that few of them wanted to sacrifice their lives for it.

**troung** · 31 Aug 05,, 03:53

but how come that South Vietnam fell in less than 2 weeks? Does this mean that Northern Vietnam was armed better?

2 weeks? Kind of leaves out the 1974 fighting....

Exactly. The ARVN soldiers had little love or support for the regime they were fighting for and I'm sure that few of them wanted to sacrifice their lives for it.

The fact desertions dropped during the 1974 proves that wrong...

More MSM spin...

**leib10** · 31 Aug 05,, 03:55

That could be because there were hardly any soldiers left that hadn't deserted by that time. Or maybe desertions weren't reported.

**troung** · 31 Aug 05,, 04:18

Take a nap...

**TopHatter** · 31 Aug 05,, 04:19

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

That could be because there were hardly any soldiers left that hadn't deserted by that time. Or maybe desertions weren't reported.

In addition, I think the average South Vietnamese finally figured out what was to come once the Americans were completely gone.
They surely had tales aplenty from relatives in and from the North, and also news about what a wonderful place North Korea and the People's Republic of China had become.
Not hard to figure out why desertions dropped. It was no longer going to be a nasty guerilla war, but a campaign of conquest and domination that made the ineffectual and corrupt Southern governments look like Paradise.

The South Koreans by contrast, were faced with total annihilation from the very beginning.