Split some posts from bomb debate about the Vietnam War. Thought it would be nice to have an off topic section on this.
Just so you know napalm was developed and used during WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm
I agree with you but just an FYI 
Ok thanks for that,
was juts suggesting the airpower used in Vietnam was not comparable to the air power in the pacific theatre. Troops on the ground would be needed in both cases.
Interesting fact. The Americans dropped more bombs in Vietnam than we did in all of WW2. :shock:
Plus it was a good thing that the Japanese didnt know that we only had 2 bombs to drop on them. Would have taken a couple of more months to make more.
Few another facts.
Japan lost during WWII about 2.5 mln people (is it about 3% from whole populaton).
USA lost during WWII about 410 000 people (is it about 0.3% from whole population)
During Vietanam war around 2.5 (From 1.5 to 3 mil.) millions Vietnameses was killed (military and civilians both), 56 226 americans was KIA and MIAā¦ (by wikipedia.com)
Vietnam War looks more successfulā¦ Same damage, but less casualties from USA side.
[quote=āPreatorianā]
Few another facts.
Japan lost during WWII about 2.5 mln people (is it about 3% from whole populaton).
USA lost during WWII about 410 000 people (is it about 0.3% from whole population)
During Vietanam war around 2.5 (From 1.5 to 3 mil.) millions Vietnameses was killed (military and civilians both), 56 226 americans was KIA and MIAā¦ (by wikipedia.com)
Vietnam War looks more successfulā¦ Same damage, but less casualties from USA side.[/quote]
Am I wrong? but I thought the U.S didnt exactly āWin the Warā they managed to keep half of Vietnamn from being Communists but the other half could not be taken. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Nope. You right.
At my look USA donāt loose this war exactly, but i canāt say that USA win this war too.
Iām a bit mad about Vietnam-War history - and i sure to unable lose whole that damned war without any losed battle-grunds. It was not militery loosed war for USA, it was political loose. No one can win a war fightng at side who donāt really need win.
In right terms - South Vietnam loosed that war completly. By a lot of reasons. And USA do help for helpless part of country and tried fight against commy without mention one thing - for Vetnam wasnāt matter - communism or capitalismā¦ they really fight against alliens, without distinction - americans, frenchā¦ they just need clear heās country from alliens. Commys helped them manage with this, and price was - communism. They stil pay for it.
It biggest difference between Korean war and Vietnam war - south koreans fight against commys and China, and South Vietnam fight againstā¦ not sure, i guess they just tried hold preferable own goverment.
By the way - send when an opportunity occurs my great respect to your frends, who fight in Vietnam.
Getting a bit off topic
But it is my understanding that the US(and allies) where just helping South Vietnam keep from being overrun by the commyās. So this war was very different from the Korean War in which we were allowed to go in to North Korean without a problem. As far as I know there werent any major combat operations in North Veitnam. Now we did bomb it and send special forces into just about every part in that region. But there was not stalled push on Hanoi. There could be no āgreat landing at Inchon.ā So very confusing. I think this was what the major problem was is that we spent years over there and lost 58,000 lives just because Washington had this domino theory on Communism. They felt if it spread there it would keep spreading. This was not the case.
Let me know if you all want to discuss this further and ill split these posts off.
With my great pleasure i will discuss that !
With my great pleasure i will discuss that ![/quote]
Wish Granted 
o lord no, another place for flame battlefield :?
Who will flame there ?
Iām absolytely on Americanās side in this case.
what i know about vietiam war is, americans really like to use helicopters to transport soldiers, when the soldiers have done their objective, they go back to the helicopters to carry them back to base, slowly the vietiam has learn from that and follow the amerians back to the helicopters site for close combat, air supeiority for the americans would be useless because the splash damage from air attack would just hurt americans soldiers as well
There will be no flame war or you will have to deal withā¦
ARNULD aka the Govenor of Californya. 
In sovier era i was sure by our propaganda - Vietnam was just a country, where american army wentā¦
After time i was surprised - all Vietnam hystory just hystory of war with occupants, japans in WWII, frenchs befro war and after war tooā¦
Somebody hawe heard about battle near Dien Bien Phu in 1954 ?
That story got own pre-storyā¦
Japan occupated Vietnam during WWII by reason āAsia for asiansā - in this time Vietnam was french colony. But japans not better that frenches, nipps just destroed whole economical basement of Vetnam and in 1944-1945 ithere were great starvation, worth for Vietnam about 2 millions lives.
During war vietnamese nationalistic coalition under local commys manadgement (Viet Min) fight with japans.
USA Office of Strategic Services, OSS have a contacts with Viet Min (VM) and cooperated with VM. USA side helps to VM by weapons and intelligence information and VM helps to USA with intelligence information from own side and helps to US AF pilots surivie in jungle if pilots was battered over Vietnam.
After war amercans become gteatest frends to all vietnameses - 'cos USA helped manadge with both occupants - France and Japan.
In 2 september 1945 Ho Chi Minh proclaim new country - Democratic Republic of Vetnamā¦
Yeah, Ho was commy and Ho was nationalist (he really belive that was inseparability things), but Ho was pragmatic as well and was ready to cooperate with any country wich will helpāem fight for independance of Vietnam. In 1945 in heās eyes that country could be only USAā¦
But shit happend.
Big War ended, but Cold War started and USA needed make in Europe anty-communistic coalition. USA needed support of France in Europe.
So, Truman decided allow France occupate Vietnam againā¦
With support of US MC in Vietnam from France was delivered about 13 000 french troopsā¦ a lot of US marines was against it and sended fwole lot of letters to Truman, but USA officially accepted Vietnam as french colonyā¦ it was direct treachery for Ho Chi Minh and whole vietnamese people.
France start war against VM and asked to help with it USAā¦ USA does not help, but later, in 1950 weapons from USA started provided to France. Why USA help France ? Just because France show heās colonial war as great fight aganst communism.
In China in 1949 Mao Zedong wins civilian war (with support from USSR side) against Chiang Kai-shek (supported from USA)ā¦ it was a start of great panicā¦
USA support rise to 80% from all war-spends of France in Vietnam. USA become a enemy of Vietnam in eyes of vietnamesesā¦
In 1954 near Dien Bien Phu VM beat out all shit from french army and soon Frace run out from Vietnam, in 7 may 1954ā¦
In 8 may 1954 9 countryes representatives meet in Jeneva and get an agreement that Vietnam should be splitted by 17 parallelā¦
I think Praetorian has a point in that the USA did achieve a significant level of tactical success in the Vietnam war, but this does not mean that they won. War is essentially a political act, as Clausewitz put it; āwar is a continuation of policy by other meansā. The policy objective of the US was to prevent South Vietnam from becoming a communist country, and this it failed to do. Even during the US presence in Vietnam, massive swathes of the south vietnamese countryside were under effective communist control; yes, the communists melted away when the troops arrived in an area, but the rest of the time, they were there, running schools, indoctrinating peasants and even collecting taxes! IMHO the failure of the US was to appreciate that it was a very political war; both sides wanted control of the vietnamese countryside and its inhabitants, but in order to gain that kind of control you really need to gain the trust and loyalty of the civilian population; and this is where the US failed. They also failed to stop the Communists from gaining said trust and loyalty from much of the population.
A big part of the problem seems to have been that the Diem (and subsquent) regimes that the US were supporting did not have the support and resources they claimed to.
I am by no means trying to insult the GIās who fought there, but I feel they were let down by there high command and political masters, who did not appreciate what they were getting into.
Ohā¦ seem like americans finally upgraded Terminatorās firmwareā¦ :lol:
I like that man. Good for Californya.
I agree with your point of view and whole text of your postā¦ USA lost this war as political act.
The US did most of the fighting but along with U.S. troops, you had the other members of SEATO (treaty that called for defense of other members in Asia), including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Phillipines, and Thailand. South Korea had the second largest contingent of āalliedā troops (approx. 50,000), followed by Australia (approx. 7,000). Of course, you also had the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN).
On the other side, you had North Vietnam (with military aid & advisors from Soviet Union and China).
Also sucked into the larger conflit was Cambodia and Laos. (both countries had their own civil wars going on).
Of course, prior to U.S. involvement, France was fighting the communist rebels in Vietnam (their former colony).
Just some interesting info about the āother sideāā¦
This man was the commander that defeated the French at Dein Bein Phu and led the assualt/siege against the Americans at Khe Sahn.
Vo Nguyen Giap
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/giap.html
Site looks a bit shady but the info is good.
Good links - official web site of Lt. Gen HAL MOORE (USA-ret.) and JOE GALLOWAY.
Site dedicated to La Drang Valley battle.
http://www.lzxray.com/