Political Crossfire Forums

hipeter924 · Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 396 Location: Wellington

New Zealand had the best miltary strategy because Australia and America went into Vietnam with guns blazing and with no element of suprise whatsoever. New Zealand troops landed helicopters carefully and quietly and then attacked the Vietnamese and suprised them and stuck fear into them and lost less troops in percentage than Australia and America did. The Vietnamese did not fear America or Australia either and we had the least troops only something like 250-500. If America and Australia had used suprise and guerilla warfare aganist Vietnam like NZ then the Vietnam war would have been won.

Ch33kY · Joined: 21 Sep 2005 Posts: 1281

Great military strategy indeed!

It was so covert that even today we know little of what happened.

:-D:-D

XPhile2868 · Posted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:05 am Post subject:

I studied the Vietnam War in high school for GCSE History (our end of high school exams) and I never even heard of the involvement of NZ forces. Quite an impressive strategy they had from what i've heard.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

They did have a good strategy. America used it to a limited degree with units like force recon and SOG but never widespread. Personally I think we should be using a similar strategy in the War on Terrorism.

bob.appleyard · Joined: 15 Oct 2005 Posts: 7901 Location: Manchestar, innit

TNBiologist wrote: They did have a good strategy. America used it to a limited degree with units like force recon and SOG but never widespread. Personally I think we should be using a similar strategy in the War on Terrorism.

It would appear the most effective course of action to me, but what do I know about the modern world?

Bobicito · Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 274 Location: Ohio

Vietnam could have been solved easily. Nukes! Lots and lots of nukes! haha

Dongfanghong · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 48

Eh, dropping in by helicopter and challenging the Vietnamese to meet you isn't exactly the best idea, *cough* Dien Bien Phu *cough*. The National Liberation Front was a very good force in guerilla warfare. Just as the Cuban Revolution, the Vietnamese and Laotian ones were ones which were flowing in the course of history, if they hadn't happened then, they would have happened eventually. No army can forever stop the wave of Socialism.

AKAMad · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 307 Location: Birmingham

Surely Britain had the best military Strategy in Vietnam ?

Don't get involved in a war you can not win !

Britain wrote the book on defeating communist insurgents in the jungles of South-East Asia. Heard of 'Hearts and Minds' ? It was invented by the British in Malaya.

Vietnam was already lost by the French.

Pelagius · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 890

AKAMad wrote: Surely Britain had the best military Strategy in Vietnam ?

Don't get involved in a war you can not win !

We could have won if the media had not handcuffed the US military...yadda yadda yadda.

I'm with you - the US loss was a foregone conclusion.

hipeter924 · Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 396 Location: Wellington

Britain wrote the book on defeating communist insurgents in the jungles of South-East Asia. Heard of 'Hearts and Minds' ? It was invented by the British in Malaya.

Wrong by 200 years

The Boers in the Boer war infact used Guerilla warfare before Britain

The New Zealand Maori who were isolated form Knowledge form the outside world invented their own version of guerilla warfare.

Secondly New Zealand and Australia were involved in all British wars aganist communism, so that required Knowledge of New Zealand and Australian tactics.

Besides Britain was neither wanted by the United States, New Zealand and Australia or even capable after its failure in the Suez Crisis.

hipeter924 · Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 396 Location: Wellington

In fact the problem was not numbers but tactics and corruption that led to the losing of the war so in fact to say that any more troops in Vietnam would have won it is wrong.

One example is how the United States trusted in Vietnamese generals that
were secretly working for the North Vietnamese.

Russian spies were also feeding information in secret from the United States goverrnment to the North Vietnamese.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 9028 Location: Petah Tikva

Meh the Americans were a few years away from victory by sheer mathimatical conclusion.

Ch33kY · Joined: 21 Sep 2005 Posts: 1281

superskippy wrote: Meh the Americans were a few years away from victory by sheer mathimatical conclusion.

I disagree. While they have had much practice, the Americans still haven't perfected Genocide.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 9028 Location: Petah Tikva

Hmm? North Vietnam had 1.1 million war dead, 2-4 million dead civilians, and another 2-5 million wounded combatants and both non combatants. Out of a total North Vietnamese population of around 20 million thats close to 10 million people taken out of a recruiting pool if you take the highest statistics about 50% of the population affected. Even if you go lower you still have upwards of 25% of their population taken out of a pool of possible fighters.

They were getting butchered.

Bobicito · Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 274 Location: Ohio

The US was to cocky when they went into Vietnam. They underestemated the Vietnamese so much it wasn't even funny. The tunnel rats were probably the only ones who were scared to do there jobs. American troops thought they were superior to the Vietnamese.

XiangYu · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3956 Location: US

Huh? New Zealanders were in Vietnam??!!

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 9028 Location: Petah Tikva

Bobicito wrote: The US was to cocky when they went into Vietnam. They underestemated the Vietnamese so much it wasn't even funny. The tunnel rats were probably the only ones who were scared to do there jobs. American troops thought they were superior to the Vietnamese.

Which in terms of military capacity they were. Suffering 50,000 losses while inflicting over 1,200,000 enemy deaths around 1/20 of the enemy population is no mean feat. It was America's lack of willpower to stay the course and finish the job which would have ended in a few years because of the sheer weight of casualties being inflicted.

The total toll upon the North Vietnames population falls to 25%-50% unable to bear arms by the end of war due to death or wounds. When taking refugees into account this number can grow or simply substantiate the casualty total.

The Americans came close to winning and in the process they butchered a nation. In terms of military prowess the Vietnames didnt have a scratch in the Americans.

XiangYu · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3956 Location: US

superskippy wrote: Bobicito wrote: The US was to cocky when they went into Vietnam. They underestemated the Vietnamese so much it wasn't even funny. The tunnel rats were probably the only ones who were scared to do there jobs. American troops thought they were superior to the Vietnamese.

Which in terms of military capacity they were. Suffering 50,000 losses while inflicting over 1,200,000 enemy deaths around 1/20 of the enemy population is no mean feat. It was America's lack of willpower to stay the course and finish the job which would have ended in a few years because of the sheer weight of casualties being inflicted.

The total toll upon the North Vietnames population falls to 25%-50% unable to bear arms by the end of war due to death or wounds. When taking refugees into account this number can grow or simply substantiate the casualty total.

The Americans came close to winning and in the process they butchered a nation. In terms of military prowess the Vietnames didnt have a scratch in the Americans. That is a pretty accurate way to look at it Skippy. However, I do give the N. V. credit, which could barely scrounge together enough guns for fighting, for inflicting the kind of damage that they did.

AKAMad · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 307 Location: Birmingham

You can trace the origin of Guerrilla warfare and counter-guerrilla warfare back to the Romans at least.

President Johnson did request British assistance, but PM Wilson turned him down, the war was obviously un-winnable by then. Johnson was a lot more generous with this refusal than Bush has been with the French.

What made Commonwealth troops successful in Malaya was :-
They were trained to live in the jungle for weeks at a time, just like the enemy. Not just so-called special forces, but ordinary conscript infantry.

Excellent field-craft, in Vietnam 95% of the time the Viet-Cong ambushed the Americans, they could hear them coming. British soldiers are trained to quietly urinate with their penis in contact with the ground !!

None of this Tour-of-Duty, you are there to do a job and you go home when the job is done.

They ran a proper Hearts and Minds campaign. In short they gave the locals a future worth fighting for, not some bunch of corrupt generals and sadistic torturers.

Also worth looking at is the campaign in Oman in the 1970's. 100 men prevented the Straits of Hormuz, the shipping lane for a fifth of the world's oil, from coming under communist control.

hipeter924 · Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 396 Location: Wellington

In Answer to the quote Quote: Eh, dropping in by helicopter and challenging the Vietnamese to meet you isn't exactly the best idea, *cough* Dien Bien Phu *cough*. The National Liberation Front was a very good force in guerilla warfare. Just as the Cuban Revolution, the Vietnamese and Laotian ones were ones which were flowing in the course of history, if they hadn't happened then, they would have happened eventually. No army can forever stop the wave of Socialism.

Actually if you were to fight a war in any country aganist socialism the people in a socialist country would rebel if they could gain Democracy and Capitalism and also to have their human rights allowed and be free of a dictatorship. Also what is termed socialism will eventually come to and end just like the oppressive monarchy of France in the 1700s, reforms are already taking shape in what are termed socilaist countries and eventually rebellion of the population and the miltary will take place (even if it takes 100 or 200 years) causing socialist countries to change to Capitalism and Democracy.

Socialism cannot also run efficently without democratic elections as well as governments stay in power with no opposition indefiently no matter how badly a particular government may run a country.