The Vietnam war BBC4
Discussion
The US pilots could have had significantly reduced casualties if they hadn't been constrained by very tight rules of engagement and micromanagement by military and political advisers 10,000 miles away.
Yes, there has to be some restriction so the military don't go full nuclear in the first week they are there, but it's just as mad for fighter pilots to report back that a SAM installation is being built and it is ignored by the planners who continue to route the flight path over it until - inevitably - it comes online and engages. Certainly for the first years of the war the fighter bomber pilots couldn't engage a SAM site until the missiles were locked on to them! Linebacker II was another good example of how not to do it and American losses could have been significantly reduced with better management and less interference.
The whole thing was just a sorry mess whichever way you look at it.
Yes, there has to be some restriction so the military don't go full nuclear in the first week they are there, but it's just as mad for fighter pilots to report back that a SAM installation is being built and it is ignored by the planners who continue to route the flight path over it until - inevitably - it comes online and engages. Certainly for the first years of the war the fighter bomber pilots couldn't engage a SAM site until the missiles were locked on to them! Linebacker II was another good example of how not to do it and American losses could have been significantly reduced with better management and less interference.
The whole thing was just a sorry mess whichever way you look at it.
Absolutely.
It was very frustrating for US Air Force and US Navy and Marine pilots. They felt they were putting their lives on the line taking massive risks and often whatever tactical or strategic advantages they might make one day would be thrown away the next. And certainly, if you are taking risks with your life and seeing your buddies go down over hostile territory, that must be absolutely morale draining.
There is a massive "however", however. And that is the politicians in Washington were well aware of the Cold War context in which they were conducting this military operation. The very last thing they wanted to do was trigger nuclear Armageddon (the big restraint of the Cold War era and still a factor today). They could not just bomb any and every target they would like to at any given time. The bombing strategies conducted were supposed to put pressure on the North Vietnamese to enter meaningful negotiations and reach a settlement that would ensure the survival of South Vietnam as a separate and independent (i.e. non Communist) state.
This thinking was fundamentally flawed. The North Vietnamese were not going to alter their objectives because of American's inconsistent bombing policies.
I'm currently reading "100 Missions North" by Brigadier General Ken Bell. Bell was an F-105 Thunderchief pilot based in Thailand and conducted (as the book says) over 100 missions into North Vietnam. The F-105s suffered the highest loss rate of US front line aircraft with over 300 lost on operations. It was a tough time. He actually flew well over 100 missions because some of the bombing raids he flew on were against the Pathet Lao in Laos. Officially, the US was not engaged in a war in Laos so the pilots were not allowed count those missions in their mission tally. Effectively, it was an illegal campaign - as was the bombing campaign in Cambodia later in the war.
It was very frustrating for US Air Force and US Navy and Marine pilots. They felt they were putting their lives on the line taking massive risks and often whatever tactical or strategic advantages they might make one day would be thrown away the next. And certainly, if you are taking risks with your life and seeing your buddies go down over hostile territory, that must be absolutely morale draining.
There is a massive "however", however. And that is the politicians in Washington were well aware of the Cold War context in which they were conducting this military operation. The very last thing they wanted to do was trigger nuclear Armageddon (the big restraint of the Cold War era and still a factor today). They could not just bomb any and every target they would like to at any given time. The bombing strategies conducted were supposed to put pressure on the North Vietnamese to enter meaningful negotiations and reach a settlement that would ensure the survival of South Vietnam as a separate and independent (i.e. non Communist) state.
This thinking was fundamentally flawed. The North Vietnamese were not going to alter their objectives because of American's inconsistent bombing policies.
I'm currently reading "100 Missions North" by Brigadier General Ken Bell. Bell was an F-105 Thunderchief pilot based in Thailand and conducted (as the book says) over 100 missions into North Vietnam. The F-105s suffered the highest loss rate of US front line aircraft with over 300 lost on operations. It was a tough time. He actually flew well over 100 missions because some of the bombing raids he flew on were against the Pathet Lao in Laos. Officially, the US was not engaged in a war in Laos so the pilots were not allowed count those missions in their mission tally. Effectively, it was an illegal campaign - as was the bombing campaign in Cambodia later in the war.
V8 Fettler said:
Powerful television, should be required viewing for all, particularly politicians.
Yes - to demonstrate how the world isn't divided between good guys and bad guys.Some great interviews. The guy that said how you have to stop considering the enemy as "humans", how you have to become "racist" and the one that said that being at home on leave and deciding whether to go back and fight again was tougher than actually being there.
Again, referring to Bell's book - half way through his combat tour, he was ordered back to the US so that he could update Republic Aviation and US Air Force maintenance people on some of the in-field modifications they were making to the F-105 and to get retrospective approval for these modifications.
He actually tried to get out of having to go back Stateside because he knew that once he returned home, there was a serious likelihood that he could lose motivation regarding his mission in Vietnam. He also decided not to try and visit his parents whilst home as that would make matters worse. In the end, he had to do as he was ordered but he found it a real struggle.
He actually tried to get out of having to go back Stateside because he knew that once he returned home, there was a serious likelihood that he could lose motivation regarding his mission in Vietnam. He also decided not to try and visit his parents whilst home as that would make matters worse. In the end, he had to do as he was ordered but he found it a real struggle.
RicksAlfas said:
The US pilots could have had significantly reduced casualties if they hadn't been constrained by very tight rules of engagement and micromanagement by military and political advisers 10,000 miles away.
Yes, there has to be some restriction so the military don't go full nuclear in the first week they are there, but it's just as mad for fighter pilots to report back that a SAM installation is being built and it is ignored by the planners who continue to route the flight path over it until - inevitably - it comes online and engages. Certainly for the first years of the war the fighter bomber pilots couldn't engage a SAM site until the missiles were locked on to them! Linebacker II was another good example of how not to do it and American losses could have been significantly reduced with better management and less interference.
The whole thing was just a sorry mess whichever way you look at it.
Earlier availability of reliable F-111s would probably have had the biggest impact on losses and effectiveness. Yes, there has to be some restriction so the military don't go full nuclear in the first week they are there, but it's just as mad for fighter pilots to report back that a SAM installation is being built and it is ignored by the planners who continue to route the flight path over it until - inevitably - it comes online and engages. Certainly for the first years of the war the fighter bomber pilots couldn't engage a SAM site until the missiles were locked on to them! Linebacker II was another good example of how not to do it and American losses could have been significantly reduced with better management and less interference.
The whole thing was just a sorry mess whichever way you look at it.
Eric Mc said:
jsf said:
The bare faced lies of the politicians is pretty shocking, it must have felt really bad for US citizens when that was realised with the press releasing the leaked documents. America changed then with regards to how they viewed their Presidents, to a certain extent part of the American dream died with it.
What a waste of life that war was.
In the end, Vietnam got what most of its people really wanted - an independent and united country.What a waste of life that war was.
So, even though the Vietnam War was truly awful, was it a waste as far as the Vietnamese are concerned?
Of course it was a waste, without American involvement (and Presidential egos) the war would have ended years (probably decades) earlier with a united Vietnam...
M
zygalski said:
Some frankly bizarre comments in this thread.
The entire war was a sham from the very beginning; at least America's part in it.
Agreed.The entire war was a sham from the very beginning; at least America's part in it.
It was America’s war on the spread of Communism. What the hell another countries peoples way of life has to do with the Americans is beyond me but then thats Imperialism for you albeit disguised as a righteous crusade.
gadgetmac said:
zygalski said:
Some frankly bizarre comments in this thread.
The entire war was a sham from the very beginning; at least America's part in it.
Agreed.The entire war was a sham from the very beginning; at least America's part in it.
It was America’s war on the spread of Communism. What the hell another countries peoples way of life has to do with the Americans is beyond me but then thats Imperialism for you albeit disguised as a righteous crusade.
marcosgt said:
Means justifies any end?
Of course it was a waste, without American involvement (and Presidential egos) the war would have ended years (probably decades) earlier with a united Vietnam...
M
All wars are wasteful for that matter. Vietnam was no more wasteful on that score. The Americans just added an extension to what had been on ongoing conflict that had started in the 1920s/30s (the struggle for Vietnamese independence).Of course it was a waste, without American involvement (and Presidential egos) the war would have ended years (probably decades) earlier with a united Vietnam...
M
Post World War 2, the Americans were genuinely concerned (as was most of the "free world") about the spread of Communism. Looking back on those days from a distance we can appreciate now that these might have been misguided views - but in an era that had seen the Berlin Airlift, the Korean War, the suppression of the Hungarian uprising, the erection of the Berlin Wall etc etc, it was hard not to see that Communism had ambitions to spread its influence around the globe. Indeed, Communist leaders like Kruschev and Mao openly advocated that this was their policy.
What was not appreciated was that nationalist movements latched on to Communism, not because they held strong socialist ambitions, but because they wanted liberation from Western Colonialism. The fact that today countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and even China are Communist in name only indicates this.
Eric Mc said:
The fact that today countries like .......and even China are Communist in name only indicates this.
Mmmmmm. Not sure on that, but that's another topic.Great series, on No 6 right now and the major attack on Tet during the 'Agreed Truce' by the VC.
Jeeez, the fighting is brutal, and what strikes me is how organised the VC are for what are meant to be a 'guerilla' force.
V8 Fettler said:
gadgetmac said:
zygalski said:
Some frankly bizarre comments in this thread.
The entire war was a sham from the very beginning; at least America's part in it.
Agreed.The entire war was a sham from the very beginning; at least America's part in it.
It was America’s war on the spread of Communism. What the hell another countries peoples way of life has to do with the Americans is beyond me but then thats Imperialism for you albeit disguised as a righteous crusade.
gadgetmac said:
V8 Fettler said:
gadgetmac said:
zygalski said:
Some frankly bizarre comments in this thread.
The entire war was a sham from the very beginning; at least America's part in it.
Agreed.The entire war was a sham from the very beginning; at least America's part in it.
It was America’s war on the spread of Communism. What the hell another countries peoples way of life has to do with the Americans is beyond me but then thats Imperialism for you albeit disguised as a righteous crusade.
I wouldn't want to turn this thread into a USA bashing thread.
America, whether it liked it or not, ended World War 2 as the main superpower and, whether WE like it or not, was primarily responsible for ensuring two terrible dictatorships did not end up dominating large parts of the globe. As we all know, two OTHER dictatorships (the Soviet Union and China) ended up dominating large parts of the globe instead.
Because of the way things turned out, the US found itself in the position of the world's policeman - a position it still assumes on to itself today - although whether that is a correct position to take now is open to question.
The Vietnam War of 1964 to 1975 was the result of that view. I don't think for one moment that the US really wanted to jump into South East Asia regional conflicts - but it felt it had to. We know now that it almost definitely shouldn't have. But back in 1962/63 that was not so obvious.,
America, whether it liked it or not, ended World War 2 as the main superpower and, whether WE like it or not, was primarily responsible for ensuring two terrible dictatorships did not end up dominating large parts of the globe. As we all know, two OTHER dictatorships (the Soviet Union and China) ended up dominating large parts of the globe instead.
Because of the way things turned out, the US found itself in the position of the world's policeman - a position it still assumes on to itself today - although whether that is a correct position to take now is open to question.
The Vietnam War of 1964 to 1975 was the result of that view. I don't think for one moment that the US really wanted to jump into South East Asia regional conflicts - but it felt it had to. We know now that it almost definitely shouldn't have. But back in 1962/63 that was not so obvious.,
V8 Fettler said:
See British requests for US support during WW1 and WW2. For Afghanistan see attack on World Trade Centre, for Iraq see invasion of Kuwait, for North Korea see threat of communism.
So the WTC was down to the Afghans? The Iraq war (2) was to defend the USA? Communism in North Korea is likewise a threat to the USA?Using those as yardsticks both Russia and China are much bigger threats to the USA.
Strange that no other countries feel threatened enough by these other smaller countries that they invade them.
gadgetmac said:
So the WTC was down to the Afghans? The Iraq war (2) was to defend the USA? Communism in North Korea is likewise a threat to the USA?
Using those as yardsticks both Russia and China are much bigger threats to the USA.
Strange that no other countries feel threatened enough by these other smaller countries that they invade them.
Can we keep to the topic of the Vietnam War?Using those as yardsticks both Russia and China are much bigger threats to the USA.
Strange that no other countries feel threatened enough by these other smaller countries that they invade them.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff