The Vietnam bombing campaign.

[Ayahuasca]

Just watched 'The Vietnam War' documentary on Netflix - great show for those who have not seen it.

A pal of mine is a retired US Special Forces colonel who served in Vietnam so I was asking him for his take. One of his jobs was to arrange some of the bombing in Laos. They were not supposed to bomb Laos, so when they had a target that needed seeing to, the only aircraft they were allowed to use were those returning from a mission to North Vietnam with unused bombs. These would be redirected to the Laos target. Interestingly this resulted in a potluck approach -you didn't know whether you would get a B52 or an F4, or which bombs they would be carrying. He told me stories of the wanting to bomb a bridge, only to see the aircraft unload cluster bombs onto it (which had no effect on the bridge), or wanting to bomb a group of troops seen out in the open (perfect for cluster bombs) and had 500lb bombs dropped on them, which buried themselves relatively harmlessly in the soft jungle floor.

Doesn't seem the best way to fight a war.

I suspect some of the 'returning with unused bombs' aircraft never went anywhere near North Vietnam, but he wouldn't admit to that. He said he had a good time though.

[dr_gn]

Found a link to this at lunchtime (on a paper model forum of all places):

http://cademartin.com/overwar/

Interesting to read, makes you want to know more stories from those guys.

[Eric Mc]

They weren't supposed to be bombing Cambodia either - but they did.

[captain_cynic]

Ayahuasca said:

Just watched 'The Vietnam War' documentary on Netflix - great show for those who have not seen it.

Doesn't seem the best way to fight a war.

That sentence sums up the Vietnam war in it's entirety.

The US didn't understand the ethics, desires or needs of the (south) Vietnamese people.
The US supported a corrupt regime which didn't have the support of the people.
The US did not understand it's enemy.
The US had no clearly defined goals and self imposed too many restrictions (like the bombing campaign you spoke of).
The US changed strategies too often, first advisory, then defence, then outright military intervention.
The US was unwilling to commit to a total war (refused to invade North Vietnam).
The war was incredibly unpopular at home.

The US first tried running the war like it was a business and even bought in executives from the Ford motor company to assist, which of course was an utter failure. Then by putting restrictions on operations within North Vietnam meant the NVA and VC could operate with impunity from safe bases.

Sun Tzu had five keys to victory.

Some old Chinese fart said:

The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4)The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

(1)The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

(2)Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons.

(3)Earth comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death.

(4)The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness.

(5)By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure.

Of these, I think the US could at best claim to have had 1 (number 5) in Vietnam.

[Eric Mc]

And have they learned anything in the intervening 43 years since it ended?

[DMN]

This is a war game site, but gives a decent over-view of what was required to get a srike package to target:

http://www.airbattle.co.uk/d_combatants.html

[wombleh]

Eric Mc said:

And have they learned anything in the intervening 43 years since it ended?

Ha that was my thought, many of those comments above apply equally to Afghanistan.

[aeropilot]

wombleh said:

Eric Mc said:

And have they learned anything in the intervening 43 years since it ended?

Ha that was my thought, many of those comments above apply equally to Afghanistan.

If anything there were even more restraints in Iraq/Afgan because of the nature of 24/7 global instant media comms and social media, and politics involved and it was an even more foolish decision to do what Bush did post 9/11 and suck so many others into it as well.
Even more so given what the Soviets discovered to their cost in the 1980's and without hardly any of the 'restrictions' emplaced on the US led coillition forces.

But the septics know best (so they think)

[V8 Fettler]

DMN said:

This is a war game site, but gives a decent over-view of what was required to get a srike package to target:

http://www.airbattle.co.uk/d_combatants.html

F-111s needed far less support.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Indeed, albeit they weren't employed effectively until 1972.

[Ayahuasca]

Eric Mc said:

They weren't supposed to be bombing Cambodia either - but they did.

They were a bit funny in that they complied with the letter of the law, but found sneaky to circumvent the laws.

e.g. "No bombing missions have been sent to Laos" (because they were bombers that had been tasked to North Vietnam and temporarily taken over by the dark side.

"We have no personnel in Laos" - because (according to my buddy) he was flown in and out each day with Air America, and was not allowed to overnight there. Thus, he was not officially there.

[2xChevrons]

Ayahuasca said:

They were a bit funny in that they complied with the letter of the law, but found sneaky to circumvent the laws.

That's been part of the art of war for at least 100 years. Especially the USA and especially in Asia.

They did similar loophole-threading in 1941 when FDR agreed to allow the recruitment of American pilots to the Chinese air force for the American Volunteer Group - the problem being that American neutrality laws made an official mission illegal, plus the need to tread very delicately to avoid provoking Japan or providing a direct cause de guerre.The pilots all 'resigned their comissions' (their letters were immediately filed away, to be ripped up on their return from China) and took employment with the Central Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation as 'consultants', 'instructors' and 'test pilots' while the P-40s acquired by China to be flown by the American pilots were on the CAMCO books as 'advanced trainers'. The pilots travelled to Rangoon on Dutch steamers with passports listing a wide variety of civilian occupations while the aircraft travelled the other way around the world on a Norwegian freighter. None of the AVG members signed onto the Chinese air force - they were civilians working for a civilian company providing services to the Chinese government on a one-year contract. So, as far as the paper trail showed, at no point did any American military personnel ever travel to southeast Asia, none of them joined the Chinese Air Force and none of them flew fighter aircraft against Japan.

[Tango13]

This is worth a read...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flying-Low-B-K-Bryans-ebo...


I've read accounts of a bombing raids where the pilots were micro-manged on live feeds from the Whitehouse in DC about which targets they could attack ffs!!

Another pilot told of bombing a village but being ordered not to bomb the church as they didn't want to upset the locals... The pilots knew there were arms and explosives in the church but orders were orders... until a lucky 'miss' hit the church and levelled the entire village.

[Simpo Two]

In short, if you want to win a war, you have to break rules. 'Cos if you don't, the other guys will.

It's a little scary to imagine how WW2 would have run had every action been scrutinised on social media and undermined by a liberal press backing every side except its own.

[aeropilot]

Simpo Two said:

In short, if you want to win a war, you have to break rules. 'Cos if you don't, the other guys will.

It's a little scary to imagine how WW2 would have run had every action been scrutinised on social media and undermined by a liberal press backing every side except its own.

[Eric Mc]

Except that the press in WW2 more or less agreed with the aims of the Allies in WW2. The press in the 1960s was no more "liberal" than it was in the 1940s. The difference was that the US was very divided on whether they should be involved in a war in South East Asia at all - and this split view was reflected in the way the media of the day reported that war.

You couldn't get a more patriotic American than Walter Cronkite - but he was deeply worried about what America was doing in Vietnam - and this was reflected in the way he reported the news.

[anonymous-user]

aeropilot said:

Simpo Two said:

In short, if you want to win a war, you have to break rules. 'Cos if you don't, the other guys will.

It's a little scary to imagine how WW2 would have run had every action been scrutinised on social media and undermined by a liberal press backing every side except its own.

A more questioning media and public might stop countries stumbling into unjust wars and campaigns with no exit strategy though?

I think a liberal media would have been quite in favour of the UK stopping Hitler and the spread of Nazis and fascists generally. They would have likely questioned the fire bombing of German cities and definitely the dropping of the atom bombs.. Still though it would have been a bit late once it had happened.

The media were certainly in favour of the falklands and gulf war one and gulf war 2, not so much Afghanistan but definitely supported the bombing of Isis in Syria and Iraq. They weren’t that in favour of suez but that was a disaster for the UK.

[Eric Mc]

Some parts of the British press did indeed question aspects of Bomber Command's campaign during World War 2.

[Kccv23highliftcam]

El stovey said:

A more questioning media and public might stop countries stumbling into unjust wars and campaigns with no exit strategy though?



The media were certainly in favour of the falklands and gulf war one and gulf war 2, not so much Afghanistan but definitely supported the bombing of Isis in Syria and Iraq.

What about Libya then? An EU driven clusterfk supported by the political leaders of the western powers vying to outdo each other in a farce for good.

Then the killing started..









The only way is......













BREXIT!!

[Ayahuasca]

Eric Mc said:

Except that the press in WW2 more or less agreed with the aims of the Allies in WW2. The press in the 1960s was no more "liberal" than it was in the 1940s. The difference was that the US was very divided on whether they should be involved in a war in South East Asia at all - and this split view was reflected in the way the media of the day reported that war.

You couldn't get a more patriotic American than Walter Cronkite - but he was deeply worried about what America was doing in Vietnam - and this was reflected in the way he reported the news.

I believe that in the early days opposition to the Vietnam war was muted. It was professional troops doing their jobs.

Opposition increased exponentially in 1969 and the early 1970s - when the Pentagon Papers were released that showed that the politicians had known the war was unwinnable when they first went in, and lied about it, the My Lai Massacre was known about, the Kent State students were shot and college students started to be drafted.

Amazing that more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped on Germany and Japan combined in WWII, and the blighters still would not lie down.