So I was just minding my own business, reading some Wikipedia article and it told me that roughly 58000 US boys died in 'Nam.What the fuck?And the war wasn't even won, the northern Vietcong took over all of the country including the South and kicked our boys out.Question:> How did this happen?> Why did we not win?> Whats going on with the Vietcong, how hardcore were they?> We had more funding and way more weapon, but we lost. Why?I just dont get it boys, I really dont.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#United_States_armed_forces
go to sleep arma
>>56160219>lostImplying that the VC achieved any significant victory or destruction of the US forces, even with the support of China and the Soviet Union they where decimated.To win vietnam you have to bomb all SEA.
>>56160281This, even with the brutal tactics and apathy of human life by the Chinese, even they failed. To conquer Vietnam you either need to use cunning like the French, or just glass the whole area and those that even give a small handout to the vietkangs
>>56160281yes they archived their one and only goal: Taking over Vietnam.And the US did not meet their single goal: Having the NVA not taking over.Clear cut case
flags on /k/ when?
>>56160312proxies do exist, flag doesn't mean anything Also you need to win the argument regardless of OP nationality
>>56160310They abandoned SV, but in exchange BTFO all communist dictatorships in the next 25 years. Look at the arms trade evolution since the 60s, the commies lost 99% by the 90s, all except Syria and Iran.
I'm more amazed by Russia's utter failures in Ukraine war of 2022 and the fact that their casualties have surpassed Vietnam and GWOT casualties combined. These people then assumed...that they can take on NATO.
>>56160330sound a bit like copium.Why did we not win?Kicking THEM out of Vietnam
>>56160333trying to deflect to Ukraine, huh?Yeah make your own thread, I might even join
>>56160326>winning an argument on /k/if you were arguing with someone on this website about whether or not the sky is blue you could post a picture of the sky and they would try to gaslight you into thinking you're colorblind
>>56160341Because you can't get approbation in the congress to do a true genocide. You don't need win all the theaters to win the cold war.
>>56160355This is a military board and you're off topic, go back to /pol/.
>>56160360obviously true but you know you won and the wild spasms of cope are sweet to drink.
>>56160362Eww you tried genocide with mass indiscriminate carpet bombing and various chemical agents, Napalm.You lost regardless
>>56160219No Ivan, explaining in depth why the US lost Vietnam isn’t gonna help you win Ukraine
>>56160326Obviously not a genuine thread, several variations have been coming up latelyJust read itIt's so obvious
>>56160371> offtopiccutest cope so farYou have no argument so you resort to censorship
>>56160412how? He is just citing Wikipedia basically and /k/ runs for the hills?Instead of discussing why a war was lost
>>56160401If you want to see a commie massacre then wait 2 months and see people dying and fleeing in boats to their death. Look Cambodia, your heaven.
>>56160441Sure the commies aren't nice, I do agree.I still dont see why we lost. What was the fucking reason?`
>>56160464Go above and read, you don't need to do the commie-thing of genocide. You can deal with a country with other methods. Vietnam distanced itself of China and is pretty much isolated of the Soviet Union/Russia meanwhile is a mostly free trade country. SV and NV were a shithole.The massacre was enough to completely deplete the SEA of its military power after the defeat of France, Vietnam was a sink for the commie imperialism of SEA.
>>56160219You lost Kherson HAHAHAHA
>>56160642thanks for the bump
>>56160526>The massacre was enough to completely deplete the SEA of its military power after the defeat of France, Vietnam was a sink for the commie imperialism of SEA.whatever happend after Vietnam was lost I dont care, beyond the scope of this thread.I am asking why we lost we we should have won?We had many advantages
>>56160219ban evasion huh
> How did this happen?Vietnam was a different ballgame. We were prepared for conflict with the Soviet Union, not fighting irregulars in a jungle environment where we are severely limited on what we can physically attack. You have to realize that US Military Leaders were actively pushing for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the mid 60's for this very reason. We didn't have experience with jungle warfare outside of minor incursions into Latin America, and previous peer-to-peer conflict with the Japs.Peer-to-Peer =/= Irregular vs. Regular> Why did we not win?Because public support in Vietnam was not there. The people of Vietnam had literally just pushed the French out, and now here comes another European power. The ideal solution would have been telling the French to decolonize after WW2, and withholding Marhsall Plan funds if they choose not too.Ho Chi Minh was a member of the OSS during the 2nd World War, and could have probably been worked with had we not decided to back the French on their retarded imperialist shit. Form a unified parliamentary state with Ho Chi Minh leading a caretaker government, and work with him on getting the country industrialized. We were already doing this next door in Laos and Thailand, why not Vietnam? > Whats going on with the Vietcong, how hardcore were they?"Vietcong" was not an organized group in the traditional sense of one set of goals/leadership. Most of the Vietcong were village defense groups that came into conflict with both the NVA and US-South Vietnamese. Most of these groups actually waged an ethnic conflict after the end of the 2nd Indochina War, for at least another 30 years. The problem we ran into was simply we came in and started shit in their neck of the woods, and they didn't care for it. It'd be the same if we sent the National Guard into the boonies of West Virginia and let them shoot at random people.
>our boys>reddit spacing
>>56160281The Vietcong won because the USA pussied out because Nixon was removed and then they took over the south of the country. The end. The USA lost because americans are cowards who spend their lives ruining each other's lives and the lives of the entire world with economic warfare and subterfuge.
>>56160219>58000 deadThe Chinese did worse in six weeks in 1979 against the Viets.>losingWe left in 1972 with a peace treaty in hand. The North Vietnamese rearmed and invaded again in 1974.
>>56160219OP is a troll and or schizo, he hates the US and keeps making these thread and shitposting for over six hours a day.Claims to be german, but does everything to make everyone hate them and evades proving being german.Mods do fuck all against him, so enjoy the ride. He craves attention like an unloved and negleted child.
>>56161149So you are telling me it was a win?The enemy communist NVA took over the country, killed 58k US GIs and you are saying it was a win?Seriously?
>>56161095first real reply so far, thank you Sir
>armanigger banevasion thread>32 posts>14 posters
>>56160219good morning sir
>>56161187good morning, how do you do Sir?
>>56161185omg did he just drop another thread?How based is this guy?>>56161015>>56161015>>56161015
>>56160219>and kicked our boys out.Nupid stucking figger detected. SVN were near ANA tier and deserved destruction. People who do not build a strong indigenous liberation movement should not be fought for .
>>56161120Anything more to add coping tard?
>>56161120I would frame it like this: We lost because we are not very good at asymmetric jungle warfare in a faraway country which isn't our own.Also the NVA had Soviet support, picrel
>>56160219US MILITARY TRACK RECORD>lose to Korean peasants>lose to Vietnamese peasants>lose at invasion of Cuba>Twin Towers blown up, humiliated>lose to Iraqi peasants>lose to Somalian apes>kneel and surrender to BLM rioters>lose to Afghan peasants>infiltrated by the diversity cult, the rainbow flag flies above bases instead of the American oneThe only war the US army won was the civil one, where they killed their own brothers to pave the way for 21st century negrophilia.
>>56161351We lost because there was no option China could not economically escalate to counter.
>>56160219That is only the official number, unofficial numbers estimate around 120000 dead US soldiers. Died for nothing just like the vatniggers in Ukraine
>>56160219Because we didn't nuke Russia and colonize China in '47. That was our only chance at a peaceful world.
>>56160333This is and the executed dogs are the only pics from the Ukraine war that have actually made me sad
>>56161170Consider the following:>We are currently buddy-buddy with the Vietnamese because the ChiComs are imperialist spergs.>Vietnam-US relations are amicable, mostly from mutual respect for each others ability to fight wars against each other.>Vietnam has actively considered offering Da Nang Airbase to the US Air Force, as a counterweight against China.>Vietnam has also considered leasing some port areas for the US Navy. Meaning the US Navy now has a new active resupply point in that neck of the woods.All though the war was not a victory, the wound has now healed in such a way where both sides are willing to work together. We see a bigger threat in China, and because of that, bygones are bygones. The most ideal situation right now would be the United States bankrolling the Vietnamese arms industry, and possibly even getting the US Military to train with the Vietnamese in regards to jungle and irregular warfare. It would help both parties immensely and would continue to add more points in which to block the ChiComs from actively harming regional stability. In fighting each other, we gained mutual respect for each other.
>>56161489>Vietnam has actively considered offering Da Nang Airbase to the USDidn't know about this. Would be incredibly based if it happens. Vietnam is doing pretty good now, like most countries the US invades
>>56161489>The most ideal situation right now would be the United States bankrolling the Vietnamese arms industryWe should take them off the import shitlist so they can provide cheap T56 clones and 7.62x39, it would massively piss off the chinks and give work to a shitload of Nguyens
Gringos got ibto a wat with retarded rules of engagement, thinking they could just bomb their material to the stone age.They underestimated commie capabilities to send military aid and so vc and nva armies were working at full readiness for tge entire war wjile americans wrmere slowly losing operations efficiency.After the tet offensive ended they realized there waw no way of stopping the war militarily, and political situation back home exploded with an anti war president getting elected.Funny enough russkies commmitted exactly the same mistake but instead of leaving they doubled down like retards
>>56161470The world will never ever be peaceful, new enemies will always emerge, external or from within.
>>56161413>KoreaLiterally built one of the most economically successful countries in Asia. also..>North Korea, literally needs too spam missiles into the Yellow Sea in order to get food for its people.>Vietnam>>56161489>Invasion of CubaYou mean the country which currently is incapable of doing anything without going through us?>Twin Towers blown up!Yeah. Terror attack. Remind me how the FSB bombed people in Moscow because they were still assblasted about the Chechen Wars>IraqStill there. Probably going to remain there.>SomaliaWhat about it? It has nothing of value.>BLM Riotersand how is this relevant to the US Military?>Afghanistan!Landlocked country with our only access point being through a region in an ongoing ethnic conflict - Balochistan - all the while Pakistan is a pain in the ass. >MUH GLOBALHOMOAnd?
>>56161516It's one of the few things that passes under folks radars. US Navy has already done a few resupply missions via Saigon and Hai Phong.
>>56160219>this nigger againWe did nothing wrong except have shitty administration and war crimes are cool
>>56160820Because the u.s didn’t present a real option for better, the Vietnamese had been fighting a long time and for most ideology wasn’t even the main reason. They just wanted the white people to stop telling them what to do and build their own life even if shitty. Couple that with the incredible corruption of the south and as soon as the U.S stopped sending people to die it was already over but the shouting.This board hates communism for a variety of reasons but when you’re some poor kid who’s been moved around repeatedly against your will and seen your family die from famine and government neglect or indiscriminate bombing from some rich country redistribution of resources starts to sound a lot more appealing and commie political thought was very anti-imperialist. The practical side still did it anyways since it turns out empire building is kind of just what states do.The u.s lost because they didn’t want to keep killing people to support French imperial ambitions and enforce capitalism on a country that didn’t want it. Even if in the end they went back to it since vanguardist commie bullshit always devours itself. The u.s lost because of a lack of political will.
>>56161462good to know, Sir. Although technically Russia could still win. Lets wait and see.
Friendly reminder >>56161150
>>56161762gtfo of my of thread, beta boy.
>>56161778I wont. I will stay around at page one for now.Cope and seethe.
>>56160219lol Vietnam was a conflict with millions of dead, the VC were a minor combatant force that people believe were dominant because of movies without realising the NVA existed, and we lost because we decided to press the "I quit" button after almost twenty years of being there originally on behalf of the French. Communism is such a bad idea that despite leaving, and the NVA taking over the south, there are McDonalds and Coca-Cola in Vietnam to this day, whatever they want to call themselves lol.
>>56161794> Communism is such a bad idea that despite leavingYes, agreed.Yet them somehow won.Why? How?
>>56161095>Ho Chi Minh was a member of the OSS during the 2nd World WarThe entire US OSS and foreign policy WAS INFILTRATED BY COMMIES.It's fucking well documented at this point that the people in charge of deciding who was getting fund and supplies were commies spies some of which very publicly went on as commie higher up in China and elsewhere.Ho chi min worked with the US early on because he was a commie not the other way around. Same thing with Mao and the end of the support to nationalist China.When Truman realized that he purged the old OSS and created the CIA and decided backing the french was a better play than let the whole Indochina (vietnam but also laos and cambodia) turn red.The US deemed the french incompetant (not without reason) but in the end couldn't turn back the tides and the nort vietnam turned first against south vietnam then against laos and cambodia as the commies had always planned.
>>56161842So the Vietcong did even penetrate US intelligence?Hard to believe but maybe.Makes them even more based.
Same OP of thread, different dayhttps://desuarchive.org/k/thread/56124529/
>>56161926>https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/56124529/cope I guess?thanks for amplifying whatever this chad postsfaggot
the war was like 15 years long and never had a chance of success past like '65. in the end, we were propping up a failed state against the actual desires of the vietnamese people. the power to destroy is not the power to control.
>>56161926>https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/56124529/faggot posts completely different thread regarding US aircraft > basedchad wins again
>>56162012>the war was like 15 years long and never had a chance of success past like '65. in the end, we were propping up a failed state against the actual desires of the vietnamese people. the power to destroy is not the power to control.interesting take, Sir.However in pure military terms we should have rather won? How did they beat us military?
>>56162017Same prose, same spacing, same greentext layout, same "what the fuck" in the OPIt's the same person making threads endlessly
>>56162030so what? Answer his fucking questions or fuck the fuck off
>>56160219if you really want the globohomo shills to squeal, mention how Russia has lost less than 10k while securing 1/4th of Ukraine forever, while Cuckmerica didn't retain even a slice of Vietnam for 58,000 souls.
>>56162050What questions?Esl posters are fucking braindead lol
>>56162028they never beat the US military. we actually completely destroyed any regular army the commies had more than once. after Watergate, an activist congress just got tired of funding the war and we left. however, we were never going to 'win' because our win condition was nation building, and we never made a serious effort of doing so beyond propping up an incredibly unpopular strongman. you can't shoot your way into making a friendly nation. if I was vietnamese i would've been on ho chi mihn's side as well, because he was an actual man of the people.
>>56162054realistically they are over 50k losses by now. So arguably the US and Russia are equally bad although Russia might still win somehow.
>reddit spacing>ESL>John from Novo York Oblast>Seething about AmericaYeah, this is a subhuman slide thread.
>>56162057lol ESL lol cope lol also lol gtfo lol nigger lol
>>56162085based subhuman, Murica BTFOpicrel American M113 desroyed
>>56162100as insufferable as you are, these fuckers can't even *not* take bait and fall head on to your either delusional coping or just plain trolling, keep going mate
>>56162107so you won 'Nam?how did your enemy throw you out then?
>>56162100>>56162088as insufferable as you are, these fuckers can't even *not* take bait and fall head on to your either delusional coping or just plain trolling, keep going mate
>>56162124based.Yes, I am insufferable. I have to be. This is /k/.> they cant ever not take bait100% accurateWill keep it up, Sir. Bless you.
Why is this thread constantly made? Every day you do this.
>>56161095>and now here comes another European power?????????>>56161102He's a retard but redditspacing is a newfag trap. Well done for falling for it, election tourist.
>>56162155>I came here to point out that the same person is making all these threadsthat doesn't answer any of the questions at hand, just cheap cope
>>56160355Ukraine and Vietnam are actually very similar in important ways. The US in Vietnam and Russia in Ukraine both had approximately the same Plan A - they they’d show up, and the weaker enemy would shit their pants and run away. Well, Plan A didn’t happen, and when it became apparent that it wouldn’t, everybody looked at each other, asked what Plan B was, and found that there wasn’t one. That was when they had to face the fact that there was neither the political will to do what needed to be done to win the war, nor was there the political will to retreat and take the loss. That, of course, creates a trap that it’s very hard to get out of. The American answer was to fuck around half-assedly fighting for eight years before slinking away and taking the loss that they could have taken in 1965 without losing 58,000 or so hapless draftees. We’ll see what the Russian answer is.
>>56162160there is no such thing as Reddit spacing. 4chan is older then 4chan.Fuck off
>>56160219Now show the flip side. From the same article you linked: 1,081,000 deaths for the North. Even when the USA lost (and yes you vatnigger retard, I agree, they lost) they killed 18.6 gooks for every GI lost. The US fought like shit and with one hand tied behind it's back since it couldn't cross into North Vietnam and still absolutely annihilated the opposition. They did this in jungle warfare which Americans aren't acclimated to in unfamiliar terrain and amongst a hostile populace.But but but they still lost. Yes. Yes they did. They lost for the same reason they lost in Afghanistan: They assumed subhuman non whites actually want to be treated like human beings, and actually want democracy. They didn't, they have their own mindset and have their own way of thinking and viewing life which is completely alien to western thinking. Same reason your people got BTFO in Afghanistan as well btw.Also, have the decency to post the full story: America pulled out by 1972. The bulk of the military was long gone by 1975, the goal was to have the south fighting on its own. It refused to and just rolled over in 1975.
>>56162243>they might have killed 100 NVA gooks per GI but still they lost.Same as Nazi Germany did at the eastern front, killing millions of Russians but still loosing.Fact is the NVA took Saigon. Period.
>>56160219every day, huh?Ok then. keep seething.
>>56160219I know I'm taking bait but:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_AccordsIn 1973 after the peace talks 95% of US forces had already left Vietnam. This number rose ever further till 1975. At that time 98-99% had been withdrawn.There was supposed to be peace in 1973 and a DMZ similar to Korean, basically in 1973 the war ended like the Korean war 2.0The US lost because it trusted the North to uphold the treaty and the South to have the will to fight and stand on its own as a country. Both assumptions were fundamentally flawed.Much like the Americans, the South's will to fight was gone in 1973. The North took time to regroup and get rearmed by the Soviets, including training on tanks and armored vehicles. With the Air Force and Navy no longer bombing anything that moved the NVA was able to form actual armored divisions and move tanks through the jungle to obscure as much of the movement as possible. Their numbers built up, training improved,more vehicles arrived and then in 1975 they blitzed the shit out of the South and won.So, did the US lose? Yes, because their long term goal was to prevent south Vietnam from being communist. But that's not the whole story, and too many people fail to realize they left in 1973, and in 1973 the South was still intact.The North defeated the US politically, it never defeated them militarily. Any direct engagement between large numbers of troops resulted in a US victory in almost every encounter. In 1968 the Tet offensive was such a disaster that the NVA and VC were nearly completely annihilated, with Vietnamese officials admitting post war that had the US pushed North after Tet the war would have been over. But the US didn't, it stuck to some very bizarre logic and rules and in the end lost, but the US military itself wasn't defeated. The soldiers did what they were ordered to, the politicians were the ones that kept changing rules of engagement.
>>56162374every day, from now to eternity.And you are not happy.
>>56160360If you are so mentally deficient that you can be gaslighted by a lying shill farm, you're in a corner of the Internets that you don't belong in.Speaking of gaslighting: This Entire Thread. Pure slide candy by /pol/niggers.
>>56162184>Well, Plan A didn’t happenagreed. > asked what Plan B was, and found that there wasn’t one. agreed> That was when they had to face the fact that there was neither the political will to do what needed to be done to win the war, nor was there the political will to retreat and take the loss.agreedBut my initial question was a purely military question?Why did we not win in the first place ?
>>56162289I don't think anyone particularly disagrees with the sentiment. But the point to be made is that the US lost because their political objectives weren't based in reality, not because their military got beat.
>>56162414based /pol/ niggers, /k/ BTFO
>>56160219Sorta like how russia is about to lose in ukraine and lose over 100k dudes? Ya know, like a bunch of tards?
>>56162437> it was beatenjust with high costs from the NVABut this was a full 100% military defeat
>>56160219sounds like russia’s situation in ukraine
>103 posts>44 postersholy shit how pathetic, imagine being this much of a seething turdworlder
>>56160219>How did this happen?By the time of the US withdrawal it was expected that the ARVN was both sufficiently equipped and trained to be able to defend itself from the NVA. This was proven wrong in the 1975 Spring Offensive where the ARVN completely collapsed to the NVA.>Why did we not win?Allied forces, particularly the US was obsessed with trying to beat the North in a "limited war", self sabotaging it's own war effort. The Southern government and ARVN was deeply corrupt and incompetent for most of the country's existence which gave the North a crucial advantage. >Whats going on with the Vietcong, how hardcore were they?The Viet Cong were founded from the original Viet Minh fighters who remained South following the conclusion of the First Indochina War. They weren't an issue for the early years of the war, but became an increasing threat with the creation of the Ho Chi Minh trail and the toppling of Diem's government in 1963. They maintained grip over the Southern countryside through brutal terror tactics and constant support from the North. Ultimately their undoing was launching the 1968 Tet Offensive, believing they could win a conventional war against Allied forces. They were nearly annihilated and from 1969 onwards the war was increasingly waged by the North.>We had more funding and way more weapon, but we lost. Why?US forces won most engagements with the PAVN/VC, but the Vietnam War was more of an asymmetrical guerrilla war, where pitched battles are less important over counter insurgency. Ultimately the biggest failures were failing to prop up a competent South Vietnamese government, attempting to win the war via "limited" means and abandoning the South post 1973.
>>56162489> muh the US lost and therefore OP is a thurdwordler.Talk about non-sequitursBet you dont even know what this is, you are a mutt.
>>56162502> a "limited war"58k dead doesn't seem fairly limited > Ultimately their undoing was launching the 1968 Tet Offensive, believing they could win a conventional war against Allied forces.Sir? they won. They 100% won.
>>56161596t. Proud at lack of foreskin
Because to win you would have had to kill all of North Vietnam, and for what?
>USA loses 60k troops in a 10 year long conflict>Russia loses 90k troops in a 9 month conflict There really are levels to this huh
>>56162502>Allied forces, particularly the US was obsessed with trying to beat the North in a "limited war", self sabotaging it's own war effort.They weren't obsessed. They weren't able to have a full war in the first place. Any year of Vietnam you didn't have nearly enough US personel to prepare a large scale offensive operation and occupation again the guerilla. US just had enough to hold still with ARVN on the defensive.
>>56162546Only 47,434 Americans died during combat in the Vietnam War over a period of 11 years compared to over 1 million North Vietnamese/VC casualties. US casualties were only slightly above casualties sustained during the Korean War.>Sir? they won. They 100% won.What are you talking about? The Tet Offensive was a crushing defeat for the PAVN/VC. They lost more than 75,000 soldiers and the VC was rendered useless for the remainder of the war.
>>56160219Germany hasn't even won a single war in the entire century. Say what you want about the US, at least we had some victories. We didn't throw away our entire country and get millions of our young men killed just to lose the war and become a vassal state.
>>56160355>Russia loses more men in 9 months than the US did in 21 yearsIts a pretty valid thing to bring up
>>56162732and then they took the capital and the US had to leave. Yeah. So much winning
>>56162725>They weren't obsessed.They were, for the duration of the war the US self imposed rules on how to wage the war. They botched crucial operations like Rolling Thunder, refused to enter Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail and refused to play a firmer role in creating a stable Southern government. >Any year of Vietnam you didn't have nearly enough US personel to prepare a large scale offensive operation and occupation again the guerilla.This is just false, at its peak US forces numbered 543,000 and were more than enough to conduct offensive operations, as evidenced by operations like Toan Thang I & II and Operation Speedy Express. US forces, particularly general William Westmoreland believed that the war could be won via Attrition, and US forces were instructed to employ Search & Destroy tactics, withdrawing from any captured land as soon as operations were completed, usually giving land back to the VC.
>>56162793"They" took the capital 6 years later when all US forces left.
>>5616279threeYou have that backwards. They waited until the US left, then took the capital. Everyone, remember to herb all slide threads.
>>56162793You do realize the US left before Vietnam invaded the South right?
>>56161150It's because China is having riots and Russia is about lose crimea. This shit gets skilled overtime those two fuck up royally
>>56162826what? No?Read a history book or fuck off
>>56162850Maybe you should take a look at the history books.
>>56161682>support French imperial ambitions what is this absolute fucking retardation, i only see 3rdworld retards or actual marxist-leninist retards bringing that upThe french pulled out and stayed out, American involvement is due to their domino theory.retard
>>56162850Are you retarded?
>>56162838>You do realize the US left before Vietnam invaded the South right?muh we left on our own, we didn't wanna stay anyway. We always wanted to loose 58k GIs then leave.Get rekt, you lost because US losses became unsustainable
>>56162862maybe I should
>>56162881Hey it’s the poo abrams and lancetposter
>>56162810>Westmoreland believed that the war could be won via AttritionHe was right, and your post is correct, but the major problem was that here was absolutely no point to the war at all, it was unheriocally useless and silly, and the only reason it got to the scale it did was becuase there were still enough senior staff that thought we should mass mobilize a la WWII for any reason at all.Our involvment in foriegn adventures got distinctly less ludicrous and more efficienmt after all those senile egg hats died off. Damn shame they stuck around long enough to foul up our air doctrine with retarded Wild Weasel bullshit, we probably would have had OTH cruise missiles/THAAD and drone munitions 20 years earlier.
>>56162881You claimed the Vietnamese ran the US out of Vietnam by invading the capital which is a blatant denial of reality. By the time the Vietnam invaded Saigon the US was completely out of Vietnam. They were terrified and waited almost half a decade before they reunited their country. Why deny reality?
>>56162810US at some point showing up with 543,000 servicemen including the logistic tail of half the world doesn't mean they can keep the troops there for the whole duration of the offensive and occupation while Soviets can start shit somewhere else.>Speedy Expresshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Speedy_Express Does it look like a success to you or a large scale offensive? Remind me of US aircraft losses in Vietnam and then multiply it times 10 when they are deep inside South Vietnam without AVRN to serve as cannon fodder.
>>56160820America did not win, at least in the end, purely and totally due to a lack of ambition from the general populace over years. The hyper vigilance against communist expansionary efforts had waned in those outside of Washington, at least in the youth. As a result they viewed the war as both costly and pointless. Overall the war was lost because South Vietnam was just as much a shithole as North Vietnam. In the same sense that Afghanistan was a wasted effort, so too was Vietnam. You cannot prop up corrupt political figures and expect them to modernize and embolden a new generation of men and women to represent your ideals. You must either completely subjugate each and every one of them, or ally with a populist leader who shares your same values.
can you imagine the kind of sadsack you'd have to be to spend all day reposting the same images to try and annoy strangers online? I'd hate to be such a subhuman waste of air.
>>56162984based, he is standing up for his kind.
>>56162908Westmoreland's strategy completely failed. By trying to beat the communists at a long-drawn out war of Attrition he played into their hands because the North was ready to wait him out, like they did against the French for 7 years. The VC were able to use his strategy against him by avoiding pitched battles against the superior US troops and grind them down with guerrilla warfare, that is until Tet. Ultimately his strategy revolved around the assumption that the VC would run out of manpower, run out of will to fight and that domestic support for a drawn out campaign would never wane, all of which never happened. He was the original "Two more weeks"
>>56162396Wasn't China threatening to attack them if they crossed into the North which is the the NVA always had a safe zone?
>>56162926>Soviets can start shit somewhere else.Soviet and Chinese efforts were also focused on Vietnam. The 543,000 troops wasn't even half of what the US was fielding in 1969 or could field. >Does it look like a success to you or a large scale offensiveWhether or not Speedy Express was a victory or not is irrelevant to what I was trying to point out, that the US could and did conduct offensive operations during the Vietnam War. You're claiming that the US only had enough troops to conduct defensive operations. How do you explain operations like Junction City, Speedy Express and Toan Thrang?
>>56161824Vietnam has McDonald's and is now a friendly country toward the US. America won.
>>56163179>You're claiming that the US only had enough troops to conduct defensive operations.I did not, actually read what I wrote. Short and shallow incursions especially against just VC aren't offensives meant to gain and hold ground. Reminder that just that kind of defensive warfare favoring defenders or very picky engagements close to your logistic lines achieved unsustainable casualties in Vietnam.>Soviet and Chinese efforts were also focused on Vietnam.They had minimal forces present with some Soviet SAM operators there, but not boots on the ground free to do whatever. Oh yes, let's not forget China could actually help Vietnam if they felt like crippling the US army.>The 543,000 troops wasn't even half of what the US was fielding in 1969 or could field.Fielding where? Do you just want to move them from Europe or Korea to Vietnam?
/k/ is the only board where you can see amerimutts desperately shift the goal posts and mental gymnastic their way into thinking the US won the Vietnam war kek. Now with added Russia Ukraine sperging.
>>56161170Win? No but it wasn't the tail-between-the-legs loss everyone crows about now. We left with a peace treaty and were betrayed by the North while the South was incapable of stopping them. Again, this is two years after the last US combat units had left. On top of that, they are now one of our best allies in SE Asia.
>>56163240> muh we won by not winning
>>56163240>Vietnam has McDonald'sAbout thathttps://bettermarketing.pub/why-mcdonalds-failed-in-vietnam-35dc27edcaa
>>56160219are you 12 or something? read a fucking book you goddamn idiot
>>56160333>>56162763>casualties have surpassed Vietnam and GWOT casualties combinednot even close to us deaths in vietnam
>>56162028>How did they beat us military?They didn't. Ever. The US won nearly every engagement at every scale, except the political. Look up the Tet Offensive and how we kept handing the NVA their teeth.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive
>>56160219Their sacrifice wasnt in vain we are almost totally Globohomo now
>>56160219the vatnik's impotent seething over kherson will never not be funny. the fact that they can't actually complain or even criticize the decision to run like little girls without going to prison makes even more perfect.
>>56163315>>56162984>>56162838Reminder that OP is a retard that got booted from the US army. Now he is spending the rest of the days seething and creating threads specifically about hating the US army. He already made multiple threads today and ignores any points made. It goes>US Army lost[some war], so they are weak>people say that is not true and provided nuances on why that is not the case. Most of the time its wars where the U.S. still did militarily well despite the political limitations>OP, being the faggot that he is, seethes about and makes retarded counter points that already been refuted before and claims war "supposed to be fair" and thinks that wars are won purely by military/tactical successes>creates multiple threads out of sheer butthurt the moment the thread devolves into people calling out on his bullshit and spam his pasta>ad nauseam He is either baiting or is someone that is truly butthurt about America(probably because he got booted from the army for trying to mimick dirlewanger)
>>56163257>I did not, actually read what I wrote.You said:>Any year of Vietnam you didn't have nearly enough US personel to prepare a large scale offensive operation and occupation again the guerilla. US just had enough to hold still with ARVN on the defensive.Simply put, this is wrong. The US had enough men and material to conduct offensive operations against the VC, as evidenced by Speedy Express & Toan Thang, the issue being is that US forces followed a Search & Destroy strategy against VC forces, withdrawing at the conclusion of operations meaning they were reoccupied by VC remnants. >Short and shallow incursions especially against just VC aren't offensives meant to gain and hold ground.Operations like Speedy Express and Toan Thang were neither short or shallow and usually encompassed entire tactical zones. As I've stated before, the issues with these operations was not that the US didn't have the forces required to occupy the land, but that they didn't do so by conscious choice, which was to their detriment.>They had minimal forces present with some Soviet SAM operators there, but not boots on the ground free to do whatever.This greatly underplays the decisive factor that Chinese and Soviet aid played during the war. Simply put, the North would not have survived Rolling Thunder without Soviet SAMs and would not have been able to fight for long without the 320,000 PLA soldiers that came to defend their homeland and the millions of guns, artillery pieces and munitions that their allies gave them.>Fielding where?Across the world? When the Vietnam War reached it's peak, it didn't consume the entirety of active US forces. There were over 3M soldiers in all branches of the armed forces in 1969, do you believe they were all in Vietnam?
>>56163366>17,000Lmao, Russia's casualties are 150k at a MINIMUM. Probably closer to 200k. And a huge number of those will be KIA because Russian frontline medicine is basically non-existent.
>>56163366Why don't you post the real figures?
>>56163429based, finally an honest answer
>>56162152Thank you for doing the needfuls sir.
>>56163494>, as evidenced by Speedy Express & Toan ThangOne of that was 8k men cleanup against irregular VC that ended up with more civilians massacred than VC killed. The other was another small scale cleanup around Saigon, not an incursion into North Vietnam.Again you're an idiot for comparing those to actually driving hundreds of kilometers into North Vietnam and doing city sieges.>320,000 PLA soldiers that came to defend their homeland320k rotated troops, and to repair shit and man SAM? What would USA do with say 3m PLA troops just shooting at Americans and half a million Soviets?>There were over 3M soldiers in all branches of the armed forces in 1969, do you believe they were all in Vietnam?Great job pulling those troops from Europe. It's Red now btw.Thank god we have these geniuses here at /k/. None of the USA generals could fathom that they just had to tell their boys to drive north some against the nonexistent (for 10 years straight!) NVA force.
>>56163557>Yes, I am insufferable. I have to be. This is /k/.Yes Sir.
>>56163366>BBC new russianMany other estimates are around the 50,000 range to 100,000.
>>56162431>why did we not win?Ultimately all adventures like Veitnam wars 1, 2 and 3 and Afghanistan: USSR and Afganistan: NATO and recently Ukraine boil down to this, people don't like foriegn armies in their country bombing and shooting them. Foriegn invasions increase nationalism, xenophobia, and radicalism. Your soldiers have low morale with no stake in the war and the enemy soldiers have fanatical morale fighting for the existence of their nation.
>>56163572>offensive must mean invading north vietnamAbsolutely retarded. All US generals and policymakers were avoiding a ground invasion of North Vietnam because they feared a repeat of the Korean War. Most offensive operations during the war were against VC held areas within South Vietnam or the occasional incursion into VC border sanctuaries in Laos/Cambodia, using the aforementioned Search & Destroy method.>Again you're an idiot for comparing those to actually driving hundreds of kilometers into North Vietnam and doing city sieges.Why do you believe the definition for an offensive operation has to be a direct attack against North Vietnam? Did US forces not engage PAVN/VC in say, Quyet Thang? The world is not HOI4.>320k rotated troops, and to repair shit and man SAM?Yes? Are you saying that the PLA troops had no impact on defending Northern cities like Hanoi and Hai Phong from bombings? >What would USA do with say 3m PLA troops just shooting at Americans and half a million Soviets?Bomb them to smithereens. Neither the PLA or Red Army wanted to intervene in the Vietnam War, they only wanted to support the North as a proxy.>Great job pulling those troops from Europe. It's Red now btw.Lmao fucking retard, US forces in Vietnam were mostly draftees, very few units were actually relocated from other theatres. US forces were still in Japan, Korea, Thailand & Europe even when US forces peaked in South Vietnam.
>>56163728>the definition for an offensive operation has to be a direct attack against North Vietnam? LARGE (don't drop it when citing me) offensive operation that could actually stop the attrition of USA troops, which is the entire point. VC was annihilated after Tet but that didn't stop USA from bleeding into a surrender. Now what's the next idea on how to annihilate NVA? Not invading North Vietnam? You're switching up between complaining about USA being too limited and then saying that well actually just cleaning up some guerilla behind your lines is a good example of an offensive.>US forces in Vietnam were mostly drafteeshttps://www.vva310.org/vietnam-war-statistics Wrong
>>56163366>BBC News Russian& MediazonaSo at a bare minimum its 10x the numbers those sources are reporting, glad to know.
>>56160219Because the latter portion of the war involved Americans fighting off NV offensives in the cities and strategic hamlets (more or less concentration camps) unable to regain the initiative themselves thanks to the political situation that prevented them from gaining any control of the countryside.The Americans usually were able to hold their defensive, but the NV was launching probing attacks on their positions CONSTANTLY. They were supposed to just sort of… sit there. Fend off attacks, wait for the next attack, then fend that one off. Getting your defensives ground against for years on end AND chasing guerillas around simultaneously generates a lot of casualties.
>>56163793>offensive operation that could actually stop the attrition of USA troops, which is the entire point.The attrition of US troops was once again by conscious choice, as General William Westmoreland wished to wage a war of attrition on the belief that the US could win such war and that the VC would lose. Your definition of "large-scale offensive" is completely arbitrary.>USA from bleeding into a surrender.The US never "bled" to surrender. The years after Tet saw low US casualties due to the near destruction of the VC and the start of the Vietnamization policy. Vietnamization was started by Nixon due to domestic support for the war plummeting.>Now what's the next idea on how to annihilate NVAUS Forces never tried to annihilate the NVA, they were too afraid of invading North Vietnam. Westmoreland wanted to beat them by attrition and force them to a negotiated peace, that was the point of Rolling Thunder.>You're switching up between complaining about USA being too limited and then saying that well actually just cleaning up some guerilla behind your lines is a good example of an offensive.I don't support how the US waged it's war in Vietnam, but to say that US forces were incapable of conducting offensive operations is completely wrong.
>>56161842>The entire US OSS and foreign policy WAS INFILTRATED BY COMMIES.>When Truman realized that he purged the old OSS and created the CIAWhat retarded fanfiction is this? This never happened. The OSS was disbanded due to political infighting.
>>56163925Oh and the people saying that the US could have won if we just stayed in Vietnam or bombed them some more are braindead. The communists had a wide base of support in both the countryside and the cities, comprising nearly all of the lower class and much of the middle and upper classes. The govt of South Vietnam had nearly no legitimacy, propped up by US intelligence agencies elements of the Vietnamese criminal underworld. Their support base consisted mostly of small parts of the middle and upper classes as well as Vietnamese Catholics. The government was corrupt to the bone, the South Vietnamese army never had a backbone or will to fight (proven when they evaporated once the NVA rolled into Saigon) American GIs in Vietnam could only ever hope to delay the inevitable.
Oh yeah btw, for anyone reading this thread still. The battle casualties of Nam' were actually around ~45,000. About 10,000 of deaths in Nam' were down to suicide or drug overdoses. Another 2,000 were down to vehicles fucking up do to extensive use. I cannot remember the whole number, but one of the greatest fuckups of Vietnam, at least in my view, was the use of magnesium in the Army Green paint used on aircraft. We lost something to the tune of ~4,500 aircraft in Nam' during combat. Most of these were helicopters, recon birds, and old transport birds that usually ate shit during SOG shenanigans. Lot of our helicopter and recon bird losses were down to them starting on fire from tracers making contact with the magnesium in the paint, which if you know anything about magnesium, it burned and smoked up like a motherfucker and would choke the aircraft engines. Once again, the Department of Defense and it's infinite wisdom of cost cutting literally resulted in several good airmen getting killed for stupid reasons.
>>56164154Were they trying to do a Hindenburg reenactment?
>>56164188Well if the dubs are anything to go on.Ja, mein Fuhrer.
>>56160219>lost>killed them 1-20 even with a home jungle advantage>commies defeated and had to sign a treaty>viets are now pro-American fake commies that hate china and are making my Nike shoes for penniesbruh, America won politically and militarily, not like that shitshow in ukraine where Russia is getting fucked both ways lol. In fact, Russia lost that amount 20x faster lmao.
>>56162431>Why did we not win in the first place ?because the vietnamese figured out that americans back home cared more about the one young man getting sent back in a flag-draped coffin than the vietnamese did when 100 of their guys were killedit was really the same strategy Japan had planned at the end of WW2, just bleed the americans dry until they gave up and went home, but this time it worked
It was a 19-year war. Thats an average of 3067 USA troops dead a year.Compare that to other USA conflicts and that becomes good odds.Korea they lost 36,574 troops over 3 years, that was an average of 12,191 dead a year.
>>56161922>>56164032Who was the Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (that oversaw US policy in asia) -> Alger Hiss.Who was the OSS officer charged of China section of the SI, the Secret Intelligence Branch of the OSS. -> Duncan Chaplin Lee.Who was paying for the various networks in asia?-> Harry Dexter WhiteWho was funneling the money in the various theaters? The Principal Intelligence Officer of the Board of Economic Warfare.->Jack Fahy Who was doing the on-hand assesment immediately after japan surrender?-> Jane Foster ZlatovskiHere is the thing they don't teach you in school:MCCARTHY WAS FUCKING RIGHT.The now public VENONA project proves it.
>>56161489Meh, we still could have not fought each other at all and teamed up to fight more chinks. Killing all those NVA and Cong' was a tragic mistake.
>>56162243>subhuman non whites actually want to be treated like human beings, and actually want democracyWe didn't assume that in Vietnam, the South Vietnam was a dictatorship during the majority of US involvment and the majority of its short existence and while US atrocities weren't at soviet union in eastern germany levels, such incidents didn't endear the populace to the US backed regime.Also, you're a stupid racist fuck.
>>56160281Well if you had any fucking clue about war and the political goals to succed in a war, youd understand that Vietnam was the first step in the inevitable collapse of the US empire.Võ Nguyên Giáp studied in France and understood what it takes to defeat an undefeatable enemy:>political victoryThe Americans tried waging and ideological war as a brutal conqueror. The self-proclaimed role as liberator of the oppressive VC regime was laughably easy to expose every single time a child was murdered, a village wiped out or a young woman gangraped by GIs.You lost. Get over it.
>>56161095Pretty much true apart from the "european" bit. The British were initially in charge of Indochina in 1945 and pretty much stamped out and BTFO'd the commies by early 1946 when the French turned up to take back control. This happened because Britain has VAST experience in COIN and had 100K japanese soldiers under supervision doing what British officers told them to do. They also behaved humanely. But the French are well.... French. They fucked it up soooo bad that there's not much difference between the behaviour of French troops in the Nam' and German troops in France or more accurately, the Soviet Union. So what was perceived as a criminal force hiding away in the jungle stealing from old grannies under British control was now perceived as the resistance and future of the country against the French oppressors. France left. America slowly entangled themselves into the conflict pretty much by accident leading up to 1964. And America is better than France in this era at COIN but still pretty crap compared to us. Also the American military was fighting both regular and irregular forces + with every member of their body tied behind their back by the politicians back home because they accurately saw it as a place they shouldn't be fucking around in. They fucked around, found out, and lost. Never bombed air bases, ports, power stations, water plants..... Imagine if America had conducted proper modern strategic bombing. If they had done; they might have stood a chance. But they only did so in the Linebacker ops. Tldr: the american military fought a war it was ill-suited, ill-prepared for. A type of warfare they had little to no experience in. With their political establishment trying to curb the war effort at every opportunity.
>>56162557You could think of anything for a reply and the first thing you think of is anon’s penis
>>56164960I think you forgot the bit where Vietnam was invaded every other week - Tuesday included - bu the Chinese for like ~1000 years. Who would you rather open up to? Your historical enemy or a past enemy that has shown remorse and commitment to being "good" (whatever the fuck that means) and was only your enemy for complex geopolitical reasons and didn't even really want to fight you?
>>56165819>this retard believes in the made up bullshit>full of his own shit >believes that the VC had anything to do with the PO in the USFortunately the Vietnam destroyed any imperialistic intent of that shithole. By the time that the war ended all the region was falling apart but there wasn't resources to make a southern soviet union.
>>56166052>Fortunately the Vietnam destroyed any imperialistic intent of that shithole.In English doc.
>>56162557Anon wtf, you're clearly a faggot
>>56162850You're unironically retarded
>>56160310Vietnam is hardly communist and is pretty friendly with the United States.The US definitely won long term.
>>56166089The Vietnam War destroyed a lot of human resources and arms that could have be used in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar. Like in LA, all the "revolutionary" momentum was lost, only worm-eaten bodies were left. That region is the most important in the international trade (Malacca straight). By the 80s after some 'meaningless' wars all those countries ended being absorbed easily by global market.
>>56160310>>56160219>>56165819failure in vietnam mainly hinged on a few key factors:1. The US was economically incentivized to continue the war and the CIA purposefully fed bad information to politicians to keep the war going2. U.S army doctrine in vietnam was more or less thrown out. Instead of using the usual time tested strategies, U.S forces were literally just sent straight into the jungle, with no clear intel, making them really easy targets3. when hope was completely lost for south vietnam to win, the U.S focused much of its effort on inflicting economic damage to give vietnam a slow recovery so it couldn't become a commie powerhouse, and also to significantly raise the "repair vietnam" bill that the soviets would likely end up paying later (this is probably what 2022 russia is doing now)
>>56160219Anyone who tells you it was the US versus "rice farmers" is either shilling or completely ill-informed.Despite efforts to make people think the Vietnam War was like the War in Afghanistan, the Taliban weren't organized at the echelon-above-division level or have MiG-21s, unlike the VC/NVA. In 1965, there were 190,000 North Vietnamese regulars fighting in the south alongside the Viet Cong. By 1969, there were 700,000.Casualties and equipment losses are to be expected in a decade long war where both sides are fielding full field armies.
Friendly reminder that HCM didn't give a shit about communism, or capitalism. He only cared about kicking out the foreign invaders that kept fucking coming one after another. Republican France, communist china, capitalist USA. He didn't care and wasn't a political ideologue. He was a Vietnamese nationalist fighting an existential war. There was no victory to be had for any foreign power there, because the locals would (and did) resist to the last man and forced the invader, whoever it was, to bathe in Vietnamese blood for every km of territory they took. USA was the bad guy in Vietnam, so was France and so was China. It could have been so different if the US supported Viet nationalism instead of autistically screeching about muh gommunism
>>56168522Further to this, the USA at the time just lumped in all self declared communist nations with the big bad, USSR. Vietnam again didn't give a toss about the USSR, nor China, nor established communist ideology. They made up their own as the went along and called it communism. What is really was, was Vietnamese nationalism and attempted local hegemony. This is very evident with their actions vis a vis the khemer rouge nutjobs next door. They supported their revolution as long as they controlled the "communist" aspect of it though the Viet party headquarters, often putting them at odds with the ussr and china. As long as they saw themselves in charge they supported it, to the detriment of their relationships with the real communists up north. Once the KR revealed themselves as nutjobs and started pulling away from Viet control, they got dropped hard. They were just doing realpolitik and would have been a valuable ally, as their brand of communism was highly malleable and slave to circumstances and objectives of Vietnamese nationalism, not the other way round
>>56168646Alsooo regarding the KM..the fucking USA and UK took it upon themselves to support those psychopaths after they decided to start a war with Vietnam by massacring a ton of civilians in the late 70's. Honestly Anglo policy towards Vietnam has been a disgrace, and I'm British.
>>56168971KR** not KM
>>56164154>one of the greatest fuckups of Vietnam, at least in my view, was the use of magnesium in the Army Green paint used on aircraftI think the Soviet anti-air rockets might have played a larger role than your paint
>>56161120They hated him because he spoke the truth.
>>56165123great a 19 year, then not meeting any objectives but the enemy overruns the whole country which was the entire point you wanted to avoid.I would call that a devastating defeat
>>56169480>great a 19 year, then not meeting any objectives but the enemy overruns the whole country which was the entire point you wanted to avoid.*war
>>56161120>The Vietcong wonHow can you win if you cease to exist
>>56169464soviet SAMs didn't do shit, majority of losses were due to anti air gunfire
>>56169516yeah that makes it worse. All you needed to do to shoot down the might US air force is small arms fire? Is that your argument?
>>56160219> How did this happen?Failure in Public Relations> Why did we not win?Because if you're not in a war for survival you still have to deal with elections and domestic politics> Whats going on with the Vietcong, how hardcore were they?They went hard enough to make us lose some troops but militarily where panned> We had more funding and way more weapon, but we lost. Why?As above, If you can't keep the general populace convinced that they have an interest in seeing the war concluded they will only see the bodies coming home - Geopolitics and beating the commies wont keep them invested, you need some form of moral outrage
>>56169532yes, let US air force fly 1000 sorties over you and you will shoot a plane down. that's my argument
>>56169537>yes, let US air force fly 1000 sorties over you and you will shoot a plane down. that's my argumenta plane? over 2k planes and 5k helicopters were lost, so there was some major issue
>>56169536>militarily where pannedthey panned you military58k dead GIs that is something
>>56169633>58k dead in the span of 10 years>along with them militarily being successful and made the enemy suffer hesvy losses after each engagementsYou can make an argument if there were that many losses taken in such a short time, but not over a course of a certain period.
>>56169663>>58k dead in the span of 10 yearsSure the NVA suffered obliviously, yet they pulled through and they did it, they won.And the US didn't pull through but left the country. That is not a win.
>>56169621It was the beginning of an era where anti air missiles and helicopters were starting to become a thing. Hueys at the beginning were lightly armored and could be easily damaged by small arms fire.
>>56160219it's over like 20 years
>>56169682But you're arguing in a military success sense rather than a political one. They are able to push through thanks to them waiting for the U.S. to pull out and them invading years later. They were lucky that the U.S. didn't fully commit to invading the north because it would potentially make the NVA collapse. However, the soviets/Chinese would get directly involved and the white house was more worried about starting WW3 over Vietnam. The tet offensive, while a propaganda victory, absolutely decimated the NVA/vietcong and the vietcong nearly went extinct because of it. They lost very hard in a tactical sense during that operation. All for the sake of trying to start a rebellion in the south, but ended in failure.
>>56169621yes, and millions of sorties flown. sorry you're too stupid to do math.
>>56169745very nice, lots of sorties, lots of bombs, then leaving the country with zero objectives met and 58k dead.Awesome. Where can I sign up?
>>56169770you can sign up once you admit that you lost the argument
>>56160219In case nobody said it yet about 10,000 of those were non-combat deaths, like people who were going to die anyway of stuff like car crashes or measles or whatever. Let's not talk about how the champions blew a million and a half of their own dudes and the south of similar number before the USA decided they didn't want to play anymore.
>>56169780Goal of the whole endeavor was to avoid the NVA taking over the country. Not another commie win.This was not achieved. Overall a spectacular failure. The commies took over. Now once you disprove this you can sign up. Maybe.
>>56169801this wasn't the argument, you're changing the topic. admit that you lost now.
>>56160219>not allowed to occupy the North>Venona Decrypts: government infested with Soviet spies (Thanks, FDR)>guerilla orientation indifferent to casualties, no Clauswitzean inducement to negotiate in the face of overwhelming force Sino-Soviet power projection was nil, whereas the West demonstrated repeatedly the ability to wage sustained military operations around the world. China wasted its Taiwan invasion force in Korea/'Nam, that in itself justified Korea & 'Nam. This is at a time where we're geopolitically juggling in the middle east against their proxies (and suspicious of their involvement in JFK's doming). 58k over that many years is trivial compared to the millions vaporized, and current year Russia's war conduct is representative of the ruin that awaits them, generating close to that and more in a fraction of the time.
650,000 americans, both the union and confederacy, died so niggers could riot over the death of a fucking violent junkie nigger
>>56169836Anon, who was the one that wanted to keep the slaves rather than deporting them?
>>56169813That was exactly my argument Sir. What are you saying?
>>56169864nope, the argumen was that soviet "rockets" played a larger role than flammable paint. you lost.
>>56169889oh no Sir. I am OP and my point was pretty simple: Vietnam was lost. You say it was lost because of the paint on your aircraft?Well that is an interesting takeThen maybe you should have chosen a better paint
>>56169906nope, don't weasel out. you said that rockets were more important and got proven wrong. you lost.
>>56169920You didn't prove anything just your opinion.I beg to differ look at this pic.The paint did not burn at all although bullet holes are visible.>>56169621>>56169621>>56169621well?
>>56169930i've proven you wrong and now you cope. soviet sams didn't do shit.
>>56160333fuck off shill jesus christ>try to talk about vietnamUKRAINE UKRAINE UKRAINE RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA
>>56169943> But regiment commander Col. M. Tsygankov anticipated the attack. He dispersed his batteries, replacing them with dummy launchers and surrounding the dummies with 120 anti-aircraft guns. The F-105s flew into a wall of gunfire. Six F-105s and an RF-101 recce plane tumbled to the ground in flames.A few weeks later in August 1965 the Navy blundered into a similar ambush, losing five planes during a failed raid on an S-75 regiment. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/08/28/to-save-crews-from-deadly-missiles-over-vietnam-the-us-air-force-sent-drones-on-daring-suicide-missions/
>>56169959yes gunfire was more meaningful than sams which worked better as targets. you're very stupid and keep proving yourself wrong every time.
>>56169969so they used AK47 to shoot down fast and high flying US jets?Yeah?That sounds pretty based.Also they have been Soviet made 100%So either way you are losing
>>56160219Meanwhile we killed something like 1.1 million North Vietnamese soldiers.
>>56170009>Anonymous 11/25/22(Fri)08:52:59 No.56killed lots of civilians and innocent kids and girls and then even losing the war. Yeah.
>>56170002still being stupid, you should go back to /pol/ to your fellow browskins that don't know what aa gunfire is either
>>56170036I wont go back. This will be the new meta for now. Discussing US losses until eternity.
>>56170017I'm just pointing out that the war ended up the way it did due to a lack of a clear objective on the part of the US government, and lack of political will to do what was necessary to achieve victory, not any particular failure on the part of the military. I know this is just some bitter vatnik's shitpost thread. However it's important to understand the reasons behind the successes and failures in war if you hope to learn anything of value from them.
>>56160464Cause people back home didnt see the point in a war in some random asian nation that had nothing to do with US everyday life. Just like iraq and afganistan: people wanted out so as a democratic nation us was obliged to pull out. Combat wise war wasnt lost but there was no way to win win it outside of fighting a gorilla war for 2 decades while us rebuilds the entire country enough to convince the enemy to stop
>>56170076yes, so little to discuss that you are reduced to repeating the same thing over and overmeanwhile russians are abandoning another city, Kherson like little bitches, getting kicked out by fucking Ukrainians
>>56170077>a lack of a clear objective on the part of the US governmentThere was a very very very clear objective: Not letting the NVA take over Vietnam. Very clear.> any particular failure on the part of the military.Yes it was a very particular military failure.The military was deployed and it could not win against the NVA. That is a military defeat par excellence.
>>56170097keep posting Russians, wont change the new meta
>>56170112it's already the meta, you are so mad about it you spend your life trying to shit up the board that makes you so butthurti wish we killed more of serbniggers
>>56170120having a great time while you are obviously 'butthurt'
>>56170133making threads over and over again and bumping them constantly like a little bitch, not to mention being a serbnigger is 100% a sign of butthurt
>>56170143nah for me its a sport. I love it. Sipping coffee and posting on /k/, what a great day.
>>56170076>always one retarded schizo making endless seething threads about the US or the West>does it for hours every day>never two at once>"""new""" metaAt this point it looks like paid shills or some butthurt cabal making sure there is always one of those idiots around. Just for the record: OP, were you send or baited to come here or what is your backstory?
>>56170155for you it's a lifestyle, incessantly shilling like a bitch because your life is worthlessjust like a russian conscript
>>56170178keep replying Sir. This will stop me.
>>56170178>your life is worthless>just like a russian conscriptBy now it feels like russian conscripts actually got a negative value, so they aren't even worthless anymore.
>>56170196keep making these threads. for each of them a russian gets his head stomped in
>>56170106It was not. It was more of a political failure than a strategic failure. The U.S. achieved a short strategic victory in Vietnam with the cease fire. however, the results of the cease fire was for U.S. troops to pull out. Years later, the NVA invaded years after the U.S. pulled out. The U.S. still achieve military victories, the main issue is the fragility of the strategic/political objective. Even if you achieve it, what matters more is if its stable or not.
>>56170210doesn't even bother me, Sir. Let them lose the war.
>>56170274it actually does, that's why you are here
>>56170301keep coping Sir. > muh Russiadelicious cope
>>56170210Based and Azov-pilled.
>>56161120>americans are cowards who spend their lives ruining each other's livesyou know theres alot of truth to this
>>56163469>defeat north vietnam in 1968>dab on them again 2014Oof...
>>56163601If you count like that total US losses where over million in Vietnam.You can't just add Russian and Ukrainian separatists losses together.
>>56161351The U.S. beat them in majority of the engagements, whether it was conventional or guerrilla. The problem with Vietnam was more political and how they set up the government.
>>56170422They don't count donbass separatists and luhanst. They are a seperate count. The russian military alone lost around the same losses the U.S. did in tens years of Vietnam under 8 months. Multiple sources have supported of russian losses being around 70k dead and 100k wounded.
>>56170323yes you are losing and you cope about it here
>>56162160The reddit spacing autism has got to the be the most newfag signal ever. It's a /pol/ tier kneejerk reaction that's triggered by someone using a paragraph and is pure autism.2008 4chan didn't give a fuck and was remarkably far less neurotic.
>>56170482you keep bumping the thread, doing gods work.
>>56170422They don't count the seperatists. People lost count of the seperatists losses and tbey assume they are extinct at this point based on how much russia has used them as expendables.
>>56170447>70k dead and 100k woundedThat's when Kiev counts Moscow losses. I doubt those numbers are possible but we'll never know.Here in Croatia we all thought idk how many people died but in the end when statisticians took over from propagandist total losses where 14k on both sides combined.
>>56170484>The reddit spacing autism has got to the be the most newfag signal ever.obviously true. There never was such a thing as reddit spacing.
>>56170502it wasn't kyiv only, the U.S. confirmed 100k dead or wounded russian military personnel. Now other sources like oryx, which shows an abundance of losses in vehicles and countless physical evidences that the number of dead far exceeds 15k. 15k is the absolute minimum.
>>561705021500 tanks dead visually verified, that's 4500 catapulted crewmen from tanks aloneyeah, i'm thinking russians are losing tens of thousands per season
>>56170504There was but newfags don't even know what that is and think thatthis is reddit spacing while it's not. It's double spacing because of how reddit editor worked back in the day - you needed two CR for single space.
>>56170492except i dont, and when you do it you get bannedcan't even cope with russia losing because of jannies, like a serbian denied russian cum to drink
>>56170527And I guess Kiev govt lost only half of that?
>>56160219>I was minding my own businessYou were scouring the internet for more cope to make up for why Le based and redpilled Putin isn't winning don't lie
>>56170543Kyiv doesn't do human waves over and over at Bakhmut or get routed over entire fronts, so probably
>>56170527>1500 tanks dead visually verified, that's 4500 catapulted crewmen from tanks alonewrong.that assumes each dead tank results in the death of the entire crew (assuming it was even manned at the time), which of course in reality it will be far below that.
>>56170543Kyiv at the beginning of the war has less tanks than the russians. Their numbers are lower, but its best to assume its still high. Although if you believe in russian propaganda, the losses would only be believable if it was stolen russian tanks, which wouldn't look good for the russians.
>>56170533never heard of any of this. Because I dont use Reddit.
>>56170560yes, they are all totally fine comrade, russian tanks well known for crew survivability
>>56170560He is talking about tanks, not APCs. If you're talking about APCs, the number of dead will skyrocket based on russians, in doves climbing on top of them. For every destroyed APC, assume at the bery least 2 dead.
>>56170577US tanks also may be destroyed. picrel M1 Abrams versus IED, crew dead
>>56170593i don't see the crew there, seems like they survived. only a dozen of M1s were ever lost, half being detroyed intentionally so they don't get into enemy hands like abandoned russian tanks do
>>56170593Majority of U.S. abrams crew survive even if the tank is destroyed. At the very least, you have a chance of surviving while a russian tank, you have no chances of surviving if you're hit by a ATGM or anything else.
>>56170577>cherrypicking>>56170589same applies to apc's except apc's are never carrying troops in actual combat, troops dismount always once fighting starts. so in actual combat the apc will have a driver and a gunner most of the time.
>>56170627>coping about 70000 dead vatniggers
>>56170603thanks mostly not true. The M1 Abrams is a very conventional tank and it may be destroyed just like any other tank. With a mine or an RPG.
>>56170627>APCs, troops will dismount Maybe for some, but not all. There are still a shitload of APCs lost and the crew and the troops are lost within it. Even if the troops dismount, the likely hood of them surviving is anyones guess.
>>56170572Yeah so basically on reddit you had to press enter twice to getthis while on every other board that obviously resulted in double line spacing and that was a sign that someone came from there to shitpost here. Reddit editor changed that behavior years ago and now stupid kids think that every kind of line spacing is reddit spacing, such a fucking cringe. You didn't hear of any of this because you're also little newfag shithead. Now you know.
>>56170642And whats the survival rate for the abrams compared to other tanks? The main thing here is crew survivability.
>>56170635if that is real than its hilarious
>>56170642that's not true, Abrams has proper armor and blowout panels so it doesn't spontaneously explode when someone drops a lit cigarette on it like a shitty vatnik tank
SIRS DO NOT REDEEM THE (YOU)S
>>56170655Yeah the crew inside a M1 Abrams may be killed like any other crew. Mine, RPG, artillery... It is just a tank, nothing special, no vodoo
>>56170656it is real and it broke the mind of so many vatniks here it's hilarious. even moskva didn't have the same effect
>>56170655You have to take in account Abrams is double the weight and 4x the price of average ruskies tank so one Abrams loss is not the same as one Txx loss.Well it is for burgers since they can just print more money.
>>56170657that is not true. The turret can be blown off just like any other tank.And in those cases the crew dies with 99% probability.
>>56170673>>56170670kinda funny, not gonna lie SirsDo we know if they survived?
>>56170690nope, the turret doesn't magically combust when the tank is hit, only if a big IED is blown up under itmeanwhile soviet shit dies like flies
>>56170677considering they have something like 500:1 kill ratio against soviet tanks, it seems like a bargain
>>56170657Huge number of Iraqi Abrams where lost so idk about that, supposedly sides can be penetrated with big handheld launchers like Yugo Osa while front only with proper modern missiles tho someone argued Iraqi Abrams is some low grade export shit.
>>56170669>killed likeThe abrams still has a higher crew survivability compared to any other tank. You're avoiding the question by saying "all tanks explode and the crew died". Which is not saying anything and is just a false equivalency. What matters are the chances of survival rather than caring about whether the tank is destroyed or not. In which case, majority of U.S. tanks are destroyed by friendly fire.
>>56170705wrong also a classical cock-off will blow away your dumb turret. All you need to do is crack the tank with a RPG which did happen with the M1 Abrams.
>>56170717>Iraqi Abramsput away russian cum, serbnigger, you're tripping balls
>>56160219The 'Murricans lost because they were trying to do what the Russians are trying right now in Ukraine: wage a war your soldiers and people are unmotivated for against a highly motivated enemy whose military production capabilities are outside your reach in foreign lands. As if that wasn't bad enough, the 'Murricans also refused to put boots on the ground in north Vietnam for fear of angering China, so they couldn't even take or hold ground.
>>56170722except the Germans. Their tanks are superior, always have been.
>>56170717Iraqi abrams are downgraded tanks that are stripped of major components for export uses.
>>56170724wrong, no abrams was destroyed by RPG fire, lying serbniggermeanwhile T-72 dies to anything
>>56170734>downgradedfalse. next question please
>>56170726What anon, you don't know that Iraq uses Abrams as their main tank or what?
>>56170742not false, get fucked serbnigger
>>56170742Can you prove that its false? Iraqi abrams were confirmed to be exports variants that are stripped of major/classified components.
>>56170740yes, many Suppose you stop drinking your own piss i.e. stop believing your own dumb propaganda. The M1 Abrams can be destroyed like any other tank.
>>56170750like its steel hull? Or the gun? or the engine? fuck offa tank is a tank is a tank
>>56170756nope, no abrams was destroyed by an RPG. T-72 has been destroyed in massive numbers in every war it participated in.
>>56170756No one is denying that it can be killed. Your argument is just you strawmanning people.
>>56170763yes, a Panzer III is literally the same as the Leopard II, a tank is a tankwhat a dipshit serb faggot
>>56170763The armor and and everything that is classified in the abrams. The iraqi tanks were stripped to be export worthy.
>>56170740>Wiki: M79 Osas were also used in Iraq by Islamic State against Iraqi army and JANES reported their use against US-made M1A1 Abrams tanks.Idk anon, I haven't been there but I've seen videos tho can't really say what the aftermath was tho if ISIS says it drills through I kinda believe it.Osa drills through Syrian tanks from the front through reactive armor and all so I don't see why it couldn't get side kill on Abrams. It's one big rocket.
>>56170768> just you strawmanning people.what does it mean?
>>56170778M1s have reactive armor on the sides as well, it's unlikely that they would be destroyed in this manner unless the crew bails out after a hit and the tank is burned down afterwards
>>56170781Intentionally misrepresenting shit in order for you to "win a argument" regardless of what the original claim was.
>>56170734People claim it has downgraded armor and that's why it gets penetrated by portable weapons tho maybe it's just smoke&mirrors propaganda by Chrysler/General Dynamics. Everything is double the thickness and weight on it compared to soviet stuff so maybe there nothing more to it than that.
>>56170796Its the depleted uranium armor along with other shit that made the Abrams sturdy.
>>56170796even the worst armored Abrams is miles ahead of any soviet tank, just by virtue of using bigger and more advanced armor arrays. Reminder than from the side soviet tanks are just dumb cast steel, same as it was on a T-55. That's why autocannons have killed it before.
apparently, you just need to dig a hole in the ground to protect yourself from artillery and tank shots.So i was thinking... why not put some soil on a tank to protect it ? Double advantage that you can grow some plants on it for easy camouflage.
>>56160219we didn't win because our troops weren't fighting for something greater than themselves while the vietnamese were.
>>56170778There's a recent full video of Houthis Osa kill against Saudi Abrams with aftermath. It did penetrate and there was blood everywhere, crew managed to bail out but it didn't do any catastrophic damage, engine even kept running and everything was powered on.Houthis just poured gasoline inside and set it on fire afterwards. Guess Saudi Abrams is not nerfed as Iraqi one?Also that Osa thing could barely be called portable, you probably need three man team to haul that thing around.
>>56170842they should hire you in russian army anon, you're onto something
>>56170810>using bigger and more advanced armor arrays>T-90SM-53 short tons>M1A2 SEP v3:-73.6 short tonsIt's just 20 tons more of same shitty steel they make Chryslers from. Doubt there's much to it other than being fatter/heavier.
>>56170789I am not doing this obviously.
>>56170898kiddie they haven't been using steel as main tank armor for half a century by now, get with the times
>>56170894My favorite one.
>>56170921yes you are
>>56170922It's still mostly steel plates just sloped and sandwiched with some spacing.
>>56170979nope, it's not mostly steel plates. you are uneducated and dumb.
>>56170979correct and it can be penetrated with a RPG
>>56170930based, continue Sir
>>56171009samefag less obviously, serbmonkey
>>56171000Most of the weight in those panels is steel, there's very little ceramics/depleted uranium whatever poisonous shit they put in these.It's like retards thinking that most of the weight in 300kg tesla lithium battery comes from lithium.
>>56171034you don't know what you're talking about, uneducated serbnigger. tank armor doesn't work like that.
>>56171080samefagging won't make your idiocy closer to truth serbnigger
>>56171046Yeah Chrysler knows, they can't make a fucking car but their tanks are top tech made out of unobtainium. Corporate bootlicking shill and buzzword swallower.
>>56171088what a weak shitty images, hope you don't have that trash saved, cringe.
>>56171109you are retarded serbnigger, you don't know shit about tanks. because retards like you design russian tanks they are as useful as a smelly turd
>>56171109again you are correct.Their tanks are just as their cars. Bulky, trashy, crappy and with design flaws. Like a cheap yet large American pick up truck
>>56171129Like you know anything loser, it you were worth anything you wouldn't end up here with us.Also thanks for serbnigger medal, strokes my ego that I give off such nasty vibes kek.
>>56171151still wrong and useless, samefagging serbniggeryou suck as much as self exploding russian tanks
>>56171171Huawei P40, nice.
>>56171157lol, serbnigger genetic trash is beaten so badly he can only project now, yes you're so nasty that people naturally spit on you
>>56171191and another tank made by subhumans
>>56171191dude why are you so triggered? calm down or you might get a stroke.
>>56171200why are you crying, srebnigger? you just called yourself out.
>>56171191You're so cute being this hearty and emotional.How tall are you anon?
>>56166796>2. Instead of using the usual time tested strategies, U.S forces were literally just sent straight into the jungle, with no clear intel, making them really easy targetsgood reply, thank you Sir. That is actually enlightening But what Intel can you get for a fucking jungle? Its a jungle. And the enemy is always on the move and nearly invisible.
>>56170159I came by myself. I am procrastinating collage work by posting on /k/. That is the story.
>>56171257based more pics, more ammunition
>>56171129Loses in Iraq against ISIS where actually so high that Chrysler started sending cope panels and makeshift armor for the turret sides.I've even seen pics of Iraqi abrams having plastered layers of bricks made out of old soviet tanks sideskirts around the turret. Those probably didn't do shit but people will do anything to at least feel better and more safe.
>>56170921You are relying on strawmans to present your arguments. You're purposely misrepresenting things in order to get a "win" in your argumentation despite it not being relevant or addressing the original point.
>>56173522is it? could be true technically I just downloaded it. But yeah I have got more