Anyone care to explain the Vietnam War?

[ubersonic]

I just can't get my head round how the USA didn't beat them so easily

The same reason the USA were able to beat the British Empire despite being ridiculously outmatched. The same way Afghanistan defeated Genghis Khan, the British Empire, the USSR and (currently) the USA.

An army or militias fighting on it's own soil will always have the advantage over an invading/occupying force, because they don't need to win they just need to make victory so costly for the invaders/occupiers that it becomes preferable to simply go away.

 

[Rroff]

The same reason the USA were able to beat the British Empire despite being ridiculously outmatched.

Not the only reason in that one though - a lot of the reason they were able to beat the British Empire at that time was a combination of the British Empire having military concerns either at war or needing to be prepared in case of war across the globe and the involvement of other nations like France. Able to focus purely on the US it isn't likely the USA would have won.

But ultimately you are right - an army even an irregular one fighting on its own soil have a huge advantage which can make for a very costly campaign to put down.

 

[LOAM]

The US didn't understand what they were fighting and it wasn't in any way shape or form anything like a conventional war, there was no meaningful territory to win just miles and miles of jungle that took hours to pass through. It became farcical that the metric for win/loss of each battle came down to the basic quantity of bodies each side lost. American Marines would assault a meaningless hill that the North Vietnames had been spotted on, hundreds if not thousands of men perished and the NV would disappear in to the night and the following day what was left of US troops would leave and go back to base leaving the hill to be reoccupied.

It was a collosal waste of lives that served absolutely zero purpose.

Read Hill 488 and The Boys of '67: Charlie Company's War in Vietnam, both great reads but terribly sad also. Also Chicken hawk for an amazing account from a decorated Huey pilot.

 

[Rroff]

The US didn't understand what they were fighting and it wasn't in any way shape or form anything like a conventional war, there was no meaningful territory to win just miles and miles of jungle that took hours to pass through. It became farcical that the metric for win/loss of each battle came down to the basic quantity of bodies each side lost. American Marines would assault a meaningless hill that the North Vietnames had been spotted on, hundreds if not thousands of men perished and the NV would disappear in to the night and the following day what was left of US troops would leave and go back to base leaving the hill to be reoccupied.

It was a collosal waste of lives that served absolutely zero purpose.

Read Hill 488 and The Boys of '67: Charlie Company's War in Vietnam, both great reads but terribly sad also. Also Chicken hawk for an amazing account from a decorated Huey pilot.

The other problem is to win quickly and conclusively in these environments means playing by tactics generally not accepted in civilised society and international law, etc. in all out no holds barred (not including nuclear) war the US could have won very quickly with a campaign of scorched earth, chemical and biological weapons, etc.

 

[JBeck]

I wish I could find the source material. Maybe someone else can find the details, but I've read that the SAS were out in Vietnam supporting the Americans covertly.

I remember this as well, I think it might have been a documentary on TV years ago.

Iirc, they weren't allowed to enter Vietnam but they did patrol along the Cambodia border, intercepting (or whatever the word is) supply routes.

I believe these are unfounded rumours. The SAS for this whole period had Aden and Borneo to contend with. If there was a British SAS presence it would probably have been advisory at most.
My stepfather served during this same period and he has no knowledge of the SAS (British) being involved in military action in Vietnam.

 

[neocon]

The American's tried to fight like in WW2, but it didn't work so well in Vietnam. Lots of people died trying to conquer some ground, which they later lost. Gen Westmoreland succeeded in WW2 battles but his strategies weren't so great in Vietnam.

I liked that interview with a vet who said he only killed one "person" in Vietnam.. After that they weren't human. How do you know who is who, who is South Vietnamese and who is Vietcong.

It's evil what happened to civilians and both sides committed war crimes.

 

[RxR]

The Australian SAS regiment was in Vietnam from 1966 supporting the US.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/hist...operations-vietnam?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

Or similar info from the Australian War Memorial:

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/U53507

 

[neocon]

What does winning actually look like in this particular war?

Actually, communism didn't really spread across Asia did it? Japan, S Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia stayed capitalist. So it was successful from that point of view. Today, Vietnam is capitalist. When I had a massage in Saigon the woman wanted USD.

 

[JonnyT]

The excellent Ken Burns The Vietnam War documentary is currently running on PBS America (Freeview Ch.91)