User Panel
Posted: 3/20/2018 9:54:47 PM EDT
Would the outcome be different?
Guided weapons don’t do much good if you can’t find targets. I guess we could spy the Ho Chi Minh trail with drones and harass the shit out of them with Hellfires. Would taking hills and defending firebases and such be all that much different? The AH-64 would for sure be feared by the enemy more that the UH-1. Abrams and Bradley would likeky make very little difference. Body armor would *greatly* reduce WIA and KIA. Small arms improvements? I guess marginal. Yea, I know that there is no trail today, all hypothetical here. A collection of random thoughts on the topic here. Discuss! |
|
|
When I went in to the Corps ground moving target was a fairly recent advance in air to ground radar. I always thought that would have been hell on the NVA supply line. Instead of saturation bombing the ho chi min trail we would have been able to pick out the actual targets saving a lot of money on ordnance.
|
|
IMO, better medical, night time capability, and close air support could make a big difference.
|
|
|
Wasn't the tech or the men fighting. It was leadership from POTUS on down that munked up that outcome.
|
|
Unless modern technology somehow caused the US to March north of the DMZ the out come would be the same.
|
|
|
Would advancements in thermal and NV have helped. I'm not really sure what they had at the time, but know NV was used in a much simpler form in WWII.
|
|
Helicopters and typical fixed wing CAS would have a very rough time with all the MANPADS the enemy would flood the battlespace with...
not terrain well suited to armor or mech infantry (our strengths along with Air)... It would still be a muddy, bloody counterinsurgency nightmare in the jungle. Drones with Thermal & Night vision would be helpful on our side, but a resourceful enemy (especially well stocked with MANPADS) who could tunnel, blend into the city and infiltrate the "Allied forces" would be formidable... Again, public opinion and cost of the war would be ample reason not to get in, or to stay in... |
|
It wasn't the tech that made Vietnam go the way that it did. It was policy and doctrine.
|
|
I'm thinking night vision and thermal would have been a game changer at the individual level, as well as modern body armor. Doubt the overall results would be any different though.
|
|
If we were 'ALLOWED' to fight the the Vietnam war with the 'THEN' military technology - IMO, the outcome would have been totally different!!!!!
|
|
Better medical resources and body armor would have saved lives. Drones, apaches, reliable ammo, more frequent ammo cleaning schedules, night vision, IR lasers, would have saved lives.
Fighting a war with body count will never result in a win. |
|
Are you giving the PAVN modern Russian and Chinese weapons too?
|
|
Quoted:
Would advancements in thermal and NV have helped. I'm not really sure what they had at the time, but know NV was used in a much simpler form in WWII. View Quote |
|
... it was policy, not military technology that lost that war
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
When I went in to the Corps ground moving target was a fairly recent advance in air to ground radar. I always thought that would have been hell on the NVA supply line. Instead of saturation bombing the ho chi min trail we would have been able to pick out the actual targets saving a lot of money on ordnance. View Quote You can't be serious. |
|
It would depend, if we conducted the war the exact same way I think we would have the same outcome. The jungle was our stalingrad, soaking up all our advantages and forcing us to fight more on the enemy's terms than our own.
|
|
Quoted:
Wasn't the tech or the men fighting. It was leadership from POTUS on down that munked up that outcome. View Quote And having a meddling president who in addition to that, also did not want to win becuase of the fear of drawings the chicoms and soviets into a far larger war. |
|
Quoted:
it would be the same outcome imho View Quote |
|
|
It wasn't our war fighters ability or technology that begat that cluster fuck it was the politicians and leadership that lost.
|
|
All I know is Linebacker II with JDAM's would have been impressive.
|
|
Quoted:
More lives saved; however...similar results as we didn't fight to war to win and lots of the enemy targets couldn't be attacked and stupid RoEs. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
The Soviet Union invested a fortune in creating an insurgency in The US against the war effort and we're still feeling the repercussions of their successful efforts today.
Oddly; although The USSR has been dissolved, the communist movement they planted here in America has not only outlived it, but is thriving. |
|
|
Quoted:
The Soviet Union invested a fortune in creating an insurgency in The US against the war effort and we're still feeling the repercussions of their successful efforts today. Oddly; although The USSR has been dissolved, the communist movement they planted here in America has not only outlived it, but is thriving. View Quote |
|
Quoted: The will to win, or lack thereof. And having a meddling president who in addition to that, also did not want to win becuase of the fear of drawings the chicoms and soviets into a far larger war. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Would the outcome be different? Guided weapons don't do much good if you can't find targets. I guess we could spy the Ho Chi Minh trail with drones and harass the shit out of them with Hellfires. Would taking hills and defending firebases and such be all that much different? The AH-64 would for sure be feared by the enemy more that the UH-1. Abrams and Bradley would likeky make very little difference. Body armor would *greatly* reduce WIA and KIA. Small arms improvements? I guess marginal. Yea, I know that there is no trail today, all hypothetical here. A collection of random thoughts on the topic here. Discuss! View Quote The problem with much of the Vietnam war was the complete dumpster fire of strategic policy. Rolling Thunder and the whole incremental bombing campaign/limited targetting was just about the dumbest way to wage a bombing campaign. Many a Vietnamese person had a good laugh about how many times we blew up the same bridges, IIRC they thought we had some kind of bridge fetish. We had no problem at all finding targets to hit, we just couldn't hit the best ones because DC said so. You can have the absolute best equipment available but if DC/politicians that don't know anything other than efficiency reports and not scaring the Russians control everything then you're pissing in the wind. |
|
In this scenario is today's military constrained with the ROE of the time or do we get Mattis style ROE?
In this scenario do we get yesteryear MSM media coverage or do we get today's alternate media ability? |
|
The answer is NO because we never lost a battle in Vietnam.
We lost support from the public. Same thing would happen today. In fact it would probably be worse if a Republican we're in office at the time. ETA: The US military could take over the world tomorrow if we really wanted to. |
|
|
I think thermal and night vision would have the most impact overall.
Body armor and better radios for the troops |
|
Quoted:
Would the outcome be different? Guided weapons don’t do much good if you can’t find targets. I guess we could spy the Ho Chi Minh trail with drones and harass the shit out of them with Hellfires. Would taking hills and defending firebases and such be all that much different? The AH-64 would for sure be feared by the enemy more that the UH-1. Abrams and Bradley would likeky make very little difference. Body armor would *greatly* reduce WIA and KIA. Small arms improvements? I guess marginal. Yea, I know that there is no trail today, all hypothetical here. A collection of random thoughts on the topic here. Discuss! View Quote At least in a Vietnam-style scenario. Think Gulf War. |
|
|
South Vietnam lacked the ability to refine jet fuel. America refused to sell them and pressured other countries not to either. If they could of actually used their airforce the North Vietnam invasion would of been in for a lot of trouble. I really suspect the whole thing was just to break the will of the American population. The same party that got us into the war was really thorough at making certain the war was lost. It is fishy.
|
|
Quoted:
All I know is Linebacker II with JDAM's would have been impressive. https://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_clown.gif View Quote |
|
Our troops were winning Vietnam.
Idiot ROEs, pussy politicians, and traitorous journalists lost it. Just like today. |
|
Quoted:
Every heard the saying "You won the battle, but lost the war"? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
South Vietnam lacked the ability to refine jet fuel. America refused to sell them and pressured other countries not to either. If they could of actually used their airforce the North Vietnam invasion would of been in for a lot of trouble. I really suspect the whole thing was just to break the will of the American population. The same party that got us into the war was really thorough at making certain the war was lost. It is fishy. View Quote |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.