Totally Confused about Vietnam War

Chrisk-k

Although I've been interested in WWII for my entire life, I've only recently got interested in the Vietnam War.  I'm reading a book (Days of Valor) about what happened in '67-'68 (before the Tet Offensive) and I am totally confused!

The area of operation by the 199th Light Infantry Brigade described in the book is just above Saigon.  I know that Saigon fell in '75. So, was the North Vietnamese Army so close to Saigon in '67? Does it mean that most of Vietnam was controlled by the Vietcong in '67?  I always thought that in '67-'68 the front line was around the DMZ in the middle of Vietnam.  

Your last sentence says it all...there really was no front line. To say the U.S. "controlled" any territory is a bit of a stretch.

the fighting would just "pop up" almost anywhere in the country at any given time

Da Nang or Chu Lai could get a rocket attack,,,,,then a day later after that was defeated,,,,,,an outpost close to the Ho Chi Min trail would get hit,,,or farther south

if you think of how Montana would be attacked by 1,000 people while being defended by 100,000 troops,,,,,,that was about how the attempt was made to end the civil war in VietNam (sort of a reverse of the movie "Red Dawn")

the fall of Saigon was different than most of the war before that time period,,,,,that was a traditional "large force advances on a goal" type of fight,,,,,,without the US participating in the attempt to halt it

Hercmech

Chrisk-k:

Although I've been interested in WWII for my entire life, I've only recently got interested in the Vietnam War.  I'm reading a book (Days of Valor) about what happened in '67-'68 (before the Tet Offensive) and I am totally confused!

The area of operation by the 199th Light Infantry Brigade described in the book is just above Saigon.  I know that Saigon fell in '75. So, was the North Vietnamese Army so close to Saigon in '67? Does it mean that most of Vietnam was controlled by the Vietcong in '67?  I always thought that in '67-'68 the front line was around the DMZ in the middle of Vietnam.  

 

Your last sentence says it all...there really was no front line. To say the U.S. "controlled" any territory is a bit of a stretch.

US troops really controlled the piece of ground they were standing on (usually), out to the max-effective range of an M-16 (460 meters, or as far as they could see, which was about 25 meters in the bush), along with the ground inside the wire... Everything else was Victor Charlie's AO (prior to the '68 Tet Offensive)...   When you stepped outside the wire and went into the bush, out of sight of the wire, you were in Charlie's yard... 

The DMZ was basically the border between North and South Vietnam as a result of the French Indochina War, roughly running just South of the 17th parallel, and was supposed to be off-limits to all military personel (hence the name), North and South (The NVA ignored that part)... 

Now I understand. So, it was not like the US Army vs. the North Vietnam Army per se. It was more like the US Army vs. a group of Vietcongs who would pop up anytime anywhere.

Now you are getting it

Chrisk-k

Now I understand. So, it was not like the US Army vs. the North Vietnam Army per se. It was more like the US Army vs. a group of Vietcongs who would pop up anytime anywhere.

It was US Army/USMC vs VC anywhere in the south, and USA/USMC vs the NVA more traditional set piece battles, when the NVA could be brought to battle, usually in the outying regions of South Vietnam where they had established strongholds.  Both sides fought a war of attrition to tire out the other, while trying to capitilize on their own strengths and minimize that of their enemy's. Add in the condtions of safe havens for the communists where ground forces could not pursue and engage, and the specter of Chinese or Russian ground forces intervention if the US escalated beyond some point that was never known by the civilian leadership.

What confused me was that I always thought ground combats occurred near the DMZ, far from Saigon, in '67 & '68.  Anyway, I cannot put down the book.  I just ordered a copy of "When Thunder Rolls."

In 1967 the US strategy was to engage the NVA in the countryside away from the populated areas so that "secure" zones could be brought under RVN government control and the VC infrastructure eliminated thru various programs. Many of the "big" battles of that time were out along the borders of the DMZ at "the Rock" and Khe Sanh, and areas along the Cambodian and Lation borders such as Dak To. Others were "Search & Destroy/Sweep & Clear" operations in areas such as the "Iron Triangle" closer to Saigon intended to remove the NVA/VC from areas that threatened the capital. But small unit patrol action firefights could occur anywhere, 'from the Delta to the DMZ'. Plus all the clandestine cross border operations. There is plenty of good reading and model building to be done in regards to the Vietnam War.

I actually wrote a paper in college about the role that the USS New Jersey played in Vietnam, and the information I found was staggering.

As anybody who's studied the conflict in any depth knows, disrupting the north's logistics network was always like punching sand. Bombed bridges turned into people carrying stuff across rivers. Caves were safe from those same bombs because the mud absorbed the impacts, and so on.

The New Jersey was brought in to put an end to that, at least along the coast. And it's impact was massive. Those 16" shells beat the crap out of the supply lines, bunkers and so on, and did so with basically the closest thing to stealth in those days. Since the shells travelled faster than the speed of sound, they'd impact before the sound wave, so they basically came in silent. No warning. No telltale roar of a jet engine overhead, etc. And the oomph allowed it to knock out bridges and other infrastructure that bombs had trouble with.

I've read testimonials from (I think it was) Marines on the ground to the effect of the New Jersey's presence basically making the coastline peaceful for the time it was there.

Ultimately, it was so effective that the North Vietnamese demanded the Navy remove it from the theater as a precondition to peace talks.

I used to work with a guy who found some targets for New jerseys' guns in that time/area. Intersting stories. I would love to see a kit of New Jersey in her  Vietnam or Korean War fitting.

This is the kind of war you get when politicians are in charge instead of generals.

This line in Shakespeares Julius Caesar  “Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip (loose) the dogs of war”  pretty much sums up the way to do it if you really want to win a war.

I prefer the quote of an anonnymous GI that's on one of my old Zippo lighters...

"Give me your hearts and minds or I'll burn your #*$%in' hooch down..."

Amen -Hammer !

                                                                                  The Original

                                                                       Mike Oscar Juno Oscar

                                                                                 Outcast !

                                            End Transmission-Semper Fi

Hans von Hammer

US troops really controlled the piece of ground they were standing on (usually), out to the max-effective range of an M-16 (460 meters, or as far as they could see, which was about 25 meters in the bush), along with the ground inside the wire... Everything else was Victor Charlie's AO (prior to the '68 Tet Offensive)...   When you stepped outside the wire and went into the bush, out of sight of the wire, you were in Charlie's yard... 

In many ways, there are some parallels to be drawn between this scenario from the Vietnam era and what we face (faced) in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Not a one to one comparison by any stretch, but the same type of assymetric warfare that means there really is no 'front' - the enemy can, and will, attack anywhere, anytime.

I was part of the gun fire support crew on my cruiser . We did fire missions in support of mostly the USMC up and down the coast of south Vietnam 1964 - thru 66 . As part of the gun fire crew i was able  to go ashore in Da Nang and visit with some of the Marines that we had been supporting at a location north of there. Their location was on a hill top overlooking a peaceful valley . The Marine i was with told me that some of those people out there would be attacking their position at night . Sure enough it happened . Its kinda like trying to kill an ant hill one ant at a time with 12 gauge shot gun when it enters your yard and then not eliminating their ant hill because you can only blow up their supply routes ..........................................

By the numbers and in theory the US was winning the war in Vietnam.

The goal was to succeed by attrition and force the North into treaty talks. With a ratio of over 10 to 1 enemy troops KIA vrs US combat losses the strategy failed to work for several reasons. The main one being men and material pouring in from neighboring countries, which also provided sanctuary from attack. Unofficially the North was backed by Russia and China.

Even with a flawed strategy the US fielded superior equipment and air support which the North did not have. Added to this was the sheer volume of artillery support from land and sea. 

The Vietnamese theory of attrition was time. In conflict already for decades the population with a defiant, stubborn attitude fully backed their leader. Ho Chi Min realized eventually even a superpower would tire of war in his country. Dug in for the long haul his strategy of going underground and fight a Gorilla style hit and run war was the only way to survive and resist. Yet the one factor stronger than steel and lead tipped the balance.

For the first time in history the media was allowed to film and photograph all aspects of the conflict. Shocking images filled the news each night and public disapproval with mounting troop losses over 10 years caused the US to withdraw.

Without getting into the politics- a few clarifications to Suppresion Fire's pot:

North Vietnam was officially backed by Russia and China politicially and militarily. It was far more than mere lip  service and moral support of unofficial support. Military hardware from bullets to the latest MiGs and SAMs, tanks and heavy artillery, were provided to the North, as well as technicians, advisors, etc.

US active involvement on the ground was roughly 8 years. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed in August 1964 and can be seen as the point where active overt commitment began. Regular ground force combat units ( not SF or Advisors) first arrived in country (South Vietnam) in March 1965. The last ones were withdrawn in early 1973, roughly 8 years later.

And the North actually tried regular force on force engagements twice while US forces were involved, with the hope/aim of inspiring the "general uprising" of the populace of the South. Tet 1968 and the Easter Offensive of 1972 (a full on Soviet style conventional invasion across the DMZ and out of Cambodia) during the US withdrawl. In both cases after achieving initial gains they were soundly defeated on the battlefield in the long run with heavy losses and forced to revert to guerilla (not gorilla) warfare to rebuild their forces with Soviet and Chinese assistance.

and it is choice inspirational material for lots of great modeling subjects from leftover WWII aircraft to the highest technology land sea and air weapons from the US and USSR of that era.

If you can, read "We Were Soldiers Once...And Young" written by retired Lt. Gen Hal Moore. Excellent reading about then Lt. Col. Hal Moore leading the 7th Air Cav. at the Battele of Ia Drang Valley. The movie is good but a few events differ from the book.

plastickjunkie

If you can, read "We Were Soldiers Once...And Young" written by retired Lt. Gen Hal Moore. Excellent reading about then Lt. Col. Hal Moore leading the 7th Air Cav. at the Battele of Ia Drang Valley. The movie is good but a few events differ from the book.

One of my favorite war movies.

stikpusher,

Thanks for polishing up some of my points, pulled from the depths of my memory late at night I may have misinterpreted some facts. I did not know Russia and China officially backed the North.

Stik, you may want to dig a little deeper concerning those start dates

There is a very simple point of logic that gets missed by many writers concerning that "start date" being the Tonkin Gulf Resolution,,,,,,which was an answer to the Tonkin Gulf Incident

I have physically read the orders of Marines that were on the USS Tortuga before August,,,,one of which was sent from the Tortuga off the coast of Vietnam to retrain at Millington, near the very end of July 1964,,,,,,making his "first tour off the coast of Vietnam" not count towards his final total of three tours there, those were all on the ground with Aircraft Squadrons

so,,,,,we know there was an Amphib landing force in the Gulf in July,,,,I don't have the exact start date of that "up and down the coast cruise",,,,,,but, the July date is firm

the point of logic?,,,,,,,,2 carriers were involved in the Tonkin Gulf Incident,,,,,so,,,,,,ummm,,,,,,they were already deployed there,,,,,,and we had already lost aircraft in Recce shoot downs, conducted from carriers that had rotated out before the Connie and Tico's famous nights in August

Ranger, Kittyhawk, and Bonnie D1ck had all been there just before the Incident

Rex

I know that there were ground forces offshore and in neighboring areas well before the "official" actual landings in early 1965. I served with 2 different SF sergeants who were in Laos in 1963/1964. But from all that I have read where regular US ground forces were committed to stay on land "boots on the ground" and not as part of any exercise or contingency 'in and out' was in Spring 1965 with the Marines landing at DaNang and the 173rd Airborne into Bien Hoa. And of course the carriers on station in the Gulf of Tonkin and South China Sea for Pierce Arrow, Flaming Dart, etc. But from a historic perspective, (and IIRC the dates where the campaign and service medals are awarded) the August 1964 timeframe is the time considered as the official start dates. I do enjoy reading all that I can find on the subject.

Agreed the Vietnam war makes for excellent reading material.

A series of books by author Garry R. Linderer and who served with the special forces during the conflict are excellent material to read:

'Phantom Warriors' 'Six Silent Men' 'Eyes Behind the Lines' and 'The Eyes of the Eagle'

I like the format of each chapter being a mission the LRRP's did. This makes the book easy to pick up after a few days or weeks as you do not loose the story line. I highly recommend 'Six Silent Men' After reading it I gave the book to a friend who worked shifts. When he was done it was passed along to several of his co-workers who all gave it two thumbs up.

Of course the conflict was the subject (In my humble opinion) of the best war movies ever made:

'Apocalypse Now' 'Full Metal Jacket' 'Uncommon Valor' and 'Platoon'

SuppressionFire

stikpusher,

Thanks for polishing up some of my points, pulled from the depths of my memory late at night I may have misinterpreted some facts. I did not know Russia and China officially backed the North.

There are stories that Russian pilots flew North Vietnamese MiGs during the war. Other stories tell the tale of a white pilot being killed by villagers after he parachuted down and the villagers being punished because he was one of theirs (Soviet). Still officially denied though.

Another good book about the war in Vietnam is called Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Mihn Trail. It is by Rick Newman and Don Sheppard.

The book is interesting in its own right, but is also a good tale of both the futility of many aspects of the US strategy and the resilience and resourcefulness of the North.

Definitely on my list as I only recently heard about it.

Di ck Rutan was a Misty pilot.

For a broader understanding of the war, I'd suggest looking at the political background as much as the action accounts. A good book in that regard is Fire In the Lake by Frances Fitzgerald.

Others to read are The Best and the Brightest  and A Bright and Shining Lie.

Fitzgerald in particular gives much depth to the French colonial experience and how that significantly altered Ho's previously pro-American position.

Following the defeat of the Japanese, the country was divided in two with British control of the South and Chinese control of the North, pending eventual return of the colony to France. During the long and complicated struggle for power in late 1945 and 1946, the British in part retained the Japanese forces as security against Viet Minh temporary governance and Communist insurgencies. Imagine how unpopular that concept was- fully armed Japanese forces welcoming in the French to resume their rule. Such strange political events are a continuous feature of the history of the country.

bbrowniii

 

In many ways, there are some parallels to be drawn between this scenario from the Vietnam era and what we face (faced) in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Not a one to one comparison by any stretch, but the same type of assymetric warfare that means there really is no 'front' - the enemy can, and will, attack anywhere, anytime.

I agree with this. I cant speak for afghanistan but iraq was very much like this, we even had locals coming in the wire and working for us. I asked once why we see so many differant people and was told that alot of the locals were being killed for working for us. I was in a transportation company that only hauled fuel from one base to the next, thats all we did.

B-17 Guy

bbrowniii:

 

In many ways, there are some parallels to be drawn between this scenario from the Vietnam era and what we face (faced) in Afghanistan and Iraq today. Not a one to one comparison by any stretch, but the same type of assymetric warfare that means there really is no 'front' - the enemy can, and will, attack anywhere, anytime.

 

I agree with this. I cant speak for afghanistan but iraq was very much like this, we even had locals coming in the wire and working for us. I asked once why we see so many differant people and was told that alot of the locals were being killed for working for us. I was in a transportation company that only hauled fuel from one base to the next, thats all we did.

Not a bad summarization... My time in the 'Stan was initially a 6-month deployment, as I was attached to an SF Group (no sneaky pete sh*t for me.. I was a "Bob from the FOB")... The locals were ALL hostile, regardless of who they supported... We were polite, we were professional, and we had a plan to kill everyone we met... I was with an Engineer Battalion, where our mission was mine-hunting...

Soviet mines, that is... The place was lousy with 'em, even after all those years since Ivan went home with his tail 'tween his legs.. Being a Chem-dawg, I got to go hunt the Grey-painted ones, if any were found... We blew mines in-place, either a MCLC or up-close with TNT and C-4,  but you cant do that with a freakin' VX-filled mine.. Those're nasty b*tches ya gotta do the old-fashoined way, and do it in MOPP-4.. Luckily, we didn't find any, and none were ever found as far as I know.. But I practiced a LOT..  There only has to be ONE mine in a mine-field for things to be a little sporty..

Never had a IED incident, the Tangos hadn't started that at that time...  But we found a LOT of AT-mines that damn-sure coulda found their way into the wrong hands..

Hiowever, I digress..

Iraq, in the beginning (I was the Ops-Sergeant in the 3rd ID NBCCC in March of '03).  We were in a classic, force-on-force, set-piece battle with Iraqi Army units, and we absolutely destroyed them (shades of '91.. Guess their commanders forgot we'd met 'em before), their Army was no more after about two weeks...  (BTW, THAT was what President Bush was referring to during his "Mission Accomplished" speech on the carrier..)

Anyway, that's some of my story..  After I retired in '06, I still watched the news, and it astounded me that the reporting from Iraq was almost exactly the same as during Vietnam.. The mainstream-press just couldn't get their heads wrapped around that, after we destroyed an insurgent attack, killing damn-near all of 'em, they'd report that "one American Soldier was killed and more three wounded" or something like that, right?

But here's what'd p*ss me off.. They almost ALWAYS started the piece with, "A deadly day in Iraq.."... No mention of the fact that we took out 10-20 of the bad guys, just that we took some casualties... They made it sound like we lost every engagement if somebody got it, and damned if I didn't think it was 1966 or 1971 again...  (Dad was there, in-country during those years (fighting in his third war),  and mom & me ate dinner in front of the TV for a year, lol.. ) Militarily-speaking, our casualties 99% of the time were not "Heavy", "Moderate", and weren't "Light".. Militarily, they were insignificant, and remained that way... (Not to those close to the person who was KIA / WIA, but y'all know I mean..)  

Anyway, I don't wanna rant, because that's echelons above and beyond what was asked.. 

The Vietnam War is really, from a a modeler's stand-point, about the best era to model in, due to the VAST numbers and types of equipment, aircraft, and vehicles used (to include almost everything in NATO and the WARPAC, ranging from  WW2-M3 "Grease-guns" or MG42s, M2 Carbines, etc. to "Buck Rogers" stuff that was built to go to the MOON...  Doesn't matter if you're a WW2-era modeler or not, the WW2/Korean War stuff was there, lol..

All this talk about Vietnam is kinda gettin' me inspired...  AND,, you can bet that LZ X-ray will be involved one way or another.... I read Hal Moore's book too,  We Were Soldiers Once... And Young is outstanding...

But there are a few more I've got rated right up there with it, with a couple that're great for Huey, Cobra, , and Loach-freaks, and that's Chickenhawk, by Robert Mason, and CW2 by Layne Heath, and for a great look about one SF El-Tee's experiences is Once a Warrior King,  by David Donovan... This one is REALLY griiping, and it's not a "propaganda piece", nor is it a novel.. Just what one US Army SF First Lieutenant saw and experienced during his first combat command... 

 The book really gets into what it was like living and fighting the VC alongside the locals (mostly Montagnards, but with some ARVN)..   As the CO of a MAT (Military Advisory Team) protecting the village of Tram Chim, along with its people (almost totally cut off from any US troops for help or back-up, except the weekly Huey that resupplied them) from the VC and how they practically had "go native" while they were there...

First-hand accounts of how the VC really were, how they'd sweep into a village and just flat extort, rape, and murder their way through it in order to try and coerce the locals to turn against the US forces..  I definately see some paralells between Vietnam and the Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.. As the poet said, "The more things change, the more thay stay the same" ...

Not much to model though ('cept the Huey or a sampan, or the one 81mm mortar-pit they had to defend the camp) ...