- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A little history on Viet Nam
Posted on 5/29/23 at 8:53 am to VABuckeye
Posted on 5/29/23 at 8:53 am to VABuckeye
quote:
If you really want to get pissed off at our government watch Vietnam by Ken Burns.
I thought that Burns’ Vietnam War documentary failed to accurately depict the world-wide narrative of the Cold War, which was a war between communist forces and those of liberal democracies. It was THE reason for the war.
The failure by the media to tell the harrowing story of Mao’s communist revolution, which was taking place at the same time as Vietnam, is part of the reason why we so badly understood the ramifications or the purpose of that war.
Plus, the U.S. had war fatigue, despite the military and moral victory in WWII, and partially because of the stalemate in Korea.
We were rightly tired of fighting wars, especially those that were murky regarding the military strategy.
But don’t make the mistake that Burns made in ignoring the evil of communism and it’s long term goal of global conquest.
1
Posted on 5/29/23 at 9:00 am to The Goat
I suggest you revisit your memory. Marine officers are not “over” fleets!
Posted on 5/29/23 at 9:00 am to JustDooIt
quote:
One soldier, PFC Dan Bullock was 15 years old.
Posted on 5/29/23 at 9:03 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
But don’t make the mistake that Burns made in ignoring the evil of communism and it’s long term goal of global conquest.
I work with, and do a lot of events with Vietnam veterans, particularly ex-POWs, have great friends among them, most of those guys do not consider their time to have been wasted or that Vietnam was a pointless war, they absolutely considered communism a threat and they still do
ETA: they did recognize that their ability to kick arse was severely hamstrung by the politicians, it was frustrating to them but they were most certainly kicking North Vietnam's arse
This post was edited on 5/29/23 at 9:16 am
Posted on 5/29/23 at 9:09 am to Sundance
quote:
revisit your memory
I will do just that. I will revisit the memory from the mid 90s when he and I both had at least 5 Jack Daniels each. You get the gist. He was very high up in rank and had a lot of men under his command. More men than just one ship. I'm not a military guy so I don't know all the lingo. Fleet? Armada? A bunch of boats? You got me there.
Posted on 5/29/23 at 9:48 am to JustDooIt
It doesn't say on the wall how many soldiers were killed by friendly fire. My BIL was one of them. He was a Cobra pilot and went to check perimeter and was shot mistaken for VC. He was 6'2 over 200lbs. He was a Capt.
Posted on 5/29/23 at 9:49 am to VernonPLSUfan
quote:
He was a Capt.
fire may not have been so friendly
Posted on 5/29/23 at 9:52 am to LemmyLives
Lemmy, you seem to be a serious military history student, so, this post is for you. Here are some of my thoughts.
"Military Science" is relatively new, as a concept. The US military's strategic situation in Vietnam would challenge even the most expert military scientist, so, it's not the best example demonstrating how military science can impact the battlefield.
IMHO The best example demonstrating how military science can help minimize military incompetence is the 1914 campaign in France and Belgium. Imperial Germany used military science to develop a Doctrine and effective infantry tactics. This bore fruit in 1914. It started for them in about 1888 when, by official army regulation, they abandoned shock tactics and focused on Firepower, Combined Arms tactics and Fire and Maneuver as the new paradigm.
Imperial Germany's army established many Major Training Areas large enough to conduct Division-level training exercises. France and Britain had training areas before the war, but they were too few and too small to be effective. In addition, neither Britain nor France had developed effective training and doctrine by 1914, and it showed in the campaign.
This book effectively demonstrates how Military Science performed vs. military non-science.
As for the US Army, our Training and Doctrine Command was stood up in 1973. That's very late IMHO.
Here's the book:
LINK
"Military Science" is relatively new, as a concept. The US military's strategic situation in Vietnam would challenge even the most expert military scientist, so, it's not the best example demonstrating how military science can impact the battlefield.
IMHO The best example demonstrating how military science can help minimize military incompetence is the 1914 campaign in France and Belgium. Imperial Germany used military science to develop a Doctrine and effective infantry tactics. This bore fruit in 1914. It started for them in about 1888 when, by official army regulation, they abandoned shock tactics and focused on Firepower, Combined Arms tactics and Fire and Maneuver as the new paradigm.
Imperial Germany's army established many Major Training Areas large enough to conduct Division-level training exercises. France and Britain had training areas before the war, but they were too few and too small to be effective. In addition, neither Britain nor France had developed effective training and doctrine by 1914, and it showed in the campaign.
This book effectively demonstrates how Military Science performed vs. military non-science.
As for the US Army, our Training and Doctrine Command was stood up in 1973. That's very late IMHO.
Here's the book:
LINK
Posted on 5/29/23 at 10:01 am to 777Tiger
quote:I know it wasn't, he was a bad arse and didn't take no shite from anybody.
fire may not have been so friendly
Posted on 5/29/23 at 10:06 am to VernonPLSUfan
was a reference to the fragging deaths of junior officers that occurred, was mostly field level though, look at the dumbasses that killed their comrade, former Cardinals football player? pretty hard to mistake him for a camel jockey
Posted on 5/29/23 at 10:08 am to JustDooIt
Who were the casualties 36 years ago?
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News