Infernal disco in the jungle : Why was America going to lose the Vietnam war?

"Vietnam was one of the worst wars, but it had the best soundtrack."
-Someone on the Internet

"I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen"
-Kurtz, "Apocalypse Now

Almost 45 years ago March 29, 1973, for the US Army ended the war in Vietnam. This military company became the most bloody for the US in the second half of the 20th century – according to an approximate calculation since 1964, the occupation forces lost 60 thousand killed and 300 thousand wounded, about 2 thousand people are still missing. The US Air Force in the territory of Indochina lost about nine thousand planes shot down, and a little less than a thousand people, mostly pilots, were captured. On the side of the army of South Vietnam, the US allied, approximately 250 thousand people were killed, about 1 million were injured.
The losses of North Vietnam and the National Liberation of Vietnam (Vietcong) are more than 1 million killed and about 600 thousand wounded. Among the civilian population, the losses are actually colossal – there are no exact figures, but according to approximate estimates, the losses make about 4 million people. Such a huge loss among civilians speaks of the nature of the war – war crimes were commonplace things in this war.

At the moment it is an excellent historical illustration on the topic "When the Cold War becomes hot": more explosives were dropped into Vietnam than in the whole of the Second World War by all parties.
In Vietnam itself, the war is called American and the attitude towards it is comparable to the attitude to the Second World War in Europe.

"Christmas" bombing in Haifron, 1972

Explosions of bombs with napalm

The Importance of War
This war should be regarded as one of the episodes of confrontation between the two superpowers. Perhaps in the future I will devote a separate post to the causes and consequences of this war, since this topic deserves a separate discussion. Now I will only say that in 1964 it became obvious that the strengthened communist government of North Vietnam was about to swallow the south, which the United States could not allow for political reasons, for in this case they were losing Indochina, and then the fun began
The results of this bloody massacre can be viewed from different angles: the stakes in the game were very high. For the Red Socialist camp to inflict defeat on the Americans by the hands of a small and backward country meant for many year to demoralize them, raising own authority and proving the superiority of their weapons. That was achieved to the full. The Yankees do not want to remember this war; they do not fight the radicals openly, and generally revised their methods of fighting the "red plague".
On the other hand, despite the obvious defeat of the United States, I want to quote Lee Kuan Yew (He is known as the creator of the Economic Miracle in Singapore. This man was an outstanding politician), who believes that the Vietnam War played an important deterrent role:
"Although the US intervention failed, it allowed time for the rest of South-East Asia. In 1965, when US forces entered Vietnam, armed communist insurgents threatened Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines, and in Singapore, the communist underground was still active. The standard of living of the population was low, and economic growth was slow. The actions of the Americans allowed non-communist countries bring their affairs in order. Without US intervention, the will of these countries to fight against the Communists would been suppressed, and they would most likely have fallen under Communist rule. It was during the Vietnam War that the foundations of the prosperous market economy of the ASEAN countries were laid."
So why did the United States of America have to be content with questionable deterrence of communism in the territory of South-East Asia, instead of completely imposing their will on Vietnam? Why did the invincible and all-destroying USA lose to the underdeveloped Vietnam?
You can recall millions of nuances and find as many reasons. For me, the Vietnam War is primarily an example of the fact that there is no enemy that can not be defeated by tactics, even with a tangible difference in the level of armaments, as is the case with Vietnam and the United States. America has made too many mistakes that Vietnam has been able to take advantage of. The technological advantage was opposed by savvy and fighting spirit. I will allow myself a biblical analogy: Vietnam is David, who did not flinch before the undefeated Goliath.
In no way I do not want to humiliate the valor of the American soldiers (except for those who were guilty of war crimes) who proved themselves more than worthy in this war. Largely, politicians, generals and officials lost the war. I think, after some justification, you will be inclined at least partly to agree with me. Describing the reasons of America's defeat, I will touch on both the key causes and the "secondary", which in the complex also played an important role. So, let's go!
The price of mistakes(and wins?) in the war

Reason number 1: The American soldiers were not ready for this war. -Disarray in the army, low morale and lack of discipline. The American soldier did not understand why he was dying in this war, in contrast to his opponent, who fought for an idea that defended his house and was ready for any sacrifices. It is difficult to fight selflessly when you were called under threat of imprisonment. This war was needed by the White House, but not to the 18-year-old boy wet under a tropical rainstorm and asking himself the question "What the hell did I forget here?" He wanted to go home.
Add to this the general craze for drugs (more refers to the middle of the war). All this do not contribute to combat readiness and discipline.
To the full, this point applies to the allies of America, South Vietnam. Half of the soldiers of the army of South Vietnam openly sympathized with the enemy, the other half were afraid of him. Moreover, these people were afraid of war and did not know how to fight. Who will put on the army, which does not want to fight?
May 1975 - Meeting of the women of North and South Vietnam after the war

-Rifle, 5.56 mm, M16. Its use in this war is rather controversial. It was an excellent rifle for its time, but its place is clearly not in Vietnam. Especially considering that it is opposed to the AK, which proved to be excellent in Vietnam. The ideal weapon for a shootout in a clean European city, in the jungle, turned out to be inappropriate. For the war in the jungle, another weapon was needed: the most reliable and lasting, albeit not very accurate (in the jungle, shooting is short, and mostly by sound), but with A powerful cartridge punching through shrubs and small trees. Do you recognize? Yes, it was AK.
A very important issue was the reliability of M16. M16 was positioned as not requiring cleaning (which is not true, since the manufacturer said that you do not need to clean the gas pipe only, the rest is necessary for cleaning), so there were no accessories for cleaning-the American generals simply did not bought their. The lack of chrome plating of the bolt group, chamber and barrel bore, in combination with a damp Vietcong climate, and at the same time poor quality old gunpowder, instead of a special, did their job.
However, in 1967 M16A1 was adopted, along with which they supplied cleaning kits and operating manuals (steep comics!). As a result, jamming cases were minimized.
Some comic pages

This hot babe in red maybe made guys happy in the lonely jungles of Vietnam

Jungle. The Vietnamese were at home, the Yankees were visitors. The Americans had already fought in the Pacific jungle with the Japanese, but Vietnam was far less hospitable. Impenetrable tropical forest with its inhabitants (even without the partisans) did not add comfort to the inhabitants of temperate latitudes. Any tourist or geologist will say that an unprepared person has fewer chances to return alive from the rainforest than from the desert. Almost all the flora and fauna, from the hungry tiger, to the still to an unknown bacterium, is dangerous. Try to imagine: the humidity is almost always 100%, the temperature below +30 does not drop, in summer it is often above 40, the dry rations are spoiled, the iron is oxidized, the food is decayed, any scratch is inflamed and decomposed, the body is dangerous to open, shoes are removed - suicide. To patrol the forest, often one had to cut the thicket with а machete.. As a rule, patrols took place as follows: one soldier in front cut down a forest with a machete, the detachment came behind. Sometimes the man in front touched the mine, and it tore him to shreds. Then, with the machete, the next soldier went ahead, and so on to the most victorious one. Moreover, in this jungle there is a clever adversary, thirsting for your blood, damn cunning and loving traps.
This trap was covered with leaves. The soldier who got into it was guaranteed to lose his leg, and the squad - mobility.

Democracy was greeted cordially. Vietnamese often lubricate the stakes with their own shit to cause blood poisoning.

-A few words about supply and unpretentiousness. Poor countries tend to be content with the small and this also applies to war. Vietnam militants are less whimsical than the US soldiers who need the benefits of civilization, such as medical care or integrated nutrition. All this in the form of cumbersome equipment the fighters dragged on themselves (raincoats, medical kits, etc.), in aggregate all this cost a lot of money and was very easily lost. The US soldiers needed more resources than a Vietnamese soldier did. Moreover, the Vietnamese demonstrated striking diligence and endurance.
Reason number 2: Incompetence of the US army leadership(Including the high command of the army)
-Relations with the Vietnamese civilian population and war crimes. I am not going to say here that the killing of civilians, oppression and robbery, concentration camps and torture is bad. I really think so, but there is no justice in the war. I just want to note that by setting up a peaceful population against itself, the US Army rendered a tremendous service to the Viet Cong (the guerrillas of South Vietnam). From the population, the Vietcong guerrillas received resources, recruits and information. The population installed traps and mines, conducted partisan actions. There is even a saying "A farmer by day, partisan at night". Despite the ban on the activities of the Viet Cong, anti-government agitation and propaganda of communism were freely carried out in rural areas throughout South Vietnam. While the American army was trying to seize the countryside and destroy as many guerrillas as possible, believing that in this way they would ensure the stability of the pro-American government of South Vietnam, the commanders of North Vietnam showed a deeper understanding of the situation. American punitive operations aroused hatred among the peasants of South Vietnam. The northerners made every effort to win the sympathy of the peasants and draw over to their side
Everyone could be a partisan. Only I see the skull under her left breast?

Not such a funny photo : In the photo, one of the participants of the organization "freedom fighters", suspected of spying for the benefit of Vietcong, was interrogated by a South Vietnamese officer. It was a war of both - men and women.
The culmination of the previous paragraph can be considered an indulgent attitude of the US military to its southern counterparts. Initially, US troops arriving in Vietnam as advisors underwent special courses to learn to find a common language with the officers of South Vietnam. Later, with the multiple expansion of the military contingent in the United States, these courses were neglected.US soldiers disrespected the army and population of South Vietnam, which led to the fact that many South Vietnamese officers, initially sympathetic to the US, secretly or openly joined the partisans

"We even pushed them aside, saying, you know, "Get out of the way, little yellow brother. The good guys are here now, we're gonna go out there", you know, "the cavalry has arrived, we’re gonna go out there and defeat the indians in the countryside, you just step back". A terrible mistake. A terrible mistake!"
-Norman Schwarzkopf

Two minutes for the hero: Norman Schwarzkopf is a man whom I can describe as an exemplary commander. Two terms he was in Vietnam, several times he received a military injury. There is a known case when his unit could not independently get out of the minefield and Schwarzkopf personally arrived at the scene, received another injury, but withdrew the unit from the minefield.During the war in Vietnam, he was awarded three times the "Silver Star" medal (For courage and bravery shown in battle). He got a reputation as a stern commander who does everything to save the lives of his soldiers. Known is his phrase:
"When you sit on a plane flying home, if your last thought of me is" I hate the son of a bitch ", then it's fine, because you come home alive."

Lack of experience in counter-guerrilla warfare and war in the jungle. Yes, the US Army had experience of war in the jungle of Japan, but the climate of Vietnam was much more severe. Moreover, Vietnamese soldiers and officers were much better prepared for the war in the jungle, since before the war with the US they had to fight with France and Japan.
"While in May Hiepe, I also met with Colonels Lee Laom and Dang Vieth Mei. They have served for almost 15 years as battalion commanders, - recalls David Hackworth. - The average American battalion or brigade commander served in Vietnam for one six-month period. Lama and Meya could be compared to the trainers of professional football teams playing every season in the finals for a super prize, while the American commanders were like rosy-cheeked math teachers, put instead of our professional trainers, sacrificed to careerism. To become generals, our "players" risked their lives, commanding battalions in Vietnam for six months, and America lost. "

This guy is considered one of the most awarded military men of the United States during the Vietnam War. In general, has more than 90 awards, including two "Distinguished Service Cross" - the second most important military award in the US Army. And probably he is a prototype of Lieutenant Colonel Kilgor in the film "Apocalypse Now"

-Tactical miscalculations, planning mistakes, ambiguity of the results of battles.Errors in planning were, and there were too many. This can be said for a long time, I'll try briefly. Often, the actions of the US Army did not give the expected effect. A vivid example can be the strategy of massive bombing of Vietnam, in spite of which, Vietnam never managed to "shove back into the Stone Age".

In addition to the fact that the B-52 is a good cocktail, it is also a wonderful aircraft.
The photo shows the process of active agitation. B-52 scattered cassette propaganda leaflets. Initially, such a plane was designed for nuclear bombing. The aircraft is so severe that the radar built into it does not distinguish between targets less military base. It is rumored that even the distant rupture of a bomb dropped from the B-52 could lead to rupture of the lungs. A more distant explosion causes bleeding from the eyes and ears.

In the example of strategic miscalculations, one can also cite the strategy of "Find and destroy" from General Westmoreland, who viewed the war in the traditional style - as fighting between large forces. In Vietnam's actions, it is clearly visible that the conventional view of the war has been abandoned. In many ways, Vietnam won thanks to the creative approach and the rejection of templates.
An excellent example of a strategic genius with a lively mind and flexible thinking is Vietnam's General Wo Nguyen Diap, the real legend of this war. In Counterweight to William Westmoreland, who constantly wanted to lead Vietnam to one big, decisive battle, Diap was opposed to major battles and preferred to exhaust the enemy with small but constant skirmishes. His main task, he believed, was not to break the army in a direct battle, but to demoralize it, without giving a moment's rest.
"Of course, we did not have enough strength to drive out the half-million-strong American army from the country, but that was not our main task: we had to break the will of the Americans and make them stop the war."
He was well aware that America needed a quick victory and delaying the war for her was tantamount to defeat
"Red Napoleon" or "Vietnamese Rommel" - Wo Nguyen Diap, One of the greatest generals of the 20th century. He never studied at the military academy and actually wanted to become a teacher. He was an opponent of the positional war, constantly demanded of his soldiers to move, to change positions and advance to the enemy's rear, even if the enemy attacks. According to the testimony of his staff's officers, he was very critical of even such a concept as the front line.I originally planned to write about him. Maybe someday ...

Now a little bit about tactics, battles and planning operations. As I said above, most of the actions of Americans gave a controversial result. The same applies to combat operations. Some examples: Battle of Ia Drang (Both sides of the battle believe that they won in it), Lam Son 719 (The unmotivated cessation of the offensive after the first few days led to the fact that in the future the initiative was completely transferred to the North Vietnamese army, which, moreover, had time to transfer additional units to the operation area), Battle of Hamburger Hill (The height was taken, but the report about the operation itself led to a surge of anti-war sentiment in the US and changes in the US military strategy, dragging out even more war. Such a reaction was caused by the popular opinion about the meaninglessness of this battle), Battle of Dak To (One of the most fierce battles in the war. Formal victory of the United States.), Tet Offensive(Tactically complete victory of the United States, politically - defeat in the war), raid on Shongtai prisoner's camp(tactically - the victory of the United States, not a single loss. However, not a single captive was saved - because of a failure in exploration and planning. The forces that carried out the operation were not notified that there are not a single American in the camp for several months.) and...
...Battle of Khe Sanh(1968 ). About the latter - a few more details. Battle of Khe Sanh Known as the longest battle during the Vietnam War.In fact, it was a siege of the US Marine Corps. American soldiers successfully repelled the siege after fierce battles, although the base was soon abandoned.Of interest is the very fact of keeping this base by America and the fact that Vietnam started this siege. With the end of the siege, both sides declared their victory. The Americans regarded the siege of Kheshani as a very important battle: they said that Vu Nguyen Ziap wanted to repeat the success with Dien Bien Phu when, after the siege and surrender of this French fortress, the surrender of France in the First Indochina War soon followed. The Vietnamese claimed that the strike in the direction of Kheshani was distracting, and took place in the general logic of border battles, pulling American forces from the interior of the country, for which a massive partisan blow was being prepared. If Americans are right, they undoubtedly won this battle: the siege of the base was unsuccessful. Although, as a result, the Kheshani garrison was evacuated, it happened already in a very different strategic situation, when the base lost all value. If the Vietnamese are right, and Kheshan is simply a distracting maneuver in front of a much larger Tete offensive, they won in this clash: they really managed to hold up large forces of Americans (including strategic bombers) in this region for a long time, and in the end the base fell - frightened Americans themselves evacuated it: even if the enemy's capture of Kheshani from a military point of view and would no longer have any significance, the American propaganda gave this object too much significance (people are long convinced ali in the fact that the fate of almost the whole war is being decided there). In any case, it is obvious that the "informational" significance of the struggle for Kheshan was at least no less than the military-strategic one itself. The same, by the way, can be said about the Tete offensive. It turned out to be quite a failure for the Vietnamese - from a purely military point of view. But the information effect from this large-scale attack turned out to be so strong (the official US propaganda on the eve of him said that the enemy is "at its last gasp" and is practically incapable of major operations) that the overall strategic position of the USA has worsened after it.

The generals and politicians are responsible for the discord and lack of discipline in the army, as well as most of the problems of the American soldier in Vietnam
Any command in any war is not immune from errors. However, this cannot be an excuse. The cost of poorly planned operations are the lives of soldiers. The number of committed errors allows you to judge the level of this command. In my opinion, there is no right to make a mistake in war.
Reason number 3: Incompetence of US politicians (Also including higher command of the US Army)
-Relations with civilians and war crimes. Yes, I blamed army commanders for this, but this is no less a miscalculation of US politicians. It is the top of the government that determines the policy in this respect and the Pentagon, along with the US Congress and the White House, did not give due importance to the opinion of the peasants of South Vietnam, thereby creating for themselves one more enemy in this war. War crimes with the consent of the US politicians and army commanders only aggravated the situation.
IIt is noteworthy that despite the recognition by the international tribunal of the United States of the guilty of numerous brutal crimes against the peaceful population of Vietnam, there were no consequences for the United States from the world community. The only significant response to incoming information about the commission of war crimes was the growth of anti-war sentiments among US citizens. Perhaps I should add here that I do not justify in any way North Vietnam and their allies They are also guilty of a number of war crimes. But this does not relieve the responsibility with the US and perfectly illustrates the extent to which the international court is objective and fair.
[Be careful, here sarcasm!]Napalm bombings in action. Do not feel sorry for these people. These are malicious partisans, they stabbed hundreds of American guys

This monk burned himself during the Buddhist crisis of 1963 in protest against the oppression of Buddhism by the pro-American government of Ngo Dinh Ziem.

Massacre in the village of Songmi

-According to General Norman Schwarzkopf, direct US military intervention was a "terrible mistake." Since 1965, the US policy has caused many South Vietnamese officers, previously sympathetic to the United States, to side with the Viet Cong and begin to help the partisans. This policy, in his opinion, predetermined the defeat of the United States in the war and made it inevitable.
-Public opinion, media and quick victory propaganda. One of the main reasons for the end of the war. Uninterrupted for several years, anti-war demonstrations of several hundred thousand people, the pogroms of military enlistment offices and general evasion from the service did their job.Initially, the US government hoped for a quick victory in Vietnam and actively promoted this idea. In my opinion, the active coverage of this war in the media was one of the biggest mistakes on the part of the US government. A striking example of this is Tet offensive, after which the Americans lost faith in the possibility of victory in Vietnam. Yet as 1967, opinion polls indicated that, despite the wave of anti-war demonstrations, most Americans nevertheless support the war and believe in an early victory.
But what the Americans saw on their television screens during the New Year celebrations made them terrified: crowds of Vietnamese who had previously been operating only in the jungle and therefore so far away for the American philistine, now appeared in big cities, filled the streets, sowed destruction and panic ... their there were many! The Americans were told that the war was coming to an end, that victory was near. Now it was impossible to believe in a quick victory.
In fact, the following happened: The Vietnamese took advantage of the annual truce with America during the New Year celebrations and unexpectedly launched a massive offensive. From a military point of view, it was a failure - the US embassy was not captured, not a single military base was captured, only one city was captured, pro-american government was not destroyed (the main objective of the attack), the Vietnamese army suffered heavy losses. However, due to the media coverage, this operation turned the tide of the war in favor of Vietnam.
Also very important was the fact that, upon their return to the US, the soldiers felt themselves not heroes, but executioners. In the eyes of the public, the returning veterans looked like murderers
The most famous photo of this war. It must be here.
“Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, the chief of the South Vietnamese police, ordered the guards to step back and stepped towards the prisoner, who had his eyes lowered to the ground. Without saying a word, Loan pulled out a revolver, stretched out his right hand, and almost touched the prisoner's head with the barrel and pressed the trigger. Photographer Eddie Adams also pulled the trigger "
The effect of this photo was so strong that Eddie Adams said himself later : "The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera"

-Indecision of politicians of the USA, political constraint.
Many veterans of the Vietnam War believe that the war is lost due to the indecisiveness of politicians. Undoubtedly, the United States had enough strength to conquer North Vietnam. However, the United States limited itself to passive resistance and an economic blockade, but for some reason, politicians didn’t have enough courage to launch a blitzkrieg to North Vietnam and end it. Perhaps such a reason was the fear of the official entry into the war of the USSR and China.
An example of how political restrictions affected the outcome of a military operation is Operation Lam Son 719. The South Vietnamese army without the support of the US ground forces was unable to perform the combat mission.
In addition, an example would be to prohibit General Westmorland from launching a full-scale invasion of Laos. According to Westmoreland, in order to win the war, American units must first destroy the enemy’s rear bases in Cambodia, and cut the “Ho Chi Minh trail” in Laos, after which it remains only to destroy the partisan groups in South Vietnam. However, until 1970-1971, the US administration refused to conduct ground operations in Cambodia and Laos, citing the formally neutral (which, in fact, has already been violated) status of these countries.
Thomas Cole, a physician of the first armored cavalry division (with a bandaged eye), assists a wounded sergeant Harrison Pell during a shootout between American troops and Vietcong forces in the highlands of Vietnam. Picture taken in January 1966.

It seems that the main reason for the defeat of the United States is an incorrect assessment of the situation: the underestimation of the enemy and the overestimation of their own capabilities. In wars, one must win before unleashing them. All the reasons for the defeat of the United States in this war are in one way or another connected with the incompetence of the then government.
End of war. People are trying to climb over the 4-meter wall of the American Embassy in Saigon to get to the rescue helicopters during the last attempt to leave Vietnam on April 29, 1975.

People were not afraid to be shot by guards.

Historical photo: people flee to one of the last helicopters on the roof of the Agency for International Development, confusing it with the US Embassy

Since the fate of Saigon was decided on the approaches to the city, there were no special battles on its streets, only individual clashes with the last defenders.
Here the Vietcong go on the attack on the deserted presidential palace. The goal of 10 years of struggle.

Joyful relatives are running to embrace a military prisoner released at liberty - Lieutenant Colonel Robert L. Sterm. At the airfield in Fairfield, California. Colonel returned home safe and sound on March 17, 1973

Thank for your attention. I hope you were interested. Criticism and suggestions will be welcomed. This is my first post, so criticism is more than relevant. Some more small posts about Vietnam are planned.