Vietnam Without the Helicopter

[prosper o]

For many the typical image of the Vietnam War is Apocalypse Now-style attacks and heavy use of helicopters especially the UH-1 Iroquois. Now of course we know that the war was not fought entirely with helicopters but you have to admit they had a tremendous impact on the war.
So I wonder: What if? (assuming all other things remain the same) the helicopter was never invented in time for the Vietnam War, or if they were in very early development (pre-M*A*S*H* style helicopters). The US obviously would have fought very differently, but might the US have actually done better if the war was fought conventionally instead of relying so much on isolated hardpoints supplied by helo?
And if so what sort of tech might the US have developed to improve jungle fighting and mobility? Maybe more advanced STOL aircraft?

[Kome]

Vietnam without helicopters... isnt that what the French had to work with?

And i dont really think you would do better without your fancy helicopters. Tech and equipment problems wernt the reason you lost.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

We can't just decide we'll fight it conventionally and everything will magically work out for us. In fact, we did try to fight it conventionally, there's nothing unconventional about helicopters. Didn't help at all, the enemy wasn't exactly cooperating with our decision of the mode of warfare and our planned strategy.

[Snake Featherston]

The US problems in Vietnam are arguably worse as US troops are less mobile relative to the Viet Cong, who can actually see a much simpler reason to adopt Vo Nyguen Giap's preferred tactic of small-scale local attacks instead of a great big Tet-style gamble. On paper this offers the NLF and NVA chances to real-for-true win a battle against the USA. Whether on-paper translates to in-reality is a different matter, however.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

There probably would be some significant NVA victories even against US troops, there were a great many situations where helicopters saved entire squads or even platoons from being completely overrun. and helicopters could deliver needed supplies and reinforcements along with medevacs much more easily and efficiently than a jeep. I've read memoirs from Vietnam vets about how much and how often the helis saved their lives.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by 9 Fanged Hummingbird

There probably would be some significant NVA victories even against US troops, there were a great many situations where helicopters saved entire squads or even platoons from being completely overrun. and helicopters could deliver needed supplies and reinforcements along with medevacs much more easily and efficiently than a jeep. I've read memoirs from Vietnam vets about how much and how often the helis saved their lives.

In which case we see the USA react to this just like they did to the North Koreans doing this in 1950. Very, very badly and overreacting and demanding nukes be used in saturation strikes. Neglecting entirely any military reasons this might happen, because the US Military is clearly invincible and nothing is ever its fault at any point, in any time, in any shape, or in any fashion. US generals like German generals are perfect all-knowing God-Men handicapped by sniveling civilians.

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by 9 Fanged Hummingbird

There probably would be some significant NVA victories even against US troops, there were a great many situations where helicopters saved entire squads or even platoons from being completely overrun. and helicopters could deliver needed supplies and reinforcements along with medevacs much more easily and efficiently than a jeep. I've read memoirs from Vietnam vets about how much and how often the helis saved their lives.

You can replace some of that with STOL aircraft and parachute reinforcement/supply drops. It won't be as versatile or widespread, but the capability doesn't just disappear entirely. In fact I'd expect the army to keep a tight hold on its liason aircraft for exactly those sorts of jobs.

[SergeantHeretic]

Propsero, the reson we lost the war in Vietnam had nothing to do with the weapons or vehicles we did or did not emply.

The North Vietnamese faction is Vietnam was waging an anti colonial endurance struggle.

Their strategy was to kill foreigners unti lwe stopped coming and it worked.

Our strategy, if one could call it that was to treat the North Vietnamese and their Viet Mihn Viet COng apparat as if they were just "Yellow savages in black pajamas.

We entered the war with the wrong ally for the wrong reason at the wrong time with the wrong midset and the wrong motivation.

Having the Helo or not having it will change nothing about the outcome of the war.

Why?

Because the North is going to kill AMericans unit we stop coming for as long as it takes to make us sick of our sons and fathers and brothers and friends coming home home in metal prefab coffins.

Years, decades, centuries if need be.

If we expand the war to the extent of being able to literally make the other side stop existing he war metaamorphoses into World War Three and we know it and we were not prepared for that and the North KNEW IT!

We could never have won under the above conditions.

[Kome]

Originally Posted by Gunnarnz

You can replace some of that with STOL aircraft and parachute reinforcement/supply drops. It won't be as versatile or widespread, but the capability doesn't just disappear entirely. In fact I'd expect the army to keep a tight hold on its liason aircraft for exactly those sorts of jobs.

Its harder for you to teach a person how to jump out a plane (and live) then it is to jump out a helicopter a foot off the ground, so you'll have less manpower avaliable in that regard. Using paratroopers for general patrolling is also pretty inefficient. Especially seeing how after they jump out the plane, they'll have to trek all the way back to base rather than the nearest open clearing.

So while air mobile capability wont be completely unavailable in the big picture, a lot of the time for the troops on the ground it will.

[SergeantHeretic]

ALl this is acedemic.

This discussion is concerning whether or not this or that weapon would or would not have affected the outcome of a war whose outcome was preordained by the difference between the war the U.S. was pretending they were fighting and the endurance trial/war of attrition the North was fighting.

[ccdsah]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Propsero, the reson we lost the war in Vietnam had nothing to do with the weapons or vehicles we did or did not emply.

The North Vietnamese faction is Vietnam was waging an anti colonial endurance struggle.

Their strategy was to kill foreigners unti lwe stopped coming and it worked.

Our strategy, if one could call it that was to treat the North Vietnamese and their Viet Mihn Viet COng apparat as if they were just "Yellow savages in black pajamas.

We entered the war with the wrong ally for the wrong reason at the wrong time with the wrong midset and the wrong motivation.

Having the Helo or not having it will change nothing about the outcome of the war.

Why?

Because the North is going to kill AMericans unit we stop coming for as long as it takes to make us sick of our sons and fathers and brothers and friends coming home home in metal prefab coffins.

Years, decades, centuries if need be.

If we expand the war to the extent of being able to literally make the other side stop existing he war metaamorphoses into World War Three and we know it and we were not prepared for that and the North KNEW IT!

We could never have won under the above conditions.

I don't think if US nuked North Vietnam,the Soviets would do the same. I doubt they'd escalate for North Vietnam

[Kome]

Originally Posted by ccdsah

I don't think if US nuked North Vietnam,the Soviets would do the same. I doubt they'd escalate for North Vietnam

Its not escalating FOR North Vietnam, its escalating for Soviet prestige. You cant let the US get away with stuff like that and expect people to take the USSR seriously.

In the international community, once they know your a softie, the world will walk right over you.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by ccdsah

I don't think if US nuked North Vietnam,the Soviets would do the same. I doubt they'd escalate for North Vietnam

Then you don't know the SOviet Union.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Kome

Its not escalating FOR North Vietnam, its escalating for Soviet prestige. You cant let the US get away with stuff like that and expect people to take the USSR seriously.

In the international community, once they know your a softie, the world will walk right over you.

Precisely, if the U.S.S.R. allows the United States to nuke blast a Communist fellow traveler, your name is mud and you know it, you HAVE to respond.

[ccdsah]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Precisely, if the U.S.S.R. allows the United States to nuke blast a Communist fellow traveler, your name is mud and you know it, you HAVE to respond.

But they won't nuke US!!! They might, might nuke South Vietnam

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by ccdsah

But they won't nuke US!!! They might, might nuke South Vietnam

Oh WON'T hey nuke the U.S.?

Would you care to wager the lives of millions of American citizens and possibly dozens of American cities on that?

We nuke N Vietnam, They Nuke S Vietnam so we respond by invading N Korea, they respond by crossing int othe Fulda gap and that's the ball game children.

[Shaby]

If USSR does not respond to US nuking Vietnam they may as well say goodbye to Castro right then and there. And probably use nukes in Afghanistan later on. However, back in the real world, Soviets would prolly not respond to US by direct attack on US territory, but would attack say, RoK or West Germany with nukes at which point escalation is unavoidable. First use of nuclear weapons was a unspoken taboo of Cold War.

[RamscoopRaider]

With the Butterflies needed for no helicopters we might have gone nuclear before we got involved in Vietnam, either in Korea or using them in Vietnam on behalf of the French, in either case the strategic imbalance means the USSR would have to shut up and take it

You are talking a pre 1945 divergence point, a lot can happen in 10-20 years in that tense of a time

[Riain]

I think STOL aircraft are given a bad rap at the hands of the helicopter. I`d like to see a proliferation of the likes of the DHC Caribou and Buffalo, Rockwell Bronco, Pilatus Porter. With less helicopters maybe Vietnam wouldn`t have led to the economic problems of the 70s.

[Kome]

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

With the Butterflies needed for no helicopters we might have gone nuclear before we got involved in Vietnam, either in Korea or using them in Vietnam on behalf of the French, in either case the strategic imbalance means the USSR would have to shut up and take it

You are talking a pre 1945 divergence point, a lot can happen in 10-20 years in that tense of a time

Hmm, you also got to think about what DOES the US military spend its money on if it didnt have to equip so many units with helicopters. Does the force in Vietnam get more firepower? Air support? Or the money goes to the South Vietnamese instead?

I refuse to make another disclaimer that the answer wont matter in the long term since the US will lose anyways. I did that in my first post already.