CH: Vietcong Win a Single Major Tactical Battle

[Killer300]

Keep in mind, just ONE. I'm not asking for multiple in a row, I'm not asking for the Vietcong to easily beat US forces in a one on one fight.

What I'm asking for is that the Vietcong win, and obviously to some extent, one direct confrontation with US forces. The reason I ask for this is because it would've, I think, helped prevent the stab in the back myth later by showing more openly how good the Vietcong could be. Besides that, I'm just curious what you guys will come up with.

Keep in mind, it must be somewhat major, and against US forces. I know that they beat South Vietnam all the time, however I don't think they technically won a single tactical confrontation against US forces.

So, BEGIN!

[unclepatrick]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Keep in mind, just ONE. I'm not asking for multiple in a row, I'm not asking for the Vietcong to easily beat US forces in a one on one fight.

What I'm asking for is that the Vietcong win, and obviously to some extent, one direct confrontation with US forces. The reason I ask for this is because it would've, I think, helped prevent the stab in the back myth later by showing more openly how good the Vietcong could be. Besides that, I'm just curious what you guys will come up with.

Keep in mind, it must be somewhat major, and against US forces. I know that they beat South Vietnam all the time, however I don't think they technically won a single tactical confrontation against US forces.

So, BEGIN!

Sorry not going to happen. The VC strength is small hit and run tactics. You can win some small fights again platoon size troops, but once you go for a Major battle, the VC are playing in to the US strength heavy firepower put againt a enemy in the open. No way the VC can win.
They try in the Tet offensive. They Lose.

[hairysamarian]

It requires the US military leadership to fail miserably. As long as they continue to play to their advantages and avoid stupidity on the order of Dien Bien Phu, they will continue to be victorious. (at least tactically).

So your pod, if it is to be found, requires the placement of an absolute nutter high enough in the US chain of command to force everyone else to ignore the lessons of Dien Bien Phu and Ia Drang as well as other events.

[Killer300]

If only Snake Featherson was here...

[MarshalBraginsky]

Would having the US Army do worse at the Tet Offensive actually work?

[Killer300]

Would it cause them an outright loss?

Also, guys, keep in mind, it is just ONE. Even talented people screw up sometimes, so presumably, we can have mistakes filter down to the tactical level at least once.

[ModernKiwi]

When you say "major", are you talking battalion level? Because I agree with the others, it's not going to happen. There is too much in the way of heavy arty, gunship and fast mover support to allow the VC units to get the necessary level of concentration and momentum up.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by ModernKiwi

When you say "major", are you talking battalion level? Because I agree with the others, it's not going to happen. There is too much in the way of heavy arty, gunship and fast mover support to allow the VC units to get the necessary level of concentration and momentum up.

This is despite, with those same elements, the US lost to the Chinese under Macarthur, and had almost an ENTIRE DIVISION encircled.

Look, I'm not saying it would be easy, there's a reason it didn't happen in OTL. However, saying it's impossible ignores flaws that did exist in the US military, especially if the reason for that unbeatable is because of technology, especially considering that South Vietnam frequently was given access to much of that technology, yet still lost to Vietcong, frequently with the latter having a far inferior tech base.

[ModernKiwi]

The Chinese in Korea were operating in a completely different environment as full blown divisional (and corp level) attacks. Try to assemble a division of VC in one area. You'd have to bring in members from all over the country, supply them with weapons (and food), all the while ensuring that this call up wasn't noticed.

There is a reason why the Tet attacks were mostly by small and local units.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by ModernKiwi

The Chinese in Korea were operating in a completely different environment as full blown divisional (and corp level) attacks. Try to assemble a division of VC in one area. You'd have to bring in members from all over the country, supply them with weapons (and food), all the while ensuring that this call up wasn't noticed.

There is a reason why the Tet attacks were mostly by small and local units.

You have a point, but that is still different than technology, considering China didn't have anywhere near the technological base the US, among other things.

And besides, that still does nothing to disprove the point with South Vietnam.

I'm not saying the US military didn't have tactical superiority on that level, I'm just pointing out that more than technology did that because such did not level the playing field for the US in South Korea under Macarthur, or for the South Vietnam military.

[ModernKiwi]

It never had to.

The Chinese attacked UN forces that were under the impression that the war was all but over. They were operating at the extreme end of very tenuous supply lines. The Chinese on the other hand were close to their own supply lines and had the support of their regimental artillery.

Once the UN lines went back to being closer to their supply bases and the Chinese left behind their non-man/mule portable artillery, the Chinese were never again able to inflict those kind of defeats. The vast casualties they took trying to prove that wrong from UN arty and air power demonstrated just what happens to large scale units that operate in an environment where your enemy has hat complete air superiority and arty domination.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by ModernKiwi

It never had to.

The Chinese attacked UN forces that were under the impression that the war was all but over. They were operating at the extreme end of very tenuous supply lines. The Chinese on the other hand were close to their own supply lines and had the support of their regimental artillery.

Once the UN lines went back to being closer to their supply bases and the Chinese left behind their non-man/mule portable artillery, the Chinese were never again able to inflict those kind of defeats. The vast casualties they took trying to prove that wrong from UN arty and air power demonstrated just what happens to large scale units that operate in an environment where your enemy has hat complete air superiority and arty domination.

You ignore with the latter that during that time, that military had different leadership than Macarthur, massively changing their effectiveness.

My main point with is that incompetent leadership makes any technological advantage almost worthless, as will severe tactical mistakes. Technology can play a role, but it's a tool, and a tool is useless if not properly applied.

Besides, you have failed to answer my points with South Vietnam, which only frequently was given technological superiority to forces it was fighting, yet still lost.

[ModernKiwi]

Lost though was a political loss. It was never a military loss. And while there were indeed battles at company level etc that could be considered defeats, there was never any (as you asked for) major defeat for the twin reasons that were mentioned of being unable to assemble the necessary firepower and manpower that could overcome a large US unit.

Your best bet for a conventional loss in Vietnam would be if something like Khe San went vastly worse and it was able to be pretended that the enemy forces were VC and not NVA.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by ModernKiwi

Lost though was a political loss. It was never a military loss. And while there were indeed battles at company level etc that could be considered defeats, there was never any (as you asked for) major defeat for the twin reasons that were mentioned of being unable to assemble the necessary firepower and manpower that could overcome a large US unit.

Your best bet for a conventional loss in Vietnam would be if something like Khe San went vastly worse and it was able to be pretended that the enemy forces were VC and not NVA.

Well, to go back to your original point, the main I want is a major tactical loss, however, that doesn't need to necessarily be on the battalion scale.

Rather, what I'm looking for is a loss that is rather humiliating and public. Does that require a battalion level battle to happen?

Also, it was a military one, just not a conventional military one. Mainly because the military failed to ever put all those tactical victories into a strategic victory. After all, Napoleon won every tactical battle against Russia, yet still lost the war.

[MacCaulay]

Originally Posted by Killer300

You ignore with the latter that during that time, that military had different leadership than Macarthur, massively changing their effectiveness.

My main point with is that incompetent leadership makes any technological advantage almost worthless, as will severe tactical mistakes. Technology can play a role, but it's a tool, and a tool is useless if not properly applied.

I hate to derail the thread, but when I was in Afghanistan and we got bushwacked by at least a 100 insurgents in dug in positions, the situation we found ourselves in (and the way we extricated ourselves and dealt with it) had nothing to do with who was in charge of ground forces at the time.

Perhaps I'm just adding to your point, though. I might be misunderstanding it.

[ModernKiwi]

Well if you want a humiliating and public defeat, then you already have one in Tet. Even though it was a military disaster for the VC, it was regarded back home as a defeat and a humiliating one at that.

[MacCaulay]

Originally Posted by ModernKiwi

Well if you want a humiliating and public defeat, then you already have one in Tet. Even though it was a military disaster for the VC, it was regarded back home as a defeat and a humiliating one at that.

I think he was looking for one that was a complete and total win for the Viet Cong.

Which brings us to what should probably be the crack of the nut, here: what would (and does) the American public (or the Western world) define and view a defeat as?

What does our culture view a defeat as? Honestly, when you view it that way, it makes the question a lot more interesting to me. Alternate History is alot more interesting to me when it's used as a prism to view our own world than as a world-building exercise.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by MacCaulay

I think he was looking for one that was a complete and total win for the Viet Cong.

Which brings us to what should probably be the crack of the nut, here: what would (and does) the American public (or the Western world) define and view a defeat as?

What does our culture view a defeat as? Honestly, when you view it that way, it makes the question a lot more interesting to me. Alternate History is alot more interesting to me when it's used as a prism to view our own world than as a world-building exercise.

This is actually partially what I want to figure out here. What will be something that gets the US public to say, "We lost, no ifs and buts about it," if you will.

In regards to the previous, I'm not saying leadership is everything either, I was just pointing out that technology alone did NOT determine our tactical victories. This is an important distinction to make, to say the least.

[ModernKiwi]

Defeat and/or victory are defined by the context of the time.

Today the loss of (say) 10 Coalition soldiers in Afghanistan in a single engagement is regarded as a "defeat" or even a Taliban "victory".

In Vietnam, 10 or 20 deaths of US forces in a day would hardly go noticed.

[Killer300]

You know, something that could work is if the Vietcong could somehow isolate chunks of US forces, and break them apart piece by piece. After all, that's how others(sort of) countered overwhelming firepower elsewhere, and that does fit in with Vietcong tactics.

However, not sure if it's possible to do that on a large enough scale and fast enough to matter.