British/US Allied Mission in Vietnam??

What if for some reason that the UK had been actively involved in Vietnam a long side the US?
Any idear which effect this could have had on the war? And on UK and US relationship from those days to today?
 
How would it happen? What about the Australian Task Force Vietnam becoming the Commonwealth Division, the RAAF bomber sqn becoming the Commonwealth Wing and the RAN ship becoming the Commonwealth Flotilla? Rember that both Australia and Britain were up to their necks in Borneo in 1965-6 when Australia comitted it's troops to Vietnam, Britain was running 5 brigades.

Involvement in Vietnam would probably come too late to save TSR2 and CVA01, but could see V bombers and Buccaneers in action.
 
If the US forces drew on the experience of the British in Malaya and Borneo it could dramatically change the conduct of the war.
 
How would it happen? What about the Australian Task Force Vietnam becoming the Commonwealth Division, the RAAF bomber sqn becoming the Commonwealth Wing and the RAN ship becoming the Commonwealth Flotilla? Rember that both Australia and Britain were up to their necks in Borneo in 1965-6 when Australia comitted it's troops to Vietnam, Britain was running 5 brigades.

Involvement in Vietnam would probably come too late to save TSR2 and CVA01, but could see V bombers and Buccaneers in action.

Maybe in a world were the UN Force had won the Korean war? Securing a permant International Base there. To prevent China from spreading it evil influenze to the rest of Asia?
 
Would Brit forces be large enough to influence the Big Green Machine? I couldn't see the Brits deploying more than 1 or 2 brigades, which might influence the US units neighbouring them but not much further.
 
How about a world where Britian is a diplomatic kingpin? A different Suez leads to a successful CENTO and SEATO by the early 60s and Britain is getting the benefits from being at the centre of events. The crushing defence reviews of 1957 and 64 are avoided, the drawdown is less dramatic and many capabilities are maintained. Leading by example and using diplomatic finesse to suplement US diplomatic muscle Britain brings many of it's alliance partners into Vietnam.
 
Harold Wilson or Anthony Eden (given his pre Suez views on Vietnam/Indochina) not being Prime Minister at the time are neccessary.
 
Remember Chief Petty Officer James Callaghan served in SE Asia after VE day using the Japanese soldiers to maintain order until the French returned. He was likely instrumental in keeping us out of the theater there with the knowledge he had of the problems on the ground and the likelihood of us having any influence whatsoever over the Americans.
 
That depends on the PoD. I daresay that any mid 60s PoD would mean the most limited participation, but a 50s PoD could mean quite the force gets sent. I think a 50s PoD would be needed to put Britain in the circumstance where she could say yes to a request for participation.
 
I think the main thing would be for the US to support the UK during the Suez Crisis. It might even see some French participation in Vietnam aswell.
 
I have seen threads on other forums about Britain sending Ark and/or Eagle to Vietnam. Possibly too late to save CVA01, but might cause a rethink of abandoning carrier aviation resulting in the Invincibles being Centaur-sized or slightly larger strike carriers.
 

Thande

Donor
I have seen threads on other forums about Britain sending Ark and/or Eagle to Vietnam. Possibly too late to save CVA01, but might cause a rethink of abandoning carrier aviation resulting in the Invincibles being Centaur-sized or slightly larger strike carriers.

Could the economy even support that, though, given that the Americans (and we ourselves) wouldn't be too hot on abandoning the emphasis on antisubmarine warfare vs the Soviets in the GIUK Gap either?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Could the economy even support that, though, given that the Americans (and we ourselves) wouldn't be too hot on abandoning the emphasis on antisubmarine warfare vs the Soviets in the GIUK Gap either?

I agree. The through-deck cruisers were cost-effective, and all around they were the right weapons at the right time.

The only reason the US Navy can keep going like it is is because we just have to build one or two carriers every seven or eight years to keep our dozen or so carrier groups afloat. If we had to build a dozen of the things all at once, we'd be tapped out.

The British were up to there necks in Malaya. They had more than enough on their plate. Why they'd want to get stuck in our mess is beyond me.
 
I'm pretty sure the UK could have afforded two "Centaurs" instead of the 3 Invincibles. Also, ITTL they might take up the US's offer to sell them Essex-class carriers (made after CVA-01 was cancelled). Those are about the right size.
The carriers would still be capable of operating in an ASW role with helicopters and Gannets (later replaced by S-2s or S-3s). It's just that they would also be capable of taking a more conventional air wing- Buccaneers and either the (proposed) Naval Jaguar or A-4s.
 

Moglwi

Monthly Donor
If the US forces drew on the experience of the British in Malaya and Borneo it could dramatically change the conduct of the war.

The problem for Vietnam was unlike Malaya/Borneo the US was not ruining the country and could not do all the thinks that the British did in the Malayan emergency
 
I think no matter who is PM, Britain is going to have to pretty much dragged kicking into it.

Not at all - at least, not if we're talking about limited, Australian-style engagement, which is credibly the only thing that Britain could offer anyway.

The Conservatives, who were still largely in their east of Suez hangover, were initially pretty warm about the idea IIRC. Even Ted Heath, despite wanting absolutely nothing to do with the huge mess that Vietnam was by the time he became PM, was pretty keen on involvement initially - my memory's a little foggy, but I think Powell as defence spokesman weaned him off the idea a bit.
 
Top