Can the US win the Vietnam War

Reader mode

Double_Canister

Could the US have won the Vietnam war?
(Creating a stable Republic of Vietnam)


There are two strategies I have in mind. The first is marching on Hanoi. The objective would be to either take it over entirely, or to cripple it enough so that it could not reinforce or supply combat operations by VC or NVA forces south of the DMZ. I do not know much about USSR or Chinese commitment to North Vietnam, but I feel that this would lead to a major escalation.

The other is expanding the area of operations into Cambodia and/or Laos from the outset to conclusively block the Ho Chi Minh trail. From what I have read, by the early 70s, the VC had to get 80% of their manpower from the North so US combat operations were definitely effective against the VC. If we cut their supply lines, we could possibly eradicate the VC or at least weaken them enough so that the ARVN could handle them.

Thoughts?
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
Go full on Linebacker II in 1964. screw McNamar's gradual escalation, keep that level activity til another Paris Peace treaty is signed, but with all VC having to move North

While that is going on, work on the RF/PF to make them a credible fighting force for internal security
Done.
 
SealTheRealDeal

SealTheRealDeal

Double_Canister said:
Could the US have won the Vietnam war?
(Creating a stable Republic of Vietnam)


There are two strategies I have in mind. The first is marching on Hanoi. The objective would be to either take it over entirely, or to cripple it enough so that it could not reinforce or supply combat operations by VC or NVA forces south of the DMZ. I do not know much about USSR or Chinese commitment to North Vietnam, but I feel that this would lead to a major escalation.

The other is expanding the area of operations into Cambodia and/or Laos from the outset to conclusively block the Ho Chi Minh trail. From what I have read, by the early 70s, the VC had to get 80% of their manpower from the North so US combat operations were definitely effective against the VC. If we cut their supply lines, we could possibly eradicate the VC or at least weaken them enough so that the ARVN could handle them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
No toppling the Cambodian monarchy for the lols. Vietnamization needs to be sooner and better managed, if the ARVN can be made competent enough to independently run COIN and hold the DMZ. Make Laos priority 1 ASAP. Courting China sooner can also help.
 

FillyofDelphi

Banned
Not implementing Selective Service and depending on a professional/volunteer force would go a long way in sustaining American public support for the war effort and limiting mistakes/misunderstandings and the dependence on harder crack-downs on civilians and area-of-effect weapons (And the collateral damage they created) which caused the lose of "hearts and minds".
 

cra0422

The Viet Cong needed very little in the way of supplies so cutting the Ho Chi Minh Trail is no guarantee of success. Not to mention it would be a moot point if US forces can't eliminate the VC's ability to operate in South Vietnam.

Another option is to cede the Central Highlands (which were sparsely populated to begin with) and focus on a defensive deployment of the coastal zones of South Vietnam. This would require about 180,000 men rather than the 550,000 used OTL. Also make the Marine Corps' Combined Action Program (CAP) official policy. It worked by having a squad enter a local village and coordinating patrols and ambushes with the local militia platoon, and training them to become proficient in providing security to the village. The Marines also got to know the locals and funneled economic aid to them, providing a tangible good to the villagers that would make them more likely to side with the Americans and deny support to the VC or NVA.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
FillyofDelphi said:
Not implementing Selective Service and depending on a professional/volunteer force would go a long way in sustaining American public support for the war effort and limiting mistakes/misunderstandings and the dependence on harder crack-downs on civilians and area-of-effect weapons (And the collateral damage they created) which caused the lose of "hearts and minds".
Click to expand...

Draft would have worked, had it been done like WWII, drafted for the duration of the emergency, rather than the vast churn of FNGs into SEAsia where by time they rotated out in a year, they knew enough to be combat effective, and then spend the rest of the enlistment somewhere else, where their combat skills were wasted
 

Double_Canister

cra0422 said:
The Viet Cong needed very little in the way of supplies so cutting the Ho Chi Minh Trail is no guarantee of success. Not to mention it would be a moot point if US forces can't eliminate the VC's ability to operate in South Vietnam.

Another option is to cede the Central Highlands (which were sparsely populated to begin with) and focus on a defensive deployment of the coastal zones of South Vietnam. This would require about 180,000 men rather than the 550,000 used OTL. Also make the Marine Corps' Combined Action Program (CAP) official policy. It worked by having a squad enter a local village and coordinating patrols and ambushes with the local militia platoon, and training them to become proficient in providing security to the village. The Marines also got to know the locals and funneled economic aid to them, providing a tangible good to the villagers that would make them more likely to side with the Americans and deny support to the VC or NVA.
Click to expand...

I believe that this statistic is from "Unheralded Victory", it was stated that 80% of the VC were actually North Vietnamese, so I think cutting the trail would have had a noticeable effect. I have read about the CAP program in "Grunts". The problem I have with this is that, especially if you are cutting the number of troops, it totally cedes initiative to the NVA and VC. If the NVA/VC do a Tet style build up, we might not have the forces to deal with it. This will be especially apparent with the CAP program because it further spreads out American troops and allows the NVA/VC to mass their troops wherever they decided to and take over individual villages.
 

MalcontentRex

Banned
Easy with a balls-to-the-wall effort from the get-go. Problem is you run a risk of having WWIII with the USSR and/or Red China... whether that is a risk that would have been worth taking, I cannot answer.
 

Peebothuhlu

At work.

How would:

A ) More
B ) Bigger
C ) Earlier
D ) All of the above

Happening with 'Spooky' Gun-ships effecting combat and enemy logistics?

Did the 'Galaxy Transport' exist at the time?

Cheers.
 

FillyofDelphi

Banned
marathag said:
Draft would have worked, had it been done like WWII, drafted for the duration of the emergency, rather than the vast churn of FNGs into SEAsia where by time they rotated out in a year, they knew enough to be combat effective, and then spend the rest of the enlistment somewhere else, where their combat skills were wasted
Click to expand...

... which would have just triggered massive public backlash earlier on. Its not just a matter of strategy on the ground: any government is going to have to make its strategy politically palatable enough to keep control of Congress and the Presidency, a supportive public opinion, and at least the nominal acceptance of the international community. Flooding Vietnam with a occupation force who's forced to be there for an undetermined amount of time can't do these things.
 

Colonel Zoidberg

Maybe if South Vietnam’s leader were less of a corrupt shithead, it would have gone better. The US could have backed someone who was pro-West and had his shit together a bit better.
 

DG Valdron

It's entirely possible with enough effort and enough handwaving to construct a scenario where the US wins the Vietnam War. Or where Germany beats the Soviet Union and wins WWII, or operation Sealion actually works, or where the Confederacy wins the civil war. Such scenarios either involve vast amounts of careful research and the assumption of luck and fortune, or various categories of divine intervention.

There are challenges.

The first and foremost was that the South Vietnamese government was a corrupt, incompetent kleptocracy under the control of urban elites who made no real investment in their legitimacy and were more interested in grabbing everything that they could steal. There's some argument that maybe some parts of that government got better towards the end, but no, never really changed in the important particulars.

Another is the geopolitical situation where the Chinese were not seen as willing to let the Americans march to the Chinese border, and were possibly willing to invade. They did in fact invade a decade earlier in Korea. China had not gotten weaker or less radical in the intervening period. The era of the Vietnam War was also the era of the cultural revolution. So you can't just assume that the Chinese were going to sit on their hands.

Same with the Russians, who had militarily intervened in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1967, the Berlin Blockade in 1960, stood off in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and were a serious challenger for legitimacy in the third world.

Bigger, harder, faster scenarios tend to overlook the literally incredible scale of deployment that took place OTL.

So..... It can be done, but you need to work for it.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
FillyofDelphi said:
... which would have just triggered massive public backlash earlier on. Its not just a matter of strategy on the ground: any government is going to have to make its strategy politically palatable enough to keep control of Congress and the Presidency, a supportive public opinion, and at least the nominal acceptance of the international community. Flooding Vietnam with a occupation force who's forced to be there for an undetermined amount of time can't do these things.
Click to expand...

2.7 Million served in Vietnam, from '64 to '73

Compare with 5.7M with the Korean War or 12.1M in WWII that had far higher numbers of active troops.

Yeah, those drafted in those two earlier conflicts were not rotated out, unless their whole unit was pulled from the theatre. That's the system to return to, rather than OTL's dim plan to get as many men into combat as possible, then rotate them out ASAP

The major effect is you won't be drafting near as many, to get up to that peak troop strength the US had in 1968. Will it suck for those guys? Yeah, just like it sucked in WWII and Korea, where there was no huge public backlash
 

michael1

Depends what you mean by win, a largely neutralized united Vietnam might have been possible in the 1950s (the US was the main barrier). Without near-genocide or a near-permanent US garrison I think it's hard to see an independent South Vietnam surviving. It's certainly possible that the US could have fought smarter, potentially suffering fewer casualties and/or inflicting more, but the North Vietnamese could choose when to engage and when to disengage, meaning if things got too hot they could lay low until the US pressure relaxed. A fundamental problem was that support for the US was likely to come from minorities or people who were seen as corrupt. There are parallels with Afghanistan today.
 

Anchises

Banned
Double_Canister said:
Could the US have won the Vietnam war?
(Creating a stable Republic of Vietnam)


There are two strategies I have in mind. The first is marching on Hanoi. The objective would be to either take it over entirely, or to cripple it enough so that it could not reinforce or supply combat operations by VC or NVA forces south of the DMZ. I do not know much about USSR or Chinese commitment to North Vietnam, but I feel that this would lead to a major escalation.

The other is expanding the area of operations into Cambodia and/or Laos from the outset to conclusively block the Ho Chi Minh trail. From what I have read, by the early 70s, the VC had to get 80% of their manpower from the North so US combat operations were definitely effective against the VC. If we cut their supply lines, we could possibly eradicate the VC or at least weaken them enough so that the ARVN could handle them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The most "effective" way would be for LBJ/TTLs President to be more ruthless. The USA never bombed the dams that were necessary for rice farming in North Vietnam. An early concentrated effort to cause starvation in North Vietnam might have been a game changer. I don't think the Socialist countries could have easily sent enough support to feed. And even if they somehow managed to muster enough surplus food, that still leaves the problem of logistics. I don't think NV or the Vietcong would have received the same amount of weapons simply because more trains, trucks and boats are full of grain instead of weapons.

I don't think we have to talk about the moral/P.R. problems that prevented this from IOTL.

This coupled with a few other suggestions from this thread might be enough to turn around the war.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top