CH: Vietcong Win a Single Major Tactical Battle

I'm thinking of the Australians at Long Tan, where 2500 VC/NCA fought 108 Australians near the very newly established base at Nui Dat, the idea being to attack the base itself. When contact occured D coy was able to call in regimental artillery fire missions, resuply from helicopter and eventual reinforcement from APC mounted troops of B coy.

However if D coy had moved outside of artillery range, or the helicopters weren't available for resup, the battle may have gone very differently and they may have been overrun.
 
leaving aside just how it happens... a major defeat of US forces at the hands of the VC would have a dire affect at home... if this happens during the time of protests, the protesting may go from chanting slogans to flat out rioting. I also think you'd see a sharp increase in resistance to the draft.
 
As structured this OP asks for something that's inherently unworkable. Irregulars defeating regulars in a tactical victory doesn't work by the nature of the way irregular warfare itself does. If this was the NVA and we add in the USA being led by a blithering idiot in one engagement, maybe, but not the Viet Cong.
 
As structured this OP asks for something that's inherently unworkable. Irregulars defeating regulars in a tactical victory doesn't work by the nature of the way irregular warfare itself does. If this was the NVA and we add in the USA being led by a blithering idiot in one engagement, maybe, but not the Viet Cong.

How so? Attacking and defeating regular formation can happen, under right circumstaces. Regular force has to be isolated or at least outside support and irregulars have to bring overwhelming numbers and support of their own.

The link I posted has such cases, though it boils down to "what is victory" and "major tactical battle". In the context of irregular warfare victory would have to be: fixed position overrun, formation severly mauled (though whether it has to be company, more companies, battalion.... is up to debate) or regular formation prevented from carrying out its task (e.g. assaults irregular's position and suffers so many casualties it has to pull back, tries to destroy irregular formation in the field but instead suffers so many casualties it has to pull back....).

Granted in modern times (say, since 1980s) irregulars are not going for such victories since regualar firepower has increased and they can achieve same results (decline in morale and end of suport at home) by killing enough troops in small skirmishes. If they can fill enough body bags regulars will go home. It doesn't matter if this is achieved by overruning a company from elite formation or killing same number of truck drivers.
 
As structured this OP asks for something that's inherently unworkable. Irregulars defeating regulars in a tactical victory doesn't work by the nature of the way irregular warfare itself does. If this was the NVA and we add in the USA being led by a blithering idiot in one engagement, maybe, but not the Viet Cong.

I see your kick has ended, but... ouch.

But yeah, makes sense by now.
 
How so? Attacking and defeating regular formation can happen, under right circumstaces. Regular force has to be isolated or at least outside support and irregulars have to bring overwhelming numbers and support of their own.

The link I posted has such cases, though it boils down to "what is victory" and "major tactical battle". In the context of irregular warfare victory would have to be: fixed position overrun, formation severly mauled (though whether it has to be company, more companies, battalion.... is up to debate) or regular formation prevented from carrying out its task (e.g. assaults irregular's position and suffers so many casualties it has to pull back, tries to destroy irregular formation in the field but instead suffers so many casualties it has to pull back....).

Granted in modern times (say, since 1980s) irregulars are not going for such victories since regualar firepower has increased and they can achieve same results (decline in morale and end of suport at home) by killing enough troops in small skirmishes. If they can fill enough body bags regulars will go home. It doesn't matter if this is achieved by overruning a company from elite formation or killing same number of truck drivers.

Because of the disparity of firepower in this case. The NVA has less of an issue with this, especially in terms of battalion-scale or above operations. The VC weren't designed for this kind of operation, when they tried it at Tet the result was their own self-destruction.
 
Because of the disparity of firepower in this case. The NVA has less of an issue with this, especially in terms of battalion-scale or above operations. The VC weren't designed for this kind of operation, when they tried it at Tet the result was their own self-destruction.

Well, I did say under right circumstances, such as outside of fire support. ;) Which, according to link, happened more than once. And yes, once you throw in NVA chances of Vietnamese winning a victory as per OP increase.
 
Actually after Tet the chances of a Viet Cong victory increase dramatically. Despite the massive casualties, the VC divisions and units still existed on paper, but their numbers were filled with NVA troops, with the few surviving southerners acting as guides and scouts and that sort of thing. But having NVA troops not only bolstered their numbers and capability, it also it looked good for propaganda purposes because it seemed like the southerners were still a major force in the revolution against the government in Saigon despite that not actually being the case.
 
Top