Dien Bien Phu situated on the high ground
- Thread starter Blair152
- Start date
Blair152
Banned
My thoughts exactly. It would be like Khe Sahn. The Marines at Khe Sanh were able beat back the same attempt against them because they held the
high ground and NO strategist, including Sun Tzu, would ever, EVER, EVER,
advise commanders to "seize the low ground."
Cook
Banned
If the French defence line at Dien Bien Phu had been good General Vo Nguyen Giap would have used part of his forces to surround and contain the French there and the rest would have continued their push into Laos. He would not have wasted his recourses on a defence position that would have been too strong for him and which posed not threat to him.
And if the French had pushed out into the surrounding hills in an attempt to obstruct him, he’d have cut them to pieces.
And if the French had pushed out into the surrounding hills in an attempt to obstruct him, he’d have cut them to pieces.
You've read his posts and the odd thing you noticed was the formatting?
Typo
Banned
My thoughts exactly. It would be like Khe Sahn. The Marines at Khe Sanh were able beat back the same attempt against them because they held the
high ground and NO strategist, including Sun Tzu, would ever, EVER, EVER,
advise commanders to "seize the low ground."
Khe Sanh was DBP with airpower, completely different situation.
Flocculencio
Donor
I suspect he may be hitting enter every time he reaches the end
of the lines in the text box instead of typing freely and letting the
forum software format his posts for him. If you do that it looks
like this.
Back on-topic, why did the French not take the high ground? Was there any known reason for it?
Blair152
Banned
Yes, he was. He purged most of the Red Army in 1937.Stalin would...
Blair152
Banned
I use the hunt and peck method of typing. All right, to answer your question:
That's a good question. Only the French commanders know for sure. What are we going to do with the French commander at Dien Bien Phu? Have Jennifer Love Hewitt ask him why he didn't do it and then cross him over?
That's even MORE ASB than I'm usually accused of being on here. Don't you think?
Bill Cameron
Banned
Flocc,
From what I've read, and that could very well be wrong, the French wanted Dien Bien Phu to become a strategic "tar baby" for the Viet Minh.
France would occupy a region that the Viet Minh simply had to attack and then, because they would be forced to close with French forces, the Viet Minh would be destroyed. It's an example of the old strategic offense/tactical defense idea.
The French weren't aware of the amount of heavy weapons the Viet Minh could bring to the party, didn't think heavy weapons could be man-handled into the region if they did exist, and discounted their opponent's field craft in the bargain. The French didn't believe the Viet Minh would be able to besiege valley and interdict air transport all at a distance.
So, instead of being forced to attack Dien Bien Phu, the Viet Minh were able to hold it hostage instead.
Bill
Blair152
Banned
In some ways, yes. In others, it was similar to Dien Bien Phu, Typo. It was an attempt to starve the Marines out. The difference was that old real estate
joke about having three things in order to be a good salesman: Location,
location, location.
Seriously, the Marines, unlike the French, held the highground. The Vietcong had to climb the plateau where the Marines were. The
Marines, were, if you've ever played this game as a child, the king of the mountain. The NVA, and Vietcong, were trying to dislodge the Marines.
What really made Khe Sanh different from Dien Bien Phu? Besides location,
it was air superiority. We could fly in supplies, reinforcements, and anything
we pleased, because we, unlike the French, didn't have to worry about our
supplies falling into enemy hands, and our reinforcements, ultimately, ending up as cannon fodder, or the forlorn hope.