Poll: Who would win?: WW2 Marines vs VietCong

[Keenir]

This was inspired by a comment on Deadliest Warrior - that both combatants (Waffen-SS and the VC) fought the Americans, but only one managed to win.

My thought to that was "well yes, but it was also a different generation of Americans. what if the WW2 generation fought an enemy in the same conditions we fought the Vietnamese?"


and then it hit me: in a way, we did.




so...what do you think?



edit: by "other"...perhaps one side gets the political victory, but the other side wins the moral victory or the economic victory.

 

[black angel]

different wars, not different generations, if America had pulled the same all out war in South Vietnam as they had in WWII they would of one that one too

 

[Keenir]

different wars, not different generations,

if I'm 19 when Pearl Harbor is attacked, I'm not going to be 19 when the US is in post-France Vietnam (my kid might be).

if America had pulled the same all out war in South Vietnam as they had in WWII they would of one that one too

I didn't ask "could the young soldiers sent to fight in Vietnam have won if we'd used WW2 tactics?" (though that's a good point you raise)

I meant if the young soldiers sent to fight the Japanese in OTL would do as well or better if we'd pitted them against the VC instead.

okay, slight time travel. thank you for the clarification.

 

[Kome]

Well the VC have AKs (probably) so i suppose they could win.

 

[black angel]

if I'm 19 when Pearl Harbor is attacked, I'm not going to be 19 when the US is in post-France Vietnam (my kid might be).



I didn't ask "could the young soldiers sent to fight in Vietnam have won if we'd used WW2 tactics?" (though that's a good point you raise)

I meant if the young soldiers sent to fight the Japanese in OTL would do as well or better if we'd pitted them against the VC instead.

okay, slight time travel. thank you for the clarification.

I get the question all I'm saying is that fact that it was two different generations doesn't really matter, if you take all the WWII soldiers and send them to Vietnam and leave them with the 1960-70s leadership they'll lose, if they are sent back and given the marking orders they used in WWII they win.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Are you asking whether WWII Marines could win the Vietnam War or whether 5 WWII Marines could outfight 5 VC? These are entirely different questions.

The answer to the first question is no, US Marines cannot win a total war against the nation of Vietnam plus Chinese and Soviet support all by themselves.

The answer to the second question is, possibly. After all American forces routinely won firefights with the VC. The less advanced WWII weaponry will be a handicap, but not a decisive one.

The more interesting question is of course, would the United States of America of WWII win the Vietnam War of the 60s? My answer is, I doubt it. People make too much of the generational issue. WWII had to be won, Vietnam was not. If 1960s Americans had to fight WWII they would've done much the same. 1940s Americans would be similarly unmotivated to shed blood in Vietnam for dubious political calculations. In fact isolationist America would never allow the government to go to war over a cause like Vietnam. How do you think the public would react to a draft to intervene in a South East Asian civil war when they refuse to fight blatant German and Japanese aggression.

 

[Markus]

The Marines win IF the VietCong fight conventionally - which they won´t. The kind of firepower the US military had(has) at its disposal screams for unconventional warfare.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

The VietCong did fight the Marines...it was called the Vietnam War.

 

[frieza]

The VietCong did fight the Marines...it was called the Vietnam War.

i dont think you understand the question it isnt about marines in general but ww2 marines

 

[Ward]

In Nam we did not fight the Cong like we did in WWII .
During WWII the USMC raised The Black Flag when they were fighting the IJN and IJA . Plus they were told to Destroy the Enemy during WWII which they did . But Vietnam was seen as a test ground for new weapons .

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

I'm not too sure many people here actually understood the OP's question in the slightest...

Anyways, I'd say Viet Cong. Superior weapons for the most part, and it ain't like they can get isolated and cut off like the Japanese were. Also, less prone to suicide tactics or mass-suicide. That tends to help.

 

[Keenir]

thank you, everyone.

I'm not too sure many people here actually understood the OP's question in the slightest...

they understood it more than I thought they might. (and I was going to turn the question on its head once this thread died down - now the other question is also answered)

Anyways, I'd say Viet Cong. Superior weapons for the most part, and it ain't like they can get isolated and cut off like the Japanese were. Also, less prone to suicide tactics or mass-suicide. That tends to help.

*nods*

 

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I'm Going to Have to Go with The Last Option ...

The First Few Years of The Vietnam War WERE Fought, with 40s Era Weapons!

Ward Hit The Nail RIGHT on The Head, with his Comment about Vietnam being a Proving Ground ...

Unfortunately, The Weapon that Most Affected The Prosecution of The War, was a Weapon that itself Debuted in The 40s; The Weapon So Horrifying it Must Never Again be Utilized in Anger, The Nuclear Bomb!

 

[ComradeTovarich]

Well the VC have AKs (probably) so i suppose they could win.

The answer to the second question is, possibly. After all American forces routinely won firefights with the VC. The less advanced WWII weaponry will be a handicap, but not a decisive one.

And perhaps we should consider equipping all five Marines in the team with Tommy guns (which I feel was the US WW2 equivalent of the AK-47 in terms of stopping power and high kickback, not that the AK-47's edge on range was much use in a jungle terrain anyway) and a BAR. That should put them on equal footing with VC.

However, the VC would still win as the way they fought was different from the way the Japanese fought. The VC's ambush tactics of hitting the enemy hard then melting away into the jungle made them more 'reusable' (for lack of a better word). The Japanese method of 'stand and die' just denied them future opportunities to inflict damage on the enemy. Also, the VC made more effective use of their booby traps, using them to hinder the pursuing enemy. On the other hand, the Japs used them to complement their often wasteful suicide charges.

 

[Magniac]

Hey, shouldn't this be in the ASB forum? Anyway, Other (or Thande option).

The Second World War USMC never fought a counter-insurgency war. They might have been as elite a force as anything America has ever put into the field, but so what?

There were elite US troops in pivotal actions during the Vietnam War of our history. The US special forces of all three services were feared immensely by the VC and the NVA, as were the comparable forces of the South Koreans and Australians. Notice how that didn't change the outcome.

I don't even see the point in hypothesising about the half-dozen Marine divisions of WWII somehow fighting conventionally during Vietnam. The qualititive advantage they (might have) had over OTL's Vietnam US army/military divisions isn't superhuman.

And I doubt that you get more SOGs or whatever out of these divisions than you get out of the Vietnam-era American services.

 

[The Red]

A lot of VC equipment will be superior to the WWII USMC, even their upgunned T-34's will be able to cause carnage.

 

[Bearcat]

You're all wrong.

The Marines will win. Their training and discipline is superior to the VC. Just as the US defeated the VC in Vietnam in OTL, so will the Marines here.

But gutting the VC, as at Tet, does not end the overall war.

And then... the US will grow tired of the commitment, the Marines will leave, ARVN will take over, and the north will keep invading until they win.

Not much changes.

 

[tez]

The Vietnam-era marines had more advanced kit, support weapons, air support, logistics, medical science and doctrine, so I guess South Vietnam falls a couple years earlier with much higher American casualties and much lower Vietnamese civilian casualties. If I understand the somewhat weird question correctly. "Mentality"wise, if that is what you were getting at, there is no noticable difference between 1944 marines and 1965 marines - either war wasn't lost or won because the soldiers were unwilling to fight, their performance was perfectly adequate in both wars.

 

[CalBear]

The Viet Cong was not a real military formation. The name was an umbrella for a number of irregular units that worked in some sort of coordination under orders from Hanoi. In any sort of stand-up fight the VC didn't have a prayer once you got to compamy size formations.

Now, the Viet Mihn or the later North Vietnamese Army (NVA) was a different matter. They were a professional organization with decent artillery forces and armor, including a small number of T-54 tanks. The NAV also operated Jet fighters.

Assuming the Marines are operating under WW II ROE they would slaughter the VC. Given the serious technology gap between 1945 USMC formations and the 1975 NVA (I don't think the USMC ground component had anything that could take out a T-54, much less a MiG-17), the NVA would win in a walk.

 

[Duke 4]

Being a former Marine and a big fan of the tv show "Who is the Deadliest Warrior" I belive if you went by the TV shows rules the USMC would win. If you go into politics then who knows. But the tv show does not do that. It is a very good program and it shows many of the things we like to talk about on this discussion board. Tomorrow is Rome vs India. i would bet on Rome.