Poll: Who would win?: WW2 Marines vs VietCong

US Marines vs Viet Cong

  • A truce is sought via a third party.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    71

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
1. If five compentent guys with garands go up against five competent guys with AKs it's a slaughter; the guys with AKs will have fire superiority and they can carry more ammo so they can keep it up longer. The jungle even makes the Garand's longer effective range irrelevant. The guys with AKs can pin the other guys down, outflank and kill them. Absolutely no problem. 2. The American politicians of the 40-45 era were not magically more competent than those of 20 years later, I don't know what realistically could be expected to change there. I dunno what you're getting at with "political bullshit", politics is literally the only thing that matters. The actual shooting part is very much secondary to the eventual outcome. Look at the Germans in WW1 and 2, pretty good on a tactical level, still lost every time.

1. The AK is a Spray & Pray. Using it straight up 5 on 5 for suppressive fire will blow through the ammo carried in nothing flat. The Garand, was, is, and always will be, a better weapon in a set piece engagement than ANY assault weapon. Now, if the Marines have had to slog through 20 miles of bush, the additional weight of the weapon and the 30-06 ammo would be a factor, and if it is house to house fighting any combat rifle (including the AK) isn't an ideal tool, but as far as a pure combat weapon in a squad situation the M-1 isn't just better, its lightyear's better (the M-14 might be better still, but only in semi-auto mode or with troops trained to fire 2-3 round controlled bursts). Nothing replaces the lethality and firepower of a full sized round.

2. Politics in Vietnam was everything. The war was ALL politics and public opinion. In a way it was remarkably like the American Revolution in that manner. Washington had to keep from getting his army wiped out and play for time and for public (mostly merchant) opinion in England to wear the government's resolve down; Giap had to do the same thing except he was simply playing for time. The United States was not in a "war" in a conventional sense, unfortunately, Giap knew this while Washington never did really figure it out. In 1941-45 the formula would have been vastly different.

In the world of 1941-45, once the war started it would have been fought to simply destroy the North as a nation-state, had that been done in the 1960's the U.S. would have "won" before the end of 1967. Ho, Giap, and the rest of the North's leadership would have been obliterated, along with the ability of the North to engage in war of any kind (as an easy example, a WW II U.S. would have destroyed the Red River dikes and flooded a decent part of the North's productive land, and any trace of rail line in the North would have pounded to scrap in the same air offensive).

Now the politics and American public opinion of the Vietnam War would not have supported (rightly, IMO, I must hasten to add) that sort of blood-letting, but that sort of viewpoint evolved in the 20 or so years between the start of WW II and the start of American serious involvement in Viet Nam.
 
1. The AK is a Spray & Pray. Using it straight up 5 on 5 for suppressive fire will blow through the ammo carried in nothing flat. The Garand, was, is, and always will be, a better weapon in a set piece engagement than ANY assault weapon. Now, if the Marines have had to slog through 20 miles of bush, the additional weight of the weapon and the 30-06 ammo would be a factor, and if it is house to house fighting any combat rifle (including the AK) isn't an ideal tool, but as far as a pure combat weapon in a squad situation the M-1 isn't just better, its lightyear's better (the M-14 might be better still, but only in semi-auto mode or with troops trained to fire 2-3 round controlled bursts). Nothing replaces the lethality and firepower of a full sized round.

There is a VERY good reason every modern army uses an intermediate-caliber automatic rifle.
 
You're basically saying that every army in the world is run by morons who went and got the wrong guns and that, over the last 50 years of warfighting, none of them ever noticed. Sorry dude, that is a ridiculous statement. Besides, the Viet Minh from what I've read about them practised excellent fire discipline and did not "spray and pray". Just because you can fire a burst if necessary doesn't mean you have to do it, and neither does it mean that you gotta dump your entire mag if you do decide to fire that burst.

The "world" of the 60s was not that different from that of the 40s in terms of willingness to use force, it was just a completely different war: the casus belli was contrived, the US fired the first shots, the US's allies compared unfavorably to the enemy from a public relations standpoint. That is not a situation where you can, as a nation with the US's self-image, go ahead and murder every man, woman and child in North Vietnam (and a bunch of people in South Vietnam as well whose hamlets looked suspicious from the air or happened to get in the way of some H&I). A bunch of people in the press, the military and the administration already raised a stink or quit over Zippo jobs and free fire zones, what you suggest was politically impossible, and not because of a difference in quality in the people making the decisions, but rather because of the environment in which they were making them. OK, young Churchill would've done it, but young Churchill was always game for murdering some third-worlders from the air.
 
I think that is not a question of soldiers but politics, or if put other way - ROE.

If you use the WWII ROE, the marines win - isolate Vietnam / all ports - access under american control / no enemy areas out of range / no zones that can't be bombarded.
Hanoi get an Dresden / Hamburg class visit...

Don't even need A/H bombs.

If one army fight with limitations imposed by politics - see US in Somalia....
 
Last edited:

Bearcat

Banned
Every weapon has its benefits and its limitations.

The M-16 is easy to carry, uses light ammo, and is great for suppressive fire.

Its a good weapon overall, but it lacks some stopping power. Early models like those first fielded in Vietnam were sadly less than wholly reliable.

The Garand is damned reliable, and can stop anyone. But it is heavy and has that stupid en bloc clip.

There is a reason the US is issuing more sniper rifles - developments of the Garand / M14 - in Afghanistan. Better range, and when your firefights are at a distance, that's a good thing.

Overall, I doubt it makes as much difference here as you think. The USMC will adjust their tactics to suit their equipment. Less search and destroy, more seize and hold might even be a good thing.

I still think it comes down to the quality of infantry, and the Marines are very, very good infantry.

But, of course, without changes in DC, it won't matter.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
As I said above, the Banana War era USMC would have been the choice. Second choice would be China Marines.
Something we've all missed here is that in Vietnam, Marines weren't used AS Marines. Ideally, their best use would have been in the Mekong Delta, but COMUSMACV in his infinite wisdom chose to use Army troops there, and send the Marines to Hue up in the Northern part of S. Vietnam.

Hmmm... Really? I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source, please?
Goldwater wrote about the incident himself. It's been a long time, and I've since forgotten in which book he wrote about it. I do remember that it was one of his autobiography works. I've never been able to get verification of his claims from other sources, and have to go with the man's basic honesty. I do know that he was in Vietnam during Tet 68, although I don't know the purpose of his visit.

He wrote about wanting to get a bird's eye view of the situation, so he took a fighter up to get a look. At the time he was an Air Force Reserve Major General.



Very doubtful. It uses cartridge a unique to the M1 Carbine family, for one thing.
You're still dealing with variants of the M1 Carbine. They all used the same .30 ammo. Not as good as the 30-06 used in the M1 Garand, but probably better than the 5.56 x 45mm used by the M-16. A hell of a lot better than the 5.56 x45mm rounds that used the older propellant. I'm thinking that the magazines were interchangeable between models just as they would be between an M-16 and an M-4.

Also, to pick a nit, the M2 is selective fire.
Understood. My fault not being precise enough.

But also note that they were still in use with some units into the Vietnam War.
The issue would be reliability. The M1 Carbine was much more reliable than the first flight M-16's used in Vietnam. It's teething problems had been long ago worked out. About all the original M-16 did consistently was jam in the middle of a fight. It took them a few years to get the M-16 to the point where it was reliable. The M1-M3 carbine has no such issues, unless you're dealing with a really cold climate.
 
Last edited:
Goldwater wrote about the incident himself. It's been a long time, and I've since forgotten in which book he wrote about it. I do remember that it was one of his autobiography works. I've never been able to get verification of his claims from other sources, and have to go with the man's basic honesty. I do know that he was in Vietnam during Tet 68, although I don't know the purpose of his visit.

He wrote about wanting to get a bird's eye view of the situation, so he took a fighter up to get a look. At the time he was an Air Force Reserve Major General.

Very interesting. I simply couldn't imagine a senator today being allowed to fly a combat mission, period.

You're still dealing with variants of the M1 Carbine. They all used the same .30 ammo. Not as good as the 30-06 used in the M1 Garand, but probably better than the 5.56 x 45mm used by the M-16. A hell of a lot better than the 5.56 x45mm rounds that used the older propellant. I'm thinking that the magazines were interchangeable between models just as they would be between an M-16 and an M-4.

Aha! I see where the confusion occured - coming right after your "just like the AK-47" comment, I misunderstood your comment about interchangable mags as the M1 and AK-47 mags would be interchngable. Glad that's now clear (I hope).

Yes, the M2 could use M1 magazines.

The M2 modification, which had a select-fire capability and a magazines of larger capacity (30 rounds, interchangeable with the older 15-round ones), could be described as an "almost an assault rifle" ("almost" is added due to the lack of effective range).
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm

The one big problem I'd have with one is it's low energy. The ME and MV are significantly lower than the Garand, AK-47, or M-16 (see: http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm). (Of the 4, the AK-47 may well be the best choice for jungle combat.)

Understood. My fault not being precise enough.

No worries. Like I said, twas a nit pick. :)


The issue would be reliability. The M1 Carbine was much more reliable than the first flight M-16's used in Vietnam. It's teething problems had been long ago worked out. About all the original M-16 did consistently was jam in the middle of a fight. It took them a few years to get the M-16 to the point where it was reliable. The M1-M3 carbine has no such issues, unless you're dealing with a really cold climate.

Indeed, although it was a combination of the sub-par ammunition that was issued and the "you don't need to clean it" idea that were more responsible and not so much the rifle itself. I also seem to remember that the later M-16 models have had their twist rates modified to extend the range, which goes against the original idea of closer combat ranges and a just stable bullet that will destabilize and tumble in the target.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
There is a VERY good reason every modern army uses an intermediate-caliber automatic rifle.


Yes there is. The ammo is lighter. It isn't as accurate or as lethal, but you can carry more of it. In the jungle, less weight was a good thing. In today's battlefield, where most American forces are tracks (or at least Stryker) mounted the light round makes much less sense. The 5.56mm can't be used effectively in built-up areas, even the AK 7.62x39 isn't a good weapon for firing through cover, not compared to the 7.62 NATO or the venerable 30-06.

It is worth noting that units that tend to get into small unit battle,(Force Recon, SEAL) make sure that they have 7.62mm weapons, including the M-14, as part of their combat load out.

There is also a reason that the U.S. SPEC OPS community is carrying a torch for something larger like the 6.5mm Grendel or the 6.8mm Remmington, heavier intermediate rounds that, thanks to more advanced propellants, have ballistics close to the 7.62 NATO round. Bigger calibers knock the bad guy down and do so despite body armor and can do it at a distance.
You're basically saying that every army in the world is run by morons who went and got the wrong guns and that, over the last 50 years of warfighting, none of them ever noticed. Sorry dude, that is a ridiculous statement. Besides, the Viet Minh from what I've read about them practised excellent fire discipline and did not "spray and pray". Just because you can fire a burst if necessary doesn't mean you have to do it, and neither does it mean that you gotta dump your entire mag if you do decide to fire that burst.

The VC did not have good fire discipline, they were, in the main, like every other half trained force presented with fully automatic weapons, point and hold down the trigger until the bolt locked back. The Viet Minh, and their direct successor, the NVA, were better, as one would expect professional soldiers to be.

In Vietnam, the AMERICAN forces had lousy fire discipline. It was, in fact, the failing of the Viet Nam training that helped to create the exceptional professionalism of the current U.S. military. Of course, even today, the USMC doesn't issue full rock 'n roll assault rifles, but ones with three round burst as the select fire optionm in the M-16A4 (with an unlock full auto capacity available via the squad leader).

Every major army has been trying to get the capacity offered by the M-1/M-14 style weapon since the advent of the assualt rifle as standard issue. The U.S. tried different calibers and kits to allow the continured use of the millions of M-16/M4 frames with new upper receivers and barrels as a way of reducing cost, while the British, French, and German armies have down the same.

The "world" of the 60s was not that different from that of the 40s in terms of willingness to use force, it was just a completely different war: the casus belli was contrived, the US fired the first shots, the US's allies compared unfavorably to the enemy from a public relations standpoint. That is not a situation where you can, as a nation with the US's self-image, go ahead and murder every man, woman and child in North Vietnam (and a bunch of people in South Vietnam as well whose hamlets looked suspicious from the air or happened to get in the way of some H&I). A bunch of people in the press, the military and the administration already raised a stink or quit over Zippo jobs and free fire zones, what you suggest was politically impossible, and not because of a difference in quality in the people making the decisions, but rather because of the environment in which they were making them. OK, young Churchill would've done it, but young Churchill was always game for murdering some third-worlders from the air.

I couldn't disagree with you more regarding the differences between the 1940s and 1960s. The 1960s, for reasons that you quite correctly state when saying that the U.S. could not, politically, have hammered the North flat. All the reasons you note, mainly that the public would have seen such an attack as "murder" didn't exist in 1941 or even 1945. The U.S. burned down 16 SQUARE MILES of Toyko, killing 100,000 civilians in the process, and the public didn't even blink. That sort of reaction would have been unthinkable in the 1960's.

The U.S. lost over 12,000 KIA in 82 days on Okinawa, as a result the American Government decided to use nuclear weapons to win the war in the Pacific. The U.S. only had one year (16,592 in 1968) with more KIA than experienced during 12 weeks on Okinawa throughout the entire Vietnam War (with two other years, 1967 & 1969, ending with over 11,000 deaths) and the U.S. picked up its toys and went home.

If the viewpoint of the average American in 1967 had been the same as in 1942, the U.S. would have torn Hanoi and every thouth town and village in the North down a brick at a time. It wasn't (which, again IMO, is a very good thing).
 
On a side note, the .30cal Carbine was a little more dangerous than a 9mm Largo: more dangerous than a SMG, but definitely not a general-duty weapon. I am no fan of the 5.56, and refer you to CalBear's comment on issueing more and more sniper rifles in the current fighting -- it's being done for a reason.

@tez: Agree with others here -- politics is everything in Vietnam, and divorcing politics from the discussion is a faster route to lala-land than any other discussion here.

As to the stupidity of the ordnance departments of the world, look up the Krag-Jorgenson Rifle sometime. The assault rifle concept is a dead-end - the weight savings in ammo are absorbed in either more ammunition or more gear that keeps the average foot-load at c.100-120lbs. Worse, unless the rifles are engineered precisely, the rounds are not effective in combat -- it's all well and good (if sick and morbid) to talk about "wounding versus killing", but a wounded enemy is an enemy that can still shoot at you, force your head down, and maybe wound/kill you. Garands don't generally have that problem, unless the target is very lucky.
 

Blair152

Banned
Every weapon has its benefits and its limitations.

The M-16 is easy to carry, uses light ammo, and is great for suppressive fire.

Its a good weapon overall, but it lacks some stopping power. Early models like those first fielded in Vietnam were sadly less than wholly reliable.

The Garand is damned reliable, and can stop anyone. But it is heavy and has that stupid en bloc clip.

There is a reason the US is issuing more sniper rifles - developments of the Garand / M14 - in Afghanistan. Better range, and when your firefights are at a distance, that's a good thing.

Overall, I doubt it makes as much difference here as you think. The USMC will adjust their tactics to suit their equipment. Less search and destroy, more seize and hold might even be a good thing.

I still think it comes down to the quality of infantry, and the Marines are very, very good infantry.

But, of course, without changes in DC, it won't matter.
You're right. Every weapon has its limitations. Let's take a look at the M16's: Compared to the AK-47, it's built to tighter tolerances. The M16, and by extension, the M4, still has a major problem that hasn't been solved. That's its susceptibility to being clogged. In Iraq and Afghanistan,
sand poses a big problem for the M16 and the M4. Also, if you submerge an M16, or an M4, in water, you have to tip it upside down and let the water drain out before you can fire it. Compare that with the German G36,
from which water drains easily. Then there's mud. Bury the M16, or M4, in
mud, and you have the same problem as you do in sand and water. The AK-47 and G36, win there too. Then there's the ammunition. The M16, M4, G36, and the new Czech assault rifle, the CZ 805, are all 5.56x45mm.
The 5.56x45mm round is too light. The 7.62x51mm round, the NATO standard until 1970, packed a wallop. The same is true of the Russian 7.62x39mm round. Major General Mikhail Kalashnikov, the inventor of the
AK-47, was opposed to the AK-74, because it used the lighter 5.54x39mm
round. That's why the Russians went back to the larger round. Both the 5.54x39 and 5.56x45 rounds don't have the stopping power to bring down
an insurgent. The Czech Republic's changing over to the new CZ 805 because its current standard, the SA Vz. 58, is old. We tried several times to replace the M16. The first was in the '60s, the second was in '80s, the third was the OICW M29, in the '90s, and the most recent was the XM8 in
the 2000s. It was cancelled by Donald Rumsfeld, in his infinite wisdom.
 
Militarily, Marines win easily. Politically is more dicey, depending on the will (or lack theerof) of civilian politicians.
 
They canceled the XM8 because the foregrips had a habit of melting. But don't forget that is was competing with the HK 416 and the FN SCAR, both of which are still being tested.

That and I think the DOD saw what happened with the British and them switching to the SA80/L85 or what ever their calling it these days.
 
Top