WI VC and NVA launched general offensive/uprising in Tet '67 or Tet '66 or Get '65, not '68?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What would be the consequences for each side? (at least 4 sides, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, VC/NLF, USA)
 
Earlier that Tet is launched, the better off the US and RVN will be. The result is foregone, the VC will be destroyed as soon as they try for stand up battles for cities.

Each year earlier the attack, the weaker it would be, and overall a lesser PR hit, as Westy wouldn't have been seen as promoting the 'Light at the End of the Tunnel' that had been attributed to him in '67
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Neither the NVA or VC can win this fight, even combined. They would need Chinese help, which ain't coming.

OTL Tet was a strategic loss for the VC, and a strategic win for North Vietnam. The US and ARVN got a breather for a year. The Democratic Party got battered.
 
Are we assuming that the NVA/VC are massing the same amount of troops and resources? If they attack earlier with the same amount of men they might make some gains because US Troop numbers peaked in 1968 and ARVN numbers would certainly be lower the earlier you go.
 
Are we assuming that the NVA/VC are massing the same amount of troops and resources? If they attack earlier with the same amount of men they might make some gains because US Troop numbers peaked in 1968 and ARVN numbers would certainly be lower the earlier you go.

Not unless the Ho Chi Minh Trail was substantially upgraded as well, that's the only way to get gear South

Despite U.S. bombing that dropped 4 million tons of explosives on the trail during the war, according to Vietnamese estimates, the network was steadily improved and infiltration steadily rose. From an estimated 10,000 North Vietnamese troops in 1964, the number of regulars sent south climbed to more than 100,000 a year by 1966.


Then, after the 1973 Paris peace agreement, Hanoi ordered a massive effort to renovate two main axes of the trail, building steel and concrete bridges and metal surfaces wide enough to accommodate vehicles from tanks to missile carriers, the 1982 book said. By 1974, historian Dan Hong said, the tonnage transported on the trail was 22 times greater than in 1966 -- the peace agreement notwithstanding.


So in a decade, went from guys pushing bicycles along a just cleared path, to surfaced roads for thousands of Warsaw Pact supplied trucks.
 
An all out invasion from the NVA and a Tet in 1966 or 67 would have interesting consequences.

I would imagine if they go big they would try to overrun a major American base or two. Johnson might bring out the tactical nukes to defend them as considered in 68.
 
An all out invasion from the NVA and a Tet in 1966 or 67 would have interesting consequences.

I would imagine if they go big they would try to overrun a major American base or two. Johnson might bring out the tactical nukes to defend them as considered in 68.

Not needed. a full NVA invasion would be just what LBJ needed, getting enemy forces out in the open, where B-52 ArcLights make mincemeat of them, like in 1972, and then he gets to pull Linebacker I&II on the North, as Rolling Thunder get turned turned to 11, with all targets on the table.

Gets the Peace Talks going the same way, so LBJ looks successful enough to go for another term
 
Assuming the conditions of OTL Tet Offensive are met (mostly in terms of supply routes and infiltration), Tet would have the same impact (in the broadest term). It would make the Vietnam War look "un-winnable" in the eyes of the US public, which would force the US government to sit down and talk.

Of course, both sides (or rather, 4 sides) would keep the bullshiting part as OTL, but it is a given in the political world.

Precise outcomes of the Offensive would be hard to determined though. There is not enough hard data on the beginning to venture a guess. But the earliest possible launch date of Tet would be 1967. Tet 1965 did not see any regular US force on the ground, and for Tet 1966, Vietnam was still a tiny dot on the map. An unimportant one at that.

An all out invasion from the NVA and a Tet in 1966 or 67 would have interesting consequences.

I would imagine if they go big they would try to overrun a major American base or two. Johnson might bring out the tactical nukes to defend them as considered in 68.

They don't even need to overrun, just surrounding some critical firebases would be enough to put nuke on the table. Sure, overrun them would make sure nuke is used (friendly casualty be damned - after all, the US would be able to kill more communist gooks than they lost men). The invasion of NVA during OTL Tet is a bit... low. The combined attacks from NLF/VC and NVA were unable to pierce the external defending lines of US and allies, making them unable to support their Commando cells. The rest is history.
 
Assuming the conditions of OTL Tet Offensive are met (mostly in terms of supply routes and infiltration), Tet would have the same impact (in the broadest term). It would make the Vietnam War look "un-winnable" in the eyes of the US public, which would force the US government to sit down and talk.

I doubt that to a certain extent. It should be pointed out that prior to 1968, America had been fighting for three years which they had covered as though they were winning so I think public consensus was that America was winning. There is no big psychological shock "of finding out that even though we have apparently been slaughtering the enemy for three years, they have just mounted major attacks on every city" if you attack earlier.
 
There is no big psychological shock "of finding out that even though we have apparently been slaughtering the enemy for three years, they have just mounted major attacks on every city" if you attack earlier.

How about "of finding out that even though we have apparently been slaughtering the enemy for two years, they have just mounted major attacks on every city"

I assume that the earliest possible launch date for Tet to be in 1967
 
Top