From: che238n@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.games.empire,alt.war
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau)
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:13:10 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <NIGEL.92Jul23112145@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov>, nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.203836.5003@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> 
> [much deleted]
> 
>>The US could never learn the British Guerilla tactics because they just
>>don't have the mindset. They prefer egotistical little one man Rambo
>>style warriors. They have an army built arround the latest techno
>>wizardry rather than the British system of bloody good Sargeants.
> 
> Excuse me but I think you're extrapolating a bit too much from
> Hollywood movies than reality.  While the Brits have bloody great
> Sargents our NCOs aren't too shabby either...and we have techno
> wizardy wimply because a) we can afford it and b) force multiplication
> through technology is a good way of saving lives.
> 
> As far as learning Guerilla warfare you might remember the US taught
> the Brits something about that topic a few years back ;-).  More
> seriously the hit and run tactics of the first few units in Vietnam
> pretty much proved that the US armed forces even of that period was
> capable of carrying out intelligent tactics...and effective guerilla
> attack in NVA units operating in S VN.  
> 
> Then some idiot got some burr up his ass about "search and destroy"
> missions...which were geared toward going in and ambushing NVA units
> in the field rather than burning villages at that point.  I'd be
> willing to bet the same idiot introduced the later S&D missions where
> they didn't have clear objectives and ending up burning villages for a
> lack of anything more intelligent to do.
> 
>>Ultimately the US lost Vietnam because they didn't know why they were
>>fighting, they didn't beleive in their aims or methods, they
>>underestimated their opponents and failed to understand the territory.
> 
> Granted...plus a lot of micromanagement of the war from the White
> House.  Thank god we're not doing that anymore.
> 
>>They got their asses kicked and a damn good thing to. Until they build a
>>second monument to the people they killed and appologise to the
>>Vietnamese people, the US will never regain its old position in the
>>world. Vietnam was the start of the collapse of the US empire, perhaps
>>they will be smart enough to realise this sooner than the British were.
> 
> The US will probably never have the same influence it had post-WWII
> and pre-VN.  However, I've met quite a few of the Vietnamese people
> who fled the current regime and the only thing we have to apologise
> for is leaving them hanging.  A monument to the NVA and the butchers
> they served?  Not in a million years.
> 
> Good thing we got our asses kicked?  Maybe...we've learned a lot of
> lessons from that war and the Gulf conflict proved it.
> 
>>Phill Hallam-Baker
> 


The most effective ground force in Viet Nam was the Australian Army. The
Australian tactics at the battle of Long Tan were perfectly matched to the NVA
offensive. They only lost 18 men in the battle. How many did the NVA lose?

     DAB