From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:59:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.104906.85@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
> In article <1992Oct3.041929.11894@den.mmc.com> whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer 865-8497) writes:
> >
> >In article <1992Oct1.234404.7583@ntmtv>, harthc@ntmtv.UUCP (Howard Hart) writes:
> >|> In article <1992Sep30.210635.7530@news2.cis.umn.edu>, charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
> >|> |> In article <1992Sep30.124440.28171@doug.cae.wisc.edu> mccullou@cae.wisc.edu
> >|> |> (Mark McCullough) writes:
> >|> |> 
> >|> |> 
> >|> |> Baloney.  The press had very little to do with the American people turning
> >|> |> against the war.  No more than the Soviet press had to do with the Russian

All the News reports I watched with my dad had a VERY one sided approach to 
them AGAINST the war.

> >|> 
> >|> Salami. The press had everything to do with the American people... 
> >|> In the case of the Soviets, they were beaten by technology, (in the form

A lot of what beat the Soviets was the fact that they couldn't find the
enemy and hold him long enough to destroy him.
We on the other hand knew exactly where to find the enemy, right across the 
S.V. border in all directions.  We just didn't go there to get him, we fought
only when he wanted to come across and start something.  We then would let him
escape if he headed back across that "Line in the Jungle".

> >
> >Tofu cakes! I do agree with Howard. But I'd like add some of my thoughts.
> >The Peoples anti-aircraft batteries (or whatever they were called) shot
> >down a lot of B-52's. Bamboo and mud can't do that. The NV had their own
> FYI, it is AAA (anti-aircraft artillery, a battery is an indication as to
> how many platforms).  Where did Vietnam get these AA wpns? From USSR.  Set
> up by USSR people.  How many B-52's were shot down?  _Very_ few if any.
> The B-52's tended to fly high enough that only SAMs were effective, and

I don't think the SAMs could reach the B52's when they were doing "real"
high level bombing, but most of the Vietnam bombing runs were done at
medimum level.  I could be wrong but this is my understanding, of the
range and max altitude af the SAM.

> they were not wasted in areas where active SAMs were.  Try looking at the
> air war stats sometime.  We lost several tactical aircraft, but much fewer
> strategic aircraft.  Besides, do you know how hard it is to take down a plane
> as big as a B-52?  It is a _real_ big aircraft.  If you don't realize how

It is also very tough, meant to take punishment, lesons learned in WWII.

> the Press gave information to form opinions with.  But how was this information
> presented?  In a manner that predisposed the viewer towards a certain viewpoint,
> that which the reporter had selected.  I find it interesting, and somewhat
> baffling, how reporters said that such and such battle, which today is 
> considered a _military_ victory, was a _military_ defeat.  That was done,
> (see the posts on the reporting of Tet), and that is what I mean by the
> problems with the press.  I haven't even begun to look at the presses
> behavior back in the states, but that is a much muddier area.
> 
> :)M^2
> 
> 

Larry Billings

Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam