View Full Version : 21st Century weapons in Vietnam-type conflict
You can also imagine if we had access to modern weapon and sensing tech 55 years ago could it have made a difference? Mainly referring to the battlefield and not the political will side of things.
Could happen again someday in the jungled parts of the world, so obviously the scenario sounds quite Vietnam-ish:
***we are fighting in tropical rainforests (or really thick deciduous woods), lot's of places to hide and layers of vegetation to not only shield you from observation but also some unsophisticated night/thermal/whatever devices. Mountainous too. Think Central Highlands of Vietnam and the thickly jungled peaks out there.
***your enemy is a tough, quick-moving, and modern light infantry organization (a la the NVA). They can put out a good amount of ordnance be it small arms, mortars, and artillery. Maybe even a few drones of their own. They are not a cell of insurgents but highly organized into BN's, companies, platoons, etc.
***their tech isn't quite as good as ours but they can buy decent stuff from countries that don't like us (i.e. China).
Would the weapons the U.S. can deploy be enough to inflict more enemy casualties, less of our own, and most importantly accurate targeting on the battlefield itself.....that particular bunker or MG that has our guys pinned-down, that platoon of enemy about to hit our flank, stuff that matters hugely in a shootout and who carries the day.
I like to think of Co Roc, just across the border in Laos from Khe Sanh. The NVA had tunnels dug into the mountain at Co Roc and had 152mm artillery pieces that they could roll out, shoot at Khe Sanh, and then roll back into the tunnels to avoid airstrikes. We weren't allowed to cross the border. I think that today some drone could loiter and watch that mountain day and night, see exactly where the artillery is coming from, GPS it, and then a couple of our guided "smart" missiles fly right on in. We inflict enemy casualties, reduce our own from incessant shelling, and contribute to a tactical "win".
We'd be using essentially the same rifle that we used there originally, which would be interesting. The NVA and VC were nothing if not tough and motivated troops. Would the same be true today with the Internet kids? Hard to say.
AC-130's (newer and more better) would be called on again, although MANPADS would be a much bigger threat. And probably drones would figure prominently.
We should remember that when we entered into the conflict in Vietnam, they had been at war almost continuously since 1945. The Japanese were the only ones who really pacified and occupied them. But Japan had popular support at home and their military didn't simply not care about war crimes, they were innovators in the field of war crimes.
We did however destroy the VC during Tet and we broke the back of the north so badly that they stayed there almost 3 years after our military left Vietnam in 1972. Most history teachers fail to point out that we established a cease fire and LEFT Vietnam in 1972. The ONLY thing that fell in 1975 was our embassy and that is what all that footage is of us doing rooftop extractions. That is the fictitious narrative of how we "lost" the war in Vietnam, most "experts" have no idea we pulled our military forced in 1972 even though it can be looked up almost anywhere.
It took the Vietnamese almost three years to realize that President Ford would be unable to get Congress to bring our military back to Vietnam IF the north violated the borders and the cease fire as Nixon pledged he would.
Modern tech would of course have made some difference. Thermal integrated NV would have been a huge advantage, drones would have been a huge advantage, all GPS tech would have been a huge advantage...but full reliance on tech to save the day can be a dangerous game, especially against an enemy as adaptable as the Vietnamese was when we went to war with them. From childhood they did almost nothing else than learn how to fight us.
The other huge consideration is the limitations we placed on ourselves so we didn't turn a proxy war into a full fledged conflict with the Soviet Union starting WWIII which could easily have flashpointed in Berlin. So we had crap like Hanoi being a "no fly zone." We also were trying to respect borders that weren't being respected by their neighbors or their neighbors were blatantly harboring the enemy.
All in all it was a mess we inherited because we supported French efforts to reclaim the colony of Indochina. Kennedy should have pulled us.
We should remember that when we entered into the conflict in Vietnam, they had been at war almost continuously since 1945. The Japanese were the only ones who really pacified and occupied them. But Japan had popular support at home and their military didn't simply not care about war crimes, they were innovators in the field of war crimes.
We did however destroy the VC during Tet and we broke the back of the north so badly that they stayed there almost 3 years after our military left Vietnam in 1972. Most history teachers fail to point out that we established a cease fire and LEFT Vietnam in 1972. The ONLY thing that fell in 1975 was our embassy and that is what all that footage is of us doing rooftop extractions. That is the fictitious narrative of how we "lost" the war in Vietnam, most "experts" have no idea we pulled our military forced in 1972 even though it can be looked up almost anywhere.
It took the Vietnamese almost three years to realize that President Ford would be unable to get Congress to bring our military back to Vietnam IF the north violated the borders and the cease fire as Nixon pledged he would.
Modern tech would of course have made some difference. Thermal integrated NV would have been a huge advantage, drones would have been a huge advantage, all GPS tech would have been a huge advantage...but full reliance on tech to save the day can be a dangerous game, especially against an enemy as adaptable as the Vietnamese was when we went to war with them. From childhood they did almost nothing else than learn how to fight us.
The other huge consideration is the limitations we placed on ourselves so we didn't turn a proxy war into a full fledged conflict with the Soviet Union starting WWIII which could easily have flashpointed in Berlin. So we had crap like Hanoi being a "no fly zone." We also were trying to respect borders that weren't being respected by their neighbors or their neighbors were blatantly harboring the enemy.
All in all it was a mess we inherited because we supported French efforts to reclaim the colony of Indochina. Kennedy should have pulled us out. Oswald halted that.
Well we had a modern-day Laos/Cambodia called Pakistan in recent years that the enemy used as a sanctuary and was off-limits to our troops, so doubt we've learned much from our past mistakes. Drone strikes, yeah, but we also bombed the shit out of Laos and Cambodia. Hell, one limited ground incursion into Cambodia in 1970 resulted in the domestic U.S. scene blowing up to the point where Kent State occurred.
I also would be leery of becoming too dependent on technology, but that ship sailed with Vietnam. Fire and maneuver is and always will be a basic Infantry tactic, but with rounds zipping past your head it's somewhat safer to form a defensive line or perimeter and call in air and artillery. Pound the enemy and if they can't overrun your unit then you've "won" (sort of).
Night vision and thermals would have a far bigger impact than any individual weapons. The US's desire to "own the night" really seems to have come from experience in Vietnam. Smart bombs and the like would help, but that works both ways; US attacks on the North would likely be far more costly and thus politically harmful.
Precision bombing in the north and/or off-shore launched Tomahawks would bring their economy to their knees. A big reason we 'lost' was their effective anti-air campaign.
Small arms, small unit tactics, they're largely the same. Our tech would make a world of difference.
Averageman
09-03-23, 09:23
We've come a long way with a lot of technology.
I wonder how modern ballistic helmets and body armor would fair in the moist and hot enviroment.
Night vision had improved 100% in my 35 years of working with it. Sometimes keeping it working is a chore.
Night vision and thermals would have a far bigger impact than any individual weapons. The US's desire to "own the night" really seems to have come from experience in Vietnam. Smart bombs and the like would help, but that works both ways; US attacks on the North would likely be far more costly and thus politically harmful.
For sure we're fighting with the same, albeit shorter, issue weapon as Vietnam. Maybe better ammo, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the benefits of our real tech stuff like precision weapons using IR and thermal imaging. Not asking for an OPSEC violation but can our devices mounted on an aircraft or drone "see through" triple canopy jungle in 2023?
Our anti-anti-aircraft tech and tactics have come a long way too. I don't think we'd suffer anywhere near the losses we did over North Vietnam. Precision stand-off weapons would also contribute to less aircraft losses. Stealth aircraft going into really heavily defended areas with precision weapons would be another trick up our sleeve.
Vietnam was a great testing laboratory for new ideas. The Gravel Mine was one that sort of worked. Ever hear of the Turdsid?:
"It is a small, battery-operated Seismic Intrusion Device (SID) consisting of a seismic detector (vibration sensor), a transmitter, an internal antenna, and a battery pack, all fit into a small rubber case disguised to look like the excrement of a dog. Because of their small size, battery life was no more than a few days. Its function was to cue a larger sensor nearby.
The outer casing was a specially-designed plastic polymer designed to disguise the sensor as dog droppings. It takes no large amount of imagination to figure out how the "TURD" prefix originated. The sensors worked as designed, and the device quite effective, but with one major flaw: There were no dogs running wild along the Ho Chi Minh Trail."
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2021/october/dropping-turdsid-vietnam
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-23, 10:49
We'd be using essentially the same rifle that we used there originally, which would be interesting. The NVA and VC were nothing if not tough and motivated troops. Would the same be true today with the Internet kids? Hard to say.
AC-130's (newer and more better) would be called on again, although MANPADS would be a much bigger threat. And probably drones would figure prominently.
My first thought was MANPADS, but we would have faced those in A-Stan and Iraq- they didn’t seem to have a large impact?
Had the US troops not had air support the Vietnamese would have declared victory much quicker.
Per this, M193 would be hard to beat.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/vietnam-the-short-range-shooting-war/#:~:text=The%20nature%20of%20the%20average,never%20more%20than%20100%20meters.
Red dots would be a plus, but magnification would largely be irrelevant to almost a hindrance.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-23, 12:49
Had the US troops not had air support the Vietnamese would have declared victory much quicker.
I agree, but the US wouldn’t have followed the same strategy. Granted Air support is cool and sexy, but what was the ratio of air versus artillery ordnance by weight? (Found it 3/5 by air, which surprised me, I thought it would be less than half).
Pentagon records for 1969, for example, show that U.S. forces expended nearly 130,000 tons of ammunition a month. About three-fifths of that was delivered by air and the rest in ground fire. By comparison, the highest Communist firepower expenditure of the war, not reached until 1972, was about 1,000 tons a month.
155mm gun shoots two 100lb rounds per minute sustained. Six tubes in battery, so 1200lbs of ordnance per minute, or two 500lb bombs. Or a JDAMs worth every 2 minutes?
I get the immediacy, once on station, of the air- and the targeting advantages- along with the ability to cover not just a country, but a region but as long as you are operating under an umbrella of interlocking artillery, you could still operate, albeit on a smaller, less fluid footprint.
ETA:
Cool link about the air war in Vietnam
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2eae918ca40a4bd7a55390bba4735cdb
You do realize that during the war we were using helo mounted people sniffer's to find the bad guys in thick jungle? For troops in jungle thermal will be pretty much worthless unless airborne looking for cooking fires or trucks.
You do realize that during the war we were using helo mounted people sniffer's to find the bad guys in thick jungle? For troops in jungle thermal will be pretty much worthless unless airborne looking for cooking fires or trucks.
If you were an infantry company in a NDP and you knew the enemy were out there I'd say thermal would be quite helpful, at least at a usable distance (like them forming up to attack you). The NV of old relied on ambient light that it magnified, but if you're in the middle of a thick jungle there ain't much ambient light getting through!
Thermal needs a view of the heat source to work, if you are behind vegetation it will block it, also if background temp is same as body temp it will interfere.
America didn't lose the war because of weapons.
America didn't lose the war because of weapons.
Not implying it did, in fact far from it. To be clear I don't think we "lost" per se, as Steyr alluded to (we were gone for 2+ years before Saigon finally fell). Just like Afghanistan, the bad guys couldn't achieve victory while we were there in force. It took us being gone for them to prevail.
Just trying to do a mental exercise involving a similar conflict with modern technology and it's possible outcomes. The last 30+ years, starting with Desert Storm, we've fought in arid or semi-arid areas: the Saudi/Kuwaiti deserts, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq II, and Syria. The U.S. military, being somewhat myopic, tends to focus on the last conflict. The "art", if you will, of small unit combat in jungled or heavily wooded terrain seems to have fallen by the wayside. The wise military afficionado never says never. That type of conflict could very well present itself again and how would we fare using the tech currently at our disposal? I'm talking not only at the strategic level (like bombing North Vietnam or interdicting the Ho Chi Minh Trail) but also at the Infantry company or platoon level as they slug it out in what might be the enemy's backyard where they can't be seen over 50m away (if that).
I’ll insert myself to note what I did the last time the topic of jungle warfare came up: Per experienced individuals on older P&S podcast episode(s), red dots and humid jungles don’t necessarily go well together. As I recall, irons were the order of the day.
America didn't lose the war because of weapons.
We didn't lost the war.
We negotiated a cease fire and left in 1972 and they stayed in the north until 1975 when they realized we weren't coming back.
I’ll insert myself to note what I did the last time the topic of jungle warfare came up: Per experienced individuals on older P&S podcast episode(s), red dots and humid jungles don’t necessarily go well together. As I recall, irons were the order of the day.
That too, not just advantages of modern technology but potential shortcomings. Good point.
After Biden gave away Billions in sophisticated equipment, it saddens me to think....But I hope will still have the best.
PB
I think technology only goes so far in the jungle, very easy to hide if you know what you are doing. Small drones have proven to be a force multiplier in Ukraine but don't know how useful in thick jungle.
I think technology only goes so far in the jungle, very easy to hide if you know what you are doing. Small drones have proven to be a force multiplier in Ukraine but don't know how useful in thick jungle.
Yeah those little drones some units have probably can't fly around very far in thick vegetation.
Averageman
09-03-23, 19:22
Remember those Bunker Buster and MOAB's?
Bet those might rattle a tunnel system.
Remember those Bunker Buster and MOAB's?
Bet those might rattle a tunnel system.
Point highlighting old-tech effectiveness: near the end of the siege at Khe Sanh the ant-like NVA had gradually dug their trenches closer and closer to the perimeter. The goal was to dig close enough to our lines that they could pop up en masse for the final assault, like they had done at Dien Bien Phu. A B-52 Arc Light was called in "danger close" to address this issue. The ensuing rain of bombs essentially collapsed and destroyed the encroaching trench system (and hopefully anyone in them). It became apparent to Giap that he wasn't gonna pull off Dien Bien Phu Part Deux and not long after the NVA began to pull back towards Laos. Whatta ya know, a good old fashioned saturation bombing with (at the time) good targeting technique contributed significantly to end a 77-day siege. Massive firepower, delivered "right about there" smacked the enemy and ruined any illusions they had of repeating history.
I’ll insert myself to note what I did the last time the topic of jungle warfare came up: Per experienced individuals on older P&S podcast episode(s), red dots and humid jungles don’t necessarily go well together. As I recall, irons were the order of the day.
Lens fog or?
Lens fog or?
I think this is the P&S video he was talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJWJwg4lBo0
I started watching it a little this evening. It's long, might take me a few days but it should be interesting.
Night vision and thermals would have a far bigger impact than any individual weapons. The US's desire to "own the night" really seems to have come from experience in Vietnam. Smart bombs and the like would help, but that works both ways; US attacks on the North would likely be far more costly and thus politically harmful.
Well with ole' Joe as President at least the evacuation from South Vietnam would have looked similar...:(
But to your point, I can only imagine how effective MACV SOG guys and Recon Marines would be with NVGs and Thermals.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-23, 23:08
How has the fighting against the Islamic/Marxist rebels in the Philippines gone? Heck, most people think Vietnam looks like the Philippines since most of the movies were filmed there that we watch..
In the current US vs Russia war being fought in Ukraine, the billions of dollars in US/NATO weapons and tech has not even come close to defeating the Russians.
In the current US vs Russia war being fought in Ukraine, the billions of dollars in US/NATO weapons and tech has not even come close to defeating the Russians.
We made them stronger in the end. Not just Russia but also other 'enemies' on our naughty list.
https://i.imgur.com/Il5msRo.jpg
The deals that are now happening between Russia and places like Iran and North Korea were not happening until we started to 'sanction' Russia. They finally stepped up and gave the middle finger to all of those diktats didn't they! :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.