How would 1980s U.S. military technology fare against an extended Vietnam War?

[gillan1220]

Jul 5, 2021 15:09:10 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 5, 2021 9:19:17 GMT ukron said:

If Vietnam War get any longer than OTL, i can see ARVN fighting alone and/or probably a cease fire between North and South Vietnam around 1979-1980.

An Alternate ARVN in early 80s would have probably invested a lot into counter-insurgency operations and would rely massively on OV-10 Bronco and upgraded version of Bell AH-1

Like the Colombian armed forces and their fight against the FARC in the 1980s to 2000s. 

Interestingly enough, FARC only ended their insurgency in 2017. Also, the Colombian Armed Forces did receive the best of the best from the United States including the UH-60 Blackhawk.

[lordroel]

Jul 5, 2021 15:26:24 GMT gillan1220 said:

Jul 5, 2021 15:09:10 GMT lordroel said:

Like the Colombian armed forces and their fight against the FARC in the 1980s to 2000s. 

Interestingly enough, FARC only ended their insurgency in 2017. Also, the Colombian Armed Forces did receive the best of the best from the United States including the UH-60 Blackhawk.

And so i think South Vietnam, as long as they do most of the fighting. 

[gillan1220]

Jul 5, 2021 15:32:45 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 5, 2021 15:26:24 GMT gillan1220 said:

Interestingly enough, FARC only ended their insurgency in 2017. Also, the Colombian Armed Forces did receive the best of the best from the United States including the UH-60 Blackhawk.

And so i think South Vietnam, as long as they do most of the fighting. 

South Vietnam needs to pull off what the KMT did in Taiwan: remove corrupt government officials and high ranking military officers. It would require a Napoleonic change.

[lordroel]

Jul 5, 2021 15:45:42 GMT gillan1220 said:

Jul 5, 2021 15:32:45 GMT lordroel said:

And so i think South Vietnam, as long as they do most of the fighting. 

South Vietnam needs to pull off what the KMT did in Taiwan: remove corrupt government officials and high ranking military officers. It would require a Napoleonic change.

That might take time, but better a dictator on your side than losing a country I assume.

[belushitd]

There's two ways to look at this.

1. The US will be involved in the fighting actively the entire time. Say it continues until 1985.

A LOT of things that were developed in the late 70's and early 80's will not get developed or will be significantly later) due to fiscal restraints. If you're buying huge quantities of the stuff you're using right now in the war, that's what you continue using. A large chunk of the money you'd spend on R&D goes to operational expenses (paying for bombs, bullets, food, men and services). Yes, a lot of the weapons and systems that were deployed in the late 70's and early 80's had starting points in the 50's or 60's, but the money just won't be there.

Vietnam is NOT like WWII for the US. In WWII, the US happened to get lucky in that the generation of "stuff" they were tooling up to build or were building on December 7, 1941 was stuff they could fight the war with. It may have cost more in blood than the perfect version of it, but it worked. The stuff under development continued to be developed, because the US was both isolated from enemy action and had the economy to support both a mass army and the ability to build all the stuff while simultaneously paying for research. Case in point, the Manhattan project. 2 billion in 1945 dollars. Second case in point, aircraft types.

2. The US is NOT involved in the fighting and sloughs the burden of the pew pew part of the war onto the ARVN. The US provides a type of lend lease to RVN, which lowers operational costs significantly, which allows perhaps development but at a lesser rate.


A few things to also consider in the event of the US participating fully in combat -

The M-60 tank was difficult at best to run around the jungles and bridges of Vietnam, as I understand it. The M-48 weighed significantly less and was smaller and thus able to go places the larger tank couldn't. The M-1 is heavier, and I think, but am not certain, that it has higher ground pressure on its treads, meaning its more likely to sink in mud. I'm not sure about the Bradley, but its a pretty big chunk of equipment itself. Might have similar problems.

B-1 - I assume the point of using the B-1 would be to reduce losses from SAMs and fighters. Unless a much larger number were produced, I don't see them being used in a tactical situation. They were pretty much going to replace the B-52 in the nuclear strike role in SIOP, which would permit more B-52 strikes, I suppose.

B-2 - Probably not developed in this scenario due to cost.

A-10 - Tough plane, great gun, but if you can't see it, you can't really shoot it up. Ho chi min trail or in the thick jungles. There may have been a single squadron deployed for live fire testing, but the vast majority of those produced would go to Europe.

F-14 - This would have seen much enlarged production as it came into squadron service in 1974. It was not a ground attack platform as it was optimized for destroying massed soviet strategic bombers, but during a continued Vietnam war, it would have permitted the F-4 squadrons to focus on fighting the war, and the F-14 squadrons would have served with the carriers in the Med and the north Atlantic.

F-15 - Also air to air, so would have equipped squadrons as historically, but the planes replaced would have been sent to Vietnam, rather than the air national guard.

The Navy would likely have seen a reduction in everything but carrier construction and guided missile destroyer construction. I would assume that the continuation of a hot war for the US would involve a breakdown in negotiations, so you would likely see all the Iowa class ships reactivated and taking turns on the gun line. Perhaps even get all four of them together to bombard Haiphong.

I don't know enough about small arms to feel I should offer an opinion.

Belushi TD

[gillan1220]

Jul 9, 2021 14:37:39 GMT belushitd said:

There's two ways to look at this.

1. The US will be involved in the fighting actively the entire time. Say it continues until 1985.

A LOT of things that were developed in the late 70's and early 80's will not get developed or will be significantly later) due to fiscal restraints. If you're buying huge quantities of the stuff you're using right now in the war, that's what you continue using. A large chunk of the money you'd spend on R&D goes to operational expenses (paying for bombs, bullets, food, men and services). Yes, a lot of the weapons and systems that were deployed in the late 70's and early 80's had starting points in the 50's or 60's, but the money just won't be there.

Vietnam is NOT like WWII for the US. In WWII, the US happened to get lucky in that the generation of "stuff" they were tooling up to build or were building on December 7, 1941 was stuff they could fight the war with. It may have cost more in blood than the perfect version of it, but it worked. The stuff under development continued to be developed, because the US was both isolated from enemy action and had the economy to support both a mass army and the ability to build all the stuff while simultaneously paying for research. Case in point, the Manhattan project. 2 billion in 1945 dollars. Second case in point, aircraft types.

2. The US is NOT involved in the fighting and sloughs the burden of the pew pew part of the war onto the ARVN. The US provides a type of lend lease to RVN, which lowers operational costs significantly, which allows perhaps development but at a lesser rate.


A few things to also consider in the event of the US participating fully in combat -

The M-60 tank was difficult at best to run around the jungles and bridges of Vietnam, as I understand it. The M-48 weighed significantly less and was smaller and thus able to go places the larger tank couldn't. The M-1 is heavier, and I think, but am not certain, that it has higher ground pressure on its treads, meaning its more likely to sink in mud. I'm not sure about the Bradley, but its a pretty big chunk of equipment itself. Might have similar problems.

B-1 - I assume the point of using the B-1 would be to reduce losses from SAMs and fighters. Unless a much larger number were produced, I don't see them being used in a tactical situation. They were pretty much going to replace the B-52 in the nuclear strike role in SIOP, which would permit more B-52 strikes, I suppose.

B-2 - Probably not developed in this scenario due to cost.

A-10 - Tough plane, great gun, but if you can't see it, you can't really shoot it up. Ho chi min trail or in the thick jungles. There may have been a single squadron deployed for live fire testing, but the vast majority of those produced would go to Europe.

F-14 - This would have seen much enlarged production as it came into squadron service in 1974. It was not a ground attack platform as it was optimized for destroying massed soviet strategic bombers, but during a continued Vietnam war, it would have permitted the F-4 squadrons to focus on fighting the war, and the F-14 squadrons would have served with the carriers in the Med and the north Atlantic.

F-15 - Also air to air, so would have equipped squadrons as historically, but the planes replaced would have been sent to Vietnam, rather than the air national guard.

The Navy would likely have seen a reduction in everything but carrier construction and guided missile destroyer construction. I would assume that the continuation of a hot war for the US would involve a breakdown in negotiations, so you would likely see all the Iowa class ships reactivated and taking turns on the gun line. Perhaps even get all four of them together to bombard Haiphong.

I don't know enough about small arms to feel I should offer an opinion.

Belushi TD

Good points. Thanks for the insight. A very meaningful discussion here.

[ukron]

Agree with you Belushi TD, great analysis.

[belushitd]

Thank you both.

Not sure it was particularly insightful, rather its a bit of knowledge and we all know how much trouble that can get you in.

Remember, always follow the money.

Belushi TD

[lordroel]

Jul 13, 2021 15:29:15 GMT belushitd said:

Thank you both.

Not sure it was particularly insightful, rather its a bit of knowledge and we all know how much trouble that can get you in.

Remember, always follow the money.

Belushi TD

If the United States fights the War in Vietnam until the 1980s, it will cost a lot more than then the 111 billion they spend in OTL according to Costs of Major U.S. Wars.”

[gillan1220]

Jul 13, 2021 15:36:20 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 13, 2021 15:29:15 GMT belushitd said:

Thank you both.

Not sure it was particularly insightful, rather its a bit of knowledge and we all know how much trouble that can get you in.

Remember, always follow the money.

Belushi TD

If the United States fights the War in Vietnam until the 1980s, it will cost a lot more than then the 111 billion they spend in OTL according to Costs of Major U.S. Wars.”

Not to mention it would be very unpopular just like the endless wars in the Middle East.

[lordroel]

Jul 13, 2021 15:39:44 GMT gillan1220 said:

Jul 13, 2021 15:36:20 GMT lordroel said:

If the United States fights the War in Vietnam until the 1980s, it will cost a lot more than then the 111 billion they spend in OTL according to Costs of Major U.S. Wars.”

Not to mention it would be very unpopular just like the endless wars in the Middle East.

The United States spend 20 years in Afghanistan, they spend 19 years in Vietnam, both are 19 years and 18 years to long.

[gillan1220]

Jul 13, 2021 15:41:12 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 13, 2021 15:39:44 GMT gillan1220 said:

Not to mention it would be very unpopular just like the endless wars in the Middle East.

The United States spend 20 years in Afghanistan, they spend 19 years in Vietnam, both are 19 years and 18 years to long.

Exactly!

I remember there was a post in 2019 showing an 18-year old Hispanic-American who just graduated from Marine bootcamp and earned his Globe, Eagle, and Anchor. His next assignment: Afghanistan. The post even mentioned that he was born in November 2001, meaning he wasn't even born during 9/11 itself and now he is fighting a war he does not even really know what caused it.

The same could be said for the people who fought in Vietnam in which there were either babies or young kids during the Second World War and the Korean War. They probably got inspired hearing stories of their fathers fighting in the Pacific, Europe, and Korea and thought they could apply it to the jungles of Vietnam.

[simon darkshade]

Most of the kit you outline in your initial post is of bugger all use in a low intensity Vietnam conflict. The Bradley, being for mech inf, isn’t going to see wide use in a predominantly light infantry campaign, nor will MBTs prioritised for Europe.

Do you know how many tank-tank engagements were fought by the US Army and the NVA? None.

You mention the B-1B, which entered service at the tail end of the 1980s in a purely nuclear role - have a read as to why it wasn’t used in Desert Storm.

JDAMs in the 1980s? You may want to read up some more, which would also tell you that they aren’t carried on A-10s.

The only point where you’ve got some relationship with the real nature of the war is the M16A2. Even then, I would suggest that this was not a war majorly affected by the character of its small arms.

A little bit of research will take you a long way.

[simon darkshade]

Jul 13, 2021 15:45:39 GMT gillan1220 said:

Jul 13, 2021 15:41:12 GMT lordroel said:

The United States spend 20 years in Afghanistan, they spend 19 years in Vietnam, both are 19 years and 18 years to long.

Exactly!

I remember there was a post in 2019 showing an 18-year old Hispanic-American who just graduated from Marine bootcamp and earned his Globe, Eagle, and Anchor. His next assignment: Afghanistan. The post even mentioned that he was born in November 2001, meaning he wasn't even born during 9/11 itself and

now he is fighting a war he does not even really know what caused it.

I’ve seen that last idea on a few occasions and each time I’m flabbergasted at the sheer silliness of it.

Someone being born after 2001 doesn’t mean that they have not

- learnt about it,

- absorbed the constant references to it in popular culture,

- read about it

- and been informed about it after volunteering to join the USMC.

This type of notion makes American soldiers and marines look at once both pig ignorant of the most pivotal event of the last generation; and utterly infantile in that they can’t be considered capable of personal agency.

You aren’t the author of that type of post, so I don’t want to seem like I’m being cross at you; far from it. However it is quite insulting to the young men going out to war to presume they are clueless puppets.

It heartens back to some of the anti-war sound bites of 2001-2007, which constantly infantilised the soldiery of several countries and portrayed them as dumb youths ‘stuck in Iraq’.

[simon darkshade]

Jul 13, 2021 15:41:12 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 13, 2021 15:39:44 GMT gillan1220 said:

Not to mention it would be very unpopular just like the endless wars in the Middle East.

The United States spend 20 years in Afghanistan, they spend 19 years in Vietnam, both are 19 years and 18 years to long.

I would disagree with both assertions, whilst noting that they are/were very different conflicts.



The notions that the US and other independent allies should not have fought in Afghanistan after mid 2002 and in Vietnam past the late 1950s is one that requires a fairly substantive argument, not merely an assertion.