Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?

>unless you're an infantryman
>posts about infantrymen
God damn it.

So you are saying casualties in WWII were pretty low since most people just sat in England without seeing combat?
>the percent that died is similar to other wars
>amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II

the second volume is pretty much all about VEE ET NAM

1. 10% casualty rate is pretty low
2. You're a strawmanning fuck. Unlike WWII, most people in the Army and Marine Corps weren't infantry.

>10% casualty rate is pretty low
Compared to what? 12%?
Also the crippling and amputations went up since people who in former wars died could now be saved by choppers.

anyone read vietnam by stanley karnow?

> Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?
IT AIN´T ME

>Compared to what? 12%?
Compared to even other contemporary wars.
Comparing Vietnam to the U.S. involvement in WWII is disingenuous because the U.S. saw one of the lowest casualty rates of the countries involved at a whopping 3%(ish). WWI saw 20% more casualties than Vietnam despite lasting a year for us. Korea saw roughly the same number of casualties despite a comparably lower U.S. involvement. Stop trying to shill myth as fact. Vietnam wasn't as bad as you're trying to make it out to be.

>Also the crippling and amputations went up since people who in former wars died could now be saved by choppers
You realize that injuries are included in casualties, correct? It isn't just dead people.

Vietnam: A History

You are the one resorting into name-calling and memes while I am trying to argue based on facts here. I have no agenda so calm your fucking tits.
I am still looking for some comparative chart or something with and without the wounded and killed AND the RELATIVE number of casualties. Just so you know wiki lists that Vietnam casualties were higher than Kora, Iraq and Afghanistan combined, in absolute numbers.
Also follwing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
there were 536,100 US troops in Vietnam (1968) with casualties of roughly 360.000 (fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf ; p.3). So I don't even know where you 10% is figure is wrong but the more that I read into this stuff I think you are the one talking out of your ass. Even in relative numbers (serving men/casualties) Korea is very well comparable to Vietnam. If I am wrong -> source me.

It was a good idea when you had the success of Japan and South Korea to back it up.

The nationbuilding attemps in Japan and SK were extremely successful. Look at them today. They saw how it was worth saving SK from communism so they tried the same in vietnam.

It didn't work out too well though because by that point the USSR was up to steam and they fucked it all up by supplying the enemy

Ikr? We should have just allowed the spread of violent communist regimes.

But seriously m8 the USSR would have taken all of Europe if the US hadn't put up that iron curtain. You think they were actually fighting a defensive war against Germany? Communism was always a globalist expansionist ideology. If left unchecked, they would have continued expansion and we'd likely still have a problem today.

It may not seem like an issue in your comfy western country, but in mine, where communism actually fucked us over for several decades, I would be glad if a powerful nation had intervened and gave us aid to fight those bastards.

>the allies never saved eastern europe from communism

literally unforgivable. we should have just let hitler do his thing, it would have been preferable to the butt-fucking stalin gave them.

It was a continuation of doctrine birthed on Iwo Jima and Peleliu and stupid ideas from MacArthur.

Just throwing it out here, but during Alexander's time, 30% was considered low.

books.google.ca/books?id=F9uCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=alexander the great casualty rate&source=bl&ots=G-1duTOVYe&sig=zsVS4wyy12R47ilg8PfnHEcTNxg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt6faL88jOAhXkBsAKHZJcBYcQ6AEIPDAF#v=onepage&q=casualty rate&f=false

when will you 10 year old's understand that "winning a war" is not always the win condition.

FFS read a fucking book before you post here.

This. The public basically wasn't willing to pay the cost anymore which was reasonable given that the domino theory is retarded.

youtube.com/watch?v=QWJ0y6oiot8

>hardly a low percentage
Read the whole footnote and try to understand it this time. It neither states that the rate is low nor was the statement made during Alexander's time.

Did you seriously just use a single year of troops in an 8 year war while using casualties for the full war and use it for casualty rate? I didn't name-call. I didn't meme. You sure as shit are though.

Dispatches
About Face
Sir, No Sir
Kill Anything That Moves

>worst korea
>a success

I mean now it is, but there's a reason why literally no one covers or talks about the Korean war.

South Korea wouldn't have become a success if it wasn't for the korean war. The entire peninsula would be starving and worshiping Kimmy if that war didn't happen

>Did you seriously just use a single year of troops in an 8 year war while using casualties for the full war and use it for casualty rate
No. Also still no sources to back up your claim but instead more name calling. Good riddance.

Also, to source you up straight from the National Vietnam Veteran Foundation:
There were roughly 9 million U.S. servicemen between 1964 and 1973. Roughly 2.7 million of those were in Vietnam. There were 361,959 casualties in Vietnam. This gives a total casualty rate of 13.4% (rounded up). Of those casualties, 58k were fatal. Of those deaths, only 47k were in combat. That brings the fatal casualty rate to 2.1% total, or .6% less than WWII. Fatal combat casualty rate was 1.7% a full 1% lower than WWII.

Seriously fuck off. I haven't name-called yet, but I'll start here: You are an ignorant piece of shit that shills myth as fact to keep a narrative that never was true and cost us all ground gained in a conflict which ended in the worst possible way for all participants involved because of people like you. Take your Hanoi Jane horseshit and fuck off to the dregs, nigger.

nationalvietnamveteransfoundation.org/statistics.htm

It was definitely not that.

Vietnam required a rethink in doctrine from the ground up. Air mobility, COIN, free fire zones, the lack of clear targets... These were all strategic problems that had to be solved and it took a long time for the US to develop the tools to do so.

But, we definitely did not simply recycle amphibious landing techniques from 20 years prior.

What was the causality rate in WWII?
>I haven't name-called yet
>You sure as shit are though.
>You're a strawmanning fuck
>I haven't name-called yet
Ok buddy. Maybe it's tourettes and you just don't know that your hands are doing.
>You are an ignorant piece of shit that shills myth as fact to keep a narrative that never was true and cost us all ground gained in a conflict which ended in the worst possible way for all participants involved because of people like you. Take your Hanoi Jane horseshit and fuck off to the dregs, nigger.

I actually try to have a fact based discussion while you clearly have an agenda and act turbo-triggered if people question your data or disagree with you. I have 0 interest in the Vietnam War, it's not my field of study at all.

Please post why you eventually write here! Vietnam is one of my absolute favorite historical topics and I would love to read anything on it.

Been recently digging into Vietnam : A History by Stanley Karnow. It's a really excellent book

Dispatches is probably my favorite thing I've read about it.

I love authors who fixate on weather/temp and Herr does a great job of that. I feel like it's something that gets glanced over but in reality heat is one of the most pervasive and damaging factors humans deal with, and the weather in Vietnam (as well as Iraq, if we are keeping the US military scope) is borderline unbearable.

Name calling sounds like: You are a massive faggot. You are a strawmanning fuck is not ad hominem when it's true. You built a straw man because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

>What was the causality rate in WWII?
12,209,238 total servicemen in all branches of which 73% served overseas or 8,912,744 servicemen abroad. There were 1,078,594 total casualties of which 407,316 were deaths which brings us to a casualty rate of 12.1% and a fatal casualty rate of 4.6%. I can't find the exact numbers on combat casualty rate for WWII, so you're just going to have to deal. Turns out the numbers I had before were wrong: You had more than double the chance of dying in WWII than you did in Vietnam

Source: nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/us-military.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Also: and I can't believe I have to say this again, comparing Vietnam using WWII as a "normal" casualty rate is disingenuous. The US had one the lowest casualty rates of anyone involved in the war.

too many hippies, not enough napalm

Sadly, LBJ did. In my opinion he was domestically one of the best presidents, but his foreign policy was a total disaster.

I've seen this sort of thing posted on Veeky Forums before the old "if we had dropped more bombs we would have won, it was those damn hippies".

The USA dropped more ordnance in Vietnam than every country in WW2 combined, including the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the two nukes. Plus Agent Orange.

Whatever the reasons the US lost a touch more napalm wouldn't have solved it.

Not him, but a primary issue was the creation of hands of cities. There were many sites in North Vietnam that weren't allowed to be bombed until Nixon got into office (I know, I know. He extended the war. Whatever.). Bombing in Vietnam was kind of half assed until Linebacker and Linebacker II.

hands off*

You Guys need to Look inro the history of south corea Till 1988. Seriously.

>Bombing in Vietnam was kind of half assed unitl Lineback and LBII

You mean pretty much on a scale never seen before in war, just because it was stepped up even further it doesn't mean Rolling Thunder was 'half-assed'.

And LB and LBII were three years (approx) before the fall of Siagon, they weren't some last ditch measure, that's a period of time three times longer than between D-Day and VE.

American government, especially foreign policy, was infected by "Big Ideas" namely "Domino Theory".

Idk but i have 5,176 pictures worth 3.35 gigs of photos of it for some reason.

>refuse to bomb certain cities
>not half-assed

>that's a period of time three times longer than between D-Day and VE
In a war that in comparison had lasted twice as long.

You should probably read a book not telling other ppl to do so.

Then you would know how to write "corea"

>give up on a war because of it being unpopular at home and homegrown communist agitation
>even though you were blowing the enemy the fuck out constantly in nearly every engagement

holy kek who let this happen? no wonder we don't see shit from US wars now, they learned not to fucking let the media see things

They didn't account for the fact that, unlike centuries of precedent showing you only had to break your enemy in order to negotiate terms, the Vietcong were willing to fight to the very last man.

Over a million Vietnamese were killed and that wasn't enough, it became a drain, they "won" but it was very pyrrhic and in the end capitalism has seeped back into the country.

>who let this happen
Things were heavily restricted, despite free speech laws, during and before the McCarthy era. You never heard about dead servicemen in the news until the tail end of WWII (Iirc Iwo was the first time a dead U.S. servicemen was shown in the news) and Korea kept things pretty tight-lipped outside of direct Army statements. The post-McCarthy era meant the U.S. government wouldn't interfere with the media at home so long as it didn't endanger U.S. servicemen. OTOH, what news the U.S. servicemen got their hands on was heavily censored. Things changed after the Vietnam era though. War media is heavily restricted today though not legally restricted as it had been prior. You only hear X servicemen were wounded and killed or Y city was taken instead of the reality of what's going on. It's for the best.

>It was definitely not that.

It was. The body count doctrine is taken directly from the last battles of WW2. What you're describing are tactics and strategy, which of course advanced. The idea that to defeat the 'Asiatic warrior', though, and a culture that did not value life would require its total elimination was considered tried and true doctrine after Iwo and Peleliu, two islands taken for no strategic purpose other than to eliminate the Japanese forces garrisoned within. It also gave us a very misguided impression that Americans would accept significant losses in some far off Asian war.

Westmoreland's memoirs mention this and the counsel he sought of MacArthur prior to accepting command.

>"[MacArthur] urged me to make sure I always had plenty of artillery, for the Oriental, he said, ‘greatly fears artillery,’ and suggested that [Westmoreland] might have to employ a 'scorched earth policy' in Vietnam."

In 1965 Westmoreland issued MACV Directive Number 525-3, which established the free strike zones, essentially scorched earth. 40% of South Vietnamese countryside open to unrestrained attack.

Vietnam War memes on Veeky Forums and /k/

1. We never really tried!
2. HCM wasn't even a communist!
3. We could have nuked them!
4. They were about to surrender!
5. We didn't lose! It was the Democrats stopping the funding!
6. We signed the Paris Peace treaty! That proves we won!
7. McDonald's in Hanoi = Victory
8. Muh Kill/Death ratio!
9. We stopped the spread of Communism!
10. Vietnamese people are pro-American so we won in the long-run!

You can't read

>and /k/

You forgot the m16 memes.

Also the older vet meme
>we were winning when I left

South Korea until the late 70's was no success. Furthermore, it wasn't a victory.

Hence it's known as the forgotten war in America.

>But seriously m8 the USSR would have taken all of Europe if the US hadn't put up that iron curtain.
.

Too many people don't actually realise how the Vietnam war was. It wasn't like America was occupying Vietnam after invading, and trying to fight this real war.

It was sitting about in Allied South Vietnam, not really allowed to attack North Vietnamese territory beyond air strikes which was hamstrung thanks to Soviet and Chinese "advisers", while American ground troops would just sweep and clear areas, without getting to hold and occupy the ground.

The war in the south and the war along the DMZ were radically different.

What's the plan then, anons? Apart from a bit of lame, half-assed greentexting and five or six words blaming hippies.

You're the CIC of the USA in the early to mid '70s and you have spent more than a decade and a half dropping more tonnage of bombs on Vietnam than ever before seen in military history.

Lay out your grand strategy for winning the Vietnam War with a bit more bombing.

We're all dying (with laughter) to hear it. Sentences and paragraphs laying out your strategy rather than half a dozen words are expected.

Because the US wasn't willing to massacre enough university brats

You don't even need a full paragraph. The full bombing campaign during the second term of the Nixon years is what brought the NVA (back) to the table. Creating no-bomb zones was the stupidest fucking thing LBJ could have done if he actually wanted to end the conflict sooner. Instead, we get mass interdiction campaigns with little strategic bombing which allowed such a build up by North Vietnam that Tet happened (and also failed, but that's besides the point). You can't place such an emphasis on the air war and then hamstring it from the get go. Obviously, the ground war was stuck where it was. They couldn't openly invade North Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. With this in mind, the air war was really all they had left besides COIN on the ground. Only they half-assed the air war (See: Rolling Thunder) until it was too late. That's my whole gripe and has been a huge criticism by MANY of Rolling Thunder and the Vietnam War in general until 1972. The U.S. had the option to completely decimate North Vietnam military capability like they did Japan and Germany using half the ordinance and they fucking didn't.

In the South

>fighting VC, midgets in black pajamas
>rarely if ever see them, even during combat
>another day, another search and destroy mission
>know you're being used as bait
>your job is to make contact
>to draw out the enemy to be killed with overwhelming firepower
>that is, if you cant find him
>your third or fourth new CO has arrived
>he's just like the rest, chasing a promotion
>all he cares about is body count, in fact he's keeping score
>starts to reward units who get body count with R&R and extra beer rations
>but it's not like you can make the VC come out and play
>starts to punish units who don't get body count
>makes your missions longer, deeper into the shit, more risk, more danger
>all you find are farmers, the punishments get worse
>no more chopper rides to and from S&D missions, it's a privilege, not a right
>forced to hoof it in war notorious for booby traps and mines
>watch your best friend step on a mine and blow up in front of you
>a mine less than a klick away from that village you just cleared
>a mine on the path some farmer told you was clear
>why the fuck didn't those gooks warn you?
>pissed off and frustrated your whip out your zippo and torch the village
>new replacement gets jumpy, kills the farmers yelling about their huts
>call in your body count
>immediately rewarded with a heli ride back to base, extra beer, and longer leave
>a war criminal by entrapment

that old cliche is still apt. the war was continuation of politics by other means. you lost.

spot on. this seems to be the general view of most americans. the complete callousness and ignorance towards what the Vietnamese went through sickens me. i have absolutely no sympathy for the american invaders, each death of an american serviceman was a victory for freedom

>t. Pierre Mondieu

I can't understand how can someone NOT be against this war.
Imagine being dragged by the government to die in bumfuck nowhere for nothing.
Jesus what a waste

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1469914045645.webm

>posting Webms of a movie that was so biased that even leftists called it out for bullshit when it was released
You're not helping your cause.

>

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1469881507656.webm

The interviews are accurate you cock smoking faggot.

>he did it again
Holy shit

They're cherry picked to shit, you triple nigger

have another you fucking mud blood reddit poster

i.4cdn.org/wsg/1469999746028.webm

Vietnamese girls are cute

>cherry picked leftist bullshit
>calling anyone else reddit
kys

Also if they're so accurate why don't you post the very few pro-Vietnam interviews in the movie? Oh right, they don't fit your narrative and would force you to admit reality.

>why don't you post the very few pro-Vietnam interviews

youtube.com/watch?v=NcOTZeZ3_40

>gets called out
>posts Forrest Gump
бpaвo

youtube.com/watch?v=EPhWR4d3FJQ

nys hippie shit

youtube.com/watch?v=t9eybY9qFfY

north korea

lol

Yeah this is not even a little bit true idek why you're posting.

See and it's source. It's not only true: It's an understatement.

Meant for

>Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?
Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara

Read:
"Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam" (1997) By then Major H.R. McMaster (as part of his Doctoral Thesis).

>pic LtGen McMaster as a MajGen

Bump

Discount the numbers killed by the NVA/VC.

He's correct. Rolling Thunder was completely half assed from beginning to end. Don't believe it? Read the various recollections of pilots who flew up north, especially in RP 5 and RP6

Nice bit of fantasy writing.