The Regular US Army in 1968

[dragoon500ly]

The impact of the Vietnam War on Europe is always misunderstood. Many of the divisions in West Germany were significantly undermanned and had critical shortages in NCOs and officers. According to the Congressional Records, on average, these units ran as much as 25-30% understrength in the key leadership positions.

Critical communications equipment and spares were stripped to support the Vietnam War, when the AN/PRC-77 radio entered service, it was deployed to SE Asia, US Army Europe maintained PRC-25s for almost three years after their replacement.

Artillery ammunition was removed in such large amounts that there were critical shortages in heavy artillery ammunition. Shortly after the Tet Offensive, stocks of 155mm+ was reduced to less than seven days stocks as part of a rush to restock the heavy usage in Vietnam.

While the National Guard/Army Reserve did enjoy an increase in personnel, many of whom did enlist in order to not see service in Vietnam, their equipment levels, in 1968, was poor. Many NG units were still equipped with WWII/Korean War-era M-1 Garands and M-191A4 machine guns, and this was as late as 1972! The Guard was still operating M-46/47 tanks and was just starting to be equipped with M-48s as the new M-60 tanks were coming into service.

Would the US have been able to maintain a major conflict in SE Asia and stop a Soviet attack into Europe? It's an intresting what if.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The impact of the Vietnam War on Europe is always misunderstood. Many of the divisions in West Germany were significantly undermanned and had critical shortages in NCOs and officers. According to the Congressional Records, on average, these units ran as much as 25-30% understrength in the key leadership positions.

A fascinating book that touched on this was Michael Lee Lanning's "The battles of peace." He'd commanded a rifle platoon and company in Vietnam (as a lieutenant), then once a captain, a mech company in 1970s Germany. His descriptions of the contrasts were interesting.

Artillery ammunition was removed in such large amounts that there were critical shortages in heavy artillery ammunition. Shortly after the Tet Offensive, stocks of 155mm+ was reduced to less than seven days stocks as part of a rush to restock the heavy usage in Vietnam.

I've also read that the AF and Navy dropped so many bombs that planes were sent north with 1/2 loads (or less!), and that we had to buy back bombs we'd sold to West Germany.

Many NG units were still equipped with WWII/Korean War-era M-1 Garands and M-1919A4 machine guns, and this was as late as 1972!

Famously, you can see that in the many pictures of the Ohio NG at Kent State were carrying M-1s.

Would the US have been able to maintain a major conflict in SE Asia and stop a Soviet attack into Europe? It's an interesting what if.

Well, the Soviets were as screwed up as we now know they were, so it would have been a mess. 1968 would have been particularly bad, as the North Koreans were definitely heating things up that year, too. Some have called 1968-69 the Second Korean War. The Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia that year, France was having student riots. NATO would have had its hands full, and the US would be a maximum stretch. Sounds like a recipe for nuclear escalation.

And, if you believe some authors, someone in the KGB sent the K-129 to launch a nuke at Hawaii, pretending to be the lone Chinese SSBN. That would have gone off 5 days before my birthday-- that was chilling to realize, let me tell you.

[The Rifleman]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The impact of the Vietnam War on Europe is always misunderstood. Many of the divisions in West Germany were significantly undermanned and had critical shortages in NCOs and officers. According to the Congressional Records, on average, these units ran as much as 25-30% understrength in the key leadership positions.

Critical communications equipment and spares were stripped to support the Vietnam War, when the AN/PRC-77 radio entered service, it was deployed to SE Asia, US Army Europe maintained PRC-25s for almost three years after their replacement.

Artillery ammunition was removed in such large amounts that there were critical shortages in heavy artillery ammunition. Shortly after the Tet Offensive, stocks of 155mm+ was reduced to less than seven days stocks as part of a rush to restock the heavy usage in Vietnam.

While the National Guard/Army Reserve did enjoy an increase in personnel, many of whom did enlist in order to not see service in Vietnam, their equipment levels, in 1968, was poor. Many NG units were still equipped with WWII/Korean War-era M-1 Garands and M-191A4 machine guns, and this was as late as 1972! The Guard was still operating M-46/47 tanks and was just starting to be equipped with M-48s as the new M-60 tanks were coming into service.

Would the US have been able to maintain a major conflict in SE Asia and stop a Soviet attack into Europe? It's an intresting what if.

Its ALWAYS been like that with national guard equipment during "peacetime" even today. When the Active army had M16A2s, we had their M16A1s. When they had M1 tanks, we had M60A3s. When they started converting to the M1A1, we got their old M1s.

BUT when it comes time for war, this changes. The government has more stuff in storage then any of us could ever imagine. When my national guard unit was deployed in 2004, suddenly all new small arms, machine guns and so on appeared. I agree with many of the comments mentioned above, but I still think you undervalue the role of the national guard in a total war, especially prior to 1993, when the guard was HUGE in manpower, and before the army reserve was decimated.

[dragoon500ly]

Believe me, the government has stockpiles that NOONE can ever believe!!!

But perhaps the worst part of Vietnam was that it was not a total war. LBJ, among others, made the decision not to approach Congress for a decleration of war and refused to call up the National Guard/Reserves.

This kept the Gaurds and Reserves out of the war (expect for those personnel who did volunteer) and led to the ruthless stripping of equipment and munitions from around the world.

[schnickelfritz]

I am reading "The Generals" by Thomas E. Ricks now and just worked my way through Vietnam and into the 1980's.

It's really worth a read, particularly on Vietnam and the aftermath. It made me want to throw the book at the wall...I though I knew how much of a dumba$$ LBJ and Westie were....I had no idea.

-Dave

[NelsonFoster]

Originally Posted by schnickelfritz

I am reading "The Generals" by Thomas E. Ricks now and just worked my way through Vietnam and into the 1980's.

It's really is particularly these alternatives found over the counter for phentermine on the internet these days. Vietnam and the aftermath. It made me want to and throw the book at the wall...I though I knew much of a dumba$$ LBJ and Westie were....I had no idea.

-Dave

As a veteran, I would like to chime in and confirm that Vietnam was a very bad decision, failure, and disaster.

[CharlieAnderson]

Originally Posted by NelsonFoster

I found otc phentermine here and it changed my life. As a veteran, I would like to chime in and confirm that Vietnam was a very bad decision, failure, and disaster.

I'm a veteran too and yes, Vietnam was a bad decision. Do you think Vietnam could have been avoided?

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by CharlieAnderson

I'm a veteran too and yes, Vietnam was a bad decision. Do you think Vietnam could have been avoided?

This is an extremely tough question to answer.

First a broad overview of the start of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

It begins with end of World War Two and OSS operations in Vietnam that ended up supporting Ho Chi Minh with money and military supplies. With the close of the war, there was unofficial U.S. support for HCM's independence movement, NOT sanctioned by the U.S. Government. When France made the decision to deploy troops back to Indochina to resume control of its 'lost' colonies, HCM made the decision to fight.

France, at the time, was a critical member of NATO and was receiving extensive military and economic aid from the U.S., however, due to French laws, they were unable to deploy draftees to Vietnam, forcing them to rely upon Marine (Colonial) troops, volunteers and indigenous troops. To say that France fought the First Indochina War on an overstretched, worn out rubber band of resources overstates just how limited their resources were.

Imagine fighting a guerilla war with deuce and a half trucks and worn out C47s as your major transportation? One were your units had to march in and out carrying everything on their backs through some of the nasty terrain in the world. Worn out, out numbered troops fighting a battle of a thousand cuts.

Following earlier disasters, the French came to rely on U.S. support to keep their military running. Everything from CIA mercenaries flying C119 transports, to Air Force technicians, maintaining French military aircraft while wearing civilian clothes.

Then came the disaster of Dien Bien Phu. Here the French begged for U.S. air power to break the deathlock the Viet Minh had on the besieged French garrison. And it almost happened. There are stories of B29s on U.S. bases, wearing French roundals as part of a disguise to convince anybody watching that France had strategic bombers...With American air crews. There was even discussion about using atomic bombs on Viet Minh supply routes,but this was thankfully stopped.

When France withdrew from Indochina, it was thought that with the creation of North and South Vietnam the war had ended for good. It was not until the Kennedy Administration that U.S. forces in the form of advisors to the South Vietnam Army that the first 'official' U.S. involvement took place.

Kennedy was always against any major units being involved, it's not until the Johnson Administration that you see major deployments of military units. There are unconfirmed reports that Johnson had torn up a Kennedy executive order to withdraw the advisors.

So that's your answer, Vietnam was a war we should never have been involved in, in a country that we had no need to be involved with. We were tugged into this war in a vain attempt to prop up a colonia! power trying to relive its glory days, in a wasted effort to stop communist expansion. But perhaps the worst part of the Vietnam War, is that we didn't get to win it, Johnson's efforts led to piecemeal deployments of combat power, with bureaucrats trying to prove that they could fight a war better then the soldiers.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by CharlieAnderson

Do you think Vietnam could have been avoided?

I'm currently reading "Road to disaster: a new history of American's descent into Vietnam" by Brian VanDeMark. Two things I found noteworthy, just from the introduction.
1. VanDeMark is trying to meld history and psychology, showing when and how our minds can follow incorrect ideas and create bad decisions, given that we humans operate under incomplete information and time stress. It's certainly an interesting attempt to look at decision making.

2. VanDeMark has previously worked as assistant on the memoirs of Clark Clifford and Robert MacNamara, so he brings some of their insight directly into the book. I've never been a fan of MacNamara, but he was a smart man who did try hard. He was also very introspective, and spent a lot of time during and after the war to try and understand where things went wrong. It's unfortunate that he couldn't get to the right answer in time.

There are very illuminating chapters up front on the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, useful to show how the Kennedy-Johnson decision-makers worked, and how the civilian heads began to mistrust the military side of the Pentagon. (I'll point out that the Joint Chiefs aren't doing so well in finding a better path, either. My reading so far is between Gulf of Tonkin and the arrival of the Marines.)
I should note this book is very focused on what happened in Washington, as the Cabinet and NSC members are the operators that are studied.

[Landon]

Originally Posted by schnickelfritz

I am reading "The Generals" by Thomas E. Ricks now and just worked my way through Vietnam and into the 1980's.

It's really worth a read, particularly on Vietnam and the aftermath. It made me want to throw the book at the wall...I though I knew how much of a dumba$$ LBJ and Westie were....I had no idea.

-Dave

The Generals i have read it and its mind blowing

[Sith]

I did some work on the origins of the Vietnam war when I was in grad school. Could it have been avoided? Probably not for political inertia reasons. The first advisers actually deployed to South Vietnam shortly after its creation in the mid-fifties, it wasn't until Kennedy that the deployment became "official" though.

At the time the Soviet politicians were emphasizing the spread of communism through insurgency. This factored heavily into Kennedy's decision making around strategy. He wanted to show the Soviets that the United States could stop at the counter-insurgency level, hence, the creation of the Special Forces. Sort of a "whatever you got, we got better" kind of an approach. The US Army, however, had a different vision though. At the time they did not see counter-insurgency as we see it today, they simply viewed it as a "smaller conventional war" and that is how they approached it. So when Truman became President their recommendations were along conventional lines. Truman also suffered from a sort of "little man" syndrome as well. He never really took well to being surrounded by Kennedy's "Best and Brightest" Cabinet Secretaries and advisers. Some say that this played a part in him escalating the war, he needed to show that he was tough.

As far as Kennedy's thinking about ending the war and any action Truman may have taken is still a mystery. There are interesting arguments on both sides around that, not sure if we will ever find out what truly happened.

On National Guard equipment, I can remember going to the NY State Fair in the early eighties. The Guard troops were there with a M48 tank that had a M60 machine gun mounted on top. I thought the whole display was real cool, especially since they had a zip-line set up to replicate parachutes. The kids were all over that thing. What stands out the most was that they were regularly firing blanks through the M60 to entertain the crowd... that would not go over well these days. Different times.

[mpipes]

Sith, you say Truman. Don't you mean Johnson?

[nexum81]

Originally Posted by Landson

The Generals i have read phen375 review here and its mind blowing

With training and equipment from American military and the CIA, Diem's security forces cracked down on Viet Minh sympathizers

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Believe me, the government has stockpiles that NOONE can ever believe!!!

But perhaps the worst part of Vietnam was that it was not a total war. LBJ, among others, made the decision not to approach Congress for a decleration of war and refused to call up the National Guard/Reserves.

This kept the Gaurds and Reserves out of the war (expect for those personnel who did volunteer) and led to the ruthless stripping of equipment and munitions from around the world.

I think a Pennsylvania NG unit volunteered through out the Vietnam conflict.