by Condottiero » Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:37 am
sebigboss79 wrote:Condottiero wrote:Nerds all of you wrote:Hearing yanks quibble about "AKSHUALLY WE NEVER LOST TACTICALLY" is like reading Nazi officers proudly proclaim how they won a glorious victory and destroyed 50 Amerikaner/Bolshevik tanks for only 2 losses, only each diary entry is 30 miles closer to Berlin and in the end, they're shocked how it got that way.
Never said the US armed forces lost tactically, but the NVA and VC never won a battle, in the style battles in recorded history.
James William Gibson-Technowar
The VC/NLF/OpFor pretty much decided when, where and how long to engage the US Forces. Not sure but I suppose that means they owned them pretty much on the tactical level.
Revisionist bullshit based on cherry-picked instances...
VC personnel were no more versed in surviving in the jungle than US troops, especially if it was a recruit forcibly sent in from the North - in their own words! The Australians were better at it than either group.
Was it General Doi's plan to attrit his force to almost a battalion at Firebase Ripcord?
sebigboss79 wrote:"The VC did not roll into Saigon as long as the US was there in force". Why would they unless the above tactical situation is favourable to them? You haven't read much Sun Tsu, have you?
I said PAVN, there were hardly any VC post TET and the North Vietnamese government preferred it that way.
Sun Tsu?!? Weak trolling. You think the average NVA commander was well versed in Sun Tzu and knowing when to take advantage of a favorable situation? North Vietnamese divisions tried rolling in several times, but were repelled experiencing heavy losses and the last time involving US air power and South Vietnamese ground forces and they were surprised at the progress made in 1975. PAVN generals were no more gifted than US ones!
This is the kind of borderline racist bullshit apology for how East Asians fight - the East isn't inscrutable! Reminds me of proponents of Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko's New Chronology: discredited by Russian historians, yet found new life in the post Cold War West.
There's plenty of bullshit from the US side, like stabbed in the back notions, but there's an equal amount of revisionist bullshit from Hanoi, yet certain people by into the latter's spin, simply due to their personal biases.
[quote="sebigboss79"][quote="Condottiero"][quote="Nerds all of you"]Hearing yanks quibble about "AKSHUALLY WE NEVER LOST TACTICALLY" is like reading Nazi officers proudly proclaim how they won a glorious victory and destroyed 50 Amerikaner/Bolshevik tanks for only 2 losses, only each diary entry is 30 miles closer to Berlin and in the end, they're shocked how it got that way.[/quote]
Never said the US armed forces lost tactically, but the NVA and VC never won a battle, in the style battles in recorded history.[/quote]
James William Gibson-Technowar
The VC/NLF/OpFor pretty much decided when, where and how long to engage the US Forces. Not sure but I suppose that means they owned them pretty much on the tactical level.[/quote]
Revisionist bullshit based on cherry-picked instances...
VC personnel were no more versed in surviving in the jungle than US troops, especially if it was a recruit forcibly sent in from the North - in their own words! The Australians were better at it than either group.
Was it General Doi's plan to attrit his force to almost a battalion at Firebase Ripcord?
[quote="sebigboss79"]"The VC did not roll into Saigon as long as the US was there in force". Why would they unless the above tactical situation is favourable to them? You haven't read much Sun Tsu, have you?[/quote]
I said PAVN, there were hardly any VC post TET and the North Vietnamese government preferred it that way.
Sun Tsu?!? Weak trolling. You think the average NVA commander was well versed in Sun Tzu and knowing when to take advantage of a favorable situation? North Vietnamese divisions tried rolling in several times, but were repelled experiencing heavy losses and the last time involving US air power and South Vietnamese ground forces and they were surprised at the progress made in 1975. PAVN generals were no more gifted than US ones!
This is the kind of borderline racist bullshit apology for how East Asians fight - the East isn't inscrutable! Reminds me of proponents of Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko's New Chronology: discredited by Russian historians, yet found new life in the post Cold War West.
There's plenty of bullshit from the US side, like stabbed in the back notions, but there's an equal amount of revisionist bullshit from Hanoi, yet certain people by into the latter's spin, simply due to their personal biases.
