I was about 8 years old when I was being driven home by the father of a neighbor kid. I remember they were talking about ”body count" on the AM radio news. I remember the numbers seemed to be in the favor of the United states. I remember naively asking Mr Valente: "Are we winning?" Mr Valenti responded: "Nobody's winning"
Folks, I don't have much hope. I'm a little older than some, make sure you have things secure in your personal lives. Look up something called "the fourth turning" and you might also conclude that every 80 to 100 years things repeat because all of the older people who know what had happened to a century ago are long gone.
Indeed. Let's hope that learning can be passed on. The only way humanity will go forward is if we educated kids to be human. We must stop doing the biddi g if the rich who are the only I es who prosper from imperialist wars.
@Robert Sears: tell me this is tongue in cheek. War is a much needed thing? .... I'm not a peace nick, I'm just not into prosecuting globalist proxy wars. Tired of funding the military industrial complex. I know because I was a minor COG in that process.
I was in the Marines 1965-1968. Never met a man who believed in the VietNam war. I lost many friends during that time and I have no good memories, only sadness every day. We just wanted to go home.
Don't know. I was in operation desert storm. It was so ridiculous that News men going into invasion areas after the attack and they Iraqis were giving themselves as prisoners to them. Same happened with the invading army taking prisoners, because the Iraqi soldiers had nothing to eat.
Yes. That is because the Iraqi army had no spirit to fight for Saddam. And they were using 1950s kit against you. Note how the iraqi Shia wore down the US and Btisish with Gurrilla tactics so that they had to withdraw by 2007.so, same applies..... Don't underestimate anyone. Trying to fight USA on equal terms is a no no. Gurrilla tactics are different. Ultimate answer is to stop following the rich imperialists who want power in other peoples lands. They just want to use the working class as gun fodder to make themselves richer. The working class never prosper from foreign wars.
@@kevinhealey6540 Vietnam was different. , Americans knew nothing about the rest of the world. The Vietnamese People had defeated the mongolian empire and the french invaders before. History doesn't lie !!
@Bren Beeler Yeah the Sheridan is a weird tank It does not sound American Here is from the internet The M551 "Sheridan" AR/AAV was a light tank developed by the United States and named after General Philip Sheridan, of American Civil War fame. It was designed to be landed by parachute and to swim across rivers. It was armed with the technically advanced but troublesome M81/M81 Modified/M81E1 152mm gun/launcher, which fired both conventional ammunition and the MGM-51 Shillelagh guided anti-tank missile. They swapped a MBT for a light tank with weaker armour it attributed to losses in sure
Part of the reason? No one uses Tanks in a purely Jungle scenario. It took 5 minutes to find that out. It was common knowledge. Stupid commanders. But worse, they seemed to think John Wayne films are what War is like. Still do. Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan. And no tank costs $20 million back then. Not even a Jumbo Jet cost $20 million when they first came out. $50k tops for the very ordinary tank which was the Sheridan. They used them on every film set even back then because they were nothing special.
The vietnamese people had guts, confidence , they were defending their place, dignity and sovereignty. This intelligent and noble people did what the good must always do
@@AQS521 we do tend to take a bad rap for what turned out to be a very unpopular war, they always show the atrocities of Nam and say 'if Americans hadn't stuck their noses in there, this wouldn't have happened.' I prefer to think that if America hadn't stuck their noses in there, that whole region of the world would have caved in to communism. Judging from where they are nowadays, I can't say which was worse, 'us' or 'them'.
I was in the Marine Corps 2nd Tank Battalion and the canon on the M-48 and M-60 Tanks were at the time the most accurate canons in the world. They could consistently hit moving targets thousands of yards away.
Actually, no it isn't. It means the zone has no or highly limited military troops and equipment. I think you mean the obvious, that both sides of the zone are very heavily fortified.
G troop, 2/11 ACR. November 69 thru December 70. M-551 Sheridan and M-113 ACAV. The year I was there. We drove the NVA completely out of South Vietnam and had to invade Cambodia, after them. They kept on running from us. They were afraid of us. What an adventure that was. After that I realized that war was just a live fire exercise. The quick and the dead. A running gun battle, with machine guns. 18yo that was my video game with real bullets and someone trying to kill me, as well. WORLD PEACE NOW
@B Whit I don't see how the US are losers when they literally bombed Vietnam back to the stoneage, with Vietnamese losses far exceeding those of the US.
It is pretty bad honestly. Not saying much about the Vietnam war, it is really incomplete in full spectrum. This documentary is only to be taken literally as "tanks in Vietnam" and thats about it it.
@@nikolasmelka5620 The doc is only focusing on several tank battles... and it does that very well. Its not a holistic doc about the Vietnam war. That goes without saying.
@@odessaxmusicclips6028 That might be, but its highly devalued right at start when the commentator states that the first 3500 marines were to defeat North Vietnam, in the reality they were there to defend air bases/ strictly defensive missions.The whole portrait of Vietnam war is in this documentary devalued and vague. There is no further explanation given .
I am Vietnamese, after learning this war in history, until now I still do not understand why American soldiers can join this war without preparing anything for a guerrilla war. The French have failed because of the same kind of guerrilla warfare like this. The Americans engaged in this war after the French should have thought, "That guy suffered heavy losses for this kind of war, maybe we should change our tactics to be more suitable". But they simply brought in a ton of firepower and a rigid general and thought it would be all right, without further discussion.
i think that they got complacent. it's odd because they fought in korea a few years prior, which some or most was jungle territory. its the same with the air battle. they thought that missiles would be the future of air combat. they were proven wrong. again, they had a great air to air kill in korea and the second world war a few years prior as well.
The Vietnam War was probably the first conflict the Americans faced with all out guerrilla warfare. There was no solid tactics developed yet to counter the North Vietnamese and they probably used the same strategy fighting the Japanese or North Koreans which was very different. Plus with protests against them by their own people, a new unfamiliar M16 rifle issued that brought a multitude of problems and many other points eventually lead to their defeat
Just because a war is partly fought in a jungle setting does not make it a guerrilla war. The Japanese and British fought each other in the jungles of Burma for three years, and that was a conventional war, fought with conventional armies, using conventional tactics, but in a jungle setting. Same in Vietnam. The American forces were facing conventional, organized VC Main Force units, and units of the regular North Vietnamese Army, in a jungle setting. It was a conventional war fought with organized and trained professionals, moving in planned military campaigns (such as TET, and the 1972 Eastertide invasion.) in a jungle setting. The VC did use guerrilla tactics such as hit and run assaults if that's what you mean, but the VC's goal was to occupy and control the land of South Vietnam, a conventional military goal. Where Westmoreland and the military got it wrong in Vietnam was relying on the Search and Destroy policy instead of focusing in on pacification .Which they later did but ii was too late for the people of South Vietnam.
I’ll tell you why America was over confident. The US thought that this was a war of attrition against China and Russia. In other words, the U.S thought that in time China and Russia were going to deplete their resources and walk away from Vietnam. Richard Nixon immediately started talks with China and Russia which was a mistake.
"We underestimated them really, really badly - that was the case early on in Vietnam" - and everywhere else. The US military has a long history of rejecting history lessons and getting a bloody nose in the first bout of a fight. Overconfidence costs lives.
Generally I would agree with you, but in especially the first Gulf war, that was not the case - the US won by extremely superior air power to astounding low cost in life and materiel. The second Gulf war however, and the subsequent occupation war of Iraq however... not so much.
@@Kojak0 This is not about the golf war.... This is about Vietnam and the V.C. I lost few family members there, in a war got nothing to do with America.... But oh we're the big bad guys; so we'll show them... Show them what??? How the VC made use of the use 66mm tubes.... How when ones in the foxhole; the mines were reversed so it did the opposite... There are quality soldiers and there soldiers... . Vietnam that was a war something totally different.. Wow... Communism, Capitalism or Marxism... They are all evil within themselves..... Same as Religion and Politics goes hand in hand ... None better than the other... Each tells pack of lies. These are the days of John the Devine..
@@earlwilliams73A77 I don't think you read my reply properly (or the guy who I was replying to) - I wasn't talking about Vietnam or the gulf wars specifically, but more in general terms, with the first gulf war mentioned as an exception.
@@Kojak0 Got the message understand it quit clearly. But as said before the subject and statement it was about the Vietnam/ Vietnamese war. No other war. !
During Tet a friend of mine was a tank platoon leader (I think 5-6tanks) they were left in forward position to slow the advancing VC as the US troops retreated. They were on a hill top clearing with plenty of ammunition. For 3 days the enemy charged the hill and were repulsed with many casualties. On the 4th day they simply went around leading them behind enemy lines. He and his men were evacuated a few days later under heavy fire. An amazing story - he is an amazing guy and marine. May all those who died RIP.
The irony: his Pentagon Papers made him infamous -- but they ONLY described the Kennedy-Johnson years in Vietnam. But, in the public mind, the PP indicted Nixon -- who was reversing essentially EVERY ONE of Kennedy-Johnson's policies. Isn't that cute?
@@loschekell Absurd statistic alert. BTW, it takes TWO to tango. Without Ho's aggression, the Northern invasion of the South would've never happened. BTW, the North and the South had ALWAYS been two different polities. Both were centered around their own river systems. This is still true, as it's Saigon that's getting all of the Foreign Direct Investment... typically occupying old MACV bases. The North and the South STILL don't really 'get-along.' The South resents the fact that the North controls all of the top slots -- politically -- in what is still a Communist//Socialist regime. Vietnam is very much like a mini-Red China in most respects. Considering the DNA involved, that's not really surprising. At the end of the day, Nixon got the USA OUT. Kennedy-Johnson got the USA in -- big time. I mention Kennedy because he set the stage. Johnson largely did what he did BECAUSE of ORAL commitments that Kennedy had already made to Japan, Korea, Taiwan -- and NATO. Kennedy had already delivered BIG: Bay of Pigs Berlin Wall & full on Iron Curtain Cuban Missile fiasco Every single critical American ally was freaking out -- for it was obvious that the Grand Strategy of the Cold War was breaking down: Containment of Communist Totalitarianism. Nixon reversed everything by triangulating the USSR and Red China in 1972. If Nixon had been president in 1961-1965, Kennedy would've stayed alive, and none of his fiascos would've transpired. Lastly, while in office, Kennedy was CONSTANTLY being grilled by the Press and critics over his epic gaffs. How could ANYONE overlook the Berlin Wall, his baby? It took Reagan to get rid of that Wall.
@@davidhimmelsbach557 The south Vietnamese "government" didn't exist. It was a front set up by the CIA. McNamara admitted this in his book "In Retrospect."
We spent more time digging the tank that was assigned to us (nicknamed "Lickin Stick") out of the mud than it had of any benefit to us. Worked well on the perimeter of our fire base, which is where we left it most of the time.
@@chasacart Yes, he did. He went back to the States in the end of December 1967. He was supposed to go back to Nam in February 1968 after finished his month long holiday in his hometown Seattle & then in Hawaii. However, he got informed not to go back as Tet Offensive broke out.
@@spencerskewes9370 Feel sorry for your mum's relative loss. May he still live in your hearts forever as he was a good soldier and a real hero of the USA.
📺 It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit the world's best history documentary service with code 'WARSTORIES' for a huge discount! bit.ly/2MNt3cM
@Nope Nope You've always been in one mess or another and guaranteed, you'd still be in one now even if you had slaughtered millions more innocent people are than you already have.
Australia also had tanks in Vietnam we had the centurion mk7 but we didnt have so much trouble with them as they were always ment to be infantry support tanks like the Churchill of WW2 slow and well armoured. Also they worked with APCs Mii3A3s and mounted infantry though some were damaged and crews lost in both tanks and APCs due to mines we always had shared plans and routes known between the elements of the area so when we called in for arty if we were known to be in the close area they would double check for unit ids etc to make sure it was real call not a spoof as described here. Vietnam was a new style of warfare that continues today in the long running Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It just relearns the lessons of WW2 that tanks have their limits especially in urban areas or jungle type places simple because the enemy can close to within the shortest effective ranges of the weapons on a tank this is why they need infantry support to keep them safe as much as the infantry needs the tanks to keep them safe.
Operation Starlight: 600 VC dead against 45 Marines. Ok, so a Marine is costlier than a VC. Enemy does not give up but instead step up their efforts and send NVA units. Hmmm......maybe time to take these people seriously? Operation Buffalo: Due to bad intel you run into an 1:9 ambush. At your disadvantage. Then you predictably send a "too small number of tanks to make any real difference" which the enemy anticipates and set up another ambush. And then, the piece de resistance, "-We tried to put out the fire with the CO2 extinguisher but it was empty since we used it to cool some beer the night before". Priceless. It's videos like this that makes me better understand how the US could lose the war. The only good operation in this video was when the US troops threw the ROE book out the window and, at 16:50, blows up the enemy artillery base with just a few tank rounds.
I was "Attached" to the 147th S.V. Marine Brig. . . . instructing them in the use of the M-48A3 Tank, but I took it on to "Myself", to ADD "Steel Armor Side Plates", to our turret sides, which NULTAFIED any form of "Rocket Attacks" . . . as far as I know, this "Modification" was NOT DONE by "Any other Units" . . . but it WAS, "Completely Effective" ! ( We "Also" ADDED an M-60, to the "Loaders Hatch", with a "Small" GUN SHIELD, as well as an M-79 Grenade Launcher "Inside" of the tank, with 100 grenades.
@@user-xq4st9ie7r No, "Mines" were STILL . . . a "Problem", but B-40's, RPG-2's were "No Longer" a problem . . . one of "Our" tanks even took a HIT, from an 84mm R R, without damage . . .
Heads up man! Looks like Charlie has managed to infiltrate your comment and carpet bomb it with several tonnes of completely unnecessary punctuation! The horror.....The horror.
"No Vietcong Ever called me a N...R!!!" (summing up his reasons for refusing to participate in the racist war against the Vietnamese people!) Much respect to the Brother who risked his WHOLE career on a mater of principle...giving inspiration to millions of young Black men!
Rubbish. Armor, especially Armored Cavalry, was decisive in the proper terrain (over 50% of the populated ares of Viet Nam). If used incorrrectly by cluless Infantry officers (3 of my classmates dies in such cicumstances) tanks were deathtraps. During TET, Armor was used to break the NVA's offensive, slaughtering whole battalions that were caught in the open by highly-mobile armored forces. Contrary to poular belief, tall grass, underbrush and rice padddies were fullt traversable by armor (M-48s and M-113s) and oftem caught the enemy by surprise. On the other hand, sending tanks ahead unsupported by infantry was tanamount to murder - and that happened more than once. 500-lb bombs buried under well-travelled tracks waited for anybody who got predicitable - or attacked the same way 3-4 times in a month. North VietNam invaded with 600+ tanks in 1975 for a good reson: they worked just fine.
That isn't always such as during the siege of Plei Me when the 3rd. ARVN armored cavalry squadron didn't have the benefit of advance infantry screens in their attack on route 5 to relieve the beauleagered special forces garrison of Plei Me for tactical reasons but did have advanced artillery and air support which inflicted heavy casualties on the ambushing NVA 32nd. regiment and drove them back and relieved the siege.
Would have been a fitting gesture here to show Vietnamese tanks taking Saigon. After all they were brave soldiers dedicated to victory or death for their nation.
Now, we are friends. (and I am hoping will be close friends). The main point in tactic is co-operation between tanks and infantries, that we should think more carefully about when attacking. Tanks will fire from far distance to help infantry moving ahead and infantry will protect tank by destroying the opponent positions that could harm the tanks as the tanks may be not cover all the battle field. But the moral of soldiers and discipline is more important, each NVA and SVNLA soldiers thought he would die for mother land, I think I don't need to talk about the American patriot soldiers during Revolution War (1775-1783) whose had the same will and ready to die for independence of USA. Long live George Washington!
That was the tactic of Syrian government forces who were using T72 supported by infantry against insurgents in cities and it proved to be very effective
For all you x american servicmen if you could could see Bien Hoa now you would be very surprised. ..all the houses just beautiful. .i mean not mansions but large and modern with outdoor lighting so as of a night they look wonderful...of course your airbase is a no go...still too toxic but the most amazing thing is the factories...as far as the eye can see...German, Japanese, american, from all over the world, just wonderful
I know how well Vietnam is doing with manufacturing. Many of my guitars come from Vietnam and their quality is very good. Much better overall than their Chinese made counterparts.
Your rich masters tried that and failed. And you will always fail when you follow the rich capitalist imperialists who do not care about you. Fascism will always be smashed ✊🇻🇳🇨🇺🇨🇮🇨🇳🇦🇴🏴
@@johnmorgan4124 The irony in claiming a system founded upon competition doesn’t focus on the individual when the entire point of communism is complete equality is too good
@@kebertxela941 early night vision was active meaning it required an it spot light to help it see as night-vision improved to 2nd to third generation the ambient light from the stars and urban areas provided enough light this is known as passive night vision. In a cave however your gonna need an. Ir spotlight still.
@@kebertxela941 cool, thanks. I hate how you can't directly comment to the poster. I didn't even know you replied until I seen the comment below yours.
@18:18, this tank dude is not telling you that he has received US aerial recon info that had identified potential targets. He hit an NVA artillery site not because lady lucky was helping him aiming the 90mm.
Nice video program... but the fake CGI tanks, laughably fake computer graphics of explosions, and video game imagery really needs to be completely excluded because it gives a really cheesy and fake feel to the other footage of real war scenes!
The Imperial Japanese, American, and Commonwealth forces all used tanks effectively in jungles in WW II. Armor is ALWAYS vulnerable to infantry except in the desert. When the NVA came south to Saigon in 1975, they had over 2,000 armored vehicles. US Army studies after the war, particularly 'Mounted Combat in Vietnam' by General Donn Starry, came to the conclusion that armored units were the most cost effective units deployed, and there should have been more of them. Anyone who would have rather served as a foot soldier than a tanker or armored cavalryman in Vietnam should have had their head examined.
@Jamie The Australia-American War of 1978-1981 in which Kangaroos threw boomerangs at US troops and Emu Troops did unspeakable crimes against everything.
M1 Abrams and Bradley's are the spearhead, you either move move fast and kill all in your way and push past the enemy infantry left behind or you tactically support the infantry in front of you without the risk of running into dug in enemy infantry with RPGs and atgm's to snipe you one by one.
Nope it was the military brass who think they can easily defeat rice paddy farmers. The US clearly underestimated the NVA which is actually well trained in guerrilla warfare.
@@james_the_darklord Do you realize that the military brass actually report to the civilian authority? Do you know that Lyndon B. Johnson personally picked out strike targets in North Vietnam for the USAF and the USN from the office in the basement of the White House? Do you also know that early in the air war over North Vietnam, US pilots were not allowed to pursuit enemy MiG fighters pass the 19th parallel, a stupid rule of engagement of which the North Vietnamese Air Force took full advantage? Those are just a few of many RoEs that resulted in disastrous consequences for the US military.
@@lancecahill5486 N.Vietnam is a sovereign country , since USA did not openly declare WAR to them , doing that will RALLY other communists leaning countries in South East Asia to openly support the WAR. which is bad idea.. u guys kinda surrounded 🤣🤣
Brits still got kicked out. They had to withdraw at night with and agreement with local Shia militia. Britain running Way with tail between legs. Stop being a puppet of USA. Wake up and smash your own fascist government.
Unfortunately another Little Bighorn. General William Westmoreland should have known better. Less We Forget the heroes of Vietnam that were sacrificed. Excellent video documentary.
The early RPG-2 has been gradually improved until finally emerging as the RPG-7. Newer armor technology employing reactive armor and ceramic armor have almost neutralized the lethality of the RPG-7. The performance of the modern RPG bares little resemble to even the latest RPG-7 revision in terms of guidance, accuracy, range, and armor penetration. Vietnam gave a glimpse to the future of tank battle against the ground soldier just as the WW1 tank gave a glimpse to WW2 tank blitzkrieg.
Haven't there been developed different warheads for the munition though to try to keep it up to standard? It still does pretty well against the Saudi Abrams, although they're export models without DU.
@@BoatLoadsofDope ::: dual warheads are used to defeat reactive armor. ‘Squash head’ is used against ceramic armor. RPG-7 still use the ‘monroe effect’ warhead.
This is the first episode of this series that disappoints me, mostly for the glaring omission of the VC tunnel system. Why do Western documentaries on Vietnam never explicitly mention the VC tunnel system? There are just so many coded phrases where they are referred to: "set piece battle", "melting into the jungle", "hugging the enemy's belt" etc. seemingly all without the writers or historians recognizing what they are even talking about, let alone realizing that this strategy is what sustained the entire NVA/VC campaign. Sure the VC used Guerilla Tactics, but these tactics were sustained by the strategy of well hidden tunnel forts. Westmoreland failed because he refused to acknowledge the importance of the VC tunnel system and its contribution to the will of the enemy. As a Veteran of a more recent conflict I am appalled at the complete lack of Intelligence during Vietnam. I am even more appalled by the historian-producers bad mouthing Westmoreland while they, in his spirit, continue to make the same mistake. Based on my own wartime experience I disagree with the defeatist conclusion drawn at the end of the program. Tanks like any other weapon system do just fine in an Insurgency, just as long as there is proper Intelligence that guides the commander in the most effective deployment of troops and resources. The battles presented represent a failure of Intelligence at the highest level and not a failure of the tank or of the Marines and Soldiers.
General Abrams had the right strategy to fight the war but by 1968 it was too late. All he could do was build up and train the ARVN, eliminate as many NVA and VC as possible. As he knew that US withdrawal is not a matter of if but when. When the US military leaves the ARVN would have to fight the war by themselves. The ARVN did fight admirably but due to Congress reducing military aid in 1974 they did not have enough equipment and supplies for the fighting season of 1975.
We have a group of sergeants commenting on strategic objectives?20/20 hindsight is invaluable 30 years later. The historian has a vomitous smile on his face as he shares his pearl of wisdom long after the war was over.
The Australian experience was the exact opposite, centurions proved essential for infantry support operations, mind you they were more heavily armored than M48's, prior to their deployment the infantry suffered higher casualties.
Our troops (aussies) fought a guerilla war in the Malayan emergency from the late 40's-1960 so we got a taste for what a prolonged guerilla war would be like, thus the operations had a far higher success rate but on smaller scales to the U.S which just tossed firepower at problem spots instead of conducting counter insurgency operations.
@@davidboland7447 Quite so, all infantry battalions did Kanungra prior to deployment, i do not believe that U.S infantry units did an equivalent (though S.F units did) so Australian units were trained in jungle warfare and counter insurgency operations prior to deployment. Also the attitude was different Australian strategies were focused on separating the population from the insurgents , the U.S concentrated on kill ratios.
I've red that Black Horse 11th Armored was the unit causing the most casualties among the Vietnamese side. Among brigade sized units. So how did armored warfare fail?
It didn't. Armor, despite what the US initially thought, proved to be very useful. Not in the same way it would be on flat, open terrain, but useful nevertheless. This "docu" is just the typical sensationalism entertainment material you'd come to expect.
Wars are not won by kill counts but by who achieves their strategic objectives. The US left Vietnam in 74 and the South Vietnamese government collapsed.
@Jamie Nothing to do with Aussies lol. They lost because their rifles had no ammo. Their artillery no shells, their airforce grounded due to no parts, their bombs missing fuses while the north had the latest toys the whole communist block could supply. Aid was cut to unfightable levels after 72. Out of all the non sense the west spewed to smear the RVN, this one is kinda cute.
Vietnam wasn't a tank war, it was all about B-52s dropping napalms in carpet bombing, huey helicopters with door gunners. Even those things were limited by resources available. Mao said about Vietnam War "Small nation can defeat large nation; Weak nation can defeat strong nation."
It was a coward moves from both side, the communist and the capitalist. They should just fight their war again and nuke each other. Millions people died in Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia because of this prelude-cold war to end of cold war. I am an Indonesian and this cold war effect still become a massive time bomb in my country because so many idiots in here.
My grandparents fought for NVA during Tet Offensive and Battle of Hue. The only reason for them to fight was a hope of united country. Even though they knew they could be dead at any second.They still wanted to fight. Same as anyone from Vietnam today. We want peace with everyone, but we gonna fight if anyone invade our homeland.
Really sad learning about the Vietnam war.., the more you know the more you want to skin Westmoreland and his fair mates...why.., what did it achieve... for what... if you’re going to fight.. at least learn from your mistakes
It must have been a nightmare for US soldiers to see death coming through the dense jungle destroying their expensive tanks and know it's brave vietnamese men in underwear who are killing them and their friends
Even during WW2, many of Soviet tanks were destroyed by kids during the Battle of Berlin. If urban warfare is already difficult enough than jungle terrain is a whole another level with many ambushes especially from high grounds, tighter space, and perfectly concealed mines. Well, I guess at least you have a good spot to cover once it is blown up.
The americans had to consider more severe weight restraints in armour design, due to necessity sea transport. Anyway, those impressive stats did not help the IS-3 one bit against guerilla/urban warfare. It burned just the same as the T-34 or the T-55.
@@benedeknagy8497 Yes of course, however if they were in a 1v1 situation I think the IS3 has a greater chance But that being said a tank is only as good as the crew
@@benedeknagy8497 I do not believe so. Many of the american design were heavier than their Soviet counterpart even now. Soviets needed lower weight and better dispersion ( I know that's not the word but you know what I mean ) on ground due to the terrain and various changes during the season in eastern europe. Their road network wasn't as developed and often they still had some engine issues. As far as I remember most cold war american design did not have much stipulations on what could or couldn't be built. Also why alot of American designs didn't have good power to weight ratio compared to it's competitors
@@markacostajr.1584 Thats true for the height for the cold war, but the M48 and the IS3 were both created at the tail end of WW2, and the design philosophy was different.
Little thing called monsoon season. Rained day & night for months. First time that I got jeep stuck in mud asked whete thr f is the 4 wheel drive vehicles. Had to keep them clean so they were in Korea & Japan. Had 4 giys try to push then shovel jeep out of mud. Finally somebody got the 5 ton wrecker to free the jeep.
Tanks can not go thru.jungles. Too mamy trees. Best.thing for moving troops is a helicopter. Charlie got good at.shotting them down. Over 4000.helichopters wete destroyed over there. Zappers came thru one nigjt while I was on fligjt line guard duty and blew up 4 Hueys.
History repeats itself, and experienced military commanders accustomed to victory behave as they did already milleniums before. In Vièt Nâm, the Americans, accustomed to victory and highly superior in armour, experienced what the Roman commander Varus had already experienced in the Teutoburg Forest: guerrilla tactics against which the Romans, accustomed to open field battles, were helpless. The Roman legions were systematically slaughtered in the gloomy, rainy Germanic forests, much like the U.S. Americans in the jungle. And like Hô Chi Minh, Arminius, the Germanic prince's son who grew up as a Roman hostage, was psychologically and tactically many times superior to the outstanding commander Varus, especially since he was very familiar with the geographical and climatic peculiarities. I dare say that Hô Chi Minh was the "Viètnâmesian Arminius".
@@seka1986 I was there with a veterans group, this was around 1985 or 86, it was a big trial, I believe he was acquitted, our guide introduced us to him during a recess, at that time he was around 70 or so.
Well, it seems that the Communist done pretty good at invading North Vietnam and then South Vietnam and now Vietnnam is a reunited country, but under the Communist Party! Does Vietnam belong to the Vietnamese people or the Communist Party?
The Chinese would learn this lesson when they invaded Vietnam in 1979. I read an account of a Vietnamese sniper killing 12 Chinese tank commanders in the span of 45 minutes.
As a Vietnamese, the chinese tank which used in their invasion are most of clone version of t-54 with very thin armor. We have some of them before the war with China and the armor thinner than m113. So no surprise sniper can kill the tank commander easily. And commander from Vietnam already have a war with American so we have surplus of US made tank and APC like m48, m41 and m107 and m110, we even have AC 130 which converted to bomber. Even with the size ratio to 10:1, Chinese already retreat when the main army comeback from Cambodia. Note that only local force engage in conflict with Chinese, they retreat when our main army back.
@@kuroublack6922 Because it is not the truth. Armour was used very successfully in Vietnam by both sides. Especially flechette type amo was practical against humans. The NVA lost a lot of armour when they tried to invade the south while the US was still present.
@Jamie Well, if only the US would have stayed out of Korea, both world wars and Viet Nam. all would have been fine then, right? Leave the aussies and poms in charge. As far as I am concerned the war in Viet Nam ended after Clinton visited and the economical boycott ended. As Von Clausewitz stated: War is politics by other means
I'd rather talk to any of these guys than any celebrity or billionaire on this earth. But again, I don't understand why the US didn't just save all the hassle and level North Vietnam into a parking lot with conventional explosives dropped from aircrafts.
The only good targets were Hanoi and Hiaphong. LBJ wouldn't let them bomb within 30 miles of those cities for fear of China intervening like Korea. When Nixon let them bomb those cities the enemy came right to the peace talks. We could've won by 68 if we could've bombed those cities.
@@26michaeluk no , US will still lose the war even if they bombed those cities. u forgetting they are fighting in a guerilla warfare. the vietnamese didnt have static bases. they're hiding in the jungle. bombing the cities would only killed civillian. it wont stop the vietcong. there's no target like weapon factory or anything for the US airforce to bomb. their weapon was supplied from outside vietnam. american was not prepared for guerilla warfare. everyone was expecting a conventional warfare which the superior firepower of the US would definitely won.
@@maverick1654 90% of the Viet cong and NVA supplies came through Haiphong. The Viet cong were wiped out during the tet offensive. They were not an effective fighting force anymore. They were supplemented with nva soldiers from then on. Look at operations Linebacker 1 and 2. Ended the war with a swiftness, as both sides wanted out. If we'd done that from the start the Viet Cong would've been fighting with sticks. Im not trying to lessen how skilled those guerrillas were. Probably the best of that century in effectiveness. My dad hardly slept while there because they'd find members of the platoon with their throats slit at dawn with people pulling security all night. Also this is just my opinion.
TET Offensive was not about to win the war militarily but to win the war politically. Not about fire powers one side possessed but more on proving how to carry out a strategic execution of military objective.
US shouldn't have started a war with Vietnam in the first place. Vietnam literally asked for the US to help support their independence from France after WWI, they were ignored. Then the US who was supposed to be a freedom loving country enter Vietnam. How else would the people react to another occupier in their homeland. Especially the ones who they asked for help in the beginning.
The Russians supplied Mao with huge amounts of weapons & supplies at the end of WW2. In turn the PRC supplied North Vietnam with a lot of weaponry, 6x6 Trucks, missiles & fuel. The USA shied away from invading North Vietnam; .of potential Chinese intervention. So Vietnam didn't really defeat the USA, it was mainly the Chinese supplies & threat of direct Chinese intervention that defeated the USA. The Brits defeated the Malaysian Communists by attacking the commies in their jungle hideouts. The Brits also had 300 years of experience in dealing with insurgents & counter insurgencies.
@@cdnsk12 yeah the Zulu wars and the Boer wars really got their military tempered with insurgency and guerrilla warfare. There are many before that but this is just the name off the more recent ones.
The US did support Vietnamese independence. The Republic of Vietnam existed from 1955 - 1975. The US helped the Republic of Vietnam from 1965-1975 when it was invaded by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The USA spent $10 billion on schools and food programs in the Republic of Vietnam. When the Democratic Republic of Vietnam attacked a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, they declared war on the USA
@@cdnsk12 The USA won every battle in the Vietnam War. The USA was defeated at home when US citizens demanded an end to the war. Thousands of American men fled to Canada to avoid the Draft. Americans attacked US soldiers and spit on them.
I was about 8 years old when I was being driven home by the father of a neighbor kid. I remember they were talking about ”body count" on the AM radio news. I remember the numbers seemed to be in the favor of the United states.
I remember naively asking Mr Valente: "Are we winning?"
Mr Valenti responded: "Nobody's winning"
According to the body count, the war ended in 1970-as every man woman and child in NVN was dead.
@@genekelly8467 I'm just disappointed that I spent even a limited amount of time in the naval Reserve. War is a racket
Folks, I don't have much hope. I'm a little older than some, make sure you have things secure in your personal lives. Look up something called "the fourth turning" and you might also conclude that every 80 to 100 years things repeat because all of the older people who know what had happened to a century ago are long gone.
Indeed. Let's hope that learning can be passed on. The only way humanity will go forward is if we educated kids to be human. We must stop doing the biddi g if the rich who are the only I es who prosper from imperialist wars.
@Robert Sears: tell me this is tongue in cheek. War is a much needed thing? .... I'm not a peace nick, I'm just not into prosecuting globalist proxy wars. Tired of funding the military industrial complex. I know because I was a minor COG in that process.
I was in the Marines 1965-1968. Never met a man who believed in the VietNam war. I lost many friends during that time and I have no good memories, only sadness every day. We just wanted to go home.
I’m so sorry for you sir.
I respect your sentiments....
@@catharinavonk hi am I with you
My boy is now done his time was up
@@haroldmcnabb7603
It is a shame that the US has been at war for so many years .
Greetings from Vietnam 🇻🇳
✊🇻🇳❤️
Sorry
@@johnmorgan4124 are you from USA?
Greetings for Vietnam from fellow Indian. Victory for Vietnam.
Hello from Canada 🇨🇦
If you don't respect your enemy ,you will be defeated systematically
Don't know. I was in operation desert storm.
It was so ridiculous that News men going into invasion areas after the attack
and they Iraqis were giving themselves as prisoners to them.
Same happened with the invading army taking prisoners, because the Iraqi soldiers had nothing to eat.
Yes. That is because the Iraqi army had no spirit to fight for Saddam. And they were using 1950s kit against you. Note how the iraqi Shia wore down the US and Btisish with Gurrilla tactics so that they had to withdraw by 2007.so, same applies..... Don't underestimate anyone. Trying to fight USA on equal terms is a no no. Gurrilla tactics are different. Ultimate answer is to stop following the rich imperialists who want power in other peoples lands. They just want to use the working class as gun fodder to make themselves richer. The working class never prosper from foreign wars.
junior demus : I agree with your point of view on it friend.
@@johnmorgan4124 ARe you talking about Marxism?
@@kevinhealey6540 Vietnam was different. , Americans knew nothing about the rest of the world. The Vietnamese People had defeated the mongolian empire and the french invaders before. History doesn't lie !!
A lesson for us-$20 million tank destroyed by a few $500 RPGs. Part of the reason why using tanks in a jungle is a bad idea.
the tanks weren't destroyed, only damaged.
@@sarttee
That’s not entirely true
Out of every tank one will have been destroyed
Plus the M48 Patton can die to a RPG if the M60AE can
@Bren Beeler
Yeah the Sheridan is a weird tank
It does not sound American
Here is from the internet
The M551 "Sheridan" AR/AAV was a light tank developed by the United States and named after General Philip Sheridan, of American Civil War fame. It was designed to be landed by parachute and to swim across rivers. It was armed with the technically advanced but troublesome M81/M81 Modified/M81E1 152mm gun/launcher, which fired both conventional ammunition and the MGM-51 Shillelagh guided anti-tank missile.
They swapped a MBT for a light tank with weaker armour it attributed to losses in sure
Tell that to the Australians who didn’t lose a single tank in Vietnam
Part of the reason? No one uses Tanks in a purely Jungle scenario. It took 5 minutes to find that out. It was common knowledge. Stupid commanders. But worse, they seemed to think John Wayne films are what War is like. Still do. Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan.
And no tank costs $20 million back then. Not even a Jumbo Jet cost $20 million when they first came out. $50k tops for the very ordinary tank which was the Sheridan. They used them on every film set even back then because they were nothing special.
The vietnamese people had guts, confidence , they were defending their place, dignity and sovereignty. This intelligent and noble people did what the good must always do
You got it!
North Vietnamese
@@badfoody They didn't see it that way. They thought of themselves as a country where the southern half was occupied and controlled by foreign powers.
Oh yes, America bad everyone else good
@@AQS521 we do tend to take a bad rap for what turned out to be a very unpopular war, they always show the atrocities of Nam and say 'if Americans hadn't stuck their noses in there, this wouldn't have happened.' I prefer to think that if America hadn't stuck their noses in there, that whole region of the world would have caved in to communism. Judging from where they are nowadays, I can't say which was worse, 'us' or 'them'.
I was in the Marine Corps 2nd Tank Battalion and the canon on the M-48 and M-60 Tanks were at the time the most accurate canons in the world. They could consistently hit moving targets thousands of yards away.
"DMZ" is a technical term meaning a particularly heavily militarized zone.
Right? Most people think DMZ is demilitarized and it couldn't be further from the truth.
Great point
Actually, no it isn't. It means the zone has no or highly limited military troops and equipment. I think you mean the obvious, that both sides of the zone are very heavily fortified.
@@MrChiangching if you guys couldn’t tell that was obviously sarcasm he spat lol.
@@MrCoolguy425 Dunno, the stupidity on the net is just that high.
Using a Fire extinguisher to cool down beer is about the most American thing i've ever heard.
Im a vietnam and hearing this make me feel good, i love my country
I have been there and I loved it. Wonderful country.
Did you visit old Vietnam battlefields ?
wonderful country to invade
@@Ash-ey9oy I think he meant the current Vietnam
@@knight1506 yeah
@@matofritzsk and to be defeated
G troop, 2/11 ACR. November 69 thru December 70. M-551 Sheridan and M-113 ACAV. The year I was there. We drove the NVA completely out of South Vietnam and had to invade Cambodia, after them. They kept on running from us. They were afraid of us. What an adventure that was. After that I realized that war was just a live fire exercise. The quick and the dead. A running gun battle, with machine guns. 18yo that was my video game with real bullets and someone trying to kill me, as well. WORLD PEACE NOW
I've seen every ep of GTB on military channel but for some reason, this episode they never aired, at least in the USA.
They never did now that you mention it! I knew there was something off about this episode
@Jamie someone is a bit butthurt
Huh interesting
@B Whit I don't see how the US are losers when they literally bombed Vietnam back to the stoneage, with Vietnamese losses far exceeding those of the US.
This is one of the best documentaries on the Vietnam conflict I've ever watched. Thumbs up.
It is pretty bad honestly. Not saying much about the Vietnam war, it is really incomplete in full spectrum. This documentary is only to be taken literally as "tanks in Vietnam" and thats about it it.
@@nikolasmelka5620 The doc is only focusing on several tank battles... and it does that very well. Its not a holistic doc about the Vietnam war. That goes without saying.
@@odessaxmusicclips6028 That might be, but its highly devalued right at start when the commentator states that the first 3500 marines were to defeat North Vietnam, in the reality they were there to defend air bases/ strictly defensive missions.The whole portrait of Vietnam war is in this documentary devalued and vague. There is no further explanation given .
@Jamie Interesting, thanks for letting me know
Damn,the Vietnamese even managed to intercept radio communications and also use them to cause friendly fire? Damn those VC or NVA were smart
I am Vietnamese, after learning this war in history, until now I still do not understand why American soldiers can join this war without preparing anything for a guerrilla war. The French have failed because of the same kind of guerrilla warfare like this. The Americans engaged in this war after the French should have thought, "That guy suffered heavy losses for this kind of war, maybe we should change our tactics to be more suitable". But they simply brought in a ton of firepower and a rigid general and thought it would be all right, without further discussion.
i think that they got complacent. it's odd because they fought in korea a few years prior, which some or most was jungle territory. its the same with the air battle. they thought that missiles would be the future of air combat. they were proven wrong. again, they had a great air to air kill in korea and the second world war a few years prior as well.
The Vietnam War was probably the first conflict the Americans faced with all out guerrilla warfare. There was no solid tactics developed yet to counter the North Vietnamese and they probably used the same strategy fighting the Japanese or North Koreans which was very different. Plus with protests against them by their own people, a new unfamiliar M16 rifle issued that brought a multitude of problems and many other points eventually lead to their defeat
Just because a war is partly fought in a jungle setting does not make it a guerrilla war. The Japanese and British fought each other in the jungles of Burma for three years, and that was a conventional war, fought with conventional armies, using conventional tactics, but in a jungle setting. Same in Vietnam. The American forces were facing conventional, organized VC Main Force units, and units of the regular North Vietnamese Army, in a jungle setting. It was a conventional war fought with organized and trained professionals, moving in planned military campaigns (such as TET, and the 1972 Eastertide invasion.) in a jungle setting.
The VC did use guerrilla tactics such as hit and run assaults if that's what you mean, but the VC's goal was to occupy and control the land of South Vietnam, a conventional military goal. Where Westmoreland and the military got it wrong in Vietnam was relying on the Search and Destroy policy instead of focusing in on pacification .Which they later did but ii was too late for the people of South Vietnam.
@@keiko909 what, korea is jungle now?)
I’ll tell you why America was over confident. The US thought that this was a war of attrition against China and Russia. In other words, the U.S thought that in time China and Russia were going to deplete their resources and walk away from Vietnam. Richard Nixon immediately started talks with China and Russia which was a mistake.
"We underestimated them really, really badly - that was the case early on in Vietnam" - and everywhere else. The US military has a long history of rejecting history lessons and getting a bloody nose in the first bout of a fight. Overconfidence costs lives.
Overconfidence perhaps. I call it arrogance and stupidity.
Generally I would agree with you, but in especially the first Gulf war, that was not the case - the US won by extremely superior air power to astounding low cost in life and materiel.
The second Gulf war however, and the subsequent occupation war of Iraq however... not so much.
@@Kojak0 This is not about the golf war.... This is about Vietnam and the V.C.
I lost few family members there, in a war got nothing to do with America.... But oh we're the big bad guys; so we'll show them... Show them what???
How the VC made use of the use 66mm tubes.... How when ones in the foxhole; the mines were reversed so it did the opposite...
There are quality soldiers and there soldiers... .
Vietnam that was a war something totally different.. Wow...
Communism, Capitalism or Marxism... They are all evil within themselves..... Same as Religion and Politics goes hand in hand ... None better than the other... Each tells pack of lies.
These are the days of John the Devine..
@@earlwilliams73A77 I don't think you read my reply properly (or the guy who I was replying to) - I wasn't talking about Vietnam or the gulf wars specifically, but more in general terms, with the first gulf war mentioned as an exception.
@@Kojak0 Got the message understand it quit clearly.
But as said before the subject and statement it was about the Vietnam/ Vietnamese war. No other war. !
During Tet a friend of mine was a tank platoon leader (I think 5-6tanks) they were left in forward position to slow the advancing VC as the US troops retreated.
They were on a hill top clearing with plenty of ammunition. For 3 days the enemy charged the hill and were repulsed with many casualties. On the 4th day they simply went around leading them behind enemy lines. He and his men were evacuated a few days later under heavy fire. An amazing story - he is an amazing guy and marine. May all those who died RIP.
His tanks were being used as instant pillboxes -- not as tanks in mobile warfare.
Thanks
Tanks*
Man I see you everywhere lol
@@yoyyoy6357 Pwat
"Americans don't understand that when they cross a border they are in someone else's country." --- Daniel Ellsberg
The irony: his Pentagon Papers made him infamous -- but they ONLY described the Kennedy-Johnson years in Vietnam. But, in the public mind, the PP indicted Nixon -- who was reversing essentially EVERY ONE of Kennedy-Johnson's policies. Isn't that cute?
@@davidhimmelsbach557 Nixon stepped up the bombing. Nixon and LBJ killed eight million people in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
@@loschekell Absurd statistic alert.
BTW, it takes TWO to tango. Without Ho's aggression, the Northern invasion of the South would've never happened. BTW, the North and the South had ALWAYS been two different polities. Both were centered around their own river systems. This is still true, as it's Saigon that's getting all of the Foreign Direct Investment... typically occupying old MACV bases.
The North and the South STILL don't really 'get-along.' The South resents the fact that the North controls all of the top slots -- politically -- in what is still a Communist//Socialist regime.
Vietnam is very much like a mini-Red China in most respects. Considering the DNA involved, that's not really surprising.
At the end of the day, Nixon got the USA OUT. Kennedy-Johnson got the USA in -- big time.
I mention Kennedy because he set the stage. Johnson largely did what he did BECAUSE of ORAL commitments that Kennedy had already made to Japan, Korea, Taiwan -- and NATO.
Kennedy had already delivered BIG:
Bay of Pigs
Berlin Wall & full on Iron Curtain
Cuban Missile fiasco
Every single critical American ally was freaking out -- for it was obvious that the Grand Strategy of the Cold War was breaking down: Containment of Communist Totalitarianism.
Nixon reversed everything by triangulating the USSR and Red China in 1972.
If Nixon had been president in 1961-1965, Kennedy would've stayed alive, and none of his fiascos would've transpired.
Lastly, while in office, Kennedy was CONSTANTLY being grilled by the Press and critics over his epic gaffs. How could ANYONE overlook the Berlin Wall, his baby?
It took Reagan to get rid of that Wall.
@@davidhimmelsbach557 The south Vietnamese "government" didn't exist. It was a front set up by the CIA. McNamara admitted this in his book "In Retrospect."
We spent more time digging the tank that was assigned to us (nicknamed "Lickin Stick") out of the mud than it had of any benefit to us. Worked well on the perimeter of our fire base, which is where we left it most of the time.
Vietnam...is a Champion of Guirella War Tactic...n its remain till now...
The vietcong commender used sun tzu tactics
@@mgagapaz6801 what means sun tzu ?
@@lennydado1 sun tzu is a chinese dude about 2500 yrears ago. wrote a little book called, the art of war. check it out. watch a youtube vid.
@@beegaming8919 thanks mate
Long live Vietnam!
My American cousin of my father's extended family was a tank driver in 1966 & 1967 in Vietnam.
Did he make it back to the states alive?
@@chasacart my mother’s cousin did not make it back. His name is on the memorial in Sacramento.
@@spencerskewes9370 So sorry to hear that! Thanks for sharing the story..these brave people should never be forgotten!
@@chasacart Yes, he did. He went back to the States in the end of December 1967. He was supposed to go back to Nam in February 1968 after finished his month long holiday in his hometown Seattle & then in Hawaii. However, he got informed not to go back as Tet Offensive broke out.
@@spencerskewes9370 Feel sorry for your mum's relative loss. May he still live in your hearts forever as he was a good soldier and a real hero of the USA.
📺 It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit the world's best history documentary service with code 'WARSTORIES' for a huge discount! bit.ly/2MNt3cM
Arrogance has its price.
@@gerrbuck5217 qqq++qq!
do you have new war sorties like Iraq and Syrian
@Nope Nope You've always been in one mess or another and guaranteed, you'd still be in one now even if you had slaughtered millions more innocent people are than you already have.
@@andrewrobertson3894m
Australia also had tanks in Vietnam we had the centurion mk7 but we didnt have so much trouble with them as they were always ment to be infantry support tanks like the Churchill of WW2 slow and well armoured. Also they worked with APCs Mii3A3s and mounted infantry though some were damaged and crews lost in both tanks and APCs due to mines we always had shared plans and routes known between the elements of the area so when we called in for arty if we were known to be in the close area they would double check for unit ids etc to make sure it was real call not a spoof as described here. Vietnam was a new style of warfare that continues today in the long running Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It just relearns the lessons of WW2 that tanks have their limits especially in urban areas or jungle type places simple because the enemy can close to within the shortest effective ranges of the weapons on a tank this is why they need infantry support to keep them safe as much as the infantry needs the tanks to keep them safe.
You are so correct the Aussie tanks support the infantry and visa versa I believe tank support saved many lives
Didn't the Australians heavely mine there bases and the VC or NVA would dig up the mines and reposion the mines.
Well said mate
@@georgepantazis141 that was true another stupid ide
Yeah the use of panzerfuasts Limpet Mines Bazookas and so on just foreshadowed that’s tanks are not invincible to infantry
Operation Starlight: 600 VC dead against 45 Marines. Ok, so a Marine is costlier than a VC. Enemy does not give up but instead step up their efforts and send NVA units. Hmmm......maybe time to take these people seriously?
Operation Buffalo: Due to bad intel you run into an 1:9 ambush. At your disadvantage. Then you predictably send a "too small number of tanks to make any real difference" which the enemy anticipates and set up another ambush.
And then, the piece de resistance, "-We tried to put out the fire with the CO2 extinguisher but it was empty since we used it to cool some beer the night before". Priceless.
It's videos like this that makes me better understand how the US could lose the war. The only good operation in this video was when the US troops threw the ROE book out the window and, at 16:50, blows up the enemy artillery base with just a few tank rounds.
I was "Attached" to the 147th S.V. Marine Brig. . . . instructing them in the use of the M-48A3 Tank, but I took it on to "Myself", to ADD "Steel Armor Side Plates", to our turret sides, which NULTAFIED any form of "Rocket Attacks" . . . as far as I know, this "Modification" was NOT DONE by "Any other Units" . . . but it WAS, "Completely Effective" ! ( We "Also" ADDED an M-60, to the "Loaders Hatch", with a "Small" GUN SHIELD, as well as an M-79 Grenade Launcher "Inside" of the tank, with 100 grenades.
So those tanks were immune to almost any attacks in Vietnam? Mines excepted?
@@user-xq4st9ie7r No, "Mines" were STILL . . . a "Problem", but B-40's, RPG-2's were "No Longer" a problem . . . one of "Our" tanks even took a HIT, from an 84mm R R, without damage . . .
Heads up man! Looks like Charlie has managed to infiltrate your comment and carpet bomb it with several tonnes of completely unnecessary punctuation!
The horror.....The horror.
@@robashton8606
🤣🤣🤣😂😅😅😅
What a great story and lessons learned. Mr. Charlie was a deadly foe.
Nva and vietcong veterans should be in this program
Vietnam undefeated
Imagine if native americans had these kind of weapons just 100 years before.
?
This could be a Dan Carlin quote
They had captured the top rifles if the time, the lever action.
Whenever I watch/read about Vietnam war, i remember legendary Muhammed Ali 👊
"No Vietcong Ever called me a N...R!!!" (summing up his reasons for refusing to participate in the racist war against the Vietnamese people!) Much respect to the Brother who risked his WHOLE career on a mater of principle...giving inspiration to millions of young Black men!
Rubbish. Armor, especially Armored Cavalry, was decisive in the proper terrain (over 50% of the populated ares of Viet Nam). If used incorrrectly by cluless Infantry officers (3 of my classmates dies in such cicumstances) tanks were deathtraps. During TET, Armor was used to break the NVA's offensive, slaughtering whole battalions that were caught in the open by highly-mobile armored forces. Contrary to poular belief, tall grass, underbrush and rice padddies were fullt traversable by armor (M-48s and M-113s) and oftem caught the enemy by surprise. On the other hand, sending tanks ahead unsupported by infantry was tanamount to murder - and that happened more than once. 500-lb bombs buried under well-travelled tracks waited for anybody who got predicitable - or attacked the same way 3-4 times in a month. North VietNam invaded with 600+ tanks in 1975 for a good reson: they worked just fine.
Even in hindsight we can't seem to get that war right.
That isn't always such as during the siege of Plei Me when the 3rd. ARVN armored cavalry squadron didn't have the benefit of advance infantry screens in their attack on route 5 to relieve the beauleagered special forces garrison of Plei Me for tactical reasons but did have advanced artillery and air support which inflicted heavy casualties on the ambushing NVA 32nd. regiment and drove them back and relieved the siege.
@@votefraudjoe997 Was ARVN really able to use armor efficiently?
@@user-xq4st9ie7r They were later on after politics and doctrine stop getting in the way and during the Battle of Plei Me they still have a lot to go.
Instant LIKE and SUBSCRIBED! Nice going! Great documentaries.
Lol same 👌
I don't know where the Americans got the idea to use tanks against enemy troops that knows about Guerilla warfare like the back of their hand
Because they are arrogant and see themselves as superior through technology. 👍
Weatmoreland's hair brained ideas
Yankees always arrogant anywhere they go.
The best Vietnam war stories I've seen do far. 👍👍
It is if you didn't read deep enough into the conflict.
Would have been a fitting gesture here to show Vietnamese tanks taking Saigon. After all they were brave soldiers dedicated to victory or death for their nation.
✊🇻🇳❤️
47:00 i think this is what you wanted
❤️
Now, we are friends. (and I am hoping will be close friends). The main point in tactic is co-operation between tanks and infantries, that we should think more carefully about when attacking. Tanks will fire from far distance to help infantry moving ahead and infantry will protect tank by destroying the opponent positions that could harm the tanks as the tanks may be not cover all the battle field.
But the moral of soldiers and discipline is more important, each NVA and SVNLA soldiers thought he would die for mother land, I think I don't need to talk about the American patriot soldiers during Revolution War (1775-1783) whose had the same will and ready to die for independence of USA. Long live George Washington!
That was the tactic of Syrian government forces who were using T72 supported by infantry against insurgents in cities and it proved to be very effective
For all you x american servicmen if you could could see Bien Hoa now you would be very surprised. ..all the houses just beautiful. .i mean not mansions but large and modern with outdoor lighting so as of a night they look wonderful...of course your airbase is a no go...still too toxic but the most amazing thing is the factories...as far as the eye can see...German, Japanese, american, from all over the world, just wonderful
I know how well Vietnam is doing with manufacturing. Many of my guitars come from Vietnam and their quality is very good. Much better overall than their Chinese made counterparts.
Napalm it.
Your rich masters tried that and failed. And you will always fail when you follow the rich capitalist imperialists who do not care about you. Fascism will always be smashed ✊🇻🇳🇨🇺🇨🇮🇨🇳🇦🇴🏴
@@johnmorgan4124 tet offensive lol
@@johnmorgan4124 The irony in claiming a system founded upon competition doesn’t focus on the individual when the entire point of communism is complete equality is too good
As a Vietnamese, I feel nothing but proud of our ancestors 😎
As an American, I'm happy to hear that. We make better friends than enemies brother.
That was a case of willing to die for their freedom .
Communist are no better than Nazi's. They just hide it better
@@dannyatwood7266 So why is the US so friendly with the Government of Vietnam now , as you know they are still Communist today ..
The South Vietnamese, I'm sure.
Thanks A Lot
Brilliant documentary, used to watch there programs on sky documentaries, not no more it’s full of oak island and pawn stars shabite etc etc now
The US went into this war totally unprepared to fight this kind of enemy.
Also they underestimated their opponents as well.
love this, it seems true and honest
Is that a huge spotlight on the tank, next to the gun barrel?
Its a IR spotlight, so the nightvision works better.(i think)
@@kebertxela941 early night vision was active meaning it required an it spot light to help it see as night-vision improved to 2nd to third generation the ambient light from the stars and urban areas provided enough light this is known as passive night vision. In a cave however your gonna need an. Ir spotlight still.
@@kebertxela941 cool, thanks. I hate how you can't directly comment to the poster. I didn't even know you replied until I seen the comment below yours.
Fire extinguisher was empty, because they had used it for cooling beer the day before...
Hasn't changed since...
@18:18, this tank dude is not telling you that he has received US aerial recon info that had identified potential targets. He hit an NVA artillery site not because lady lucky was helping him aiming the 90mm.
-he probably "choose" not to say a WORD....that generation KNEW HOW TO KEEP THEIR MOUTH shut..
@@South_Ga_mafia that generation included as members some of the most destructive and deadly spies in US history.
@@South_Ga_mafia why keep your mouth shut about that? sounds a lot like boasting to me
@@nietzchepreacher9477 - yes it is boosting.!
Im very proud of my grandfather & his generation..OF GREAT, GREAT MEN.
@@South_Ga_mafia my father also. Actually the viet cong was decimated in 1968 and the NVA took over the war. Many VC fanboys wont admit it.
Nice video program... but the fake CGI tanks, laughably fake computer graphics of explosions, and video game imagery really needs to be completely excluded because it gives a really cheesy and fake feel to the other footage of real war scenes!
It's just to help visualize for those folks who aren't too familiar with these things .. I agree it's cheesy but it's useful for someone
The Imperial Japanese, American, and Commonwealth forces all used tanks effectively in jungles in WW II. Armor is ALWAYS vulnerable to infantry except in the desert. When the NVA came south to Saigon in 1975, they had over 2,000 armored vehicles. US Army studies after the war, particularly 'Mounted Combat in Vietnam' by General Donn Starry, came to the conclusion that armored units were the most cost effective units deployed, and there should have been more of them. Anyone who would have rather served as a foot soldier than a tanker or armored cavalryman in Vietnam should have had their head examined.
@Jamie The Australia-American War of 1978-1981 in which Kangaroos threw boomerangs at US troops and Emu Troops did unspeakable crimes against everything.
M1 Abrams and Bradley's are the spearhead, you either move move fast and kill all in your way and push past the enemy infantry left behind or you tactically support the infantry in front of you without the risk of running into dug in enemy infantry with RPGs and atgm's to snipe you one by one.
The VC would just melt away in the face of a massive tank attack
Tanks are ineffective in jungles, they were made to fight through plains or light woods
It was not the tanks (and the soldiers) that failed. It was a war ran by civilians from Washington DC that failed.
Nope it was the military brass who think they can easily defeat rice paddy farmers. The US clearly underestimated the NVA which is actually well trained in guerrilla warfare.
@@james_the_darklord Do you realize that the military brass actually report to the civilian authority? Do you know that Lyndon B. Johnson personally picked out strike targets in North Vietnam for the USAF and the USN from the office in the basement of the White House? Do you also know that early in the air war over North Vietnam, US pilots were not allowed to pursuit enemy MiG fighters pass the 19th parallel, a stupid rule of engagement of which the North Vietnamese Air Force took full advantage? Those are just a few of many RoEs that resulted in disastrous consequences for the US military.
@@james_the_darklord sure, nice fairy tale.
@@lancecahill5486
N.Vietnam is a sovereign country , since USA did not openly declare WAR to them , doing that will RALLY other communists leaning countries in South East Asia to openly support the WAR. which is bad idea.. u guys kinda surrounded 🤣🤣
@@seka1986
Still in Denial?.
Iraq: When Tank Combat Failed Against Guerilla Warfare.
Not agianst a Chally 2 it didnt.
Brits still got kicked out. They had to withdraw at night with and agreement with local Shia militia. Britain running Way with tail between legs. Stop being a puppet of USA. Wake up and smash your own fascist government.
Yo this is some historical stuff man.
god bless the 11th armored cav in nam!!!!and elsewhere!!!
Unfortunately another Little Bighorn. General William Westmoreland should have known better. Less We Forget the heroes of Vietnam that were sacrificed. Excellent video documentary.
The early RPG-2 has been gradually improved until finally emerging as the RPG-7. Newer armor technology employing reactive armor and ceramic armor have almost neutralized the lethality of the RPG-7. The performance of the modern RPG bares little resemble to even the latest RPG-7 revision in terms of guidance, accuracy, range, and armor penetration. Vietnam gave a glimpse to the future of tank battle against the ground soldier just as the WW1 tank gave a glimpse to WW2 tank blitzkrieg.
What is vunerable?, the treads/tracks.
Haven't there been developed different warheads for the munition though to try to keep it up to standard?
It still does pretty well against the Saudi Abrams, although they're export models without DU.
@@BoatLoadsofDope ::: dual warheads are used to defeat reactive armor. ‘Squash head’ is used against ceramic armor. RPG-7 still use the ‘monroe effect’ warhead.
The RPG-7 can still destroy
Trucks APCs Helicopters AFVs Boats
Also cheap tanks in Syria like the T55
This is the first episode of this series that disappoints me, mostly for the glaring omission of the VC tunnel system. Why do Western documentaries on Vietnam never explicitly mention the VC tunnel system? There are just so many coded phrases where they are referred to: "set piece battle", "melting into the jungle", "hugging the enemy's belt" etc. seemingly all without the writers or historians recognizing what they are even talking about, let alone realizing that this strategy is what sustained the entire NVA/VC campaign. Sure the VC used Guerilla Tactics, but these tactics were sustained by the strategy of well hidden tunnel forts. Westmoreland failed because he refused to acknowledge the importance of the VC tunnel system and its contribution to the will of the enemy.
As a Veteran of a more recent conflict I am appalled at the complete lack of Intelligence during Vietnam. I am even more appalled by the historian-producers bad mouthing Westmoreland while they, in his spirit, continue to make the same mistake. Based on my own wartime experience I disagree with the defeatist conclusion drawn at the end of the program. Tanks like any other weapon system do just fine in an Insurgency, just as long as there is proper Intelligence that guides the commander in the most effective deployment of troops and resources. The battles presented represent a failure of Intelligence at the highest level and not a failure of the tank or of the Marines and Soldiers.
It's a pity General Westmoreland wasn't replaced to change up the US military strategy.
General Abrams had the right strategy to fight the war but by 1968 it was too late. All he could do was build up and train the ARVN, eliminate as many NVA and VC as possible. As he knew that US withdrawal is not a matter of if but when. When the US military leaves the ARVN would have to fight the war by themselves. The ARVN did fight admirably but due to Congress reducing military aid in 1974 they did not have enough equipment and supplies for the fighting season of 1975.
Wasn’t the lesson of having tanks support by infantry is important learned in world war II
But if you keep believing you're No. 1 perhaps you don't have to take lessons from anyone. Got a lot of people killed with that arrogance.
Guerilla technique is very good
We have a group of sergeants commenting on strategic objectives?20/20 hindsight is invaluable 30 years later. The historian has a vomitous smile on his face as he shares his pearl of wisdom long after the war was over.
Fascinating story about the use of tanks in Vietnam.
Thay survived the American War machine and he is one of the holiest men alive. Id be so ashamed
The great Westmoreland...
Tanks vs The Jungle!
Remembered,,, he conferred with the French + British
(Not)
Sounds like Admiral King when he conferred with the British in 1942. NOT!
Dear Uncle Sam, for god sake let the world live in peace..🙄🙄
The M16 jammed, that was why though.
The 16 jammed because one ammo contractor switched from flake powder to ball which is very dirty.
The Australian experience was the exact opposite, centurions proved essential for infantry support operations, mind you they were more heavily armored than M48's, prior to their deployment the infantry suffered higher casualties.
Aussies did far better.
Yes but with one exception. The Centurions had infantry support
The Aussies and Kiwi troops fought well in the Vietnam war. They punched well above their weight.
Our troops (aussies) fought a guerilla war in the Malayan emergency from the late 40's-1960 so we got a taste for what a prolonged guerilla war would be like, thus the operations had a far higher success rate but on smaller scales to the U.S which just tossed firepower at problem spots instead of conducting counter insurgency operations.
@@davidboland7447 Quite so, all infantry battalions did Kanungra prior to deployment, i do not believe that U.S infantry units did an equivalent (though S.F units did) so Australian units were trained in jungle warfare and counter insurgency operations prior to deployment.
Also the attitude was different Australian strategies were focused on separating the population from the insurgents , the U.S concentrated on kill ratios.
VIETNAMESE FROM NORTH WERE MORE SPIRITUAL IN FIGHTING THAN WINNING THE WERE
I've red that Black Horse 11th Armored was the unit causing the most casualties among the Vietnamese side. Among brigade sized units.
So how did armored warfare fail?
It didn't. Armor, despite what the US initially thought, proved to be very useful. Not in the same way it would be on flat, open terrain, but useful nevertheless. This "docu" is just the typical sensationalism entertainment material you'd come to expect.
Wars are not won by kill counts but by who achieves their strategic objectives. The US left Vietnam in 74 and the South Vietnamese government collapsed.
@Jamie Nothing to do with Aussies lol. They lost because their rifles had no ammo. Their artillery no shells, their airforce grounded due to no parts, their bombs missing fuses while the north had the latest toys the whole communist block could supply. Aid was cut to unfightable levels after 72. Out of all the non sense the west spewed to smear the RVN, this one is kinda cute.
@Raja Humala Martua especially when you have virtual kamikaze troops who would readily sacrifice himself to take out a tank.
Vietnam wasn't a tank war, it was all about B-52s dropping napalms in carpet bombing, huey helicopters with door gunners. Even those things were limited by resources available. Mao said about Vietnam War "Small nation can defeat large nation; Weak nation can defeat strong nation."
Vietnamese Victory against Yankees Imperialist were also a Victory of the Soviet Red Army.
Facts.
It was a coward moves from both side, the communist and the capitalist. They should just fight their war again and nuke each other. Millions people died in Korea, Vietnam and Indonesia because of this prelude-cold war to end of cold war. I am an Indonesian and this cold war effect still become a massive time bomb in my country because so many idiots in here.
My grandparents fought for NVA during Tet Offensive and Battle of Hue.
The only reason for them to fight was a hope of united country. Even though they knew they could be dead at any second.They still wanted to fight. Same as anyone from Vietnam today. We want peace with everyone, but we gonna fight if anyone invade our homeland.
Chuẩn luôn
I agree.
Perimeter security. Da Nang 1971
@@hoangquanle3310 Yep.
Unifying means invading and kill whose who want live in Peace!!!
Really sad learning about the Vietnam war.., the more you know the more you want to skin Westmoreland and his fair mates...why.., what did it achieve... for what... if you’re going to fight.. at least learn from your mistakes
Aside from the jungle itself, we can't forget the Vietnamese tunnel network.
the North Vietnamese used the same tactics as 800 years before against the Mongols.
It must have been a nightmare for US soldiers to see death coming through the dense jungle destroying their expensive tanks and know it's brave vietnamese men in underwear who are killing them and their friends
hahahahhahahahhah How old are you?
Mines out of not detectable Material was used already in ww2, they did lerlarnd nothing
Even during WW2, many of Soviet tanks were destroyed by kids during the Battle of Berlin. If urban warfare is already difficult enough than jungle terrain is a whole another level with many ambushes especially from high grounds, tighter space, and perfectly concealed mines. Well, I guess at least you have a good spot to cover once it is blown up.
True. Tanks are simply vulnerable without infantry. Can stop a lot of those attacks.
3:39
US tank in 1948
90mm gun
110mm of armour
Soviet IS-3 1945
122mm gun
200mm frontal armour has
The Americans were behind in tank technology
Trend didn't change till about 2000 - 2010
The americans had to consider more severe weight restraints in armour design, due to necessity sea transport. Anyway, those impressive stats did not help the IS-3 one bit against guerilla/urban warfare. It burned just the same as the T-34 or the T-55.
@@benedeknagy8497
Yes of course, however if they were in a 1v1 situation I think the IS3 has a greater chance
But that being said a tank is only as good as the crew
@@benedeknagy8497 I do not believe so. Many of the american design were heavier than their Soviet counterpart even now. Soviets needed lower weight and better dispersion ( I know that's not the word but you know what I mean ) on ground due to the terrain and various changes during the season in eastern europe. Their road network wasn't as developed and often they still had some engine issues.
As far as I remember most cold war american design did not have much stipulations on what could or couldn't be built. Also why alot of American designs didn't have good power to weight ratio compared to it's competitors
@@markacostajr.1584 Thats true for the height for the cold war, but the M48 and the IS3 were both created at the tail end of WW2, and the design philosophy was different.
Never underestimate your enemy.
I still can't understand why tanks can't do much on Vietnam Terrain. During WWII, tanks dominated the battle.
Little thing called monsoon season. Rained day & night for months. First time that I got jeep stuck in mud asked whete thr f is the 4 wheel drive vehicles. Had to keep them clean so they were in Korea & Japan. Had 4 giys try to push then shovel jeep out of mud. Finally somebody got the 5 ton wrecker to free the jeep.
This documentary's not really balanced and concise and is probably pushing a political agenda.
Ever been to South East Asia?..
Tanks can not go thru.jungles. Too mamy trees. Best.thing for moving troops is a helicopter. Charlie got good at.shotting them down. Over 4000.helichopters wete destroyed over there. Zappers came thru one nigjt while I was on fligjt line guard duty and blew up 4 Hueys.
Not in Burma, Phillipines, Guadalcanal etc.
History repeats itself, and experienced military commanders accustomed to victory behave as they did already milleniums before. In Vièt Nâm, the Americans, accustomed to victory and highly superior in armour, experienced what the Roman commander Varus had already experienced in the Teutoburg Forest: guerrilla tactics against which the Romans, accustomed to open field battles, were helpless. The Roman legions were systematically slaughtered in the gloomy, rainy Germanic forests, much like the U.S. Americans in the jungle. And like Hô Chi Minh, Arminius, the Germanic prince's son who grew up as a Roman hostage, was psychologically and tactically many times superior to the outstanding commander Varus, especially since he was very familiar with the geographical and climatic peculiarities. I dare say that Hô Chi Minh was the "Viètnâmesian Arminius".
I actually met general Westmoreland in nyc in court during his trial for enemy troop death numbers.
OK but how did it go? Did you praise Westie or give him a raspberry? And what were you doing in court?
@@seka1986 I was there with a veterans group, this was around 1985 or 86, it was a big trial, I believe he was acquitted, our guide introduced us to him during a recess, at that time he was around 70 or so.
Lucky the RPG kept missing the target , although i doubt the RPG-2 could deal any damage to a M48 .
18:00 poor guys thought that was accomplishing something
@@osamabinladen824 maybe what he/she saying is what they hit it just a decoys,
Impressive story
“There isn’t really a way to carry an infantry support gun around the battlefield”
pack howitzers: *am I a joke to you*
He said "for direct fire".
Bringer of light
Never war with Vietnam. No good for you.
Well, it seems that the Communist done pretty good at invading North Vietnam and then South Vietnam and now Vietnnam is a reunited country, but under the Communist Party! Does Vietnam belong to the Vietnamese people or the Communist Party?
@@nightlightabcd we are on ours own. Don’t know where you dug yourself in but we’re part of UN peace keeper and not a close ally with Communist itself
@@nightlightabcd who cares? They are on their own. And they fought for their freedom against your oppression. Get some sleep
I respect Vietnamese people as they respected Australian troops during the Vietnam war. Especially after the battle of Long Tan
Respect from fellow Indian.
excellent vid
I can see why the Americans lost so badly.
The Chinese would learn this lesson when they invaded Vietnam in 1979. I read an account of a Vietnamese sniper killing 12 Chinese tank commanders in the span of 45 minutes.
As a Vietnamese, the chinese tank which used in their invasion are most of clone version of t-54 with very thin armor. We have some of them before the war with China and the armor thinner than m113. So no surprise sniper can kill the tank commander easily. And commander from Vietnam already have a war with American so we have surplus of US made tank and APC like m48, m41 and m107 and m110, we even have AC 130 which converted to bomber. Even with the size ratio to 10:1, Chinese already retreat when the main army comeback from Cambodia. Note that only local force engage in conflict with Chinese, they retreat when our main army back.
The aim of the documentary was to show the weak points of US armour. Skipping over the good bits like there were no successes.
What’s wrong in facing the bitter truth!
@@kuroublack6922 Because it is not the truth. Armour was used very successfully in Vietnam by both sides. Especially flechette type amo was practical against humans. The NVA lost a lot of armour when they tried to invade the south while the US was still present.
@@kuroublack6922 It is like the Trump presidency. All bad in the MSM
@@kuroublack6922 What is truth? That what one chooses to believe or the facts?
@Jamie Well, if only the US would have stayed out of Korea, both world wars and Viet Nam. all would have been fine then, right? Leave the aussies and poms in charge. As far as I am concerned the war in Viet Nam ended after Clinton visited and the economical boycott ended. As Von Clausewitz stated: War is politics by other means
25:31 they're so lucky that rpg didn't hit the bottom of thank
I’ve seen enough Rambo movies to know America won the Vietnam War on the battlefield too!
Propaganda..us lost the war badly ..they shouldnt even have been in vietnam ..people died for nothing
America also orchestrated the Fall of Constantinople and singlehandedly won the Anglo-French War of 1778.
Because, yeah. Rambo is where 100% of US expeditionary conflict is archived.
The US was also the main cause of the fall of Carthage 146 BC
I think this comment was just for lols..
at least the beer was cold
I'd rather talk to any of these guys than any celebrity or billionaire on this earth. But again, I don't understand why the US didn't just save all the hassle and level North Vietnam into a parking lot with conventional explosives dropped from aircrafts.
The only good targets were Hanoi and Hiaphong. LBJ wouldn't let them bomb within 30 miles of those cities for fear of China intervening like Korea. When Nixon let them bomb those cities the enemy came right to the peace talks. We could've won by 68 if we could've bombed those cities.
@@26michaeluk no , US will still lose the war even if they bombed those cities. u forgetting they are fighting in a guerilla warfare. the vietnamese didnt have static bases. they're hiding in the jungle. bombing the cities would only killed civillian. it wont stop the vietcong. there's no target like weapon factory or anything for the US airforce to bomb. their weapon was supplied from outside vietnam. american was not prepared for guerilla warfare. everyone was expecting a conventional warfare which the superior firepower of the US would definitely won.
@@maverick1654 90% of the Viet cong and NVA supplies came through Haiphong. The Viet cong were wiped out during the tet offensive. They were not an effective fighting force anymore. They were supplemented with nva soldiers from then on. Look at operations Linebacker 1 and 2. Ended the war with a swiftness, as both sides wanted out. If we'd done that from the start the Viet Cong would've been fighting with sticks. Im not trying to lessen how skilled those guerrillas were. Probably the best of that century in effectiveness. My dad hardly slept while there because they'd find members of the platoon with their throats slit at dawn with people pulling security all night. Also this is just my opinion.
TET Offensive was not about to win the war militarily but to win the war politically. Not about fire powers one side possessed but more on proving how to carry out a strategic execution of military objective.
US shouldn't have started a war with Vietnam in the first place. Vietnam literally asked for the US to help support their independence from France after WWI, they were ignored. Then the US who was supposed to be a freedom loving country enter Vietnam. How else would the people react to another occupier in their homeland. Especially the ones who they asked for help in the beginning.
The Russians supplied Mao with huge amounts of weapons & supplies at the end of WW2. In turn the PRC supplied North Vietnam with a lot of weaponry, 6x6 Trucks, missiles & fuel. The USA shied away from invading North Vietnam; .of potential Chinese intervention. So Vietnam didn't really defeat the USA, it was mainly the Chinese supplies & threat of direct Chinese intervention that defeated the USA.
The Brits defeated the Malaysian Communists by attacking the commies in their jungle hideouts. The Brits also had 300 years of experience in dealing with insurgents & counter insurgencies.
The U.S Didnt start a war with Vietnam.
@@cdnsk12 yeah the Zulu wars and the Boer wars really got their military tempered with insurgency and guerrilla warfare. There are many before that but this is just the name off the more recent ones.
The US did support Vietnamese independence. The Republic of Vietnam existed from 1955 - 1975. The US helped the Republic of Vietnam from 1965-1975 when it was invaded by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
The USA spent $10 billion on schools and food programs in the Republic of Vietnam.
When the Democratic Republic of Vietnam attacked a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, they declared war on the USA
@@cdnsk12 The USA won every battle in the Vietnam War. The USA was defeated at home when US citizens demanded an end to the war.
Thousands of American men fled to Canada to avoid the Draft.
Americans attacked US soldiers and spit on them.