Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/30/2009 5:23:13 PM EDT
during Vietnam would the results have been any different? Would they have been more lethal and been able to kill more enemy? Would the tactical advantages that these modern accessories give their users in modern warfare have made any difference 40 years ago? Would they have had more confidence in their weapons, would they have been more highspeed low drag if they had the opertunity to change their weapon to fit their needs?

Or would it have made no difference at all?
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:24:21 PM EDT
night vision and IR lasers would have been a huge tactical advantage.

But other than that, the other things help, but not a whole lot.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:24:33 PM EDT
Same outcome. Remember, we won the battles, just lost the war.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:25:14 PM EDT
I think it might have been over sooner, and Charlie would have still "won".
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:26:02 PM EDT
no

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:28:16 PM EDT
I think we would not have the bad rap with the AR-15 platform. If they would have built the rifle the way it was supposed to be built, that would have solved it too.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:29:11 PM EDT
Dont think much would matter a whole lot other than night vision
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:29:45 PM EDT
We won every single battle we encountered with them. The problem wasn't that.

However I believe NV and IR would have helped increase the death counts even higher.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:30:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2009 5:31:54 PM EDT by Infallible]
Um u realize we did kill a shit load of Vietnamese during the war right?  That we never lost a single battle?  That the government was solely to blame for the so called "loss" of the war?  Small weapons fire makes up a very small amount of kills btw.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:31:08 PM EDT
A better question would be if those things would have helped out any more at the Gulf of Tonkin...
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:31:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2009 5:33:48 PM EDT by orangelo]
With modern nightvision and magnified optics and an AR that actually comes with the right kind of ammo that doesn't foul or jam up the rifle, sure they would have stacked up even more kills.

But it wouldn't have mattered, the MSM would have still won the war for the North.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:31:56 PM EDT
vietnam was a political loss not military.  if the politcians stayed out of it, there would still be a north and south.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:32:05 PM EDT
In '65 a modern M-4 and M855 would have been a huge help. Only for the the fact that what we have now is the result of the debugging that they did back then.

As far as a change in the outcome of the war, it wouldnt have gone any different. The reasons we lost had nothing to do with winning battles.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:32:07 PM EDT
We lost because of politics, not because of any shortcomings in tactics, weapons, and fighting ability.  We beat their asses.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:32:31 PM EDT
Nixon and General Abrams won the war. Then the Watergate Congress gave it away.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:32:38 PM EDT
If they had NVG, helos with FLIR, and UAV, that war would have been drastically different.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:33:38 PM EDT
The VC didn't care what we were using. They were more committed than our politicians were.

If you think equipment wins wars, watch what the toothless old men in the mountain tribes do to us in Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:33:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rtintwo:
In '65 a modern M-4 and M855 would have been a huge help. Only for the the fact that what we have now is the result of the debugging that they did back then.

As far as a change in the outcome of the war, it wouldnt have gone any different. The reasons we lost had nothing to do with winning battles.


I don't see any advantage to M855. Not at the ranges involved.

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:34:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NBS:
The VC didn't care what we were using. They were more committed than our politicians were.

If you think equipment wins wars, watch what the toothless old men in the mountain tribes do to us in Afghanistan.


Most of the time, those best equiped win.

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:35:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By rtintwo:
In '65 a modern M-4 and M855 would have been a huge help. Only for the the fact that what we have now is the result of the debugging that they did back then.

As far as a change in the outcome of the war, it wouldnt have gone any different. The reasons we lost had nothing to do with winning battles.


I don't see any advantage to M855. Not at the ranges involved.




More for the power used rather than lethality of the bullet.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:35:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2009 5:35:42 PM EDT by RustedAce]
Originally Posted By NBS:

If you think equipment wins wars, watch what the toothless old men in the mountain tribes do to us in Afghanistan.


Nothing?

I am more likely to die from slipping in the tub than dying from gunfire in A-stan.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:36:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By rtintwo:
In '65 a modern M-4 and M855 would have been a huge help. Only for the the fact that what we have now is the result of the debugging that they did back then.

As far as a change in the outcome of the war, it wouldnt have gone any different. The reasons we lost had nothing to do with winning battles.


I don't see any advantage to M855. Not at the ranges involved.



It wouldn't have fouled the weapons as easily.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:36:52 PM EDT
I know that we lost the war on the homefront and it was only a political loss and not a military one. I am just wondering if the media would have had as much ammo to use against the war if we had a lower body count and were able to wipe out the vietcong before they could have attacked. If we could have stoped Tet before it happened the war could have been different. Does the modern M-4 offer such a drastic advantage that it would significantly increase a kill ratio and give survivability to the operator.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:37:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NBS:
If you think equipment wins wars, watch what the toothless old men in the mountain tribes do to us in Afghanistan.


Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:38:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2009 5:39:20 PM EDT by Ragin_Cajun]
Originally Posted By Bettendorf:
Same outcome. Remember, we won the battles, just lost the war.


Yep.

IR and (miniaturized:  they had some Gen I stuff but you weren't going to be wearing it on your head! ) nightvision would have made the infamous "kill ratio" even higher, though.

ETA:  Given the short ranges and total lack of armor by the enemy, I think M193 was actually a much better tool for the job than M855 would have been!
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:39:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DonS:
Originally Posted By NBS:
The VC didn't care what we were using. They were more committed than our politicians were.

If you think equipment wins wars, watch what the toothless old men in the mountain tribes do to us in Afghanistan.


Most of the time, those best equiped win.





Probably because armies that can afford quality equipment can also afford quality training.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:40:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
We lost because of politics, not because of any shortcomings in tactics, weapons, and fighting ability.  We beat their asses.


This

The NVGs and lasers would have helped us stack the bodies higher, but results would have been the same.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:40:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RustedAce:
Originally Posted By NBS:

If you think equipment wins wars, watch what the toothless old men in the mountain tribes do to us in Afghanistan.


Nothing?

I am more likely to die from slipping in the tub than dying from gunfire in A-stan.


SHHH!!  You're ruining his fantasy!
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:40:49 PM EDT
Vietnam wasnt 'lost' in Vietnam.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:45:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2009 5:47:21 PM EDT by Barrelburner]
The problem with Vietnam was not the TO&E of the ground units; it was the lack of will in Washington.





Do the Easter '72 bombing in '67-'68, and the war would have been won.



You could say we didn't 'lose' the war; we never fought it to win it and eventually quit fighting.

Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:46:00 PM EDT
We didn't loose Vietnam because of anything the ground forces did.  We lost Vietnam because we didn't fight a war.  We bombed some forest, while leaving tactically prime targets alone.  Poor overall strategy, nothing more.  Nothing the guys on the ground had any control over.  Vietnam is what you get when you let politicians wage war, instead of Generals
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:47:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NBS:
If you think equipment wins wars, watch what the toothless old men in the mountain tribes do to us in Afghanistan.


LOL, que?

MOST of the Afghans actually don't support the Taliban.... and the Coalition is by no means getting beat by a bunch of old men. It's happened numerous times where 200 or so Taliban guys try to over run a small outpost of 30 soldiers, and the 30 soldiers never get over ran.....
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:50:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
Originally Posted By NBS:
If you think equipment wins wars, watch what the toothless old men in the mountain tribes do to us in Afghanistan.


LOL, que?

MOST of the Afghans actually don't support the Taliban.... and the Coalition is by no means getting beat by a bunch of old men. It's happened numerous times where 200 or so Taliban guys try to over run a small outpost of 30 soldiers, and the 30 soldiers never get over ran.....


Yeah, the Taliban is overrated.  I know... I am still here!  

Some of them aren't.

And as ArmyInfantryVet correctly points out, most of the Afghans support us and hate the Taliban.  I was an advisor to eighty guys that loved to mix it up with Taliban.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:51:01 PM EDT
The out come would have been the same. The current night vision capabilities and FLIR would have been a big improvement on the technology of the time and the current cruise missiles and highly accurate smart bombs would have prevented the shoot down of many pilots and crewmembers. However, it wasn’t the weaponry or the capability of the GIs that ultimately lost Vietnam, it was the Government hacks in Washington.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:51:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/30/2009 6:03:22 PM EDT by Currahee]
Not a bit... better NV would have made some folks a bit more secure at night.  But the whole "VC owning the night" thing is a bit of a myth.  Comrade Giap wasn't gona go "oh the nos they got PVS14s"






On the other hand... carpet bombing the several NVA basic training centers which we always knew where they were?




EDIT: most of the shit you see carried by grunts today would have disappeared rapidly as soon as they began walking up and down Vietnamese hills for a few days straight.

 
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 5:54:02 PM EDT
All those improvements would not have allowed us to cut off the Ho Chi Minh trail. They would not have allowed us unlimited bombing of targets in North Vietnam. Would not have stopped the flow of arms into North Vietnam from China and Russia.  Would not have stopped the Tet offensive and the subsequent bad press back home.  Would not have stopped the anti-war demonstrators tearing the country apart back home.
We were dropping napalm with extreme prejudice, white phosphorous, B-52 carpet bombing runs......do you  think ACOGS red dots, m855, or lasers would have done that much more?

In short, while those improvements may have saved a few American lives and accounted for a few more enemy KIA's, they would have done absolutely nothing to change the outcome.
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 6:02:29 PM EDT
No real major change.  Maybe cost us a little less, them a little more.  Although bullpups would be the better rifle choice over a M4, IMO.  

BUT, if the Air Force had had night vision, smart bombs and F-117s...
Link Posted: 4/30/2009 6:10:05 PM EDT
Only if it is parkernized(sp?) under the FSB.
Top Top