You know you've hit something when the gunfire suddenly cuts out.
You can see or hear that from a B-52?M.O.A.B wrote:
You know you've hit something when the gunfire suddenly cuts out.
Here's an idea.NeXuS4909 wrote:
Well i understand where you guys are coming from but were missing the point of what i asked!
I'm curious on how 5x as many people died in other wars but our forces are spread thin. That's what im asking. I've had family members serve in iraq to. I know how it is to worry whether or not they will come home.
The entire US military, including reserves, is a little under 3 million people strong.
During WWII, the entire US NAVY alone was a little over 4 million people strong.
Somone directs it in, then again, little would survive being pummeled in a carpet bomb strike from a B-52. Unlike mountainous areas, tunnels dug below a jungle won't hold up as well.CameronPoe wrote:
You can see or hear that from a B-52?M.O.A.B wrote:
You know you've hit something when the gunfire suddenly cuts out.
The idea behind Guerilla tactics is ambush though, the enemy wouldn't be giving away their position unnecessarily through maintained fire.M.O.A.B wrote:
Somone directs it in, then again, little would survive being pummeled in a carpet bomb strike from a B-52. Unlike mountainous areas, tunnels dug below a jungle won't hold up as well.CameronPoe wrote:
You can see or hear that from a B-52?M.O.A.B wrote:
You know you've hit something when the gunfire suddenly cuts out.
Wasn't there a draft during WWII?acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Here's an idea.NeXuS4909 wrote:
Well i understand where you guys are coming from but were missing the point of what i asked!
I'm curious on how 5x as many people died in other wars but our forces are spread thin. That's what im asking. I've had family members serve in iraq to. I know how it is to worry whether or not they will come home.
The entire US military, including reserves, is a little under 3 million people strong.
During WWII, the entire US NAVY alone was a little over 4 million people strong.
siicecold2510 wrote:
Wasn't there a draft during WWII?acEofspadEs6313 wrote:
Here's an idea.NeXuS4909 wrote:
Well i understand where you guys are coming from but were missing the point of what i asked!
I'm curious on how 5x as many people died in other wars but our forces are spread thin. That's what im asking. I've had family members serve in iraq to. I know how it is to worry whether or not they will come home.
The entire US military, including reserves, is a little under 3 million people strong.
During WWII, the entire US NAVY alone was a little over 4 million people strong.
we had like 500K troops in Iraq during Desert Storm. We didn't go into Baghdad because our only objective was to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait... we didn't want to start another Vietnam. Probably because Powell and Schwarzkopf both saw first-hand what an occupation against a guerrilla force is like.
Didn't defeat Vietnam did it?M.O.A.B wrote:
Somone directs it in, then again, little would survive being pummeled in a carpet bomb strike from a B-52. Unlike mountainous areas, tunnels dug below a jungle won't hold up as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cu_Chi_tunnels
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-25 09:29:06)
It's hard to defeat a force that is dead-set on kicking out the occupying force. Imagine, idk, the Russians trying to take over the US with their military. However strong theirs may be, they'd be fighting against 300 million people.CameronPoe wrote:
Didn't defeat Vietnam did it?M.O.A.B wrote:
Somone directs it in, then again, little would survive being pummeled in a carpet bomb strike from a B-52. Unlike mountainous areas, tunnels dug below a jungle won't hold up as well.
We coulda nuked Vietnam (we almost nuked Korea) but obviously that wouldn't have been a wise decision.
But we did hold the country successfully for 9 years.CameronPoe wrote:
Didn't defeat Vietnam did it?M.O.A.B wrote:
Somone directs it in, then again, little would survive being pummeled in a carpet bomb strike from a B-52. Unlike mountainous areas, tunnels dug below a jungle won't hold up as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cu_Chi_tunnels
The issue is that the Vietnamese were more successful in the rural military arena than they were in the urban arena. We weren't talking about nukes.HurricaИe wrote:
It's hard to defeat a force that is dead-set on kicking out the occupying force. Imagine, idk, the Russians trying to take over the US with their military. However strong theirs may be, they'd be fighting against 300 million people.CameronPoe wrote:
Didn't defeat Vietnam did it?M.O.A.B wrote:
Somone directs it in, then again, little would survive being pummeled in a carpet bomb strike from a B-52. Unlike mountainous areas, tunnels dug below a jungle won't hold up as well.
We coulda nuked Vietnam (we almost nuked Korea) but obviously that wouldn't have been a wise decision.
I wasn't really talking about beating Vietnam anyway, I was pointing out the differences in difficulty between urban and jungle environments in combat. In rural areas, troops on the ground ar emor eliekly to call in large air support, carpet bombing, cluster munitions and the sort to devastate and are believed to contian enemy combatants. In urban areas air support will be restricted to precision munitions in order to avoid civilian casualties, which makes fighting in urban areas so much more difficult because you have to take more care with what you shoot at.CameronPoe wrote:
The issue is that the Vietnamese were more successful in the rural military arena than they were in the urban arena. We weren't talking about nukes.HurricaИe wrote:
It's hard to defeat a force that is dead-set on kicking out the occupying force. Imagine, idk, the Russians trying to take over the US with their military. However strong theirs may be, they'd be fighting against 300 million people.CameronPoe wrote:
Didn't defeat Vietnam did it?
We coulda nuked Vietnam (we almost nuked Korea) but obviously that wouldn't have been a wise decision.
And what do you have to show for it?icecold2510 wrote:
But we did hold the country successfully for 9 years.CameronPoe wrote:
Didn't defeat Vietnam did it?M.O.A.B wrote:
Somone directs it in, then again, little would survive being pummeled in a carpet bomb strike from a B-52. Unlike mountainous areas, tunnels dug below a jungle won't hold up as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cu_Chi_tunnels
Last edited by Braddock (2008-06-25 09:37:00)
Our military might duh.
My great uncle is on that wall.
He fought for democracy. I am proud of what he did.
My great uncle is on that wall.
He fought for democracy. I am proud of what he did.
Last edited by icecold2510 (2008-06-25 09:39:08)
Good for you.icecold2510 wrote:
Our military might duh.
My great uncle is on that wall.
He fought for democracy. I am proud of what he did.
sorry but this is wrong. even in WW2 and Vietnam when the fighting became urban, it was very bloody and time consuming since you are limited in what tools you can use. essentially you cannot simply bomb flat the buildings as you can use napalm to wipe out a forest in a jungle. transportation and armor becomes harder because of the tight streets, etc. so you are stuck going house to house in a clearing operation. the tough thing here is that we are constrained in our forces so what's to prevent us from having those cleared houses fill back up with insurgents.CameronPoe wrote:
I would also imagine that fighting in an Iraqi city is markedly less dangerous than fighting in the deepest Vietnamese jungles.
so i really think that house-to-house is much harder problem to fight than say in vietnam jungle warfare or grand tank battles of ww2, for example.
it would be interesting to get some veteran's inputs on this.
/summons GSCaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
sorry but this is wrong. even in WW2 and Vietnam when the fighting became urban, it was very bloody and time consuming since you are limited in what tools you can use. essentially you cannot simply bomb flat the buildings as you can use napalm to wipe out a forest in a jungle. transportation and armor becomes harder because of the tight streets, etc. so you are stuck going house to house in a clearing operation. the tough thing here is that we are constrained in our forces so what's to prevent us from having those cleared houses fill back up with insurgents.CameronPoe wrote:
I would also imagine that fighting in an Iraqi city is markedly less dangerous than fighting in the deepest Vietnamese jungles.
so i really think that house-to-house is much harder problem to fight than say in vietnam jungle warfare or grand tank battles of ww2, for example.
it would be interesting to get some veteran's inputs on this.
US casualties Vietnam: 58,217 in 10 years of offensive action.
US casualties Iraq: 4,102 in 5 years of offensive action.
Vietnam war predominantly rural.
Iraq war predominantly urban.
QED
Having said that I still contend that it is military technology that is the difference.
US casualties Iraq: 4,102 in 5 years of offensive action.
Vietnam war predominantly rural.
Iraq war predominantly urban.
QED
Having said that I still contend that it is military technology that is the difference.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-25 13:54:47)
there is not a more difficult terrain to fight in than urban terrain. there are too many different angles of attack. dead space that an enemy fight can take advantage of. not to mention the fact that in urban combat operations, the line between combatant and non combatant is blurred.
example
it will take a hell of lot more soldiers to secure a city block than it would take an area the size of a city block in the jungle.
the reason why the military is strained right now is becuase of force projection. read this book http://books.google.com/books?id=51yZPo … #PPA350,M1
explains why we didnt go into baghdad in 1991, among other things.
example
it will take a hell of lot more soldiers to secure a city block than it would take an area the size of a city block in the jungle.
the reason why the military is strained right now is becuase of force projection. read this book http://books.google.com/books?id=51yZPo … #PPA350,M1
explains why we didnt go into baghdad in 1991, among other things.
one other reason vietnam had higher death rate is the nature of field medicine and ability to extract casualties we have today. many people who died in vietnam would have made it today if they had our med tech. of course this also explains the extreme numbers of wounded (most with missing limbs) that we have today. body armor improvements have also been made. i guess this backs up your assertions about tech differences between the two conflicts but it's hard to do apples to apples hereCameronPoe wrote:
US casualties Vietnam: 58,217 in 10 years of offensive action.
US casualties Iraq: 4,102 in 5 years of offensive action.
Vietnam war predominantly rural.
Iraq war predominantly urban.
QED
Having said that I still contend that it is military technology that is the difference.
further, i think we have like 3 weeks of offensive action and the rest is basically peace keeping mission. probably most on here disagree with this statement but i just don't think your comparison is fair in terms of the numbers and timespans
Last edited by CaptainSpaulding71 (2008-06-25 16:53:41)
enemy fighters have nearly the same technology as we do. these fuckers order shit online like radio jammers and gps plgrs. body armor is easy to comeby. two way radios. laser sights.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-06-25 16:52:50)
but we are lucky that the insurgents largely can't shoot a barn to save their life. our soldiers and Marines are much more disciplined with regards to their aiming. although with Iran helping out, i'm sure that things are changing in favor of the insurgents (in terms of training)God Save the Queen wrote:
enemy fighters have nearly the same technology as we do. these fuckers order shit online like radio jammers and gps plgrs. body armor is easy to comeby. two way radios. laser sights.
and shit given to them by Iran and such.God Save the Queen wrote:
enemy fighters have nearly the same technology as we do. these fuckers order shit online like radio jammers and gps plgrs. body armor is easy to comeby. two way radios. laser sights.
Kool! Anyone know where i can get me one of those fancy B2 bombers?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.