Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

Multiple fragmentary wound is shrapnel, typically from grenade or improvised frag explosives.  infantry delivered or mines.

Air loss is stated above planes shot down, during this particular conflict the majority of those kills were attributed to man-portable munitions, not emplaced guns, tho' some of them are attributable to the NV air forces.

other explosive device refers to landmines, placed explosives, and other forms of tactical (ground-level) explosive, and bombs.  Again, infantry/aircraft delivered.

Artillery/rocket/mortar is the total of deaths due to artillery/fire support weapons.  This number is less than one third of all deaths in the conflict.  That alone calls into question your assertion, as the rest of these kills are delivered by infantry or aircraft (tho' precious few of those.)

[mainiac]

I thought that Vietnam was supposed to be an example of how farmers with assault rifles could "kick the ass" of a professional army.  You appear to now be saying that a guerilla army with a wide spectrum of man portable arms will use them.

That alone calls into question your assertion, as the rest of these kills are delivered by infantry or aircraft (tho' precious few of those.)

I think the fact that indirect fire killed as many as assault rifles in the example that you chose rather reinforces my point.

If you want the case of my chosing, can I suggest that we look at Japan and China between 1938 and 1945?  The Chinese had almost no indirect fire after 1937.  The Japanese had small arms and artillery but very little beyond that of importance.

[NullForceOmega]

No mainiac the point was that infantry (even irregular forces) are more useful than artillery.  People with guns are more relevant to war than big static emplacements that can be overrun, captured, and turned on their owners.  That was always the point.  Everything else here is due to Bay12's tendency to look right past the point of an argument and pursue something shiny.

[mainiac]

No mainiac the point was that infantry (even irregular forces) are more useful than artillery.

Well maybe you could have said that two pages ago?  It's self evident that artillery isn't of any use without artillery.  That wasn't the point that I was arguing.

And really, what has any of what you are talking about had to do about this?  When you talked about the use of ambush tactics by the Vietnamese, that is only tangentially related towards this argument.

[NullForceOmega]

When the entire point was that boots on the ground, which is the exact term I used in the first post I made on this subject are more important than fire support, then a war where boots on the ground (i.e. a VC irregular/guerilla) were the deciding factor, is a good example of how asymmetrical warfare can be used to defeat an opponent with access to better tools, such as artillery.

See right here:
"Which would be significant if artillery had the capacity to hold or take ground.  Boots on the ground win wars, not fire support."

The rest of this discussion was spawned because instead of comprehending that Vietnam was just an example of what I was saying others decided that discussing the particulars of that conflict was more important.

The ONLY point here that ever actually mattered to me, was that artillery is nothing but a support tool, and that you assertion of artillery>rifles is fundamentally flawed.  That is not how warfare functions, how effective something is at killing is not the measure of its usefulness in armed conflict.

[mainiac]

You are wrong that boots on the ground are more important.  I would put my money on the side with good artillery over the side with 5 times the boots on the ground every time.  That has been the case ever since the French came out with the first modern field artillery back in the 1890s.

Vietnam is not a counter example because the communist insurgents didn't win through boots on the ground and ambush tactics.  They in fact got decimated in the Tet Offensive.  The government of South Vietnam collapsed because it was incapable of resisting the army of North Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese army wasn't a guerrilla insurgency, it fought with tanks and artillery.

Probably the best example of what you are looking for is Iran vs. Iraq.  But that war really just goes to show that completely broken military hierarchies are good at losing winable battles.

[NullForceOmega]

Your entire assertion is fundamentally flawed, the weapons you fight a war with are not what decides the conflict, they are nothing but tools, people win wars, not tools.  Your artillery is exactly as good as the logistics that provide it with support and the intelligence that provides targets, your logistics are exactly as good as your ability to defend them, your intelligence is exactly as good as the people interpreting the data you receive.  Boots on the ground is literally the only thing that actually matters in a war.  If you are not able to grasp this basic truth of armed conflict then you really shouldn't be engaging in this discussion.

[Max™]

>the US being invaded
>literally any nuclear power being invaded
>artillery emplacements being set up
>a ground force sufficient to defend those assets being in place
>all of this happens while the US military sits back to let the rednecks have fun
>a strange game...

[mainiac]

Boots on the ground is literally the only thing that actually matters in a war.

You were a tanker, yes?  May I ask why they gave you a tank if tanks literally dont matter?

[Max™]

(Psst, tanks are commonly used as direct fire, not indirect fire support, though there are artillery suitable variants)

[lemon10]

Boots on the ground is literally the only thing that actually matters in a war.

That's completely wrong, everything matters in a war. Your logistics matter. Your morale matters. Your air support matters. Your infantry weaponry matters. Your level of artillery support matters. The amount of armor support matters.

You argument that tech level and support is meaningless says that if you send a thousand troops armed with modern weaponry and that have full support (eg. tanks, air artillery) against a hundred thousand bronze age soldiers that the bronze age soldiers would win. Obviously, this is completely ridiculous.

[RedKing]

Guys....Armchair General Thread, please. We have a country to watch hurtling flaming into the abyss.

[Starver]

Guys....Armchair General Thread, please. We have a country to watch hurtling flaming into the abyss.

But was it fired there from afar, or pushed into it by close-support, huh? Huh?

[NullForceOmega]

RedKing is correct, this has gone on long enough.  We can argue these points until the end of time and we won't get anywhere.  This isn't the thread for discussing basic concepts of warfare, its for discussing how much we hate Hillary/Trump.

But I am going to address lemon: The point isn't that a bunch of bronze-age spearmen could take on a modern military, it is that everything you just listed (excepting morale) is purely supplementary to ground forces ability to prosecute the conflict.  Also, in your example, there is a real possibility (entirely depending on situational variables that would have to be clearly defined) that those spearmen could in fact win.

[mainiac]

its for discussing how much we hate Hillary/Trump.

I like Hillary.  And honestly I'm starting to warm up to Trump given the enormous amount of bullshit getting tossed out there.  Sure he is a hateful demagogue but so are a lot of people these days.