The Silence on this forum is Deafening RE: Ken Burns' VIETNAM
Collapse
X
-
-
Comment
-
So far I have watched the first 3 episodes. I absolutely cannot get over the actions of General Westmoreland. He seemed to have no idea at all as to what he was doing. In the last episode that I saw he launched an attack on hill 385 which had no military value at all. Our troops were ambushed and suffered devastating casualties. The last straw came when one of our planes dropped a bomb which immediately killed 42 Marines. If I remember correctly only 26 men of the original assault force survived and every one of these was wounded.
His basic idea of establishing isolated outposts all over the country was a repetition of French strategy and ended with the same result. These outposts were encircled by the NVA, pounded continuously by their artillery and suffered enormous casualties to which Westmoreland seemed totally indifferent.
I would welcome other opinions on Westmoreland, especially from guys who were there.Comment
-
I have no particular brief for Westmoreland, but:
"he launched an attack on hill 385 which had no military value at all" -- the value was, the enemy was there. The whole essence of warfare is to find, fix and destroy the enemy.
"Our troops were ambushed" -- that's the tactical commander's responsibility.
"one of our planes dropped a bomb which immediately killed 42 Marines" -- unless Westmoreland was the pilot of that aircraft, you can't blame him for that.
"These outposts were encircled by the NVA, pounded continuously by their artillery" -- not really. Outposts like Con Thien (I was there), Khe Sanh, and so on forced the enemy to concentrate his forces, where they were highly vulnerable to OUR artillery and airpower.
"His basic idea of establishing isolated outposts all over the country was a repetition of French strategy" -- no, it was not. It was basically the same strategy we used to fight the Indian wars.Comment
-
Correct me if I am wrong, wasn't B-52's used with success around some of our posts, as well as C-47 gunships?I have no particular brief for Westmoreland, but:
"he launched an attack on hill 385 which had no military value at all" -- the value was, the enemy was there. The whole essence of warfare is to find, fix and destroy the enemy.
"Our troops were ambushed" -- that's the tactical commander's responsibility.
"one of our planes dropped a bomb which immediately killed 42 Marines" -- unless Westmoreland was the pilot of that aircraft, you can't blame him for that.
"These outposts were encircled by the NVA, pounded continuously by their artillery" -- not really. Outposts like Con Thien (I was there), Khe Sanh, and so on forced the enemy to concentrate his forces, where they were highly vulnerable to OUR artillery and airpower.
"His basic idea of establishing isolated outposts all over the country was a repetition of French strategy" -- no, it was not. It was basically the same strategy we used to fight the Indian wars.
SamComment
-
Absolutely! It was B52s that put an end to the Tunnels of Ch Chi. It was B52s that broke the "siege" of Khe Sahn. We used them regularly.
"Spooky" was first a C-47 with Gatling guns shooting out the left side and later a C-130, which included a 105mm howitzer. At the battle of Lone Khan (I was at Xuan Loc, division headquarters) a C-47 Spooky shot up all its ammunition, then landed on the airfield under fire to pick up wounded.Comment
-
I agree Burns "cherry-picked" the vets for their anti-war views, they are not representative of the ones I know. I guess it was easy for some to fall for the victim syndrome when the "baby killer" didn't work. I was disgusted when the marine made light of Jane Fonda, she should have been tried and convicted of treason(in my humble opinion) Unfortunately I agree this will become what people think is the definitive story of the war. RVN 67-68 3/48th Inf. 18th Recon Co. 2/5 Cav 18th Div ARVNComment
-
You were an Adviser to 3/48 ARVN Infantry? I was an Adviser to 4/48 at Ap Dung Dap in '66 was also at 18th Div HQ at Xuan Loc in '67.Comment

Comment