View Full Version : Vietcong vs. Tunnel Rats
Alexanderofmacedon
03-14-2006, 00:18
I'm sure plenty of you have seen the Modern Marvels on the History channel about the Tunnels in the Vietnam war? Well, I thought that was really neat. It seemed like the Vietcong used primative warfare (booby traps etc, used nails and sharp objects, which seemed primative), but they really were effective. The booby trap was usually to mame soldiers so that he was alive, but too hurt to move. It would usually occupy many men allowing attacks to take place.
I thought the Vietcong were an excellent fighting force, but made even better by the way they used the tunnels. They were all battle hardend veterans, that the United States took too lightly in my opinion.
Comments? Ideas?
I think 'Primitive' is a silly term. What works works. The Vietcong did use the tunnels to their great advantage, but it didn't help much the the US forces weren't properly equipped or trained for warfare in Vietnam, not to mention the differing views on the war at the top of the chain.
'Primitive' as in opposed to 'sophisticated', not as in 'bad'.
Read The Tunnels of Cu Chi. Excellent book and it will tell you everything you want to know. (Some of it is nasty indeed.)
Vladimir
03-14-2006, 14:34
It's amazing how easily low tech can beat high tech. The US was able to dominate the battlefield militarily but wasn't able to maintain security. The old "Army Doctrine" of superior, massed firepower worked wonders in conventional warfare but not against a small, determined force. The Vietnamese were no strangers to combat. The fought a very successful campaign against the French colonial forces. Small unit tactics like tunnel rats and continuity operations (?) like what the Marines did during the harvest paid off big but didn't fit into the dominant paradigm and never received much support. As far as the tunnel rats go, didn't the Australians lead the way in that field?
Alexanderofmacedon
03-14-2006, 15:40
Yes, they brought in some Australian engineers to find booby traps, and those engineers found the first tunnels and saw how intricate the tunnels were. Many Australian units also, we 'Tunnel rats', but there were more United States troops in Vietnam, so more United States 'tunnel rats'.
Kraxis: Yes, that's what I meant. They were simple levers and such instead of high-tech booby traps.
These tunnels has been made to allow viectong soldiers on resting safe from us bombers. Furthermore they have kitchens and even hospitals there - i heard some of tunnels got 4 levels.
Vietnamese invented some great tricks - great because simply. To avoid gas attack they built special "holes" with water into tunnels. Soldier who entered tunnel just dived and then normally walked on 2nd side of "hole".
Other smart trick was guardian next to entrance. When he saw American enterering tunnel , he used knife and cut American into stomach or eggs.
American lived but he scream from pain there were much blood. His colleagues helped him and vietnamese soldiers got time to prepare.
Anyway notice that vietnamese used similar tactic like 800 years earlier against Mongols. Luckily their general Giap has been historician :2thumbsup:
Alexanderofmacedon
03-17-2006, 01:29
These tunnels has been made to allow viectong soldiers on resting safe from us bombers. Furthermore they have kitchens and even hospitals there - i heard some of tunnels got 4 levels.
Vietnamese invented some great tricks - great because simply. To avoid gas attack they built special "holes" with water into tunnels. Soldier who entered tunnel just dived and then normally walked on 2nd side of "hole".
Other smart trick was guardian next to entrance. When he saw American enterering tunnel , he used knife and cut American into stomach or eggs.
American lived but he scream from pain there were much blood. His colleagues helped him and vietnamese soldiers got time to prepare.
Anyway notice that vietnamese used similar tactic like 800 years earlier against Mongols. Luckily their general Giap has been historician :2thumbsup:
Are you a Vietnam veteran?
ShadesPanther
03-17-2006, 02:37
I think he means United States Bombers.
I have heard about the different features in the tunnels. The water in a U-bend I do remember as well as having false turns with a pit concealed with Punjie sticks below.
The role of the vietcong in the vietnam war is a bit overstated, after the TET offensive in 1969 most VC units were destroyed or at least heavily depleted from that moment NVA regulars took over.
The Tunnels were usefull but they were also very vunerable when they were found out. And you don't win wars with booby traps either.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-18-2006, 19:39
The role of the vietcong in the vietnam war is a bit overstated, after the TET offensive in 1969 most VC units were destroyed or at least heavily depleted from that moment NVA regulars took over.
The Tunnels were usefull but they were also very vunerable when they were found out. And you don't win wars with booby traps either.
After the TET offensive the forces were depleted, but you have to look at the size of force the Vietnamese had vs. the rest of the allied powers against them. I think after the tunnels were found out, they still helped the vietcong because tunnels led into cities to allow for short raids or assinations. Many were not found that far by us.
Booby traps don't win wars, but it caused many hundreds of deaths. While units were pre-occupied getting a man out of a trap, gorilla troops would seize the opputunity to kill.
Justiciar
03-19-2006, 04:29
Vietminh tbh. :wall:
Alexanderofmacedon
03-19-2006, 04:43
^^^
what?:dizzy2:
Justiciar
03-19-2006, 05:02
I just find the name Vietcong sort of stupid. Where did acctually come from?
Alexanderofmacedon
03-19-2006, 05:59
Oh, I have no idea...
I just find the name Vietcong sort of stupid. Where did acctually come from?
Vietnamese communist guerilla, I think.
Geezer57
03-19-2006, 18:43
After the TET offensive the forces were depleted, but you have to look at the size of force the Vietnamese had vs. the rest of the allied powers against them. I think after the tunnels were found out, they still helped the vietcong because tunnels led into cities to allow for short raids or assinations. Many were not found that far by us.
Booby traps don't win wars, but it caused many hundreds of deaths. While units were pre-occupied getting a man out of a trap, gorilla troops would seize the opputunity to kill.
Everything I've read (not claiming an exhaustive study) indicates the Vietcong were destroyed as an effective fighting force after Tet, and that most of their combat roles from before Tet were taken over by NVA regulars. There may have been small surviving Vietcong cadres that (as you suggest) were able to conduct assassinations or other small actions, but the USA's opponent after Tet was pretty much only North Vietnamese Regulars. And their losses were horrendous relative to America's (estimates over 10-to-1 are common) - no democratic society would have tolerated them. Communist regimes (particularly Asian ones) seem able to almost disregard loss of life, however, and continue long after it's assumed they should quit.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-19-2006, 19:31
Yeah, I figured the Americans had far less casualties...
ShadesPanther
03-19-2006, 19:55
I believe its ~58,000 to ~1,100,000
At that ratio, its almost 19 VC/NVA to 1 American
The Vietcong are often portrayed as this miracle fighting force that broke Americans through cunning and wit.
Not so at all. The VC were a militia, nothing more. The number of kills made by VC shooters is tiny. The vast majority of American casualties were from traps and artillery. It was the American strategy that allowed the VC to do their worst.
After Tet 1969, there was no VC, the NVA pretty much took over. And they were better than the VC, but only marginally.
Peasant Phill
03-20-2006, 10:23
In movies, the americans refer to the vietnamese forces ( either NVA or vietcong) as charlie. Where does this come from? All I can think of is it stands for C (NATO code language AFAIK).
Edit: suddenly it hit me: Victor charlie = VC = Vietcong
In movies, the americans refer to the vietnamese forces ( either NVA or vietcong) as charlie. Where does this come from? All I can think of is it stands for C (NATO code language AFAIK).
Edit: suddenly it hit me: Victor charlie = VC = Vietcong
You know I have had conflicting evidence on this.
I have heard that US troops sometimes called the VC, Victor Charlie even mr. Victor Charlie. But at the same time I have gotten the feelign that 'charlie' was a generic term for 'enemy', not just in Vietnam. Like 'bogey' is unknown airplane and 'bandit' is enemy airplane.
BelgradeWar
03-20-2006, 21:25
Well, I haven't heard the term charlie used in WWII - Gerries and Japs. What about Korea?
C - Charlie - could also stand for communists.
Uesugi Kenshin
03-20-2006, 23:22
Hmm I've heard the Victory Charlie thing as well, but I've never actually heard it used and I've never heard Charlie used as a general term for enemies either.
Maybe I should go ask my friend's dad, he took some shrapnel in Vietnam, I bet he'd know. Then again he doesn't really talk about it...
All I know about general terms for enemies is that today we use OpFor (Opposing Force), I've never heard of a general term for enemies other than that and bandits.
C - Charlie - could also stand for communists.
Could very well be. I haven't seen anything from post-Cold War, so it could be that Charlie was supposed to be the enemy in most engagements, eventhough he was just a specific group (heh singular and plural in same sentense ~:cool:).
Im not that army veteran but they won clearly.
And I think we should use Vietminh name (like in post before) - this is correct name.
And I think we should use Vietminh name (like in post before) - this is correct name.
For the original group fighting the French... The Vietcong, while based on the same principles was not the Vietminh. They were two seperate guerillagroups.
Vladimir
03-21-2006, 15:17
The Vietcong are often portrayed as this miracle fighting force that broke Americans through cunning and wit.
Not so at all. The VC were a militia, nothing more. The number of kills made by VC shooters is tiny. The vast majority of American casualties were from traps and artillery. It was the American strategy that allowed the VC to do their worst.
After Tet 1969, there was no VC, the NVA pretty much took over. And they were better than the VC, but only marginally.
Wait a minute, wait a minute...I thought Cronkite said Tet was a disaster for US forces? Are you saying the "most trusted voice of America" was wrong? :jawdrop: But seriously folks (take my wife, please).
The most important lesson learned from this war is that no one can militarily defeat the American military but you can defeat the American people. Another good lesson learned was that while killing the enemy is good it won't "win the peace". A few good examples of what went right can be seen from their rear area normalcy operations conducted by the Marines. While only a single digit percentage of their efforts were focused on these operations they paid off huge, but didn't fit well into "the Army doctrine"; or the doctrine of superior firepower.
Justiciar
03-22-2006, 09:29
The most important lesson learned from this war is that no one can militarily defeat the American military but you can defeat the American people.
I beg to differ. Put up the Chinese army and enough nukes for the threat of mutual destruction and you've got a few defeats ready and waiting (and a few victories no doubt, but that's not the point).
Vladimir
03-22-2006, 14:17
I beg to differ. Put up the Chinese army and enough nukes for the threat of mutual destruction and you've got a few defeats ready and waiting (and a few victories no doubt, but that's not the point).
I speak of lessons learned from Vietnam not from a war that will never happen. The point is that winning battles isn't always enough; you also need popular support especially in democratic countries. Not to mention the outright failure of containment in many circumstances. For example: The British dominated the battlefield but screwed up their pacification policy during the American Revolution (not to mention they couldn't get Washington).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.