Vietcong vs. Tunnel Rats

[Geezer57]

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]

Yeah, I figured the Americans had far less casualties...

[ShadesPanther]

I believe its ~58,000 to ~1,100,000

At that ratio, its almost 19 VC/NVA to 1 American

[Turin]

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]

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

[Kraxis]

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]

Well, I haven't heard the term charlie used in WWII - Gerries and Japs. What about Korea?

C - Charlie - could also stand for communists.

[Vladimir]

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? 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]

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]

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).