Vietcong vs. Tunnel Rats

**Turin** · 03-19-2006, 22:15

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

**Kraxis** · 03-20-2006, 15:35

Originally Posted by 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

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.

**Kraxis** · 03-21-2006, 00:45

Originally Posted by BelgradeWar

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

).

**KrooK** · 03-21-2006, 02:09

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.

**Kraxis** · 03-21-2006, 02:20

Originally Posted by KrooK

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 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

Originally Posted by Justiciar

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).