14 Dec 08
1 edit
Wikipedia (yeah, I know, but the article is itself referenced) lists many quotes by Washington and contemporaries on the low quality of the militia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29#History
For example,
In September 1755, George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia, upon a frustrating and futile attempt to call up the militia to respond to a frontier Indian attack:[8]
"...he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative.[8]"
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by smw6869Again Granny, I don't disagree with any of this. It still was a citizen militia. George Washington was a brilliant general. Kentucky rifles were the finest in the world. What won in both cases was the resolve of the citizen militia compared to that of a foreign army that really didn't know why they were fighting. The Americans lost to the superior British when they lined up on a field firing point blank.
"The United States still lost that war to a ragtag bunch whether NVA regulars or VC"
Hardly Ragtag. The NVA were regarded by most military scholars as possibly the best Light Infantry in the world at the time. They had been fighting the French since the 1600's. Their air defense over the North was the best in the world. Their Migs out performed the US F-4 ...[text shortened]... ly the ones i knew ( those in the Chu Hoi program) and watched die. Ragtag my ass.
GRANNY.
Not only did the NVA know America would not have the political will to continue the fight, they also knew that they could always retreat back into Laos, Cambodia or N. Vietnam. To defeat any enemy, you must pursue him where ever he goes. US Strategy in VN was like the allies reaching the Rhine, and refusing to cross into Germany. A war can't be won by fighting not to lose.
Sorry if "ragtag" offends you. Compared to the US military, well they did not compare. Aircraft carriers, B52s, We could make more M16s in a month, than they could import SKS and AKs in a year. Helos, ground support fighter bombers. My point stands that the dedicated militia fighter on his home ground can beat numerical, and technological superiority.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by FMFNo denying the contributions of the French, but they never would have had anything to contribute to without the citizen militias, such as those at Concord Bridge. No decisive victory? Or those defeated at Bunker Hill.
Yes. You must be aware of the Siege of Yorktown, to name but one decisive contribution by the French army. And the French navy as well (most notably the Battle of the Chesapeake). Arguably tipped the balance.
Without those militia actions, there is no American Revolution.
18 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenign"My point stands that the dedicated militia fighter on his home ground can beat numerical, and technological superiority."
Again Granny, I don't disagree with any of this. It still was a citizen militia. George Washington was a brilliant general. Kentucky rifles were the finest in the world. What won in both cases was the resolve of the citizen militia compared to that of a foreign army that really didn't know why they were fighting. The Americans lost to the superior B ...[text shortened]... cated militia fighter on his home ground can beat numerical, and technological superiority.
BUT, the facts are, they're so called militia (NVA) did not win the Military war. Nor would they have defeated the South except for the fact that the US politicians refused to send military supplies to the South after the US withdrew according to the peace agreement. The NVA were fighting an unarmed South Vietnam military. The VC could be called a militia, but the NVA were a well trained and lead, regular army. Because an army engages in gorilla warfare because of it's lack of numbers does not make it a militia. The NVA chose when and where they would fight and always made sure the had superior numbers. Still the lost every battle.
GRANNY.
GRANNY.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by smw6869OK, again we have no disagreement with the history. And yes the NVA was a well trained regular army, inferior however in numbers and technology to the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.
"My point stands that the dedicated militia fighter on his home ground can beat numerical, and technological superiority."
BUT, the facts are, they're so called militia (NVA) did not win the Military war. Nor would they have defeated the South except for the fact that the US politicians refused to send military supplies to the South after the US withdrew ...[text shortened]... Still the lost every battle.
GRANNY.
GRANNY.
The war was fought for the most part by S. Vietnamese militia (VC), later supported by regular NVA just as American militia were aided by the French.
Without the tenacity of the militias, the wars in both cases would have been done. In both cases, the greater power simply lacked the will to continue to fight a battle whose cost in men and materials was unjustifiable.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes eventually, when the time was right. Snipers took a terrible toll of British officers, and in those days sniping was like spying punishable by immediate execution.
And it fought with muskets in line formation under the guidance of a general, not with rifles hiding in the trees!
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenign"The war was fought for the most part by S. Vietnamese militia (VC), later supported by regular NVA"
OK, again we have no disagreement with the history. And yes the NVA was a well trained regular army, inferior however in numbers and technology to the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.
The war was fought for the most part by S. Vietnamese militia (VC), later supported by regular NVA just as American militia were aided by the French.
Without the ...[text shortened]... lacked the will to continue to fight a battle whose cost in men and materials was unjustifiable.
Not true. The NVA were fighting in the south even before Tet '68. It was the NVA we fought in '64 in the Ia Drang Valley. It was the NVA who engaged the US at K e Sahn (sp). It was the NVA that fought the 173rd during the battle of Dak To and hill 875 ( pre Tet). It was the NVA we fought during the mini Tet of April-June '68. During Tet '68 the VC were nearly totally wiped out and were ineffective until the final assult on Saigon. It was the NVA that fought the US during the years immediatly after Tet until the peace agreement, with little VC help.
GRANNY.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by smw6869OK, then my next question is, if we were fighting exclusively NVA, then why did we not pursue them where they fled, right to the doors of their capital city?
"The war was fought for the most part by S. Vietnamese militia (VC), later supported by regular NVA"
Not true. The NVA were fighting in the south even before Tet '68. It was the NVA we fought in '64 in the Ia Drang Valley. It was the NVA who engaged the US at K e Sahn (sp). It was the NVA that fought the 173rd during the battle of Dak To and hill 875 ( p ...[text shortened]... the years immediatly after Tet until the peace agreement, with little VC help.
GRANNY.
Whatever the reasons, our Strategy dictated by politicians not warriors was faulty, and a vastly inferior force ended up in the end prevailing. This has often been the case when an inferior force used home court advantage in its favor. The Spartans at Thermopole did not win the battle but won the war.
19 Dec 08
Originally posted by normbenignOur stragedy was not to conquer North Vietnam, but to hold back the North until the south was trained to take over. We didn't want a war with China. We were there to defend the South and search out the enemy coming from Cambodia and Laos. We won the Military war and lost the political war. The South was over run because we stopped military assistance. Absolutey Pathetic on our part.
OK, then my next question is, if we were fighting exclusively NVA, then why did we not pursue them where they fled, right to the doors of their capital city?
Whatever the reasons, our Strategy dictated by politicians not warriors was faulty, and a vastly inferior force ended up in the end prevailing. This has often been the case when an inferior force ...[text shortened]... ourt advantage in its favor. The Spartans at Thermopole did not win the battle but won the war.
GRANNY.