Not even, the US had literally hundreds of recon teams and patrols that straight up just went missing. They don't classify it as a "battle" because it didn't involve a company size element or greater. The US also had FSBs routinely "go dark" and had hundreds of air craft shot out of the sky.
There is a reason that the MIA lists for Vietnam were so much greater than any other US conflict. It would be accurate to say the US never lost a major engagement in Vietnam, but they absolutely lost battles and skirmishes all the fucking time.
The US was only involved in logistics and air support by that time. There weren't any actual US combat troops still in Vietnam by that point, just advisors, MPs, logistics officers, and pilots. It's very disingenuous to pretend the US lost the Easter Offensive, it was basically entirely the ARVNs game by that point.
The result is not what matters. WHat matters is that the US military won every battle. If I beat you up real bad and then i stop due to boredom, that doesnt mean you defeated me,
>WHat matters is that the US military won every battle
No, actually that's completely retarded.
War is a political tool. If you don't achieve your political goal, then you have lost the war. Battles and enemy killed only matter in the context of how you achieved your political goal.
By your metric, the US lost the Revolutionary war because it lost the vast majority of the land battles.
>but they absolutely lost battles and skirmishes all the fucking time.
No they didn't. You just said by your own admission a battle is only when there is an engagement of a particular size. Ambushing an isolated patrol or shooting down a patrolling aircraft is not a "battle".
Vietnamese were utterly powerless to dislodge USA from its entrenched positions. The biggest Vietnamese offensive of the war ended in a total disaster for them with massive casualties and total failure to take a single position away from the Americans.
The Vietnamese were utterly inferior to the Americans in battle, they suffered over 1 million KIA in that war due to their shitty, inferior battle prowess. Had the Americans not been leashed by Congress they would have exterminated the entire fucking country.
>You just said by your own admission a battle is only when there is an engagement of a particular size
No, I said that "they," meaning the US military, don't classify them as battles. Reading comprehension you absolute nagger.
>Ambushing an isolated patrol or shooting down a patrolling aircraft is not a "battle"
I'm not going to get drawn into a semantic argument because I really don't give that much of a fuck. Determining what is or is not a battle is a useless and Western centric method of looking at a War. A big part of the reason the US lost in Vietnam is because they had no other metric of success and they couldn't really draw the VC/NVA into conventional battles of their own choosing anyways. Again, if wars were determined by the outcomes of battles, then the US would have lost the Revolutionary war. War doesn't work that way. You can win every battle and loose a war, just as you can loose every battle and win a war. History is filled with both examples. What matters is achieving your political objective.
>they suffered over 1 million KIA
And the ARVN suffered around a million casualties as well, but no one ever points that out because it makes America look bad.
>Had the Americans not been leashed by Congress they would have exterminated the entire fucking country
That wasn't politically feasible. Both parties were wanted to avoid another Korea and thought that any invasion of the North would prompt a massive Chinese and Soviet counter invasion. We know with hindsight this would not have happened but it wasn't at all clear in the mid 60s or 70s.
Aside from that, unrestricted killing and bombing in Vietnam would have been an absolute PR fucking nightmare. Vietnam was a PR nightmare anyways, but Americans would not have been OK with watching American boys gunning down random civvies on the nightly news and you fucking know it. The political pressure to get out of Vietnam would have come earlier and harder.
Also just to point out why kill count is a retarded metric, you can say shit like "the US killed 100 enemy for every 1 American killed" or whatever, but it doesn't matter. The US public doesn't give a flying fuck for the 100 dead Viets, they only care about the 1 dead GI.
The American people at home turned against the soldiers and even started humoring communism low key so it drove morale into the pits. I fucking hate hippies aside from the music, which is decent.
The result is not what matters. WHat matters is that the US military won every battle. If I beat you up real bad and then i stop due to boredom, that doesnt mean you defeated me,
Difference is the Soviets actually won battles and had successful military campaigns.
>cope, cope, and more cope
No it's accurate. The US never invaded North Vietnam out of fear of escalating things with the Soviets and China.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The NVA and Viet Cong had many successful battles and campaigns against the South Vietnamese. In the grand scheme of things, American troops played a very very tiny part in the whole war.
US won in the sense they could've bombed their way onto Hanoi easily and destroy the Vietcong.
US lost in the sense they self-imposed so much restrictions (like fighting against the Vietcong without invading North Vietnam) that made the above objective impossible to achieve.
>America won the Afghan war cause the Afghans caused only 500 american deaths while americans themselves caused over 50000 american deaths through shotgun to the face thus america managed to kill more of their own then even the enemy
It was a loss because they failed to achieve their political goal of maintaining a puppet state in Vietnam, even if they performed better from a military perspective. But yeah the shitskins genuinely saying stuff like "America would lose a war against China because they can't even defeat farmers" are definitely braindead. It's like arguing that Australia would lose a conventional war because they lost the war against emus.
US only lost because the politicians were too pussy to actually win the war, boomers were lazy fags who didn’t want to fight, and the media and academia were full of communists who wanted America to lose badly because they fucking loved Russia.
The US legitimately tried to nation build and they were so dominant on the battlefield the VC could not field a single army level element anywhere south of North Vietnam.
This is White Supremacy >NO NO NO THEY WON THEY WON
They won the story, American buck broke them.
The Vietnamese Communists won
Due to the fall of the Khmer Rouge and Sino-Vietnamese falling out, turning the Vietcong in U.S allies means America came out neutral (Lost the military wing won the diplomatic wing)
The Chinese and Soviets lost.
The Easter Offensive happened, retard-kun
Not even, the US had literally hundreds of recon teams and patrols that straight up just went missing. They don't classify it as a "battle" because it didn't involve a company size element or greater. The US also had FSBs routinely "go dark" and had hundreds of air craft shot out of the sky.
There is a reason that the MIA lists for Vietnam were so much greater than any other US conflict. It would be accurate to say the US never lost a major engagement in Vietnam, but they absolutely lost battles and skirmishes all the fucking time.
The US was only involved in logistics and air support by that time. There weren't any actual US combat troops still in Vietnam by that point, just advisors, MPs, logistics officers, and pilots. It's very disingenuous to pretend the US lost the Easter Offensive, it was basically entirely the ARVNs game by that point.
>WHat matters is that the US military won every battle
No, actually that's completely retarded.
War is a political tool. If you don't achieve your political goal, then you have lost the war. Battles and enemy killed only matter in the context of how you achieved your political goal.
By your metric, the US lost the Revolutionary war because it lost the vast majority of the land battles.
>but they absolutely lost battles and skirmishes all the fucking time.
No they didn't. You just said by your own admission a battle is only when there is an engagement of a particular size. Ambushing an isolated patrol or shooting down a patrolling aircraft is not a "battle".
Vietnamese were utterly powerless to dislodge USA from its entrenched positions. The biggest Vietnamese offensive of the war ended in a total disaster for them with massive casualties and total failure to take a single position away from the Americans.
The Vietnamese were utterly inferior to the Americans in battle, they suffered over 1 million KIA in that war due to their shitty, inferior battle prowess. Had the Americans not been leashed by Congress they would have exterminated the entire fucking country.
>No they didn't
Yes, they did
>You just said by your own admission a battle is only when there is an engagement of a particular size
No, I said that "they," meaning the US military, don't classify them as battles. Reading comprehension you absolute nagger.
>Ambushing an isolated patrol or shooting down a patrolling aircraft is not a "battle"
I'm not going to get drawn into a semantic argument because I really don't give that much of a fuck. Determining what is or is not a battle is a useless and Western centric method of looking at a War. A big part of the reason the US lost in Vietnam is because they had no other metric of success and they couldn't really draw the VC/NVA into conventional battles of their own choosing anyways. Again, if wars were determined by the outcomes of battles, then the US would have lost the Revolutionary war. War doesn't work that way. You can win every battle and loose a war, just as you can loose every battle and win a war. History is filled with both examples. What matters is achieving your political objective.
>they suffered over 1 million KIA
And the ARVN suffered around a million casualties as well, but no one ever points that out because it makes America look bad.
>Had the Americans not been leashed by Congress they would have exterminated the entire fucking country
That wasn't politically feasible. Both parties were wanted to avoid another Korea and thought that any invasion of the North would prompt a massive Chinese and Soviet counter invasion. We know with hindsight this would not have happened but it wasn't at all clear in the mid 60s or 70s.
Aside from that, unrestricted killing and bombing in Vietnam would have been an absolute PR fucking nightmare. Vietnam was a PR nightmare anyways, but Americans would not have been OK with watching American boys gunning down random civvies on the nightly news and you fucking know it. The political pressure to get out of Vietnam would have come earlier and harder.
Also just to point out why kill count is a retarded metric, you can say shit like "the US killed 100 enemy for every 1 American killed" or whatever, but it doesn't matter. The US public doesn't give a flying fuck for the 100 dead Viets, they only care about the 1 dead GI.
The American people at home turned against the soldiers and even started humoring communism low key so it drove morale into the pits. I fucking hate hippies aside from the music, which is decent.
>still coping
Napoleon did not lose the war in Russia. French troops won every battle in that war. That means they didn't lose the war.
What's the city of Saigon called today?
haha yes White people are not superior to us because the Americans decided to leave our backwater after we proved incapable of self rule
>Result - North Vietnamese and Viet Cong/PRG victory
The result is not what matters. WHat matters is that the US military won every battle. If I beat you up real bad and then i stop due to boredom, that doesnt mean you defeated me,
Allow me to repeat myself since you're evidently either hard of hearing or functionally illiterate
>Result - North Vietnamese and Viet Cong/PRG victory
Yes it does actually. That means I out lasted you and accomplished my goal.
>if your enemy kicks the shit out of you, they lose
lol
If kicking the shit out of your opponent meant that you won then Germany would’ve beaten the Soviets. But they didn’t.
Difference is the Soviets actually won battles and had successful military campaigns.
No it's accurate. The US never invaded North Vietnam out of fear of escalating things with the Soviets and China.
The NVA and Viet Cong had many successful battles and campaigns against the South Vietnamese. In the grand scheme of things, American troops played a very very tiny part in the whole war.
What’s the point of war if the results don’t matter?
I can't tell if OP is just extremely deluded or falseflagging hard
US won in the sense they could've bombed their way onto Hanoi easily and destroy the Vietcong.
US lost in the sense they self-imposed so much restrictions (like fighting against the Vietcong without invading North Vietnam) that made the above objective impossible to achieve.
>America won the Afghan war cause the Afghans caused only 500 american deaths while americans themselves caused over 50000 american deaths through shotgun to the face thus america managed to kill more of their own then even the enemy
It was a loss because they failed to achieve their political goal of maintaining a puppet state in Vietnam, even if they performed better from a military perspective. But yeah the shitskins genuinely saying stuff like "America would lose a war against China because they can't even defeat farmers" are definitely braindead. It's like arguing that Australia would lose a conventional war because they lost the war against emus.
US only lost because the politicians were too pussy to actually win the war, boomers were lazy fags who didn’t want to fight, and the media and academia were full of communists who wanted America to lose badly because they fucking loved Russia.
>cope, cope, and more cope
This has to bait
It is. OP makes this same thread every month. Nobody under the age of 50 is this deluded. Not even the most fervent culture warriors.
The US legitimately tried to nation build and they were so dominant on the battlefield the VC could not field a single army level element anywhere south of North Vietnam.
This is White Supremacy
>NO NO NO THEY WON THEY WON
They won the story, American buck broke them.
Mindbroken
The Vietnamese Communists won
Due to the fall of the Khmer Rouge and Sino-Vietnamese falling out, turning the Vietcong in U.S allies means America came out neutral (Lost the military wing won the diplomatic wing)
The Chinese and Soviets lost.