Would the Vietnam War been less of a shitshow if the British had been there to hold Australia's hand?

Question

Vietnam is what happens when you leave things to the Americans and Australians. A total ****** disaster. The UK showed the world how to win a war in 1982. You just head off to the Falklands and wham, bam, thank you mam. Let's put the kettle on.

It took just 74 days to get unconditional surrender from Argentina. That's how it's done people. There was no d!cking about in the jungle for 20 years.

Answer 1

a worthless afterthought about the vietnam war ...in the time period of that war ...more americans were shot and killed in america than all the american soldiers in the war ...

Answer 2

Vietnam was largely a guerrilla war , which are almost impossible to win. Sure you may have better weapons but you’re never sure who you can trust or who is the enemy, and an army fighting 1000s of miles from home, will never have the same numbers available.

In jungle war fare tanks etc are of little use so it’s just small arms with local knowledge being the most effective weapon.Add to that the first civilians from the  South that get killed loses you much of the support there too.Anyway, why blame the Aussies, the French started it and ran away as usual.

Answer 3

Re- Nam the 🇬🇧 finally followed Montys advice to ‘never get stuck in a land war in Asia’.. given that the malay confrontation was recent, im certain the experienced UK troops in jungle warfare and tactics wouldve helped immeasurably, along with all the expert intel of the Brits...  but in the end who knows what the final outcome would've been as it was a goddam dump against a determined enemy using all the asymmetric tactics.

Answer 4

The problem in Vietnam was that it was a jungle war unlike earlier wars like WW2 and Korea where the country was much more open and tanks could be used and the power of open range warfare could overwhelm the North Koreans.  In Vietnam the North Vietnamese were much harder to pick from the average Vietnamese and used thing like booby traps a lot.  Australians were good and experienced Jungle fighters but were not used as well as they can as the Americans were running the war for the South Vietnamese side.  The Americans tend to want to be seen as the main force and grab all the Glory and likely few Americans even realize Australia had troops there.  Australians are generally ordered by the American generals to hold an area after the Americans had been through and not given the big jobs of pushing the enemy back.  The Americans did the same in WW2 and General MacArthur even ordered the Australians to back off after pushing the Japanese back to the coast of New Guinea and put his own troops there so he could claim American troops under his leadership had pushed the Japanese into the ocean and saved New Guinea.  The American troops used were not well trained and could not advance and some American soldiers even dropped their guns and ran, and others refused to advance, and humiliated MacArthur had to send the Australians back in to finish the job.  

  The US and Australia struggled in Vietnam as they could not use their usual battle tactics used in other wars.  The Vietnamese had an extensive tunnel system so out of the ground they could suddenly spring hoards of troops before the Americans even knew they were there.

  The other problem was Vietnam was the first televised war where the Allies could no longer control all the information given out to the public as they could in earlier wars.  People around the world saw not just the sanitized side of the war where we had been seen as the perfect soldiers fighting a fair war, and the enemy were shown as super violent and evil, as the independent news people showed the realities of war for the first time such as Americans bombing villages killing the innocent elderly, the women and children and the Americans and Australians did not like what they saw and started to protest against the governments.  The days of citizens trusting their  government and blindly looking away from the atrocities our side was doing were over and huge pressure was put on the government to withdraw troops.  Governments were voted into power on their promise to bring all their troops home and get out of the war.

  Australian troops did as they had to do to achieve their goals in Vietnam and no I do not believe having British officers would have helped.  The Falkland's was an open country war where they were fighting a much easier to see and beat enemy.  The tactics used in the Falkland's were much easier to use and would not work in Vietnam.  Australians hated fighting under British Generals and many Anzacs blamed the failure at Gallipoli in WW1 on the poor quality of the British officers they had to obey missing many possible chances to gain the advantage over the Turks.  In WW2 it was poor British leadership that lost Singapore as the British General in charge virtually did nothing to set up to push the Japanese back.  10,000 Australian soldiers were caught and made Japanese prisoners of war.  Australian troops are not stupid and have a record for being tough soldiers.

Answer 5

Yes the English were too gutless to enter. Seems you are obviously English. 😂

Answer 6

KGB, CIA, MI5/6, whatever intelligence service is to keep Jews in power and to kill those who rise up against Jews. Bishop Velimirovic said that Jews created capitalism, communism, freemasonry, strikes, internationalism, globalism, etc. to step on heads of Christians and to crush them; add Black Lives Matter to this. Only WASP neighborhoods were trashed in NYC; when BLM leader announced that they was going to trash Jewish stores, they was arrested immediately. Similarly, Jews sponsored American Civil Rights Movement in order to step on throats of Christians and to crush them eventually. All the revolutions are sponsored by Jews. 9/11 false flag was to attack Iraq; Statue of Liberty false flag is to attack Iran. Heresy leads to loss of love; (according to saint Pelageya of Ryazan) Jews will not receive the unforgivable mark of the beast, but will make sure that all non-Jews will. If you reject mark of the beast, then ur direct ancestors go to heaven (according to saint Vyacheslav Krasheninnikov). Hide within a 10-15 people group (saints Gabriel Urgebadze and Seraphim of Sarov); no documents (documents r from satin; burn 'em all); no electronics (so that u won't be tracked; even old broken  unplugged 1970 tv set will show the antichristo using Tesla's ether). oh snap!!! here's the evil flying antichristo flying thru ma neck ov de woodz; hide ur kidz, hide ur wife, antichrist iz flyin' thru town; take ur glocks out and shoot dat son of a bytch down (he's an s-0-b 'cuz his mom is a 12th generation prostitute according to saint Lavrentiy of Chernigov); forgive me.

Answer 7

Australia was only there to Hold the Americans hands



In WW2 no one came to our help the RAF did send us some Spitfires and Hurricanes But we stopped the Japanese from Invading Australia Not the US or the UK we held the hands of the British in North Africa when we left Tobruk fell to the Nazis

Answer 8

Vietnam was lost because the US lost public support due to it being a TV war. The US public didn't have the stomach to do what would have taken. It was a dirty war but then again what war wasn't. 

Answer 9

The British would never get involved in ex French territory 

Answer 10

more rubbish from a fuckwit

Answer 11

You forgot the french who were defeated by the vietnamese before the US and AU got there, so seeing you don't really know what you're talking about how is your option valid?

Answer 12

Great point.  Perfect reason to get the hell out of NATO, stop wasting hundreds of billions in foreign aid and get the hell out of Europe.  Good riddance.

Answer 13

"No d*cking about in the jungle for 20 years" if the UK had been involved?  Is this the same UK that would be speaking German today if not for the USA?



.

My uncle died in Viet Nam (by the way, it's two words).  Your comments continue to be disgusting.  I'd ask if you have any respect, but I already know the answer.

Answer 14

Area of the Falklands 12173 square kms. [with hundreds of islands] population 2840.



Area of Vietnam  331212 square kms.   population over 90 million.



Bit of a difference isn't it half wit.



Logic is not one of your strong points .

255 British killed in 74 days equals more than 3 per day.

521 Australians killed in Vietnam in 13 years  NOT 20 years as you stated. Works out to be about 40 killed a year

EPIC FAIL HALF WIT.

Answer 15

you fool, your derogatory remark about Vietnam is pathetic, you praise the British effort at the Falklands, the British lost 255 soldiers killed in 74 days against an Army that didn't want to be there, that's a disgrace not a victory, that's half the amount that we lost in Vietnam in 7 years you fool.



 WW1 you would have been defeated in 1914 if it wasn't for Indian troops who came to your aid, Australia would win a town in France, hand it over the British and they'd lose it overnight, Australia had to come back and win it back, that happened time and time again.

 WW2 the British claim to have won in El Alamein and many other battles, no, it was Australians but you called Australians British over and over because we were part of the Commonwealth, now keep you mouth shut until you know what your talking about.

 as i said before, you claim how wonderful the British are but you don't even live there, you live in a country that treats women like criminals

Maybe you should listen to Johnny Hortons song the Battle of New Orleans it describes the British down to a tee.