Here's a few more sample "links" of this "easy" war:
Try to restrain yourself to lying about my words and straw manning me. I know it's difficult since I'm clearly right and you're wrong, and you want to save face. I never said the actual Vietnam War was "easy". I said it would have been easy if the US Military had been allowed to invade and conquer North Vietnam along the coastal plain.
"On the night of 22–23 August 1968, as part of their Phase III Offensive, a company from the Viet Cong (VC) R20 Battalion and a sapper platoon infiltrated the base, killing 17 Special Forces soldiers. Thirty-two VC were killed."
A single small scale raid with only 17 kills is not a battle. The battle at issue was the Phase III Tet Offensive which was an absolutely crushing defeat for the communists. "The US claimed that the PAVN/VC lost 16,578 soldiers in August and a further 13,163 in September, while U.S. losses over the same period were over 700 dead."
An indecisive skirmish where a small unit of grossly outnumbered US troops on patrol walked into an ambush. The Americans sure did suffer heavy casualties, but ultimately the Viet Cong withdrew out of exhaustion and fear of US air/artillery reprisals. Did the US get the worse end of this skrimish? Sure. Does this invalidate my statement that the US "still won every battle under those conditions." Nope. It was too small and too indecisive. The larger battle this skirmish was a part of was also a US victory.
again, sappers killed some people in a small raid on a small firebase, not a battle, just a small sneak attack that killed a small number of people (about 10% killed) and didn't result in the loss of the base.
Just admit that you can't find any real battle where the US lost. All you've been able to do is produce a few small ambushes and sapper raids. The large scale ones, the US won easily. The actual battles, the US won. You're just bending over backwards trying to paint the US as losers when they weren't.
No, "only 17" were the absolute elite of American special forces caught in an attack by literally almost naked guys. It doesn't count all the locals who were trained, armed, and led (and clothed) by them and also died in the same attack by those almost naked guys.
Ignore the almost 100 wounded in the FB. After, again, they were attacked by only 50 literally almost naked guys.
I don't include any terrorist/sabotage style bombings (and mine explosions, and just shelling).
And btw the survivor of the Black Lions told you how the Main Force VC were the "best infantry in the world", while their attack special forces (suicide commandos) were the best of their kind in the world too, just the Americans had better and more arty, and of course the air power. Without heavy weapons on either side, the Vietnamese would win absolutely routinely in any large battle.
Yeah, the other side "claimed" wild enemy losses too. You should really know the problems with the Vietnam bodycount by now.
Just admit that you can't find any real battle where the US lost.
That's especially funny since just read about an example of the battle that the Americans lost (and could be been literally all slaughtered but by some miracle that the survivors couldn't explain it just ended before this could happen) but was presented at the time as a ("real") battle won in American propaganda.
"Spin doctors" doing the "spinning", as to quote.
actual battles
There were barely any "actual battles" between forces larger than battalions and regiments due to how this war was fought. Great most engagements for regular GIs involved being fired on by unseen snipers and stepping on mines and traps planted by peasants, and only rarely they could face "the best infantry in the world" (VC Main Force in particular, but also "the NVA are all hardcore" as the song goes) in a unit of any size.
But actually even in Ukraine, where it's a large conventional war, they fight with battalions on both sides. They don't go whole brigades, not to mention divisions, wholesale in contact. Even in Mariupol it was only elements.
Try to restrain yourself to lying about my words and straw manning me. I know it's difficult since I'm clearly right and you're wrong, and you want to save face. I never said the actual Vietnam War was "easy". I said it would have been easy if the US Military had been allowed to invade and conquer North Vietnam along the coastal plain.
"On the night of 22–23 August 1968, as part of their Phase III Offensive, a company from the Viet Cong (VC) R20 Battalion and a sapper platoon infiltrated the base, killing 17 Special Forces soldiers. Thirty-two VC were killed."
A single small scale raid with only 17 kills is not a battle. The battle at issue was the Phase III Tet Offensive which was an absolutely crushing defeat for the communists. "The US claimed that the PAVN/VC lost 16,578 soldiers in August and a further 13,163 in September, while U.S. losses over the same period were over 700 dead."
An indecisive skirmish where a small unit of grossly outnumbered US troops on patrol walked into an ambush. The Americans sure did suffer heavy casualties, but ultimately the Viet Cong withdrew out of exhaustion and fear of US air/artillery reprisals. Did the US get the worse end of this skrimish? Sure. Does this invalidate my statement that the US "still won every battle under those conditions." Nope. It was too small and too indecisive. The larger battle this skirmish was a part of was also a US victory.
again, sappers killed some people in a small raid on a small firebase, not a battle, just a small sneak attack that killed a small number of people (about 10% killed) and didn't result in the loss of the base.
Just admit that you can't find any real battle where the US lost. All you've been able to do is produce a few small ambushes and sapper raids. The large scale ones, the US won easily. The actual battles, the US won. You're just bending over backwards trying to paint the US as losers when they weren't.
I find it hilarious especially since, by your standards, the US lost a "battle" in Afghanistan when 13 us troops died to a suicide bomber in Afghanistan in August 2021.
No, "only 17" were the absolute elite of American special forces caught in an attack by literally almost naked guys. It doesn't count all the locals who were trained, armed, and led (and clothed) by them and also died in the same attack by those almost naked guys.
Ignore the almost 100 wounded in the FB. After, again, they were attacked by only 50 literally almost naked guys.
I don't include any terrorist/sabotage style bombings (and mine explosions, and just shelling).
And btw the survivor of the Black Lions told you how the Main Force VC were the "best infantry in the world", while their attack special forces (suicide commandos) were the best of their kind in the world too, just the Americans had better and more arty, and of course the air power. Without heavy weapons on either side, the Vietnamese would win absolutely routinely in any large battle.
Also,
Yeah, the other side "claimed" wild enemy losses too. You should really know the problems with the Vietnam bodycount by now.
That's especially funny since just read about an example of the battle that the Americans lost (and could be been literally all slaughtered but by some miracle that the survivors couldn't explain it just ended before this could happen) but was presented at the time as a ("real") battle won in American propaganda.
"Spin doctors" doing the "spinning", as to quote.
There were barely any "actual battles" between forces larger than battalions and regiments due to how this war was fought. Great most engagements for regular GIs involved being fired on by unseen snipers and stepping on mines and traps planted by peasants, and only rarely they could face "the best infantry in the world" (VC Main Force in particular, but also "the NVA are all hardcore" as the song goes) in a unit of any size.
But actually even in Ukraine, where it's a large conventional war, they fight with battalions on both sides. They don't go whole brigades, not to mention divisions, wholesale in contact. Even in Mariupol it was only elements.