And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is still just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded" (like at LZ Albany 1965, "won" so much it's officially acknowledged as lost: https://www.army.mil/article/213669/the_tragedy_of_lz_albany_teaching_the_lessons_of_a_battle_lost).
Had the US military been allowed to invade and conquer North Vietnam, it would have done so easily. The vast majority of the North's population was settled on a flat coastal plain that US tanks could have rolled through, all the way to Hanoi. The US could have captured all this area easily. "But muh guerilla warfare", could be totally ignored, because there was no need to go "in the jungle" once the population centers were all taken. The NVA would have its back broken and the communists hiding in the jungle could simply be cut off from supplies from China, and bombed until they starved. Easy.
You must be possessed by a vengeful ghost of a French Union officer.
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is still just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded" (like at LZ Albany 1965, "won" so much it's officially acknowledged as lost: https://www.army.mil/article/213669/the_tragedy_of_lz_albany_teaching_the_lessons_of_a_battle_lost).
Had the US military been allowed to invade and conquer North Vietnam, it would have done so easily. The vast majority of the North's population was settled on a flat coastal plain that US tanks could have rolled through, all the way to Hanoi. The US could have captured all this area easily. "But muh guerilla warfare", could be totally ignored, because there was no need to go "in the jungle" once the population centers were all taken. The NVA would have its back broken and the communists hiding in the jungle could simply be cut off from supplies from China, and bombed until they starved. Easy.
You must be possessed by a vengeful ghost of a French Union general.
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is still just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded" (like at LZ Albany 1965, "won" so much it's officially acknowledged as lost: https://www.army.mil/article/213669/the_tragedy_of_lz_albany_teaching_the_lessons_of_a_battle_lost).
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded" (like at LZ Albany 1965, "won" so much it's officially acknowledged as lost: https://www.army.mil/article/213669/the_tragedy_of_lz_albany_teaching_the_lessons_of_a_battle_lost).
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded" (like at LZ Albany 1965, "won" so much it's acknowledged as lost: https://www.army.mil/article/213669/the_tragedy_of_lz_albany_teaching_the_lessons_of_a_battle_lost).
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded" (like at LZ Albany 1965, "won" so much it's acknowledged as lost and even the worst single day in casualty numbers: https://www.army.mil/article/213669/the_tragedy_of_lz_albany_teaching_the_lessons_of_a_battle_lost).
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded (like at LZ Albany 1965, "won" so much it's acknowledged as lost and even the worst single day in casualty numbers: https://www.army.mil/article/213669/the_tragedy_of_lz_albany_teaching_the_lessons_of_a_battle_lost)".
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded (like at LZ Albany 1965: https://www.army.mil/article/213669/the_tragedy_of_lz_albany_teaching_the_lessons_of_a_battle_lost)".
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded (like at LZ Albany 1965)".
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded (like at LZ Albany 1965, America's first 'major battle': https://lzxray.com/lz-albany)".
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded (like at LZ Albany 1965, America's first "major battle": https://lzxray.com/lz-albany)".
And they still won every battle under those conditions.
I've heard people repeating this and this is just so false.
Maybe if you redefine "battle" as "large scale unit engagement that was primarily American and not primarily South Vietnamese or other allied, and also we count just our estimated bodycount even if our entire battalion was ambushed and almost all of our guys were killed and wounded before the enemy regiment withdrew after systematically shooting a lot of our wounded (like at LZ Albany 1965)".