Military Review

Why did Americans lose the Vietnam War

177

American helicopters cover the offensive of the troops of South Vietnam. Spring 1965


55 years ago, the United States began regular hostilities against North Vietnam and Vietnamese guerrillas. As a result, the Americans lost the war, although they did not lose a single important battle.

To save face, Washington was forced to begin peace talks with North Vietnam and withdraw from the war on "honorable" terms. On January 27, 1973, the Paris Peace Agreement was signed, according to which the American army left Vietnam (all ground forces had already been withdrawn by this time). At the end of March, the Americans withdrew the last of their forces from South Vietnam. Having lost the military support of the United States, South Vietnam quickly fell. On April 30, 1975, the communists took Saigon.

Pirates vs. Warriors


Despite the complete superiority of the American superpower over North Vietnam and the resistance forces in South Vietnam, where there was a pro-American puppet regime, the United States lost the war. The Americans had absolute superiority in military technology, weapons, in the air, at sea and on land. Qualitative and quantitative advantage, considering the army of South Vietnam (over a million people). In 1969, the Americans had over 500 people in Vietnam. But the Americans were beaten and fled shamefully.

Obviously, the patterns of historical development and the differences between the United States and Vietnam affected.
Vietnam, despite its large coastline, is a continental country as a whole, with appropriate military traditions. The Vieta fought for centuries with their neighbors, with China, with the French colonialists and with the Japanese invaders. For them, a head-on collision, with heavy losses, is the norm.

USA, as a former colony of England, a typical maritime republic. The Anglo-Saxons prefer raiding, raiding operations. A sudden raid, robbery and flight, until the enemy wakes up. Typical pirates and marauders. England and the USA are the founders of "contactless" wars. When the enemy can be suppressed by "gunboat diplomacy", powerful fleets... After the establishment of the military aviation Air squadrons were used in this strategy.

Americans have never been good warriors. They are descendants of pirates, robbers, bandits, slave traders, scalp hunters. During the American Revolutionary War (American Revolution), even the weak British army defeated American rebels everywhere. The Americans were saved from defeat only by the intervention of France. The French won freedom for America.

Also in 1780, the Russian government adopted the "Declaration of Armed Neutrality", supported by most European countries (ships of neutral countries had the right of armed defense when the fleet of a belligerent country attacked them), and thereby violated the naval blockade. Britain had to retreat. Further, all the wars of the States in America were with weak opponents, like the Indians. They were of an irregular nature.

In the First World War, Washington prudently did not intervene at first; it became rich in supplies and loans. When the American divisions landed in Europe, they showed low combat effectiveness. At the same time, the combat potential of the Second Reich was already exhausted.

In the Second World War, the situation was about the same. The Americans and the British fought on secondary and auxiliary fronts and directions. Mostly they tried to crush the enemy with their naval and air fleets. When the Americans landed in the Old World, the Germans (already at the end of their strength) attacked them well. In principle, as the analysis of military operations shows, the Nazis even in 1944 - early 1945, when they were already bled and exhausted by the Russians, could well crush the Anglo-Saxons if there was a truce in the East. But Hitler to the last threw the main and best forces against the Russians, hoping to "negotiate" with the West.

Jungle war


As a result, Americans have never been good warriors. Their military strategy: surprise, treacherous attack, complete superiority over the enemy, "contactless" sea and air war. When the enemy can simply be shot, burned and bombed with impunity. To impose your ideology, a way of life with "freedom" and "human rights". Wait for the broken enemy to crawl on his knees and agree to the "victory of democracy."

In Vietnam, the Americans faced another war. Their soldiers and officers were well-fed and well-groomed, they came for a walk, to have fun. Sports, wine and Asian women. The Americans were not psychologically ready to fight to the death. Only a small percentage of the US military, with WWII experience in the Pacific Ocean (Marine Corps officers), were ready for a hell of a disco in the jungle. But they were few.

In contrast, the soldiers and officers of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) had experience in jungle fighting. They fought for the liberation of their homeland since the 1930s-1940s. The combat experience was enormous. Plus the readiness for self-sacrifice, for death in the name of the people. Good local knowledge. The Vietnamese command did not try to fight directly. They relied on partisan, sabotage methods. Excellent disguise, ambushes, traps. The Americans lost the underground war. From the superiority of the enemy in the air and in heavy weapons, the Vietnamese went underground. They created a whole system of underground tunnels, communications and shelters. Headquarters, barracks, hospitals and warehouses were built underground.

Therefore, despite the overwhelming superiority in forces and weapons, they failed to bring the Vietnamese guerrillas to their knees. Even carpet bombing and millions of tons of bombs dropped on Vietnam did not help them. As well as the use of chemical weapons - the use by the Americans of the so-called "Agent Orange" - a mixture of herbicides and defoliants, millions of liters of which were poured from helicopters over the Vietnamese jungle during the war. Millions of Vietnamese have been victims of poisons. Over $ 1 trillion in current prices was spent on the war. At the same time, the losses of the Americans and their allies were constantly growing. During the war years, the United States lost over 360 thousand people (including over 58 thousand dead).

Seeing that the enemy is not surrendering, and the colossal advantage in forces does not help, the Americans began to deteriorate. Desertion has become a mass phenomenon. American society is split.

Pacifists, hippies, youth, opponents of the war demanded the withdrawal of troops and an end to the conflict.

A significant part of the American public and the European intelligentsia (who still remembered the horrors of World War II) demanded peace. The famous British musician John Lennon, who opposed the war, wrote the song "Give the World a Chance." The most famous American boxer, Cassius Clay, converted to Islam at the peak of his career and took the name Mohammed Ali in order not to serve in the army. For this act, he was deprived of all titles and the right to participate in competitions for more than three years. Thousands of Americans have refused to serve in the US military.

After the signing of the armistice, US President D. Ford was forced to declare amnesty to all draft evaders and deserters. More than 27 thousand people have surrendered. In 1977, the next US President, D. Carter, pardoned those who fled the country to avoid being drafted into the army.

Other signs of the disintegration of the American army were: a wave of suicides (including veterans - the "Vietnam syndrome"), rampant alcoholism and drug addiction. Tens of thousands of soldiers who fought in Vietnam became drug addicts.

People's war


The Americans in Vietnam ran into a people's war.

Viet Cong is a Vietnam War veteran who fights on the side of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, also known as the Viet Cong. Former Vietcong activist Bei Cao told American historian and Indochina war veteran David Hackworth:

“We knew that your stocks of bombs and missiles would be depleted before the morale of our fighters.”

The Vietnamese fighter also reported:

“Yes, we were weaker in material terms, but our fighting spirit and will were stronger than yours. Our war was just, but yours was not. Your foot soldiers knew this, as did the American people. "

Most of the people supported the struggle against first the French and then the American occupiers. People provided the partisans with food, information and joined their ranks. They gave fighters and labor. The communist movement was united with the national liberation movement.

Only total genocide can be opposed to such a war. Like the Nazis on the territory of the USSR-Russia. The Americans tried - carpet bombing, poisoning with chemicals, concentration camps, massive repression and terror. But historical the moment was different. Information about war crimes was leaked to the world media. Even a part of American society has come out against the anti-human methods of the United States. In addition, there was the Soviet Union, communist China, and other socialist countries. That is, the "world community" could not close its eyes to the total suppression and destruction of a significant part of the Vietnamese people.

Also Vietnam was not left alone. China and the Soviet Union (Russia) provided assistance. China provided manpower and material assistance. The Chinese helped to organize an air defense system, provided technical support in the construction of transport infrastructure. They avoided direct clashes with the Americans. Also, the PRC provided great military-material assistance. The main military cargoes from the USSR came to North Vietnam through the territory of the Celestial Empire. However, when Mao Zedong saw that the Vietnamese leadership gravitated more towards Moscow than towards Beijing, the volume of supplies decreased.

The most large-scale military and technical assistance to the people of Vietnam was provided by the Soviet Union - Russia. Air defense systems, airplanes, Tanks, weapon. Our anti-aircraft gunners defended the sky of the DRV. Thousands of Soviet officers, sergeants and soldiers took part in the hostilities on the side of the Vietnamese. Thousands of Vietnamese soldiers have been trained in Soviet military schools and academies. Since that time, Vietnam and the USSR-Russia have become fraternal countries. For many decades, the Vietnamese had great respect for the Russians.
Author:
Photos used:
https://www.kommersant.ru/
177 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Asad
    Asad 13 November 2020 05: 38
    +4
    I agree with the author, only ,, desertion ,,? Where could an American desert in Vietnam?
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 13 November 2020 06: 32
      21
      Who is where. Bill Clinton, for example, to England, to study at the university. Many, having received a summons, dumped to Canada, someone to Mexico, since there is no border control with Canada at all, and with Mexico, control is only for Latinos, whites are allowed in any direction freely. And George W. Bush enrolled in the National Guard of the Air Force, flew an interceptor fighter over America. McCain would have deserted better, there would have been less problems, but he was just eager to go to war.
      1. Asad
        Asad 13 November 2020 06: 48
        +4
        I meant to desert from the territory of Vietnam, that they fled to Canada in the course, but they did not take the oath!
        1. Reviews
          Reviews 13 November 2020 09: 30
          +3
          Quote: ASAD
          I meant to desert from the territory of Vietnam, that they fled to Canada in the course, but they did not take the oath!

          I personally have not seen direct evidence (I read little about Vietnam), but in one of his memoirs a military helicopter pilot says that when he was on leave, he was not sold an air ticket outside Vietnam - "apparently, he does not look like a civilian." So, probably, the command had such a problem ...
          1. Catfish
            Catfish 13 November 2020 16: 16
            +1
            The case is not "Chicken and Hawk"? Pilot "Hui".
            1. Reviews
              Reviews 13 November 2020 16: 36
              +2
              Quote: Sea Cat
              The case is not "Chicken and Hawk"? Pilot "Hui".

              Is he.
              1. Whiteidol
                Whiteidol 13 November 2020 21: 55
                +2
                There is a good book by Philip B. Davidson, Lieutenant General of the US Army, The Vietnam War. Drug addiction, cutting off ears, disobeying orders ... Yes, everything was.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 00: 34
                  +3
                  Quote: Whiteidol
                  Yes, everything was

                  War doesn't make anyone better.
                2. Reviews
                  Reviews 14 November 2020 06: 01
                  0
                  Quote: Whiteidol
                  There is a good book by Philip B. Davidson, Lieutenant General of the US Army, The Vietnam War. Drug addiction, cutting off ears, disobeying orders ... Yes, everything was.

                  Thanks, I'll look. Mason has only in passing about this.
        2. Sasha_rulevoy
          Sasha_rulevoy 15 November 2020 09: 30
          +1
          Quote: ASAD
          defect from Vietnam


          There was a fairy tale about "phantom blooper" (ghost-grenade launcher) among the soldiers. Allegedly, an American soldier who voluntarily went over to the side of the Vietcong, and, as if unprecedentedly aptly killed his former colleagues from a grenade launcher. After the war, it was precisely established that this is an empty invention. But on the contrary, the process was. General Ewell, the commander of the 9th Infantry Division, in the book "Sharpening the combat edge" writes that each platoon was given two or three scout trackers from Southeast Asia, who had previously fought in the Viet Cong. Moreover, they tried to select those who fought in the same places where the operation took place. They knew the area well, taught American soldiers to avoid mines and traps, etc.
        3. zenion
          zenion 15 November 2020 17: 37
          0
          ASAD (Nikolay) This nonsense! It was a stab in the back of Hitler's Jews from Germany. The Americans did not lose the war, they simply did not win, did not want to. Like a fox who wanted to bite off a ram's eggs. When the fox regained consciousness after the blow, she said - they didn’t come off and don’t, I didn’t really want to. But the left is to blame, which was later discovered. When Russia became the lend-lease of the United States, they would have won a little more in Syria, but Assad did not want to.
      2. Proxima
        Proxima 13 November 2020 09: 30
        +6
        Ask any Vietnamese veteran what annoyed them the most in that war. All at once will answer without hesitation - deck aviation! If you look at the map of Vietnam, you can safely say that this country seems to be specially created for the actions of carrier-based aircraft. What the Americans lacked to win this war is not clear! Everything was on their side, except the truth! The Vietnamese fought for a just cause, for their homeland. And we must give them their due - courageously and professionally! I've been to Vietnam. They pray to the Russians there, they are very grateful that we helped them to withstand that war. Amazing people - great warriors! hi
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 13 November 2020 10: 02
          12
          Quote: Proxima
          Ask any Vietnamese veteran what annoyed them the most in that war. All at once will answer without hesitation - deck aviation! If you look at the map of Vietnam, you can safely say that this country seems to be specially created for the actions of carrier-based aircraft. What the Americans lacked to win this war is not clear! Everything was on their side, except the truth! The Vietnamese fought for a just cause, for their homeland. And we must give them their due - courageously and professionally! I've been to Vietnam. They pray to the Russians there, they are very grateful that we helped them to withstand that war. Amazing people - great warriors! hi

          On the part of the Americans, half measures were taken - it was possible to win only by taking Hanoi and occupying North Vietnam. They did not do this, fearing a repetition of the Korean Scenario - the entry into the war of the PRC, already nuclear, in contrast to the 50s. As a result, having improved relations with the Chinese only in 69, it was no longer possible to attack Ho Chi Minh City with legs - the war became extremely unpopular in the States.
          1. Sasha_rulevoy
            Sasha_rulevoy 15 November 2020 10: 07
            +3
            Quote: Krasnodar
            it was possible to win only by taking Hanoi and occupying North Vietnam


            The Americans acted even easier: they mined the port of Haiphong, i.e. did what the fleet exists for: a close blockade of the coast (even earlier, the Chinese blocked the supply channel, and in Cambodia the Americans succeeded in a coup in their favor). And the war ended immediately ... with an American victory. The SV recognized the independence of the SE, signed treaties of peace and friendship, agreed to withdraw its troops. Only immediately after the withdrawal of American troops and the clearance of the harbor did the SV bring the "partisans" back. And then, when this did not help him, he simply spat on everything and crossed the border with regular troops with tanks and aircraft. Churchill had already warned that a treaty with the communists is cheaper than the paper on which it was written, but the Americans certainly did not expect such an unprecedented deception. What could the poor Yankees do? Bring back the troops and start over? But then I would have to explain to the people that they were carried out, bought for the cheapest and most primitive trick. It was impossible to admit it out loud. Therefore, it was urgently drawn to the population that "society was tired of the war," "the army was demoralized," "a war with the people without a chance of success," and the main thing was that the dictatorship was the same in terms of inhumanity on both sides, it meant fighting on the side of one of them. makes sense. In general, the totality of all of the above is considered to this day in modern American historiography to be the cause of the defeat in Vietnam.
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 15 November 2020 10: 56
              +1
              Yes, I agree
            2. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 15 November 2020 11: 19
              +2
              Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
              Americans certainly did not expect such an unprecedented deception in arrogance

              )))
              You shouldn't underestimate Nixon. This one understood something in the papers.

              He needed to dump those losses left over from Johnson off the balance sheet, and he dumped them. One devil in the 76th he was not elected. And what the South Vietnamese surrendered - so the devil is with them. Americans in this sense are not sentimental, and no one, frankly speaking, is sentimental.
        2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 10: 43
          +2
          Quote: Proxima
          The Vietnamese fought for a just cause, for their homeland.

          The Vietnamese, damn it, fought with each other, each for his own model of the homeland. This was a civil war, not an external expansion. No need to twist, otherwise you will listen, because the States attacked poor little Vietnam, and the brave Vietnamese, all as one, began to defend .... etc., etc.
          It all started very nicely, with anti-Japanese resistance, even the FDR in 1941 called Ho Chi Minh a "patriot" and "ally" (perhaps not a "brother"), and the Viet Minh - "freedom fighters."
          Quote: Proxima
          I've been to Vietnam. Russians pray there

          when was that? I have not met something praying for Russian Vietnamese in their habitat.
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 13 November 2020 11: 10
            +6
            It began with the fact that the Vietnamese decided to get rid of French colonialism, so that it was a war for freedom. Regarding the civil war: it would have been (or rather it would not have been for a long time) if at first there were no French troops in Vietnam, and then the US troops were not introduced, so that this civil war definitely did not take place, from the moment the US army entered.
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 11: 17
              -17 qualifying.
              Quote: Victor Sergeev
              so that this war was definitely not civil,

              clearly, I have no more questions. To debate with this formulation of the question - "it was the American-Vietnamese war!" - useless.
          2. Proxima
            Proxima 13 November 2020 11: 39
            14
            Vietnam Civil War ?! The fact that there was an extremely unpopular puppet government of South Vietnam does not give reason to call it a Civil War. What kind of Civil War is this if it ends almost simultaneously with the departure of the direct aggressor?
            1. Reviews
              Reviews 13 November 2020 12: 29
              0
              Quote: Proxima
              Vietnam Civil War ?! The fact that there was an extremely unpopular puppet government of South Vietnam does not give reason to call it a Civil War. What kind of Civil War is this if it ends almost simultaneously with the departure of the direct aggressor?

              But it went on long before the entry of the US armed forces. So, there was a hybrid war there: a civil war (although, formally, two different states were at war), with an overlapping intervention later. With a stretch, as in Russia / RSFSR after the revolution.
            2. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 13 November 2020 12: 29
              -4
              So unpopular that for more than a year she fought against the communists without US support
              1. Proxima
                Proxima 13 November 2020 13: 10
                +7
                Quote: BlackMokona
                So unpopular that for more than a year she fought against the communists without US support

                Without US support ?! The fact that the Americans withdrew part of the contingent and stopped direct clashes with North Vietnam does not mean that they did not support their puppets. And who then, in a hurry, loaded onto ships, throwing military property, base equipment and all infrastructure? Are they not Americans?
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 13 November 2020 15: 13
                  -5
                  Diplomats and Vietnamese.
                  The total results of the evacuation of 1737 American citizens, and 138 thousand Vietnamese, plus citizens of other countries in some numbers.
                  By the end of April 1975, the United States had not been directly involved in the Vietnam War for two years. The North Vietnamese Spring Offensive, which began in March, was a success, and it was clear that South Vietnam was only a few days away. In connection with the approach of the North Vietnamese divisions to Saigon in the middle of the day on April 29, a pre-planned operation began to evacuate the American citizens remaining in the country (mainly diplomatic personnel). The operation was carried out by the Marine Corps, using CH-46 and CH-53 helicopters to transport evacuees to the ships of the US 7th Fleet off the coast of South Vietnam. In addition to American citizens, Vietnamese refugees were also evacuated, wishing to leave the country in fear of the coming of the communists to power. It soon became clear, however, that it was not possible to evacuate all the refugees in Saigon - there was simply no room on the ships for so many people.

                  The operation ended on the morning of April 30, a few hours before Saigon came under the control of the North Vietnamese army. [1] The Air Bridge did not meet any opposition from the North Vietnamese. For non-combat reasons, one helicopter was lost (two crew members died). A total of 7 US citizens and 1737 citizens of other countries (mostly Vietnamese) were evacuated to the ships of the 5595th Fleet. In total, during April, the Americans took out about 50 thousand people in various ways, and in general, at the end of the war and immediately after it, the United States accepted 138 thousand Vietnamese refugees. [2]
            3. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 13 November 2020 21: 26
              -1
              The United States left, but the regular troops of North Vietnam with colossal support from the USSR and China did not leave. Stay South Vietnam with the Viet Cong face to face - hell knows how it would turn out, many in South Vietnam could not stand the communists. And today the United States is actively restoring its positions, now in communist Vietnam - both through investments in the Vietnamese economy and as an ally against China.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 00: 35
                +4
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                are regaining their positions, now in communist Vietnam

                Hmm. Communist?
          3. Petrik66
            Petrik66 13 November 2020 12: 34
            12
            Here's a look at the profiterole (Paragraph Epitafievich) - after registering on this site in 48 days, this person writes EVERY day with 25,6 posts. This is performance.
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 12: 40
              -20 qualifying.
              What did you want to say with your sob? Well, come on, look at me. Have you looked?
              Is free!
              1. Andrey VOV
                Andrey VOV 13 November 2020 23: 14
                +7
                and it is not necessary to be rude .. without a year a week on the site and rudeness and rushing .... not in the bazaar dear .. not in the bazaar ..
                1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 23: 27
                  -13 qualifying.
                  ... so and rushing ...

                  And it is not necessary to provoke a blunt transition to personalities - it will not shove. Comprene wu? Or are there any special buns for the 'old-timers' of the site?
                  1. Andrey VOV
                    Andrey VOV 14 November 2020 09: 43
                    +1
                    It's not about buns, but elementary respect, I don't like it if in the same city, meet and find out .. well, the site is full of frostbitten ones .. you get tired of them, really
              2. Odessa Greek
                Odessa Greek 13 November 2020 23: 23
                +8
                God, what a cute aggression good Why throw yourself at people like that? If you are here at work, work calmly, if at the call of your heart, all the more relax, otherwise you do not take care of yourself at all, and such activists are badly needed here wassat
                1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 23: 46
                  -11 qualifying.
                  I see you are crawling after me from branch to branch, my dear? laughing
                  1. Odessa Greek
                    Odessa Greek 14 November 2020 16: 54
                    +3
                    There is no need to crawl after you, just go to any commentary thread, and you will immediately smell it, and then you will see your "amiable" opuses good
              3. Mikhail Tynda
                Mikhail Tynda 14 November 2020 02: 16
                +2
                How rough. And no matter how smart it is, to shit where you work ... fool
          4. gsev
            gsev 13 November 2020 12: 54
            -7
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            It all started very nicely, with anti-Japanese resistance, even the FDR in 1941 called Ho Chi Minh a "patriot" and "ally" (perhaps not a "brother"), and the Viet Minh - "freedom fighters."

            According to Barbara Takman and her book "Ode to Political Stupidity" Ho Chi Minh spent the entire war with the Americans in correspondence with the CIA officers who were in his troops in 1941-1945 and convinced them to convince the US leadership that the Vietnamese treat the United States just as well than to the USSR, and the US started the war against the communists by mistake.
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 13: 04
              -18 qualifying.
              I would not be surprised if this was actually the case. The Viet Minh and the United States had a common enemy.
          5. Kwas
            Kwas 14 November 2020 11: 49
            +4
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            The Vietnamese, damn it, fought with each other, each for his own model of the homeland.

            South Vietnamese troops fought for the loot that the Americans gave them. And they fought badly, deserting en masse and going over to the side of the enemy. In support of your words, try to give at least one example of the guerrilla actions of the South Vietnamese against the North Vietnamese.
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            It all started very nicely, with anti-Japanese resistance, even the FDR in 1941 called Ho Chi Minh a "patriot" and "ally" (perhaps not a "brother"), and the Viet Minh - "freedom fighters."

            Yes, it started very nicely for the Americans, not only did the Vietnamese fight the Japanese, they also wanted independence from the French, which is also good (there will be a "free country" that can be "economically used"), and only when they realized that Vietnamese patriots still and the communists ... it was then that they became "byaks"!
          6. gsev
            gsev 15 November 2020 09: 20
            0
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            The Vietnamese, damn it, fought with each other, each for his own model of the homeland.

            One model is presented by Prince Bao Dai, for the sake of extending his sinecure he is ready to leave Vietnam in a colonial state. On the other hand, young ascetic leaders offer a reasonable way to tame the appetites of these nouveau riches and divide the land among those who cultivate it. To overthrow the first model, a dozen partisans in 1945 and a month of fighting in 1975 were enough; neither France nor the United States had enough power to preserve it. Even Ngo Dinh Diem, on his own fate, realized that an attempt to turn the country into a strong viable state forces him to enter an uncompromising war with the United States or to accept death.
      3. Alf
        Alf 13 November 2020 22: 49
        +1
        Quote: Nagan
        McCain would have deserted better, there would have been fewer problems

        So you should try to ditch your aircraft carrier. And in captivity, he "sang" so much that he asked the Viekong people to keep him separate from other prisoners, and after the end of the war he returned to the United States quietly, separately from other captive Americans. He was very strongly suspected of a big "drain", but this "100 percent American" somehow managed to excuse himself.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 00: 36
          +4
          The fact that McCain had nothing to do with it was written on this resource 50 times already.
  2. Cartalon
    Cartalon 13 November 2020 06: 22
    +6
    To the soldiers of the Potomac Army, that before the attack at Cold Harbor, they sewed each other's names on their greatcoats, and then went to Johnny's bullets, tell them they are bad wars.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 13 November 2020 06: 51
      +1
      Or Task Force Taffy 3, which went against the main battleship forces of the Japanese fleet, including the Yamato, on escort aircraft carriers and destroyers, covering the transports with the landing.
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 13 November 2020 08: 02
        +3
        Yeah, the battleships were gouged with aircraft carriers and they didn't even have time to fart, that is, the war as the author described it. Nobody says that the Americans were really useless, for example, the pilots were not bad, but they defeated the Japanese due to the backwardness of the latter. The Japanese had inferior aircraft, practically no tanks, bad strategy and tactics. The Japanese started well, and then the better economy won.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 13 November 2020 08: 43
          +7
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          Yeah, battleships were gouged by aircraft carriers and they didn't even have time to fart

          The aircraft carriers were escort, carrying a maximum of 27 aircraft. These aircraft carriers did not carry dive bombers at all. For show, they carried several "TBF Avengers" - torpedo bombers, and so mostly fighters, moreover, mostly by that time, outdated "F4F Wildcat", armed with machine guns, without cannons, capable of carrying a pair of ridiculous 100-pound (even less than 50 kg ) bombs - what would that make a battleship even a direct hit? And these fighters over and over again went out to attack battleships, approach with bombs, then a couple of approaches while there were cartridges in machine guns, then land for reloading and refueling - and again into battle. Oh yes, the aircraft carriers also carried powerful artillery weapons - 1 (in words: one) 5-inch cannon in the stern. One of these cannons nevertheless contrived to disable the Japanese heavy cruiser Chokai by hitting a torpedo tube, where 8 torpedoes detonated.
          The escort destroyers, or rather, the undestructors, carried 2 (two) 5-inch and 3 (three) torpedoes. They were not intended for squadron combat, their task was to cover the convoys from submarines. But the situation forced, because otherwise the battleships would have shot transports with thousands of infantrymen.
          More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar
          There is no Russian version of this page, from the word at all. It is briefly mentioned here:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сражение_в_заливе_Лейте#Сражение_у_острова_Самар_(25_октября)
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 13 November 2020 10: 44
            +8
            Quote: Nagan
            These aircraft carriers did not carry dive bombers at all. For show they carried several "TBF Avenger" - torpedo bombers

            Not for show. The Avengers were bombers and PLO aircraft (but they were rarely used with torpedoes due to the constant failures of the Mark 13 - the torpedo was brought to mind only by 1945). And there were quite a few of them:
            TG 77.4.3 - 6 escort aircraft carriers (97 fighters, 72 torpedo bomber

            But with the anti-ship BC on AVE, everything was really sad:
            The approximate ammunition load of the escort aircraft carrier's air group is described in the report of Gambier Bay Captain Walter Viewig (TG 77.4.3). There were no armor-piercing bombs on the ship at all; in addition to the stock of general purpose bombs, 24 semi armor piercing bombs and 9 air torpedoes could be used to combat surface targets.

            Quote: Nagan
            The escort destroyers, or rather, the undestructors, carried 2 (two) 5-inch and 3 (three) torpedoes. They were not intended for squadron combat, their task was to cover the convoys from submarines.

            Taffy Sprague had normal EMs as well. In total, the escort had three EMs ("Hoel", "Heerman", "Johnston") and four EMEs ("Dennis", "John C. Butler", "Raymond", "Samuel B. Roberts"). And this magnificent seven has done everything possible to protect their AVEs.
            The flagship destroyer Hoel received 40 hits and sank at 8:55 (253 dead). The destroyer escort "Samuel B. Roberts" received 20 hits, was abandoned by the crew at 9:10 and sank at 10:05 (89 dead). The destroyer "Johnston" received an unspecified number of hits, lost speed, was abandoned by the crew at 9:45 and sank at 10:10 (184 dead).

            Quote: Nagan
            Or Task Force Taffy 3, which went against the main battleship forces of the Japanese fleet, including the Yamato, on escort aircraft carriers and destroyers, covering the transports with the landing.

            In fact, the main battleship forces of the Japanese fleet simply fell out on the TG 77.4.3, and the 19-knot AVE had no choice but to fight. The funniest thing is that as a result of the AVEs, they left the enemy - Kurita got so carried away by evading air strikes and ship torpedoes that he lost contact with the enemy. And this - with a XNUMX-fold superiority in the course. smile
          2. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 13 November 2020 11: 26
            -3
            I understand that Yamato committed suicide by opening the Kingston? Or maybe most of the Japanese battleships were sunk by funny airplanes, not dive bombers with toy bombs? And these funny airplanes flew in droves of 200. Why dive bombers to bomb a battleship, there are enough torpedo bombers with simple bombers. By the way, have you heard about the Dontless and what did they do with the Japanese aircraft carriers?
            So they fought: Japanese aircraft carriers were knocked out by superior forces of American aviation, and battleships could not come within range of fire due to US aviation. An aircraft carrier is strong when it is part of a squadron, and does not float alone, it does not need artillery or torpedo tubes.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 13 November 2020 13: 08
              +4
              Quote: Victor Sergeev
              Why dive bombers to bomb a battleship? There are enough torpedo bombers with simple bombers.

              With torpedo bombers, the United States had a small problem in WWII. The name of which is the Mark 13 torpedo. The only US air torpedo. For 1941 - 90% of failures when dumping. In 1943 - 70% of failures when dropping. Big torpedo scandal # 2 in all its glory. smile
              They brought the torpedo only to 1945. And before that, the Avengers were used with bombs and even tried to dive at them. For horizontal bombers are characterized by extremely low accuracy when dropped from heights of more than 200 m.
              1. Reviews
                Reviews 13 November 2020 14: 30
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                horizontal bombers are characterized by extremely low accuracy when dropped from heights of more than 200 m.

                Why didn't you practice topmast bombing?
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 13 November 2020 14: 42
                  +2
                  Quote: Avis
                  Why didn't you practice topmast bombing?

                  We did it, but mostly the army team. They even had B-17s in masthead attacks (Captain McCullar's crew sank the Hayashio EM in this way). But basically the mastheads were machines with powerful course batteries of 8-12 barrels - to crush the air defense.
              2. Viktor Sergeev
                Viktor Sergeev 13 November 2020 22: 32
                -5
                When there is a wave of 200 bombers, the accuracy will be. A dive bomber entering a battleship is a suicide, if there are certainly not a hundred of them, this is probably why Japanese aircraft carriers, sinking from 1-2 bombs, became more often the victims of US dive bombers.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 16 November 2020 11: 57
                  0
                  Quote: Victor Sergeev
                  When there is a wave of 200 bombers, the accuracy will be.

                  "5% of bombs within the plant boundaries"- from the experience of daytime raids on industrial facilities in Germany.
                  Quote: Victor Sergeev
                  Dive bomber entering the battleship suicide,

                  Looking at whose. The main problem of the Japanese cannon air defense is the lack of "heavy" MZA. As a result, a dive bomber could drop a bomb before entering the effective fire zone of 25 mm machine guns.
                  The Yankees had the same problem until 1943 (when 40-mm machine guns were massively sent to the fleet): the 1942-mm MZA available in 20 could fire at Japanese dive bombers only after they dropped their bombs.
                  And yes, the receiver air defense AV is stronger than the air defense LK. smile
                  Quote: Victor Sergeev
                  A dive bomber entering a battleship is a suicide, if there are certainly not a hundred of them, this is probably why Japanese aircraft carriers, sinking from 1-2 bombs, became more often the victims of US dive bombers.

                  Everything is simpler: the main and primary target of aircraft carrier aviation is the enemy aircraft carriers. Accordingly, the main blow is concentrated on them.
                  1. Viktor Sergeev
                    Viktor Sergeev 16 November 2020 13: 05
                    0
                    Well, I don’t know, Yamato filled up his (Japanese) 4 planes with shrapnel, by mistake, with a bang. As the experience of using Pe2 has shown, when dropping bombs in a dive from an altitude of more than 1000 meters, the accuracy increased 1,5 times, compared with horizontal bombardment, that is, almost no increase. There were aces who bombed from 400 meters, but only a few, I don't think the Americans had it any differently. For the Germans on J87, for example, the drop was at an altitude of 400-600 meters, but this was due to the success (disadvantages) of the aircraft. So, we believe that the dive bomber is bombing from 1000 meters (higher is pointless, lower is almost suicide) and a 25 mm machine gun (not the most successful, but not bad either) blocked (effectively) an altitude of 1,5 km, that is, it did not give the dive bomber normally will bomb from a low altitude, unless of course the Japanese fired normally, maybe that's why it was not dive bombers that went to the battleships, but more often torpedo bombers. The destruction of Yamato was due to the large number of aircraft, the Japanese simply could not keep up with everyone. When 200 bombers are rushing at you in waves, from all angles, it is almost useless to fight off, no matter how much air defense you have.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 16 November 2020 14: 34
                      0
                      Quote: Victor Sergeev
                      As the experience of using Pe2 has shown, when dropping bombs in a dive from an altitude of more than 1000 meters, the accuracy increased 1,5 times, compared with horizontal bombardment, that is, almost no increase.

                      The Pe-2 is not a pure dive bomber. This is a heavy fighter converted into a dive bomber. Plus, don't forget about the crew qualifications.
                      Not far from Izhora, in the bay, there was a stone ridge. At one time it was artificially created for some reason, but now it was not used for anything. In one place, the sketched stones formed a ring about fifty meters in diameter. There was also a training ground. All the pilots several times, from different heights, individually and in formation of a flight, passed over the ring, practicing in the accuracy of bombing. In the end, everyone, from whatever direction, from whatever height they came in, made sure that their bombs were placed within the stone circle.
                      - If you throw a series of three bombs, there will be no miss! - we summed up with Savichev combat training.
                      © Rakov
                      That is, in a specialized dive-bomber regiment of the KBF, combat pilots had to be additionally trained so that they could normally bomb from a dive. belay
                      The standard for training dive bombers is the pre-war Japanese decks: 9 out of 10 dropped bombs they hit the target ship. For comparison: in Pearl Harbor, out of almost fifty dropped 800-kg armor-piercing bombs, eight hit their targets, EMNIP. Into fixed targets.
                      1. Viktor Sergeev
                        Viktor Sergeev 16 November 2020 20: 34
                        0
                        The whole trouble with the Pe2 is its speed and yes, the Pe2 was almost never used as a dive bomber, but the Ju87 (the only correct dive bomber) was not that accurate. Yes, the Japanese got into the standing battleships, which did not conduct anti-aircraft fire, ideal conditions, minimum bombing altitude, low speed, but when the enemy has air defense, dive bombers disappear as a class or bombard with huge masses and from great heights (not lower than a kilometer).
            2. Revolver
              Revolver 13 November 2020 20: 43
              +1
              Quote: Victor Sergeev
              I understand that Yamato committed suicide by opening the Kingston?

              It was in another battle, much later, already in 1945. And then Yamato sank planes from 8 full-size aircraft carriers, which had a full range of bombers and the corresponding ammunition, and just in case it came to an artillery duel, several full-fledged battleships in cover, not counting all the little things like cruisers. And under Satmar there were only 5 escort aircraft carriers, 3 full-fledged EVs and 4 escort ones (by Soviet standards of the TFR). And Kurita, in addition to Yamato, had 3 more LCs, cruisers, including heavy ones, EM.
              1. Viktor Sergeev
                Viktor Sergeev 15 November 2020 20: 30
                0
                Well, yes, they sunk in 1945, but before that there was an almost useless voyage, the sinking of Musashi by aircraft from aircraft carriers, the destruction of one American aircraft carrier due to the loss of its caliber from a distance of less than 3 km. Useless pieces of iron this Yamato and his brother.
                The price of one Yamato, I think, exceeded the cost of a dozen aircraft carriers along with aircraft, but there was no efficiency.
          3. Kwas
            Kwas 14 November 2020 11: 58
            0
            Well, that was the only episode in the war when battleships COULD get hold of aircraft carriers. But Kurita screwed up a little.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 13: 21
              +2
              Quote: Kwas
              the only episode in the war when battleships COULD get hold of aircraft carriers

              ))
              Glories.

              Another ABC put AB under Matapan in a line with battleships in a night artillery battle, and then almost fired on its own aircraft. But it happened that time.
              1. Kwas
                Kwas 14 November 2020 18: 40
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                ))
                Glories.

                Sorry, I meant the US-Japan confrontation.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 18: 51
                  +1
                  Well, this is both laughter and sin. "Aircraft carriers" is a big word. Flat deck transports. The whole episode with Kurita - American gouges have traditionally been underexplored, and plus King and Roosevelt allowed MacArthur to start army aircraft carriers and battleships (Kincaid's 7th Fleet). It was lucky that he and Halsey did not melt each other.
        2. Sasha_rulevoy
          Sasha_rulevoy 15 November 2020 10: 13
          +2
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          The Japanese had worse planes, practically no tanks, bad strategy and tactics.


          Those. "Americans do not know how to fight," and win only through good tactics and strategy. For me, tactics and strategy is the ability to fight.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 13 November 2020 12: 54
        +4
        Quote: Nagan
        Or Task Force Taffy 3, which went against the main battleship forces of the Japanese fleet, including the Yamato, on escort aircraft carriers and destroyers, covering the transports with the landing.

        You can still remember the battle on November 13, 1942 (just the anniversary). Then Callaghan's cruising unit (2 CRTs - of which one was damaged, 1 KRL 6 ", 2 KRL 5", 8 EM), having received information about the enemy's approach (2 LK, 1 KRL, 11 EM), went into battle, even despite superiority of the enemy in forces. For if the Japanese had not been stopped, then the ground forces on Guadalcanal would have had extremely hard times: the night shelling of the approaching Japanese aircraft would have disabled the airfield, after which the Japanese would have been able to calmly unload ammunition and heavy weapons for their ground forces during the day. The presence of artillery with ammunition in the Japanese assault forces changed the whole alignment.
        In the night confusion it came to "naval hand-to-hand combat" - EM "Laffey" jumped into the dead zone under the LK "Hiei" and fired at the LK even from machine guns.
        After the battle, the Americans had one combat-ready KRL 6 "and one EM. All other ships were either sunk or seriously damaged. But the Japanese LK did not make it to the airfield.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 13 November 2020 19: 46
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          2 LC, 1 KRL, 11 EM

          Well, LK was not there, Congo is LKR. In terms of efficiency, 8 "is important.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          went into battle, even despite the superiority of the enemy in forces

          )))
          Don't repeat American propaganda. Roosevelt's friend Callaghan, to put it mildly, did it.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 16 November 2020 12: 17
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Well, LK was not there, Congo is LKR. In terms of efficiency, 8 "is important.

            Nevertheless, the LKR with its armor against 8 "CMT shells has a chance. In contrast to the armor of the CMT when it encounters 14" shells.
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Don't repeat American propaganda. Roosevelt's friend Callaghan, to put it mildly, did it.

            Tactically - yes: he lost all ships sunk and seriously damaged except for one KRL and one EM. But it was quickly a victory, since both tasks of the Japanese operation were not completed: the airfield continued to function, the army on Guadalcanal did not receive supplies and heavy weapons.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 16 November 2020 12: 42
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Nevertheless, the LKR with its armor against 8 "CMT shells has a chance. In contrast to the armor of the CMT when it encounters 14" shells.

              Empty. In those conditions, Abe could and should have been allowed even by torpedo boats and mines, in the absence of EM. Callaghan did not provide the minimum competent control of the battle. As for the "inequality of forces", then 2LKR + 1KRL + ​​11EM and 2KRT + 3KRL + ​​8EM are not so different, as is commonly believed.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              But quickly it was a victory, since both tasks of the Japanese operation were not completed.

              Operationally, it was Abe's mistake. Which does not in any way justify the actions of Callaghan's forces as a collective Matrosov.
    2. Glory1974
      Glory1974 13 November 2020 10: 04
      +9
      tell them they are bad wars.

      I agree with you. Just blame white Europeans for being bad fighters? Reeks of racism.
      The fact that Americans are trying to protect people and are fighting mainly with technology, uh
      that does not mean that they are bad warriors. I don’t want to praise our sworn friends (potential enemies), but it’s definitely not possible to shower them with hats, in Vietnam or anywhere.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 13 November 2020 11: 02
        11
        Quote: glory1974
        The fact that the Americans are trying to protect people and are fighting mainly with technology does not mean that they are bad warriors.
        It's just, in principle, a different approach, a different scale of values. Here's an example:
        During the First World War, one commander of an artillery battery, either because of map errors, or because of an order to go to the wrong place, or on his own, let's say, insufficient competence (after all, not personnel, but freshly recruited from the reserve) , led the battery into a swamp, where the cannons sat down tightly. Observation noticed the Germans approaching. And what about the commander? He gave the order to abandon the materiel and save the personnel.
        What would the Soviet army have done to him? At best, a penal battalion, but most likely a shooting. The same is most likely in German. And even if by some miracle they had not been shot, the reputation would have perished forever.
        And in the American army, he was awarded for the rescue of personnel, and after the war he made a not weak political career. His name? Harry Truman.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 13 November 2020 13: 11
          +8
          Quote: Nagan
          And what about the commander? He gave the order to abandon the materiel and save the personnel.
          What would the Soviet army have done to him? At best, a penal battalion, but most likely a shooting. The same is most likely in German. And even if by some miracle they had not been shot, the reputation would have perished forever.
          And in the American army, he was awarded for the rescue of personnel, and after the war he made a not weak political career.

          And he was right - for US conditions. For for the Yankees it was faster and cheaper to release new equipment for the battery than to train personnel. smile
        2. Sasha_rulevoy
          Sasha_rulevoy 15 November 2020 10: 17
          +2
          The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.

          George S. Patton.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 15 November 2020 11: 13
            0
            Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
            George S. Patton

            To the cinema. But the phrase is quite in his spirit.
        3. Polymer
          Polymer 15 November 2020 19: 52
          0
          Quote: Nagan
          It's just a different approach, a different scale of values.

          This is exactly what the article says, only in other words.
      2. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 13 November 2020 11: 40
        -13 qualifying.
        They are worthless warriors. They do not try to save their soldiers, and every President is afraid that his cowardly people will overthrow him because of losses. The Americans have never fought with an equal enemy in more or less equal conditions, they flee if there is a threat of destruction, these are not soldiers, but cowardly jackals. It is easy to fight with technology when you attack a weak enemy, it is easy to burn cities and hundreds of thousands of population to intimidate, but it is very difficult to hit a strong-minded enemy who makes excellent use of the terrain, as was the case in Vietnam.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 13 November 2020 21: 00
          0
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          every President is afraid that his cowardly people will overthrow him because of losses.

          So far, not a single president has been overthrown. Even Nixon left on his own, although there were real chances to throw it off, he went too far, and all on the microphone and camera. Senators feared that if they voted for Nixon, they would be remembered in the next election. And so try to get 2/3 of the votes from the payroll in the bipartisan Senate. Even Clinton, who disgraced Oral ah, sorry, Oval Office entertainment with a trainee, missed a few votes.
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 13 November 2020 22: 30
            -5
            Therefore, they did not throw off that they left on time. At first, Americans, who were dumb from birth, were hammered into their heads about great goals in every war, but Vietnam lasted a long time and even the Americans realized what was going on there, and even the losses were enormous. The antiwar movement was very strong and it was the fear of it that prompted the United States to surrender.
            1. Revolver
              Revolver 13 November 2020 23: 20
              +2
              They wanted to throw him off not for foreign policy, and not even for domestic. And not even for trying to cheat in the elections, which is what Watergate was, then there was no such word "hacker", and they did not break the servers, like the Clintonshe did, but real locks. And they wanted to throw him off for lying about Watergate, including under oath.
        2. Kwas
          Kwas 14 November 2020 12: 05
          +3
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          They are worthless warriors.

          Disregard for the enemy is a guarantee of defeat. They are normal professional warriors. Hired. Well prepared, don't take away. They are not capable of persistent defense and large losses, they cannot add.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 13: 29
            +3
            Quote: Kwas
            Hired

            Professional.
            Quote: Kwas
            Not capable of staunch defense

            Enchanting statement.
            Quote: Kwas
            big losses

            In the real world, US casualties in the mid-life "war on terror" lie between the PAC and Soviet Afghanistan. In the States, about zero people care about it. Professional armies are insensitive to losses, especially PMCs.

            The illusion of "weakness for the wound" of the Americans arose 1. Because of the Vietnamese case. 2. Because of a number of sharp political tricks, when the loss of dozens of people led to the curtailment of the operation. But in all cases this is not true.
            Vietnam showed the unsuitability of using a militia-type conscript army in a protracted colonial war. The answer was to refuse the draft.
            Fortels like Magadishu have shown that American leaders can reassess risks and correct their mistakes. Clinton signed up for a police operation, but did not sign up for a military one - in Somalia, nothing was smeared with him.
          2. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 14 November 2020 21: 09
            0
            Yes, the mercenaries are well prepared, but not for war, but for carrying out a punitive action against an obviously weak enemy. If a mercenary encounters a different enemy, he flees, since his goal is money, there is no point in dying. But there has never been a disdainful attitude towards the United States, the army is strong. It's just that everyone understands: there will be no US-Russia war, this is suicide, which means there will be clashes and here the mercenaries are good.
  3. Revolver
    Revolver 13 November 2020 06: 23
    +4
    America lost for the same reason the USSR lost in Afghanistan. As I said, I don’t remember whose general I don’t remember which war, but something like this: “First of all, you need to decide whether there is a civilian population in [*****]. If you decide that it is not, then the issue is resolved [X] (again, I don’t remember - two, three, or the same order) divisions in [Y] (again, I don’t remember - but a small number) months. If we decide that it still exists, the issue is not solved in principle. "
    In Afghanistan, too, when a convoy of airborne troops walked past with armor and turntables in cover, this peaceful farmer is the best friend of the shuravi, and he will bring a wineskin of water from a spring and treat him with apricots. And if a single truck, then dig out from under a heap of dungs ​​RPG, and Allah Akbar.
    And to genocide a peace man after the Nuremberg sentences is somehow awkward.
    1. Alexander Suvorov
      Alexander Suvorov 13 November 2020 06: 55
      22
      Revolver
      America lost for the same reason the USSR lost in Afghanistan.
      With all due respect, well enough already about the "defeat" of the USSR in Afghanistan. There was no defeat of the USSR and our army, WELL, IT WAS NOT FROM THE WORD AT ALL. What do you consider defeat? Not clearly defined tasks, betrayal at the highest level, when the then Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Georgian surname Shevardnadze (burn abomination in Hell) handed over plans directly to the militants in Afghanistan or when Colonel Dudayev warned the Mujahideen, his "brothers in faith" about combat missions of our aviation ? I repeat once again, enough about the so-called "defeat" of our people in Afghanistan - IT WAS NOT, there was a banal betrayal and drain. The army completed all the tasks set, and no one set such a task to conquer Afghanistan and mow down its population.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 13 November 2020 07: 15
        +6
        The minister, under a Georgian surname, came to the Foreign Ministry in 1985, at the suggestion of Mishan Mechenny. Who prevented you from winning the previous 5 years? Probably not his predecessor Gromyko.
        The American army also won all the battles in which it participated in Vietnam, and nevertheless lost the war, because at the political level they were afraid to order the use of scorched earth tactics. And Nixon finally leaked South Vietnam.
        1. Alexander Suvorov
          Alexander Suvorov 13 November 2020 07: 19
          22
          Nagant (Revolver of the Nagant system of the sample of 1895)
          The minister, under a Georgian surname, came to the Foreign Ministry in 1985, at the suggestion of Mishan Mechenny. Who prevented you from winning the previous 5 years?
          Once again, I repeat, WHAT SETTLEMENT TASK THE ARMY HAS NOT FULFILLED? And if the top management does not know what task to set, then what does the army have to do with it? What do you consider defeat? Withdrawal of troops from Afgan? So this is more likely a consequence of the betrayal of the top, but not the defeat of the army. THERE WAS NO DEFENSE OF THE MILITARY, THERE WAS A BANAL BETRAYING OF THE TOP !!!
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 13 November 2020 07: 24
            +1
            Quote: Alexander Suvorov
            THERE WAS NO DEFENSE OF THE MILITARY, THERE WAS A BANAL BETRAYING OF THE TOP !!!

            Well, as always, the government wins wars, and the army loses. In football, on the contrary, the players win and the coach loses.
            1. Alexander Suvorov
              Alexander Suvorov 13 November 2020 07: 28
              15
              Here I agree! At one time, we also fulfilled the tasks set, but the question is what tasks were set before us by such traitors as the one marked with an alcoholic ?!
              1. Revolver
                Revolver 13 November 2020 21: 10
                0
                Quote: Alexander Suvorov
                At one time, we also completed the tasks set

                I will add that victory always has a lotfellowparents, and defeat is always an orphan. crying
                I do not deny that the Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan have fulfilled their duty. As, however, and the American in Vietnam. And responsible for the defeat - see above.
          2. Aviator_
            Aviator_ 13 November 2020 08: 09
            +7
            THERE WAS NO DEFENSE OF THE MILITARY, THERE WAS A BANAL BETRAYING OF THE TOP !!!

            Before EBN came to power and there was no treachery from the top. The pro-Soviet leader Najibullah was found, who kept all the Basmachi through the caves. And only the termination of his support by "democratic Russia" made it possible to overthrow the government loyal to us
        2. Oprichnik
          Oprichnik 27 November 2020 02: 41
          0
          My friend was a special forces officer in Afghanistan. After the 2nd business trip, I asked him if we can win? -Answer: To do this, you need to cleanse the entire population. And since this is stupid, unnecessary, inhumane and uneconomical, it is better to leave.
      2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 11: 07
        -11 qualifying.
        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
        With all due respect, well enough already about the "defeat" of the USSR in Afghanistan.

        with all due respect - well, enough talk about the "defeat" of the United States in the civil war in Vietnam.
        1. Alf
          Alf 13 November 2020 23: 02
          +5
          Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Quote: Alexander Suvorov
          With all due respect, well enough already about the "defeat" of the USSR in Afghanistan.

          with all due respect - well, enough talk about the "defeat" of the United States in the civil war in Vietnam.

          Yes, the Americans won the war in Vietnam, they won. And then they left, apparently afraid of their victory ..
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 00: 40
            +2
            Quote: Alf
            afraid of their victory ..

            Realizing my mistake. In addition, if one president "protects the bastard" in the middle of nowhere, then the next "brings our guys home" there is nothing strange. Unless Obama pulled "our guys" out of the mess that Bush Jr. made.
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 November 2020 00: 42
              +3
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Unless Obama pulled "our guys" out of the mess that Bush Jr. made.

              Although he gave a grudge before the elections. Like, the chocolate bunny is responsible for the bazaar ..
    2. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 13 November 2020 08: 07
      -4
      The USA lost for a completely different reason than the USSR. In Afghanistan, the USSR lost because of stupid humanism, if they acted in the same way as the United States in Vietnam, then they would simply mow down everyone, the Americans did not succeed, although there were attempts. To win in Afghanistan, it was necessary to destroy the entire population in villages and cities, to close the border with Pakistan, but this is genocide, not in our traditions. By the way, the USSR did not lose the war, it just left Afgan realizing that it was simply not needed, and the situation in the USSR itself was already bad, there was no time for Afgan. We lost the war to ourselves.
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 13 November 2020 09: 54
        +1
        To win in Afghanistan, it was necessary to destroy the entire population in villages and cities, to close the border with Pakistan,

        All military tasks in Afghanistan were completed. In the early 80s, the resistance of the dushmans came to naught. But after the political decision of the United States to supply them with material resources, the war broke out again.
        For a complete solution to the Afghan problem, it was necessary not to introduce a limited contingent, but a full-scale grouping, to close the borders and strike at the militant camps on the adjacent side. But there was no longer enough political resolve for this.
        1. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 13 November 2020 11: 06
          -4
          What problems needed to be solved? There were no problems. There is a country in which the population is used to fighting, growing drugs, it seems there is a country, but there is no state, so a gangster community in which only gangsters can rule. There was only one task: not to let the United States into Afghanistan, completed, and therefore left, who needs an endless war for nothing.
      2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 10: 07
        +1
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        By the way, the USSR did not lose the war, it just left Afghanistan realizing that it was simply not needed, and the situation in the USSR itself was already bad

        Well? The same can be said about the States - they did not lose, they just went out. The elite preferred their voter to some Asian beggars. What is the difference?
        1. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 13 November 2020 11: 06
          -4
          What was the US goal in Vietnam? Have they reached it? We, in Afghanistan, have fully achieved the goal. Do you feel the difference?
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 11: 14
            -3
            Quote: Victor Sergeev
            We, in Afghanistan, have fully achieved the goal.

            laughing I like your healthy positivism. Keep it up.
          2. Revolver
            Revolver 13 November 2020 21: 16
            +2
            Quote: Victor Sergeev
            We, in Afghanistan, have fully achieved the goal.

            If the goal was to make Afghanistan the poppy breadbasket of the world, so that the West overdoses on this poppy and its processed products, then yes, the goal has been achieved. But this poppy also goes to Russia in transit through the Central Asian former Soviet republics, and obviously not for sprinkling bagels.
            1. Viktor Sergeev
              Viktor Sergeev 13 November 2020 22: 28
              0
              There was only one goal: to prevent the appearance of US missiles in Afghanistan, that's all. Narocota in Afghanistan was encouraged by the United States. You can defeat drugs from Afghanistan ... by destroying the population, or giving Afghanistan to the Taliban. But the main thing: drugs were not the goal of the USSR, so don't be jerky.
              1. Revolver
                Revolver 13 November 2020 23: 32
                +1
                Quote: Victor Sergeev
                The goal was one: to prevent the appearance of US missiles in Afghanistan

                American troops did enter Afghanistan, with missiles, aircraft, and much more, and I do not remember that Putin objected. Although, to be honest, it would be better not to enter, but confine themselves to bombing and air support " yes "" good No. "Dushmans against the Taliban. Because it was easier to enter than now to leave.
                Quote: Victor Sergeev
                Narocota in Afghanistan was encouraged by the United States.

                If you don’t know, don’t lie, and don’t repeat propaganda.
                1. nedgen
                  nedgen 14 November 2020 02: 51
                  -1
                  Sorry Nagant, but a simple example. The Americans themselves admitted to half their mouths that the Taliban had reduced the production of opium and heroin at times. (Not that my children ... my eyes are pretty laughing ) And after the arrival of the Americans and NATO, drug production reached record levels and ONLY once the United States did something to reduce production - it poured poppy fields with defoliants, and even then it turned out that the reason was rather different. Heroin has hit record lows on the black market. And after the destruction of a large part of the fields, the price soared. They never did it again. So draw your own conclusions as to how drugs are fought. Moreover, Afghan is now essentially the ONLY major heroin producer in the WORLD. In words, they are fighting for a long time, but in practice, for a very long time, the special services and VERY big people in the United States are making huge money on drugs. Yes, and the representatives of the anti-drug agency in the United States have repeatedly admitted that as soon as there is a big breakthrough in the fight against drugs, people from the special services, in particular the CIA, immediately appear and declare everything secret and affecting the national security. such is the case hi
        2. Whiteidol
          Whiteidol 13 November 2020 22: 29
          0
          The US Army lost the information war. According to Philip B. Davidson (Vietnam War), evidence of the atrocities of soldiers began to fall into the United States. At home, they were greeted as murderers. Come protests and rallies + remember the massacre in Songmi village. The trial took place. Letekha was tried, but the president pardoned him. All this did not add faith in the war that the United States was waging in Vietnam. Sometimes I watch an excellent, but in fact an autobiographical film on this topic "Platoon". A conversation between a sergeant and a young man: "I used to believe in what I was doing. But now I don't. We lost this war."
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 14 November 2020 00: 42
            +1
            Quote: Whiteidol
            US Army lost information war

            Ideological rather. And it's not about the left. National republics do not go well with colonial wars, oddly enough.
      3. gsev
        gsev 13 November 2020 13: 05
        +1
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        To win in Afghanistan, it was necessary to destroy the entire population in villages and cities, to close the border with Pakistan,

        In fact, about 100 or 200 thousand Basmachi fought against the Soviet army at the same time. Your measures would increase their number by 4 million. The main brunt of the war with the Basmachis was borne by the Afghan forces. Among the Afghan military, there was a saying "without the participation of the Afghan forces, the Russians are not able to capture or hold a single key point." The truth of these words confirms the viability of the Afghan government under the leadership of Najibullah after the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Afghanistan, which fell only when Yeltsin imposed an embargo on the sale of fuel to Afghanistan.
        1. Alf
          Alf 13 November 2020 23: 07
          +1
          Quote: gsev
          Among the Afghan military, there was a saying "without the participation of the Afghan forces, the Russians are not able to capture or hold a single key point."

          Does Pandsher 82 say anything? The success was ensured, first of all, by the fact that our timing and composition were kept secret from the Afghans, who were "flowing" as if from a sieve. And after our people got off the pass, the locals quickly surrendered this mountain.
    3. Glory1974
      Glory1974 13 November 2020 10: 00
      -1
      America lost for the same reason the USSR lost in Afghanistan.

      If only we say that the USSR helped Vietnam, and the United States helped the spooks in Afghanistan.
      We in Afghanistan trained the local army, the local government and then left. They held out for 5 years. The government collapsed only after we refused to sell them! , not like supplying material resources free of charge, and at the request of the United States.
      In Vietnam, the Americans signed a peace treaty with the Vietnamese and fled, surrendering power.
      The endings of the wars are not comparable. The United States has definitely lost, the USSR has definitely not lost.
      1. gsev
        gsev 13 November 2020 13: 09
        0
        Quote: glory1974
        The USSR definitely did not lose.

        It's just that the United States defeated the USSR by putting people like Yeltsin in the leadership. And surrendering everything from Cuba to Angola and Vietnam is a consequence of this clever US tactic. In the USSR, it was necessary to pay less attention to the KGB, and more to the university intelligentsia.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 13 November 2020 21: 25
          +1
          Quote: gsev
          It's just that the United States defeated the USSR by putting people like Yeltsin in the leadership.

          You are exaggerating the influence of the CIA. By yourself, all by yourself. I, too, in 1985 somehow immediately believed Humpbacked, I spoke too beautifully, and without a piece of paper, and sand from him, unlike his predecessors, did not pour, and generally wanted to believe. And I was sick for Yeltsin, especially when the "intruders", clearly "enemies of perestroika," threw him off the bridge into the river. They, you see, had made him drunk before that. And now I am ashamed of it, even while sitting in comfortable America.
          1. Alf
            Alf 13 November 2020 23: 10
            +3
            Quote: Nagan
            immediately believed Humpbacked, he spoke too beautifully, and without a piece of paper,

            But there was no sense in his watery speeches, a set of common beautiful phrases - perestroika, new thinking, freedom, democratization, glasnost.
          2. Kwas
            Kwas 14 November 2020 12: 20
            +1
            Yes, I really wanted to believe ... But I'm not very ashamed, I was just still young. By the way, is everything so comfortable in America? Or maybe it's time to cut it?
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 November 2020 19: 54
              +2
              Quote: Kwas
              By the way, is everything so comfortable in America? Or maybe it's time to cut it?

              There? From there? And who? laughing
            2. Revolver
              Revolver 14 November 2020 20: 44
              0
              Quote: Kwas
              But I'm not very ashamed, I was just still young.
              As Churchill said:
              Quote: Winston Churchill
              If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
              Translation: "If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by 35, you have no brains."
              Quote: Kwas
              By the way, is everything so comfortable in America?
              Biden (or rather his puppeteers) can of course do nasty things, but it will be rather a small decrease in the level of comfort than something serious. In the meantime, my revolver is unloaded in a box under the lock, and I do not feel the need to load it and put it under the pillow, let alone buy something more serious, like the AK-47, for it. So far, the Wuhan virus causes much more dangers and inconveniences, but it is useless to shoot back from it.
        2. Alf
          Alf 13 November 2020 23: 08
          +3
          Quote: gsev
          In the USSR, it was necessary to pay less attention to the KGB, and more to the university intelligentsia.

          Actually, it was the task of the KGB, but by that time it had itself rotted away. From the inside.
          1. gsev
            gsev 14 November 2020 13: 40
            0
            Quote: Alf
            In fact, this was the task of the KGB

            I meant that the country's leadership should have listened to intellectuals, not the KGB. And it would be better if the intelligent public controlled the state security officers, and not vice versa as it was after 1918.
            1. Alf
              Alf 14 November 2020 19: 52
              +1
              Quote: gsev
              I meant that the country's leadership had to listen to intellectuals,

              It would be better not only not to listen to this stinking gang, but to thin it out more often.
              1. gsev
                gsev 15 November 2020 08: 58
                +1
                Quote: Alf
                and thin out more often.

                And where was there more to thin out? Since the 1970s, engineers have rarely earned more than workers. My subordinates received 2 times more than me. Working in a research institute, it was more problematic to get housing than at its production branch. From the first year of study, the administration of the institute harshly warned that there would be no attempts to unite into any groups other than fellow countrymen. Many of the acquaintances who graduated from technical universities have not started a family or have no more than one child. And even that was born after 30 and sometimes 40 years. Therefore, in the country, citizens became security guards (from watchmen to FSB officers). A physician of some specialties or an intelligent designer will have a big problem. I will assume that even Armenia has a technical and design base commensurate with Russia for the production of drones, despite the fact that it was defeated by the Turkish military-industrial complex. Therefore, now the country has very big problems when trying to do something new and useful from drones and cheap launch vehicles to production facilities for the production of vaccines and plastics for aviation. The payroll goes to the bosses and their secretariat, and the executors have nothing left. Recently, only fiscal systems have been rapidly introduced. The last of them, for example, left pharmacies without drugs, and the pharmaceutical industry without components for the production of antibiotics. Recently, for example, in a pharmacy I bought the whole batch of diclofenac for my mother, which was brought to our city. It was only 5 packs and this will be enough for the mother for no more than 2 months. To maintain health. Although the pharmacists of both Putin and Mishustin warned that it was dangerous to introduce an untested system in the midst of an epidemic.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 15 November 2020 18: 38
                  -3
                  Quote: gsev
                  And where was there more to thin out?

                  You are confusing the technical elite and the intelligentsia. Engineers and designers are a profession and vocation, and the intelligentsia is the position of spitting on everything created in the country.
                  1. gsev
                    gsev 15 November 2020 21: 07
                    +2
                    Quote: Alf
                    the intelligentsia is the attitude of spitting on everything

                    An intellectual, according to the classical definition, is a person who is paid for his mind and his advice and who earns his living mainly with knowledge and intelligence .. It is stupid if the state pays for the words of approval, and not for pointing out his mistakes and recommendations on how to improve the situation in the state , technology and industry.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 15 November 2020 21: 12
                      +2
                      Quote: gsev
                      Quote: Alf
                      the intelligentsia is the attitude of spitting on everything

                      An intellectual, according to the classical definition, is a person who is paid for his mind and his advice and who earns his living mainly with knowledge and intelligence .. It is stupid if the state pays for the words of approval, and not for pointing out his mistakes and recommendations on how to improve the situation in the state , technology and industry.

                      Our intelligentsia, both under the tsar and under the USSR, had one characteristic feature - they liked to give advice on what to do, but did not take responsibility for the results of these advice.
                      1. gsev
                        gsev 15 November 2020 21: 31
                        +2
                        Quote: Alf
                        What to do, but did not take responsibility for the results of these advice.

                        Remember the story of Cassandra, she gave advice, the authorities ignored her advice, and the authorities of Troy and Cassandra paid for ignoring the advice. Philosophers paid attention to V.I. Lenin on the menacing signs of the results of the revolution in demography and morality. Lenin sent them to the West. As a result, philosophy in the USSR was unable to give the authorities advice on how to resist propaganda from the West, based on the methods of the disgraced communist in the USSR, Antonio Gramsci. What responsibility should Berdyaev and his comrades in exile have to assume? KGB officer Bobkov advised the government to publish Solzhenitsyn and Barbara Takman in one binding. He, too, was not ready to take responsibility for himself. Recently, Putin and Mishustin ignored the advice of intellectual pharmacists that during an epidemic, electronic labeling of drugs should not be introduced. Who should take responsibility for this and for the lack of raw materials for the production of antibiotics in production?
            2. Oprichnik
              Oprichnik 27 November 2020 02: 51
              0
              It was the rotten intelligentsia that hissed with snakes in the kitchens, doing little for the development of the country. The techies worked, but all these humanitarians just stupidly poured dirt without knowing ANYTHING and not understanding anything. Now they are engaged in the same - apparently this is their generic sign - to be against their country and people and be unable to think even a couple of steps forward.
        3. Doliva63
          Doliva63 14 November 2020 18: 38
          0
          Quote: gsev
          Quote: glory1974
          The USSR definitely did not lose.

          It's just that the United States defeated the USSR by putting people like Yeltsin in the leadership. And surrendering everything from Cuba to Angola and Vietnam is a consequence of this clever US tactic. In the USSR, it was necessary to pay less attention to the KGB, and more to the university intelligentsia.

          It's funny. And how did the States put Yeltsin in the leadership? laughing
    4. Whiteidol
      Whiteidol 13 November 2020 22: 15
      +1
      There is a good book by a US Army Marine who fought in Vietnam and followed by journalist Philip Caputo. "War rumor". So he writes in plain text that a civilian who was shot was automatically counted as a killed Viet Cong. So they had no problems with the civilian population ... You can remember the massacre in the village of Songmi in 1968. She was stopped by a helicopter pilot who stepped between the civilians and the infantrymen who were killing them. So the Americans fired in that war on the right and on the left .. especially without thinking who is in front of them.
    5. WapentakeLokki
      WapentakeLokki 15 November 2020 18: 10
      0
      ... and perhaps the main thing is the supply ... both in Afghanistan and in Vietnam, weapons and ammunition supplies are imported ... and while the caravans were moving (through the Hindykush or along the Ho Chi Minh trail), the war would not end ... but who prevented the USSR from covering Mujahideen camp in Pakistan, SCUDs and only gerontophilia in the Politburo ... the old people wanted to quietly live out their own ... well, there was enough human meat (just like in Vietnam there were enough motivated warriors ready to die and kill JI ...) because the Muslim world for the first time since since the time of Saladdin, he found an enemy (then what later did those who gave birth to this genie shook off their own ... but that was only later)
      1. gsev
        gsev 1 December 2020 21: 05
        0
        Quote: WapentakeLokki
        .but who prevented the USSR from covering the camps of the mujahideen in Pakistan

        It seems that in this case, aircraft and US air defense would appear in Pakistan and a world war would begin.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 13 November 2020 06: 31
    +2
    Yesterday, comments on the author's article were blocked ... And today, Friday 13 .. smile
    1. BAI
      BAI 13 November 2020 12: 06
      +1
      And I thought it was my only such glitch. Moreover, the site showed that there were 41 comments to the article.
  5. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 13 November 2020 07: 09
    +1
    In Hollywood, Americans are very good warriors, smile I personally saw Stallone shoot half of the Vietnamese army with a machine gun ... The other half of the Schwarzenegger from the Minigun was cleaned out while standing in the office.
    1. Alf
      Alf 13 November 2020 23: 11
      +3
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      In Hollywood, Americans are very good warriors, smile I personally saw how Stallone shot half of the Vietnamese army with a machine gun ... The other half of Schwarzenegger from the Minigun cleaned out while standing in the office.

      And never recharged.
  6. Reviews
    Reviews 13 November 2020 07: 35
    +8
    American helicopters cover the offensive of the troops of South Vietnam.

    How can they cover purely transport helicopters?

    in USSR-Russia
    Help was provided by (...) Soviet Union (Russia)

    What is this rampant political political correctness?
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 10: 09
      0
      yes here the whole article is a pearl on a pearl.
    2. Catfish
      Catfish 13 November 2020 16: 26
      +2
      How can they cover purely transport helicopters?


      "Cobra" (English Cobra, combined arms index - AH-1, manufacturer's index - Bell Model 209, in Russian - AH-1) is an American attack helicopter developed by Bell Helicopter Textron in the early 1960s.
      The world's first specially designed serial combat helicopter. It was used with great success in the Vietnam War and other armed conflicts. At the beginning of the XXI century, AH-1 helicopters continue to be in service with a number of armed forces of states and countries, including the United States.
      1. Reviews
        Reviews 13 November 2020 16: 36
        +1
        Quote: Sea Cat
        How can they cover purely transport helicopters?


        "Cobra" (English Cobra, combined arms index - AH-1, manufacturer's index - Bell Model 209, in Russian - AH-1) is an American attack helicopter developed by Bell Helicopter Textron in the early 1960s.
        The world's first specially designed serial combat helicopter. It was used with great success in the Vietnam War and other armed conflicts. At the beginning of the XXI century, AH-1 helicopters continue to be in service with a number of armed forces of states and countries, including the United States.

        Have you read my posting for sure? Have you seen the photo?
        Questions are rhetorical.
        There is not a single attack helicopter in the picture, even at the Hye base. Transport workers only. Their two machine guns are for self-defense only.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 13 November 2020 16: 41
          +3
          The post read:

          Avis (Sergey)
          Today, 07: 35
          +6
          American helicopters cover the offensive of the troops of South Vietnam.

          How can they cover purely transport helicopters?

          on the territory of the USSR-Russia
          Assistance was provided by (...) the Soviet Union (Russia)

          What is this rampant political political correctness?

          But there were no photographs and there are no, maybe they were not printed?
          1. Reviews
            Reviews 13 November 2020 16: 45
            +4
            Quote: Sea Cat
            But there were no photographs and there are no, maybe they were not printed?

            I have it like this.

            Or do you really think that I wrote it from the bulldozer?
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 13 November 2020 16: 56
              +3
              Colleague Sergey hi , I apologize, I misunderstood you and was too hasty. You do not have any "bald", the whole "bald" is exclusively from Samsonov, however, as always. drinks
              1. Reviews
                Reviews 13 November 2020 17: 09
                +2
                No problem, figured it out. :)
                drinks
                1. Catfish
                  Catfish 13 November 2020 23: 18
                  +3
                  Here, after all, again some rat crawled up and shit on everyone here, and what a nasty manner of minus everyone in a row Diarrhea overcame? laughing
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 14 November 2020 00: 41
                    +1
                    Quote: Sea Cat
                    Here, after all, again some rat crawled up and shit on everyone here, and what a nasty manner of minus everyone in a row Diarrhea overcame? laughing

                    There are such creatures here, in the next branch I posted a photo of a self-propelled gun without a single word, and then a minus someone drew on the sly.
                  2. Reviews
                    Reviews 14 November 2020 06: 03
                    0
                    Quote: Sea Cat
                    Here, after all, again some rat crawled up and shit on everyone here, and what a nasty manner of minus everyone in a row Diarrhea overcame? laughing

                    And to hell with them. When the plus / minus nickname is not visible, I do not pay attention to such anonymous minuses. And I myself do not minus or plus - it is pointless.
                    1. Alf
                      Alf 14 November 2020 19: 57
                      -1
                      Quote: Avis
                      When the plus / minus nickname is not visible, I do not pay attention to such anonymous minuses.

                      Yes, the fact is that when you are minus by an objectionable worthy opponent, this is clear and understandable. But when minus just for pictures or for "two two four" ...
            2. Revolver
              Revolver 13 November 2020 21: 37
              +2
              Quote: Avis

              You know, if you are sitting in a trench, or even just in the bushes, and from above from different directions machine guns standing in the doorways of these "purely transport" turntables will not seem a little. And on such "Huey" it happened that miniguns (if anyone does not know, such as Gatling, then what Schwarzenegger in Terminator 2 used to nightmare the police near the office building).
              1. Reviews
                Reviews 14 November 2020 06: 20
                0
                Quote: Nagan
                You know, if you are sitting in a trench, or even just in the bushes, and from above from different directions machine guns standing in the doorways of these "purely transport" turntables will not seem a little. And on such "Huey" it happened that miniguns (if anyone does not know, such as Gatling, then what Schwarzenegger in Terminator 2 used to nightmare the police near the office building).

                "... did you know ..." that the transporters did not do that. Disembark - and run away, which, in fact, is shown here. Yes, of course, the retreat of the infantry during evacuation, they could somehow
                cover, but no more. Gunships were engaged in fire support of the infantry. Yes, the same "Bellas", only with NURS and machine guns on the sides. Like that.

                And the transporter could not even shoot forward. Should he be able to turn around, increasing his area? Well, so a guaranteed coffin ...
                No, well, probably, when it was very sour, then the transport workers pretended to be a flying armored personnel carrier, but this is atypical, and the photo shows an image of a typical landing, but the caption, as about typical air fire support.
                Was it difficult to post something like that?

              2. Oprichnik
                Oprichnik 27 November 2020 02: 56
                0
                In addition, they were equipped with NURS blocks and course machine guns - both 7,62 and 12,7 mm.
      2. Alf
        Alf 13 November 2020 23: 13
        +3
        AN-1-Attack Helicopter-attack helicopter.
        UH-1 Utility Helicopter is a multipurpose helicopter.
  7. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 13 November 2020 07: 59
    +5
    The first part, the author covers the article in a rather primitive way smile
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 13 November 2020 08: 11
      +9
      The article seems to be correct, but the impression that a schoolboy wrote.
      1. Daniil Konovalenko
        Daniil Konovalenko 13 November 2020 09: 42
        +8
        So that's just the point ... pulls for a school essay and it's not great, you can put a C with a minus ... smile
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 10: 03
          -1
          Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
          pulls on a school essay

          no, rather it is the writings of a retiree suffering from senile dementia for the wall newspaper of a nursing home.
  8. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 13 November 2020 10: 01
    +6
    A third party who has got into someone else's civil war cannot win or lose. She just turns off its war and goes home, leaving the aborigines to choose their own winner - whether by lot or by a massacre - it doesn't matter. The States did not lose in Vietnam, the USSR did not lose in Afghanistan. Not a single hyper-patriot here will say that "the USSR lost in Spain," will it? The scribble of a group of comrades under the nickname "Samsonov" is sent to the trash can, because there it belongs.
    1. Daniil Konovalenko
      Daniil Konovalenko 13 November 2020 10: 28
      +2
      Not a single hyper-patriot here will say that "the USSR lost in Spain"
      ... Germany and Italy did not lose the identity in Spain. And what did the Entente countries lose or won during the civil war in Russia? .. Here, as they say: two are in a fight, the third on Wed ... it is known where .. And then today Friday the 13th when the dark forces lift their heads .. laughing
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 November 2020 10: 21
    22
    Complete nonsense. However, this is typical for Samsonov.
    The Americans really fought so-so both in WWI and WWII - if we talk about ground forces. But they were let down by a banal lack of combat experience. We, too, did not fight very well in 1941, and in a number of operations in 1942. Then we got used to it and the Germans didn’t seem to have much. Americans in WWII and WWII did not have time to get used to it. However, in the same Africa, by the end of the campaign, American divisions were already fighting at a completely acceptable level. And it would also be nice for Samsonov to recall the civil war in the United States between the North and South - the battles there were very fierce.
    The British fought very bravely in WWII. Clumsy, yes, but brave. And they died in scattered fruitless attacks on Rommel, and, quite often, held their positions to the last. Then they learned to fight more or less, but they had no luck with leadership. I like the phrase: "The British defeated the German African Corps, and even the genius of Field Marshal Montgomery could not stop them." Also, the persistence of British troops in WWI categorically does not fit into Samsonov's logic. And I would strongly recommend that he discuss the lack of fortitude and courage on the battlefield ... well, with Wellington's soldiers, for example.
    1. Trapp1st
      Trapp1st 13 November 2020 10: 57
      +4
      Complete nonsense.
      On a universal scale, even if we consider only the Vietnam War, the Americans fought bravely and skillfully.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 November 2020 13: 24
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Then they learned to fight more or less, but they had no luck with leadership. I like the phrase: "The British defeated the German African Corps, and even the genius of Field Marshal Montgomery could not stop them."

      Moreover, in Africa, the British were still lucky with the leadership. But in India ... one operation "Anakim" is worth it.
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 13 November 2020 19: 53
      +4
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I would strongly recommend that he discuss his lack of resilience and courage on the battlefield ... well, with Wellington's soldiers, for example.

      I have a more radical proposal. There is an opportunity to discuss directly with the Americans. It is not difficult to find places where Mr. Samsonov can be famous. And some commentators at the same time.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 November 2020 14: 16
        0
        A rare case when I'm ready to agree with you 100%
    4. Kwas
      Kwas 14 November 2020 12: 31
      +1
      Well, you’re probably going the other way.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      the persistence of British troops in WWI categorically does not fit into Samsonov's logic.

      The British had only a comfortable plot, which they then filled with guns, and where the Germans did not climb.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Wellington's soldiers, for example.

      And here, too, a question about who in these troops was more - Britons or who else.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 November 2020 14: 15
        0
        Quote: Kwas
        The British had only a comfortable area

        Watch the battle of the Somme, Nivelle's meat grinder, Cambrai, finally ...
        Quote: Kwas
        And here, too, a question about who in these troops was more - Britons or who else.

        Well, about 24 thousand British were there for sure, and they fought perfectly
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 16 November 2020 12: 45
        0
        Quote: Kwas
        And here, too, a question about who in these troops was more - Britons or who else.

        There was a cool sketch on this topic: how a new recruit arriving at the front is looking for the British part of the British army, constantly bumping into British Canadians, British South Africans, British Ossi (all with their own vocabulary and accent) ... Asked "where are the British British"he gets the answer"go further; if you pass the Indians - and somewhere there they will be, but don't miss - you will get to the New Zealanders".
        And when he gets to his compatriots, he rejoices at first, but immediately discovers that he does not understand anything from the front-line jargon in which he is given an order (like, "Throw the junk into the free space and blow to the inquisitor for the soap-snout. And, damn it, don't shine stupidly over the parapet and don't catch the eye of the big stars")
    5. WapentakeLokki
      WapentakeLokki 15 November 2020 18: 14
      -2
      ..and you don’t mind that the Montgomery ARMY fought against Rommel’s African corps ... if not, then yeah ... the angles are real, they are brave ... they are not afraid of one thing ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 November 2020 21: 27
        +3
        Quote: WapentakeLokki
        ..and you do not mind that the Montgomery ARMY fought against Rommel's African corps ...

        Ugums. I am revealing a terrible military secret - since January 30, 1942, the German Panzer Group "Africa" ​​received the official name "Panzer Army" Africa ". Moreover, in Africa, another 5th Panzer Army was formed (only German units, 3 divisions) And yes, first British troops under the command of Waivell fought against Rommel, then under the leadership of Auchinleck, and only then Monty appeared, and this happened in August 42. So, if we get into formalism, then under Monty, the British army fought against German armies, and nothing else.
        I can only advise you to study the events in Africa well ... at the level of Mitchum, at least.
  10. BAI
    BAI 13 November 2020 12: 01
    -1
    All the same, natural conditions play an important role. It is important not only to capture, but also to keep. Afghanistan, by and large, no one was able to conquer, in Svaneti no conqueror set foot. Naturally, the attitude of the local population significantly affects the ability to retain the territory.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 13 November 2020 13: 27
      +1
      Whoever conquered Afghanistan throughout history there was a natural entrance courtyard
  11. Timofey Charuta
    Timofey Charuta 13 November 2020 12: 32
    +3
    West is West, East is East,
    And they can't get together ...
    Kipling

  12. Free wind
    Free wind 13 November 2020 13: 25
    -1
    That I have not seen Vieta praying in Russians, especially in southern Vietnam.
  13. dgonni
    dgonni 13 November 2020 14: 25
    +8
    Samsonov again wrote an article displaying his illusions!
    In fact, he only wrote one thing correctly! Mattresses have not lost a single battle but lost the war!
    How is it written in the Chinese book about the war then? If you have the right strategy and tactics, the war will be won quickly. If the strategy is correct but the wrong tactics, then the war will be long, battles will be lost, but the war will be won. If the strategy is wrong, but the tactics are correct, then the battles will be won but the war will be lost.
    That's just the situation with amers. the tactics were at their best, and strategically they simply could not encroach on the capture of the north of Vietnam and its capital.
    And as you know from history, not a single country defeated the partisans if they had food from outside!
    This applies to both fascist Germany and the Angles in Afghanistan, and the Union in Afghanistan, as well as the French in Indochina.
    Well, the message that the Americans are not fighters just amused.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 November 2020 15: 21
      +5
      Quote: dgonni
      Well, the message that the Americans are not fighters just amused.

      Some people, pomnitsa, also thought that the pampered, lazy and soulless Yankees could never compare with the true sons of Yamato. smile
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 13 November 2020 16: 38
        +2
        That's for sure! During an attack by American aircraft on a Japanese aircraft carrier, one of the Japanese admirals shouted: "These are not American drunks!"
        Blessed is he who believes and how it ended.
    2. gsev
      gsev 1 December 2020 21: 13
      0
      Quote: dgonni
      could not encroach on the capture of the north of Vietnam and its capital.

      In this case, they were in for a war with the PRC and possibly the USSR. As you understand, in 1965 the USSR and the PRC have significantly attacked their military potential since the Korean War. If in 1951 the Chinese were able to throw the UN troops out of North Korea, then why could they not have thrown out the troops of the USA, South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand from North Vietnam in 1965?
  14. CTABEP
    CTABEP 13 November 2020 16: 26
    +4
    Author:
    The Americans have not lost a single battle.
    Statistics:
    According to their own data, North Vietnam lost 1,1 million troops, the United States lost 58 thousand (together with non-combat losses), South Vietnam lost 250 thousand during the entire war (including after the withdrawal of US troops). Total, the layout of the corpses is 1d3,5.
    History:
    Thirty years earlier, the United States had lost 650 soldiers in WWII - more than 11 times more than in "bloody Vietnam." And the war ended in victory.
    Again the author:
    Americans don't know how to fight. Brilliant conclusions.

    The war was lost not at the front, where the Yankees unwound the North Vietnamese army in any serious operations, but in the rear, where a powerful anti-war movement was understood. Well, the plus, as noted above, is the fear of a second Korea, only with nuclear weapons, which was absolutely unnecessary for anyone. And, of course, a high fighting spirit, unpretentiousness and insensitivity to the losses of the fighters of North Vietnam, without which nothing would have helped. But to draw conclusions on the basis of this that the Americans do not know how to fight - well, about how to draw conclusions that the Russians do not know how to fight, after all, they lost the Russian-Japanese war, and WWII, and in the Second World War they filled up with corpses, and in Afghanistan in general shepherds with ancient guns were pissed off (but the shepherds had the spirit of a warrior, while the Russians did not!).
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 13 November 2020 19: 56
      +4
      Quote: CTABEP
      lost 650 thousand soldiers in WWII

      The first one I see this figure. Together with industrial accidents?
  15. Looking for
    Looking for 13 November 2020 19: 44
    0
    What kind of country is this, the USSR (Russia) ????
  16. Pavel57
    Pavel57 13 November 2020 19: 51
    -2
    Quote: Proxima
    Ask any Vietnamese veteran what annoyed them the most in that war. All at once will answer without hesitation - deck aviation! If you look at the map of Vietnam, you can safely say that this country seems to be specially created for the actions of carrier-based aircraft. What the Americans lacked to win this war is not clear! Everything was on their side, except the truth! The Vietnamese fought for a just cause, for their homeland. And we must give them their due - courageously and professionally! I've been to Vietnam. They pray to the Russians there, they are very grateful that we helped them to withstand that war. Amazing people - great warriors! hi

    There is a hypothesis that the surrender of Vietnam was one of the points in a kind of agreement with the USSR.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. hammerite
    hammerite 13 November 2020 21: 08
    +1
    They don't play wars!
    That is why we lost ... And not only lost, but also suffered a complete defeat!
    .
    One should understand the differences of civilizations at least in the burial of the dead.
    Someone here dug up the bones of their ancestors, washed them, brought them in a box to his home for a visit, and then dug right in front of the gate of his courtyard ???
  19. nnz226
    nnz226 13 November 2020 21: 12
    +1
    Quote: "The Vietnamese treated the Russians with great respect for many decades." Is that how they treat it now? Or is everything forgotten?
    1. hjvtp1966
      hjvtp1966 19 November 2020 22: 09
      0
      Everything is forgotten ...