Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War

On 8 Jul 2003 21:15:10 -0700, (Evan Brennan)
wrote:

Aerophotos wrote in message news:
...
hey evan

Yes?

if you think our adf is so pathetic in vietnam care to explain why we
only lost 500 over 10yrs from a 50,000 total force and you yanks lost
56,000 in 10yrs from a force of 585,000?


You must recalculate. The Yank force deployed to SEA totalled almost
three million, not 585,000.


normal RAR units might of had different kills ratios


I'm afraid their kill ratios sucked harder than Anna Nicole Smith in
a room full of billionaires.

In 1995 the Vietnamese government in Hanoi admitted that over one
million Communist troops had died during the war. Your essentially
do-nothing Australian infantry units claimed less than 1,500 enemy
killed before they pulled out of Vietnam.

Nice of Australia to pitch in, but their contribution in destroying
the enemy was insignificant against that massive total.


shows we aussies had the most successful tactics.


By the admission of your own General Vincent, Australian infantry
tactics left a lot to be desired. The SAS was too small but more
successful since they copied the airmobility tactics used by US
recon teams and the SAS also liked to use the same kit as our
American LRRPs.

US recon teams learned about jungle reconnaissance and tracking from
the local Nungs and Montagnards, not from the Australian SAS or the
AATTV which was mainly useful in helping us train the natives in using
modern weapons. The most valuable information was learned from the
natives and this was added to Recondo training.

I would gladly trade an entire patrol of SAS men for one experienced
Chinese Nung tracker. He lived in the jungle all his life, and did not
need "stupid white man from Australia" to tell him how to move through
the bush.

thats sort of like how we used native eskimos during the Alaskan
campaign in WW2 cause they were trained and they could see things that
were out of the ordinary like discoloration of the snow.


we came from jungle school and malaya and had a force well trained,
the us army had no idea how to fight a tropical war


Your jungle warfare tactics and pacification programs in Malaya were
ineffectual and irrelevant. The British-led security force outnumbered
the Malayan Communist guerrillas by 100 : 1 or more. At the peak of
US deployment in Vietnam, the Allies outnumbered the North Vietnamese
forces and Communist guerrillas by only 5 : 1.

A 100 : 1 advantage in manpower does not = jungle warfare expertise
or effective pacification techniques. Here's another difference: The
Commie guerrillas in Malaya were trained and supplied by the British
SOE, from 1942-45. The Malayan guerrillas had no government, no air
force and no navy, unlike North Vietnam.

All the British had to do is stop giving supplies to the enemy and
yet the Malayan Communist Party did not sign a peace treaty with
Kuala Lumpur until 1989, long after Australia bugged out of Malaya.
Only the Limeys and Anzacs would declare victory after evacuating
another British colony.


wait for the next war and see how quick the US preso asks for our
help again.


We deployed our British and Australian hirelings because no one else
was willing. And because Moe always brings Larry and Curly when he
goes on a road trip.

Another factor is that you speak English. Several countries have
better forces than Australia and Great Britain, but the language
barrier makes it difficult to communicate efficiently. Having a
handful of interpreters does not help much and neither does using
hand puppets and drawing funny pictures.


we aussies can do and always will **** over you yanks


Sounds like that kid in elementary school who bragged about
being the fastest in his class. Then, during the race, right
after everyone yells "GO!" he trips and cracks his head open
on the asphalt.

Pathetic.