|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #16262 on CommentsLevel 258 Comments: Contaminated Win
OnlineSend mail to dontshoot Block dontshoot Invite dontshoot to be your friend flag avatar
- Views: 5003Because I Felt like it
14 5 Total: +9
- Views: 706MLG 420 4ever
2 7 Total: -5
latest user's comments
|#2518 - **dontshoot used "*roll cis privilege*"** **dontshoot rolls…||12/17/2014 on Did you check your...||0|
|#869 - no||11/15/2014 on comment and i post on your...||0|
|#104 - Mig isn't very hard tig is much harder [+] (1 new reply)||11/12/2014 on Is porn allowed on funnyjunk?||0|
|#77 - For the amount of money it took to make that fake lambo you co…||11/06/2014 on Will Smith||0|
|#9 - they only reason we lost Vietnam was the traitorous media. its… [+] (11 new replies)||10/28/2014 on 'murica||+9|
#12 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
Not really, the war dragged on for a long time without any big gains being made even with public support. The tactics used there were what lost the war - going out on patrols to find the enemy will never work as a decent tactic, as the enemy will only fight when it suits them.
Vietnam was a lost war from the start.
#65 - biebergotswag (10/28/2014) [-]
actually after the tet offensive, the NVA lost a fifth of it's soldiers, and their rank was thrown in absolute chaos. it's was pretty much as bad for the north vietnamese, as it was bad for the romans during the battle of Cannae. just one major offensive is pretty much sure to break them. but instead the media described the great south Vietnam victory into a american defeat and further destroyed war efforts.
also, remember that the north vietnamese were also supported by the soviet and chinese military, thus the scale of the war is much larger than most people realize. and by withdrawing support from the war. it allowed the soviets to restore the viet cong and massacre the south vietnamese.
if the americans just pushed against the broken NVA, they would have crushed it and stopped the war.
#26 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
The Brits had lost so much ground around Keenan due to the fact that they stayed in their FOB, and refused to do patrols to engage the enemy. This resulted in the taleban pushing them back and basically laying siege to the FOB.
When we got there, we had this impressive Company leader (Captain Storrud) As he said during a ceremony of our first casualty"Tomorrow we fight again". Despite of heavy losses we went on daily patrols to bring the fight to enemy. We almost had our entire AO secured after just 6 months. It was really impressive what combat patrols can do.
#81 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
We never went on combat patrols with less than 30 men during the day. At night we'd send out smaller sniper teams, special forces patrols etc, in cover of the darkness they would sneak out and gather intel / take out high value targets.
There's obviously no fact list on how to fight Guerillas, and it is way harder to avoid ambushes when you're fighting enemies that could be any random civilian. But our tactics involving daily combat patrols proved effective. We had some trouble avoiding IEDs and boobytraps, but we'd try and be as unpredictable as possible in our movement.
#32 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
It is, but as a tactic to destroy your enemy it is highly ineffective, as you'll only ever fight them when they want to fight, so if they have plenty of numbers, they'll attack regularly, but as soon as they start to dwindle, they can hide and wait for reinforcements / new recruits, meaning you'll never be able to destroy them.
#34 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
Vietnam is a complicated defeat really. I blame the lack of political support of course. But also their cavalry tactics. You remember watching movies of american landing with helicopters in the middle of a firefight? That's just about the dumbest way to engage an enemy. Imagine the enemy being in entrenched positions and then landing on top of them, that could EASILY lead to 1:10 casualty rates.
#41 - Rockaman (10/28/2014) [-]
The VC had such a decent network of spies and informants that they knew where the patrols would be coming from, so were almost always the ambushers. On top of being on home turf where it was easy to slip away, they could then disappear once their enemie's reinforcements arrive. Also, combat patrols are really bad in booby-trapped locations, IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan have also amounted to large numbers of casualties.
Yes they are good at securing your lines and keeping supplies coming, but as an offensive tactic they are really quite poor.
I'd say that Vietnam was pretty complicated, but I think tactical error plus the effective Vietnamese tactics were more to blame for the defeat than political support as the war had plenty of support to start with and that support dwindled after failures and large scale offenses by the VC and NVA when the US public believed they were winning. If the failures had never happened then support would have probably stayed high.
#51 - jdrinfantry (10/28/2014) [-]
Combat patrols are not tactical mistakes.
Conducting a proper patrol without enemy getting intel of your whereabouts may be difficult, but quite necessary.
If the US had siezed conducting patrols all together where do you think that would have lead them? (By the way, in Vietnam they almost stopped their patrols during the Tet Offensive)
Also I think the casualty statistics speak for themselves when it comes to who was the superior military power and strategies. It is estimated that 1.1 million NVAs and Viet Congs died during the vietnam war, as opposed to US KIAs numbering around 58.000
|#68 - No problem i think Reagan was a great president but Reaganomic… [+] (1 new reply)||10/28/2014 on Facts||-2|
|#65 - Reaganomics are the reason all small farms disappeared and are… [+] (6 new replies)||10/28/2014 on Facts||-7|
#117 - anonymous (10/28/2014) [-]
l0l ur dumb kid
#97 - therealsupanova (10/28/2014) [-]
wait... what? By most measurable statistics, Reaganomics was one of the most successful economic experiments in United States history...
Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2.052 trillion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase.:143 The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982, then declined to 5.4% in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10% in 1980 to 4% in 1988.
Some economists have stated that Reagan's policies were an important part of bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars), averaging 7.91% annual growth in current dollars. This reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988. A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990. Reagan's administration is the only one not to have raised the minimum wage. The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988, which was achieved by applying high interest rates by the Federal Reserve (peaking at 20% in June 1981).
The misery index, defined as the inflation rate added to the unemployment rate, shrunk from 19.33 when he began his administration to 9.72 when he left, the greatest improvement record for a President since Harry S. Truman left office. In terms of American households, the percentage of total households making less than $10,000 a year (in real 2007 dollars) shrunk from 8.8% in 1980 to 8.3% in 1988 while the percentage of households making over $75,000 went from 20.2% to 25.7% during that period, both signs of progress
|#20 - that not acid if it has a metallic taste its a different chemi…||10/26/2014 on neil degrasse tyson: origins||0|
|#15 - just dropped acid for the first time last night can confirm i …||10/25/2014 on Your friends sound like...||-1|
|#4431 - **dontshoot rolls 590,037,818**||10/24/2014 on Free Steam||0|