one thing I think people dont consider enough when looking at eg the ability of the Taliban to resist US force, or the Viet Cong, or whatever, in the context of the value of small arms is that the US did not adopt the tactic of "kill everyone until the fighting stops"
-
Show this thread
-
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot
Consider that Vietnam is very small compared to Europe. Also units were awarded things such as rest and relaxation time based on their kill count. They were encouraged to call in artillery and air support on the faintest hint of enemy presencepic.twitter.com/9ho8av1aaQ
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @OfKimbriki @eigenrobot
This still falls far short of a kill everyone strategy. Re size: Vietnam is more populous that Germany:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population …
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @toadworrier @eigenrobot
So a bomb dropped randomly on Vietnam will be more deadly than one randomly dropped on Germany? That's my point.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
7 million tons of bombs dropped on the forest annihilated the VietCong. The South was conquered by a direct northern invasion after the US chose to withdraw. Bombs in the forest, even 7m tons, only kill the folks in the forest.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Which is where most Vietnamese lived, Vietnam was undeveloped then and had very low rate of urbanisation
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There's some seriously unexamined white supremecy in that assumption that a nation of civilised people mostly live in the forest.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.