Equipment list

[ganulv]

You'll note that there is no armor/helmet in the list. Wearing armor and helmet - even if its only a plate carrier - in a hot, humid, wet and closed in environment sucks. It kills SA. It exhausts you before you can do anything. It dehydrates you faster. Heaven help you if you trip and fall into a muddy swamp (happens more than you think). We found that armor in that environment makes Soldiers lazier - because of the exhaustion. You can't move as quietly, you can't hide as quickly.

Just curious, but what is on the books in the U.S. Army and USMC as far as body armor and jungle operations?

[Ken White]

Just curious, but what is on the books in the U.S. Army and USMC as far as body armor and jungle operations?

What most know is that wearing protective gear in a hot, humid forest is bound to lead to excessive and unsustainable heat casualties.

No personal armor for ground troops in WW II. It did exist by the time of Korea. Not jungle but quite hot and humid in the summer. By 1952 after the line stabilized, wear was mostly mandatory but exceptions were made for Patrols and units with close combat potential -- things generally not done in Afghanistan and Iraq which have their own climate problems but also get quite warm in the summer.

As flawed as was the leadership in the past in Viet Nam it still had enough sense to not insist upon -- but to allow under some circumstances -- the wearing of vests and also to allow for some elements in most circumstances the wearing of soft hats instead of helmets (in both cases with minor excursions both ways).

Whether the senior 'leadership' of the time in the future will acknowledge the heat casualty reality is not known.

Fuchs:

They specialised on beating up people in less humid areas lately, thanks to the Vietnamese people.

You got that a bit wrong, as you do on occasion...

It was US Politicians, not the Vietnamese people...

We're not allowed to beat up on people. We weren't allowed to in Viet Nam and have not been allowed to since. We are allowed, even wrongly encouraged, to tussle with them but we are not and were not allowed to beat up on 'em. Specifically precluded from doing so, in fact...

[Fuchs]

Fuchs:You got that a bit wrong, as you do on occasion...

It was US Politicians, not the Vietnamese people...

We're not allowed to beat up on people. We weren't allowed to in Viet Nam and have not been allowed to since. We are allowed, even wrongly encouraged, to tussle with them but we are not and were not allowed to beat up on 'em. Specifically precluded from doing so, in fact...

It was the politicians, sure - but you didn't get what I wrote and thus you got me wrong. I wasn't writing as literally as you assumed.

The politicians and thus the nation as a whole specialised on beating up people in less humid areas.
This was no doubt triggered by the Vietnamese ascension to the throne of stubbornness previously shared by the British and Russians.

[Ken White]

It was the politicians, sure - but you didn't get what I wrote and thus you got me wrong. I wasn't writing as literally as you assumed.

The politicians and thus the nation as a whole specialised on beating up people in less humid areas.
This was no doubt triggered by the Vietnamese ascension to the throne of stubbornness previously shared by the British and Russians.

Take your pick of Politicians, either the dumb crowd that sent us there in the first place (both batches, both efforts...) or the two different batches that hamstrung the ongoing effort and would not allow us to beat up on anyone. Or even the other two batches who oversaw the end of the effort...

None of that excuses the Army for doing a poor job, BTW.

Stubbornness wasn't the issue though it contributed. Political and strategic failures were the principal problems and those errors were not rectified by less than decent tactical performance at the national (in South Viet Nam by the US Command) level. The Troops, the USAF and USN did the best they could with one hand tied.

My comment was and is that we aren't and weren't allowed to really beat up on anybody, we're just told to engage them fruitlessly and at far less than even decent, much less maximum, effort.

[Fuchs]

No, you didn't get it at all.

The question was about doctrine (or so I understood it), and I replied in part (with the 'beat up' comment) with a reference to the political situation.

The 'beat up' thing wasn't meant tactically, but foreign policy-wise.
Don't tell me destroying a regime, destroying its state and hunting the former dictator down and hang him doesn't qualify as 'beat up' in the political arena.
I wasn't writing about whether U.S. politicians allowed anyone to beat up others; I was writing about them doing it themselves on their level.
Granted, I didn't explain it, but just dished out a quick comment.
_________

Concerning stubbornness; compare the qty of ordnance which rained on Germany in 1940-1945 with the qty which rained on North Vietnam...
Stubbornness wasn't just a contribution - that's vast understatement - it was the indispensable component.

[Ken White]

No, you didn't get it at all...Don't tell me destroying a regime, destroying its state and hunting the former dictator down and hang him doesn't qualify as 'beat up' in the political arena.

In my view, that would depend on how well one did the job or was allowed to do it. We did a lousy job of it in part because we weren't allowed / did not choose / to do better. I understood what you meant, just don't fully agree.

Concerning stubbornness; compare the qty of ordnance which rained on Germany in 1940-1945 with the qty which rained on North Vietnam...

A marginal comparison on several levels IMO. Regardless the amounts were broadly ineffective in both cases.

Stubbornness wasn't just a contribution - that's vast understatement - it was the indispensable component.

I would say stupidity (ours) was the indispensible component in view of the effort and the result. There's no question that the stubbornness effectively used that stupidity for their aims but lacking our idiocy stubbornness wouldn't have occurred or had an effect. Can't say that about our foolishness...

We're quibbling over little and really are broadly in agreement.

[ganulv]

I wrote a piece for my online writing gig a few weeks back which was published (is correct to say that something born-digital was published? ) yesterday. Ken White's fingerprints are on it here and there! The piece is civilian- and winter-specific, but possibly of interest to those contributing to and following this thread. Corrections and/or addenda are welcomed and in fact encouraged!

---------

Planning for the worst: the list | Snowshoe Magazine

Hope for the best but always plan for the worst. This attitude is especially important during winter outdoor activities. After an unplanned summer’s night spent miles from the trailhead will leave you will may be hungry and mosquito-bitten, but after and unplanned winter’s night twenty-five feet from the shelter you couldn’t see you may not be at all. Ergo the following list.