3 ms·
Play all the sophistry games you want: over a 20 year period, a poorly armed force beat not one, but two forces that had superior firepower and numbers.
by ropeadopepope 9y ago
Play all the sophistry games you want: over a 20 year period, a poorly armed force beat not one, but two forces that had superior firepower and numbers.
- greedo 9y agoHow were they poorly armed? Their infantry weapons were first class, far better than deployed by the French or Americans. They had arguably better trained soldiers for jungle combat. They had a powerful patron in the USSR that was willing to provide top of the line SAMs that were manned by Russian technicians. Yet they still lost almost every battle against the Americans (sorry France, Dien Bien Phu...). After Tet, the VietCong ceased to exist as a fighting force. S. Vietnam would have held against the NVA if Congress hadn't cut off funding to their army. When North Vietnam attempted to invade the South in 1972, they had 67% casualties. In 1975, when Congress refused to provide air support, the South fell. You can call it sophistry, but the facts stand as true.