6 ms·

During the Vietnam War, it was body count. That turned out to be a great way of incentivizing the most murderous troops.

AcerbicZero 8y ago
Probably more of an incentive for NCO's and Officers to overclaim the results, so they look good to their superiors.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  That seems to happen in all wars. Aircraft downed and tanks destroyed in WWII, for example. There were occasions in the Vietnam War where regions were declared to be free fire zones, and everyone within was to be killed, down to the last child and granny.
  - cryoshon 8y ago
    in principle, you can verify every downed aircraft and destroyed tank with a photograph or a video. it's hard to move the wrecks of each. there are worse metrics.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      But still, such figures as reported were inflated by large margins (something on the order of 25 to 100 percent) on both the Allied and Axis sides.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    I'm sorry but this is a serious (and arguably offensive) falsehood. A 'free fire' zone is an area wherein there is no requirement for soldiers to coordinate heavy arms fire with other units via HQ etc.. This is a very reasonable policy in jungle fights where units can come under ambush at any time, i.e. "We're in an ambush and we're about to die, can you ring up HQ to see if we can shoot back?" But the notion that US forces would just designate an area where everyone including civilians are to be killed is an outright and offensive lie. Though there are some situations in which Army Units did actively and knowingly fire on citizens, these are known and well documented tragedies of soldiers acting with fury in the moment agains villagers who were supporting insurgent forces - this was not and never was any kind of US policy, and the perpetrators faced Court Martial. The Vietnam war is so completely misinterpreted in pop culture; even to this day, it's disturbing.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      I'm sorry but this is a serious (and arguably offensive) falsehood. I'm sorry, but I will show you to be mistaken below. But the notion that US forces would just designate an area where everyone including civilians are to be killed is an outright and offensive lie. Then you should have an issue with the Ken Burns documentary. I think I got the terminology wrong; "free fire zone" means something else. However, the practice I am referring -- that of designating everyone in a certain place as an enemy, then killing everyone within -- did happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre From Ken Burn's "The Vietnam War" Part 5 narration: (00:44:43,393 --> 00:44:47,428) In the summer of 1967, Tiger Force was sent to the fertile Song Ve Valley. The entire population had already been herded from their homes and crowded into a refugee camp. But some had come back to resume the farming they had always done. The valley had officially been declared a free-fire zone, and Tiger Force's officers took that literally. "There are no friendlies," one lieutenant told his men. "Shoot anything that moves." Over a seven-month period, they killed scores of unarmed civilians. Among their victims were two blind brothers; an elderly Buddhist monk; women, children, and old people hiding in underground shelters; and three farmers trying to plant rice. All were reported as "enemy... killed in action."
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        This is disgusting for HN. I debunk what the gp post says with citations and quotes. The result? I get downvoted more.
        vntok 8y ago
        Complaining about it definitely won't improve the situation.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Empirically speaking, this turned out to be incorrect.
- lainga 8y ago
  I recall the Luftwaffe ace rolls for the invasion of Poland reporting that 300% of the Polish tanks fielded had been destroyed.
- jancsika 8y ago
  Why guess about documented history?
sonnyblarney 8y ago
When the enemy has limited personnel and equipment - targets such as body count, vehicles destroyed etc. are very good measures of progress. And FYI the US handily and clearly won the Vietnam war; the South Vietnamese insurgency was defeated and the North Korean Army was obliterated. Due to political pressure at home, the US withdrew after the war, and a short while later the North Vietnamese were able to rebuild their army and waltz in and topple the fragile S. Vietnamese government. The Communists then murdered 10's of thousands of people in the streets and imprisoned 100's of thousands and of course enforced totalitarian rule which kept millions in fear and poverty. Were the Americans to have simply left a contingent of soldiers in the South, thereby keeping the legitimate threat of violence, it's unlikely the South would have fallen and might very well look like S. Korea today. To your point, 'body count' is not a very good number to use when you're fighting an insurgency where there are a lot of irregular forces who can come in and out of fighting, or where soldiers can be replenished (i.e. North Vietnam can recruit willy nilly on their turf). But it's still a valid measure and though you don't hear about it these days (for PR reasons) you can absolutely be assured that all NATO forces meticulously con't how many enemy forces are destroyed, and that it is a 'target' on many missions.
- Semirhage 8y ago
  And FYI the US handily and clearly won the Vietnam war; the South Vietnamese insurgency was defeated and the North Korean Army was obliterated. That’s a serious, if delusional claim that requires a loooooot of support. “Handily” in particular seems like a ridiculous way to state it, even if you only look at US casualties.
  - cwmma 8y ago
    There's a quote to the extent of "the US never lost a battle in the Vietnam, but still lost the war" which is probably what they were getting at, which just honestly proves the point that America was really optimizing for the wrong measure in that war.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
dredmorbius 8y ago
Oh Mai Lai, as George Takai might say. (And mispronounce.)

AcerbicZero 8y ago

Probably more of an incentive for NCO's and Officers to overclaim the results, so they look good to their superiors.

stcredzero 8y ago
That seems to happen in all wars. Aircraft downed and tanks destroyed in WWII, for example. There were occasions in the Vietnam War where regions were declared to be free fire zones, and everyone within was to be killed, down to the last child and granny.
- cryoshon 8y ago
  in principle, you can verify every downed aircraft and destroyed tank with a photograph or a video. it's hard to move the wrecks of each. there are worse metrics.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    But still, such figures as reported were inflated by large margins (something on the order of 25 to 100 percent) on both the Allied and Axis sides.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  I'm sorry but this is a serious (and arguably offensive) falsehood. A 'free fire' zone is an area wherein there is no requirement for soldiers to coordinate heavy arms fire with other units via HQ etc.. This is a very reasonable policy in jungle fights where units can come under ambush at any time, i.e. "We're in an ambush and we're about to die, can you ring up HQ to see if we can shoot back?" But the notion that US forces would just designate an area where everyone including civilians are to be killed is an outright and offensive lie. Though there are some situations in which Army Units did actively and knowingly fire on citizens, these are known and well documented tragedies of soldiers acting with fury in the moment agains villagers who were supporting insurgent forces - this was not and never was any kind of US policy, and the perpetrators faced Court Martial. The Vietnam war is so completely misinterpreted in pop culture; even to this day, it's disturbing.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I'm sorry but this is a serious (and arguably offensive) falsehood. I'm sorry, but I will show you to be mistaken below. But the notion that US forces would just designate an area where everyone including civilians are to be killed is an outright and offensive lie. Then you should have an issue with the Ken Burns documentary. I think I got the terminology wrong; "free fire zone" means something else. However, the practice I am referring -- that of designating everyone in a certain place as an enemy, then killing everyone within -- did happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre From Ken Burn's "The Vietnam War" Part 5 narration: (00:44:43,393 --> 00:44:47,428) In the summer of 1967, Tiger Force was sent to the fertile Song Ve Valley. The entire population had already been herded from their homes and crowded into a refugee camp. But some had come back to resume the farming they had always done. The valley had officially been declared a free-fire zone, and Tiger Force's officers took that literally. "There are no friendlies," one lieutenant told his men. "Shoot anything that moves." Over a seven-month period, they killed scores of unarmed civilians. Among their victims were two blind brothers; an elderly Buddhist monk; women, children, and old people hiding in underground shelters; and three farmers trying to plant rice. All were reported as "enemy... killed in action."
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      This is disgusting for HN. I debunk what the gp post says with citations and quotes. The result? I get downvoted more.
      - vntok 8y ago
        Complaining about it definitely won't improve the situation.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Empirically speaking, this turned out to be incorrect.
lainga 8y ago
I recall the Luftwaffe ace rolls for the invasion of Poland reporting that 300% of the Polish tanks fielded had been destroyed.
jancsika 8y ago
Why guess about documented history?

sonnyblarney 8y ago

When the enemy has limited personnel and equipment - targets such as body count, vehicles destroyed etc. are very good measures of progress. And FYI the US handily and clearly won the Vietnam war; the South Vietnamese insurgency was defeated and the North Korean Army was obliterated. Due to political pressure at home, the US withdrew after the war, and a short while later the North Vietnamese were able to rebuild their army and waltz in and topple the fragile S. Vietnamese government. The Communists then murdered 10's of thousands of people in the streets and imprisoned 100's of thousands and of course enforced totalitarian rule which kept millions in fear and poverty. Were the Americans to have simply left a contingent of soldiers in the South, thereby keeping the legitimate threat of violence, it's unlikely the South would have fallen and might very well look like S. Korea today. To your point, 'body count' is not a very good number to use when you're fighting an insurgency where there are a lot of irregular forces who can come in and out of fighting, or where soldiers can be replenished (i.e. North Vietnam can recruit willy nilly on their turf). But it's still a valid measure and though you don't hear about it these days (for PR reasons) you can absolutely be assured that all NATO forces meticulously con't how many enemy forces are destroyed, and that it is a 'target' on many missions.

Semirhage 8y ago
And FYI the US handily and clearly won the Vietnam war; the South Vietnamese insurgency was defeated and the North Korean Army was obliterated. That’s a serious, if delusional claim that requires a loooooot of support. “Handily” in particular seems like a ridiculous way to state it, even if you only look at US casualties.
- cwmma 8y ago
  There's a quote to the extent of "the US never lost a battle in the Vietnam, but still lost the war" which is probably what they were getting at, which just honestly proves the point that America was really optimizing for the wrong measure in that war.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago

dredmorbius 8y ago

Oh Mai Lai, as George Takai might say. (And mispronounce.)