In a previous post over in the Military Aviation section related to The LIghtning and Mig 21 I postulated what if Britain had become embroiled in Vietnam. Had Britain become directly involved, what would we have sent to the conflict? Lightnings routinely operated in the far east for instance how would they have fared against MiG 17s, 19s and 21s?
Maybe HMS’ Eagle, Ark Royal, Victorious & Hermes would have deployed to Yankee and Dixie Stations, their Buccaneers flying low level attacks against bridges or SAM sites in the North or the Ho Chi Min trail in the South. How would F4K Phantoms from Ark Royal (And possibly Eagle) with their Spey engines and flown by pilots who were still taught ACM have fared against the MiGs, come to think of it how would FAA Sea Vixens FAw 1 or 2 have been against them or would they have been tasked with flying cap over the naval task force to keep them ‘out of harms way’? Would Vulcans and Victors have participated in Rolling Thunder and the other bombing campaigns of Hanoi and the north? How about Harriers?
Not to mention land and other sea forces such as The Paras, The Gurkhas, The SAS and SBS, Albion and Bulwark… And would there have been an impact on defence procurement between 1965 and 73? Would TSR 2, CVA01 or the Supersonic Harrier have survived the axe because of the War and/or its eventual lessons? Would our experiences in Borneo and Malaysia have been of use?
By: Chox - 30th October 2009 at 00:50
If we’re looking for a vaguely serious answer to a distinctly hypothetical question, I guess the result would have been cheap off-the-shelf purchases (from the US) to make-up for the vast amounts of money which would have been poured into our contribution, until somebody had the guts to say “enough” and pull out.
Hmm… sounds awfully familiar…
Vietnam showed was that being a bigest bully on the block doesn’t mean you will have your own way
That sounds vaguely familiar too!
By: Malcolm McKay - 30th October 2009 at 00:24
G.Day
I don’t think the USA has won a decent sized war since WW2, What Vietnam showed was that being a bigest bully on the block doesn’t mean you will have your own way.
Think that lesson was learnt by the USSR with Afganishan, the NATO forces still have to learn that lesson, Australia knows it, but we do what the USA wants, so we are along for the ride. Same situation applied with the Vietnam war, it was “all the way with LBJ”
cheers
Unfortunately very true – you’d think the politicians and the military would have learnt by now. Both wars are just further proof of the confidence of ignorance.
You would have thought that the marked reluctance of the Europeans to get involved in Vietnam, and the fact that they needed a lot of persuasion to get involved in Afghanistan might have sent the US a subtle hint.
Pity really, not just the lives needlessly lost, but on a more pragmatic note the money that’s being wasted has better and more sensible uses. I note that the US government is querying the cost of their new rocket – the price of the war in Afghanistan could have paid for that program and still have a sizable chunk of change left.
By: Proctor VH-AHY - 30th October 2009 at 00:08
G.Day
Australia lost about 500 good men with that waste-of-time war. Australia is now good friends with Vietnam and has quite a number now living in Australia.
I don’t think Britian could have added anything of any particular value save moral support. The USA had all the technology they needed at their disposal and even failed with that.
I don’t think the USA has won a decent sized war since WW2, What Vietnam showed was that being a bigest bully on the block doesn’t mean you will have your own way.
Think that lesson was learnt by the USSR with Afganishan, the NATO forces still have to learn that lesson, Australia knows it, but we do what the USA wants, so we are along for the ride. Same situation applied with the Vietnam war, it was “all the way with LBJ”
cheers
By: J Boyle - 29th October 2009 at 23:01
…would have lost numerous young men and money for no good reason.
As with most wars.
I was aware of the effectivness of RAAF Canberras (not to mention USAF B-57s)…which made RAF use very likely.
By: JDK - 29th October 2009 at 22:47
..Canberra? Likely.
Not just likely, either. The RAAF deployed 2 Sqn Canberras to Vietnam, and they did very well on their tasking.
Having talked to a number of Australian Vietnam veterans since I returned to Australia, it was a good war to stay out of. I can’t see, from my limited strategic understanding, that Britain would have brought a decisive difference to the war, and thus would have lost numerous young men and money for no good reason.
By: J Boyle - 29th October 2009 at 21:54
Looking at the RAF fleet in the 60s…
What would have worked in Vietnam?
Hunter? How was it for CAS?
Lightning? Not likely.
Phantoms & Canberra? Likely.
Buccaneers?
Vulcan, Victor? How would they have dome in a SAM-rich environment like the B-52s faced in Linebacker II?
What about transport…just Herks?
Were any Twin Pioneers left? I’d guess that Belfasts were too large for tactical ops.
Helicopters…Wessex & Whirlwinds? Belvederes?
Super sioux is correct. The Harriers were just cominng on line when the US was withdrawing in 1972.
By: super sioux - 29th October 2009 at 21:31
No US Harriers in Vietnam!
And what of the Harrier, I can’t remember off the top of my head whether the USMC used its Harriers in Vietnam, I assume they must have.[/QUOTE]
I have checked three books on the US Marines in Vietnam and as I thought they did not use them there.
By: F-18RN - 29th October 2009 at 20:34
Cant imagine Lightnings going up North with two missiles and a gat but massivley short legs, (I havent forgotten the F-8 did this) with out tanker support right on the DMZ.
Do you think if we’d been in Vietnam do you think we might have bought a few of the multi-role version sold to the Middle East or maybe even taken steps to beef up the weapons fit of the F6, Sidewinders, Sparrows, 4 Redtops? And what of the Harrier, I can’t remember off the top of my head whether the USMC used its Harriers in Vietnam, I assume they must have.
By: FoxVC10 - 28th October 2009 at 17:50
Cant imagine Lightnings going up North with two missiles and a gat but massivley short legs, (I havent forgotten the F-8 did this) with out tanker support right on the DMZ. .
As for the rest of the RAF/RN I can see Vulcans, Victors and Bucc’s and Phantoms hard at work laying waste to all and sundry, but I fear a considerable toll would have been taken with SAM’s and AAA.
By: F-18RN - 28th October 2009 at 17:25
Obviously, if the UK had been involved the US wouldn’t have lost 😉
Depending on whether one of the things Britain would have been allowed to bring to the table was our experiences in dealing with similar conflicts in Borneo and Malaya, I agree. FWIW I don’t agree with the Vietnam War, primarily because the South Vietnamese government was a corrupt, right-wing dictatorship, the tactics used/rules of engagement by the Americans seemed to leave them fighting with one arm tied behind ther back and lastly a large proportion of US soldiers were conscripts, some of whom from the Deep South involved in the civil rights movement were drafted into service for cynical reasons.
The purpose of this thread is merely speculation on the impact (or lack of it) of British military hardware and personnel and whether the events unfolding in Vietnam would have influenced defence policy/procurement during the sixties and early seventies. In my opinion RAF Lightnings equipped with 30mm cannons in addition to Red Tops would have aquitted themselves well in the air war and FAA/RAF Buccaneers and Harriers would have made a positive contribution interdicting Vietcong supply lines and dealing with SAM sites.
By: groundhugger - 27th October 2009 at 18:39
As a young squaddie in 1968 , I remember a Current affairs lecture being given by an Education corps officer who had a ‘US officer’ as guest speaker about the US involvement in Vietnam after his speech he asked if any of us would fight in Vietnam , only one put his hand up , this cheered the yank up slightly , at least it wasn’t a complete wash-out , the culprit then said he’d only serve if he could pick which unit he could fight in , at which the yank said “sure son !, Army or Marines ” young British soldier replies grinning ” niether Sir ..the ‘Viet Cong’…
Now I know where the term ‘ Redneck’ comes from because that US officer had one , going out of that class room ….matching the face of the Education officers face , but I think that was from trying not to laugh too .
The consensus among us at that time was the north Vietnamese were doing al right on their own and didn’t need our help …besides we had our own civil war looming rapidly on our own horizon . Northern Ireland
By: PeterVerney - 27th October 2009 at 15:12
A flock of sheep recently donated most of it to a wunch of bankers.
d.
Yes, and the remainder we donate to the EU to p*ss up against the wall
By: Diseca - 26th October 2009 at 23:02
…What happened to the “Peace Dividend” from the end of the cold war!
A flock of sheep recently donated most of it to a wunch of bankers.
d.
By: Diseca - 26th October 2009 at 21:51
…in theatre would need to have been US-funded, UK as mercenary. The logical presence would have been Special Forces and intel types, trying to bring Malayan/Confrontation experience for rural hearts and minds (many rumours that we did exactly that.)…
Many years ago a friend and I were resigned to spending a rainy Autumn night marooned in a hotel bar in Dieppe. Only two other people in the place, we four ended-up talking and drinking the rainy night away into morning. Great company, one American, the other English. At some point the getting-to-know-you’s gave that one was ex-Special Forces, the other ex-SAS. These gentlemen were old friends. They first met on ops in Vietnam.
Neither my friend nor I were especially interested in pursuing the subject, nor were they in discussing it, the conversation being life in general and the here and now – present friends and trends, not pasts. But their telling of the origin of their friendship gave us all a brief chuckle about history, theory and practice.
Another late night tale.
d.
By: Proctor VH-AHY - 26th October 2009 at 21:12
Alertken
“UK was then quite broke”
Not much has changed, Britian was broke then and it is broke now, maybe a bit more now! What happened to the “Peace Dividend” from the end of the cold war!
cheers
By: Chox - 26th October 2009 at 16:35
hmm, well maybe… but there would still be the same White House to kiss-up to 😉
By: J Boyle - 26th October 2009 at 16:17
Obviously, if the UK had been involved the US wouldn’t have lost 😉
No, the Brits wouldn’t have been there… no colonial empire to prop up…and not a pound to be made :diablo:
By: Arabella-Cox - 26th October 2009 at 16:17
Obviously, if the UK had been involved the US wouldn’t have lost 😉
An unwinable war, just as the Afganistan war is too. We would just have lost people there to no useful purpose. Thank goodness we did not go there.
Planemike
By: Chox - 26th October 2009 at 16:12
Just think – we’d have good ol’ Gordon flapping his jowls at us, telling us how we’re fighting in Vietnam for the security of our country, keeping the terrorists from our doors…
I’m dozing-off just thinking about it…
By: ZRX61 - 26th October 2009 at 15:45
Obviously, if the UK had been involved the US wouldn’t have lost 😉
Sign In
October 25, 2009 at 9:25 pm