Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War

Aerophotos wrote in message news:
...
hey evan

Yes?

if you think our adf is so pathetic in vietnam care to explain why we
only lost 500 over 10yrs from a 50,000 total force and you yanks lost
56,000 in 10yrs from a force of 585,000?


You must recalculate. The Yank force deployed to SEA totalled almost
three million, not 585,000.


normal RAR units might of had different kills ratios


I'm afraid their kill ratios sucked harder than Anna Nicole Smith in
a room full of billionaires.

In 1995 the Vietnamese government in Hanoi admitted that over one
million Communist troops had died during the war. Your essentially
do-nothing Australian infantry units claimed less than 1,500 enemy
killed before they pulled out of Vietnam.

Nice of Australia to pitch in, but their contribution in destroying
the enemy was insignificant against that massive total.


shows we aussies had the most successful tactics.


By the admission of your own General Vincent, Australian infantry
tactics left a lot to be desired. The SAS was too small but more
successful since they copied the airmobility tactics used by US
recon teams and the SAS also liked to use the same kit as our
American LRRPs.

US recon teams learned about jungle reconnaissance and tracking from
the local Nungs and Montagnards, not from the Australian SAS or the
AATTV which was mainly useful in helping us train the natives in using
modern weapons. The most valuable information was learned from the
natives and this was added to Recondo training.

I would gladly trade an entire patrol of SAS men for one experienced
Chinese Nung tracker. He lived in the jungle all his life, and did not
need "stupid white man from Australia" to tell him how to move through
the bush.


we came from jungle school and malaya and had a force well trained,
the us army had no idea how to fight a tropical war


Your jungle warfare tactics and pacification programs in Malaya were
ineffectual and irrelevant. The British-led security force outnumbered
the Malayan Communist guerrillas by 100 : 1 or more. At the peak of
US deployment in Vietnam, the Allies outnumbered the North Vietnamese
forces and Communist guerrillas by only 5 : 1.

A 100 : 1 advantage in manpower does not = jungle warfare expertise
or effective pacification techniques. Here's another difference: The
Commie guerrillas in Malaya were trained and supplied by the British
SOE, from 1942-45. The Malayan guerrillas had no government, no air
force and no navy, unlike North Vietnam.

All the British had to do is stop giving supplies to the enemy and
yet the Malayan Communist Party did not sign a peace treaty with
Kuala Lumpur until 1989, long after Australia bugged out of Malaya.
Only the Limeys and Anzacs would declare victory after evacuating
another British colony.


wait for the next war and see how quick the US preso asks for our
help again.


We deployed our British and Australian hirelings because no one else
was willing. And because Moe always brings Larry and Curly when he
goes on a road trip.

Another factor is that you speak English. Several countries have
better forces than Australia and Great Britain, but the language
barrier makes it difficult to communicate efficiently. Having a
handful of interpreters does not help much and neither does using
hand puppets and drawing funny pictures.


we aussies can do and always will **** over you yanks


Sounds like that kid in elementary school who bragged about
being the fastest in his class. Then, during the race, right
after everyone yells "GO!" he trips and cracks his head open
on the asphalt.

Pathetic.

(Evan Brennan) wrote:

:Aerophotos wrote in message news:
...
:
: if you think our adf is so pathetic in vietnam care to explain why we
: only lost 500 over 10yrs from a 50,000 total force and you yanks lost
: 56,000 in 10yrs from a force of 585,000?
:
:You must recalculate. The Yank force deployed to SEA totalled almost
:three million, not 585,000.

He's comparing apples and aardvarks. He's using a total count of
fatalities over 10 years, and then only counting peak strength rather
than the total number of people who served over the 10 years.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On 8 Jul 2003 21:15:10 -0700, (Evan Brennan)
wrote:

Aerophotos wrote in message news:
...
hey evan

Yes?

if you think our adf is so pathetic in vietnam care to explain why we
only lost 500 over 10yrs from a 50,000 total force and you yanks lost
56,000 in 10yrs from a force of 585,000?


You must recalculate. The Yank force deployed to SEA totalled almost
three million, not 585,000.


normal RAR units might of had different kills ratios


I'm afraid their kill ratios sucked harder than Anna Nicole Smith in
a room full of billionaires.

In 1995 the Vietnamese government in Hanoi admitted that over one
million Communist troops had died during the war. Your essentially
do-nothing Australian infantry units claimed less than 1,500 enemy
killed before they pulled out of Vietnam.

Nice of Australia to pitch in, but their contribution in destroying
the enemy was insignificant against that massive total.


shows we aussies had the most successful tactics.


By the admission of your own General Vincent, Australian infantry
tactics left a lot to be desired. The SAS was too small but more
successful since they copied the airmobility tactics used by US
recon teams and the SAS also liked to use the same kit as our
American LRRPs.

US recon teams learned about jungle reconnaissance and tracking from
the local Nungs and Montagnards, not from the Australian SAS or the
AATTV which was mainly useful in helping us train the natives in using
modern weapons. The most valuable information was learned from the
natives and this was added to Recondo training.

I would gladly trade an entire patrol of SAS men for one experienced
Chinese Nung tracker. He lived in the jungle all his life, and did not
need "stupid white man from Australia" to tell him how to move through
the bush.

thats sort of like how we used native eskimos during the Alaskan
campaign in WW2 cause they were trained and they could see things that
were out of the ordinary like discoloration of the snow.


we came from jungle school and malaya and had a force well trained,
the us army had no idea how to fight a tropical war


Your jungle warfare tactics and pacification programs in Malaya were
ineffectual and irrelevant. The British-led security force outnumbered
the Malayan Communist guerrillas by 100 : 1 or more. At the peak of
US deployment in Vietnam, the Allies outnumbered the North Vietnamese
forces and Communist guerrillas by only 5 : 1.

A 100 : 1 advantage in manpower does not = jungle warfare expertise
or effective pacification techniques. Here's another difference: The
Commie guerrillas in Malaya were trained and supplied by the British
SOE, from 1942-45. The Malayan guerrillas had no government, no air
force and no navy, unlike North Vietnam.

All the British had to do is stop giving supplies to the enemy and
yet the Malayan Communist Party did not sign a peace treaty with
Kuala Lumpur until 1989, long after Australia bugged out of Malaya.
Only the Limeys and Anzacs would declare victory after evacuating
another British colony.


wait for the next war and see how quick the US preso asks for our
help again.


We deployed our British and Australian hirelings because no one else
was willing. And because Moe always brings Larry and Curly when he
goes on a road trip.

Another factor is that you speak English. Several countries have
better forces than Australia and Great Britain, but the language
barrier makes it difficult to communicate efficiently. Having a
handful of interpreters does not help much and neither does using
hand puppets and drawing funny pictures.


we aussies can do and always will **** over you yanks


Sounds like that kid in elementary school who bragged about
being the fastest in his class. Then, during the race, right
after everyone yells "GO!" he trips and cracks his head open
on the asphalt.

Pathetic.

"Evan Brennan" wrote in message
m...
Aerophotos wrote in message news:
...

Evan,

Do yourself a favour and ignore this fool. I suspect he a schizophrenia
suffer or something similar. Only last month he was claiming he was off to
join the RAAF and work in a job description that doesn't exist in our air
force.

CD

(Evan Brennan) wrote in message om...
snip various rants

We deployed our British and Australian hirelings because no one else
was willing. And because Moe always brings Larry and Curly when he
goes on a road trip.

I had thought Evan to be just rabidly anti-British, but now he has not
only extended that irrational thought process to include the Aussies,
but apparently also our own forces (Moe?!). It is probably appropriate
that he engages in this kind of discourse with the likes of
Aerophotos/JGG--kind of "worst meets the worst" from both sides. Too
bad they can't take their respective prejudices into a private
chatroom of some sort and (hopefully) knock both of themselves out...

Brooks

snip

Kevin Brooks wrote:

(Evan Brennan) wrote in message om...
snip various rants

We deployed our British and Australian hirelings because no one else
was willing. And because Moe always brings Larry and Curly when he
goes on a road trip.

I had thought Evan to be just rabidly anti-British, but now he has not
only extended that irrational thought process to include the Aussies,
but apparently also our own forces (Moe?!). It is probably appropriate
that he engages in this kind of discourse with the likes of
Aerophotos/JGG--kind of "worst meets the worst" from both sides. Too
bad they can't take their respective prejudices into a private
chatroom of some sort and (hopefully) knock both of themselves out...

The posts he writes are factitious -- a lot of what he writes is true,
but strung together so present his targets in the poorest light. He is
a cynic and ready to impute the least charitable motives to anyone
about whom he writes. It seems unlikely he has ever read a
historiography text, since he always seems to miss the basic bit about
putting yourself in the place of those of whom you write in order to
understand why they acted the way they did.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Andrew Chaplin wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

(Evan Brennan) wrote in message om...
snip various rants

We deployed our British and Australian hirelings because no one else
was willing. And because Moe always brings Larry and Curly when he
goes on a road trip.

I had thought Evan to be just rabidly anti-British, but now he has not
only extended that irrational thought process to include the Aussies,
but apparently also our own forces (Moe?!). It is probably appropriate
that he engages in this kind of discourse with the likes of
Aerophotos/JGG--kind of "worst meets the worst" from both sides. Too
bad they can't take their respective prejudices into a private
chatroom of some sort and (hopefully) knock both of themselves out...

The posts he writes are factitious -- a lot of what he writes is true,
but strung together so present his targets in the poorest light. He is
a cynic and ready to impute the least charitable motives to anyone
about whom he writes. It seems unlikely he has ever read a
historiography text, since he always seems to miss the basic bit about
putting yourself in the place of those of whom you write in order to
understand why they acted the way they did.

You are probably mostly correct, though he also has demonstrated a
marked ability to ignore reality when it suits him (i.e., his past
violently argued contention that SFOD-Delta was *not* based upon the
SAS when it was formed--which claim he made just before the
publication of the newest Delta-founding member's book (Haney, IIRC),
who like every other Delta guy who has written on the subject quite
openly admitted to the SAS influence). As to putting himself in their
place-- I find it a bit odd that he continually berates British,
Aussie, etc., military personnel, and has never apparently even worn a
uniform himself.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
: Andrew Chaplin wrote in message
...
: Kevin Brooks wrote:
:
: (Evan Brennan) wrote in message
om...
: snip various rants
:
: We deployed our British and Australian hirelings because no
one else
: was willing. And because Moe always brings Larry and Curly
when he
: goes on a road trip.
:
: I had thought Evan to be just rabidly anti-British, but now he
has not
: only extended that irrational thought process to include the
Aussies,
: but apparently also our own forces (Moe?!). It is probably
appropriate
: that he engages in this kind of discourse with the likes of
: Aerophotos/JGG--kind of "worst meets the worst" from both sides.
Too
: bad they can't take their respective prejudices into a private
: chatroom of some sort and (hopefully) knock both of themselves
out...
:
: The posts he writes are factitious -- a lot of what he writes is
true,
: but strung together so present his targets in the poorest light.
He is
: a cynic and ready to impute the least charitable motives to anyone
: about whom he writes. It seems unlikely he has ever read a
: historiography text, since he always seems to miss the basic bit
about
: putting yourself in the place of those of whom you write in order
to
: understand why they acted the way they did.
:
: You are probably mostly correct, though he also has demonstrated a
: marked ability to ignore reality when it suits him (i.e., his past
: violently argued contention that SFOD-Delta was *not* based upon the
: SAS when it was formed--which claim he made just before the
: publication of the newest Delta-founding member's book (Haney,
IIRC),
: who like every other Delta guy who has written on the subject quite
: openly admitted to the SAS influence). As to putting himself in
their
: place-- I find it a bit odd that he continually berates British,
: Aussie, etc., military personnel, and has never apparently even worn
a
: uniform himself.

He is one turkey who has his own selective view of history and
somewhat of a strained agenda..
And, as you state, some-one who has little firsthand knowledge of the
military..

(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
The posts he writes are factitious -- a lot of what he writes is true,
but strung together so present his targets in the poorest light.

You are probably mostly correct, though he also has demonstrated a
marked ability to ignore reality when it suits him (i.e., his past
violently argued contention that SFOD-Delta was *not* based upon the
SAS when it was formed


I never wrote anything like that. Don't put your words in my mouth.

We had a disagreement about the origins of -ALL- aspects of Delta Force
training and their responsibilities, back then and more recently. Not
just the parts associated with the SAS.

(Evan Brennan) wrote in message m...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
The posts he writes are factitious -- a lot of what he writes is true,
but strung together so present his targets in the poorest light.

You are probably mostly correct, though he also has demonstrated a
marked ability to ignore reality when it suits him (i.e., his past
violently argued contention that SFOD-Delta was *not* based upon the
SAS when it was formed


I never wrote anything like that. Don't put your words in my mouth.

We had a disagreement about the origins of -ALL- aspects of Delta Force
training and their responsibilities, back then and more recently. Not
just the parts associated with the SAS.

No need to put any words in your mouth...Your words:

"Your claim that Delta Force was solely modeled after the SAS is
easy to discredit..." (April 23, 2002).

Unfortunately, you never were able to actually *do* that discrediting,
instead trotting out examples of folks involved in Delta's founding
who were supposedly *not* influenced by Delta (like Dick Meadows)...

(24 April) "If Beckwith's only goal was to copy the SAS verbatim,
then he certainly would not need the services of Shumate and
Meadows..."

But oops, Meadows was indeed actually another of Beckwith's
SAS-exchange vets. Or the fact that you never could quite get it
through your head that the primary reason SFOD-Delta was founded by
Beckwith, with support from folks like Wilson, Kingston, Meyer, etc.,
was originally as a CT/HRT force, and that its later mission creep
into other areas...

(Your words, 1 May) "Smells like BS to me. You're saying that "back
in the 1970s" Delta Force was formed "for CT operations only" but
later "developed into something else"."

Yep, that was what I was saying, and a read of Beckwith, Haney,
Burrus, etc., will demonstrate that was indeed the original
reason/mission envisioned when Delta was formed, and it had to
complete with the 7th SFG's (COL Bob Mountel) "Blue Light" for that
role as it was first forming. Did you happen to read Haney's book yet?
But hey, like the other guys who were founding members and later wrote
books about Delta and its genesis as a US-form of the SAS, I am sure
you will discount him...

So...you can't get your facts straight about Delta due, apparently, to
myopic vision caused by an irrational hatred for all things
British...and now you continue to demonstrate the same lack of a grasp
of reality by dissing the various Aussie forces, compounded by a
slight directed at US forces to boot. Not a very impressive record you
have going for you there, Evan. If all of these folks, including our
own, are so screwed up, why have you chosen to not join them and
square them away?

Brooks