James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jul 17, 2018 17:06:03 GMT
Britain stayed out of the Vietnam War unlike fellow Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand. What would it have taken to see the UK enter? A different PM other than Wilson surely?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,984
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 17, 2018 17:10:00 GMT
Britain stayed out of the Vietnam War unlike fellow Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand. What would it have taken to see the UK enter? A different PM other than Wilson surely? Now that I would love to see, the SAS in the jungle, the Royal Navy of the coast of Vietnam and the RAF doing dogfights over North Vietnam. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jul 17, 2018 18:54:29 GMT
Britain stayed out of the Vietnam War unlike fellow Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand. What would it have taken to see the UK enter? A different PM other than Wilson surely? Now that I would love to see, the SAS in the jungle, the Royal Navy of the coast of Vietnam and the RAF doing dogfights over North Vietnam. Participation would be strongly opposed domestically though. Britain had an all-volunteer Armed Forces so there would be no conscription but, still... it would be unpopular. The contribution would be small but you would see special forces, warships and aircraft certainly rather than a big infantry commitment. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,984
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 17, 2018 18:57:16 GMT
Now that I would love to see, the SAS in the jungle, the Royal Navy of the coast of Vietnam and the RAF doing dogfights over North Vietnam. Participation would be strongly opposed domestically though. Britain had an all-volunteer Armed Forces so there would be no conscription but, still... it would be unpopular. The contribution would be small but you would see special forces, warships and aircraft certainly rather than a big infantry commitment. Would it be limited to the RAF and Royal Navy only ore would we see British infantry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 19:27:21 GMT
Now that I would love to see, the SAS in the jungle, They were in Vietnam en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service_Regiment#Vietnamthe Royal Navy of the coast of Vietnam and the RAF doing dogfights over North Vietnam. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force would have suffered as badly as the USN and USAF, the British aircraft would be outclassed by MiG-17s, MiG-19s and MiG-21s |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jul 17, 2018 19:37:07 GMT
Participation would be strongly opposed domestically though. Britain had an all-volunteer Armed Forces so there would be no conscription but, still... it would be unpopular. The contribution would be small but you would see special forces, warships and aircraft certainly rather than a big infantry commitment. Would it be limited to the RAF and Royal Navy only ore would we see British infantry.
Well Britain had good experience of jungle warfare and anti-guerilla activity in Malaya during the communist operations there and also in Sarawak during the attacks from Indonesia which had only recently finished. As such there could be a good basis for expert support against the communists from the north, both by trainers/advisers and possibly some elite units. However in the British cases they had relied heavily on 'heart and minds' operations to win local support and also being the colonial power in the 1st case and a strong protector in the latter they were used to having control, which wouldn't be the case in Vietnam. Hence there could be problems getting ideas supported by both the S Vietnamese government and the US advisers and military. Its possibly British involvement might make a big impact and possible it would do little/nothing other than sour relations between Britain and the US.
Winning the war would be a big ask given the relative immunity of N Vietnamese territory and the massive military support given by both the Soviets and Mao's China but its possibly, if unlikely I suspect that S Vietnam could change internal policies enough to maintain internal support until N Vietnam exhausts its manpower it can afford to commit to attacking the south, possibly coupled with a US bombing campaign that brings the war home to the north.
However I think its unlikely that Britain would support any direct military intervention because its likely to be deeply unpopular inside Britain. Suspect you would need a Tory government as I can't really see Labour, especially under Wilson backing such a move. Given also that the Tories have been in power since 1951 and the liberal feeling in Britain during the 60's it would be difficult seeing a Tory PM agreeing intervention and very likely they would be voted out at the next election. At least unless the Soviets say had done something that really upset British opinion.
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Jul 17, 2018 21:27:54 GMT
Great Britain was in VERY bad shape in the late 60ties and early 70ties.
A (massive?) activity in Vietnam is costly, basically if the british enter this, they ruin their economy more and in the end they have nil carriers (fleet will be cut back even worse)...
the impact would be small - yes, they have some good troops for jungle warfare, but compared to the US army they would be insignificant.
The main problem of the vietnam war is, that the USA never fought it the way it needed to be fought. The british will be in even worse position to do that. (Destroy dams in north vietnam, drow half a million "peaceful civilians, allready suffering by imperialistic nazi-yankees (as the media, esp. the most leftist influencer told the world)" and you have exploding societies at home and nil impact in vietnam
no good idea...
in the air they get slaughtered by the migs, above the jungle they suffer incredible casulties (they cannot replace - the US could) for the needed helicopters, at home the protests will heat up.
it is a loose loose situation.
Fallout:
In 1982 the argentines could take the malvenies with no fear from the british, who lack any chance to move a significant force south. Because - they have no longer the capacity to move or defend such force.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jul 17, 2018 22:35:30 GMT
Great Britain was in VERY bad shape in the late 60ties and early 70ties.A (massive?) activity in Vietnam is costly, basically if the british enter this, they ruin their economy more and in the end they have nil carriers (fleet will be cut back even worse)... the impact would be small - yes, they have some good troops for jungle warfare, but compared to the US army they would be insignificant. The main problem of the vietnam war is, that the USA never fought it the way it needed to be fought. The british will be in even worse position to do that. (Destroy dams in north vietnam, drow half a million "peaceful civilians, allready suffering by imperialistic nazi-yankees (as the media, esp. the most leftist influencer told the world)" and you have exploding societies at home and nil impact in vietnam no good idea... in the air they get slaughtered by the migs, above the jungle they suffer incredible casulties (they cannot replace - the US could) for the needed helicopters, at home the protests will heat up. it is a loose loose situation. Fallout: In 1982 the argentines could take the malvenies with no fear from the british, who lack any chance to move a significant force south. Because - they have no longer the capacity to move or defend such force.
Superficially yes things were bad in the late 60s & 70s' but that needed some political change. Unfortunately not the ones we got from 79 onwards.  The core of the economy was still pretty strong and had a broad base with some very promising new industries developing in the mid-70's as well as the potential boost of North Sea oil but unfortunately that got wasted in the 80's and 90's as Thatcherism destroyed both the economic and social base of the economy.
I'm not sure a British involvement in Vietnam would ever have been that large. Fairly small scale trainers and some elite troops but agree that the extreme left would have kicked up a fuss about it and misrepresented the war as they did OTL. Which is a major reason why I doubt Britain would be involved as I said above.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,984
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 18, 2018 3:18:06 GMT
the Royal Navy of the coast of Vietnam and the RAF doing dogfights over North Vietnam. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force would have suffered as badly as the USN and USAF, the British aircraft would be outclassed by MiG-17s, MiG-19s and MiG-21s So the RAF has not fighter in the 1960 that can match those planes. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Jul 18, 2018 9:48:51 GMT
Great Britain was in VERY bad shape in the late 60ties and early 70ties.A (massive?) activity in Vietnam is costly, basically if the british enter this, they ruin their economy more and in the end they have nil carriers (fleet will be cut back even worse)... the impact would be small - yes, they have some good troops for jungle warfare, but compared to the US army they would be insignificant. The main problem of the vietnam war is, that the USA never fought it the way it needed to be fought. The british will be in even worse position to do that. (Destroy dams in north vietnam, drow half a million "peaceful civilians, allready suffering by imperialistic nazi-yankees (as the media, esp. the most leftist influencer told the world)" and you have exploding societies at home and nil impact in vietnam no good idea... in the air they get slaughtered by the migs, above the jungle they suffer incredible casulties (they cannot replace - the US could) for the needed helicopters, at home the protests will heat up. it is a loose loose situation. Fallout: In 1982 the argentines could take the malvenies with no fear from the british, who lack any chance to move a significant force south. Because - they have no longer the capacity to move or defend such force.
Superficially yes things were bad in the late 60s & 70s' but that needed some political change. Unfortunately not the ones we got from 79 onwards. The core of the economy was still pretty strong and had a broad base with some very promising new industries developing in the mid-70's as well as the potential boost of North Sea oil but unfortunately that got wasted in the 80's and 90's as Thatcherism destroyed both the economic and social base of the economy.
I'm not sure a British involvement in Vietnam would ever have been that large. Fairly small scale trainers and some elite troops but agree that the extreme left would have kicked up a fuss about it and misrepresented the war as they did OTL. Which is a major reason why I doubt Britain would be involved as I said above.
Well, we differ about the "economic health" of UK in the mid/late 60ties and 70ties  My point i tried to explain: If the british send a small unit, 200 men, 10 helicopters, a frigate and maybe some vulcan bombers (as support for the massive areal bombing of the B52-crews in northern vietnam) they still spend so much money that they have to cut back other things. the navy was so tight financed, that you basically rob peter to finance paul. Peter could be the carriers (early - so UK maybe lack them completly!) and other necessary stuff. Also the population would be deadly opposed to it. Just like in germany or france. With UK spending much effort in the NATO, esp. in western germany, they have to decide a.) do what they did OTL (Nato-doctrine, also better grip about germany) b.) reduce this (political bad signal, weakens the standing in the western world) and do something "useless" in vietnam. I really can´t see em doing b.) Also, it is not only the "extreme left" who saw the vietnam war as a criminal, brutal act of mass murdering. That happened in the USA, in the whole of western europe. Sure they glorfied the brutal vietnamese as "socialist liberators", but the whole south vietnam dicatorship was nearly as brutal as the north, propably more brutal and the behaviour of the US forces can only be described as "slaughtering helpless civilians in the thousends to catch (maybe) 100 hostile troops. Add in the TV-shows that give that live into the tv-rooms worldwide and you cannot win this war. But for UK - the impact would have been nil. To have impact the british need to withdraw 1-3 divisions out of western germany, violating nato-doctrine, also concentrate most of its navy and many aircrafts in that area. An area they are not suited for, fighting the same wrong war as the USA did. For a "real war" with the same methods and the will to beat the nazis, the North would have been beaten in 3 months by the US army. But that wasn´t in the cards. Nothing UK would do would change this, just the situation for the Royal Navy, Royal Airforce and the Groundforces would be worse compared to OTL. Sometimes it IS as simple. |
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Jul 18, 2018 13:10:52 GMT
For the economic par to the OP, the Americans were eager to have help in Vietnam, expecially from the British (as they consider them much better at counterinsurgery), so the US were basically ready to pay for the deployment of the British force and give even more. IRC they proposed to give a substantial monetary help to stabilize the pound in exchange of sending troops, so in reality this move will help the UK economy even if indirectely...regarding the internal politics it's another matter, as i see a lot of protest overall the country if this proposal it's accepted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 13:42:41 GMT
So the RAF has not fighter in the 1960 that can match those planes. I wouldn't want to go and fight with MiGs in an EE Lightning, Gloster Javelin, Hawker Hunter or DH Sea Vixen, no. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,984
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 18, 2018 13:47:24 GMT
So the RAF has not fighter in the 1960 that can match those planes. I wouldn't want to go and fight with MiGs in an EE Lightning, Gloster Javelin, Hawker Hunter or DH Sea Vixen, no. That bad, i never knew that. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Jul 18, 2018 17:34:44 GMT
For the economic par to the OP, the Americans were eager to have help in Vietnam, expecially from the British (as they consider them much better at counterinsurgery), so the US were basically ready to pay for the deployment of the British force and give even more. IRC they proposed to give a substantial monetary help to stabilize the pound in exchange of sending troops, so in reality this move will help the UK economy even if indirectely...regarding the internal politics it's another matter, as i see a lot of protest overall the country if this proposal it's accepted Well, that is something to consider... but would that work? i mean the US would deliver US weapons, goods, bombs, aircrafts, but they would not really finance british weaponary? if yes things could be different (from the monetary aspect)... but the fall after the lost war (latest in 1975) would be even harder - for UK. USA never was known for support if it doesn´t suit them anymore.... |
|
The core of the economy was still pretty strong and had a broad base with some very promising new industries developing in the mid-70's as well as the potential boost of North Sea oil but unfortunately that got wasted in the 80's and 90's as Thatcherism destroyed both the economic and social base of the economy.