How would 1980s U.S. military technology fare against an extended Vietnam War?

How would 1980s U.S. military technology fare against an extended Vietnam War? Dec 10, 2021 8:19:09 GMT stevep likes this

Quote

Post by gillan1220 on Dec 10, 2021 8:19:09 GMT

Dec 10, 2021 7:28:51 GMT miletus12 said:

Jul 4, 2021 12:52:23 GMT gillan1220 said:

I asked in the other forum an AHC where the Vietnam War drags on to the 1980s.

Like most topics, the weaponry is less important than the human beings involved.

With the change of technology in that decade, I was curious how this extended Vietnam War would look like where in the M16A2, M2 Bradley, M1 Abrams, F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet, A-10 Thunderbolt, AH-64 Apache, UH-60 Blackhawk, and the Tomahawk cruise missiles fare against the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong.

The upgrade in American technology would be countered by Russian and Warsaw Pact upgrades as a rule. One does not see the overmatch until the Americans gain in training and doctrine maturity in the early 1990s.

The M16A2 would probably be preferred as the M16A1 was prone to jamming. Also, soldiers and marines do not need to spray-and-pray as the burst-fire function of the A2 is meant for soldiers to conserve ammo.

Chroming the barrel, teaching the soldiers to clean after every action or shooting event and using a less corrosive propellant was the changes as Stoner suggested. The feed assist was a cosmetic change of no real functional use. Otherwise; the rifle has been basically the same platform Stoner gave to the USAF and which the American army adopted. the three round burst option became necessary because the soldiers could not maintain semi-auto fire discipline no matter how intensely taught.

The M2 Bradley would probably save more lives from casualties caused by subpar protection provided by the M113. The Abrams would no doubt dominate the battlefield against NVA T-55s and T-62s. Those newer jets would swat Vietnamese MiGs off the sky. The Apache would probably provide air support in a similar role to the Huey gunships. The Blackhawks would probably fly alongside the Hueys. Tomahawks could be used to perform SEAD/DEAD against NVA SAM systems.

1. Too heavy for ground conditions was the M2 bradley, it would bog.
2. I observed M-1 Abrams tanks operate in swamps. Nope. Strykers might be preferred.
3. The problem with MIGs would be solved with better air to air missiles and reversion to classic air combat energy tactics as Walter Boyd urged in the early 1970s. The planes (F-4s) were good enough. it was the pilot training, air combat tactics and missiles which were terrible. SAMs and AAA are stgill going to be trouble as the SA-6 and ZSU 23 and 57s come online. Same solution; Wild Weasels, ARM missiles and the SEAD / KEAD packages.

What do you guys think?

See previous comments.

This is a good analysis.

How would 1980s U.S. military technology fare against an extended Vietnam War? Dec 11, 2021 13:25:43 GMT gillan1220 likes this

Quote

Post by sandyman on Dec 11, 2021 13:25:43 GMT

The problem the Americans had was that the boots on the ground Army were broken no one apart prom the lifers wanted to fight. The Navy had the same problem with anti war sailors damaging Carriers. The Air Force were not that badly affected and I believe the Marines who did enforce the UCMJ fared a lot better. Also the restrictions on Where and what could be bombed North Of the border seriously hampered the war and if you add in how corrupt the Southern Government were it was almost impossible to win the war.

If the people government and troops were for the war then things may have worked out.

Now if the Air Force had more advanced bombers ie B1 Lancer and upgraded B52s with a free fire policy then things would have been different the North Could have been bombed back into the Stone Age yes the Sams would have been upgraded as would the Russian Fighters but with the American lead in Jammers F111 Ravens etc there would have been a better chance of ending the conflict.

As to the Navy well Tomahawks would seriously help as long as you knew where to point them at and naturally the F14 would be a massive game changer.

The Army well bin the M16 go for a Fal 7.62 as it packed a dammed better punch than a silly little 5.56 rounds and was not that maintenance heavy after all the Australians used them. As for the M113 well it simply needed more armour AKA what was used on vehicles in Iraq and that other hell hole. Proper body armour instead of those stupid flack jackets would I am sure saved many men’s lives. Improved coms and more and better satellite intel would go along what.

But have amazing kit is great but you need willing body’s to use it and public support. There was no way that America could have won with out the support at home and in country.

Gallery Title:
Image URL:
Image Title:
Comment:
Tick this box if you would like to allow other members to add images to your gallery.Add Image

alternate-timelines.com

title

How would 1980s U.S. military technology fare against an extended Vietnam War?

Post by gillan1220 on Dec 10, 2021 8:19:09 GMT

Post by sandyman on Dec 11, 2021 13:25:43 GMT