This is inspired by Emperor Norton's thread about how long could America stay in Vietnam OTL. Essentially, handwaving any likely objections by congress over continued involvement in Southeast Asia, what would be the outcome of the 1975 Spring Offensive if the United States honored its commitment to South Vietnam by resupplying it as it did to Israel in 1973? How long could such supplies keep ARVN operational and Saigon preserving its independence? Would the GVN manage to squeak through the finish line as the proxy wars shifted focus to Central Asia, or would it only delay the inevitable for a year or two?
WI: ARVN gets Nickel Grass
- Thread starter M. Adolphe Thiers
- Start date
The most likely scenario is an initial setback for ARVN, and then they hold the line. Long term is the same, but eventually the ARVN loses the war once the NVA gets a lucky breakthrough.
The strategic problem for the ARVN is that being solely on the defensive, the NVA can always recover from mistakes, build up again, and launch another attack. As long as they continue to get support from the USSR and China, they can keep mounting offensives.
The US keeping ARVN supplied only negates the supply issue. It does not change the fact that by being defensive only, the ARVN can never adequately punish North Vietnam to not risk war.
There is a small chance that if ARVN can hold on to most of the south for a decade or more, that South Vietnam becomes successful enough to consider mounting its own invasion of the north - either by its own initiative, or most likely by a counteroffensive. If that happens, then North Vietnam might actually honor the peace and cease its attacks allowing for a permanent division. I would give no more than a 5-10% chance of that happening. It's possible, but not very likely. If we add American airstrikes over South Vietnam against the invading NVA, then the percentage that South Vietnam survives long term increases.
The strategic problem for the ARVN is that being solely on the defensive, the NVA can always recover from mistakes, build up again, and launch another attack. As long as they continue to get support from the USSR and China, they can keep mounting offensives.
The US keeping ARVN supplied only negates the supply issue. It does not change the fact that by being defensive only, the ARVN can never adequately punish North Vietnam to not risk war.
There is a small chance that if ARVN can hold on to most of the south for a decade or more, that South Vietnam becomes successful enough to consider mounting its own invasion of the north - either by its own initiative, or most likely by a counteroffensive. If that happens, then North Vietnam might actually honor the peace and cease its attacks allowing for a permanent division. I would give no more than a 5-10% chance of that happening. It's possible, but not very likely. If we add American airstrikes over South Vietnam against the invading NVA, then the percentage that South Vietnam survives long term increases.
I agree, a resupply doesn't in itself guarantee the survival of South Vietnam. Longer term they need the kind of strike capabilty the intradict a conventional invasions supply lines that in 1975 only the US could supply.
I'd guess that a couple of years along the track, a South Vietnamese Air Force with some Phantoms and Paveways would make things very difficult for the north.
And you do have to ask how long the USSR is going to support a bunch of "failures" from the North Vietnamese as well.
I'd guess that a couple of years along the track, a South Vietnamese Air Force with some Phantoms and Paveways would make things very difficult for the north.
And you do have to ask how long the USSR is going to support a bunch of "failures" from the North Vietnamese as well.
That's my next question. Suppose that they do stop the Spring Offensive. That's two failed invasions in a row by the North Vietnamese. Are the Soviets going to back a third offensive? I guess it depends on when and how much a beating PAVN takes, but as we get closer to 1979 I don't think the will to do so will be there anymore as Afghanistan becomes a major conflict for Moscow.
Also, how would this effect Laos and Cambodia?
Now Cambodia was a total Cluster-f***. I can't see that going much different to how it did although I suppose that if the government was given it's own "Nickle Grass" operation (perhaps called "Nickle Back") that they could survive for a bit longer - ammunition was their biggest issue too.
Which gives the South Vietnamese another set of borders to be worried about until they turn on themselves. It seems unlikely that we'd see any kind of intervention though as we saw in OTL, so that means the Khmer Rouge get to slaughter more people.
Which gives the South Vietnamese another set of borders to be worried about until they turn on themselves. It seems unlikely that we'd see any kind of intervention though as we saw in OTL, so that means the Khmer Rouge get to slaughter more people.
The Soviets spent an inordinate amount to bolster its allies overseas and in Europe. It subsidized all the other Communist states (except China) heavily.
I can easily see the Soviets supporting North Vietnam into the mid-eighties at the very least. However, this additional pressure on Soviet resources will only drive Gorbachev to push glasnost and perestroika harder. Assuming the South Vietnamese can hold out that long, this mid-eighties hinge is exactly when the South Vietnamese might finally be able to contemplate an attack across the border as well, so a true peace deal may be possible. Still, that's a long ten years. There can probably be at least 5 more offensives by the NVA during that time.
Subsidise is very different from "support in making attacks". The USSR dropped massively it's level of support for Egypt for example once they showed themselves to be incompetent.
You also have to factor in what will the PRC do. Remember in OTL they attacked Vietnam in 1979. If they see the Russians dropping or cutting back the support to the North, might they go for a regime change? Have another version of Korea to their south with their own person running North Vietnam?
Wouldn't that risk turning North Vietnam into a state of civil war? The North Vietnamese would probably be horrified by the intervention as an attempt at annexation.
It'd be a boon for Saigon though, it would relieve a lot of pressure off of them and make Hanoi the ones who were puppets.
It would depend on how they do the regime change. If it was by getting an
"accident" then there would likely as not be no civil war, but it it was more overt then you could have the Soviet vs the PRC factions fighting it out. The PRC would eventually win out just because of the fact they would be able to send help more directly then the Soviets.
"accident" then there would likely as not be no civil war, but it it was more overt then you could have the Soviet vs the PRC factions fighting it out. The PRC would eventually win out just because of the fact they would be able to send help more directly then the Soviets.
A second invasion that is repulsed would probably lead to a somewhat more permanent American deployment. In Korea, the U.S. kept a residual force - what pretty much amounted to the Second Infantry Division and two fighter wings. A similar force may be in Vietnam - call it the 23rd Infantry Division and an air force fighter wing (call it the 12th Fighter Wing).
Once the decision to leave a residual force is made, then South Vietnam probably will survive. Figure it will be following much the same path as South Korea is, albeit about two decades behind.
Unconsensual
Banned
Well part of the problem was that by the OTL end of American deployment in Vietnam the South Vietnamese economy was recovering but only due to it's reliance on American aid and spending. Unless the United states was willing to supply the same amount of money (that is in addition to supplies) that it did when it had troops on the ground you can expect the aid-reliant SV economy to tank and get all the troubles a recession comes with.
Militarily they were left a lot of gear for a rich man's war but asides from being poor their soldiers were never trained well. Like OTL the morale and discipline was so abysmal that if units were deployed near near their home regions then they would often defect and disband . That and their numerous political problems (namely legitimacy) and average to sub-par leadership.
And also If you are going to hand wave the main focus of the war (politics) and the main problem for the South Vietnamese (corruption) then why bother? Might as well play a game of Risk.
Militarily they were left a lot of gear for a rich man's war but asides from being poor their soldiers were never trained well. Like OTL the morale and discipline was so abysmal that if units were deployed near near their home regions then they would often defect and disband . That and their numerous political problems (namely legitimacy) and average to sub-par leadership.
And also If you are going to hand wave the main focus of the war (politics) and the main problem for the South Vietnamese (corruption) then why bother? Might as well play a game of Risk.
I wasn't aware I did that. I only said to ignore Congress' likely refusal to do such a resupply, because I didn't want the thread to simply be posts of, "The Democrats in control of Congress won't allow it. /thread".
Unconsensual
Banned
Won't change how rotten the SV government was, how ineffective it's military was, or the fundamental problem that the war was never really a military engagement like the Americans envisioned.
It's the equivalent of hand waving the RN in a sea lion thread; there's no connection to OTL.
Please point to me where I said that the Republic of Vietnam was anything close to being a great government. And since it's 1975, the US isn't even going to be involved in the combat anymore, which was the entire premise of the thread.
Unconsensual
Banned
It wasn't nesscarily directed at you, many of the posts here suggests that the SV government would last simply due to it getting military supplies or somehow congress would do a 180 against it's Vietnamization policy and public opinion and redeploy to Vietnam.
The objection I had with the OP was on the political aspect, in a war where politics was the decisive factor-politics was hand waved.
This is blatently incorrect. A great many South Vietnamese units (Marines, Airborne, Rangers, 1st Infantry Div) were considered world class.
Like all militaries, they function poorly when poorly supplied.