Monday, July 08, 2013

Battle of Hill 881.


via Wikipedia.
The first contact made with the NVA occurred on Hill 861 when five US Marine forward observers were ambushed in the bamboo, four of whom were killed by gunfire.
After this contact, two companies of Marines advanced on Hill 861, encountering heavy fire from entrenched NVA positions. Constant mortar barrages on potential landing zones prevented evacuation of wounded and fog cut off most air support. Separated, burdened with wounded and dead (it is US Marine Corps tradition never to leave their dead behind), both companies set up hedgehog positions until relieved by other Marine companies.
Even after skinning the hill with napalm, white phosphorus, 500-pound bombs and Huey (helicopter) runs, NVA snipers and machine guns would cut down advancing Marines. Entrenched NVA troops would wait until the Marines were 20-30 yards from their positions, firing on them, bombarding them with 82mm mortars hidden on the reverse sides of ridges and then pursuing them through the burnt trees.
After a constant day and night bombardment, Marine forces managed to take Hill 861, the closest hill mass to Khe Sanh. Dug into the hill they found 400 foxholes and 25 bunkers. The bunkers were often fortified with up to 6 ft of earth and logs, making them all but impervious to the 250- and 500-pound bombs of Marine aircraft.
Having taken Hill 861, the Marine forces advanced against Hill 881 South covered, as they found later, with 10 times as many foxholes and bunkers than 861. Despite the discovery of the well entrenched bunkers on Hill 861; Marine aircraft used 500-pound bombs in the bombardment of Hill 881 South for fear of hitting themselves with shrapnel when they flew low over their targets to avoid monsoon cloud.
With Hill 881 South insufficiently bombarded, Marine infantry found the going even harder than the previous hill, often taking fire from bunkers they had passed, effectively being surrounded on hills and ridges that their own artillery and airplanes had cleared of cover.
After the Marines had suffered heavy losses on Hill 881 South, a new commander ordered the Marine aircraft to break with tradition and use 750-, 1000- and 2000-pound bombs on the heavily-entrenched NVA forces.
With the hills properly bombarded, American forces managed to take Hill 881 North and South in the same day. After beating off a fierce NVA counterattack on Hill 881 North, the Marines could finally claim victory in what had become the bloodiest battle of the Vietnam War so far.
This is one of the most illustrative Battle of the Vietnam war.

*  It highlights the vulnerability of small units.
*  It shows that even overwhelming firepower is no guarantee of victory.
*  It shows the power of the enemy in defense (something never to be underestimated).
*  It illustrates the vulnerability of US forces when faced with effective enemy artillery fire.

But what it mainly shows us is this.

Airpower is NOT enough.

Quick question.

If the B-52s, F-4s, A-4, F-8s, A-7s, Hueys, CH-53s, CH-46s, CH-47s and all the rest of the assembled US firepower was not able to make the enemy turn tail and run, do you think that the V-22 and F-35 will?




14 comments :

  1. “do you think that the V-22 and F-35 will?”

    No, not by themselves. Thankfully the USMC has a lot more at its disposal like:

    1. AH-1Z with Hellfire, JAGM, APKWS, LOGIR, etc
    2. UH-1Y Huey with APKWS, LOGIR, & .50 cal MGs
    3. KC-130 with Harvest HAWK (Hellfire, JAGM, Griffin, & 30mm cannon)
    4. M777 with Excalibur rounds and other PGMs based on smart fuses
    5. EFSS with GPS & Laser (in dev) guided rounds
    6. PGMs for organic 60mm & 81mm mortar fire
    7. Counter battery radar
    8. Drones a plenty, both recon and offensive in nature
    9. Thermal sights that make camouflaged positions virtually useless
    10. Heavy caliber (.50 & .338 Lampua) snipers with thermal sights & spotters
    11. Accurate shore +100nm bombardment from DG-1000
    12. Most important of all, situational awareness provided by a myriad of systems.

    Gone are the days of blindly charging up hills to take ground in the face of known enemy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. accuracy only makes up for lack of throw weight (the amount of bombs that can be dropped, number of shells fired). remember this was a dug in enemy. a smart enemy. even the japanese during ww2 built their caves with a number of escape routes. additionally even with our tremendous ISR capability the air forces are still decieved by deception if its done properly.

      so to answer, we have too few aircraft that are dropping too few bombs to make a difference. what could have changed things? armored fighting vehicles.

      Delete
    2. Accuracy also means that you hit it the first time and do not have to keep dropping dumb bombs "hoping" you hit a target that you "think" is down there.

      On the AFV note, I agree... The USMC should have some sort of CH-53 capable AFV like the M8 or the old Ontos.

      Delete
    3. Force multipliers don't replace the force, and the chairforce needs to keep those damn drones the fuck away from CAS

      Delete
    4. The boots on the ground seem to disagree with you as they LOVE the drones and the increased SA they provide. Hell, they are doing everything they can to arm them, even the ones that were never meant to be armed.

      Delete
  2. Just remember that you're fighting an enemy who is as brave and determined as you are. He might not "turn tail and run" under any circumstances. Like the Japanese soldiers of the Second World War.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Solomon is right...a well trained foe can illude modern ISR...during Operation Allied Force NATO air strikes only managed to destroy 14 tanks/IFVs and the Chinese embassy...all other strike were against decoys...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is because the Chump in Chief tried to run the entire thing from the air.

      Delete
  4. I love it when I learn different lessons from the real soldiers
    "* It highlights the vulnerability of small units.
    * It shows that even overwhelming firepower is no guarantee of victory.
    * It shows the power of the enemy in defense (something never to be underestimated).
    * It illustrates the vulnerability of US forces when faced with effective enemy artillery fire."


    Its not so much small units that are the problem, but a lack of, loss tolerance.
    5x 20 man rifle troops are no less survivable than a 100 man rifle company, but a 20 man rifle troop is a lot less survivable than a 100 man rifle company

    Once the US brought overwhelming fire power to the party, the NVA positions buckled and did so fast.
    Drop a Tallboy on a hill and theres no more hill.
    Overkill perhaps, but penetrating or two stage 2000lbers scoring 1metre CEPS will kill identified positions fast.
    2x60mm mortars dont equal a 120mm.

    Defence is a tricky issue, but IMHO mobile defence will provide the best possible loss rations.
    Castles allow you to be pinned down and crushed under heavy artillery, much better to lead the enemy in to ambush after ambush under your heavy guns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In spite of the insistence of Douhet fanboys, airpower never has and never will win a war. At the end of the day, all platforms will run out of gas and munitions, then be forced to return to base, thus allowing the enemy to return.

    It is part of the combined arms force, but is there to support the ground mission.

    Part of what our enemies in Vietnam learned is that our firepower, while extremely dangerous when applied, was neutralized the closer their ground forces were to our forces when the fight began. By 'hugging the belt', it made it difficult to bring in arty and CAS without endangering our own troops. Thus, relying on firepower to bail you out is a mistake as well.

    Unfortunately, that is precisely how we are organized, as if we're still the AEF in 1918 being instructed by the French Army, relying on arty to destroy the objective and infantry to follow and occupy it. Whether it's Schneider 15,5cm, or A-7's dropping 1000lbs or Hellfires from a Predator UAV, we rely too much on firepower.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Marines should keep to helos beacuse they will not be able to fight a "hightech" enemy by themselfs in the future. Why? Well, the lack of updated armour, AWACS and refuling assets for the F-35B.

    Against a "lowtech" opponent helos and ground/sea based AA will be enough to rule the skies and make way for a landing. If action is needed against a more modern opponent... bring the airforce or navy.

    Airpower is expensive, let someone else do it. As Spud mentioned, there is alot of firesupport in the marines, the F-35B is not needed in that role. Get more helos, GPS guided rounds, modern armour and a AA umbrella from hell and the marines will once again rule the beach.

    /Sebastian

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many at the Pentagon that would disagree with you, not including the USMC.

      The USMC needs their own organic fast jets so that they can operate independent of big deck carriers.

      Delete
    2. Pentagon can bark all they want but in the end the (lack of) money will decide. If the marines meet an opponent that can threaten their ships... then the navy should be there.

      And if the marines cant get to shore or survive a battle inland due to lack of armour, is there a need of a fast jet? First you get the basics right then you sprinkel it with gadgets. Top end fighter/strike ac belongs (my opinion) with the airforce and navy...

      Lets all se what the lack of money brings, I think the good ol times is gone and everyone will have to make sacrifices.

      /Sebastian

      Delete
    3. If the F-35B existed in a vacuum, then you might have a point.

      However, it is a small part of a much bigger program. Keeping the USMC from buying it would also not make the program much cheaper as the UK & Italy would still be buying it. USMC ops would also be more expensive as an entire CBG would have to escort the USMC everywhere they go.

      There is a reason why the USMC has organic airpower.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.