I took a few hours to count and do the math.14,368 Americans died from 25 June–31 December 1950 in the Korean War.16,899 Americans died during the entire year of 1968, which was the Vietnam War's deadliest year.That means 1950 in Korea saw 75.62 deaths per day while 1968 in Vietnam saw 46.30 deaths per day. That's 1.63x as many deaths.This easily makes the first 5 months of the Korean War the deadliest period in United States military history after WWII and to this day.Does this surprise anyone or no?
i'm not surprised that Korea was way more casualty-intensive than Vietnam, but it being the deadliest period in United States military history after WWII is surprising if true. Then again, I can sort of see why that very well could be true. The first half-year that the US military spent in Korea stopping the NKPA's advance was a nightmare consisting of one half-baked US Army rifle company after another with jammed rifles and trucks with no spare tires getting thrown into the path of what was essentially a miniature Soviet army group to try and slow them down. It was way more similar to the conventional fighting seen on Bataan or the Kasserine Pass in the early 1940s than the rest of the Cold War. It's a miracle that whatever motley regiments the Army could scrape up and throw into the Norks' path at the Kum River, Yeongdong, Taejon, etc was able to prevent a Dunkirk in Asia.
>>18661028No not really, norks were fighting for the existence of their country, and the entry of China resulted in a HARD retreat from North Korea
>>18661028The worst part of it all is how easily they could have defeated the vietnamese communists just by doing what they did to tokyo. But the yanks made some effort to be humane which their enemy never bothered with so now we're all stuck with third worlders thinking this was some mighty military victory for browns.
>>18661028>conventional high intensity war has higher casualties than guerrila war with the occasional conventional operationwhy should anyone be surprised? unless you get your information purely from sensationalized television programmes you'd already know that guerrila warfare generally results in much lower casualties for the occupying force than a full scale direct military engagement, because it is intermittent and low-intensity.the only reason the casualties were that high in 1968 is because of the Tet offensive.
>>18661039the US bombed the shit out of North Vietnam, and ended up losing a shit ton of aircraft in the process since it turned out the Russians heavily supplied them with some of their best aa missiles
>>18661041They didn't do it enough to allow victory
>>18661039>so now we're all stuck with third worlders thinking this was some mighty military victory for brownsyeah because that's what it is lol
>>18661047oh yeah just commit more assets that will also get shot down and leave other areas vunerable, I'm sure just another bombing would totally do the trick this time
>>18661049And only due to the benevolence of white people lol
>>18661041>the US bombed the shit out of North Vietnamwith the exception of linebacker II (which pushed the north vietnamese to the negotiation table in a couple of days) the US never did unresitricted bombing of north vietnamthe longest bombardment campaign was rolling thunder and there every single fucking target had to be approved by the white house and there were whole classes of infrastructure that were strictly off limits.once again, the popular perception of vietnam has nothing to do with the war itself.
>>18661037Korea had lower hostile deaths overall, but a large amount came in those first 5 months.There were 33,739 hostile deaths in Korea and 54,246 deaths overall. Meanwhile Vietnam saw 47,434 hostile and 58,220 total deaths.It's interesting to note that hostile deaths only account for 62.19% of total deaths in Korea, while they account for 81.47% of total deaths in Vietnam. Source is dcas, by the way.>but it being the deadliest period in United States military history after WWII is surprising if true. I can't really see any competitors, honestly. 14,368 dead in 190 days is pretty savage.
>>18661050see >>18661053 retard. go and actually read up on the events you are debating. the US only bombed vietnam for 3 years between 65 and 68, and then for two short periods in 1972, and only in 72 did they actually commit to a serious high intensity effort. rolling thunder was a politically managed clusterfuck basically designed to maximize American casualties
>>18661028based gooks
>>18661051having a less backbone, willpower, and focus isn't benevolence. Stop trying to paint weakness as an attempt to be nice. The US lost because it couldn't stomach the casualties of losing a dozen airmen a day over North Vietnam and because the counterculture population at home was seething incoherently at the entire war effort and had no stomach for it.
>>18661059>couldn't stomach the casualties of losing a dozen airmen a day over North Vietnamnta but I think it's more from fear of Soviet and Chinese intervention.Nixon secured the political stage before Linebacker II to ensure that wouldn't happen, after all.
>>18661060>nta but I think it's more from fear of Soviet and Chinese interventionthat's just another point in favour of the US just flat out being too scared to do what was necessary to "win" (reduce Vietnam to radioactive ash in order to "save it from communism").
>>18661059So you agree that the victory only happened because of white people restraining themselves. The generally decent treatment of viet cong pows refutes this argument anyway lol.
>>18661063>So you agree that the victory only happened because of white people restraining themselvesno, i'm implying that the victory happened because white people were total scatter-brained weaklings. learn 2 read.
>>18661064And that's refuted by how well most pows were treated>weaklingsAnd yet the south vietnamese asked for their help
>>18661068>And that's refuted by how well most pows were treatedso they were tender-hearted weaklings. that's cool i guess. you weakling.>And yet the south vietnamese asked for their helpand then they collapsed and died because whites were weaklings. the end
>>18661069You trying to make fun of americans for being too nice is so brown it's funny.
>>18661074>You trying to make fun of americans for being too nicecan you just genuinely not read or are you pretending to be completely thick to save face? i'm making fun of them for being weak. not nice. weak. get that through your tiny little brain.
>>18661076What do you think made them weak?
>>18661077>What do you think made them weak?them being Americans. When confronted by any real pressure they always turn out to be weaklings. why do you ask? too dumb as bricks to be able to work it out yourself, weakling?
>>18661079What pressure caused them to give good treatment to pows?
>>18661080>What pressure caused them to give good treatment to pows?being weak. >inb4 *sniff* i-it's because they were so nice and kind and warm little ytboisno it's because they were weak losers
>>18661059>. The US lost because it couldn't stomach the casualties of losing a dozen airmen a day over North Vietnamyou left out the part where the US government made the North Vietnamese airbases and most radar stations off limits for bombardment, as well as the port facilities and transporation networks that were used to resupply the vietnamese air defenses.someone actually trying to win would've bombed the airbases, mined Haiphong in 1965 and instituted a round-the-clock no fly zone over Hanoi
>>18661082>being weak.What caused that weakness?
>>18661028The US never invaded North Vietnam but fought well beyond the 38th parallel in Korea, so how is that surprising exactly?
>>18661083>you left out the part where the US fucked up over and over again because they were weakno I don't think I did. they fucked up in all the ways you described because they were scatter-brained, cowardly, and weak. Period.>>18661084>What caused that weaknessbeing American. if you're going to insist on going in circles yet again you have the reasoning skills of a 5-year old. Or an American weakling.
Yeah looks like the thirdie isn't very pleased knowing the real reason his judeo bolsheviks managed to win
>>18661087>knowing the real reason his judeo bolsheviks managed to winwhat, that Americans are weak cattle? yeah that's a pretty good reason why judeo bolsheviks win
>>18661088Thoughts on the Gaza war?
>>18661091dont care about it. stop changing the subject like a scatter-brained waway from Americans being a weak people in Vietnam
>>18661053>the popular perception of vietnam has nothing to do with the war itself.If there's one thing that holds true since WW2 is that bombing brown people is really bad PR, but no one gives damn when Europeans are bombed.
>>18661093Do you think perhaps America should have used nukes in Vietnam as some have suggested at the time?
>>18661055>Korea had lower hostile deaths overall, but a large amount came in those first 5 months.>There were 33,739 hostile deaths in Korea and 54,246 deaths overallKorea only lasted three years compared to a full decade of combat in Vietnam. So by any metric Korea was a way more intense war. As i said before, thousands of US Army and Marine grunts getting chewed up on one Korean hill and ridgeline after another in quick succession was more similar to something like the Italian Campaign of WWII than anything else during the Cold War. WAY larger-scale fighting in general than anything seen in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam. With the exception of the Tet Offensive as that other anon said; battles like Chosin, the Chongchon River or the Pusan Perimeter just dwarf the biggest actions in Vietnam like Dak To or Con Thien if you look at them side by side.>It's interesting to note that hostile deaths only account for 62.19% of total deaths in Korea, while they account for 81.47% of total deaths in Vietnamas I mentioned before this is due to the fact that the US military was almost entirely unprepared for a large fight in 1950. Whole battalions with no ammo or heavy weapons were getting thrown into the path of Korean armoured divisions to trip them up for the first half year. In winter of 1950, whole regiments got obliterated by the Chinese ambush. The US military in 1965 was way more prepared to inflict a more respectable KD on the VC and the last three years of the war, US involvement consisted almost entirely of B52 flights carpet-bombing big long lines of Northern troops streaming southwards.>I can't really see any competitors, honestly. 14,368 dead in 190 days is pretty savageyeah when i said that was surprising i wasn't really paying attention to the fact that he said "after WWII." counting all of American history, the Civil War and even the Meuse-Argonne campaign have that body count beat pretty handily.
>>18661050Nook
>>18661038+15 social credits have been added to your account for this post.
>>18661028McArthur made the same mistake twice, getting slammed by Chinese light infantry the same way Japan did him in during the Philippines. The retreat from the North was all brought by his aim to reach the Yalu. Holding the Southern Half of North Korea and sourcing its defense to South Korea would have made the North unviable as a state aside from a Chinese buffer zone.>>18661039Strategic bombings alone rarely ever win wars. LBJ beat around the bush, if he thought South Vietnam was worth it he’d simply invade the North. Yet he was stubborn in avoiding another Korean War, resulting in an awful grand strategy amounting to police action that ended up costing more for less in the end.
>>18661298...burgers cope?
