Alt Vietnam

[helmutkohl]

In this scenario

the Vietnam War follows the same path as the Korean war, and after years of intense fighting
the two sides agree to a long term cease fire (but no peace deal, like the Koreas). splitting the two countries along the 17th parallel

How would this change
- the aircraft composition of the two Vietnamese air forces as they go into the 80s, 90s, etc
- takes into account perhaps changes in Sino-Vietnamese relations (likely no Cambodia war)
- differences in economic development?
- more military spending on both sides, since they will try to keep parity with each other?

 

[uk 75]

Leaving aside the political background which has been covered in other threads we can make some assumptions about kit from what North Vietnam did in real life.
The South would probably receive F16s like other US allies (I know F20 fans will want their bird instead). UH60 Blackhawks would have replaced some of the Hueys. Gunships would probably have remained variants of the Cobra rather than Apaches.
Army and Navy kit is somewhat harder.
More M48s and M113s plus artillery. Not sure if anything more advanced would arrive till the 90s.
Naval kit would not have been much different. Some Asheville PGs and a frigate design of some kind. Perhaps like the ones Saudi bought based on the PHM hydrofoils but with conventional hulls.

 

[kaiserd]

There was no realistic historical scenario in which this would have occurred. The 2 Vietnams were very different from the 2 Koreas and it was a very different war.
(Small example - Korean DMZ around 250km long; South Vietnam’s land border was more than 1.700km long.)
South Vietnam’s economic and military collapse was probably inevitable and North Vietnam would not have stopped it’s military campaign until it won.
Short of some truly horrific scenario that removes North Vietnam and its people from the picture (war crime level stuff - campaign of essentially genocidal US nuclear attacks?) South Vietnam is probably never a defendable, sustainable or viable entity. And such extreme scenarios that see South Vietnam survive long term change the regional set-up, and indeed the entire wider world, to such extents that what airforce equipment emerges from what’s left of Vietnam is both almost impossible to predict and all rather moot.

 

[helmutkohl]

There was no realistic historical scenario in which this would have occurred. The 2 Vietnams were very different from the 2 Koreas and it was a very different war.
(Small example - Korean DMZ around 250km long; South Vietnam’s land border was more than 1.700km long.)
South Vietnam’s economic and military collapse was probably inevitable and North Vietnam would not have stopped it’s military campaign until it won.
Short of some truly horrific scenario that removes North Vietnam and its people from the picture (war crime level stuff - campaign of essentially genocidal US nuclear attacks?) South Vietnam is probably never a defendable, sustainable or viable entity. And such extreme scenarios that see South Vietnam survive long term change the regional set-up, and indeed the entire wider world, to such extents that what airforce equipment emerges from what’s left of Vietnam is both almost impossible to predict and all rather moot.

why are you including South Vietnam's entire land border and not looking at its border with north Vietnam which is a lot slimmer?
unless you think North Vietnam plans to invade through Cambodia?

 

[uk 75]

President Hubert Humphrey's resounding second election victory in 1972 against Nelson Rockefeller came against the background of continued bombing of North Vietnam.
The stalled Paris peace talks in 1971 had seen the US complete its programme of Vietnamization and the withdrawal of its ground forces.
Humphrey's speech at Hawai had commited the US to "do what it takes" to defend South Vietnam. The Republican controlled Congress granted record annual amounts for weapons and ammunition supplies to the ARVN.
By 1975 the near continuous bombing of military targets in North Vietnam and Cambodia by USAF and USN aircraft had brought the North back to the peace table in Paris. The military government of Big Minh in Saigon felt secure enough with US backing to agree to a ceasefire along the DMZ provided US airpower was guaranteed.
In 1980 after five years of uneasy peace between North and South, the Vietcong continued its armed struggle but without the help of Northern conventional forces, the VC had lost much support.

 

[Archibald]

Diem was a rotten human being (noquestion about this) but he barely hold South Vietnam together. Not liquidating him may help... a little.

 

[uk 75]

Finding the right strongman in Saigon was undoubtedly a problem for the US. As Kaiserd points out S Vietnam was no S Korea. I used Big Minh as shorthand for someone better than Thieu or Ky.
Kaiserd's objections are all justified but S Vietnam could have survived without Nixon and Kissinger.

 

[kaiserd]

There was no realistic historical scenario in which this would have occurred. The 2 Vietnams were very different from the 2 Koreas and it was a very different war.
(Small example - Korean DMZ around 250km long; South Vietnam’s land border was more than 1.700km long.)
South Vietnam’s economic and military collapse was probably inevitable and North Vietnam would not have stopped it’s military campaign until it won.
Short of some truly horrific scenario that removes North Vietnam and its people from the picture (war crime level stuff - campaign of essentially genocidal US nuclear attacks?) South Vietnam is probably never a defendable, sustainable or viable entity. And such extreme scenarios that see South Vietnam survive long term change the regional set-up, and indeed the entire wider world, to such extents that what airforce equipment emerges from what’s left of Vietnam is both almost impossible to predict and all rather moot.

why are you including South Vietnam's entire land border and not looking at its border with north Vietnam which is a lot slimmer?
unless you think North Vietnam plans to invade through Cambodia?

I would suggest you read up on the conflict to better understand the critical role violations of neighbours borders (especially but not limited to Cambodia’s - Ho Chi Minh Trail, etc,) by the various parties in the conflict played in that conflict. Especially given you started this thread in the first place.....

 

[Lascaris]

Diem was a rotten human being (noquestion about this) but he barely hold South Vietnam together. Not liquidating him may help... a little.

The one you are looking for is this fellow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duy_Tân as early as 1945.

 

[riggerrob]

What if Laos and Cambodia were strong enough to prevent the North Viet Namese Army from smuggling supplies down the Ho Chi Min Trail?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Pardon me, this was a really cool thread that popped up in the "related topics" column...

There was no realistic historical scenario in which this would have occurred. The 2 Vietnams were very different from the 2 Koreas and it was a very different war.
(Small example - Korean DMZ around 250km long; South Vietnam’s land border was more than 1.700km long.)
South Vietnam’s economic and military collapse was probably inevitable and North Vietnam would not have stopped it’s military campaign until it won.
Short of some truly horrific scenario that removes North Vietnam and its people from the picture (war crime level stuff - campaign of essentially genocidal US nuclear attacks?) South Vietnam is probably never a defendable, sustainable or viable entity. And such extreme scenarios that see South Vietnam survive long term change the regional set-up, and indeed the entire wider world, to such extents that what airforce equipment emerges from what’s left of Vietnam is both almost impossible to predict and all rather moot.

There is one possible point of divergence and all it would take is Cronkite saying "The North is defeated" at the end of Tet. Mao Ho Chi Minh is recorded to be ready to give up until he heard Cronkite say that the US had been beaten.

why are you including South Vietnam's entire land border and not looking at its border with north Vietnam which is a lot slimmer?
unless you think North Vietnam plans to invade through Cambodia?

Where do you think the Ho Chi Minh Trail went?

What if Laos and Cambodia were strong enough to prevent the North Viet Namese Army from smuggling supplies down the Ho Chi Min Trail?

I'm not sure that's really possible. Both Laos and Cambodia's centers of government were a long way away from the border with Vietnam.

I think it'd take something on the order of the WW1 Western Front, with more than one man per foot of line, to keep the NVA out.

 

[kaiserd]

Please provide your source for Mao suddenly knowing or caring what Cronkite said or didn’t say.
I find that very hard to believe.

Plus while a significant but in-direct player in the conflict Mao’s influence on North Vietnam’s decision making was very limited (already tensions were building up, generally North Vietnam had better relations with the USSR). Mao was desperately trying to maintain influence (with North Vietnam and more widely), including the PRC’s anti-colonial reputation. Additionally at the same time the Cultural Revolution was being unleashed to its terrible wrecking impact.
In this context I doubt Mao knew or cared about Walter Cronkite’s famous comments.

Allegedly/ reportedly Lyndon Johnson did, but that’s another story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/did-the-news-media-led-by-walter-cronkite-lose-the-war-in-vietnam/2018/05/25/a5b3e098-495e-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Lets say US politics had gone quite differently and much timing is changed. Vietnamization and an intense unrestricted strategic bombing campaign of North Vietnam begins earlier. The terms of peace talks are a bit more favorable for South Vietnam. When a short time later the North starts to push again they are met with a swift retaliation from USAF bombers with a clear message of "stop trying this". Would the North actually stop long enough for things to somewhat improve in South Vietnam?

Now in this scenario the timelines are all messed up but historically didn't Nixon's trip to China and the diplomacy that occurred there result in reduced military aid to North Vietnam? Hadn't the Soviets also reduced the extent of their aid previously too? In one assessment I've read of Linebacker II the writer claimed that North Vietnam had almost entirely exhausted their SAM supply by the end of it. The number of new SAMs coming in by that time was described as a trickle by the writer. NVAF MiGs could still pose a threat of course but USAF and USN fighters could blunt their efforts. Could this state of things have been achieved earlier before the public and Congress is entirely tired of paying for the war?

I can't imagine a way politically in the US all of this could happen but in such an unlikely scenario could South Vietnam survive? I don't really know much about their internal politics to say, I just know that there was a great deal of corruption and the leadership between the regular coups wasn't all that encouraging.

 

[Desertfox]

Perhaps China tries to go into North Vietnam sooner and the resulting communist mini Cold War distracts North Vietnam from going after the South?

I would see South Vietnam getting a ton of F-5s and A-37s in that scenario, which would make the F-20 a logical next step. Perhaps the Ching Kuo as an alternate?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Please provide your source for Mao suddenly knowing or caring what Cronkite said or didn’t say.
I find that very hard to believe.

Plus while a significant but in-direct player in the conflict Mao’s influence on North Vietnam’s decision making was very limited (already tensions were building up, generally North Vietnam had better relations with the USSR). Mao was desperately trying to maintain influence (with North Vietnam and more widely), including the PRC’s anti-colonial reputation. Additionally at the same time the Cultural Revolution was being unleashed to its terrible wrecking impact.
In this context I doubt Mao knew or cared about Walter Cronkite’s famous comments.

Allegedly/ reportedly Lyndon Johnson did, but that’s another story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/did-the-news-media-led-by-walter-cronkite-lose-the-war-in-vietnam/2018/05/25/a5b3e098-495e-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html

Sorry, wrong communist leader. Not Mao, Ho.

 

[Christopher Wang]

POINT-OF-DIVERGENCE, 1975: President Gerald R. Ford is able to convince or bypass the U.S. Congress to continue providing military aid to South Vietnam.

Best-Case Scenario: South Vietnam survives the 1975 Spring Offensive and still controls much of the country, but it remains vulnerable to further military incursions by North Vietnam in 1976 and beyond.

Worst-Case Scenario: South Vietnam holds onto Saigon and survives as a rump state in former French Cochinchina; North Vietnam takes control of the Central Highlands and South Central Coast.

 

[kaiserd]

Sorry, wrong communist leader. Not Mao, Ho.

1.
Well again what’s your source for Ho Chi Minh ever saying that?
The alleged Lyndon Johnson quote re: Cronkite’s comments is well known if potentially apocryphal.
I’m not aware of Ho being associated with such a comment, nor does a quick web search bring anything up in that regard.

2.
Le Duan and his supporters on the North Vietnam’s Politburo equivalent, not Ho Chi Minh, were the actual decision makers on the North Vietnam side during this conflict (Ho was the popular figurehead but had little to no actual executive power by this time, though clearly still quite influential until his death in 1969). Ho was both quite sick and not in a decision making position at the time Cronkite made those comments and Ho got sicker and more outside the decision making loop between then and his death approx. a year later. Not clear if he had the opportunity to make such comments or to whom.