"Vietnam War - post-Tet casualties?" Topic

Hi all,
A colleague of mine has claimed that the second half of the Vietnam War, after Tet – Nixon's war, if you will – proved far bloodier than the phase between 1965 and 1968.

This seems very unlikely to me, not least because American troops were steadily being withdrawn from the country. However, he may be referring to communist VC and NVA casualties, plus civilians in both North and South Vietnam. I do know that bombing intensified under Nixon, so perhaps that is what he means.

I have hunted for evidence to support or reject this claim, but am coming up with nothing.

Can anyone help?

US Casualties peaked in 1968. About 30% came during the Nixon Administration. Wounded might alter that a little, but I doubt it. The days of the big battles were over and the US went over to defensive after 1969.

link

1969 was the second largest casualty rate after '68

Thanks, guys, but I was kind of thinking more of the Vietnamese than US fatalities.

Any ideas whether or not VC and NVA casualties went up after 1968? And North Vietnamese civilians, because of US bombing?

After Tet there were very few VC left.

The NVA used them as the spear point as well as most of the shaft on the assault.

North Vietnamese civilian losses were not as high as you would expect from all the bombs dropped. The bombing just was not like the WWII style of targeting the civilian population.

Vietnam loses:

link

WWII civilian bombing loses:

link

Yes, that all is true VCarter. I don't think the NVA wanted to deal with any South Vietnamese Nationalists that were in the VC/NLF ranks. After the defeat of the South. For every hard core Communist in the VC, there could be just another South Vietnamese that just didn't like more "round-eyed" invaders … again …

I don't believe that North Vietnamese civilian losses due to bombing were all that high to start with when compared to other air campaigns. The U.S. went out of its way to avoid mass civilian losses, to far in my view, until late 1972 when the B-52s were finally turned loose on targets in the North.

the vast majority of B-52 strikes took place in South Vietnam, the strikes to the North were done by fighter-bombers (Both Air Force and Navy) in the most part. Cambodia and Laos got the attention of the B-52 also (Ho Chi Minh trail).

As for NVA or PAVN (People's Army of Vietnam), losses did increase as this was the time that their goal was to cause as many US losses as possible to increase desire in American population to end involvement in the war. That will also increase communist losses.

I agree with all that Oddball. The more US deaths on the evening news seen across the US, regardless of VC/NVA losses. Only would hasten the US withdrawl. Which was one of the VC/NVA/Communists primary goals. And Ho, Giap, etc., knew that. The Operation Linebacker bombing offensive in late '72 brought the NVA back to the peace talks. As they were running out of ADA missiles, etc. … As well as the B-52s and F-111s were turning much of Hanoi into rumble. You also saw tattoos on NVA KIA'd and POWs. That said something like, "Born in the North to die in the South". The NVA were willing to take very high losses to unify the country under Communist control. And it was a surprise to all including the North. To see how fast the South fell without US support with both troops and supplies. The US decision to send no more of the proposed multi-million dollars worth of supplies. Was said by many in Congress etc., that the US had provided millions upon millions of US Dollars worth of supplies for over a decade to the South. Plus had 500,000 US troops in country at one time. But it did no real "good" … Sounds a bit like A'stan and Iraq today, yes ?

Interesting US casualty figures in the link above. I would never had said that the three years following 1968 had been bloodier than the three years before Tet, yet they were.

As for North Vietnamese losses, I think the Easter 1972 offensive must account for a huge number of them. One of the most sobering sights when I visited Hanoi was an old apartment block courtyard which had a list of war casualties with the date. The list for 1972 was very, very long. It read like a WW1 monument… USAF history notwithstanding, I suspect those losses had at the very least as much to do with the "peace talks" as running out of SAMs.

Something often unmentioned is the switch in PAVN/NLF tactics post TET '68.

Rather than focus just on killing/maiming US personnel there was a move towards targeting equipment – especially aircraft and helicopters. This proved highly effective.

The supposed effectiveness of ROK and ANZAC units is also I suspect due to them not being priority targets.

Priority targets were always US units because a US KIA/WIA could impact the US political will to continue, and the ARVN because they were a softer target.