"NVA/VC Cooperation." Topic

Is it reasonable to make a scenario that has a NVA Company and a VC company operating in Tandem? I know it's our game with our toys, but I am dreadful geek about all things history. TIA.

According to both of Mark Moyar's Triumph Regained and Forsaken the VC were totally subservient to the NVA, they were not separate organizations

A third book is promised from him. I can recommend the two overwhelming.

Criticism of Moyar's Vietnam work among historians is pretty close to universal – he's been more a politician than a scholar for a long time. The question is about operations, not structures, but the assertion that the NVA and the VC were not separate organisations is a hefty over-simplification.

If anybody thinks the VC were not at least fundamentally subservient to North Vietnam, just look at how few VC were given any positions of authority after the north took over the south.

Having said that, while I can't cite specific examples now as I have been away from Vietnam for a while and deep in Napoleonics, I have read of a number of battles where units of both participated. While this doesn't relate really to your question, after Tet '68, the bulk of the VC units were made up of NVA fillers.

Of course, not all VC were guys and gals running around in black pajamas. Those were the Local Force VC. There were also the Main Force VC which were better armed, uniformed, trained, and equipped.

Tom

Cooperation was the norm when it was possible and as time went on – post Tet '68 especially, the North exerted more control over the NLF. Subservient does seem a stretch though.

Also – PAVN troops usually had civilian clothes [black pyjama style typically] available and would wear them to confuse the enemy.

VNese can tell where people are from by accent, build, skin tone and facial characteristics with considerable accuracy. The army haircut of the PAVN was also characteristic.

Garryowen – I don't think that the massive influence of the North is in dispute, though the N. Vietnamese government was not keen on various VC initiatives, including the massive scope of Tet of course. That said, the VC was utterly dependent on the North for virtually everything and all the more so after the huge losses of '68. The question is about relatively low-level cooperation; was there much in the way of temporary/ad hoc battlegroup operations? If I field my VC company and my PAVN company in the same game against my wife's US am I committing a heinous crime against history….the extent to which I care is obviously affected by the fact that I do not have two companies of VC or PAVN.

Garryowen is more accurate than you think.
Remember the famous unit name for responsibility for the Ho Chi Minh Trail is named Unit 559 after the month and year the trail was first used. 1959!

With increased US support of weapons, finances and advisors, even in the Eisenhower and kennedy eras, it truly shocked the north into changing their support their odd communist to changing strategies altogether into one of infiltration, invasion and denial. The north truly ran the VC as you know it. It was an affiliate of the party and PAVN. Throughout the early sixties the infiltration was both of southerners who had fled to the north and now finished their training and more and more northerners to flush out the ranks.

Even before Tet of 1968, many supposed VC forces were in reality VC in name only and filled with the ranks of NVA. After Tet of 1968, the ranks of any remaining southerners was gone.

Up to 1968 the true souther particiapnts were mostly the local force, who for the most part acted as guides or bearers.

The Tet of 1968 and the size and scope were nothing of the local VCs planning or making. It was the deliberate plan of PAVN.

As said, the 'main force' and 'regional force' were in reality usually VC in name only.

As for cooperating,they were thouroughly integrated and subservient to the planning of PAVN.

I don't think rules designers abide by it. For the most part they introduce confusion by implying that they had difficulties in cooperating. That happens often enough in allied units, even when speaking the same supposed language. Late to start, failure to move, fail to provide support, report observations, communicate changes etcetera,,,.

Failure to cooperate did occur, just it was normally a problem of communications or lack of it as well as things like misidentification.

The NVA and VC units had more than their fair share of 'blue-on-blue' as it were.

I think a key to this misunderstanding is the loaded term 'subservient', which I do not accept as accurate for the relationship between the NLF/PAVN. However, the NLF was certainly subordinate to the higher command based in Hanoi.

It was not an alliance. They were part of the the same armed struggle and supplied from the North [albeit with some captured/looted/black market supplies]. Many cadres had gone north after '54 and returned later when it had become clear
there would be no elections in '56.

I'm not sure how far I accept the politically motivated suggestion that the NLF were deliberately bled to death in the Tet offensives. [nobody has said this yet IIRC] They WERE pretty much destroyed and rebuilt from northerners. I just don't think we can establish with any certainty that it was the plan. I think they planned to spark a general uprising all thru South Vietnam – and that was their bridge too far and then some.

X2 Skarper. Leaders in he North thought that Tet was overly ambitious, but still supported it in every way. If a general uprising had been sparked they would have certainly grabbed the credit.

I think there was a lot of disagreement about how to proceed and Tet as a big knock out blow won out – but many of the older leaders disagreed and were sidelined as a result. This included Giap and Ho IIRC. Being right in hindsight probably made them even less popular with their successors….

For 2 long well documented books Mark Moyar I thought has a good angle going, can't wait for last.
Certainly no fan of McNamara or the way the US handled Vietnam but then it was a losing war so what could be said was right about it?
He covered the talks with NVA and VC wanting to be counted as two and even at tje time shows no one was taking that at hand.