|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 13, 2019 9:08:05 GMT -6
I thought I would initiate this thread about the post WW2 proxy wars. This would include Korea and Vietnam but is not limited to those two. The Arab-Israeli Wars could be included. Let's stay out of politics unless it has a bearing on the conduct of the war. I would like to focus on combat air operations as much as possible. Some of the post WW2 wars did not really involved naval operations or were very limited but that is ok.
I have named them the Proxy Wars because they were fought on a foreign soil by the two or three super powers like the US, China and the Soviet Union by proxy. This is the generally used historical term for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Sept 13, 2019 12:44:42 GMT -6
Korea wasn't really a proxy war, if China is a superpower her troops clashed directly with UN Troops by the end of 1950, and the Soviets had Pilots flying MiGs over Korea as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 13, 2019 13:36:58 GMT -6
Korea wasn't really a proxy war, if China is a superpower her troops clashed directly with UN Troops by the end of 1950, and the Soviets had Pilots flying MiGs over Korea as well. The North Korean's got permission from the Soviets to invade South Korea. China troops were involved but only after the North Korean's began to fall back in retreat. The Soviet's were flying MIG's to train and lead the North Korean's pilots. By all historical definitions, it was a proxy war between the United Nations and North Korea. The Soviet's and Chinese were fighting the US by proxy. It was a proxy war for the Cold War. The Cold War was a continuing state of political conflict, military tension, proxy wars and economic competition between the Communist World and the Western World. The Korean War was between the North Korea and South Korea supported by the Communists states and the Western Nations. A proxy war is a war that results when opposing powers use third parties as substitutes for fighting each other directly. By definition, the Korean War was a proxy war. Actually, the Soviet Union wanted no part in the war, but the North Korean leader would not listen. |
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 13, 2019 14:01:27 GMT -6
Korea wasn't really a proxy war, if China is a superpower her troops clashed directly with UN Troops by the end of 1950, and the Soviets had Pilots flying MiGs over Korea as well. China's status as a superpower is the subject of lively debate today, because it only makes the grade if you limit the criteria. It's status as even a major power during the Korean war is even more debatable. It had a huge population, other than that... Russia had SAM operators on the ground in Vietnam, doesn't change it's status as a proxy war. Pilots in the air is the same brand of support. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 13, 2019 15:04:50 GMT -6
Korea wasn't really a proxy war, if China is a superpower her troops clashed directly with UN Troops by the end of 1950, and the Soviets had Pilots flying MiGs over Korea as well. China's status as a superpower is the subject of lively debate today, because it only makes the grade if you limit the criteria. It's status as even a major power during the Korean war is even more debatable. It had a huge population, other than that... Russia had SAM operators on the ground in Vietnam, doesn't change it's status as a proxy war. Pilots in the air is the same brand of support. I believe that possibly a better definition for China is a regional power which in the case of Korea and Vietnam is more than appropriate for those two wars. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 14, 2019 11:52:05 GMT -6
Just a few comments about the Vietnam War. It was the first modern air war with integrated air defenses, air to ground missiles and air to air missiles. I say this because this was not entirely true of the Korean War. While jets were used, it was just a WWII air campaign with simple jets, nothing more.
We know that the Vietnam War was a proxy war, that was supposed presage the kind of air campaigns that would have been present in a war with the Soviet Union on the North German Plain. This was not true of the ground war. This was a war in a jungle and a very damp climate. Tactics and weapons were different and even the close air support was a little different. You could drop ordnance just about anywhere and anytime because it wasn't heavily populated like Europe. The small arms were different. The M-16 was developed specifically for the war in Vietnam to replace the heavy, long range 7.92mm M-14 rifle. Essentially, the kinds of tactics used in Vietnam, were unique.
Another issue was that naval surface warships and submarines were non-existent except for carriers. They were simply portable landing strips to provide more air strikes over North Vietnam and close air support for the ground troops in South Vietnam.
There was a vast difference between the air war in Korea and Vietnam, hopefully we can discuss this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 14, 2019 17:23:14 GMT -6
The M-16 was developed specifically for the war in Vietnam to replace the heavy, long range 7.92mm M-14 rifle. Funny thing about the M-16 is that it's just a scaled down version of the 7.62 AR-10, which the M-14 beat out in the battle rifle competition. The AR-10 is one of my favorites. Then again so are the M-14, it's daddy the Garand, and the AR-15/M-16. The jungle wasn't a good fit for the 7.62 cartridge, the ranges were too short for the ballistic performance to really count in most cases and the tactics required a crap load of ammo. You can carry a lot more 5.56 to spray around at random bush. I would rather have the 7.62 in most cases though, let the city boys that can't shoot anyway do the suppressing with the .22 caliber. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 14, 2019 18:27:09 GMT -6
The M-16 was developed specifically for the war in Vietnam to replace the heavy, long range 7.92mm M-14 rifle. Funny thing about the M-16 is that it's just a scaled down version of the 7.62 AR-10, which the M-14 beat out in the battle rifle competition. The AR-10 is one of my favorites. Then again so are the M-14, it's daddy the Garand, and the AR-15/M-16. The jungle wasn't a good fit for the 7.62 cartridge, the ranges were too short for the ballistic performance to really count in most cases and the tactics required a crap load of ammo. You can carry a lot more 5.56 to spray around at random bush. I would rather have the 7.62 in most cases though, let the city boys that can't shoot anyway do the suppressing with the .22 caliber. I agree about those rifles, they have always been my favorites. I have always had the fun of shooting the bolt action .30-06 or a .308. Just old I guess. As to the M-16, There was a study done in 1952 which showed that rifle fire rarely exceeded 500 yards and it was most effective at 120 yards. The best and most lethal bullet was high-velocity small caliber projectile. You can carry more ammo and amazingly, the bullet will tumble when it hits the target and that will really tear up the enemy. The defense department reasoned that it takes more men to carry a wounded man off of the field than it does to dig a hole for a dead one. Sort of ghoulish, it makes sense. The only problem was that they forgot to chrome the chambers and the gun fouled badly. The finally provided cleaning kits and made it mandatory to clean as much as possible and they chromed the chambers. Hard to believe they left that out. Also the ball powder burned too fast and fouled the chamber. It was also moisture sensitive. Great weapon to fire. Can't wait to visit my son, he has a bunch of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Sept 14, 2019 23:04:16 GMT -6
Funny story on that, the M16 Prototypes nearly never jammed, and the people in charge thought that since it nearly never jammed, it wouldn't need a chromed barrel or integrated cleaning kit, or any of the other features that made it a reliable weapon
|
|
