[MacDK]

I got this question in my head today, and can't seem to stop thinking about it...

I know this is probably a difficult, if at all possible, question to answer, and also depends a lot on which unit people served in, which function they performed etc.

But what was the typical experience of a soldier, not taking people in directly non-combat roles into account, in Vietnam?

Some things I have especially been wondering about :

- Was it possible to serve an entire tour without actually becoming involved in a battle? Many patrols must have ended without contact with the enemy etc. If not, then how many battles would one likely become involved in?

- What about coming into direct contact with the Viet Cong or NVA? Was it possible to actually never see the enemy let alone shoot at him? Did the typical soldier actually kill anyone?

- How did the typical soldier spend his time? Did they hang around camp most of the time? How many patrols would they do etc.?

- What was the likelihood of getting killed or injured?

I managed to find some very interesting information, that does not answer all questions though :

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_was_ ... in_Vietnam

Thanks a lot in advance for any information

[Siberian Fox]

I haven't looked in great detail or tried to verify the sources, but this seems like a good web-page to start at for Vietnam statistics:

The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.

One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served. Although the percent who died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II. 75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled.

Sounds pretty gruelling.

[MacDK]

Thanks for the link. I actually found the same page myself, but I am a bit skeptical.

The sources are Nixon, The Wall Street Journal, General Westmoreland etc. I might be wrong, but the page seems like a page designed to defend against criticism of the war. Take for example the statement, that it is a "myth" that the USA lost the Vietnam War etc. Or that is is a "myth" that the Domino Theory proved false. Clearly these are political statements and not objective facts.

That being said, the statistic with 240 combat days is interesting and does seem gruelling. I have to wonder how a "combat day" is defined though, as other sources I have found, say that the military tried to limit the off base days to half of the one year tour.

[U184]

Your on target, as all the vets I know from that era, have a different outlook. The few things they can all agree on was that, kids with guns was a surprise, hookers were cheap and it rained a hell of a lot.

[Siberian Fox]

Take for example the statement, that it is a "myth" that the USA lost the Vietnam War etc. Or that is is a "myth" that the Domino Theory proved false. Clearly these are political statements and not objective facts.

True, but is there a reason for a web page with such a political agenda to emphasise America's losses? I'm not saying that their statistics are necessarily correct, but I don't see a reason for them to deliberately fake them.

[nucklepunche]

It seems to me that very few Veterans from the Vietnam era have a neutral view on their service. A good chunk of them believe we were doing the right thing and look back on their service with pride. Others think it was a total waste and sort of turned against society and the military. It all depends I suppose. Look at somebody like John McCain who spent five years in prison in Vietnam and never repudiated what we did there and remains a committed militarist. Then contrast that with somebody like the guy who the movie "Born on the Fourth of July" is about (his name evades me) who became paralyzed and turned into a big anti-war activist. It isn't positive versus negative experiences so much, but how one perceives them.

[Diligent]

Then contrast that with somebody like the guy who the movie "Born on the Fourth of July" is about (his name evades me) who became paralyzed and turned into a big anti-war activist.

Ron Kovic.

[Oxymoron]

The vietnam war was idiotic, we should have allowed men like the colonel from Apacolypese now to be in charge

[U184]

The war in Vietnam sure cost a lot. We could have built new homes for everyone and helped settle the grievances in that Country for less than the war cost.

[Oxymoron]

Yep very true, same with War on "terror" we could have invested a trillion dollars into schools. a fucking trillion fucking dollars
or just give out development grants fucking Bush

[Fasces]

A decent documentary on the subject.