Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low tech warfare
Message-ID: <12537@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 22 Dec 89 06:03:47 GMT
References: <12458@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <12458@cbnews.ATT.COM> bxr307@csc.anu.oz writes:
>
>
>posting.  My question was whether the US military had learnt the 
>lessons from its experience in Vietnam.  Terry seems to think not.  
>Are there any other takers out there?
>
Actually my answer is more complex, so I'll state it more explicitly.
The US military learned many lessons, unfortunately they tend to
filter the lesson through a political lens, or they simply implement
the "easy" parts of the lesson.  For example, river operations in
Vietnam were liable to ambush by heavily armed land based forces.
This forced the use of haevier, more heavily armed boats, at the some
expense of speed.  In many current applications these boats are too
large for many rivers.  The Thais needed boats to patrol the upper
parts of the Mekong, but the river wasn't navigable throughout its
length.  To get the boats in they had to be airlifted or trailered in.
The PBRs are too heavy.  The Thais bought a conversion of a small
outboard powered boat.  Many of the boat weapons in the current
inventroy are short ranged, reflecting the riverine and boarding
operations conducted in Vietnam.  There is now a requirement for
coastal and wide bay engagements and these weapons are too short
ranged.  Note this is a doctrinal issue also since traing for a board
and search is not at all what you need for a long range engagement.

-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu