Operation Rolling Thunder

[tyrodtom]

So the time delay was something learned with experience? The Grandslam and Tallboy didn't seem to employ any time delay and brought down the Bialefeld duct...

Didn't seem to employ a time delay ? In other words you don't know .

What delay you'd use with a 10,000 lbs bomb, or thereabouts, compared to a 2000 lbs bomb or less, is apples to oranges.

 

[The Basket]

I am sure the best way to deny a bridge to the enemy is by occupying said bridge with soldiers.

I am not expert on these things.

 

[Zipper730]

I have one question about policy in general during the Vietnam War, and the other on General Westmoreland in specific.

Vietnam Policy: The US Army had pretty good latitude to decide how to persecute the war: Did the USN have similar latitude in regards to surface warfare, submarine warfare?

General Westmoreland: I got some questions...

1. Why did he focus so much on massive search and destroy tactics over efforts aimed at pacification?
2. Why didn't he bother to train and arm the ARVN forces? Why didn't anybody above him seem to ensure he did?
3. Did any General/Admiral in that period of time (1945-1968) realize that if you have a war where one side is in a fight for survival (North Vietnam) and the other can disengage at will (United States) without being destroyed, that the former will do everything they can to survive?
4. Did any Generals in this time period realize that it was important to keep wars from dragging out too long, as it will undermine morale at home?

 

[tyrodtom]

I'm surprised you would even ask that question.
It was hardly a secret that almost every weapon the ARVN had, from tanks , helicopters, aircraft, guns, munitions, right down to the helmets on their heads, came from us.
We had advisers in Vietnam from the late 50's.
And Yes, advisers trained ARVN.
My older brother's first 2 tours in Vietnam was as a adviser to the ARVN.
In the 50's they had MAAG, military assistance and advisory group, which was integrated into MACV Military assistance command Vietnam, in the early 60's.
Westmoreland was commander of MACV from 64-68.
There's plenty of books out there about Westmoreland, what his reasons and thoughts were. Read one.
It can't be summed up in just some simple sentences like you seem to want.
Though I'm sure someone else will try.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It can't be summed up in just some simple sentences like you seem to want.

It can't really be understood by anybody who wasn't there. I grew up in that generation, had a lot of the same training, and have read and read, and listened and listened for fifty years, but still can't really get my head around it. I've amassed a wealth of information, but without the context of being there, it doesn't qualify as knowledge. We are so fortunate to have have the likes of MikeW, Shortround, Tyrod, and Biff (I know, post VN, but valuable nonetheless) with us to provide the context that gives information the ring of truth.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

I'm surprised you would even ask that question.

Questions...

It was hardly a secret that almost every weapon the ARVN had, from tanks , helicopters, aircraft, guns, munitions, right down to the helmets on their heads, came from us.

There was a video about the various things Westmoreland did wrong, and they mentioned that he didn't seem to really do all that good a job about training the ARVN so they could eventually take over our job. Supposedly he said he didn't really give a damn about them.

While it seems that we provided them with equipment and trained them, I'm just not sure as to how well we did the job. Admittedly the F-5's were a pretty good jet to supply them with, if one were to choose.

 

[Dimlee]

Did any General/Admiral in that period of time (1945-1968) realize that if you have a war where one side is in a fight for survival (North Vietnam) and the other can disengage at will (United States) without being destroyed, that the former will do everything they can to survive?

Sorry, but can not agree with this "survival" statement.
The only side in a fight for survival was the Republic of Vietnam (RV).
The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV, North Vietnam) always had a choice: to negotiate and to co-exist peacefully or to continue its aggression. And that aggression was as much "a fight for survival" for Hanoi as it was for Berlin (or for Moscow) in 1939.

 

[Zipper730]

Sorry, but can not agree with this "survival" statement.
The only side in a fight for survival was the Republic of Vietnam (RV).

That's a good point, however, we were in a position where we could disengage at will.

Once we started attacking NVN, they would pull out all the stops to protect themselves from us: We had greatly more firepower, and technically, could have turned them into an irradiated wasteland.

 

[tyrodtom]

That's a good point, however, we were in a position where we could disengage at will.

Once we started attacking NVN, they would pull out all the stops to protect themselves from us: We had greatly more firepower, and technically, could have turned them into an irradiated wasteland.

NVN knew we wasn't going to nuke them, we had too many allied countries, and some not at all allies, in the immediate area.
How do you think Thailand, for instance, would have reacted? Japan ? SEATO ? The UN ? China ?
If we had nuked NVN, have any idea how many other countries in the world would wanted our help from that point on ?
Knowing that help from the USA would mean they'd risk having atomic weapons used nearby.

 

[Shortround6]

So the time delay was something learned with experience? The Grandslam and Tallboy didn't seem to employ any time delay and brought down the Bialefeld duct...

They certainly did employ a time delay, otherwise they would have exploded on impact which was not the way they were designed to work. They were not blast bombs depending on a pressure wave through the air to take out objectives. They were deep penetration bombs that were supposed to penetrate 60-100ft into the ground before going off and causing a small, local earth quake to shake the target structures down.

note the numerous bomb craters from previous attacks.

 

[Zipper730]

NVN knew we wasn't going to nuke them, we had too many allied countries, and some not at all allies, in the immediate area.

I'm just saying we had the ability to do so.

Regardless, the facts (as I grasp it) are

1. We had greatly more firepower: Even if nuclear weapons were not employed, we could wiped out most major population centers, much as we had done in Korea, and in the latter half of WWII (1944-1945 in particular), in some ways, it would have likely been easier
   • Experience: We've carried out these raids in WWII and Korea, so we knew what to do, and what didn't work.
   • Bigger bombers:
     • The B-52F could carry 25000 pounds prior to the 'big belly' mods, which brought up the internal load to 42000, and the pylons used for the AGM-28 could be modified to carry up to 9000 pounds of bombs a piece; even 25000 would eclipse the Avro Lancaster (they were hauling loads ranging from 6000-14000 pounds) and the B-29 (which carried around 16000 when stripped down for incendiary raids).
     • Some fighters and attack aircraft had maximum loads that were substantial: The F-105 & A-6 had loads comparable to WWII heavies; the A-4 had loads that were comparable to medium-bombers.
   • In Flight Refueling: You could fly farther by refueling in mid-air, and since you are starting at 25000 feet after refueling, it's like you just appeared up at altitude.
   • Other: RB-66's can allow precise bombing by computing impact point, and then signaling F-105's to release ordinance; the A-6's could guide A-4's to their targets.
2. We could disengage at will: While it would have been bad for South Vietnam, the United States would not have come under attack; in comparison: If the UK were to attempt to disengage from war with Germany in WWII -- they would have been wiped out.

BTW: I'm not sure if I asked this before, but would SAC's idea of having 30 x B-52's carry out a low altitude attack on Phuc-Yen, followed by infrastructural attacks on NVN, and eventually right into China and hammering their nuclear reactor (Lop Nor?) which was producing nukes, would have succeeded in quickly subduing Vietnam, and ending China's nuclear threat? Would it have gotten the USSR involved in support of China, or would Russia have been happy to see China subdued? Would the Chinese have sent the hordes over the border?

Yes, these actions do seem a bit nuts, but sometimes audacity has a way of stunning people into silence: Remember the battle of Little Round top? A bayonet charge actually succeeded in holding the line -- you'd have figured they'd have just shot them all figuring "those who live by the blade get shot by those who live by the gun", but it stunned everybody.

 

[Zipper730]

They certainly did employ a time delay, otherwise they would have exploded on impact which was not the way they were designed to work. They were not blast bombs depending on a pressure wave through the air to take out objectives. They were deep penetration bombs that were supposed to penetrate 60-100ft into the ground before going off and causing a small, local earth quake to shake the target structures down.

You're right, I'm surprised I forgot about that particular little detail...

 

[tyrodtom]

Beyond a few cities, NVN didn't have many population centers.
Bombing might work ok when your have targets conveniently gathered together.
But they weren't stupid, once they could see we were going to bomb, they started dispersing munitions, truck parks, oil supplies, etc.
They were very good at camouflaging , and we weren't so good at finding.
We ended up just moving dirt around in a lot of instances.

 

[tyrodtom]

I'm just saying we had the ability to do so.

Regardless, the facts (as I grasp it) are

1. We had greatly more firepower: Even if nuclear weapons were not employed, we could wiped out most major population centers, much as we had done in Korea, and in the latter half of WWII (1944-1945 in particular), in some ways, it would have likely been easier
   • Experience: We've carried out these raids in WWII and Korea, so we knew what to do, and what didn't work.
   • Bigger bombers:
     • The B-52F could carry 25000 pounds prior to the 'big belly' mods, which brought up the internal load to 42000, and the pylons used for the AGM-28 could be modified to carry up to 9000 pounds of bombs a piece; even 25000 would eclipse the Avro Lancaster (they were hauling loads ranging from 6000-14000 pounds) and the B-29 (which carried around 16000 when stripped down for incendiary raids).
     • Some fighters and attack aircraft had maximum loads that were substantial: The F-105 & A-6 had loads comparable to WWII heavies; the A-4 had loads that were comparable to medium-bombers.
   • In Flight Refueling: You could fly farther by refueling in mid-air, and since you are starting at 25000 feet after refueling, it's like you just appeared up at altitude.
   • Other: RB-66's can allow precise bombing by computing impact point, and then signaling F-105's to release ordinance; the A-6's could guide A-4's to their targets.
2. We could disengage at will: While it would have been bad for South Vietnam, the United States would not have come under attack; in comparison: If the UK were to attempt to disengage from war with Germany in WWII -- they would have been wiped out.

BTW: I'm not sure if I asked this before, but would SAC's idea of having 30 x B-52's carry out a low altitude attack on Phuc-Yen, followed by infrastructural attacks on NVN, and eventually going into the PRC, and hammering t

flying along the coast, turning inwards at 500 MSL over Hanoi at night; then pop-up to 1500' shortly before reaching Phuc Yen and just laying an epic smackdown (30 x B-52's laying down 25000 pounds of bombs a plane); then attack on infrastructure in Vietnam; then finally going right into China and hammering their nuclear reactor (Lop Nor?) which was producing nukes, would have succeeded in quickly subduing Vietnam, and ending China's nuclear threat? Would it have gotten the USSR involved in support of China, or would Russia have been happy to see China subdued? Would the Chinese have sent the hordes over the border?

Yes, these actions do seem a bit nuts, but sometimes audacity has a way of stunning people into silence: Remember the battle of Little Round top? A bayonet charge actually succeeded in holding the line -- you'd have figured they'd have just shot them all figuring "those who live by the blade get shot by those who live by the gun", but it stunned everybody.

The facts as you grasp it, was when ? 1965 ? 66 ? 67 ?
Evidently you haven't even read the previous post in this thread.

Where would these B-52's fly from? Where would all these munitions come from ?
It took years to gather up all the munitions from around the world, and build the bases for these aircraft to fly from.
Just as it took years to build up the infrastructure to support the bombing of Germany and Japan.

Bomb NVN's infrastructure ? Once you got away from the cities, what infrastructure ??
The NVN leadership weren't stupid, it was no secret we were doing all this preparation for something, not hard to guess why.

One threat was to bomb them (NVN ) back into the stone age.
Out in the country, where most of the North Vietnamese lived, they weren't far from the stone age as it was.
It was a empty threat .

I've never even flew over North Vietnam, but I have been on the ground in South Vietnam in the villages, and I'd think it wasn't all that different in NVN.
It's hard to explain to a person used to modern conveniences just how primitive these people lived, stuff that would today stop the average American in their tracks these people took in their stride daily.

 

[Zipper730]

The facts as you grasp it, was when?

Well, Rolling Thunder started in early 1965 right? The planned attack on Phuc Yen was also around the same period.

Where would these B-52's fly from?

The attack on Phuc Yen would have been out of Guam (Anderson). B-52's were based out of Anderson and U-Tapao RTAFB.

Technically, it's possible to attack from the US, as long as you can refuel the planes, and we had several places where refueling could be carried out from.

Just as it took years to build up the infrastructure to support the bombing of Germany and Japan.

That's actually a good question: How many bombs did we have before the war started (say mid/late-1938 to late-1941), and from that point, to 1945? How many did we expend versus produce and so forth?

Bomb NVN's infrastructure?

I assume it was a euphemism for immolating the cities, and hitting the few oil-storage sites we could find.

One threat was to bomb them (NVN ) back into the stone age.

Wasn't that General LeMay's biography?

I've never even flew over North Vietnam, but I have been on the ground in South Vietnam in the villages, and I'd think it wasn't all that different in NVN.
It's hard to explain to a person used to modern conveniences just how primitive these people lived

Did they even have out-houses?

 

[tyrodtom]

The longer range the mission, the more wear and tear on the aircraft, bombers, tankers and escorts. That was why closer to the target bases were used whenever possible.
Rolling Thunder may have started in 65, but very slowly.
Just more a demonstration of what could be done. Impossible to continue at a useful pace because of the supply situation.

Utapao didn't come online until 1967.

Just imagine the logistics involved in getting one B-52 ( bombed up) from the USA, to NVN, and back. That's refueled in the air, and escorted
Remember NVN got it's first Mig-17's in 1964, and SAM's in 1965 .
You need to do this yourself, not take the easy way out and ask someone else the question and let them do the work.

 

[Zipper730]

The longer range the mission, the more wear and tear on the aircraft, bombers, tankers and escorts. That was why closer to the target bases were used whenever possible.

Of course, I was just trying to point out that, as part of Chrome Dome, there were plans to attack the USSR from the USA, as well as forward deployed locations (it would also bypass the issue of having to move the munitions from the US). That said, it'd be an exhausting flight.

Fighters and fighter-bombers were based in Thailand since the early 1960's (Korat was 1962 according to what I found), and would be available. For bomber escort, I figure good candidates would have included

• F-104C: It might not have been the most advanced design, but it had a gun, could carry 2-4 sidewinders, and could be fitted with a refueling receptacle. It's pilots were generally well-trained, and the aircraft was feared by the USSR. Range was actually pretty good as it had a decent fuel fraction.
• F-4B: It lacked a gun, but it had a very good rate of climb and acceleration, had aerial refueling capability, and an acceptable range.
• F-106A: I'm not sure when they fitted IFR capability into the F-106A, but it could fly higher and had a lower corner velocity than either the F-104 or F-4, which is a nice-touch, and I think it could fly marginally further when subsonic.
• F-5: Not sure when they first grafted on a refueling receptacle, but the aircraft was one of the more maneuverable aircraft of the time, and if it could refuel in mid-air, that would help a great deal, I'd imagine. The fuel-fraction seemed quite good, and the bulk of enemy aircraft were MiG-17's which were subsonic.

As for ground-attack, I would say the following would be the best options based on the time

• F-105: It had aerial refueling, a good overall range, even at low altitude, and routinely carried ordinance loads of 3000-6000 pounds. While it's top speed at high altitude wouldn't win speed records, it would outrun damned near anybody down-low, and carried a gun, which gave it an ability to exact a toll on fighter planes, and could also be used for strafing.
• F-104: Though it didn't carry the most massive load, it could fly fast with minimal gust-response, and was more agile than the F-105. The fact that it carried a cannon, meant that it could strafe effectively.
• F-5: Though it was a bit of a testing operation, the Skoshi Tiger trials showed it was quite adept in the role. It could carry a decent load, it was small and nimble as hell, making it hard to hit from the ground, and was fitted with 2 x 20mm cannon. I'm not sure when the refueling receptacle was added, but that would definitely help.
• F-4B: It rode rougher than the F-105, and couldn't fly as far, but it was capable of IFR like the F-105, and could carry an even heavier load. It was also an effective fighter/interceptor.

If USN aircraft were involved, than there would be the A-4 and A-6, of which both were excellent in their own ways.

Rolling Thunder may have started in 65, but very slowly.

So, it would have worked better had there been carried out in a more rational method (Don't stop for stupid reasons, particularly when it appears something is coming out of it in a useful fashion), and with continuity (keep hitting specified target systems until they're gone), with the only thing to stop you being shortages in ammunition or excessive losses, not silly political matters?

Utapao didn't come online until 1967.

That is something I did not know...

Remember NVN got it's first Mig-17's in 1964, and SAM's in 1966?.

Actually, the first SAM was identified in 1965...
Operation Iron Hand - Wikipedia

 

[tyrodtom]

Rolling Thunder started out very slowly, not because of political reasons, but because that's all the logistics could support.
It was a tremendous effort to locate, transport, and refurbish all those munitions stored worldwide, left over from WW2 and the Korean war.
Even a bombing campaign based from the USA, still would have taken great effort because a great deal of those supplies weren't located stateside.

You're a little off on your Korat AFB timeline, it never became operational for USAF fighters till the middle of 1965, when 8, that's 8, F-105s started operating from there.

 

[Zipper730]

Rolling Thunder started out very slowly, not because of political reasons, but because that's all the logistics could support. It was a tremendous effort to locate, transport, and refurbish all those munitions stored worldwide, eft over from WW2 and the Korean war.

I would imagine, and yet the F-105's flew pretty good with 750's onboard. Some of them didn't appear to be the newest munitions...

Even a bombing campaign based from the USA, still would have taken great effort because a great deal of those supplies weren't located stateside.

Really? I would have figured the bulk of it would be here, but OTOH, it does make sense that huge caches would be in Europe...

You're a little off on your Korat AFB timeline, it never became operational for USAF fighters till the middle of 1965, when 8, that's 8, F-105s started operating from there.

I guess that's what I get for using Wikipedia as a source , I do remember a documentary on the build-up of the Vietnam war. I should probably watch that assuming it's still on YouTube.

 

[tyrodtom]

Our last serious conflict before Vietnam was in Korea, most of the munitions I saw had been stored in the Pacific rim, Okinawa, Philippines, Guam, Japan, western USA and so on.

I think you still don't get it, the problem wasn't some magic combination of aircraft that needed to be used that wasn't tried, it was we didn't have the personnel to man all these new bases, or expanded old bases. Then when they were built we had problems suppling them.
It takes time to get people to enlist, and train them, the USAF couldn't draft the added people they needed.