very impressive this man and his understanding of tactics. The fluid use of language that doesn't come across as a front to disguise lack of knowledge.
After my first year with the 11ACR I extended my tour for six more months and I was sent to Cu Chi the base camp of the 25 infantry Division some great men there with the 25 th infantry division I really enjoyed serving with all of the men there in Cu Chi
I was there in Long Bihn 67 to 68 as a track and wheel mech.,with the 549th light maintenance co.and later the 140th heavy maintenance co. US Army. We repaired more M48 and M60 plus PC 113's than you can imagine. What was terrible were the RPGs that peppered the sides of PCs.
I served in the 919th Armored Engineer Company attached to the 11 ACR mainly finding and disarming land mines and I had the pleasure of getting in the 11th ACR during TeT 1968 and you could never ask to be with anyone better than the men I served with and Col Patton was a great commander
My father (An RTO in Vietnam from 68-69) also referred to thunder runs as a tank running down the road and intentionally setting off mines. He told me he once rode on the back of one of these tanks (from descriptions it sounds like an M48 patton or M60 Patton (Im afraid my knowledge is a bit shaky though i think its M60 in that i THINK the M48's had been mostly phased out by then but again i am likely wrong about that). He said that the tankers were pretty laid back about it saying something like the worse a mine can do is throw the tracks. One of very VERY few stories Ive heard about his time in vietnam. Also there is a book out called CONDEMNED PROPERTY. For someone who was not alive during the war or just someone who wants to hear the stories straight from the G.I's that were there this is a fantastic resource. Its written by Dusty Trimmer and I highly recommend it to anyone.
Norm, I drove a Tank with the 11th Cav. Vietnam 68-70 I managed to hit several mines but I can assure you they were not intentional !!! I don't know of any Tankers that would deliberately run down a road to try to hit mines.
The only tank that used the M60 chassis which was deployed to SVN was the M60 AVLB and M728 CEV.All main battle tanks you see in SVN were the M48. My father was a M48 tank mechanic (57-69).He was also qualified to work on it's fire control.
Justretrospect...nah, pretty sure he was serious. How could you construe that as a joke? He just inflated the number...the real estimate is about 50,000 rounds per kill in the Vietnam war. Look it up.
H1017412 as I recall the M-113 was the officers mode of transportation about 4’ tall and powered by a Chevy 327 gas engine. The one shown look like M-577’s like I used to ride.
spoony spoonicus, still, they should have been (and were for the most part) angry at their governments, not the poor buggers that got sent to that hellhole
"The pause in enemy activity facilitated the transition of responsibility from American to South Vietnamese forces." - Oh, so THAT's what caused that? >.> And here I thought it was just Nixon trying to cover his own ass.
A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle designed for front-line combat, with heavy firepower, strong armour, and tracks providing good battlefield maneuverability. The first tanks were designed to overcome the deadlock of trench warfare; now they are a mainstay of modern ground forces and a key part of combined arms combat. Modern tanks are versatile mobile land weapon system platforms, mounting a large-calibre cannon in a rotating gun turret, supplemented by mounted machine guns or other weapons. They combine this with heavy vehicle armour which provides protection for the crew, the vehicle's weapons, and its propulsion systems; and operational mobility, due to its use of tracks rather than wheels, which allows the tank to move over rugged terrain and be positioned on the battlefield in advantageous locations. These features enable the tank to perform well in a tactical situation: the combination of powerful weapons fire from their tank gun, and their ability to survive enemy fire means the tank can engage the enemy even under fire. In both offensive and defensive roles, they are powerful units that are capable of performing tasks which are required of armoured units on the battlefield. The modern tank was the result of a century of development from the first primitive armoured vehicles, due to improvements in technology such as the internal combustion engine, which allowed the rapid movement of heavy armoured vehicles. As a result of these advances, tanks underwent tremendous shifts in capability in the years since their first appearance. Tanks in World War I were developed separately and simultaneously by Great Britain and France as a means to break the deadlock of trench warfare on the Western Front. The initial vehicle, nicknamed Little Willie, was constructed at William Foster & Co. in Lincoln, England in 1915, with leading roles played by Major Walter Gordon Wilson who designed the gearbox and hull, and by William Tritton of William Foster and Co., who designed the track plates. This was a prototype of a new design that would become the British Army's Mark I tank, the first tank used in combat in September 1916 during the Battle of the Somme. The name "tank" was adopted by the British during the early stages of their development, as a security measure to conceal their purpose. While the British and French built thousands of tanks in World War I, Germany was unconvinced of the tank's potential, and built only twenty. Tanks of the interwar period evolved into the much larger and more powerful designs of World War II. Important concepts of armoured warfare were developed; the Soviet Union launched the first mass tank/air attack at Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan) in August 1939, and later developed the T-34, one of the predecessors of the main battle tank. Less than two weeks later, Germany began their large-scale armoured campaigns that would become known as blitzkrieg ("lightning war") - massed concentrations of tanks supported by motorised and mechanized infantry, artillery and air power designed to break through the enemy front and collapse enemy resistance. The widespread introduction of high-explosive anti-tank warheads during the second half of World War II led to lightweight infantry-carried anti-tank weapons such as the Panzerfaust, which could destroy some types of tanks. Tanks in the Cold War were designed with these weapons in mind, and led to greatly improved armour types during the 1960s, especially composite armour. Improved engines, transmissions and suspensions allowed tanks of this period to grow larger. Aspects of gun technology changed significantly as well, with advances in shell design and aiming technology. During the Cold War, the main battle tank concept arose and became a key component of modern armies. In the 21st century, with the increasing role of asymmetrical warfare and the end of the Cold War, that also contributed to the increase of cost-effective Russian anti-tank weapons worldwide, the importance of tanks has waned. Modern tanks seldom operate alone, as they are organized into combined arms units which involve the support of infantry, who may accompany the tanks in infantry fighting vehicles. They are also usually supported by reconnaissance or ground-attack aircraft.
In about 1980 or so, My step brother and I were in a Christian Science Sunday school in Longview Texas with a man that served in Vietnam. He photographed in country. He showed us a few pictures and I really recall the up armed and armoured 113's. Any body know this man? He is probably 80 or so. We were in JROTC under William C. Mackey lt. Col. Ret. U.S. Army. Senior Army Instructor. Daniel E. Smith
My papa Tom Wallace was a Vietnam vet tank operator, didn’t talk about it at all except when he was caught in a bear trap His aunt had a heart attack so he came stateside while he was stateside his whole platoon was ambushed
Having grown up during the war and watched many movies and read many books and heard many first hand stories about it, the war just makes me depressed. Every account leaves me feeling horrible.
Of course, the go v 5:19 ernment is sending you over there to become target practice for the gooks period. But I guess if they prevented N.Vietnam from making S. Vietnam communist it was worth it for us helping S.Vietnam. Albeit, dying is no fun , ya think ?
Thanks for posting this intel. My favorite Uncle Bill Guerin did two tours ,71st airbone demolition division. He had to go on second tour because he knew our boys could use his experience. And wanted to save as many as he could. PS.He died of cancer at 37 years of age. Agent Orange maybe?
Very sad. I had a good buddy (Steve of Houston, Tx) who died of Agent Orange based cancer back in 1990. He finally got compensation for his wife and 2 children but it wasn't much for all the years of pain. Thanks for your post!!
Australia loved that apc used it well into the 90's. Not as if they couldn't afford more modern versions. They just didn't want to get rid of it. Same as the F1-11. They virtually had to literally prise that plane out of the Australian air force fingers. It got to the point they even took the issue public. Which is something the Australian defence rarely does.
Drove a M113 around Ft Irwin CA for 2 yrs. They handle just like they look. Like a giant box. 11th Cav was and is still stationed there. I wasn’t in them but did a bunch of missions and training with them
SGM. Hazeflip sounds like a tanker lol, I don't know what it is about his voice, it just sounds like it was made to be heard over the din of heavy machinery and gunfire.
7:14 to 7:55 that's why the Russian Terminator on that T-72 platform is a good idea. We've seemed to have lost that lesson, the Russian's didn't and are paying attention.
Yeah, and, you will always see troops riding on top of the M113s, because, if you were caught inside when it hit a mine, which it inevitably did, you didn't have a hope in Hell of surviving.
Fighting against tropic jungle territory is actually easy and no need many force to fight there. Basically jungle is like candle ready to be light up. It is like atomic bomb with chain reaction of fire, just wait till it summer for six month then let it fire,, it will burn all enemy that choose to hide in the middle of the jungle and cause them in enormous casualties, and the smoke, caused by the fire, would make hard for breathing even if the enemy dig a tunnel, it just worsen their position because all air would be smoke and could smoke for weeks even months. This strategy also can lure the enemy who trying to put out the fire so they can be shot on sight. and if they survive that, the oppen terrain caused by the fire would cripple their advantage for fighting in Guerilla warfare. there will be no place to hide, no place to camouflage, and eventually it will force them to face in one-on-one desert style warfare. You can flood all lands by tanks with no worry for any enemy hiding. The fire also would kill snake, tiger, and other dangerous animal which live in the jungle and the smoke cause by the fire would also kill mosquito, so there will be no any malaria for troops that fight there... Jungle is like atomic bomb of chain reaction of fire, the difference is there will be no nuclear radiation after it boom so it can be occupy again. Just take animal and plant sample before for cultivation and then plant another tree again after you win so within 5 to 10 year the trees would grow again. Or plant trees at another places before to balance climate change. It might be sound overwhelmed for causing trees but what can i say,, it is war, it would cause tree in the end. And i will not trade one of my men life for a tree.. This plan can be modified and might not suited for a damn political cold war but it might be used by someone like Mongolian Genghis Khan kind of warfare, so don't try this immediately because this is an annihilation strategy that can also drag civilian casualties tremendously... this is f***ing dangerous plan if you know what i mean, Lol. Used only if situation is getting heat and you have no other options...
I talked to a Marine tanker on the edge of the airfield in Da Nang in March 1966. He had an M-60 tank with a 90 mm. gun. Never saw one out in the field, or on any operations.
Sorry but the M-60 was fitted out with a 105mm main gun. Both were very similar however except for the turret, main gun and the front of the tank chassis.
Once again the Americans save the world, single handed as I remember it these poor guys were woefully under trained lacking expedience in jungle war fair and did not have the centurion!
MN Gaming & Tutorials learn some history, the French started the Vietnam war and was part of the U.N. that's why the US and other IN nations were involved.
American troops were not there because they wanted to be there, the politicians started the war, and our men got drafted in. It's like people forget the draft was even a thing or the giant protests against the war back home. People even went to Canada to escape the draft. The troops were dragged in and did their orders.
You escaped it with your tail between your legs to an inferior force. The number of VC dead was fabricated. i.e one limb = one dead. So one actual dead could equal 5 or more. Lied to get into the conflict, lied about the results.
Anton Eitsah Actually the US tanks were horrible. I don’t know why the video didn’t go over any of the mistakes. We tried air lifting tanks with helicopters. To do that they made them out of aluminum which weakened the tanks massively and we took huge tank loses cause of it. It was helicopters, bombers, and artillery that dealt massive firepower on the VC. Tanks and fighter jets lacked a good kill ratio
America militarly won the Vietnam war. We had the VC beat down and on the ropes but the plugged got pulled on it due to it being so heavily contested by people back home.
Gun shields are cute when the enemy is firing a RPG at your aluminum box on tracks. Make no mistake, the infantry didn't like the M113 and not without cause.
lol and how were you winning? Enormous costs that started to shake your economy and communism became much more popular in South Vietnam...Not to mention the fact that you couldn't take North,despite that being why USA started the war. So no....politicians losing it is a myth ! It was unsustainable war and by the end of it,much of the South Vietnamese hated USA and foreigners.
Cambodia was asafe place for nva till the 4th inf div. 1st plt. B troop 10th armored did a combat assault , search and destroy enemy base camps m-48 tanks and m113a1 apc.
yhea then you withdraw and we come back :) same shit happend to us vietnamese during our war in cambodia fighting polpot , everytime we raid into thailand to destroy khmer rough base we return back to cambodia and the khmer rough just made new camp but the diffirent is we are the master of this shit and the khmer rough lost the war the student cant win the master lol
Amazing the tanks didn't pay attention to the lessons their for father's gave. At end of WWI somewhere in France fighting the Germans a US general was quoted as saying - we will be back here again. To think you have won because things get quiet and then proved by pulling out men and equipment is really stupid.
Why have armour if everyone is just going to sit outside? Like he said, in an ambush, they get picked off. My WO2 instructor for the M113A1 told me that when they were sent on patrol, they would look at where the yanks were and put a big circle around that area and marked it, "No go". The yanks were so unprofessional with their yahooing at night, their bumbling through the J, and their likeliness to let off belts of ammo (buckets of bullets) at anything that moved, that they were more of a threat than Charley. They would 'draw the flies'. Yanks lose so many troops in every conflict due to their absolute arrogance, their piss poor professionalism, and their lack of review after a shit fight resulting in little to no tactics. For such a war mongering nation, they are so bad at it. They've got all the gear, but no idea.
Hate to say it but with better infantry as in WW2 would have increased armor survivability. Yes even though a jungle environment, only speaking of lowlands and less dense areas, bait! How depressing to be in that role!
@@mikemorelock1466 -- I was in the Marine Corps from 1964 to 1968. I boarded the US Troop Transport _Simon B. Buchner_ with 800 other Marines in 1967 bound for Vietnam. When the ship pulled into Okinawa, I and 20 other Ground Radio Repairmen got off and we spent our 13 month tour of duty on the island. I'm thankful I didn't have to get involved in that war. Over 50,000 Americans dead...and for what? It wasn't just the South Vietnamese that lost the war. You can add to the list the bumbling idiots at the Pentagon, the antiwar activists, the military outfits in Nam that zoned out on drugs, the GI's who were there but gave up the fight, and China that said they would provide unlimited manpower to the North. I think we should have taken the Pope's advice and nuked the North and been done with it. Don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for our men and women who served there. Whenever I am at the VA hospital I enjoy listening to Vietnam vets tell me about their experiences there. There was a time when America didn't lose wars. What happened?
@@Dr.Pepper001I think the war was relatively successful. Relatively because of all the casualties on both sides. The major task of stopping any Red advancement to the South was accomplished. However, a year or two after Americans left, in 1973 or 1974, I believe, Congress voted to stop offering any kind of supplies or military equipment to the South Vietnam. 1 year later they run out of ammo, tanks and armor without maintenance also became useless. 6 months later Saigon has fallen and became Ho Chi Minh city ....
