Why did America drop so many bombs in a tiny country than all of WW2?

Question

Vietnam, a single small country.
AND STILL AMERICA LOST>.<

America score: 100000000000wins vs. 1 lost.

Answer 1

In WWII, there were direct fighting forces fighting against each other and the bombing tactics were directed at targets such as factories, refineries and rail depots.

In Vietnam, although they did target the same type of targets, their weren't nearly as many and they Decentralized the factories so it was spread out at different sites. So, why were more bombs dropped?

Forest Clearing - without knowing exactly where Charlie was, carpet bombing took place. Instead of bombing a little area where Charlie might be, they bombed the whole area knowing that there would be a real good chance at hitting something.

Also, Charlie was very intent on fighting back the enemy (US) so every time the supply routes were bombed, Charlie would repair it and continue with their supply missions.

More than 6,715,000 tons the US used in Indochina.
1,462,000 tons of bombs in the European Theater, of which slightly less than half--between 600,000 and 700,000 tons--fell on Germany itself.

You also have to remember, that they talk about tonnage, not the actual number of bombs. During Vietnam, one bomb could have equaled 2 bombs in WWII, giving the image of higher number of bombs.

Like in Desert Storm, The tonnage of bombs was great but the number of bombs required was low based upon the accuracy in the bombing.

Answer 2

You mean North Vietnam!

Militarily, unlike Iraq, we could have pushed N Korea into the sea anytime we wanted. Like everything else these days, our leaving Vietnam and stopping the bombing of N Vietnam was a political one!

Iraq is a different issue as there is a civil war going on, which was not the case in Vietnam.

We are in Iraq for oil, when we were in Vietnam to stop the advance of Communism, a Truman doctrine (the Domino theory), began in Vietnam by Eisenhower and Reagan, who put the first US troops into Vietnam!

As to the why? I think you saw it not long after we left!

Amos, read the constitution! We don't want the army in charge of running the army, and for good reason. Civilian oversight is written into the constitution! Just what we need, a rogue army!

Answer 3

Well, why America dropped "more bombs" (if we did; I'm accepting your assertion):
-air force was 30 years more advanced
-US was committed for a much longer time (10+ years v. 3 years)
-bombs were more powerful

Why did they lose?
-US army was/is based on direct engagement principles, not counter-insurgency
-US was afraid to escalate the conflict to much within North Vietnam, lest it provoke PRC or USSR
-high proportion of cooperation with VietCong among South Vietnamese citizens
-domestic politics made it impossible to further escalate the war

Answer 4

I wouldn't necessarily say we lost, we didn't want to win, this was the second conflict we were involved in where we were only willing to go half way, Korea was the first ( and we all know what
that's been like all these years ), and neither was a win, kind of self explanatory. Now were doing the same thing in Iraq, and the result will be the same.

Answer 5

The planes could carry bigger payloads in Vietnam than they could in World War II for one.

Another reason is that the Communist army was spread thinly over a vast area and didn't cluster together in traditional armies like they did in World War II.

Answer 6

Prime example of what happens when the politicians try to fight a war.Let the military do the war fighting,politicians should concentrate on putting an end to it through treaties after the enemy's surrender.Had our congress of that era left the war to those who understand war and strategy,we would not have lost.The saying goes that we never lost a battle(we didn't)but congress lost the war.
Do you REALLY want our current congress meddling in our wars?

Answer 7

I did not support the Vietnam War, but I still love this country, and I just wonder what your home country has done wrong

Answer 8

It was harder to fight a jungle war QUICKLY, that wasn't supposed to be a war and wasn't supposed to take TEN years, Whereas US involvement in WWII lasted Dec 1941 to Aug 1945, less than 4 years.

Answer 9

Because we wanted to and we can. And if you ask me we should have dropped a few nukes to teach the Viet Cong and their sympathizes a lesson in respect.

Answer 10

Vietnam is a good example why war doesn't work. It's communist but now, thru diplomacy, we have a good relationship with them.