Vietnam Artillery Firebase Tactics

The Vietnam War was quite different in many ways, especially when it came to artillery combat and tactics. Since in a regular war, your artillery sits usually a considerable distance behind the frontlines. Yet, Vietnam was a war without fronts.
One of the key innovations in terms of artillery combat during the Vietnam War was the "firebase" or "fire support base".
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribes...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/...
» SOURCES «
US military: Fire Support Base Crook, June 1969, commons.wikime...
Ott, David E. Field Artillery, 1954-1973. Vietnam Studies Series. Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1975.
Scales, Robert H., Jr. Firepower in Limited War. 2nd ed. Novato, CA: Presidio, 1995.
Hay, John H.: Tactical and Material Innovations. Vietnam Studies. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 2002 (1974).
Foster, Randy E. M.: Vietnam Firebases, 1965-73: American and Australian Forces. Osprey: Oxford, UK, 2007.
Tucker, Spencer C. (Ed.): The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A political, social, and military history. Second Edition. ABC CLIO: Santa Barbara, California, 2011
Zabecki, David T.: Artillery Fire Doctrine. In: Tucker, Spencer C. (Ed.): The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A political, social, and military history. Second Edition. ABC CLIO: Santa Barbara, California, 2011.
Zabecki, David T.: Artillery, Allied and Democratic Republic of Vietnam. In: Tucker, Spencer C. (Ed.): The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A political, social, and military history. Second Edition. ABC CLIO: Santa Barbara, California, 2011.
Coan, Francis M.: Fire-Support Base: In: Tucker, Spencer C. (Ed.): The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A political, social, and military history. Second Edition. ABC CLIO: Santa Barbara, California, 2011.
Thayer, Thomas C.; Daddis, Gregory A.: War Without Fronts - The American Experience in Vietnam. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, Maryland, 2016 (1985).
Glantz, David M.; House, Jonathan M.: Armageddon in Stalingrad. The Stalingrad Trilogy, Volume 2: September-November 1942. University Press of Kansas: United States, 2009.
Herring, George C.: America’s Longest War. The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975. Fifth Edition. McGraw Hill Education: New York, NY, 2014.
U.S. Department of the Army. FM 6-40 Field Artillery Cannon Gunnery. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.
U.S. Department of the Army. FM 6-20-1 Field Artillery Tactics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965.
U.S. Department of the Army. FM 6-2 Artillery Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965.
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
#Artillery #Firebase #VietnamWar

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Notice the definition of "mil" in the video is wrong, thank you to Jasper and all others, who pointed this out: "It is derived from a miliradian, which is a measurement of angle, not distance. A "military mil" is 1/6400 of a circle although a miliradian works out to be 1/6366ish of a circle." www.metric-conversions.org/angle/milliradians-nato-conversion.htm

[@ronhmclaughlin]

Military History Visualized you multiple or divide by 1.0186 in fire direction centers when you convert mils to meters on the ground while conducting procedures that require better than good enough accuracy

[@deadwolf2978]

Attention KZbinr! There is a public group that will fight for right of content creators, like yourself, against current youtube policies in court of Germany. They have listed simple request for transparent policies (and many other things) in the video below my comment. In addition, group has joined forces with biggest trade union in the world: IGM, and prepared to take case against youtube with help of their expirienced lawyers. Last but not least, they are planning to prove in court, that your work on youtube as content creator is not a part-time self-employment, but an Employer - Employee relation, where KZbin is an Employer and threfore obliged to pay you wage, social insurance and other things. Please, take 15 minutes of your time and watch the video made by Joerg Sprave, (leader of KZbinrs union). Thank you. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYu9Zn6lqs-SnrM

[@leocurious9919]

@@deadwolf2978 Wow thats awesome! And I was looking for another platform... This would be better.

[@fullretardcustomguns837]

King of battle.

[@firefox5926]

8:09 .. sounds suspiciously like a rebranded shrapnel shell

[@SovietWomble]

A most intriguing watch whilst eating dinner. A future video idea if you've not yet considered it - perhaps a second firebase analysis of "Mary Ann", for an example of where firebases can go horribly wrong.

[@dalsosegno]

"Hitler's a friend" -Sovietwomble 2019

[@dragonlordtux]

now i did not expect you to be here

[@josephkane825]

Soviet Womble- Firebase Mary Ann was one of those Firebases that was outside of the supporting fire fan from another Firebase. We did sometimes have 175 Gun support, but it was at extreme range, and the fire was so inaccurate at ranges above 25000 Meters, that you would be risking everyones life if you had to try to bring "danger close" fire on your perimeter. In addition, the firing rate was very slow after the first four rounds heated the tube up. The original tubes also only had a 300 round zone three barrel life. Later we got the newer "Autofrettage" tubes, and they had tubes good for 700 rounds. Mary Ann was also only over run in a commando style raid, at in the early morning before daylight. This is not the same as being over run in a sustained campaign, like at Dien Bien Phu, or the Meng Yang Pass. It was basically a "hit and run" action to destroy morale and embarrass President Nixon, who campaigned on getting us out of the war, and was actually doing that. (Something he never gets credit for!)

[@leiloan7677]

Seems like you have subs everywhere

[@DrunkenWizardBattle]

@@josephkane825 sabotaging the peace talks to aid his election campagin kind of undermines that lol

[@outdooradventureHungary]

yes definitly more Vietnam war Videos

[@canadadelendaest8687]

This. No one covers this war in enough depth.

[@arielbemeliahu8619]

@@canadadelendaest8687 korea too

[@Seshins]

100% more please.

[@outdooradventureHungary]

@@canadadelendaest8687 There are a lote vietnam videos out,abouth weopons, uniform, gear,Music and art/lifestyle of the vietnam war,but not much abouth tactic

[@Drohosighnov]

Seconded. that was great

[@Music-lx1tf]

Brings back memories. I served there from March 69 to Sept 70. I set up radar sets on many of those bases. I won't sleep well tonight.

[@Music-lx1tf]

@@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz4839 Thank you. For every bad time there was at least one good time. Like every other vet I focus on the good times.

[@HiTechOilCo]

Music - Thank you for your service to our country! If not for great people like you, we would not *have a country*! God bless you sir and I will say a prayer for you that you sleep well from now on. Count on it.

[@Music-lx1tf]

@@HiTechOilCo That is so very kind of you to say, thank you.

[@jaimebuan262]

Thank you for your service sir

[@Ninefinger11]

Thank you for serving.

[@OrcActual]

I'd like to see a video about the "air assault" doctrine that came about with the Vietnam War.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

did something similar already: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqqramhoqLx7mtE

[@gulfrelay2249]

We Were Soldiers. Apocalypse Now. I'm sure there are others.

[@s99614]

@@gulfrelay2249 Siege of Firebase Gloria. Much better then most Vietnam movies.

[@alankaufman5507]

My arty battalion arrived in Vietnam Sept. 5 1965 and was attached to the First Cavalry Division. During the Pleiku campaign and the later Operation Masher/White Wing, The Cav used us in the traditional role as "horse artillery". That is we would deploy by air following the maneuver elements, usually 1st and 2nd/7 Cav or 1/9 Cav , and provide direct support (we provided supporting fires for LZ XRAY and LZ Albany). At this time we were developing the 6400 mil firing chart as described in the video. The difficulty with that was that our guns were M101A1s (105mm) and when we had to fire outside of the traverse arc on which our guns were laid, we'd have to muscle the guns around on the new azimuth and re-lay them. The other problem we had was that our prime mover, the CH-47 Chinook, was new and not as reliable as one might wish, which often required that we had to road-march instead of fly with the added risk that entailed. Later on in my tour, we started to set up fire bases along Route 19 to provide road security. One, sort of half-hearted attempt was made to attack us which was beaten off by attached Infantry, fire support from our sister battery 6 kliks up the road and a battery one round of beehive at about 300 meters which sounded very scary. One note on that. We could hear the report of our sister battery's guns firing a couple of seconds before the rounds arrived so we had time to hunker down in our holes in case they weren't as accurate as we were.

[@PeterC5263]

Alan Kaufman My battery (Bravo battery, 2/17) in 1968 was based along Highway 19 about 7 klicks west of An Khe. The description of our firebase was exactly as described. Our perimeter was close to the road but not over it. We were covered by An Khe on one side and our Alpha battery on the other. Our security varied. Sometimes grunts, sometimes a platoon of tanks, sometimes a duster unit. Our Charlie battery in Qui Nhon was not supported this way and was overrun. All my counterparts in FDC were killed. In quiet moments, I still think about that. Welcome home, brother.

[@alankaufman385]

@@PeterC5263 Although I didn't mention the ARTY unit I was with, you could probably have guessed from the In-County arrival date. Yes, I was Alpha 2/17 FA. See you at the reunion.

[@alankaufman385]

@@PeterC5263 ALthough I didn't mention the unit I was with, you could probably have guessed from the in-country arrival date. Yes, I was A 2/17. See you at the reunion.

[@klan792]

A mil is a measurement of angle, not length, since a NATO mil is 1/6400 of a circle just like how a degree is 1/360 of a circle . It's only 1/1000 of an inch when measured at the distance of an inch. At a kilometer, a NATO mil is about 1 meter apart (not exact, since a geometric mil is 1/6283).

[@KenshiroPlayDotA]

Exactly. The mil is an approximation of the milliradian of which there are exactly 2,000 pi in a circle, or 6283.1853... ; since irrational and transcendental numbers aren't exactly practical in everyday life, 6,400 NATO mils per circle make for a pretty good approximation and easy divisions. Mil for 1/1,000 inch is something you only see for pretty thin stuff, and certainly not for angles.

[@ronhmclaughlin]

The 6400 Mil circle has been in usage by US artillery since 1902 when we bought Pantels (Panoramic telescopes) for the 1902 model three-inch field gun from France. This weapon was our first modern field piece, but its hydraulic and spring recoil system was not as good as that of the French 75. The mil was developed by the French army in the 1890s and was originally called the milliem (French for "thousandth"). The credit for the invention goes to a than Captain Charles Estienne, who designed a new sight that was graduated in 6,400 mils and adopted in 1900 for the famous "French 75mm." The primary reason reasons why we don't use 6283 mils in a circle is simple mathematics. 6283 is a rounded value from the actual circumference of the circle. Secondarily, a quadrant in a 6400 mil system is 1600 mils, half of that is 800, half of that is 400, half of that is 200, half of that is 100, half of that is 50, and half of that is 25; a quadrant of a 6283 mil circle is 1570.75 mils, then what? Third, the 6400 mil system is divisible by 2, by 4, by 5, by 8, by 10, by 20, etc.; 6283 doesn't provide that flexibility to perform simple math. The choice by the Russians to use 6000 mils was based on much the same reasoning as our choice for 6400.

[@paladin0654]

The old W=RM (worm) formula, hadn't said that in a while, thanks.

[@2adamast]

As artillery is interested in a distance and not the arc length, there is an angle where mil is exact and miliradians gives only an approximation

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

Miliradian then?

[@24602400]

I like this channel. I am a Vietnam Vet. I was on the USS Forrestal in 1967. My brother was KIA in 1972. When the first shot is fired, all plans go out the window.

[@knutdergroe9757]

Good Bless You and Your Family. From this MARINE.

[@HiTechOilCo]

Thank you for your service to our country! If not for great people like you, we would not *have a country*! God bless you sir.

[@MrTristanryan]

Respect from me to you. I'm sorry for your loss. Peace brother

[@alfiebrotherton935]

@tdr stfu what have you done for your country

[@nguyenhoangphucluan8059]

Thèn 3///

[@atakanakca1322]

I for one am interested in anything with Artillery tactics in it. Thanks for the good content as usual.

[@legoeasycompany]

Welcome to the Jungle... I find it highly amusing that the vietnam war fought with some of the most advantaged tech also had the combat go old school like you said with direct firing of artillery being commom as well as other things like complex entrenchments and emphasis on heavy weapons

[@neilreynolds3858]

As the latest war is showing, artillery is still the king of the battle field. But, we did it better in Vietnam.

[@donb782]

I served as a field artillery officer in Vietnam 69-70. Your video was very good. Aside from the definition of the mil it was very accura. Thank you

[@donb782]

The video is more accurate than my typing. Sorry

[@neilreynolds3858]

@@donb782 🤣

[@dentonw6ir0qf15]

I would be extremely interested to see an analysis of Australian Army counterinsurgency tactics in Phuc Tuoy province during the Vietnam war

[@Seriona1]

I'd take anything from the "free world military force" since these groups seem to be ignored.

[@markfryer9880]

Australia also had two Fire Support Bases, established after the Battle of Long Tan. The two Fire Bases were Coral and Balmoral and the establishment of Coral was a close run thing as the NVA attacked of the first night. The only thing that really saved Coral was that one of the 105 mm guns had been turned around to provide a fire support mission and it just so happened that it faced directly at the approach direction of the NVA human wave night attack. It resulted in the gunners firing over open sights just over their defensive berm using flechette rounds. A AC-47 Spooky also provided valuable perimeter fire support and post battle disengagement harassment. It had been a close call as the NVA had breached the perimeter and overrun one of the 105 gun pits. The NVA took heavy casualties that first night and every night thereafter as they continued to attack from the same direction every night. There is at least one book about the Aussie Bases and it makes for sweaty reading as the NVA attack every night.

[@RougeEminence]

@@markfryer9880I may have a copy of that book, or another book on Australian firesupport bases. "The Battle Of Coral: Vietnam Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral, May 1968" by Lex McAulay. Fantastic book, it covers the twenty-six days during May and June 1968 when 1 ATF fought a series of actions to defend Coral and Balmoral.

[@Dsdcain]

I'm not stating this as fact because I'm not %100 sure. I think another change brought on by the way artillery was used in Vietnam was in the training of American soldiers. In 1987 while I was in AIT (Advanced Individual Training) to become a MP we spent a couple of days learning to call in artillery fire. Granted it was not in depth training but it was required to complete training. It was also part of ongoing training over the years I spent as an MP. I've always kind of thought that became a part of training because of the Vietnam war and the way artillery was used offensively. After all that junk I want to say I've always enjoyed you channel and have learned a lot from you.

[@akgeronimo501]

It was taught to junior leaders all the way back to the Second World War. You are correct that it was more detailed during and after Vietnam. The Adjust Fire command was not used as much before Vietnam simply because there were not as many small units moving around the battlefield. In Korea and WWII you were unlikely to be very far from your main unit (company or above) for very long, unless you were some sort of special unit, and the FM communications were not as reliable. As the communications improved it became easier and smarter to push the fire support out to these units. History is filled with examples of the "King of Battle" deciding the outcome of the battle. That last part was very hard for an old Infantryman to type.

[@ronhmclaughlin]

In reality the development of the “whiz wheel” aka the observed fire adjustment wheel by Salvador Rizzo at Fort Sill just prior to Korea made it possible for non-trained observes to adjust fire. Prior to that adjust fire procedures were extremely complicated, involving things like an arbitrary “c” factor that observer used to multiple observed divergences in impacts to determine the magnitude of adjusts to transmit to the FDC

[@akgeronimo501]

@@ronhmclaughlin True, but that would have no bearing on the training of non 13F observers. Even before the wheel the FDC could get you the fire, it just took a little longer. Clearance of fires in a low intensity conflict would usually eat that time. It was a little complicated to get a fire mission cleared before AFATDS. There are many factors, but to me I think the fact that smaller units more dispersed was the single largest driving factor for training non MOS qualified observers. It could also be that someone woke up and realized it really isn't rocket science and can make a huge difference. Now with ballistic computers it is really easy even for the FDC and quick.

[@ronhmclaughlin]

akgeronimo501 I would have to somewhat disagree with that assessment based on having been a doctrine writer an instructor for the artillery. Prior to the Korea, the observer did all the adjustments based on his knowledge of GTL and range to target, the closest thing we have today is called “black magic” adjustment techniques and having graded assessments of units trying to do black magic fail time and again, I can see why untrained observers could not get fires prior to Korea. Clearance of fires as we know it today, really wasn’t a factor more than a generation ago, most of what we know and do in regards to fire support coordination and clearance today is based on tragedies that occurred in the Vietnam war.

[@stupidburp]

I think a part of the reason that artillery related training was pushed down was to support the so called "institutional knowledge" principle. This idea came into fashion during the late 20th century although it had been around long before that. As part of the move away from a conscription focused military and towards investment in training for a volunteer focused military some skills were pushed on enlisted forces in a more thorough manner. The plan was this would help improve overall skill levels by setting a broad base line skill set to build upon and eliminate some gaps in knowledge and this plan was largely successful.

[@gs547]

Happens that I served at Firebase Crook. Our artillery unit was shifted several times from firebase to firebase. Once a detachment was airlifted into Cambodia with 2 guns. I was sent in for a later. Interestingly, the minibase was located on a Cambodian cemetery. Thanks for producing the video. I learned a lot.

[@richsteger1318]

I served at FSB Washington. May to Nov 1969 M- 109's

[@readhistory2023]

I'd never heard of the "killer junior" and I was a Fire Direction Chief back in 1980. Apparently it was just a standard HE round with a time fuse. A 155mm has a 100 meter foot print and using it in direct fire is detrimental to your health.

[@ronhmclaughlin]

Hoehner Tim at least in Marine Arty KJ and ICM in the wire tables are provided to our gun crews as part of the battery defense plan

[@gobblox38]

Using an HE shell in direct fire would force the shrapnel away from the gun (towards the direction of fire). The 50m radius is when the shell is used in the indirect arc. Killer Junior was developed because traditional direct fire was ineffective. Traditional direct fire uses a full charge while killer junior uses cut charges (or charge 1 green bag). It basically lobs the round to target.

[@ronhmclaughlin]

gobblox38 burst pattern is independent of muzzle velocity and the base plate always goes backward, the problem with shooting a high charge is the safe and arming mechanism of US rounds when used with a high charge does not even arm the fuze until the round is well beyond a useful distance.

[@paladin0654]

You're right. The beauty of KJs is that they were tailored for targets around the fire base. 55s used green bag while the '05s used charge 1. We registered the tree line and both lines of wire.

[@Native_love]

The funny thing is my father served in Vietnam on a firebase and my uncle saw heavy combat protecting one! Excellent video! Thank you brother!

[@cgross82]

When I was XO of C Battery, 1-246 Field Artillery in Virginia, we actually trained on Killer Junior. It was very interesting!

[@apokalipsx25]

"Gentleman-Welcome to Vietnam !" - sounds like from the movie "Apocalypse Now" )))

[@Sullian_dF]

Reminds me of Spec Ops: The Line. Makes sense, both were adaptations of the same book.

[@ephillips2008]

Reminds me of filthy frank "welcome to the rice fields"

[@David-kr7fx]

Goooooood morning Vietnaaaaaaam!

[@clockworkmultiverse92]

You're in the @$$hole of the world, Captain!

[@usgator]

I’ve seen Killer Junior executed with the 155mm M109A6 Paladin howitzer. The affect is quite devastating and clears a whole sector. It was like a 155mm shotgun.

[@DM-dn7rf]

On Dec. 27, 1966 at 0100 hours LZ bird was attack by a up to 1,000 enemy troops vs 199 American troops. The battle lasted about one hour. The LZ was overrun by the enemy and it wasn't until two beehive rounds were fired would the fighting stop instantly. American troops suffered almost 50% casualities. Both infantry and artillery were at about 50% strength when the attack happened. Luckily the enemy decided to retreat because there was only one beehive round left. This was the second time beehive rounds were used in battle in Vietnam and showed to the military their effectiveness, at least initially. This is why this particular firefight has particular significance even if from the perspective of combat it would be considered a minor skirmish. I was assigned to the 105 gun battery that shot those rounds, but I was new in country and there was a delay in sending me out to the field because I was suppose to receive repelling out of a helicopter training. Of course that never happened nor would I ever repel out of a chopper the whole time I was there. That was the only time my outfit was attacked while I was over there. All of the 125,000 rounds that were fired by my outfit the year I was over there was indirect. So, at least for me direct fire was unknown. A side note, guns and their ammo were slung under a Chinook by a single cable at that time, which on occasion ran the risk of causing a pendulum effect, that is probably the reason they eventually went to two cables two support a gun.

[@neilreynolds3858]

Thanks, I have been trying to estimate how many rounds we fired in a year over there from every battery. I was in a 6-gun battery of 105s in I Corps but it did matter where you were in country. 125,000 seems like a good average but one of the guys who had spent time in the Delta said they would fire 3,000 rounds a day down there sometimes. How many batteries were there though? 100? more? If only 100, that meant about 12.5 million rounds a year. Try getting the Pentagon to spend enough money to do that now and build enough factories to produce them.

[@dannygunsix]

I served with G/3/11 1st Mar. Div. in I Corps Vietnam. We fired 105mm rounds in support of M/3/7 and other Grunt outfits in I Corps area of operations. We went where they went to the bush on various operations. Choppered by a CH-47 or CH-56 to a hill top like LZ Bushwhack. Hills 10,65, and LZ Baldy. Our final firebase was LZ Ross in September 1969. I did my job as an 0811 Cannoneer to the max. I always hoped that our fire support saved their lives in the bush. That's all that mattered...

[@TikTok-il9hx]

The definition of a mil is the angle subtended by a distance of 1m at 1000m. The idea is that if a target is 1000m away from the gun and the guns rounds are impacting 50m right then the correction is simple to calculate - left 50mils. This then scales up so at 10km the same 50mil correction will give an adjustment of 500m.

[@JasperFromMS]

A miliradian comes out to 1/6366.2 of a circle but the military rounds it up to 1/6400. www.metric-conversions.org/angle/milliradians-nato-conversion.htm

[@4991Ares]

The definition of a milliradian (mil) is 1/1000 of a radian, the definition of radian is ''the angle subtended at the center of a circle by an arc that is equal in length to the radius of the circle'', basically, 360 degrees = 2π radian. It's not exactly ''1m at 1000m'', but it's close enough for government purposes.

[@ronhmclaughlin]

The 6400 Mil circle has been in usage by US artillery since 1902 when we bought Pantels (Panoramic telescopes) for the 1902 model three-inch field gun from France. This weapon was our first modern field piece, but its hydraulic and spring recoil system was not as good as that of the French 75. The mil was developed by the French army in the 1890s and was originally called the milliem (French for "thousandth"). The credit for the invention goes to a than Captain Charles Estienne, who designed a new sight that was graduated in 6,400 mils and adopted in 1900 for the famous "French 75mm." The primary reason reasons why we don't use 6283 mils in a circle is simple mathematics. 6283 is a rounded value from the actual circumference of the circle. Secondarily, a quadrant in a 6400 mil system is 1600 mils, half of that is 800, half of that is 400, half of that is 200, half of that is 100, half of that is 50, and half of that is 25; a quadrant of a 6283 mil circle is 1570.75 mils, then what? Third, the 6400 mil system is divisible by 2, by 4, by 5, by 8, by 10, by 20, etc.; 6283 doesn't provide that flexibility to perform simple math. The choice by the Russians to use 6000 mils was based on much the same reasoning as our choice for 6400.

[@od1452]

Thanks. Good topic. I knew a number of Infantrymen who received support from these bases. The unanimously liked it. I did not know that they were never over run.

[@ronballantyne8087]

Don’t know where they got that? Many were over run. Matter of fact the fire base I was put on did get over run a few months before I got there. As I heard tell the CO was captured and taken down the hill threw the wire . He must have put up a a fight so Charlie killed him there. The name of the fire base was BUFF. and after that it was changed to his name.

[@mississippirebel1409]

I served 11 yrs in the US army (2000-2011) with 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan but I would NEVER compare the kind of combat I had or any of my other buddies in those countries to what soldiers like my dad and others who served in Vietnam! My dad was in Vietnam in 1968-69 during the Tet Offensive with the 199th light infantry brigade. He ended up recieving 2 Purple Hearts and the Silver Star for his actions. He told me that they would stay out on patrols for over a week at a time and when they finally got back to their fire base they would only stay for a night or two before heading back out into the jungle. That is some tough shit to do!!! All those idiots that say that the US military was defeated during Vietnam don't know what they are talking about because not only was the US military fighting the war with both hands tied behind their backs by limiting them on what they could strike/attack and policticians running the war. But even still the US military killed hundreds of VC for everyone one US casualty.

[@2adamast]

Both hands tied being 7.6 megaton dropped + 36 million rounds of artillery.

[@pheels]

They were fighting with restrictions but if Russia and china had sent 500000 troops into Vietnam to fight would have started world war 3

[@neilreynolds3858]

I saw a video with a Ranger who was in the Gulf and even he said he was glad he didn't have to fight in Vietnam. IDK about that but the guys who fought in WW2 were tougher than we were. Body counts don't mean shit, son. That was the Macnamara/Johnson way to lose wars. Wars are won in the minds of the enemy and we don't know how to do that anymore.

[@cleanerben9636]

Gooooooooooood mooorrrning visualised!

[@Gronicle1]

Like a lot of your older American followers I would be interested on more videos on VN. Glad you got the definition of a "mil" corrected as the inch thing was messing with what is left of my brain. Good stuff as always.

[@purplespeckledappleeater8738]

My uncle was a marine artillery-man in Vietnam deployed off aircraft carriers and his description of setting up, bombarding the surrounding area for a few days, then leaving didn't sound very effective. My dad who is also a Vietnam veteran wasn't a fan of this strategy either.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Just trying to rack up a kill count for Westmoreland, not actually trying to be effective.

[@patrickmullen9485]

By the way, to all the users I see mention FSB Mary Ann, it was penetrated and severe damage done, but not "overrun" (in Vietnam and even today in Iraq and Afghanistan, these kinds of attacks are called "Smash and Grab"). The US FSB closest to being "overrun" during the conflict was FSB Illingsworth. And several users in this thread do not understand the difference between a Special Forces Camp and a Fire Support Base. Sad. They need to watch more MHV videos and maybe read a book or three. We need fewer "Wikipedia/Google or Reddit Instant-Experts" and more people who actually carefully read and study with humility in this world.

[@MrTristanryan]

Patrick Mullen - thanks for sharing your experiences and respect to the backhander given to today's so called experts. Peace Brother

[@dragonatorul]

Very informative, as always. I would love more videos on the Vietnam War. Either way, great work! Keep it up!

[@quinnthespin5407]

can you do a video on Naval blockades or Naval bombardments?

[@jukebox_heroperson3994]

You should ask Drachinifel about that

[@andrewmagdaleno5417]

Oo yea that sounds like I good topic!

[@ronnielewis2010]

seems like there are other Qanons who enjoy

[@robertascii5498]

Yes please create more Vietnam videos! I am especially interested in the air assault concept being formulated during this period. As I was in the 101st in the 70's we were still working out the concept. Thanks!

[@ronhmclaughlin]

The 6400 Mil circle has been in usage by US artillery since 1902 when we bought Pantels (Panoramic telescopes) for the 1902 model three-inch field gun from France. This weapon was our first modern field piece, but its hydraulic and spring recoil system was not as good as that of the French 75. The mil was developed by the French army in the 1890s and was originally called the milliem (French for "thousandth"). The credit for the invention goes to a than Captain Charles Estienne, who designed a new sight that was graduated in 6,400 mils and adopted in 1900 for the famous "French 75mm." The primary reason reasons why we don't use 6283 mils in a circle is simple mathematics. 6283 is a rounded value from the actual circumference of the circle. Secondarily, a quadrant in a 6400 mil system is 1600 mils, half of that is 800, half of that is 400, half of that is 200, half of that is 100, half of that is 50, and half of that is 25; a quadrant of a 6283 mil circle is 1570.75 mils, then what? Third, the 6400 mil system is divisible by 2, by 4, by 5, by 8, by 10, by 20, etc.; 6283 doesn't provide that flexibility to perform simple math. The choice by the Russians to use 6000 mils was based on much the same reasoning as our choice for 6400.

[@MrLemonbaby]

Damn, that was informative and all in ten minutes too. Very well done. I see you quote Scales' book, wherein, when I read it many years ago he makes a statement I would like to see you expand upon if possible. First, he describes how mortars, artillery and air assets need to be very closely coordinated when the VC were using the "belt buckle" tactics i.e. when indirect fire ceased the VC expected air attack and would withdraw surprisingly quickly out of the kill zone. When the US Army left VN, ARVIN had the same mortars, same artillery and although not as strong, still, they had air assets also; these elements were not used effectively. He says the reason was that the SVN commanders tended to let the American advisors handle the coordination and never learned to orchestrate the firepower for maximum effectiveness. Anybody? There are lots of other reasons ARVIN didn't do well but this statement jumped off the page at me. By the way here is a vid on YT with Scales, I think you all will enjoy. Maj. Gen. (Ret) Robert Scales on the Strategic Importance of Tactical Dominance

[@matthewkuchinski1769]

Great work! I hope to see even more material on the Vietnam War. As a source, I highly recommend "Grab Their Belts to Fight Them: The Viet Cong's Big Unit-War against the U.S., 1965-1966." This work gives great insight into the Viet Cong's organization and tactics, particularly the Viet Cong's use of the fortified hamlets and bunkers to shape the battlefield.

[@Wolfeson28]

In some ways, a land-based application of the post-WWII naval doctrine of power-projection. Each new firebase set up effectively provided an umbrella of heavy fire support under which infantry units could operate in greater (though obviously not total) security. Similarly, the firebase made it far more difficult for the enemy to move large groups of personnel or materiel through the area under its guns (area-denial). Of course, I'm sure no self-respecting Army soldier would *ever* be so heretical as to cite the Navy as a source of strategic inspiration. :P

[@josephkane825]

Wolfeson 28 - Good Comment! I agree that no Army soldier should ever consider Naval gunfire as decent artillery support, or the Navy as a source of strategic inspiration. I do not know how the Marines can stand it! They have real ground based artillery that is very accurate. Maybe for softening up beach heads before an amphibious assault. "Area Denial" is the combined operation of the air and ground forces, not just the Artillery.

[@kennymason3518]

I like the sound of educational and informative videos from MHV in the morning!

[@expertmarksman16]

My uncle was with the 1st Cavalry HHC during the battle of LZ Grant which also was a firebase. His description of short-fuze direct fire as well as the close air support brings chills down the spine. He easily remembers the shells going right over their heads and exploding maybe 100 feet in front of the bunkers during the night.

[@TheTenthLeper]

Gonna throw my hat in the "more Vietnam videos please" ring

[@rrdevries100]

Killer Junior was primarily used to kill enemy snipers. The air bursts would kill any enemy hiding in trees, which was common firing position for enemy snipers. You have to be careful with killer junior because you are using a restricted charge (either 1 or 2 GB). Because the charge (propellant) was less than ideal, the projectile risked getting stuck in the tube, which would render the howitzer useless (until EOD comes to clear it). But if the circumstances warranted it, the commander could authorize the use of killer junior, and if used properly, it was indeed effective.

[@eddiea1213]

We used small shipping containers to build bunkers. They were half the length of standard containers you see today. Use a torch to cut a machine gun port in one side and a door in the other. We called them "CONEX" boxes,bmore than three quarters were shipped only once, because they remained in theatre. The CONEX boxes were as useful to the soldiers as their contents, in particular as storage facilities where there were no other options. (or bunkers)

[@georgetur3511]

I’ve read about firebase crook previously and it did suck in attacks by north Vietnamese troops at the multiple battalion levels and they were all repulsed with fairly heavy losses on the north Vietnamese side, so the firebase lure worked in this case.

[@matthewmoses4222]

I believe the 'Beehive' round was the US name for the 'Splintex' round used by Australian Artillery in the Battles for Firebase Coral and Balmoral (May to June 1968 - Bình Dương Province) where the artillerymen were firing over open sights directly at oncoming enemy. These were a flechette filled shell that acted similarly to an enormous shotgun blast. I believe the Australian artillerymen found them to be very effective.

[@ronhmclaughlin]

The other battery defense direct fire mission not mentioned was “ICM in the wire”. Where you elevated to near max quadrant and shoot an ICM round with a low charge and min fuze setting. The ICM would be ejected close to the gun, showering the area with submunitions/grenades.

[@roberthorton9820]

I was a 105 crewman on FSB Rifle 70-71. I recently came across information that it was overrun a year before I got there. The article made it sound like there were no survivors but not sure if that's a fact. There was no mention of what happened the year before by anybody. Maybe the brass didn't want us to know. My E-6 gun chief, who I'm still in touch with, said he didn't know.

[@jasonpratt5126]

Just in case this wasn't mentioned below (didn't see it on a fast scan): the fuse was set as low as 1 meter for Killer Junior -- not as high as 1km!

[@flyboymike111357]

Helicopter gunships tactics compared to regular attack helicopter tactics would be a fascinating video

[@paladin0654]

Nice job. Thanks for the post. FSB Sabre and Grunt II (3rd. BDE (Sep.) 1st. Cav. Division (AMBL) were triangles with the guns (B-1/21 FA) located at one of the points. The outside berms were 12-15 feet tall. The guns were M-102s and positioned on elevated parapets so that at zero elevation the barrels just cleared the outside berm; this was done for self defense to enable the use of beehive ( flechettes) and KJs (killer juniors: HE rounds with a very short time fuse. The FDC was 20ft underground, dug by a D-7 with two layers of SPS and sandbags covered by a tin roof to provide rain run-off and stand off from mortars. Outside the FSB berm were layed two lines of concertina. In the gap were placed claymores and foo-gas (55 gallons of napalm ignited by a claymore). The issue with beehive is that the pattern of flechettes is conical. If used in flat terrain, the kill zone is described by a plane that intersects the cone at 90 degrees. The beehive fuse could be set up to 90 seconds, but was universally used in the manufacturer's seting of MA (muzzle action). In MA the fuse would peel back the front of the round and release both stacks of "nails". When a time was set, the round functioned in the base ejection mode. The other issue with beehive is that it come with a supercharge, higher MV than charge 7....it kicked the hell out of the gun.

[@DM-dn7rf]

It is interesting to see how defense for FSB(LZ while I was over there - Dec. '66 to Dec. '67 with B-2/19 FA 1st BDE 1st Cav. Division) changed over time. I was on about 16 different LZs in that period and none had earth berms surrounding them and only three had bunkers dug into the ground for personnel. How elaborate the defense would be depended on how "permanent" the LZ. In the vast majority of position the FDC was above ground in a tent with a row or two of sand bags around the outside. The gun positions would stack a row or two of sand bags about 4ft. high to make a bunker just large enough to sleep in with maybe a tin roof covered by a piece of canvas with a single layer of sand bags on top of that. In really temporary positions a fox hole was all there was for taking cover. You just slept out in the open next to the foxhole. When I was there I went on three raids, usually consisting of two or three guns at most. The only defense we had was one beehive round and one M60 per gun plus your M16, there was no infantry and no concertina wire on the perimeter. Before I got there the personnel said they usually moved to a new LZ every 3 or 4 days and a week in one position was considered long. When I arrived the method of operation had change and a typical stay in one position was 6 to 8 weeks, except when sent out on special missions such as the Battle of Dak To ( the 1st Cav. was involved, it just didn't receive the brunt of the battle). In these special mission you stayed in one position from a few days to at most a couple of weeks and therefore had a less elaborate defense setup.

[@paladin0654]

I was in country 71-72 and I think the priority was pulling out and survival, so we hunkered down. My entire tour was spent with only 3 M-102s, except for the last part. We incorporated two Pigs (M-114A1s) into the battery. Made for a very interesting FDC, two primary charts, two sets of GFTs and GSTs. We programmed Freddie with both battery centers and it worked great, once we got used to. The biggest issue, for me, is when I had to shoot PFs at 0 dark thirty. The only place the aiming circle could see the 55s pantels was on the outside berm. Had to climb up there in my scivies, steel pot, flack jacket and Thompson to relay the guns for targets out of traverse limits.

[@LukeBunyip]

Yeah, more Vietnam War content, please 😊

[@BorisGrishenco]

YEAH!! Nothing cheers me up like a video about vietnam war in the morning!

[@briandamage5677]

Very interesting contrast to other theaters of war. Thank you so much for this!

[@taylorwedow708]

Please do more videos on the Vietnam War! All of your videos are great but it's also really cool to see you discuss topics in new theaters! Keep up the great work!

[@JClark2600]

I've been watching the channel for years and watch this video because I rewatched Firebase Gloria. I found so many OpSec violations, especially for a LARPs team, I had to find out more about the way firebases worked.

[@BenFortier]

Wow. So glad my friend linked me to this channel. Very well researched, with outstanding visuals. Keep up the great work.

[@huntsman12able]

Great Video! Wanted to mention something about the bunkers mentioned at about the 6:00 mark. I served in the US military and the word bunker usually does not usually refer to a fighting position (at least my Infantry unit). It usually refers to a "bomb proof" structure to store valuable things or for sleeping. The bunkers may refer to ammo storage areas for the artillery, an underground medical facility, or a place soldiers to hide from arty. This might have been just my experience or a colloquialism my unit used. Anyway my 2 cents

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yeah, I was kinda confused, because in previous videos I changed "bunker" (which also exists in German) to "pillbox" quite often, since that seems to be the more "correct" translation of our "bunker". Yet, in this case "bunker" was used in the source(s) if I remember correctly. Maybe it also changed in meaning or something.

[@paulwallis7586]

An Australian firebase called Coral had an interesting experience - Very accurate mortar and RPG fire. They found out later that during the night, some NVA guy had crawled up to the position with a rope marked out in lengths to get a range. The NVA regiment got virtually annihilated, but it took tanks and counter assaults to finally clear the area.

[@neilmacneill9863]

This Wikipedia account is worth reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coral%E2%80%93Balmoral A friend who was in Beijing with a delegation met a Chinese ex-soldier who said that he was at FSB Coral.

[@_Caporegime]

Hell yeah, more 'Nam. Like to see something on the infamous LRRP Companies. Those men had gonads of steel.

[@andrewmagdaleno5417]

I love the video, I'm just here to do my part and leave a comment.

[@connorallison2123]

not sure if you care, but i spend some of my free time in a game called arma, playing in a group of people. my role in this group is to make missions for the other members to complete, and in order to make them as good as they can be i have to make FOBs and attack plans as similar as they would be made to real life, your videos are very helpful not only because you are able to explain military tactics, and when/how a deployment might be used, but also because you give out some very helpful visual references. so just wanted to say thank you for making these videos, they are super helpful and i get to learn lots!

[@d0ener4life]

I have a suspicion that the 55 or 109 numbers in the first quote are a mistake. First because who is that exact and second because 17 meters sounds awfully close. My guess is it used to be 50-100 meters which were then converted into yards. Don't know where the feet came from

[@Music-lx1tf]

Have to remember most attacked took place at night. The ones I participated in were at night a close range. It was VERY dark at night. 55 feet seemed like a long way off. We always took our fields of fire out as far as we could, where practical.

[@Noble713]

@3:15 "The concept was offensive, which is also indicated by the lack of a snowflake shape." LOL savage. As an aside, I recorded a video of a display in the Korean War Museum that demonstrated the South Korean approach to establishing a company patrol base in Vietnam. I'll have to upload that at some point, I think you'll find it an interesting comparison.

[@موسى_7]

I thought 'I think this is a coincidence. This can't be a joke about SJWs. It's not obvious enough. He's think we'd take his joke literally? Right?'

[@billrich9722]

@@موسى_7 Oh fuck. I missed that the first time. Haha.

[@PolynesianSaus]

I love this! I’d love to hear some contemporary analysis of recent conflicts, such as the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, as well as the continued difficulties of theaters such as Afghanistan.

[@TheTenthLeper]

By the way, damn fine work, your videos should be the standard for other military history channels 🙊

[@zebradun7407]

The firebase is like a huge rat trap, it attracted the enemy, and gave support for patrols. The idea is to provide bait for the enemy to come to, and then artillery was used to kill the enemy once found, fixed and pulverized. If the enemy was too large Tac Air was on call.

[@2adamast]

If the enemy has good counter artillery the firebase is the trap.

[@Septimus_ii]

@@2adamast but I presume they usually didn't have artillery in Vietnam?

[@2adamast]

Septimus ii The statistics I have is 20000 American death and 200000 wounded by artillery

[@lepmuhangpa]

@@Septimus_ii They did, they were good with artilleries.

[@brouwjon]

This is great! Would love to see more Vietnam war videos.

[@AlshainFR]

Would be interested in a video about the use of armour in Vietnam. Alternatively, if any of you guys reading this have sources, I'm all ears.

[@emmetttaylor1739]

A book on Armor in Vet Nam is " Praying for slack A Marine Corps Tank Commander Vet Nam " by Robert E. Peavey you can get it at Amazon

[@generalripper1964]

The problem with the "Killer Junior" is if the charge firing the round was too small, the round could get stuck in the barrel of the gun and was called a "sticker". It would be a pain the ass to get out.

[@jimmbbo]

Great video! Am interested in your take on the major battles - Ia Drang, Lam Son 719 as well as campaigns such as Pershing, Masher/White wing, Jeb Stuart, Pegasus...

[@kevlarburrito6693]

There's a meeting hall where my field artillery unit used to have battalion level meetings when we were stateside. Hanging up on the walls were the unit guideons from past generations. I distinctly remember seeing the ones from Vietnam and they were all shot to shit.

[@SusCalvin]

I can understand setting it near the road. You can drive things and people in without having to airlift every bulldozer. Building a base on the road makes more sense if the base is there to block it off entirely from enemy and civilian traffic. Not even a checkpoint or roadblock that extends from the base, just have the entire thing placed to block the path.

[@SloppySpleenSplatter]

Military History Visualized is my favorite anime

[@neilwilson5785]

Yes please, more of these. This is excellent content.

[@timterry2863]

My Grandfather was a two combat tour Vietnam Vet and rose to First Sergeant E-8. He joined Army Airborne in 51 and retired in 71 after 20 years service. He first went to Vietnam in 65-66 to train South Vietnamese artillery battalions in the Mekong Delta. He already had plenty of military experience by the time he went to Vietnam. He was in vietnam in 65 66 68 69 70. He was stationed at FSB STINGER AND FSB KELLY. His name was Robert Carl Blevins Sr.

[@doinker50]

I do love learning how artillery and mortar was used defensively. Would love to see more from the sources you have access to.

[@johnnypopulus5521]

Another excellent video, Professor. Your infographics & editing are so sharp. These firebase tactics seem similar to those used in the MidEast by the U.S. forces.

[@MaxSluiman]

A MIL is the angle between two one-kilometer lines, that meet at one end and have one meter distance at the other end. One can stash 6400 of those mils into a full circle of 360 degrees. Nice topic and well narrated!

[@ronhmclaughlin]

The 6400 Mil circle has been in usage by US artillery since 1902 when we bought Pantels (Panoramic telescopes) for the 1902 model three-inch field gun from France. This weapon was our first modern field piece, but its hydraulic and spring recoil system was not as good as that of the French 75. The mil was developed by the French army in the 1890s and was originally called the milliem (French for "thousandth"). The credit for the invention goes to a than Captain Charles Estienne, who designed a new sight that was graduated in 6,400 mils and adopted in 1900 for the famous "French 75mm." The primary reason reasons why we don't use 6283 mils in a circle is simple mathematics. 6283 is a rounded value from the actual circumference of the circle. Secondarily, a quadrant in a 6400 mil system is 1600 mils, half of that is 800, half of that is 400, half of that is 200, half of that is 100, half of that is 50, and half of that is 25; a quadrant of a 6283 mil circle is 1570.75 mils, then what? Third, the 6400 mil system is divisible by 2, by 4, by 5, by 8, by 10, by 20, etc.; 6283 doesn't provide that flexibility to perform simple math. The choice by the Russians to use 6000 mils was based on much the same reasoning as our choice for 6400.

[@bami2]

*fortunate son starts playing*

[@pretzelstick320]

I love how an Austrian accent sounds saying “nam”

[@BlackMasterRoshi]

how about Wiet?

[@treekid7455]

my grand uncle was a recon in vietnam war, south vietnamese arny, he told me the greatest place where they can sleep without being disturbed by enemy is where artillery are coordinated to fire if called upon, the coordinated place never change and if a recon squad got spotted and engaged, they would lead their pursuer to those exact location as they call for artillery support

[@bobbyjoe1111]

I love your videos and am happy for your success! I hope you break 1M subs soon

[@frankiemakinster2830]

We had the Beehive rounds. Bbat 2nd 40th 199th lt Inf Bde 1968-69.

[@rianporter7139]

More Vietnam please!

[@wsmith6170]

Correction: A "mil" is according to wikipedia "A milliradian, often called a mil or mrad, is an SI derived unit for angular measurement which is defined as a thousandth of a radian (0.001 radian). " It is not a thousandth of an inch when you are talking about shooting. It is angular just like a degree is angular.

[@ronhmclaughlin]

W SMITH as with many things Wikipedia is not quite right The 6400 Mil circle has been in usage by US artillery since 1902 when we bought Pantels (Panoramic telescopes) for the 1902 model three-inch field gun from France. This weapon was our first modern field piece, but its hydraulic and spring recoil system was not as good as that of the French 75. The mil was developed by the French army in the 1890s and was originally called the milliem (French for "thousandth"). The credit for the invention goes to a than Captain Charles Estienne, who designed a new sight that was graduated in 6,400 mils and adopted in 1900 for the famous "French 75mm." The primary reason reasons why we don't use 6283 mils in a circle is simple mathematics. 6283 is a rounded value from the actual circumference of the circle. Secondarily, a quadrant in a 6400 mil system is 1600 mils, half of that is 800, half of that is 400, half of that is 200, half of that is 100, half of that is 50, and half of that is 25; a quadrant of a 6283 mil circle is 1570.75 mils, then what? Third, the 6400 mil system is divisible by 2, by 4, by 5, by 8, by 10, by 20, etc.; 6283 doesn't provide that flexibility to perform simple math. The choice by the Russians to use 6000 mils was based on much the same reasoning as our choice for 6400.

[@wsmith6170]

@@ronhmclaughlin ...Ok, my point is that a "mil" is NOT linear, it IS angular in this instance. He states at the beginning of the video that a mil is equal to 1/1000 of an inch. That is correct if you are talking the linear measurement. But it is angular when speaking about artillery. If you want to argue history go right ahead. I am talking about math. You said entirely too much stuff! Wikipedia is correct and it is not my only source, but it is easy to reference.

[@anthonykaiser974]

@@wsmith6170All true, yet part of the point in using NATO mils is that the arc length approaches the subtension, to the point that in typical small subtense calculations, you don't necessarily need to add the multiplier (1.0186) to the angle to get the distance between two points gauged with subtension, just multiply by range in 1,000s.

[@Zretgul_timerunner]

"Cant bring the enemy to bear your fire, bring the fire upon the enemy to bear instead."

[@robertutecht3125]

I was in the 7/17 aircav, in late 69 or early 70 the troop blew the shit out of the NVA as it attacked and after about 2 week over ran a MIKE STRIKE base on the cambodian border around Bom Me Too. The last break out from the base was around 10 PM, shortly there after the hill was pounded by every thing that went BOOM. In the AM the hill was just a pile of red dirt. Lure them in, blow them up. Not much fun being the lure, but no body bothers to ask.

[@Mediumdave1983]

I'd like to see more Vietnam videos please :)

[@anthonykaiser974]

"Killer Jr./Sr." were named from the callsign of 1-8 FA in Vietnam, from what I can tell, as they were the unit that perfected the tactic.

[@rrdevries100]

Killer junior was primarily used to take out snipers, and was very effective.

[@SGTvolcan]

Intentionally leaving foliage to lure the target into an attack is a tactic i use myself when hunting down predators that raid chicken coops. Most people try to clear out any and all foliage around their coops to hopefully pick off the predator before they get close. This tactic only raises the predators sense's into thinking "Hey wait, this is very risky and i will be highly exposed" so the animal would either avoid going for the coop that night, or find a new path; most likely from an unexpected direction. I would leave the foliage alone and if possible, only allow small patches to be left in certain areas, if there is signs of disturbance i just need to shine my light into each foliage spot and wait for a glint, then i can fire buckshot into the spot to guarantee a kill.

[@carebear8762]

Like English castles in Wales, but less persistent. Defensive fortifications in support of an offensive strategy.

[@BaikalTii]

allow me to offer Mr. Ott a couple examples contrary to "... he was never able to take an American firebase." - Khe Sahn and FSB Ripcord. the enemy may not have actually taken them but for sure forced their evacuation. A fact missed was that firebases constructed by 1st Cavalry and 101st Abn were called "LZ"'s before 1969. LZ Columbus and LZ Sally are examples.

[@jamescoop8979]

Another Great Video!

[@Grashan]

I'd be interested in a comparison of the Portuguese firebases in the Guerra do Ultramar to the US, as in my understanding the Portuguese adopted similar policies.

[@ThatGuyThatDiedToday]

Hey thanks for these videos, I'm currently in ROTC and have been using the information in these videos to supplant some of the more limited areas of the education we receive in my program. And I tell ya, the information you deliver here sure makes me look impressive

[@invictusprima4437]

I have just become really interested in the Vietnam war I swear you read my mind when you made this video I would love to see a video about ground attack doctrine and the war against the ho chi min trail

[@FurryCruz]

I find things like this "Killer Joe" a very interesting thing. How an existing weapon system is used to achieve an effect it was not originally meant for. In some ways like the 88mm. But if you have other low-tech solutions like these from the Vietnam or WW2 that is less well known, would be very informative.

[@Riceball01]

The thing is, the 88mm Flak 18/36/37/4 was designed with the anti-tank role in mind since it had AP rounds available for it from the get go.

[@FurryCruz]

@@Riceball01 hence "in some ways"

[@CaptainKzer]

correction: a mil is not just 1/1000th of an inch. A mil is a description of angle rather than of linear distance. Therefore, a single mil may be 1/1000th of an inch at one distance, but that very same mil is 2/1000th of an inch at twice that distance

[@bobmartin9918]

Great video, you earned my subscription.

[@SwitchTF2]

Outstanding work, always a pleasure to see some insight into these practices. Was the same rationale used recently in Afghanistan by American troops? I imagine it would have been useful but I don’t actually know

[@tyberfen5009]

fascinating

[@croncorcen]

I would love to see more content on Vietnam! greetings from a random Piefke ;)