Rising Storm2:Vietnam - Australians are free on Tuesday, November 28th

[Nefaro]

You know, I'm not sure I even realized Aussies fought in the Vietnam War.  What was their interest in the conflict?  Was it just supporting an ally?

Other notable participants with combat troops in-country:

South Korea
Canada

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Canada?  Nope, not in any official capacity.  Lots of Canucks crossed the border to sign up with US forces on their own initiative but apart from a few observers sent over under UN auspices, Canada stayed out.

Are they adding Kiwis to the ANZAC stuff?  Wonder if they'll add Koreans and Thais at a later date.

[Nefaro]

Canada?  Nope, not in any official capacity.  Lots of Canucks crossed the border to sign up with US forces on their own initiative but apart from a few observers sent over under UN auspices, Canada stayed out.

Are they adding Kiwis to the ANZAC stuff?  Wonder if they'll add Koreans and Thais at a later date.

I should've said, "Canadians" in general, and not specifically Canada.

There are reports that ~ 30,000 Canadians volunteered.   Not an insignificant number.

[Destraex]

Canada?  Nope, not in any official capacity.  Lots of Canucks crossed the border to sign up with US forces on their own initiative but apart from a few observers sent over under UN auspices, Canada stayed out.

Are they adding Kiwis to the ANZAC stuff?  Wonder if they'll add Koreans and Thais at a later date.

Don't know, id like to see them. The NZ govt for a long time refused to send actual combat troops and when it did they were an artillery unit only for a long time and then only a few companies of infantry integrated into the Australian units to form ANZAC units.
The eventually sent SAS as well but again they served with the Australian SAS although many of their patrols were separate.

"Over the five-year period, more than 1600 New Zealand soldiers of the nine NZ rifle companies engaged in a constant round of jungle patrols, ambushes, and cordon-and-search operations,[9] in both Australian-led and independently conducted operations."

[Destraex]

I did not realise the south korean involvement was 300,000 men!!! Holy crap. That's over triple the Australians.
These guys definitely need to be in game as a side. Did they operate independently. I am sure with those numbers that they did.

[Destraex]

How would you do the south Vietnamese army though. Considering how ineffective they were. Rarely left their bases from what I heard.

[Jarhead0331]

How would you do the south Vietnamese army though. Considering how ineffective they were. Rarely left their bases from what I heard.

I think that is incorrect. I believe the South Vietnamese army made a good showing of themselves under the circumstances, losing an estimated 200,000 to 250,000 soldiers in the conflict. I think if they had any shortcoming, it was in their leadership, not in the capability or courage of the individual fighting man.

If interested:

https://www.amazon.com/South-Vietnamese-Soldiers-Memories-Vietnam/dp/1440832412

[mirth]

I think if they had any shortcoming, it was in their leadership, not in the capability or courage of the individual fighting man.

this

[Destraex]

How would you do the south Vietnamese army though. Considering how ineffective they were. Rarely left their bases from what I heard.

I think that is incorrect. I believe the South Vietnamese army made a good showing of themselves under the circumstances, losing an estimated 200,000 to 250,000 soldiers in the conflict. I think if they had any shortcoming, it was in their leadership, not in the capability or courage of the individual fighting man.

If interested:

https://www.amazon.com/South-Vietnamese-Soldiers-Memories-Vietnam/dp/1440832412

I see. I had read in a few places that both the Americans and Australians basically ignored them because they went purely defensive...
I am no expert on this war though. So it bears further researching.

[Toonces]

Yep, I'm starting to realize how little I know about this war.   :-[

[Jarhead0331]

I see. I had read in a few places that both the Americans and Australians basically ignored them because they went purely defensive...

Yeah. I don't think that's reality.

Look up "52nd Ranger Battalion". South Vietnamese Rangers were notoriously known as being aggressive badasses and while the majority of the South Vietnamese Army did not have their training, leadership or esprit de corps, I again think that the number of losses they incurred alone, reveals that they were not, as a general matter, afraid to fight. When properly led South Vietnamese soldiers could definitely go toe to toe with their NVA counterparts. Remember, Vietcong were themselves, South Vietnamese...so willingness to sacrifice and take risks under fire is clearly a matter of leadership, morale and to some extent, indoctrination...not the side of of the DMZ that a particular individual came from.

[Destraex]

This is from the book I am reading. Which is actually an "Australian Army Campaigns" series book sold at our war memorial and intended to be educational.
This and other passing mentions of them in books is why I formed the opinion I did and said I had "heard" (read but not comprehensively).
I guess though the quotes below are just referring to the equivalent of reserves or militia in the ARVN.

I actually wonder what the Americans thought of the Australians. No doubt they just thought of us as a pain in the but to be integrated and worked with for political reasons :P

[Jarhead0331]

That is one guy's opinion of "provincial" troops. Hardly a compelling account of the literally millions of South Vietnamese that served in that war.

[Destraex]

Yes I did notice that.

[mirth]

When competently led ARVN units generally fought hard and with skill.