[GZG] Colonies cooling down :)

>
>From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
>
>
> >  Vietnam? :)
>
>Wrong.  Flat-out wrong.

>1) At no time did any Vietnamese unit defeat any American unit on the
>battlefield.

See later

>2) The PAVN was well-trained and equipped with artillery and armor by
>the Soviets and the Chinese.

You mean that being trained by a Third World army whose war 
experience (in a conventional war, at that) was 15-20 years old and 
whose equipment was, at the time, among the worst, was enough to 
confront a First World army and his technological edge? That such 
units equipped exactly like the UNITA or FRELIMO from Mozambico or 
Angola could fight, and even locally win, against American line, 
elite or even Special Forces? Then, I think, you have proven my point 
efficiently.

To complete the explanation, my idea of militia is a part-time 
military organization whose members get a modicum of training, from 
time to time, during their musters, and differences in equipment 
between elite invaders and local forces would not be more radical 
than what was seen in Vietnam, not Zulu against British regulars 
(which, by the way, is an instance of a radically challenged defender 
winning and overwhelming locally a more advanced invader by numbers 
and maneuver).

>Besides which, the strategic and political failures in Vietnam had a
>myriad of causes.  The one thing we can definitely rule out is the
>idea that the US used insufficient force for the job.	It used a great
>deal of force very, very badly.
>
> >  Both against line units and elite ones, on the move or in 
> prepared positions?
>
>Name an instance.

 From "The Rise and Fall of an American Army by Shelby L. Stanton 
(usually regarded as a good and informed source, last I heard):
page 166 - "a company of the 2d Battalion, 503d Infntry (Airborne), 
clashed with the 6th Battalion,24th NVA Regiment in one of the most 
violent battles of the Vietnam War. That morning, Company A left its 
night positions in the triple canopy jungle and began threading its 
way down a steep ridgeline. ... The point squad collided with a North 
Vietnamese Army force and the battle quickly engulfed the 
parachutists. Artillery fire crashed down and helicopter-delivered 
rockets pierced the green foliage. All failed to check the assault... 
At eleven o'clock all contact was lost with the forward platoons. 
Then a band of disheveled, wounded troopers stumbled in the company
line..."
page 172 - "Company A was in reserve at the bottom of the hill 
cutting a landing zone out of the jungle. Waves of screaming North 
Vietnamese Army regulars charged through its positions in such a 
force that two platoons simply evaporated. Now split and under fierce 
assault, the battalion's reserve was in imminent danger of being 
overrun as well"
page 178 - "Lieutnant Colonel Ohanesian's column was beset by a thick 
snarl of jungle and began moving down a trail just beyond Company L's 
lines, confident the NVA forces had departed. The North Vietnamese 
triggered a massive ambush along the trail, showering the Marines 
with a hail of grenades and machinegun fir which tore the entire 
column in shreds and killed both lt. col. Ohanesian and his sergent 
major... the Marines crawled over abandoned equipment and dozens of 
dead comrades, dragging their wonded back to company L. The North 
Vietnamese then kept the armor supported perimeter under such 
devastating rifle and grenade fire that medical evacuation 
helicopters were unable to land."

>Again, name an instance of a battlefield defeat.  Come with date,
>designation of unit involved, and place.

I would defer to your reading of the above book, but if you prefer, 
in due time I'll gladly comply with your request.

>But like you said (and I snipped), the real questions behind it have a
>lot more to do with asking what are the realities in your particular
>universe of space travel/transportation.

That was my point.

>Here's a novel one I doubt anyone's asked yet:  Will the occupied
>populace even care?  More than a few European colonies changed hands
>without guerilla warfare occuring, simply because the native populace
>could barely tell one set of whites from another, and even the
>colonists really didn't notice much of a difference beside the
>language of the tax collectors.

And that's definitely realistic (as both you and Eli suggested)
Even if it tells more about what the majority of the population would 
react, while local representatives of the central government (or 
veterans, or some minority of motivated people) could still oppose 
the invasion. But, without a large commitment from the local, their 
resistance would be very limited, I imagine.

>We are also presuming that the campaigns will be conducted in full
>media glare rather like a modern campaign, and fought by democracies
>that deeply care about things like world opinion and whether or not
>their populace is offended by pictures of insurgents hung by the neck.
>  Would international media be able to influence a campaign quite as
>heavily? I suspect not, given travel times that prohibit the 'near
>real time' coverage.
>
>John

No, I talked about real setbacks in the military program, not the 
political home front problems. I suppose that (as somebody reflected 
recently) in the GZG universe, far off, possibly low key, wars would 
be accepted.

Best wishes to you all

							 Enzo de Ianni	

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l