Thats why I said only justifiable in total wartime. Also depends on your definition of large scale conflict.
Napoleonic wars, German-French war 1870, WW1, WW2. Com on, you know what I mean. However WW1 and WW2 of all the large wars, was the most about who had more masses, in everything, from men, to material and resources. This is one of the main reasons why the Germans lost in WW1 and later WW2. They simply could not keep up with the production and manpower of their enemies, at the point when the US entered the war, it was practically just a matter of time in 1942. A numbers game, if you so will - obviously this was not clear at 1942, but today we have the data and knowledge. Seriously, this is what it comes down to in the end. Can you outproduce the enemy? With planes, tanks, rifles, can you command and deploy more man? It doesn't mean that the US manpower and resources have been endless, or that it ensures victory at every single battle! But numbers, are a quality of their own. Even the Germans, had to play in this game, if you look at the numbers of 75mm anti tank guns, attack planes, medium tanks and assault guns etc. compared to how much "high quality" equipment they produced. You don't win wars with tank duels.
To say that numbers and masses would be the ONLY(!) factor to consider, is of course wrong, hence why I said it was a simplification! But you have to start somewhere, you know? You're not going to attack France with 100 000 men, without planes, tanks and a handfull of artillery, while they have a full standing army and industry with 30 times more men. You have to get at least equal numbers.
The allies made a lot of studies after WW2, since it was a turning point as far as wars and strategy goes. They calculated, that to ensure vitory in most battles they would need an advantage of 1,8:1 in men, the Germans 1,5:1. However, this is not a rule, it was if anything more of a guideline. Guderian, was one of those people who vehemently defended the Panzer IV and was not very keen about the Panther, he knew what numbers mean with the armed forces.
So your statement was The Americans had massed troops, the North Vietnamese didn't. The North Vietnamese won the war. During the conflict, the Americans reinstated a draft.
I knew that you would bring up Vietnam and that you would missunderstand my intentions, just like Izak said ...
Hey, I agree that Vietnam is a bit borderline here. However, as far as a conflict goes, depending on what side you are, the US didn't lost the conflict, but they simply did not achieve their goals - independed South-Vietnam, while for the North, China and the Soviets it was a victory as the US forces left the nation. What ever if Vietnam was a clear defeat or not, is simply debatable, I see it as a defeat based on the goals they had at that time, but I can see why some think it wasn't. It really depends on your definitions.
It is a complicated matter in that regard. But I would not call it a defeat in the military sense at least. What I us as reference here is the French involvement who lost a lot of deceisive military operations. To make it short, the US never had their Dien Bien Phu. But I will leave it that that, the military operations and politics of the Vietnam war would deserve its own topic entirely, as we would have to start with the Chinese involvement, the Soviet support and all the politics that was going on behind it as well. Which makes the war somewhat special, as it was one of the first wars with a lot of different political targets behind it. In WW2 for example, the goal was clear. Beat the Germans and beat the Japanese. With Vietnam however, the policy was never really clear, it changed from Eisenhower, to Kennedy, Johnson and later Nixon. It was the idea of the so called
confined war - which Nixon later broke when he decided to follow the mad-man theory. Even though, in reality something like a confined war doesn't really exist. This was neither true for Korea, nor Vietnam and later Afghanistan with the Soviets. As both the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong saw a tremendious amount of support by the Chinese, Soviets and many eastern block states. If we assume that it would have been really a war, like the US envisioned it, like if for some reason neither China nor the Soviets or any other nation supported North-Vietnam, with food, resources and material, how long do you think they could have lasted against the US? Vietnam has been defeated and occupied in the past after all.
But as Hass said, comparing a situation like Vietnam with WW2 or WW1, means that all the typical guidelines of warefare can be thrown out of the window.
