Jump to content

American air power at Dien Bien Phu


gpspartans
 Share

Recommended Posts

just curious what the members think. I've been pondering what would have happened if we had used air power to help the French during the battle? or was the French positions just untenable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lesson of Dien Bien Phu was not to put an outpost so far out that it could not be readily supported by other forces, either air or land.

 

We had to learn the same lesson again with Khe Sanh. The difference was that for Khe Sanh we had a large amount of air power in country to support the base. But it was till a bitter battle.

 

The French at Dien Bien Phu did not have anywhere near the air assets that we later had in Vietnam.

 

As far as US airpower coming to the rescue, we did not have aircraft stationed in Indochina, nor was there the capacity for a large scale build up.

 

There was some discussion of using American B-29's repainted with French markings, but what exactly were they going to bomb? The plan was dropped because of possible political reprocussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legion Para

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vulture

 

Operation Vulture (French: Opération Vautour) was the name of the proposed American operation that would rescue French forces at battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 via B-29 raids based in the Philippines. The French garrison had been surrounded by the communist Viet Minh during the First Indochina War. Vulture was the sequel of the failed Operation Condor.

 

One version of the plan envisioned sending 60 B-29s from US bases in the region, supported by as many as 150 fighters launched from US Seventh Fleet carriers, to bomb Giaps positions. The plan included an option to use up to three atomic weapons on the Viet Minh positions. Radford, the top American military officer, gave this nuclear option his backing. US B-29s, B-36s, and B-47s could have executed a nuclear strike, as could carrier aircraft from the Seventh Fleet.[1] U.S. carriers sailed to the Tonkin gulf, and reconnaissance flights over Dien Bien Phu were conducted during the negotiations. According to Richard Nixon the plan involved the Joint Chiefs of Staff drawing up plans to use 3 small tactical nuclear weapons in support of the French.[2]

 

Nixon, a so-called "hawk" on Vietnam, suggested that the U.S. might have to "put American boys in".[3] President Eisenhower made American participation contingent on British support, but London was opposed.[3] Eisenhower also felt that the airstrike alone would not decide the battle. He also expressed concerns that the French Air Force was insufficiently developed for this sort of operation and did not want to escalate U.S. involvement in the war by using American pilots.[4] In the end, convinced that the political risks outweighed the possible benefits, he decided against the intervention.[5][6]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legion Para

The lesson of Dien Bien Phu was not to put an outpost so far out that it could not be readily supported by other forces, either air or land.

 

We had to learn the same lesson again with Khe Sanh. The difference was that for Khe Sanh we had a large amount of air power in country to support the base. But it was till a bitter battle.

 

The French at Dien Bien Phu did not have anywhere near the air assets that we later had in Vietnam.

 

As far as US airpower coming to the rescue, we did not have aircraft stationed in Indochina, nor was there the capacity for a large scale build up.

 

There was some discussion of using American B-29's repainted with French markings, but what exactly were they going to bomb? The plan was dropped because of possible political reprocussions.

The United States didn't need aircraft stationed in Indochina. Aircraft stationed in the Philippines and carrier based 7th Fleet aircraft were a viable option.

 

The French didn't have the air assets to support Dien Bien Phu, let alone all other operations in Indochina. Even if the United States had provided the French with enough aircraft, the French didn't have the pilots and crews to man them. The French also lacked the necessary ground crews to maintain them.

 

The United States Military failed to learn much from the French experience in Indochina and repeated many of the same mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legion Para

Weather had a serious affect on air operations in Indochina.

 

At the time of Dien Bien Phu, the Viet Minh launched raids against French airfields in Hanoi to cripple French air operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thefallenbuddha

Just to add....there was some American air presence in Indochina during this period through CAT (Civil Air Transport) pilots and planes, including at Dien Bien Phu where two American CAT pilots were killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legion Para

Just to add....there was some American air presence in Indochina during this period through CAT (Civil Air Transport) pilots and planes, including at Dien Bien Phu where two American CAT pilots were killed.

There was no US Military Air presence at Dien Bien Phu. Unless you are talking about the B-17 mission to study the feasability of US Air intervention. CAT personnel were civilians, not military. Plus they were flying under the French flag at Dien Bien Phu. The CAT pilots were flying C47s and C119s on supply missions to Dien Bien Phu, not fighters or bombers.

 

US Military air assets failed to successfully interdict enemy supply lines in Korea. US Military air assets failed to successfully interdict North Vietnamese supply lines down the Ho Chi Minh trail. American air power would have been unsuccessful in interdicting Viet Minh supply lines at Dien Bien Phu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree we could have bombed with the air assets we had. I think a good grouping of B-29's could/might have broken up the NV formations on the high ground or even low. jungle don't protect you against bombs. my question really isn't political, that is, who wanted what, but rather what would have happened if? this was one of the very first time the north used main force units to face main force units and the breaking up of the attack and show of force that the west (USA) would back up the French would have, at the very least, changed the north strategy and perhaps altered the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legion Para

I agree we could have bombed with the air assets we had. I think a good grouping of B-29's could/might have broken up the NV formations on the high ground or even low. jungle don't protect you against bombs. my question really isn't political, that is, who wanted what, but rather what would have happened if? this was one of the very first time the north used main force units to face main force units and the breaking up of the attack and show of force that the west (USA) would back up the French would have, at the very least, changed the north strategy and perhaps altered the outcome.

 

With all due respect gpspartans, you need to study the history of Indochina. The French went head to head with the Viet Minh Divisions in the Fall of 1950 and both sides took a beating. B52s didn't stop the North Vietnamese at Khe Sanh and B29s would not have stopped the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu. B29s at Dien Bien Phu might have changed the Viet Minh strategy, but it would not have changed the outcome of the war. US Air Power did not bring a successful outcome to the Korean War.

 

B29s could only have been used in a limited role. You could not use them to break up attacks without causing damage to the French forces as well. B29s certainly could not have been used during the night attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree we could have bombed with the air assets we had. I think a good grouping of B-29's could/might have broken up the NV formations on the high ground or even low. jungle don't protect you against bombs. my question really isn't political, that is, who wanted what, but rather what would have happened if? this was one of the very first time the north used main force units to face main force units and the breaking up of the attack and show of force that the west (USA) would back up the French would have, at the very least, changed the north strategy and perhaps altered the outcome.

 

The forces that were laying siege to Dien Bien Phu were well dug in and well camouflaged. They proved to be highly resistant to either counter battery fire or airstrikes.

 

You also have to take into account the pace of operations of B-29's vs. B-52's. B-29's coming from the Philippines would not have had the response time to be effective in dispersing a ground assault that B-52's flying from Thailand would have in the later war.

 

As far as the challenges facing the French Air Force, I happened upon this, starting with the last paragraph on pg. 57:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=jJ_MUpcAjlMC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=distance+between+dien+bien+phu+and+clark+air+base+philippines&source=bl&ots=NgOVEPrFmk&sig=569mQUDg6IneKK3_Zqsi4cX8YAg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=35qnU9XrFtaryATtzoCACQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=distance%20between%20dien%20bien%20phu%20and%20clark%20air%20base%20philippines&f=false

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thefallenbuddha

There was no US Military Air presence at Dien Bien Phu. Unless you are talking about the B-17 mission to study the feasability of US Air intervention. CAT personnel were civilians, not military. Plus they were flying under the French flag at Dien Bien Phu. The CAT pilots were flying C47s and C119s on supply missions to Dien Bien Phu, not fighters or bombers.

 

 

The CAT pilots only operated under the French flag, because they were under orders from and funded by the CIA / US government. I think that qualifies them to be considered as a US air presence in the conflict.

 

And, in regard to fighters or bombers, the OP's question referenced American air power and help of the French forces. Air transportation falls under that topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree somewhat. the B-52 did a lot to break up the siege of KS. Well dug in and camo'd positions are not the same as tunneled as Iwo Jima was. dependent on the number and will to use the bombers I think, as I mentioned in an earlier post, at least the NV would have been forced to change strategy & once that happened it might have offered the French a chance. remember, we are talking about a battle not a war. the French and later the US underestimated the will of the NV to take casulaties and continue the fight. neither put the effort into the war to win. of course, the French were insane to place their troopers into that situation. they in no way had the power to take, control the battle and win. one aspect is, it is hard to supply a unit by air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vintageproductions

I also know a USMC pilot who was flying aircraft into DBP. He would fly fighters in and then get ferried back to the carriers to bring in more.

He stayed flying until the late 1970's, when he was training Iranian pilots to fly US jets.

He is also indirectly mentioned in Elaine Sheppard's book The Doom Pussy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely random...I wrote about a gentleman in one of my JOMSA articles who had been an observer/trainer with the French at BDP. He was assigned to the "865 3rd AAU MAAG Indo China"...not 100% sure of what that was, but he was on the ground with the French starting from 1 February 1954.

 

 

WOHNER21.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very nice collection you have there

 

vc

Completely random...I wrote about a gentleman in one of my JOMSA articles who had been an observer/trainer with the French at BDP. He was assigned to the "865 3rd AAU MAAG Indo China"...not 100% sure of what that was, but he was on the ground with the French starting from 1 February 1954.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

very nice collection you have there

 

 

 

Congratulate him...he earned them all. He was nominated for the MOH but it was downgraded to the DSC...pretty amazing citation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand comparing DBP to Khesanh.

 

DBP was an all out battle intended to defeat the French.

It succeeded at great cost to both sides.

It was most influential in causing the French to throw in the towell.

We had been paying for 80% of their effort as well.

 

Khesanh was basically a ploy to divert attention from the beginning of the Tet '68 Offensive.

There was never a serious effor to over run or capture the base.

 

It diverted a lot of material and manpower at the time.

I'm sure if you were there, as were friends of mine, you would consider it a prettty big deal.

The Commies pretty much slunk off with the end of the Tet Offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

I agree with last post & add that it was BS that the US back home consider the war done. We kicked hell out of them and set them back for a few years after TET. if we had pressed the issue it would have been one of (maybe only) best chance to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...