Comments by "Big Blue" (@bigblue6917) on "This Highly Decorated Vietnam Veteran Remembers '60s America" video.

A WW2 veteran who served four years in the Pacific would on average see 40 days of combat. A Vietnam veteran saw on average 240 days of combat in a one year tour. A WW2 veteran would have had to serve 24 years to see the same amount of combat. I think that goes a long way to explain why many did what they did.
649
@czzted99 Firstly an American would have served just under for years 7th December 1941 to 2nd September, 1945. So my maths are correct. Secondly you are totally wrong about me being an American. A British veteran, such as my late uncle, would have served one day short of six years. 3rd September 1939 to 2nd September 1945. So, three clues for you about my nationality. I say maths, not math. My dates are day, month and year, not month, day and year as American show it. And my late uncle was British. Bet you feel so foolish now don't you. i notice you also say math not maths. Which would indicate your country was not at war for six year, unless you are German pretending to be an American.
8
@oldfart3137 I did say days of combat rather then being in a campaign. And I did say on average, so some will be higher while other will be low. The big difference in Vietnam was the helicopter. In the past in could be days before troops reached the combat zone but with helicopters that would be reduced to a few hours at most. They would fly in, make contact with the enemy, fight the enemy and then fly out again. So whereas a marine in WW2 may have only seen 40 days of combat on average throughout the entire war, his son fighting in Vietnam would, on average would have seen that amount of combat in two month. The "on average" can be a problem. I have seen figures where British WW1 soldiers would spend one day in the front line trench, the next day in the support trench just behind the front trench, then the next eight days in the rear. So an average of three days a month in the front line trench. But I am aware of troops in one sector in continuous fighting for over 120 days. I hope that helps.
7
@thezman07able True but I was trying to show it from an American perspective.
4
@marklucca3044 the fact that you feel the need to be abusive when we are trying to have an intelligent conversation say more about you then me. At no point have I tried to demean WW 2 veterans. I have nothing but the greatest admiration for them. Looking at 8th Army aircrew going off on a mission over Germany and them knowing the odds are they may not come back. How can you not admire them. As one veteran said, he did not complete his tour he survived it. What I was clearly stating was that because of the use of helicopters someone serving in Vietnam saw much more combat then his WW 2 father would have. And I clearly stated Veterens of the Pacific not Europe. I know US units in Europe did not get rotated out. If you can explain why they did that I would be interested to know. If you want to put forward your arguments then please do. But there is no need for abuse.
3
Two things I forgot to mention. At no point did Nixon realise that in a war like that it is the politician who sets out what the military objectives are to win the war. He thought that it was up to the generals to decide that. But at the same time they were interfering with strategic decision making. North Vietnamese Airfields could not be bombed in case Russian advisers were there was a political decision. We will not tell you what to do to win the war but we sure as hell will interfere and make it harder for you to do so. Secondly. We all know that 58,220 Americans died in Vietnam. But it is estimated that that many again died because of what it did to them. Many from suicide but others from drink and drugs et cetera. Do they get add to the war memorial as well. Because one way or another Vietnam did kill them.
1