Vietnam Category or Subcategory?

Vietnam themed posts are currently under the Cold War category. And, while the Vietnam War did occur during the Cold War, it was a rather important event for the time to say the least.

Do we need a separate Vietnam forum? I would like to see a separate category for Vietnam, encompassing French & US involvement in the war.


I get what Tom’s saying but then would it just be making more categories than are really needed and others having to be done like Korea, Arab-Israeli conflicts etc…
It’s actually pretty easy to find Vietnam stuff by just going into Cold War and then the tags to find the Vietnam one ?
Just my thoughts :+1:

1 Like

I dunno; perhaps it would be a good thing to have Vietnam as a separate category - a cataclymic event such as that perhaps deserves one, but also, to my tidy military mind it would make sense. Then again, perhaps Gulf Wars (1 & 2) would also warrant their own sub-sections? Arab-Israeli conflicts too?

I suppose really when I think of Cold War I don’t think of the time frame but the events and the geography ie mainly NATO vv Warsaw Pact but that’s my interpretation. As I say, to my tidy mind I like the idea of specific slots to identify your interests but I’m fully aware that others don’t and if say, they’re building something post WW2 they’ll, in all likelihood, drop it into “Modern”, which I suppose technically isn’t wrong anyhow. I suppose the criteria really should be to make the site as easy to navigate as possible

Hey, what the hell? I’ll go where I’m sent(!)

being as all were so much different than what was happening everywhere else, I’d say yes. Yet on the other hand this will create quite a quagmire of threads. Where does one top? One unit is sent TDY to another place more or less as a show in strength or a boost for an OP. I know of units that were in Vietnam for only two weeks, and then went back home (most all were Air Force and Navy). The same probably holds true for the Middle East conflicts.

FWIW, I’d say no. It’s hard to find any examples of major conflicts during the Cold War that were not actually related to it.

In regard to the Indo-China / Vietnam wars, they were pretty much direct off-shoots of the Cold War in much the same way as the Korean War was. The US was not at all in favor of the French reclaiming their colonial territories until the Chinese and Soviets made clear that they supported the Viet Minh. Once the French left, the US filled the vacuum to prevent the establishment of a communist country (or countries, if Laos and Cambodia are included) extending south into the Pacific towards the Philippines and Australia.

The Vietnam War was really an intimate part of the Cold War. One might argue that if it wasn’t for the Cold War, the Vietnam War wouldn’t have been fought at all. (Another alternative history thought experiment… LOL!)

The Arab-Israeli wars also had their Cold War aspects according to which side was supported by which major powers.

Even minor conflicts (minor in comparison to) had Cold War overtones or direct connections. Consider the US intervention in the Dominican Republic, Operation Power Pack, was conducted in order to prevent Marxist indigenous factions from taking power, or many of the “wars of liberation” in Africa backed by major communist forces (directly or through surrogates, like Cuba).

Now, what I do find strange is the extension of the WWII Allied and Axis time periods to 1949 instead of 1945. So does that mean all of these early MiniArt T-44’s and T-54’s are actually WWII tanks?



1 Like

That’s how I think of the Cold War: Central Front, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG).

I think of Vietnam and Korea as a “hot wars”. US troops were involved in prolonged periods of armed conflict ranging from counterinsurgency activities to force-on-force engagements.

1 Like

I’m not a big fan of endless fragmentation of forums - it just makes it harder to keep up. Case in point - the old forums had Armor/AFV, and then a separate Soviet forum because I guess the folks there just didn’t want to mix with others. Made it tricky to decide where to post News or Reviews of Soviet tanks - should they get posted in Soviet for those hard-core fans, or in the more general Armor/AFV to reach a wider audience? I think we can use the tags feature to make subtle gradations in the Cold War forum, as most folks view the term to mean history from the end of WW2 to the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s.

That’s my two tiny coins…


I do miss some of the sub forums that were in the old board. Yet it can become a giant mess in the end. I’d say if it’s working good right now; then why re-invent the wheel again?

Most folks do not know that we were always in Laos from the mid 1950’s till we cleared out of Southeast Asia. Then there was the official entry into Laos (Lam Son 719 and a couple other not so well known excursions. Cambodia wasn’t invaded but once (well three times) or twice by the USA. Yet we all know there was Special Forces and SOG recon teams across the fence all the time. The Dominican invasion rings bells for me as my first Platoon Sargent was there. Yet little is known about it, There was also Central America, and little two and three week events here and there. Korea has always been a dark place for me. Know little about the place except that it gets real cold there. I suspect; I need to learn a lot more about that place and time frame.

Technically WWII lasted till right near 1946. But I think August 45 is the best stopping point. On the otherhand Nov. 1918 in not really all that correct for WWI. Were had troops in combat well into 1920 inside the Russo/Finnish area. (news to me till about three years ago when it was brought forth in the VFW magazine. That’s another one I need to learn more about.

Wasn’t there a Japanese soldier still fighting WW2 right into the 1970s? IIRC they had to find an old officer from his unit to talk him out of the jungle…

more than one

It depends on the definition of war and era.

The hundred years war was a series of wars in middle age.
Napoleonic Wars were many wars lead by the same man, now usually considered late renaissance.
WW2 was the consequence of the decisions after WW1.
Korean war was more or less the first physical conflict of the cold war.
What set the WW1 and WW2, apart even though they are in direct relation, are because of how advanced technologies alternate the doctrines and logistics in a drastic manner. Mechanization, communication advancement give a leap on force multiplier. During WW1, soldiers were still deployed like in older wars with trench warfare, while WW2 had a lot more capture and sabotage.

For me, things keep escalate into the cold wars era in the same manner as WW2, but the super powers fight through a intermediate theater rather than direct face to face. Such as Soviet/China fought the US through Vietnam,North Korea or Cuba. Or the US fought the Soviet in Middle East through some now terrorism group, or recon things through Philippines.
That to exclude many other conflicts happens in South America and Africa during that time period, backed by a faction of super power, but to suppress these individual wars rather than fighting against the other super power.

And as a Vietnamese and grew up in Vietnam, it is known for us that “Vietnam war” were not a war but wars. Battle of Dien Bien Phu is probably the most known battle against Eastern foreigners, but it is hardly “Vietnam War” by some Eastern standard.

As someone who served in the Army on Active Duty from 1972 through 1977 (by definition during the “Vietnam Era” from a Veteran’s perspective), I have to weigh in to say that even though the Vietnam War took place DURING the Cold War time frame, AND can absolutely be considered a war that had in its roots at least a partial connection in the struggle between Western Democracies and Communist countries, I still consider these two separate conflicts especially from a modeling perspective. While the Cold War played out in many Theaters of Operation, the largest embodiment of Cold War troop employment for the US was the presence in Germany of well in excess of the equivalent of FIVE Divisions from after the end of WW II until about 1990. Their purpose, equipment and even the uniforms which were worn were in many ways different that what was found in Vietnam, even during the same exact years. While there were tank units and mechanized infantry and cavalry units in Vietnam, the nature of the war dictated that the forces were not equipped with the same weapons systems, nor employed the same way.

And one of my long time gripes, is that despite the fact that the Army keep all those GI’s in Europe for in excess of 40 years or more, there is a SERIOUS lack of figures wearing the standard fatigue uniform which was used there, which is NOT jungle fatigues and jungle boots, and for a LOT of the year consisted of field jackets and parkas and even “pile caps” which you don’t see anyone in Vietnam wearing.

As one who was IN the Army during that period, but never went to Vietnam, but DID serve in Germany to help defend the “Inter German Border” from attack by forces of the Warsaw pact, whatever you call that theater of operations, I feel that those 40-50 years of the US Army in Europe is a distinctly different period that is NOT the Vietnam War, and NOT the Korean War, even though both these conflicts took place BETWEEN the recognized beginning and end of the Cold War and were subtexts of the overall struggle between the two blocs during that time frame.

Does it rate a separate category in these forums? Hard to say. But the operations of the US Army in Germany from the end of WW II through the fall of the Berlin Wall are a completely different genre than the Vietnam War or the Korean War, or the Gulf War.


There is a tag for Vietnam …
available in most Categories/Subcategories of Armorama.
Tags can be created by someone creating a post and setting a new tag on it.
Nobody has, yet, chosen to create a vietnam tag in the AFV Figures subcategory

1 Like

OK, my two Pesos worth: for now keep it as a subcategory with a tab. But if it gets to be overwhelmingly huge, then make it a separate category.

Totally agree!

Summer and winter uniform, they are both hard to find!

Guys, it drives me mad; the Cold War was very much my war (well, apart from NI, the Balkans and Iraq) - figures? Sigh. Reach for the Milliput and the Hornet Heads but it all gets a bit wearing.

There’s enough decent Sov tank crews out there but precious few others apart from say the welcome ICM Soviet Army Servicemen 1979-91; but say, US guys cutting around the tank park? Guys on exercise fully kitted out? NBC suits - both Warsaw Pact and NATO? Brits in Lightweights and Woolly Pullies - not a bit of it. Such a shame.

Now, where did I put my Milliput?


I appreciate your view.
My view is that the Vietnam-US war, 2nd Indochina war or whatever it is called, was just a front of the Cold War.

As you mentions on how the equipment and gear were different despite you served at the same time, but in different place, I would say that it was to adapt with different climates and tactics.

WW2 was in the same case:
The African front equipment and uniform is not the same as it was later in the war. German would not need heavy winter cloth like they would on the Eastern front.
Allies using detailed intelligent to strike require different counter than Soviet human spending.
Soviet early WW2 was still wearing WW1 style uniform with cap, which then simplified to the simple and cheap uniform that they are known for today.
I remember how some member nitpick about US paratrooper figure got uniforms too early or too late or just for a whole different operation than the intended use by the manufacturer.
US Army in the Pacific front might or might not geared the same as they were on Western front.
Was the Japanese invasion part of WW2? Or it was only after the Japan became ally with Germany?

Sir, you served on a front that people threat each other, but no one dare to fight, because it would be a direct battle of super powers, and both side would lose. Nevertheless, it didn’t stop them from opening the fight elsewhere, where dead wouldn’t be their, or they can crush the opponent with little lost of their own while having geographical advantage in the larger scheme of the Cold war. (though, in the case of the US-Vietnam war, the US underestimated the situation a little).

You served on a place where it was expected to be the largest battle ever, where nukes could be detonated, when humanity could be destroyed as whole. It might not appear deadly, but looking back, it certainly needed bravery.

1 Like

I like mudkipz


First of all thank you for your service in Europe (long time over due). You folks had the better equipment that folks in RVN did for sure (even though we were catching up at a snail’s pace). Your thoughts on Korea ring a bell as well. Never been there, but know quite a few that did a stint over there. Korea is still considered to be a combat zone to this very day, and as an aside your also doing combat with the weather pattern for the day. I simply can’t fathom that! A couple guys in my squad got sent to Korea for a secretive school. All told about twenty five guys, and most all come back a few weeks later with pneumonia (Feb. 68). Yes they missed the first month of Tet, but nearly died in the process.

Everybody simply thinks everybody wore Jungle fatigues 24/7 in RVN. Nay not so! It was common to see somebody in stateside BDU’s. I wore them for about three months till they finally rotted away. Guys on the ground typically wore jungle boots (some SF had different boots or shoes). Most folks that flew wore regular black combat boots unless they could get their hands on a pair (why?). Samething with basic O.D. tee shirts and under ware. Guys in the rear were often seen in white, while folks in the bush didn’t have any at all. The Navy guys wore black leather boots most of the time, and I’ve seen Marines at air bases wear generic black combat boots. Black tee shirts was a fairly common sight out west, cause that was what your Mother or wife sent you to replace the stuff that rotted away (have seen dark green as well). What I’m implying is that nobody really represents the bottom 25% in the food chain.

Moderator edit: One occurrence of shirts was missing an ‘r’ which triggered the filter for ‘naughty words’. Jeez … I have inserted the missing ‘r’ … / Robin