Tanks played a limited role in the Vietnam War compared to previous conflicts like World War II. There are several reasons why heavy tanks saw reduced usage in the Vietnam conflict. Primarily, the jungle terrain and relative lack of large-scale battles made tanks ill-suited for much of the fighting. The guerilla tactics employed by the Viet Cong also made tanks vulnerable. However, tanks were utilized by allied forces in certain capacities despite their drawbacks in the Vietnamese landscape. Understanding why tanks were not extensively used in Vietnam requires analyzing the unique conditions of the war.
Vietnam’s Challenging Terrain for Tanks
One of the main reasons tanks were not widely used was the difficult jungle and marsh terrain of Vietnam. Tanks perform best in open areas where they can utilize their firepower at long ranges. But Vietnam had few stretches of open ground that were suitable for large tank formations. Jungles and rice paddies limited visibility and made it hard for tanks to maneuver. In addition, the lack of developed road networks in Vietnam made it difficult to transport heavy tanks efficiently.
The dense foliage and muddy conditions concealed enemies like the Viet Cong. Ambushes and close quarters fighting were common, which diminished the range advantage of tanks. The many rivers and streams also impeded tank mobility due to a lack of bridges. Even dirt trails could become impassable in monsoon season. Overall, the landscape of Vietnam hampered the mobility of tracked vehicles like tanks which performed better on wide open battlefields.
Challenges of Wet Terrain in Vietnam
In particular, Vietnam’s wet terrain made tank usage very difficult. The heavy M48 Patton tanks used by US forces got bogged down in rice paddies. Moving off-road often caused tanks to sink into mud. During the rainy monsoon months, the ground turned soft making it hard for tanks to gain traction. The jungles of Vietnam also concealed swamps, streams, and flooded areas that tanks could not cross.
The M113 armored personnel carriers used by the US Army struggled as well in the muddy conditions. They had tracks instead of wheels, but the vehicles were not as heavy as main battle tanks. The lighter M113s still got stuck frequently causing operational delays. Marines utilized amphibious tractors to navigate wet terrain, but these lacked the armor and firepower of tanks. Overall, the soggy ground significantly hindered the use of armored vehicles.
Lack of Developed Road Networks
In addition to the jungle terrain, the minimal road infrastructure of Vietnam affected tank deployment. Tanks are most efficient when they can drive on established roads to rapidly reposition. But Vietnam’s road networks were still developing in the 1960s and could not readily support heavy tank units. Many existing roads had weak bridges and structures that could not bear the weight of tanks.
For example, the M48 Patton weighed over 50 tons but most bridges in Vietnam were designed for lighter vehicles. Moving tanks required constructing special pontoon bridges or having tanks ford rivers using snorkels. The marine environment also degraded roads due to moisture and mud. This made it time-consuming to transport and supply fuel for tank units. As a result, the underdeveloped roads hampered the mobility of armored forces.
Unsuitability of Tanks for Guerilla Warfare
In addition to terrain difficulties, the nature of the Vietnam War made tank employment impractical. The conflict featured guerilla warfare tactics by the Viet Cong rather than conventional maneuver warfare. Large tank formations offered little advantage in countering hit-and-run ambushes, traps, and surprise attacks. The short ranges in jungles and cities favored infantry over heavy tanks.
Vulnerability to Guerilla Ambushes
The guerilla tactics used by the Viet Cong proved especially effective against tanks. The thick vegetation allowed the Viet Cong to conduct ambushes and then disappear before tanks could deploy their firepower. Rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), mines, and Molotov cocktails could knock out tanks in close quarters fighting. Moving tanks down roads also left them vulnerable to ambushes.
Tanks had limited visibility in urban areas which the Viet Cong used for surprise attacks. Narrow streets in cities like Hue made tanks sittings ducks. The M48 Patton had a crew of 4 which strained to watch 360 degrees for threats. Jungle ambushes and urban traps negated the protection and firepower of tanks. Ultimately, armored units required extensive infantry support which limited their capabilities.
Lack of Conventional Armor Warfare
In addition, the Vietnam War featured very little conventional armor warfare which played more to the strengths of tanks. After the Tet Offensive in 1968, the North Vietnamese shifted fully to hit-and-run guerilla tactics. As a result, there were no major tank battles where large armored formations could maneuver and engage like in previous wars. The jungle environment favored light mobile forces over heavy tanks.
When North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam in 1972 with conventional forces, tank warfare briefly ensued. US armored cavalry repulsed the attack thanks in part to newer M48A3 Patton tanks and the M551 Sheridan light tanks. But larger set piece armor battles were rare during the Vietnam conflict compared to past wars. This made deployment of tanks of limited strategic value for much of the war.
Successful Uses of Tanks in Vietnam
While the terrain and nature of the war restricted tank use overall, allied forces did utilize armor successfully in some cases. Tanks supported base security, provided fire support for infantry, cleared tunnels, demolished fortifications, and helped win conventional engagements like the Easter Offensive. When deployed properly, tanks could still lend important capabilities.
Base Security and Infantry Support
One common role for tanks in Vietnam was securing bases and installations. Their weapons and armor could defend fixed positions from attack. For example, Patton tanks guarded airbases like Bien Hoa against Viet Cong assaults. Tanks also provided direct fire support for infantry operations. The mobile protected firepower of tanks enhanced the missions of foot soldiers in jungle patrols, raids, and urban combat.
By using terrain like roads and firm ground, tanks enabled infantrymaneuver. Tanks suppressed enemies while troops maneuvered to better positions. With tank support, infantry could better advance on objectives and gain fire superiority. The presence of the heavily armored vehicles boosted morale as well. Proper combined arms integration of tanks with troops was key.
Clearing Tunnels and Fortifications
Another valuable capability of tanks was demolishing enemy tunnels and fortified positions. Their large cannon could blast reinforced bunkers, trenches, and gun emplacements. For example, Patton tanks erased Viet Cong tunnels with high explosive rounds and their weight collapsed underground networks. Tanks possessed the firepower needed to reduce enemy defensive works before infantry assaulted a position.
Armored bulldozers based on the M48 tank chassis also proved effective. These specially equipped tanks scraped away terrain to uncover enemy complexes hidden in the jungle. The heavily armored dozers shielded operators while they cleared ground for allied forces. Demolition vehicles helped salad iron conquer fortified areas.
Operation Lam Son 719
During the 1971 Operation Lam Son 719, tanks were a critical part of the South Vietnamese incursion into Laos. Tank-infantry teams helped advance into Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail supply line. M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks provided fire support and armored protection to the South Vietnamese troops. Despite the operation’s ultimate failure, the armored task forces performed successfully early on.
This conventional armor operation demonstrated tanks could still function well in the difficult terrain. Proper combined arms coordination enabled the South Vietnamese armor to support the ambitious assault. Tanks offered important support even in challenging jungle environments with their firepower, protection, and shock action. The Lam Son 719 operation showed tanks were not obsolete in Vietnam when utilized correctly.
Easter Offensive of 1972
Perhaps the greatest contribution of tanks during the Vietnam War came in 1972 when North Vietnam launched the Easter Offensive. This conventional invasion of South Vietnam featured North Vietnamese armor like the T-54 tank. In response, US armored cavalry forces wielding M48A3 Patton and M551 Sheridan tanks successfully blunted the communist assaults.
For example, at the climactic Battle of An Loc, South Vietnamese defenders with US air support defeated repeated North Vietnamese attacks. Patton tanks provided vital direct fire against North Vietnamese troops and even T-54s. The ARVN held An Loc thanks to the tanks which provided mobility and protected firepower. When North Vietnam waged conventional mechanized warfare, US and South Vietnamese armor proved decisive in defeating their attacks.
Reasons for Limited Tank Deployment in Vietnam
In summary, several interrelated factors restricted widespread tank deployment in the Vietnam War:
- Jungle, marsh, and wet terrain hindered mobility of heavy tracked vehicles
- Underdeveloped road networks made transporting and supplying tanks difficult
- Guerilla ambushes and urban traps neutralized advantages of armor
- Lack of conventional armor battles reduced strategic value
Environmental conditions and the nature of combat in Vietnam made large-scale use of armor impractical for much of the war. Still, tanks proved valuable in select roles like base security, infantry support, and destroying fortifications. And during conventional invasions, allied armor helped defeat communist forces. Tanks remained relevant in Vietnam when utilized in ways suited to the complex battlefield environment.
Conclusion
The restricted use of tanks in the Vietnam War contrasted with their widespread employment in earlier conflicts. But the limitations and successes of armor in Vietnam stemmed from the unique conditions found in Indochina. The jungle terrain and guerilla warfare tactics hindered conventional tank warfare. Nevertheless, armored units provided important support functions and helped defeat communist offensives. Rather than signalling the demise of the tank, the Vietnam experience highlighted the need to adapt armored doctrine to align with the operational environment. This lesson remains highly relevant in modern warfare where new technology and asymmetric warfare challenge traditional uses of heavy armor. The Vietnam tank experience shows combined arms coordination using the right tool for the mission can still lead to battlefield success even when terrain and tactics impact tactics.