What were the difference between the Vietnam War and WWII tactics, on BOTH sides?
Answer Jennifer: That is a tall order since there were a lot of tactics used in different theaters in WWII. But basically, in WWII we captured territory to deny it to the enemy. This is called a persistent strategy. The idea is you capture the enemies territory and deny him the resources and people he needs in order to support his army. This is what we did in both the Pacific and Europe. At the same time we attacked their infastructure, eg: factories, refineries, bridges, dams, cities etc. This applied to both Germany and Japan. We even did wide spread “terror” bombing of cities to demoralize and kill the population. In Vietnam, we did none of this. We did not capture territory, or bomb infrastructure to any great degree due to the politics of the war. In stead, we engaged in a strategy of attrition. Our troops would search out and destroy the enemy forces, hence the term “search and destroy”. The media bastardized the term to mean “search” villages and “destroy” them. This was incorre
