How Would Thailand Fare If Attacked Militarily?

[bkkjames]

Vietnam, a nation not too dissimilar from Thailand, managed to defeat first the French, then a vastly technologically superior USA.

Worthwhile not forgetting that.

home field advantage

[mark45y]

Vietnam, a nation not too dissimilar from Thailand, managed to defeat first the French, then a vastly technologically superior USA.

Worthwhile not forgetting that.

To be accurate Thailand also defeated (with help from Japan) the French 15 years before they were defeated by the North Vietnamese. And again in the interest of accuracy North Vietnam and China defeated the Americans with technical assistance from Russia. North Vietnam never won a military battle against the Americans, even the Tet offensive was quashed in two days and the North Vietnamese army took over command from the VC who had botched the offensive. Ho won the political war very astutely. He realized the American public did not have the will to win the war and the North Vietnamese people did. Uncle Ho triumphed over the Japanese, French and Americans. The only thing the Americans saved was Thailand not going the same way as Laos and Cambodia.

[thaihome]

Against the air attack with the targets described, Thailand would probably not do very well. It actually has a fairly strong air defense, but it is focused on protecting forward area combat elements and rear area critical assets, such as airfields, not media outlets.

TH

Thailand Thai Army Land Ground Forces military equipment and vehicle

[astroboydivx]

OK Here we go folks with the great SE Asia Smackdown 2011. Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore are not allowed to play.

Thailand (democratic monarchy)

Population: 66m / GDP: $574b

versus

"SE Asia Regional Alliance of Estovakia"

Population: 100m / GDP: $520b

Comprised of:

Cambodia (democratic monarchy)

Population: 15m / GDP: $31b

Laos (communist republic)

Population: 7m / GDP: $14b

Burma (presidential republic)

Population: 50m / GDP: $72b

Malaysia (democratic monarchy)

Population: 27m / GDP: $400b

Goal: Destroy the enemy's military offensive capabilities, capture and hold the enemy's parliament for at least 6 months via military power.

Who would win? Thailand (greater GDP, greater unitedness) or the SE Alliance (attacking from all angles, greater population, but outdated technology)

I don't know anything about the military of these countries so please enlighten me with your crystal balls!

Edited February 17, 2011 by astroboydivx

[transam]

OK Here we go folks with the great SE Asia Smackdown 2011. Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore are not allowed to play.

Thailand (democratic monarchy)

Population: 66m / GDP: $574b

versus

"SE Asia Regional Alliance of Estovakia"

Population: 100m / GDP: $520b

Comprised of:

Cambodia (democratic monarchy)

Population: 15m / GDP: $31b

Laos (communist republic)

Population: 7m / GDP: $14b

Burma (presidential republic)

Population: 50m / GDP: $72b

Malaysia (democratic monarchy)

Population: 27m / GDP: $400b

Goal: Destroy the enemy's military offensive capabilities, capture and hold the enemy's parliament for at least 6 months via military power.

Who would win? Thailand (greater GDP, greater unitedness) or the SE Alliance (attacking from all angles, greater population, but outdated technology)

I don't know anything about the military of these countries so please enlighten me with your crystal balls!

Think all that goes out the window if a cease fire is asked for, for the afternoon siesta and Papaya Pok Pok fix.

[OZEMADE]

They did not fair so well during WWII.

They faired better than any of the other countries who declared war on the allies.

That is because when the Japanese were about to attack they sided with the Japanese, when the Japanese were losing the war they sided with the Allies. LOL!

Not True. The Thai's had quite a big underground movement against the Jap's, when the Jap's were coming into their country via Burma.

[samjaidee]

South Korea and Indonesia could kick Thailand's arse.

Thailand could kick Malaysias, Cambodias, Burmas and Laos' arse.

My understanding is that Thailand and China are building stronger relationships. If the USA and Thailand fought in 15 years time, who would Thailand side with?

Since you're obviously an expert on armed forces in Asia; any idea how Thailand would fare against Vietnam? How do their armies, navies or air forces compare?

[anterian]

When it comes to the crunch, if weapons and armaments are about equal, the most important factor is troop morale. Have you ever seen a Thai fight when the odds are stacked against him? Thais fight when winning is garanteed.

[swerver]

They did not fair so well during WWII.

They faired better than any of the other countries who declared war on the allies.

Yes they did through the efforts of Dr. Sukhumvit of the Seri Thais twisting FDR’s arm to make Churchill change his mind of insisting that Thailand be among the enemies when the war was finished and the young Thai prince born in the US was made the king. Churchill did not relent immediately, it took some doing by FDR.

[TPI]

Thailand was "asked" by the Japanese to "invite" them in; otherwise they would be attacked.

Actually the Japanese invaded at several places and were meet by the Thai military which resulted in several hundred Japanese soldiers being killed before the Thai PM called a cease fire the same day and ended the shooting. That same PM later declared war on the US.

TH

In fact wasn't it the Thai Navy officer cadets who resisted for 10 hours and were then ordered by their leaders to cease fireing? the leaders shirts wern't completly yellow then, just a little stripe down the back?

[TPI]

They did not fair so well during WWII.

They faired better than any of the other countries who declared war on the allies.

That is because when the Japanese were about to attack they sided with the Japanese, when the Japanese were losing the war they sided with the Allies. LOL!

Not True. The Thai's had quite a big underground movement against the Jap's, when the Jap's were coming into their country via Burma.

Well no, the Seri Thai (free Thai movement) which was based around Den Chai in north central Phrae provence wasn't all that large, it was constrained by the OSS as they felt that they were more useful for intelligence gathering that for creating a fifth column, the only thing that saved Thailand from the War Crimes Commission was the fact that the Thai PM was also the leader of the Seri Thai. IMHO :jap:

[TPI]

South Korea and Indonesia could kick Thailand's arse.

Thailand could kick Malaysias, Cambodias, Burmas and Laos' arse.

My understanding is that Thailand and China are building stronger relationships. If the USA and Thailand fought in 15 years time, who would Thailand side with?

Since you're obviously an expert on armed forces in Asia; any idea how Thailand would fare against Vietnam? How do their armies, navies or air forces compare?

My friend! You would feel like the man who had to clean up after the elephant in the parade if Thailand (In it's insanity) took on Vietnam. Even if its armanents are 20 years out of date they would give Thailand such a flogging that 6 katoey's with gucci handbags could take over the country!

Vietnam gave China a very serious defeat in its northern provences after the "American war", prior to that they gave the French and prior to that the Japanese trouble. Ever since the French tried to conquer the country in the middle 1800's they had only a very delicate grip on Vietnam.

I spent over two years looking over a rifle barrel at these little guys...they frightened the Sh#t out of me then! I also saw the Thai "Cobra" division in operation! Oh me, oh my!

[MJP]

South Korea and Indonesia could kick Thailand's arse.

Thailand could kick Malaysias, Cambodias, Burmas and Laos' arse.

My understanding is that Thailand and China are building stronger relationships. If the USA and Thailand fought in 15 years time, who would Thailand side with?

Since you're obviously an expert on armed forces in Asia; any idea how Thailand would fare against Vietnam? How do their armies, navies or air forces compare?

My friend! You would feel like the man who had to clean up after the elephant in the parade if Thailand (In it's insanity) took on Vietnam. Even if its armanents are 20 years out of date they would give Thailand such a flogging that 6 katoey's with gucci handbags could take over the country!

Vietnam gave China a very serious defeat in its northern provences after the "American war", prior to that they gave the French and prior to that the Japanese trouble. Ever since the French tried to conquer the country in the middle 1800's they had only a very delicate grip on Vietnam.

I spent over two years looking over a rifle barrel at these little guys...they frightened the Sh#t out of me then! I also saw the Thai "Cobra" division in operation! Oh me, oh my!

Some peoples are just born warriors. The Afghans also come to mind.

[Ricardo]

<snip for brevity>

My understanding is that Thailand and China are building stronger relationships. If the USA and Thailand fought in 15 years time, who would Thailand side with?

Thailand would surely side with whomever won, as history shows ? Not a bad strategy, at that !

But who would dare to take-on Thailand's kamikaze tuk-tuk driver elite strike-force ?

Edited February 21, 2011 by Ricardo

[bonobo]

South Korea and Indonesia could kick Thailand's arse.

Thailand could kick Malaysias, Cambodias, Burmas and Laos' arse.

South Korea has a great military, but Indonesia's air force would be annihilated. Malaysia's is more powerful and could destroy them too. If Indonesia wants to launch an attack on someone they're gonna have to stick with East Timor or Papua New Guinea.

Only nations capable doing anything are US and China.

China is incapable of conducting an amphibious landing. Only the US or UK can do that.

Actually, the PLA could land about a division. It does have the Kunlunshan LPD's and amphibious armor. But with a still suspect logistics train, in the situation of invading Thailand, such a landing would most likely be used to split Thai forces while the PLA comes in from the north.

[astral]

Thai forces are conscript and not volunteer. Another disadvantage.

Not totally true.

Yes, Thai youths are conscripted,

but there are regular opportunities for voluntary enlistment, if you reach the required standard.

[Hermes100]

They did not fair so well during WWII.

They faired better than any of the other countries who declared war on the allies.

But surely, that mean's very little. rather like saying a midget is taller than a dawf !And certainly not that they faired at all well.

Hence the state of some things many year's later.

[mark45y]

They did not fair so well during WWII.

They faired better than any of the other countries who declared war on the allies.

Yes they did through the efforts of Dr. Sukhumvit of the Seri Thais twisting FDR’s arm to make Churchill change his mind of insisting that Thailand be among the enemies when the war was finished and the young Thai prince born in the US was made the king. Churchill did not relent immediately, it took some doing by FDR.

Actually it was an American lady named Betty McKenzie, She saved Thailand from Churchill. You can google it. FDR was dead anyway. It was President Truman at the time.

Letter from the US Department of State.

Dear Mrs. McKenzie:

I have received by reference from the Secretary of State and the President your letters of December 5 and 6, 1945 regarding the situation in Siam. I regret that this reply has been so long delayed. As you are now doubtless aware, Great Britain and Siam signed an Agreement on January 1, 1946 terminating the state of war which existed between the two countries. On January 5 diplomatic relations between Siam and Great Britain and between Siam and the United States were resumed. Concerning the terms of the British-Siamese Agreement, this Government had been in close contact with the British Government for a number of months with the result that certain of the original British terms were considerably modified to prevent any possible interpretation which might seem to place Great Britain in a position inimical to Siam's freedom and independence. It is believed that the final Agreement in no way infringes upon the complete sovereignty and independence of Siam.

Pridi Phanomyong, on his way to visit President Truman, stopped in Los Angeles to thank Mrs. McKenzie for her efforts. A dinner was held in her honour at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

[oldsailor35]

They did not fair so well during WWII.

They faired better than any of the other countries who declared war on the allies.

Yes, they chucked their hand in with the 'baddies'

[oldsailor35]

So long as they could produce enough anti-projectile, anti-landmine, anti-black magic etc etc amulets the soldiers will be invincible. Don't forget the have the GT200 explosive detector that should warn them of any incoming artillery + the reconnaissance blimp to be their eyes. No army would dare attack the mighty Thai army.

Only the insurgents from the South who never ever seem to get caught or shot !

[oldsailor35]

They did not fair so well during WWII.

They faired better than any of the other countries who declared war on the allies.

That is because when the Japanese were about to attack they sided with the Japanese, when the Japanese were losing the war they sided with the Allies. LOL!

Not True. The Thai's had quite a big underground movement against the Jap's, when the Jap's were coming into their country via Burma.

Thailand had a very well organised resistance movement from 1942 onwards aided by America.

[oldsailor35]

Thailand would fare very well if they where commanded by some top people , they have some up to date equipment and munitions,But it would not come to that , there would be skirmishes as have been for years , just not reported , Like the war thats going on down south on the boarder with Malaysia,. Same of Thai troops are American trained,

American trained ?? remember Viet Nam

[mark45y]

Thailand would fare very well if they where commanded by some top people , they have some up to date equipment and munitions,But it would not come to that , there would be skirmishes as have been for years , just not reported , Like the war thats going on down south on the boarder with Malaysia,. Same of Thai troops are American trained,

American trained ?? remember Viet Nam

I remember American troops never losing a military battle in Vietnam. We could not attack, or bomb or in anyway meaningful way effect the North Vietnamese. Do you really think the American Air Force could not have reduced Hanoi to rubble in a couple of days? North Vietnamese could go after civilian targets in South Vietnam. We could not respond. What would you expect to happen. How would WW II have ended if the Allies did not invade Germany?

[oldsailor35]

Thailand was "asked" by the Japanese to "invite" them in; otherwise they would be attacked.

Actually the Japanese invaded at several places and were meet by the Thai military which resulted in several hundred Japanese soldiers being killed before the Thai PM called a cease fire the same day and ended the shooting. That same PM later declared war on the US.

TH

In fact wasn't it the Thai Navy officer cadets who resisted for 10 hours and were then ordered by their leaders to cease fireing? the leaders shirts wern't completly yellow then, just a little stripe down the back?

Not quite correct there thaihome................. The Japs made many landings from the centre of the gulf. The biggest battle being at Chumpon where the japs lost 187 men. They were opposed and pinned down by the Thai 52nd youth Army Training unit,from a local school, which lost its captain in the action. Assisted by 38th Thai infantry Battalion and some police the 52nd fought well until they were ordered to cease fire.

If the Thais had good leadership today, which is doubtful ! they could aquit themselves well. Just remember this Chumpon action, and the success that the Thai resistance had after 1942.

However Thailand was under the rule of Field Marshall Phibun Songkhram, who thinking he would be on the winning side, ordered a Thai ceasefire.

On december 24th 1941 he signed a formal treaty with the Japanese (against the wishes of the Thai majority) in front of the Emerald Buddha at Wat Pra Kaeo considered the most sacred place/object in all of Thailand.

His reward was a secret Japanese guarantee to return to Thailand, the Malayan Provinces ceeded to the Brits in 1909, as well as Burmas Shan State. Consequently the field marshall on behalf of Thailand declare war on Gt Britain and the USA on Jan 25th 1942.

There is a lot more concerning the Thai army who were sent to fight in the Shan state but eventually abandoned by the Japs.

For this , read ....... THAILAND & JAPANS SOUTHERN ADVANCE 1940 to 1945 by E Bruce Reynolds . ....St Martins press 1994.

Edited February 22, 2011 by oldsailor35

[oldsailor35]

Thailand would fare very well if they where commanded by some top people , they have some up to date equipment and munitions,But it would not come to that , there would be skirmishes as have been for years , just not reported , Like the war thats going on down south on the boarder with Malaysia,. Same of Thai troops are American trained,

American trained ?? remember Viet Nam

I remember American troops never losing a military battle in Vietnam. We could not attack, or bomb or in anyway meaningful way effect the North Vietnamese. Do you really think the American Air Force could not have reduced Hanoi to rubble in a couple of days? North Vietnamese could go after civilian targets in South Vietnam. We could not respond. What would you expect to happen. How would WW II have ended if the Allies did not invade Germany?

"American troops never loosing a military battle in Viet Nam"................This is a complete and utter lie which Gen Petraeus would like us to believe. He is just trying to bolster the great American myth that the American soldier is invincible, and that the US Army lost the war because of Americas domestic politics.

There are at least 20 incidences of the American armed forces being beaten in Viet Nam, mostly because of stupid leadership. For example.....

1) Operation Linebacker Day 3. 20th Dec 1972.

8 out of 99 B57's in a raid over Hanoi were shot down, 36 men killed or captured ! The fools in command used the exact time and route as the previous 2 days raids. No wonder the Viets were waiting.

2) Firebase MARY ANN. 20th march 1971.

VC sappers launched an attack on this American base, catching it by surprise and breaching its defenses before the Americans could respond.

Result 33 soldiers killed and 83 wounded.

3) July 2nd 1967.

A battalion of US Marines proceeded up a road looking for the enemy..............they found them, details are a little vague, but the marines lost 53 dead and 190 wounded with 34 missing in action. Another battle was lost.

4) Battle of Ap Bac 65 klm south of Saigon, Mekong Delta.

Jan 2nd 1963.

VC forces included company 1. of 261st. 120 men and company 1 of 514th. 115 men. Viet Cong 8th military region. Total 235 men. Equipped with American made weapons, M1 Carbines, .30 calibre machine guns, BAR light machine guns plus a single 60mm mortar.

They were outnumbered by more than 10-1 by the South Vietnamese and American forces ( American Special Operations forces) using Mortars,Helicopter gunships and APC's

The VC destroyed several US Helecopters in the opening stages and were under attack from napalm bombing aircraft. one APC was destroyed before the others retreated ! in all 3 APC's were destroyed. At which point the VC retreated.

Toll VC 18 killed . 39 wounded.

ARVN 80 killed. 100 wounded.

Americans 3 killed . 8 wounded.

Of course the Americands claimed it a victory as they had taken their objective.

But it is to be pointed out, that the VC were not interested in 'real estate' ( which they really owned anyway) so as usual just disappeared.

With odds af 10-1, i am not sure that the americans can call that a victory !

There are many more examples, but i think the " No battle lost" really is nothing but a myth.

The Australian Army used vastly different tactics than the americans whose main measure of success was the enemy body count, this included just anybody who got in the way.

Niel Davis , a war journalist who worked with both American and Australian forces, said " i was very proud of the aussie troops" they only fought the people they came to fight, the VC.

They tried to avoid civilians and generally there were fewer casualties inflicted by the Aussies, wheareas the americans needed a high body count to justify their action.

David Hackett, the most decorated American officer in Viet Nam said the aussies only used squads to to contact the enemy and then brought in reinforcemants to do the killing.

For some Viet Cong officers there was no doubt that the Australian jungle warefare was the most effective. One VC leader said "Worse than the Americans were the Australians"

The American style was to find, hit us and then call in the aircraft and artillery, our response was to break and just disappear, but the Australians were more patient than the Americans, better guerilla fighters and better at ambushes. They would stay with us instead of calling in the aircraft. Yes we were more afraid of their style of fighting.

America dropped more bombs and napalm on Viet Nam than was dropped in WW2 by all participants and still lost !

Edited March 6, 2011 by oldsailor35

[mstribling]

Thailand would fare very well if they where commanded by some top people , they have some up to date equipment and munitions,But it would not come to that , there would be skirmishes as have been for years , just not reported , Like the war thats going on down south on the boarder with Malaysia,. Same of Thai troops are American trained,

American trained ?? remember Viet Nam

I remember American troops never losing a military battle in Vietnam. We could not attack, or bomb or in anyway meaningful way effect the North Vietnamese. Do you really think the American Air Force could not have reduced Hanoi to rubble in a couple of days? North Vietnamese could go after civilian targets in South Vietnam. We could not respond. What would you expect to happen. How would WW II have ended if the Allies did not invade Germany?

"American troops never loosing a military battle in Viet Nam"................This is a complete and utter lie which Gen Petraeus would like us to believe. He is just trying to bolster the great American myth that the American soldier is invincible, and that the US Army lost the war because of Americas domestic politics.

There are at least 20 incidences of the American armed forces being beaten in Viet Nam, mostly because of stupid leadership. For example.....

1) Operation Linebacker Day 3. 20th Dec 1972.

8 out of 99 B57's in a raid over Hanoi were shot down, 36 men killed or captured ! The fools in command used the exact time and route as the previous 2 days raids. No wonder the Viets were waiting.

2) Firebase MARY ANN. 20th march 1971.

VC sappers launched an attack on this American base, catching it by surprise and breaching its defenses before the Americans could respond.

Result 33 soldiers killed and 83 wounded.

3) July 2nd 1967.

A battalion of US Marines proceeded up a road looking for the enemy..............they found them, details are a little vague, but the marines lost 53 dead and 190 wounded with 34 missing in action. Another battle was lost.

4) Battle of Ap Bac 65 klm south of Saigon, Mekong Delta.

Jan 2nd 1963.

VC forces included company 1. of 261st. 120 men and company 1 of 514th. 115 men. Viet Cong 8th military region. Total 235 men. Equipped with American made weapons, M1 Carbines, .30 calibre machine guns, BAR light machine guns plus a single 60mm mortar.

They were outnumbered by more than 10-1 by the South Vietnamese and American forces ( American Special Operations forces) using Mortars,Helicopter gunships and APC's

The VC destroyed several US Helecopters in the opening stages and were under attack from napalm bombing aircraft. one APC was destroyed before the others retreated ! in all 3 APC's were destroyed. At which point the VC retreated.

Toll VC 18 killed . 39 wounded.

ARVN 80 killed. 100 wounded.

Americans 3 killed . 8 wounded.

Of course the Americands claimed it a victory as they had taken their objective.

But it is to be pointed out, that the VC were not interested in 'real estate' ( which they really owned anyway) so as usual just disappeared.

With odds af 10-1, i am not sure that the americans can call that a victory !

There are many more examples, but i think the " No battle lost" really is nothing but a myth.

The Australian Army used vastly different tactics than the americans whose main measure of success was the enemy body count, this included just anybody who got in the way.

Niel Davis , a war journalist who worked with both American and Australian forces, said " i was very proud of the aussie troops" they only fought the people they came to fight, the VC.

They tried to avoid civilians and generally there were fewer casualties inflicted by the Aussies, wheareas the americans needed a high body count to justify their action.

David Hackett, the most decorated American officer in Viet Nam said the aussies only used squads to to contact the enemy and then brought in reinforcemants to do the killing.

For some Viet Cong officers there was no doubt that the Australian jungle warefare was the most effective. One VC leader said "Worse than the Americans were the Australians"

The American style was to find, hit us and then call in the aircraft and artillery, our response was to break and just disappear, but the Australians were more patient than the Americans, better guerilla fighters and better at ambushes. They would stay with us instead of calling in the aircraft. Yes we were more afraid of their style of fighting.

America dropped more bombs and napalm on Viet Nam than was dropped in WW2 by all participants and still lost !

Silliness. Your great at reading other peoples stories.

[oldsailor35]

But Documented facts !

[mark45y]

Old Sailor I really don't know what your motivation is for trying to include all these posts about Americans and the Vietnam war. You are wrong in all of your facts. I could set you straight as I was even involved in a couple of the operations that you mention and am still here to tell the tale.

But it is off topic. If you want to start a thread on the American's loss of the Vietnam war I would be happy to participate.

If you were involved in the Vietnam war I would be more sympathetic or perhaps have some understanding about where you are going with your thoughts. From your posts I find it hard to believe you are old or have ever been in the military. Maybe I am wrong.

So forgive me for not responding but I think it is too far off topic. If a mod were to write that the Vietnam war was fair game for this topic I will contribute to it further.

[mark45y]

They faired better than any of the other countries who declared war on the allies.

That is because when the Japanese were about to attack they sided with the Japanese, when the Japanese were losing the war they sided with the Allies. LOL!

Not True. The Thai's had quite a big underground movement against the Jap's, when the Jap's were coming into their country via Burma.

Thailand had a very well organised resistance movement from 1942 onwards aided by America.

Please provide some examples of what the organised resistance movement actually did in Thailand against the Japanese. The intellegence provided was largely discounted as untrustworthy and inaccurate. Although what Thai military operations during WW II have to do with today's Thai army I don't know. Perhaps you could explain the connection.

[bangkokcitylimits]

How Would Thailand Fare If Attacked Militarily?

signing contracts, lol