Talk:Siege of Plei Me

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 19, 2020.

Military history: Asian / Southeast Asia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force

Vietnam

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Arc Light Section-- confusing[edit]

The Arc light section contains a large number of terms unfamiliar to the normal reader. These should be clarified, simplified, or deleted. I've added a template to that effect. Smallchief (talk 12:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As advised, I have spelled out the abbreviations and acronyms of military terminology for the normal reader.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that would satisfy you for you to remove the template.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took the template off, although I still think the "YA" locations are detail that is not needed nor accessible to the average reader. However, i acknowledge that opinions differ....Smallchief (talk 17:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However I leave the YA's for the precise locations of the three NVA regiments on November 11, to dispel the myth that the Air Cavalry troops were sent in Ia Drang with "flimsy intelligence", not knowing where and how many enemy troops.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"War-Weary"?[edit]

Coleman wrote: "After the 1st Brigade battalions generally lost contact with the remnants of the 33rd Regiment on November 7, Kinnard said, in Army Magazine, that, “I had been planning to replace the gallant, but spent, First Brigade with the Third Brigade, commanded by Colonel Thomas W. Brown, and this seemed a logical time to do so.” The general might have been indulging in a bit of hyperbole. The units of the 1st Brigade unquestionably were gallant, but spent? The 2/12 Cav had spent the longest period in the field, eighteen days total – but its days in contact numbered about five. The 2/8 had fourteen days in the valley and only two days of hard contact. The 1/8 Cav’s one company had one day of contact, while the others had none. And the 1/12 Cav had only its reconnaissance platoon truly get shot at in anger. Compared to times in the field by units later in the war, this was a walk in the park. (Coleman, J.D., "Pleiku, the Dawn of Helicopter Warfare in Vietnam", St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1988, page 186.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnguyen4321 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath section versus Arc Light section[edit]

Both culminate at the Batlle of Ia Drang. However the first one focuses on the ground force conducted by 1st Air Cavalry while the second one on the air force conducted by B-52 airstrike with the support of the ground force that set up and fix the targets.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“The communist Victory”[edit]

This battle was not a victory for the North Vietnamese. The siege failed and they suffered heavy casualties. Both of the “sources” used for the victory are obvious propagandist pieces (one referring to the US forces as “imperialist”). “The Communist Victory” isn’t even correct grammar nor is it an accurate description of the fighting force. 2603:8001:6D01:3296:10AB:A1F6:94B4:DB51 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have reverted the change. Mztourist (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Minhhoahong the contributor who did that Edit, was banned in vi.wiki a few days ago as sockpuppet. Leemyongpak (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]