Talk:Battle of Lima Site 85

American Americans

"Americans" is a plural noun; "American", "Hmong" and "Thai" are adjectives; "killed" can be a verbal noun, and modified by adjectives; or a verbal adjective modifying nouns; adding -s to "American" makes "killed" do both. --Pawyilee (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thai Mercenaries

Are you certain that the Thai government did not send troops here on its own accord? The Thai government supported South Vietman and sent troops to fight under its own authority rather than as mercinaries.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I"m troubled by the ref to "Thai Mercenaries" too, but a friend in Mukdahan whose knows some of the survivors who allegedly said they were only in it for the money, and that meets the definition of mercenary. for the more-or-less official Thai position, refer to Border Patrol Police. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well lots of soldiers in national armies fight for the money, but that doesnt make them mercenaries. Legally if the soldiers were from a Thai goverment sanctioned unit and sent there on government orders then they wouldnt be mercenaries.XavierGreen (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thai Border Patrol Police, as well as their hirelings, were a national arm, if not an army. I favor either NOT calling the hirelings mercenaries, or apply the same term to the 'sheep-dipped' Americans who had been technically discharged from their national military arm and were at the time hirelings of Boeing. Pawyilee (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it back to Border Patrol Police "volunteers".Mztourist (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming back to battle of Lima Site 85

I object to the renaming of this page. The battle may have taken place on and around Phou Pha Thi, but the whole objective of the battle was the destruction of Lima Site 85. Comments please Mztourist (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I must admit I may have been mistaken in changing the name of this article, because even official Vietnamese histories refer to this battle as the "battle at the TACAN Site". However, North Vietnamese objectives was to capture the entire Phou Pha Thi area and Lima Site 85 was a significant part of the Phou Pha Thi puzzle, so I thought it was more appropriate to refer to the entire geographical area instead of one installation alone. If you choose to revert this page, I will not object. However, I strongly object to the section which is devoted to the name of U.S. KIA/MIA. I don't mean to offend U.S. audiences, but what make those American individuals so special that they deserve one section, while the North Vietnamese dead have none? To be fair, I thought it would be better to omit the section which list the name of U.S. personnel.Canpark (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I will rename. In relation to the US MIA section, many different authors contributed to that section last year, before you unilaterally decided to delete it. Authors on Wikipedia contribute for a range of reasons and motivations. The fate of the 12 missing Americans is an integral part of the story of Lima Site 85 which you ahve no right to remove. If you want to add information about the 1 NVA that was supposedly killed in the attack, (yet more GVN propaganda) go ahead. Mztourist (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the contribution which I have made than that is your problem, no need to give the Vietnamese version of events such a dressing down simply because it doesn't conform with your view of history. Every country's history is shrouded by a level of propaganda, and there is no such thing as the gospel truth. If you want to force only the American view on the audience, knock yourself out but at least provide the appropriate citations for those statistics.Canpark (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues:

Bias: I'm USAF retired drawing retired pay, despite being no long proud of USAF achievements, particularly in Laos.

Propaganda clouds issues, but has its place, such as the use of a Cuban anti-American poster introducing the article formerly named CIA Secret War in Laos, now incorporated into the Laotian Civil War.

Lima Site 85 is a misnomer that amounts to CIA and USAF jargon. It derives from LS = Landing Site with L pronounced LIMA from the NATO phonetic alphabet. LS 85 was a 700-foot landing strip in the valley below; its designation is commonly used to refer to the facilities it served.

U.S. KIA/MIA section is also covered at 1st Combat Evaluation Group section on Laos in a footnote; what make those American individuals so special could be their propaganda value in support of the Afghan war, and the Drone attacks in Pakistan, the modern manifestation of what was going on in the Secret War in Laos; the 1 NVA that was supposedly killed in the attack is of no propaganda value to the current Vietnamese government, which keeps its hagiography of battle casualties to a minimum.

--Pawyilee (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In regards to American versus Vietnamese accounts, equal weight should be given to each whenever possible. If the sources differ signifigantly then for those portions that differ both versions should be included in the text. I see no general bias towards one side or the other in the article as it is now (the only thing that stuck out to me has been fixed), but i am no expert on the subject. As for casualties both the high and low estimates of casualties should be included with citations in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The single Vietnamese source which I've used actually correlate very well with the Western books cited; from the very first mortar attack right down to the first U.S. airstrikes early in the morning to cover the evacuation. However, unlike other battles, North Vietnamese casualties were not numbered at 100, 1,000 or 10,000 deaths, and they won the battle. So some people dismiss that as propaganda.Canpark (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Accounts are almost all American — in published histories, declassified official reports, personal accounts from (peer-reviewed) survivors web sites, including a novel by surviving B-52 pilot Maier in the 1CEVG article that gives the best description of how their equipment worked. On the Vietnamese side, there's a museum exhibit of an AN-2 supposedly involved, an interview with their 'commander" that many suspect was drafted for the position long after the fact, and assistance in location downed American airmen. If the focus of this article is to be the battle on the mountain top, then it becomes a very minor part of the history of wars in Indochina, in which the Americans were minor players, with the fewest participants and the fewest casualties, and the focus of the Vietnamese was to take out the TACAN site, not the COMMADO CLUB radar. If, however, the focus is the battle for Lima Site 85, the access to said maountain and the battle revolving around the radar sited on it, then is a significant factor in the evolution of American air power from balloons in their Civil War down to their drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen today. Only then do the eight American casualties stand out in stark relief as the largest single loss of American AIRMEN in GROUND combat during the all the wars in Indochina. As part of the overall history of attempts to deliver ordinance precisely on target, it casts light on the airmen's role as technicians, "sheep-dipped" or not. Technicians they were, in a tradition that goes back to when the word Engineer was first coined, and which for many centuries applied to specialists many of whom were only quasi-military. The US Army's first balloonists were contracted civilians who could have been shot as spies if captured by the enemy, just as the site 85 airmen could have been. From then until now the air arm has contracted civilians, or enlisted technicians who got little if any ground combat training. If my experience is any guide, then the only combat training these airmen got was qualification on a rifle range with an M2 carbine, and perhaps the M16 rifle.

Either way, this article needs a major rewrite. I condensed the lede down to essential points, and moved most of the rest of what was there to SUMMARY; but this duplicates much of what is in PRELUDE. The 7AF CHECKO report follows BATTLE with DENOUEMENT before AFTERMATH. A subject heading that should be considered if the focus is to be Site 85. Either way, we will lack documentation as to Chinese, Soviet, North and South Vietnamese, Thai Border Police and Defense Volunteers, American contract civilians, CIA, etc., etc., and the many varieties of Lao involved. some of whom would not have considered themselves Lao except by country of birth. All of that would utterly ignore the greatest number of casualties, that of non-combatant civilians who continue to fall victim to malfunctioned ordinance, the sparing of whom is alleged to be the point of precision delivery of ordinance. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Pawyilee, your edits are appreciated. The article is about the battle for the radar (Tacan and Commando Club) sites what is known as the Battle of Lima Site 85 (whether that name is correct or not) and is notable for a variety of different reasons - USAF ground casualties, VPAF air attacks etc. It is not an article that does or should attempt to address the wider issues that you have raised. Mztourist (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

While I will continue to monitor the article and have corrected a few of my typos, I will bow out of editing it -- I'm biased, and haven't read Do. --Pawyilee (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

lede

The lede is much too long. Recommend everything following largest single ground combat loss of United States Air Force members during the Vietnam War be merged into Background, which already repeats much of what's now in the lede.--Pawyilee (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead is suppose to summarize the content of an article, which is four paragraphs maximum.Canpark (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I defer to others' judgment on the lede. Did my amendment to the "memorial" sentence help matters? I also added the info to Operation Arc Light. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think the lede's too long as well. Noticed that with some other articles as well. Just because the lede CAN be four paragraphs doesn't mean it SHOULD be. And those paragraphs don't need to be massive.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review Comments comments

• Wiktionary has postumus.

Neither that nor Posthumous recognition will serve. Wiktionary is a wiki, so suggest amending it with an applicable definition. Won't do it, myself, as I don't know their criteria. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• USAF casualties at Lima Site 85 are listed at 1st Combat Evaluation Group in (present) footnote 8, the six lost surveying for OL-24 in footnote 4, and the Andersen Memorial in 5 (repeated in 13 — maybe that should be fixed.) The reference for 4 also follows with the losses at Lima site 85, and one more on 24 February 1968, at Gia Dinh: Lowell V. Smith, killed by shrapnel from rocket/mortar, at Tan Son Nhut AB, Saigon-Gia Dinh. That's all the combat losses for 1CEVG, and all but the last (who was unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) because they had no combat training. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Arc Light link

What happened to the link to Operation Arc Light? Not only does it have info on the Arc Light/CombatSkyspot memorials, but also informs that the terms were sometimes synonymous. If nothing else will do, stick it in See also: --Pawyilee (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"sheep-dipping" of the airmen involved

Added Wiktionary sheep-dipping definition; that entry would benefit from a citation, i.e., reliable source using the term as defined. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See also spooky action?

Raven Forward Air Controllers were preceded by "sheep-dipped" enlisted "Butterflies" who operated in and out of their own Lima Sites. I considered adding the Ravens (and Butterflies) to See also, but guess both these and many other clandestine operations are subsumed in Project 404. Can't help but wonder if that's in some way related to the HTTP 404, or just a case of spooky action at a distance. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by IP address 71.207.98.187

IP address 71.207.98.187 is making numerous edits, large and small to this page. While I believe these are being done in good faith, I also believe they are excessive, almost requiring a citation for every sentence used. Mztourist (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit War

It appears my earlier edit may have resulted in an edit war when I identified numerous problems with this article (including several tags), as an editor who doesn't have a username then addressed those tags and performed what seems to be other improvements and additions. It looks like User:Mztourist then began the war by reverting the anon editor's post by claiming he couldn't post talk to the anon editor's user page at Talk:71.207.98.187 despite being able to post at this talk page about the article. I just added a small section (Battle of Route 602 to the article in the sectioning created by the anon editor) but withheld some additional substantial edits since I'm concerned they will likewise be thrown out. 30 SW (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not starting an Edit War, just getting the attention of IP 71.207.98.187 who appears to be making excessive edits to the article. Mztourist (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Discredited Linder report

I checked the anon editor's claim about "Linder innuendo" in an edit summary and it appears that source is the reason this article was so poorly written: it has been based (prior to my earlier edit) almost verbatim on the CIA report in Chauhau's book and written by Linder, which in addition to the innuendo, has been discredited by one of the contemporaries of the battle: "full of factual errors and several mistakes in interpretation" (Secord). I'd like to reassessed the article, but again; am concerned of an somewhat loose cannon just reverting and throwing out the baby with the bathwater like in the edit war. 30 SW (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Largest USAF ground combat loss of the Vietnam war era

...the battle resulted in the largest single (clarification needed). I agree, but don't know how to go about it. Technically, the airmen who died were not USAF, as they had been "sheep-dipped" as civilian contractors, though their USAF status was restored posthumously. One of the external links, which I haven't checked to see if it is still linked, attempted clarification. USAF ground personnel, like me, received NO ground combat training, except for one of the two career fields in the Security Police, and even they seldom engaged in what you might call ground combat, and I never heard tell of any of them suffering any casualties, although as Air Police in the Korean War, they did. My wife is hollering at me, so I have to leave it at this.--Pawyilee (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• "...little or no combat training..." reference: Airman receiving Medal of Honor for '68 actions
• This was the lartest single ground combat loss of USAF personnel during the Vietnam war
  This article and 1CEVG's are presently so screwed up I can't find the better references. I'm going to restore 1CEVG's to an earlier version, to save to my computer so I'll have 'em at least for my own use, then restore it to its present FUBAR state - though my wife is still hollering. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't need to restore it after all, just copy it with a dated title. This should help clarify why there were so few ground combat losses, keeping in mind it was true of most REMFs, though a large part, if not THE largest, were USAF technicians.

With few exceptions, COMBAT SKYSPOT was not a particularly demanding mission. As the war dragged on and physical conditions improved on the bases where the sites were located , the worst aspects were probably boredom and heat, and separation from family. With few exceptions, crews slept in relatively comfortable hootches on real beds, had real showers, had access to real chow halls, and had many amenities that grunts only occasionally experienced. The sites located on the Thai bases were particularly comfortable. But, there were a lot of repeat tours, and these separations took a heavy toll on families and relationships. As far as actual combat, that just didn’t happen, certainly not anywhere near the sense we think of it involving patrols, firebases, troop insertions into hot LZ’s, and so on. Bases on which the COMBAT SKYSPOT sites were located were in fact subjected to enemy attack, but these were general in nature. The few casualties suffered were not so much the result of combat operations but rather some tactically naive technicians being slaughtered through stupidity on the part of the command. That doesn’t make it any easier, and it certainly does not lessen their individual courage and accomplishments;if anything, those attributes tend to illustrate that the leadership was often unworthy in comparison.

— COMBAT SKYSPOT overview

My wife quit hollering. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

See also

United_States_Air_Force_Security_Forces#Changes_to_Deployment_Length_and_Training --Pawyilee (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Painting illustrating aerial shoot down

The attributions for the painting illustrating this article are incorrect. It was NOT the work of a CIA employee and, therefore, NOT public domain. The painting was commissioned by two former CIA officers and painted by U.K. artist Keith Woodcock. It was donated to the CIA collection at the University of Texas Dallas Research Library in Richardson, Texas, by the individuals that had commissioned it.

Under copyright law, the copyright to the work is retained by the artist, unless he has assigned his rights. There is no evidence available that this is the case.

You only need to google "Keith Wookcock artist" to verify this.