Talk:Battle of Khe Sanh

Wikipedia standard abbreviation for United States

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations), the abbreviation for the United States is U.S., not US. Please do not revert it back. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

To revert IS to go back - to "revert it back" is redundant.

Mark Sublette 09:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 09:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this article done yet? Thank you. RM Gillespie 00:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• No need to be so defensive all the time. I know you have put a ton of time and effort, researching and writing this article but all of the editors here are also looking to make the best article possible. Please work with them. Cheers.--Looper5920 00:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Defensive? You mean the "editors" that have altered cited material to insert factually incorrect information into this article? And when they are caught at it will not admit that they have goofed? You mean the "editors" that (in order to promote their specific agendas) reduce the text to goobldygook? What you do with an article once it is done, I could care less. Make it the Confederate States Army vs. the Tai Ping Rebellion for all I care. But wait until its done. I suggest that you take a look at the history of the Vietnam War article. I would have been willing to continue the work I put into it (including footnoteing that entire monstrosity), but I got so sick of being rode herd on by an "editor" that I simply abandoned it.

All of the major articles that I have produced have gone up for an A-Class review (where US would have become U.S.), so my stylistic eccentricities (shared, by the way, by the US government) would have been removed. Sorry for the rant, but I'm just tired of it. You don't want the work done, just say so. I'm just very curious why some editors, who seemto be so content protective, haven't written the articles themselves. Ah, but that is not going to happen, is it? RM Gillespie 10:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your "rant" (as you termed it) is misdirected in the case of the initial request — not reverting the U.S. back to US. My edits to this article have not been to insert incorrect information, nor have they been to "reduce the text to goobldygook". Concerning the use of US versus U.S., please note that the Marine Corps Historical Center Writing Guide, Revised Edition 2004, on page 1, indicates that the abbreviation to be used for United States is U.S. The USMC publications actual names, as published by the USMC, have U.S., not US, in their titles.

Though your feeling "ownership" of the article is understandable, we do not own our contributions to Wikipedia. This article has obviously been a major effort on your part and will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Since you seem to feel that you do not want edits by others while you are working on the article, may I suggest that, for future major articles such as this, you create the article in a user subpage/user sandbox and then move it to the mainspace when it is complete. If you are interested in collaborating with other authors during the creation of the article, you could invite them to edit on your user subpage.

As for your comment "Is this article done yet?" — the template {{Inuse}} is available to put at the top of the article. Please note that the intent is not to be a "hands off" notice, but rather while you are online and editing, to prevent those annoying edit conflicts that occur while two editors are working on the article at the same time. — ERcheck (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

World War 1 ?

Part of the World War 1?? Timeline seems off... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.90.10.38 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ERcheck

I guess you missed the point of the exercise. Oh, well. The subpage and in use could be handy. RM Gillespie 18:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Looks quite good. The last paragraph in the article seems unnecessarily speculative (of the original research variety), though. Kirill Lokshin 19:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nit-pickin'

Seems to me that the debate over whether to spell it US or U.S. is merely an element of style. I like to conform to the source agency's usage. As for revisionist tendencies by those who edit, but don't write, I would say, make sure you cite your sources if you feel you have better data. I am quoting Lars Olausson's "Lockheed C-130 Production List - 1954-2007", pages 32, 156 for my reference to the KC-130F that burned out on the Khe Sahn runway on 10 February 1968.

Mark Sublette 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Introductory section

Comparing the current introductory section to WP:MOS, everything beyond the first paragraph (which concicely descibes, what is the Battle of Khe Sanh), should be moved to a section. I think the second to fourth paragraphs could possibly be moved to a subsection inside /*Preliminaries*/ but they should not remain in the introductory section. Garrie 03:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever had an article up for an A-Class review? If you do not have a complete synopsis of the contents of the entire article in the intro, you are going to end up a well-known creek in a well-known improperly designed flotation vehicle. This is to provide a casual reader with a "Cliff's Notes" version of the article. RM Gillespie 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

US vs U.S.

Again please refer back to WP:MOS but the most important issues are

• Consistancy 'within an individual article
• Consistancy within a project
• Consistancy within a regional framework.

As this battle conflict is of interest to quite a few particpating nations (USA, Vietnamese, Australian to mention the first that come to mind) - possibly the USMC style guide isn't nessecarily the best one to use? A broader historical style guide may be better to adopt for US vs U.S. WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations indicates U.S. is preferred unless a part of a longer abbreviation it then becomes USN etc. - and in a list of nations it should not be abbreviated at all. HTH. Garrie 03:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, the only reason Australians would care about the Battle of Khe Sahn is that Jimmy Barnes sang a song about a battle in which no Australians took part. --203.10.224.58 04:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Australians did particpate in the conflict as a whole along with quite a few other nations - but correct re this battle in particular which I guess my words came out as saying.... look, I've fixed it... But my point was regarding WP:MOS and the US vs U.S. and the article it occurs in is almost irrelevant Garrie 04:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Image of general giap

General Vo Nguyen Giap (left) and Ho Chi Minh (right)

Probably one of the more official photos to demonstrate that the leaders were "simple people". In the pictures I could find of general Giap he is very often shown in civilian clothing among his troops in uniform. Probably this was a trademark of him and I wonder whether we should possibly include this.

General Vo Nguyen Giap in 1946 among Vietnamese troops. 

File:General Vo Nguyen Giap.jpg Photo of Giap from the US Air force. Wandalstouring 13:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible images for use

Recent photos from Khe Sahn that may be of use. I have a few more from inside the museum as well. First is hills 881 N&S as seen while standing on the airfield and the 2nd is what is left of the runway looking west while standing on it.

• 
• 

--Looper5920 11:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

It is my opinion that this article conveys the U.S. (or US or United States, I didn't read the entire discussion about how to spell it,) point of view only. For example the deeds of the special forces are depicted as heroic (which they might very well be, but on the other hand I don't think somebody aligned with north Vietnam would agree). p.s - I'm neither American nor Vietnamese nor from any country connected with this conflict, which I think allows me to have a more neutral point of view. 85.65.215.115 21:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the usual problem. We hardly have any information from the Vietnamese side. Wandalstouring 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• The only blame that can be laid as to the dearth of Vietnamese sources lies in Hanoi, not with the author. The quotes from Victory in Vietnam are the totality of what that work has to say about the battle and PAVN's participation in it. There are no other works translated into English (as far as the author knows), that describe Vietnamese participation.

As to how PAVN/NLF personnel felt about the Special Forces SOG recon teams that opposed them, let me quote NLF Regimental commander Nguyen Tuong Lai: "They effectively attacked and captured our soldiers and disrupted our supply lines. This weakened our forces and hurt our morale, because we could not stop these attacks. We understood that these American soldiers were very skillful and very brave in their tactics to disrupt infiltration from the North." Al Santoli, To Bear Any Burden. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1985, p. 147. RM Gillespie 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Put that quote into the article. Wandalstouring 10:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Even if it does not pertain to the battle of Khe Sanh? RM Gillespie 15:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been monitoring quite a lot of articles on this Vietnam stuff and didn't realize that I was on Khe San. No, move it to the SOG article. Perhaps quote it there like in the Jeanne d'Arc article with a blue box. Wandalstouring 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is by far the best article in relation to the Vietnam War, the most balanced anyone could expect even with the lack of Vietnamese POV. Cheers for the author!!:D.Canpark 23:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fall of Lang Vei

This section is factually incorrect. A-101 camp received the members of a fleeing Laotian battalion BV-33 and refugees, and were warned by them about the use of NVA armour. This led to LAW ammunition being delivered to the camp by USAF before the NVA actually closed to assault the camp.--61.68.97.238 07:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed the problem. Although forewarned, the SF troops expected that the armour, if used, would only take on a fire support role, not attack the camp directly. As for the LAWs, three-quarters of them misfired. The majority of those PAVN tanks destroyed were knocked out by either recoiless rifle fire or hand grenades. RM Gillespie 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

water supply

The article says "North Vietnamese troops had never bothered to threaten the Combat Base's sole source of water" - A second view is expressed at THE UNEXPLOITED VULNERABILITY OF THE MARINES AT KHE SANH by Peter Brush, according to Brush "General Giap, who achieved victory at Dien Bien Phu in part due to his meticulous battlefield planning, seems to have not realized the vulnerability of the Marines' water supply." KAM 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• An interesting view which does provide an alternative conclusion. However, it does seem to propagate another fallacy. Unlike the battle of Dien Bien Phu, Giap was not the battlefield commander in the Khe Sanh sector and (as far as is known) never left Hanoi. If Brush wishes to assign blame for the oversight, he should place it on the correct shoulders. RM Gillespie 14:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Giap was the overall theater commander. I guess the question would be, how hands-on was he in managing Hai? - Crockspot 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the question regarding Giap in charge or not, the question as to if the water supply was overlooked, I wonder about Marine General Rathvon M. Tompkins's statement. Were more details provided to support his statement in the provided source? Perhaps it could be added that reporter Brush believed it had been overlooked but Tompkins believed not. KAM 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• It seems a moot point since the North Vietnamese certainly knew about the existance of the water point. Every day of the siege, Marine water buffalos (large water transporters) were in evidence filling up at the point. Every map of the combat base clearly shows the water point to be outside the American lines. If the North Vietnamese had wanted to contest the water collection activities, they could have. The only question remaining is why they did not. RM Gillespie 05:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

War vs. Conflict

Is it really necessary to change the infobox to Conflict? (which happens to be a redirect back to War). The category is Vietnam War, the main article about the conflict is Vietnam War, all of the Vietnam-related articles call it War, all of the Vietnam infoboxes call it War... It's the most common reference to America's involvement in Vietnam. - Crockspot 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are quite correct. The US has not legally been at war since 1945. All military operations conducted since have been conducted under the aegis of the UN, congressional resolution, or presidential directive. Wiki, however, follows American public taste, not historical fact. Therefore, all military conflicts are labelled wars. Just as the NLF is described as the "Viet Cong." Official or historical accuracy is junked in favor of popular taste and knowledge. I wonder if they do it in scientific articles?RM Gillespie (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Riddle of Khe Sanh

My knowledge of the facts presented in this article is very limited, but it seems to me that the writing style under this section is not very encyclopedia-like (the inclusion of questions seemingly directed towards the reader). Bockbockchicken 15:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Show me, in the qualifications for an A-class article under this project, the appearence of the word "style." RM Gillespie 15:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that "style" is a requirement of every article. You ought to know better. This was even picked up at the articles FAC. I've removed the one instance I could find. SGGH ^ping! 13:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not unless those stipulations were promulgated sine the writing of this article.RM Gillespie (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

100,000 not 30,000

VN:Many American history books about Vietnam estimate the Communist forces at Khe Sanh at about 50,000. Is that your recollection?

Huy:No, that figure is wrong. We had nearly 100,000 at Khe Sanh when your air force arrived with more than 1,000 aircraft and also helicopters bringing in more men. http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/vietnam_war/3035906.html --HanzoHattori (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• That is interesting. I had no idea that the North Vietnamese were fielding more than half of their combat forces south of the 17th parallel to oppose Khe Sanh while they were simultaneously launching their largest offensive thus far in the war. Geez, you learn something new every day! Would this total include the 60,000 troops guarding, building, and maintaining the Ho Chi Minh Trail? The 70 to 80,000 troops under discussion would be the equivelent of seven to eight extra divisions. Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics, and even the U.S. military would have found it difficult to maintain such a large force in such a confined area under constant enemy aerial attack for the period under consideration. Not even the official PAVN history makes such a ludicrous claim. RM Gillespie (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Ta Con?

I've seen nothing about the battle at the Ta Con Airbase in this page nor any other website. Is it a PAVN's victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.16.92.20 (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ta Con is Khe Sanh. It was the title given by PAVN to the "liberation" of the abandoned airstrip after it was "conquered" in 1969. Quite hilarious actually!RM Gillespie (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

More hilarious is fighting for months defending a "vital" base, and then abandone in the same year. --213.37.71.217 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to try FA again?

Gidday RM, (assume you're watching this page). This is an excellent article and easily up to your usual standards. I read the FA review from last year, which was petty and distinctly unhelpful. Would you be interested in trying again? I'd be very happy to help out, if you point me in the right direction. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the offer Paxse, but I've had my belly full. Am vastly tired of re-reading and revising according to the whims of numbskulls. To make this a featured article would mean making it fit the criteria of non-military specialists, who have other agendas. As a matter of fact, it seems as if every other editor seems to have an agenda of his/her own. All I wanted to do was provide as detailed and unbiased an account as possible. I am totally surprised that this article's A rating has not been reduced as have others that I have produced for wiki. You want to try it - good luck mate!RM Gillespie (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This can be done easily. The only A-removal was on MACVSOG by some editors who were wondering about some paragraphs with no source, and some flamboyant language, or using "unfortunately" to describe an anti-communist setback. None of which down grades the content. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Edge of Darkness

I belive one of the US CIA characters in the popular British series "Edge of Darkness" 1985 was called Khe Sanh. It was written by a Scot so there may have been a sly reference..can anyone add the citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.152.47 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Khe Sanh

This article contains material that should be in here. the US inaugural address and popular cultural references should either be deleted as cruft or moved into her, because they refer to the battle not the place I would have thought. SGGH ^ping! 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tactical victory for allies?

The battle was a defeat for the U.S. Under concerted pressure and bombardment the U.S. forces and their allies were driven into and confined to the base area of Khe Sanh. The PAVN controlled the entire western third of Quang Tri provence with American forces holding the base trapped, vulnerable, and difficult to resupply. Westmoreland's removal and replacement as commander of U.S. forces in Viet Nam signalled the end of the battle and defeat, as his replacement abandoned Khe Sanh and pulled back to the mountians at the edge of the coastal lowlands. Subsequent attmepts to push inland toward Khe Sanh were checked at Fire Bases Henderson and Holcomb. The brief reoccupation of Khe Sanh in Lom Son 719 was an unmittigated disaster for the U.S. forces, leaving the entire western portion of Quang Tri provence firmly in PAVN hands and set the stage for the Easter Offensive of 1972 which resulted in the loss of the defensive line along the DMZ. Having complete air superiority allowed the U.S. to halt PAVN advances with carpet bombing and intense tactical air strikes giving the illusion of tactical victory. Continued pressure by the PAVN against U.S. ground forces, however, led to a U.S. casualty rate that was unacceptable to the American public. We could hold Khe Sanh, but at what cost? Not one we were willing to continue to pay with no end in sight. Thus, despite the huge advantage of complete air superiority by the U.S., North Viet Nam could turn most so-called tactical victories for the U.S. into strategic defeats in the end. They hoped and guessed correctly that they could outlast us in battle, as the price they were willing to pay and the sacrefices they would make were far greater for far longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One battle, not the whole war please. The North Vietnamese abandoned the battlefield, granted, not much by Vietnam standards, but abandon it they did. The base did not fall and the casualties inflicted upon PAVN formations were horrendus by comparison. Tactical victory but strategic defeat, you better believe it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.209.81 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

KIA ratio

General Westmoreland sure didn't know how to count.
"The official statistics yield a KIA ratio of between 50:1 and 75:1 of North Vietnamese to U.S. military deaths. The figures of 5,500 NVA dead and 1,000 U.S. dead yield a ratio of 5.5:1."
— in: "Battle of Khe Sanh: Recounting the Battle's Casualties" Johannjs (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Date Format

Is there any good reason the article uses DD/MM/YY instead of the standard American MM/DD/YY? It looks like most/all other major articles related to the Vietnam War use month-day-year. --CAVincent (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)