Talk:Battle of Kontum

Death of Vann?

It is my belief that the cross symbol by a name in a battle report indicated that they were killed in action. Adviser Vann seems to have that symbol next to his, indicating that he was killed in action. This, however, is false (according to his Wikipedia article). I am not a mainstay Wikipedia editor, so I am wondering if somebody with more experience would like to comment on whether or not it should be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.180.5 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"according to his wikipedia article" lol, using wikipedia as a primary source.

Article is plagiarized

The entire second half of this article (everything from "giving the Saigon government troops..." onward, until the end) is taken verbatim from "The Vietnam Wars 1945-1990" by Marilyn C. Young. The passage in question can be found on page 270 (in the paperback edition, at least), about 3/4 of the way down the page.

Notes on this version of article

I have essentially replaced the stub article with one I put together after going over the MACV history of the battle, the history Col. Heslin put together for www.thebattleofkontum.com and then consulting with Jack and the senior advisers who were there (and still with us). Here are some notes on the direction I took.

1. At three paragraphs, the stub article didn't do justice to a battle that stretched over a good chunk of the Central Highlands and involved five divisions. If the PAVN had succeeded in capturing Kontum, they would have cut South Vietnam in half -- and might well have ended the war a year sooner. This is a major battle in the war and should be treated as such.

2. This battle also had a strategic importance that was never mentioned in the previous version. The US and South Vietnamese forces were just beginning to deal with how to fight a war with this mix of ARVN ground troops, US advisers and air cav, and B-52 backup. And the progress of the battle clearly mirrors the process of figuring out the most effective solution going forward. Unfortunately, the death of Vann just after the battle meant lessons learned were not fully utilized.

3. The initial stub barely mentions the fight at Tan Cahn. Yet Tan Cahn saw the virtual elimination of the entire ARVN 22nd Division. The rest of the battle at Kontum was a fight back from the brink.

4. The stub article essentially says the battle was won by the 300 B-52 sorties that took place during the two month period. This is a gross simplification of course. But moreover, it suggests a lack of respect for the ARVN, American AND North Vietnamese combatants. The PAVN understood the Americans' use of B-52 firepower implicitly, they had lived that reality for over a decade. And in this battle, they made full use of the cover of darkness and jungle on a moment to moment basis. They understood that B-52 use was not allowed in situations where there was close engagement. So they used their own strategic strengths very effectively and nearly won the fight at numerous points during the engagement.

5. None of the combatants assumed that this battle was a forgone conclusion because of the presence of B-52s. The PAVN had far more soldiers, soldiers who were battle-hardened. They had the T-54 tank, considered unstoppable by the ARVN. And the ARVN and American commanders had to deal with the fact that an entire ARVN division had just been destroyed. Kontum was considered a lost cause by many who were there until well into the second month.

I should also say that this is my first effort at writing a Wiki article and there are probably numerous mistakes, especially in terms of hitting the Wiki style. But my feedback from those who were there suggests that this piece comes close to what actually happened. TT —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimT9999 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)