Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 117.6.88.137 (talk) at 09:14, 23 August 2016 (→RfC: Insertion of South Vietnam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States C‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
Southeast Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
WikiProject iconVietnam C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

RfC: Insertion of South Vietnam

Because South Vietnam only played supporting role, without any particular description from any RS. I suggest that we should insert it into the box like this:

United States United States
Supported by:
South Vietnam

Please leave a comment about this if you have one. Dino nam (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this battle ARVN II Corps Command co-command the operation with US1AC FC at operational control level as indicated by the special modus operandi adopted in this operation. The US 1st Air Cavalry Division was attached to the ARVN II Corps, not the other way around.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - From my fairly quick read through the article, the first sentence of the lead informs us that the article is about the actions at LZ X-Ray on 14-15 November, and LZ Albany on 17 November. The article then goes into great detail about these actions, in which there is no mention of any ARVN contribution. The first mention of any ARVN contribution appears in the Aftermath section, with the deployment of the ARVN Airborne Brigade at LZ Crooks on 17 November, which did not see any action until 20 November, i.e. 3 days after the timeframe of this article, based around a location which the Americans moved to once the battle described in this article was over. Relevant wikipedia policy and guideline in this matter can be found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects and MOS:INTRO (specifically the section on Relative emphasis, and bearing in mind that the infobox is part of the lead). FactotEm (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You did not take into account the air action. The 5 consecutive day B-52 airstrike from 15 November to 19 November with a direct strike at LZ X-Ray on 17 November was planned and dictated by the ARVN II Corps Command. This air operation was named Plei Me/Chu Pong Campaign.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I've read the discussion below, but I don't understand what relevance the wider campaign has, other than setting context, to an article which is quite clearly limited in scope to a specific battle within that campaign. FactotEm (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try to understand that the air action and the ground action were co-ordinated. The 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion was inserted at the LZ X-Ray to fix the target for the B-52 airstrike. It was withdrawn on 16 November to allow the B-52 bombers to strike the LZ X-Ray. And it was the ARVN II Corps Command who planned and scheduled the B-52 strikes in coordinating the air and ground actions.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think the other editors have been very accommodating in trying to reach consensus. If the only ARVN role was one of command then a mention in the Commanders section is justified (though personally I'm still not convinced that campaign level command has any relevance at this battle level), but the complete lack of any ARVN combat forces in the actual battle itself, other than in a marginally relevant aftermath action, means that, in my opinion, even a mention in the Belligerents section is not justified. FactotEm (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the ARVN in the "Belligerents" section had been agreed upon. The discussion at this phase pertains only to "supported by". By the way, should the Viet Cong (NFL) be removed as belligerent? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the section "Belligerents" of the infobox, not the "Commanders and leaders" section. It has been established that the ARVN was a "belligerents". The qualification of "support" or "command is not appropriate in the "Belligerents" section, only in the "Commanders and leaders" section. In this section, the ARVN was involved at the control ̣level(theater), although not at the combat level (local). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is about the battle, there were no ARVN combat forces in the battle. Please let's get back to the battle itself, that is what most folk want to read about. Any further info regarding the campaign should be in a separate article. David J Johnson (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the folk want to know that the battle evolved around the coordination between the B-52 air action and the 1ACD ground action? All the maneuvers of the 1/7 AC (when to go in, when to get out) was dictated by the timing of the B-52 strike, specifically by the dropping of the first bombs at precisely at 16 hours on 15 November at YA 8207, and on 17 November at LZ X-Ray? Furthermore, doesn't the folk want to know that the tactical moves of the 1/7 AC were dictated under the ARVN leadership?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies accepted. But shouldn't you act after being certain first?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't understand that. Certain of what? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That only an uninvolved admin can close an expired RfC. You did well by making a subsequent request for someone knowledgeable about the rules to formally close it. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For too long editors have had to put-up with. Since when are you the spokesperson of the editors?
From two "editors". Are you implying that these two "editors" have less editing rights than the editors?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested an admin familiar with MILHIST to formally close this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Roles of ARVN and US at Pleime Campaign and Battle of Ia Drang

  • During the entire Pleime Campaign (Pleime phase, Chupong phase and Iadrang phase), the ARVN II Corps Command (Vinh Loc) assumed the role of operational control (shared concepts of operation and intelligence) together with the US 1ACD FC (Knowles). In the Pleime phase, the ARVN Armored Task Force (Luat) assumed the role of operational command and the US 1st Air Cavalry Brigade (Clark) the role of support. In the Chupong phase (Batlle of Ia Drang), the US 3rd Air Cavalry Brigade (Brown) assumed the role of operational command without ARVN supportive role. In the Iadrang phase, the ARVN Airborne Brigade (Dong) assumed the role of operational command and the US 2nd Air Cavalry Brigade (Tully) the role of support. That is the ground battlefront; if you take into consideration the air battlefront, then the ARVN JGS Command (Thang)assumed the role of operation control (shared concepts of operation and intelligence) together with the COMUSMACV (Westmoreland), the 3AC/SAC (B-52 Bombardment Wing) assumed the role of operational command while the supportive role was assumed by the ARVN II Corps Forces (Vinh Loc) together with the US 1st Air Cavalry Division (Kinnard).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It must be repeated that what you've claimed below does not go with any supporting materials from any RS (the term "operational control" is not mentioned in the RS for a single time); it's simply self-made derivation and should be considered OR. Presuming your so-called "definition" was right, then Ho Chi Minh, Lynndon Johnson, and the South Vietnamese president would have been considered those who really obtained operational control. I must also repeat the definition of operational control by the US DoD.[1] None of the ARVN commanders satisfied this definition (in the case of this article), because they had no "subordinate forces" to command.
  • You have to understand "operational control" in the context of Pleime, not recent US DoD definition. About "Ho Chi Minh, Lynndon Johnson, and the South Vietnamese president", you have to consider the "theater vs local" commanders notion. Westmoreland, for example should be in here. But then we are discussing about editing the section "Belligerents" of the infobox, not the section "Commanders and leaders". Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Just google "operational control versus operational command", you will find plenty of RS, i.e. https://www.army.mil/article/38414/Understanding_OPCON.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there's no other reliable info from the RS to support the participation of the ARVN in this battle, except Vinh Loc, page 119 (mutual "intelligence and supporting activities" throughout the campaign), then concluding the role of South Vietnam as supporting is the best acceptable solution. It moreorless satisfies the WP:BLUE rule.
  • "In the Chupong phase (Batlle of Ia Drang), the US 3rd Air Cavalry Brigade (Brown) assumed the role of operational command without ARVN supportive role." → According to this point made by you yourself, South Vietnam must be removed from the infobox of this article immediately. Dino nam (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tnguyen4321: see Mission Command. The ARVN was not directly involved in ground or air combat operations at the Battle of Ia Drang; they had a supporting role. You are getting the battle mixed up with the campaign. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not. In this matter you are referring to the wrong protocol Mission Command. In the Pleime Campaign and the Battle of Ia Drang the particular protocol adopted in the joint ARV-US operation specified: "The operations had been conducted through a close cooperation between ARVN and US Forces: that was the latest procedure ever put into application since the second World War. It is characterized by: - Joint intelligence and support activities; - Commonly-shared concept of operations and results; - Separate TAOR; - Separate command; - Separate deployment of forces; - Separate conduct of activities; - Separate reserve. The above procedure has brought many good results, especially in a country such as ours where the psychology of the people is charged with complexities and subtleties. I also find in that procedure a real competitive spirit between the two armed forces and between units." (Why Pleime, page 119) Both in ground and air operations, the ARVN got directly involved in the design of the concepts of operations and the providing of intelligence (from J7/JGS. At that time the American intelligence apparatus lead by BG McChristian, J2/MACV was still in its infantile development stage; He lacked Mandarin dialect intelligence specialists). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tnguyen4321: I referred to Mission Command (which was only invented in the last 5 years) because it falls under "support". The same with Military Intelligence; they support the mission. Unless the ARVN has a Combat Arms unit on the ground and actively engaging the enemy at the Battle of Ia Drang, they were supporting the American units. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about Pleime here. The ARVN II Corps Command assumed the operational control of the battle as well as the campaign and of the ground as well as the air operations because it carried out the concepts of operation (planning) and detained the intelligence source; it was nevertheless a "command" role, rather than a "support" role. The ground "support" role you are referring to here pertains to the other roles of "Separate TAOR; - Separate command; - Separate deployment of forces; - Separate conduct of activities". I know, it is hard for an average reader to grasp the nuance in these special military terms that changed even with time from the Pleime period to the last 5 years, similar to the notion of "Prima Dona Complex".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tnguyen4321: Whatever you say, it must be refered to in any RS to be legitimate, instead of baseless self-made derivation like you're doing. Dino nam (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I always provided RS? Your assessment in this case shows that you still are an inexperienced editor who needs to seek out help for experienced editors in your editing.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Dino nam, I don't want to have to go through arguing with you until I am blue in the face again.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you give us RS in your citations and self-made stuff in the contents. Remember that you're the only person here who thinks you're right, so forget about "experience" stuff. Dino nam (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tnguyen4321: We are not talking about Pleime here, this article is for the Battle of Ia Drang, which the ARVN played a supporting role in. Yes, during the overall Pleime Campaign they were equally a belligerent, except during this battle. As I said before, you are mixing the two up. You have sources for one and are trying to use them for the other, but it doesn't work like that. The II Corps did not have combat units engaged at the battle and they were not in command of American units, therefore they were only supporting the battle. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I am also talking about the Battle. And you are been mixing the two sections "Belligerents" and "Commanders and leaders" of the infobox. We have already established that ARVN should be inserted in the "Belligerents" section box, right? According to your argument you might as well removed the presence of the ARVN from that section altogether.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you admitting that in "Belligerent" aspect, South Vietnam only played supporting role?
  • "Belligerents" and "Commanders and leaders" are interrelated. If there's no subordinate force, there's no commander. [2] Unless you were able to point out the exact unit(s) which those ARVN commanders are in charge of, your ideas would be nonsense. Dino nam (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No.
  • In the Battle of Ia Drang, which is a joint ARVN-US operation, ARVN II Corps Command played the role of co-operational control with US 1ACD FC (the reason why General Knowles' Headquarters was co-located with II Corps Command's Headquarters, Pleiku and not at US1ACD's Headquarters, An Khe, which was nearby. The ARVN II Corps Command planned and co-executed the Battle of Ia Drang (it dictated when to insert the 1/7 AC, when to have the 2/7 and 2/5 AC reinforced and how (by air or and foof respectively), when to withdraw the 1/7 AC on 11/16 to camp Halloway, then the 2/7 and 2/5 AC on 11/17 to LZ Albany and LZ Columbus respectively; all those ground maneuvers in coordination with the 5 day B-52 airstrike scheduling commencing with the first bomb drop at precisely 1600 hours on 11/15, and eventually at LZ X-Ray on 11/17, when to have the ARVN Airborne Brigade take over the fighting starting 11/18, etc). That's command stuff not support stuff.
  • I can't believe I am still been able to talk to you when I am blue in the face already. Less both stop arguing to each other - we had said enough to each other - while waiting for comments from other editors, will you? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will because it seems that everybody now see what kind of "source" your points come from; I don't need to talk anymore because you've show up yourself. The only person who won't give up arguing here is you. Dino nam (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A dirty blow under the belt before agreeing to arbitration? Whatever. Great, anyway.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis again?

I think the info in the section Battle of Ia Drang#General Westmoreland's crucial role are synthesis. User:Tnguyen4321 put info from various RS together to make a conclusion that the air strike must involved him. Dino nam (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The main source is Melyan, Wesley R.C. (15 September 1967). Arc Light 1965-1966. HQ PACAF: Checo project, Tactical Evaluation Center, backed up by General Westmoreland's History Notes (29 August-29 November 1965).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." - WP:SYNTH Dino nam (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Westmoreland's crucial role" is not a conclusion from the synthesis of various sources. It's in Melyan, Wesley R.C. (15 September 1967). Arc Light 1965-1966 which states: "COMUSMACV was the approving authority for B-52 airstrike".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source neither says "Gen Westmoreland had had a crucial role" nor that the ARVN III Corps had the "intention" to bomb the area. In fact, McChristian, page 6 says that intention was of the J3 MACV, meaning that you've conducted an OR again. Dino nam (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In your particular case you should ask for comments re: your opinion of 'synthesis' from other experienced editors in the talk page and get consensus prior to editing or tagging a template at the article page.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A tag doesn't need consensus to insert; it's you who need my consensus to remove it. Moreover you've got the intention to wage edit warring by reverting my tagging. Dino nam (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I won't mine if you used the tag (disputed, discussion) but not this tag (synthesis) which implies that there is an OR. In your particular case (of an inexperienced editor) you to have to establish there is a synthesis and get consensus from more experienced editors (as Tiderolls had warned you) in the talk page first.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're showing you yourself are the one who lacks experience. Anything suspicious can be tagged for further discussion. If someone has consensus that it is synthesis, the result is complete deletion, not a tag, because the thing is prohibited by Wikipedia. Dino nam (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I only know that an admin had told you he is convinced you are not qualified to edit in this article (that is why he warned you to seek help from experienced editors and in your editing and get consensus before editing something. You are right in claiming that tagging is not editing; then, please, be logical in not accusing that removing a tag is engaging in war editing and demand others to get your personal permission. Furthermore, your assertion that "Anything suspicious can be tagged for further discussion" is right in general, but not in your case of an "inexperienced editor" who has shown to perceive anything coming from me to be suspicious and engage in tagging abuse behavior toward me. Again, don't you see other editors so far have not behave like me toward me (not that they don't care, mind you, or less keen or intelligent than you; they so far have shown disinterested regarding your multiple RfCs, haven't they)?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before you used the theory of OR and created havoc to the article, are you now attempting to do the same harm with your theory of SYNTHESIS -which is another word for OR?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You did conduct OR and SYNTH and it has been proven by other editors on this talk page. And now you are conducting it again. Dino nam (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any synthesis, but I removed the word "crucial" from the section title as that wasn't claimed by any sources. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it: I intended to substitute "crucial" with "major or significant or key or highest approval authority" role to avoid the appearance of OR/synthesis. But strike it out altogether as you did seems better.72.89.83.175 (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC). Oops forgot to log in. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmgewehr88:
What about this:
  • "The ARVN II Corps' intention to use B-52 airstrike to destroy the NVA B3 Field Front forces in the Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex[1]"
But when you check the source here,[3], you'll see no info stating that it was "ARVN III Corps' intention". It says that it was J2 MACV's intention. This can be nothing else but an OR. Dino nam (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In September 1965, prior to the Pleime attack in October, the J2/MACV's intention was to bomb the Chupong bases only. The idea of destroying NVA B3 Field Front forces along with the bases was the ARVN II Corps intention. The planning of the ground/air combined operation only started after the Pleime attack with Operation Long Reach. That is why the B-52 airtrike operation was named the Plei Me/Chu Pong campaign.72.89.83.175 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC). Oops, forgot to log in. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, that story is not stated in McChristian, page 6. Second, even in case it was stated in another RS, such conclusion you made would come from two different sources, meaning that it would be a synthesis. @Sturmgewehr88: I think you should make a point on this. Dino nam (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't see synthesis; there is a possible OR or weight issue if there's no source that states that II Corps had separate intentions than MACV. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one sentence he has used two different sources (McChristian, page 6 and Meiyan, page 18). From those sources, he has reached a self-made conclusion that the "intention to use B-52 airstrike to destroy the NVA B3 Field Front forces in the Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex required the direct involvement of General Westmoreland". This is why I claim it a synthesis. Dino nam (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did the II Corps independently identify the NVA B3 units as a target? If yes, then there is nothing wrong with the statement. Any desire of theirs to use American air assets would have required authorization from the American officer in command of those assets, which is a fact. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the II Corps did. In general, the B-52 targets were identified by the J2/MACV then the J3/MACV notified 3A/SAC bombardment Wing for the strike. In the Pleime/Chupong case, II Corps identified the targets with its intelligence source (from J7/JGS), monitored the movements of the mobile targets and arranged for the scheduling of the strike then had the J3/MACV notify the 3A/SAC at the appropriate time to execute the bombing (the targets are fixed by the insertion of 1/7 AC and remain immobile to accommodate the slow reaction of the B-52 bombers). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please specified the RS (including pages) from which you've got the above info. Dino nam (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is side-bar discussion in the talk page, not the content in the article page. Please make an effort to gain a deeper understand of the editing process of Wikipedia so that not to make unreasonable request such as this (you are expecting verbatim quote, while Wikipedia wants to use your own words for copyrights concern. I have said this several time in the past to you, but you don't seem to quite understand). Again I don't want to argue with you until I am blue in the face.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content discussion which you are attempting (unsucessfully) to deflect by hiding behind the wrong Wikipedia guideline. Wikipedia wants you to "use your own words" in the article; if something is being disputed it is more than welcome to be verbatim-quoted on the talk page. It is not an unreasonable request at all, after all that's the entire purpose of WP:RSN and WP:ORN. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dino nam are talking about RS to this "In general, the B-52 targets were identified by the J2/MACV then the J3/MACV notified 3A/SAC bombardment Wing for the strike. In the Pleime/Chupong case, II Corps identified the targets with its intelligence source (from J7/JGS), monitored the movements of the mobile targets and arranged for the scheduling of the strike then had the J3/MACV notify the 3A/SAC at the appropriate time to execute the bombing (the targets are fixed by the insertion of 1/7 AC and remain immobile to accommodate the slow reaction of the B-52 bombers).", not to the content in the article. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't ask you to provide the exact words from the source; I ask you the name of the sources and the pages where they state such, so the others can check it for you, as a requirement of the WP:V regulation. Please try to understand language before claiming that you understand the Wikipedia rules. Dino nam (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I already stated and reiterate here: This apply for sources of material posted in the article, not info mentioned in a side-bar discussion of the talk page.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we stop this discussion here since Sturmgewehr88, whom you asked for help, had already rendered his verdict, "I don't see any synthesis"?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, while there may not be synthesis, I'm beginning to suspect undue weight on the part of the ARVN. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. But now the burden is onto you to prove there is "synthesis" (use A and B to come up with a C conclusion that is not stated in A and B). Please keep in mind that you have deleted the word "crucial" that was suspected to be a conclusion in Dino nam's mind. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, if you want to discuss something else than "synthesis", then please open a new section for that topic.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McChristian, page 6

Prima Dona Complex

During the Pleime Campaign, General Vinh Loc, General Kinnard and General Knowles (specially Kinnard) jousted for the highest seat in the commanding hierarchy totem (see General Westmoreland' history notes @ http://www.generalhieu.com/iadrang_westmoreland_notes-2.htm). 72.89.83.175 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC) oops forgot to sign. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tnguyen4321: I placed the tag because this needs to be explained in the article; the average reader will see the term and have no clue what it means and would not check the talk page. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to Prima donna would also not be helpful. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I just remove it.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or do you prefer to keep it in the article with an explanation in the article itself?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tnguyen4321: Yes; if I wanted it removed I would have removed it instead of leaving a tag. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding. But before I rewrite it, may I ask you to do it instead. You would phrase it better than me and the average readers would understand it right away.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology in B-52 airstrike

There are several special terms used in reference to B-52 strike that are unfamiliar to the average readers. Some look alike, but have a different meaning such as B-52 airtrike and B-52 airtrikes; B-52 airstrike program and B-52 airstrike missions. I don't want to appear pedantic and don't want to make a fuss about this matter. I think it is ok in the Wikipedia space.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but the only difference between "airstrikes" and "airstrike" is that one is plural and one is singular. There is no such thing as an airstrike "program" unless we're talking about a research program for munition development/testing, which we're not. We're talking about airstrike missions, AKA sorties. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put aside the difference in meanings of the word in question in singular and in plural (to avoid engaging in a possible lengthy semantic or grammar debate), and consider "B-52 airstrike program". It is not my invention, it is Westmoreland's own expression. Allow me to quote him: "I discussed the B-52 strike program with General Co and specifically insured that he was aware of the strike scheduled for 2 September on Ho Bo Woods and the ground follow-up by an element of the 5th division." (General Westmorland’s History Notes (29 August-29 November 1965), Sunday 29 August).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Westmoreland was definitely not discussing "munition development/testing" with Co. Furthermore allow me to point out that you err in stating that "missions" is AKA "sorties". In Wesley R.C. Melyan, Project CHECO report, Arc Light 1965-1966, 15 Sep 67, it is noted that the B-52 airstrike achieved:
  • -In June, one mission (p.14)
  • -In July, 6 missions, 147 sorties, dropping 2,811 tons of bombs.(p.14)
  • -In August, 10 missions, 169 sorties, dropping 3,232 tons of bombs. (p.16)
  • -In September, 20 missions, 326 sorties, dropping 6,227 tons of bombs, (p.21)
  • -In October, 23 missions, 292 sorties dropping 5,577 tons of bombs. (p.21)
  • -In November, 39 missions, 296 sorties dropping 5,654 tons of bombs. (p.23)
  • -In December, 39 missions (p.29), 306 sorties, dropping 5,368 tons of bombs. (p.14)
It is interesting to point out that Vinh Loc did not use the term "missions" but "bombardments" instead ("the B52 stratofortresses had also taken part in the battle with five daily bombardments of the Chu Pong massif")(p. 92) and 96 sorties (p. 97).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of these clarifications, should I leave alone your edits or reverted them or you will revert them instead? As I said I don't want to make a fuss of this. I leave it to you. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NFL H-15 main local force battalion

The NFL H-15 main local force battalion did not participate in the battle at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany. It only took part in the siege of the Pleime Camp and remained around there (being a local unit) and did not withdraw with the NVA 32nd and 33rd Regiments to the rear bases in Chu Pong. Some VC combatants fighting at LZ X-Ray were misidentified - in the book "We were soldiers once, ..." - by some 1/7 air cavalry combatants as belonging to the NFL H-15 main local force battalion actually belonged to the 7th or 9th Battalions/66 Regiments just because they wore the NFL black uniforms in disguise. At LZ X-Ray there were only the NVA 7th and 9th Battalions; and at LZ Albany, 1st Company/1st Battalion/33rd Regiment; 2nd Company/1st Battalion/33rd Regiment; 6th Company/8th Battalion/66th Regiment; 7th Company/8th Battalion/66th Regiment; and 8th Company/8th Battalion/66th Regiment.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Give any RS that proves the "misidentified" thing you've said above. Dino nam (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's my own words to avoid copyrights infringement as dictated by Wikipedia. McChistian, page 14 pinpointed the H-15 Battalion at Pleime. Furthemore, McChistian, Kinnard, Moore (official after action report) and Nguyen Huu An did not identify the H-15 Battalion at LZ X-Ray and Albany. "We were soldiers once, ..." is a semi-fiction book. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the NVA soldiers were dispatched to the South in August 1965, they were ordered to wear the NFL black uniform instead of the PAVN green uniform. General Hoàng Văn Thái told Colonel Hoàng Kiện 304th Division (minus - 66th Regiment) Commander: "But in fact, from this moment on you now belong to the National Liberation Front Army - Nhưng trong thực tế từ giờ phút này các đồng chí đã thuộc quân số Quân giải phóng miền Nam". (General Nguyễn Nam Khánh, Hồi Ký).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: Westmoreland's attribution of success of the battle

I've tagged the statement that Westmoreland "...attributes the success of the Battle of Ia Drang (that he designates as the "latter phases")..." I can't find in the source provided at the end of the sentence any support for that specific assertion (of designation). FactotEm (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ia_Drang&oldid=735819622"