Talk:Vietnam War

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

There were 4 military organization in this war, each has their own characteristics and goals in this war, therefore, to prevent confusion for the readers (I saw a lot of people mistaking the PAV and the Viet Cong when reading this article), I suggest a subheading to clarify these information.

Also moving "The primary military organizations involved in the war were, on one side, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and the U.S. military, and, on the other side, the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) (more commonly called the North Vietnamese Army, or NVA, in English-language sources), and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF, more commonly known as the Viet Cong in English language sources), a South Vietnamese communist guerrilla force." to the beginning of this new subheading.

Agent Orange deaths 1975-2018

Does not include deaths that happened as a direct cause of US military persons being exposed to Agent orange. The estimated deaths caused by Chemical warfare weapon Agent Orange from 1975 to 2018 after Vietnam Exposure is 35,000 to 44, 000.

         Was this added? Shadowrvn728 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

There are a few grammatical errors that need to be addressed. Mainly spelling errors. Vazsherwin (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Such as?Slatersteven (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

I would like to edit because there is a typo on one of the photos, it says a bombed Buddha in Laos, then it says it has made Vietnam the most bombed country in the world but the most bombed is Laos. RPG2428 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: On reviewing the page history, it appears that this discrepancy is intentional rather than being an error. Jack Frost (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It does however seem a bit of a contradiction, we use a picture from Laos to illustrate how bombed Vietnam was.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The assertion in the caption there is not directly related to that image, and might fit better with this image localized in its description to "southeast asia" and located in the Extent of U.S. bombings article section. For sources re the context of the buddha, which is apparently well known as the "Enduring Buddha", see e.g., here and here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Agent Orange & M-16 Industrial SNAFU

Has anyone mentioned that the M-16 was originally a good weapon until they changed the gunpowder? Or that Agent Orange was originally safe until they increased the manufacturing temperature (making it toxic) to increase profits? 75.4.34.74 (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really a subject for this article. Too much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, wherever mentioned in Wikipedia articles, WP:BURDEN would apply. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a good article in the Atlantic Monthly June 1981 by James Fallows entitled "M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story" relating how changing the gunpowder from DuPont's IMR 4475 to Olin Mathieson's WC846 ball powder caused the guns to jam due to bureaucratic incompetence. A few lines in the Wiki article should suffice. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There are other sources with a bit of info here, here, and probably elsewhere. Offhand, it seems to me that technical details about the M-16 and its ammunition should first be run through discussion at Talk:M16 rifle and reflected in M16 rifle#Reliability before being added to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I read the Wiki article on M-16's and they actually cover this matter, the M-16 was praised when they sent over test rifles in 1961 and 1962 BUT they changed the gunpowder to ball powder in 1964 and this fouled the guns and caused them to jam. Also, the new powder increased the firing rate which caused the extractor claw to shear through the lip of the cartridge, jamming it in the chamber. The M-16 was excellent, it was the ball powder that was the problem all along. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a little more than ball powder. There's the totally unneeded "manual bolt closure" added by order from on high, probably General Earl Wheeler.[1] And there's the fiddling with the rifling twist rate. But ball powder was a big factor. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that the Agent Orange article mentions a temperature issue, citing this report; that is dated 1978, though, and the specifics of the issue are different.There might be some useful info re the toxicity vs. temperature issue raised above here, but I've forgotten too much of what I learned in long-ago Chem classes to follow it. If it is relevant, it probably ought to be mentioned in tthe Agent Orange article before it is mentioned here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There's an article on the Internet entitled "Monsanto, Agent Orange, Dioxins and Plan Colombia" from SOURCEWATCH. 2nd paragraph down they talk about the temperature. To cook up a batch of Agent Orange safely took 12 hours but they could cook up a dioxin-laden batch at a higher temperature in only 45 minutes. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I should point out also that it took 2 weeks for DuPont to make a batch of IMR 4475 gunpowder but it took Olin Mathieson only 40 hours to make a batch of their ball powder. War Profiting killed our own troops in Vietnam. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

I believe the term "built-up" in the following sentence in line 6 of the third paragraph - "Despite little progress, the United States continued a significant built-up of forces." should be changed to build-up. Theycallmeeditman (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks for spotting. Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020

In the fifth paragraph of the introduction, I believe "advisers, and materiel shipments." should be changed to "advisers, and material shipments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:86A3:A100:2527:D222:52B2:3BC7 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly not an error, see materiel – Thjarkur (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I learnt something new today! - 2A01:4B00:86A3:A100:590F:4BF4:E2D0:5E52 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

I want to edit cuh can you please let me edit cuh Riagob (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you want to add or change?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
• You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Tunnel rats (to be added with new section mentioned In to do list)

In the early stages of the war against the French colonial forces, the Viet Minh created an extensive underground system of tunnels, which was later expanded and improved by the Viet Cong. By the 1960s, the tunnel complexes included hospitals, training areas, storage facilities, headquarters, and barracks. These diverse facilities, coupled with sophisticated ventilation systems, allowed VC guerrillas to remain hidden underground for months at a time.

During the Vietnam War, U.S. and ANZAC troops uncovered a great number of enemy tunnels while patrolling or conducting larger operations. The men of the 3 Field Force, an Australian combat engineering unit that served in Vietnam from 1965-1966, have made a convincing argument that they were the first allied troops to enter the tunnels.[3]

Source: Tunnel rat

Some more stuff that can be added (prob needs to be edited for context):

To maintain a full scale guerrilla war in Southern Vietnam, camouflaged bases were used capable of supplying the guerillas for a long period of time. Throughout Southern Vietnam there were secret underground bases that operated successfully. There are reports that every villager was obliged to dig 90 centimetres of tunnel a day. The largest underground base was the tunnels of Cu Chi with overall length of 200 miles. To combat the guerillas in the tunnels the US used special forces-tunnel rats.

Part of the Ho Chi Minh Trail was based in caves made of karst.

When Vietnam became a French colony again after the Second World War, the Communistic Vietminh started to dig tunnels close to Saigon. After the French army left (they were defeated at Dien Bien Phu) the tunnels were maintained in case the plausible war with South-Vietnam would start. Ho Chi Minh, leader of North-Vietnam, ordered to expand the tunnels after the Americans entered the war between the North and the South; the tunnels would be used by the Viet Cong. Systems of tunnels were not occupied temporarily for military purpose, but began to contain whole villages of people living permanently underground. The tunnels were a complete underworld, it was all there; kitchens, hospitals, workshops, sleeping areas, communications, ammunition storage, even some entertainment. The tunnels eventually became a target for American forces because the enemy could hide in it and strike everywhere in the range of the tunnel complex (hundreds of miles) without a single warning and then disappear again.

These tactics were also applied against the Chinese during the Sino-Vietnamese War.

Source: Tunnel warfare

Shadowrvn728 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the use of tunnels is rather overrated, based on some of the early books about the war such as The Tunnels of Cu Chi. I would support the addition of the following: "During the First Indochina War, the Viet Minh created an extensive underground system of tunnels, which was later expanded and improved by the Viet Cong. By the 1960s, the tunnel complexes included hospitals, training areas, storage facilities, headquarters and barracks. These diverse facilities, coupled with sophisticated ventilation systems, allowed VC to remain hidden underground for months at a time. The Củ Chi District was well known for its extensive tunnel network. Allied forces trained volunteers, commonly known as "Tunnel rats", who would explore and destroy VC tunnels." Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)