Talk:Battle of Coral–Balmoral

Rename

Should this article be retitled 'Battle of Fire Support Base Coral'? I believe that the FSB was temporary and is significant only because of the fierce fighting which took place around it. --Nick Dowling 10:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

yes it was a temporary base ,but was significant and was the "battle for FSB. Coral", it was placed to engage the enemy on retreat from Saigon, but was attacked by NVA. on their push south to Saigon,its perimeter only for a short time was breached by NVA ,a field gun was "lost" to the nva for a short time,but due to the extraordinary efforts by the gunners the field gun was retrieved but not before the NVA had attempted to drag it away.Brian Rees ex 1RAR.

I agree - for consistency it should be renamed Battle of Fire Support Base Coral. Anotherclown (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Article name -- capital letters?

Currently, the article is titled "Fire support base coral", and begins "Fire support Base Coral was...". I'd guess it should be 'Fire Support Base Coral', but if anyone knows for sure, they ought to fix it. —wwoods 09:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have renamed the article accordingly. SMC 09:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmoffitt6 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC) The proper use or terminology would be "FSB" Coral\Balmoral. I was there. Melvin H. Moffitt, Jr. 1LT, FA.

Proposed move

Actually I propose to move this article to the Battle of Coral-Balmoral for simplicity sake. The article can obviously then be expanded to include the actions at both FSB Coral and FSB Balmoral and the surrounding AOs. This is fairly common in many of the references I have seen. Anotherclown (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Belated, but I agree. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the NVA/VC forces be described as "communists" in the article?

Yes, this is a political bag of worms. With the perspective of 50 years, these forces and their aims would more fairly be described as "nationalist" or "anti-colonial". Calling them "communist", even though economically somewhat warranted, begs the question of "communist menace", "world communist domination", and similar terms used at the time to sell the war in American propaganda. Using the term here makes the article one-sided in a way inappropriate for Wikipedia. Igodard (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This was the language used at the time, so why should we use anything different? In this case the term is used merely as an adjective to vary language, so I believe it is acceptable. In no place have the other more perjorative terms that you list above been used. Equally to describe these forces as "nationalist" or "anti-colonial" might potentially be POV and are not used in any of the large number of WP:RS that are used in this article. Anotherclown (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As always on Wikipedia, I think it comes down to what the sources use, albeit so long as it is not done in a POV way (which I don't think it is here). Also, while an interesting suggestion, I think that it would be problematic to describe the NVA/VC as "nationalist" or "anti-colonial" because it would seem unlikely that the South Vietnamese forces would have described themselves as "colonial" or "anti-nationalist". Indeed, they too would probably have described themselves as "nationalist". AustralianRupert (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with AC/AR. In any case, whether or not they were nationalist or anti-colonial, they were communist -- by their own lights as much as anybody's. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What term do the sources use? The Australian official history occasionally refers to 'communist' attacks and offensives, but generally sticks to terms like 'North Vietnamese' and 'Viet Cong'. For what it's worth, I regard 'communist' as being a pretty poor term as it confuses a political/economic ideology for a military force and is a bit POV. We don't refer to the German military of World War II as 'Nazis', the Soviet military of World War II as 'Communists' or South Vietnamese Army as 'military dictatorship' forces for this reason. While the term seems to have been used a lot during the Vietnam War, 'Free World Military Forces' is now almost never used to describe the countries aligned with the South Vietnamese because it's blatantly POV (and obviously propaganda given that four of the six countries were dictatorships, and so not 'free' in any meaningful sense). Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the points of "communist" is that it's an umbrella term that can include NVA and VC, almost like "Axis" for German and Italian forces in Europe and N. Africa. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's how the term normally used. My concern is that it's a bit of an easy way out - we'd (rightly) be a bit skeptical of accounts that label the American military 'imperialist forces' and the like, yet reducing the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong to 'communists' isn't any different in my view. That said, this article's use of the term is in line with the literature and not particularly problematic in itself (it doesn't talk about "communist guns" or "communist bunkers" and the like as some articles do), it's just that I think that we can do better. Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

FSB vs FSPB terminology

Gday @Mjam72: thanks for the interest in ensuring the terminology of this article is correct. The term "Fire Support Base" (FSB) has been used throughout this article because that is the terminology used in the Australian official history and fairly consistently by the Australian War Memorial so the assumption has been made that this represents the common name of the battle per WP:COMMONNAME. That said your reference to the 1 RAR Duty Log does raise an interesting question and I wonder if the terms FSB and FSPB were used interchangeably then as they often seem to be now in the literature available. A quick review of a few of the random sources available (only what I have my shelf – there are of cse many others):

• Uses "Fire Support Base" or "FSB" almost exclusively:
  • McNeill and Ekins (2003) On the Offensive (AS Official History)
  • Palazzo (2006) Australian Military Operations in Vietnam
  • Kuring (2004) Redcoats to Cams: A History of Australian Infantry
  • Davies and McKay (2012) Vietnam: The Complete Story of the Australian War
  • Coulthard-Clark (2010) The Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles
  • Edwards (2014) Australia and the Vietnam War
  • AWM Encyclopedia – "Coral and Balmoral, Battle of Fire Support Bases" [1]
• Uses "FSB" and "FSPB" interchangeably or uses both terms to some extent:
  • Horner (1995) The Gunners: A History of Australian Artillery
  • Horner (2008) Duty First (2nd Ed)
  • McAulay (1988) The Battle of Coral: Vietnam Fire Support Bases Coral and Balmoral, May 1968 (note of cse the title which uses FSB not FSPB)
• Uses FSPB almost exclusively:
  • McAulay (1991) The Fighting First: Combat Operations in Vietnam 1968-69: The First Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment (although there appears to be one instance of FSB in the dust jacket)
  • Greville (2002) Paving the Way: The Royal Australian Engineers 1945 to 1972.
  • Ham (2007) Vietnam: The Australian War
  • McGibbon (2010) New Zealand's Vietnam War: A History of Combat, Commitment and Controversy (NZ Official History)

With this in mind I'm fairly comfortable with "FSB" for now as the common name used in the more important Australian sources, but I am interested in what others have to say about this. The difference b/n the Australian and New Zealand Official Histories is interesting at least. Anotherclown (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Units Involved

The Aussies always had an American Medium (155mm SP) or Heavy Artillery (8"\175mm) Battery assigned to them for support. In the case of FSB Coral the American unit assigned was A Battery 2nd Battalion 35th Artillery, USA (A 2\35 Arty). A 2\35 Arty moved into FSB Coral on 14 May, 1968. The Battery was Commanded by CPT Hugh Marlow. Further the article notes 5 US casualties... those casualties were from A 2\35 Arty. Mmoffitt6 (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Gday thanks for taking the time to comment. The US battery was attached to 12 Field Regt to best of my knowledge and its presence at Coral is mentioned in the article already. Please see "M-113 armoured personnel carriers from A Squadron, 3 CAV (less one troop)—under the command of Major John Keldie—arrived at Coral the same day, after escorting the rear echelons and 155 mm M109 self-propelled artillery from A Battery, US 2/35th Artillery Regiment." Anotherclown (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

War Memorial Image

The War Memorial image appears to be in error; Australians did not wear the M1 helmet, flak armour or use the M16 assault rifle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.193.132 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No you are incorrect. While they usually wore bush hats, when the tactical situation required American M1 steel helmets were used (although this was rare). The M16 assault rifle was of course used extensively by the Australian Army in Vietnam (it replaced the Owen), although a variety of other small arms were also used (e.g. L1A1, M60, Owen etc) during this period. There is a fairly good overview of the equipment used in Vietnam by the Australian Army in Kuring, Redcoat to Cams, pp. 348–353 if you are interested. Anotherclown (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Australian soldiers

There a pictures of Australian soldiers wearing US helmets. Is this correct? If they were what were they doing wearing US equipment? 109.152.234.53 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

See [2]. 80.132.80.69 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is correct, see the discussion above re the AWM image. Anotherclown (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of content

I disagree with the accuracy of the sentence "The battle was the first time the Australians had clashed with regular North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong main force units operating in battalion and regimental strength in conventional warfare" within the introductory paragraphs.

The Battle of Long Tan, which occurred prior to the battles of FSB Balmoral and Coral, involved main force NVA and VC units, which attacked in battalion and regimental strength, and the nature of their attacks (i.e. frontal infantry assaults) must be considered conventional warfare. 02:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Blammy1 (talk)

Gday. Yes it was poorly worded on my part, thanks for catching it. According to the official historian it was the first time 1 ATF had clashed with regular NVA at regimental level. I have reworded it per the source now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes

• How does the wikilink direct support explain anything? Similarly depth targets?
• Splintex: If you follow the link splintex rounds it takes you to the section of the page where it states "Although not strictly shrapnel, a 1960s weapons project produced splintex shells for 90 and 106 mm recoilless rifles and 105 mm Howitzers where it was called a 'Beehive' round. Unlike the shrapnel shells’ balls, the splintex shell contained flechettes.", so why doesn't the wikilink instead take you to Flechette or Beehive anti-personnel round?

regards Mztourist (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Photos now PD

As a quick note, all the photos from the AWM which are being used in this article under fair use claims should now be in the public domain and marked as such in the AWM records. The images could be uploaded to Commons. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

G'day, Nick, I have updated the licences on the images now. Haven't transferred them to Commons at this stage -- will leave that to someone else at this stage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)