Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group

Reference 61.

Opinion hidden in references, this is a new one to me, could someone please edit this.

^ A revealing description of one of the most callous military operations ever ordered by an American president is described by Stephen Ambrose in "The Christmas Bombings" in Robert Cowley, ed. The Cold War, New York: Random House, 2005.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The name is wrong.

The name is wrong. What is the deal? It is MACV (militairy assistance command vietnam)SOG (SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP) MACV-SOG 75.90.230.90 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are correct. Studies and observation group was the unclassified cover name. Special operations group was the classified name. Remember, it didn't actually report to COMUSMACV either. A truly correct name would have been Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Special Activities Special Operations Group, which truly would be special. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Berkowitz is correct, as far as I know, the name "Studies and Observations Group" was changed at the time cross border missions were discontinued, to TAG (Training Advisory Group) in early 1971. The names of the Command & Control subunits (CCN, CCS, & CCC) were then changed to Task Force unit acronyms, i.e., ("Command & Control North" CCN = "Task Force One Advisory Element" TF1AE). Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Special Operations Group was the original title of the organization. This moniker, however, would have posed a quandry when listed in the MACV table of organization (remember the quote concerning "military intelligence"?). It was altered soon after the establishment of the organization in Saigon in 1964.4.255.214.12 (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• If SACSA's top secret in-house history of the unit lists its title as "Studies and Ovservations Group," then I believe we can take it for granted that this title was the correct one.74.177.113.228 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian's in the unit

There were several Australian's in this unit. I'm pretty sure they were from the Special Air Service Regiment. Somebody might want to add something with a source, so it's not just my memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.238.55 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to all extant sources, all participants were Americans, Taiwanese (pilots for Timberwork operations), South Vietnamese (straight up, Montagnards, or ethnic Chinese Nungs), or ethnic Cambodians. Sorry, no Aussies. 4.255.214.12 (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A few Norwegians worked in SOG maritime operations 1963-64. Some Germans were hired in 1964 to work in in SOG maritime operations, but they were fired soon after; the period they were working for SOG was probably too short for them to have been sent on actual operations.
There were Australians who served with U.S. Special Forces units in Vietnam, but I have not heard of any who served with SOG. Ed Moise (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam - Studies and Observations Group/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. I usually like to give general suggestions first, and then give more specific suggestions once they are addressed. Here are some initial suggestions:

• According to WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have a lead that is three or four full paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
• Linking dates is no longer required, and a lot of reviewers (especially for WP:FAC) ask them to be de-linked.
• Be consistent on how dates are written. In the infobox they are written "day-month" and in the prose they are written "month-day".
• There is a good deal of uncited text. There should be at least a citation in every paragraph.
• This last question may be because of my naivete about government goings on, but how could unpublished government documents be sources? Aren't they, um, unpublished?

The lack of in-line citations is the biggest problem I see. I'll put the article on hold for seven days to allow for these changes. Nikki♥311 22:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The seven days are up, so I am failing the article due to a lack of response. Nikki♥311 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to the question above about unpublished documents: A lot of documents that have never been published can be found (and xeroxed) in the National Archives. Ed Moise (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Lead expanded
2. Dates delinked
3. Dates appeared consistent when I edited, someone else actioned
4. Text appears adequately cited (claiming expert opinion: historian)
5. Unpublished government documents are sources: archives (claiming expert opinion: historian)

I believe the criteria raised in the review have been addressed fully. Raising rating to "A" class. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Norwegian and German employees were (I believe) brought in under the CIA before maritime ops were handed over to the US military. Foreign participation (besides indigenous personnel) was probably precluded by the need for plausible deniability.RM Gillespie (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think some Australian SAS guys might have served with (or operated with) SEAL teams in the IV CTZ, but also have never seen anything to indicate that any operated with SOG.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there were australians with sog http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78183 though this is not a book its a starting point in investigating this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.131.145 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.10.246.162, 23 November 2010

Edit semi-protected i belive it is military advisory command vietnam special operations group

please change 173.10.246.162 (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Both are correct - see #The_name_is_wrong. above.   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Never was any such critter as the Military Advisory Command. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) maybe, but SOG was created after it was renamed MACV.RM Gillespie (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The green berets were in the SOG and I'm sure the rangers were not.

The Army's green berets were in the SOG while the rangers were not, the rangers aren't special forces, they're just the cream of the crop of the infantry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achterberg1453 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

SOG used mainly SF-qualified personnel, but there were occasions when they accepted others. In point of fact, Rangers per se didn't really operate in Vietnam at all. The LRRP teams were later given Ranger lineage, but they weren't originally organized as such or even sent through Ranger school.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Op Tailwind

Tailwind seems to be a fairly important part of the unit history, why isn't it mentioned here except in the sidebar? Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Title

According to WP:COMMONNAME this article should be titled MACV-SOG. - Neptuunium (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813190422/http://www.specialoperations.com/MACVSOG/Main_Page.htm to http://www.specialoperations.com/MACVSOG/Main_Page.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028084748/http://rallypointmilitaria.com/era/vietnam-categories/vietnam-macv-sog-over-fence to http://rallypointmilitaria.com/era/vietnam-categories/vietnam-macv-sog-over-fence

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018

I wanted to add a podcast link under the see also tab: HonorProject podcast on Vietnam SOG DavidHonor (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:ELNO —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

editorial comments about Cambodia should be cleaned up

There is an inappropriate statement in the page that says Sihanouk was "trying to balance the threats facing his nation" when he allowed foreign military bases to be established in his country and allowed trans-shipments of military supplies through the country's ports. In terms of style, it would be best to just say what happened rather than try to offer explainations on this page for why he did what he did. His motives are too complicated a question for an article on SOG to deal with and the existing text goes too far to justify his decisions as being good ones. On the other side though, it might be worth mentioning the disputes over the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia within the US government. The CIA (for years) having denied that it was going on and the military conducting SOG operations at the same time. 184.21.142.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In Pop Culture

I just wanted to mention that the new call of duty game (Black Ops Cold War), heavily features MACV-SOG operators, allowing you to play as ex MACC-SOG, and even participate in some of their actual missions in the Vietnam Wat. U7355608 (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hardly significant. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Another Pop Culture reference

Recently a new DLC for the military simulation Game Arma 3 was released and it is centered around MACV-SOG, some members of the unit actually helped with the development of the DLC so I think that this is worthy to add to the article.

Mike Thornton : SOG's Medal of Honor ?

Was Michael E. Thornton really part of SOG/STDAT-158 during the operation for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor ?

• In John Plaster's SOG : "Tom Norris received SOG's only SEAL Medal of Honor. ... Two weeks later MACV disbanded SOG's Naval Advisory Detachment" [Norris's unit at the time of his actions in April 1972 for his "own" Medal of Honor] (p.288)
• In Norris/Thornton/Couch By Honor Bound, Norris says : "I still had six months on my tour, so with the SOG/STDAT organization being turned over to the Vietnamese, I was detailed over to the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, or MACV, to work with the LDNNs or South Vietnamese SEALs" (p.77) where he was later joined by Thornton.

So as I understand it, Thornton was not part of SOG/STDAT-158 (at least at the time of his rescue of Norris) and his unit reported in his MoH citation, Naval Advisory Group, might be genuine. Rob1bureau (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request: C-130 Blackbird

Here's an easy one! In the "Daniel Boone" section of the article, I see "SOG C-130 blackbird" (lower case). This should be "SOG C-130 Blackbird" (upper case).

Not far below, the article mentions another C-130 configuration: "four specially-modified MC-130E Combat Talon (deployed under Combat Spear)." Here, "MC-130E Combat Talon" links to the "Lockheed C-130" article, at [[1]]. Isn't there a convention that the first mention of a linked topic should be the one that links to the appropriate article? In this case, the previous "SOG C-130 Blackbird" should link to the "Lockheed C-130" article.

Thanks.

Jdickinson (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Never mind! Realized I could edit the article myself, after all—and did so. Jdickinson (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: SOG motto (if there was one)

@Intothatdarkness: Hi, just wanted to ask about the change concerning the motto that I added in. Not trying to start a fight, just curious since I'm not as well-versed in Vietnam era stuff.

I found the poem in Plaster's 2004 book's preface where he specifically calls it SOG's motto. Was he being a bit over-generous in calling it their motto? Like, sure it captures the SOG spirit but it's not like everyone agreed to it? Thanks in advance Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 07:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

He was being over-generous. Plaster served mostly in CCC as I recall, and his knowledge of CCN (for example) wasn't as deep. It might have been considered their unofficial motto when he was with them, but as far as I know there was no real consensus on that. If you look at unofficial unit patches and calling cards you see all kinds of things. And the Old Blue thing appears to have been mainly a CCC tradition. I haven't seen mention of it in either CCN or CCS stuff. Intothatdarkness 12:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness Ahh gotcha. Thanks, I appreciate the explanation. I didn't add the Old Blue bit, though, I'd never heard of its use before now Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. SOG was a fairly covert organization for its entire existence, in addition to being pretty decentralized, so unified mottos weren't really something they'd do. Even the unit crest is considered unofficial. Each team tended to have its own crest or patch as well, but given the high rate of personnel turnover SOG saw those often didn't stay stable for long. Intothatdarkness 14:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness Yeah, I was thinking that even lots of SOG TTPs and SOPs were particular to whichever team you were with (and to whichever team lead was there during that period), to say nothing of uniformity across the region (CCN/CCC/CCS). So with SOG also being covert, it makes sense that a shared motto or insignia weren't really set in stone across the entire unit. Good stuff. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

MACV-SOG and the Phoenix Program

Given that the Phoenix Program has been well documented elsewhere, should there not be a LINK from this page to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program ?

Seems to me that many SOG operators were aware of Phoenix,if not directly involved. 86.159.198.204 (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware that MACV-SOG was in any way involved in Phoenix. If you have WP:RS that proves otherwise, please provide it. Mztourist (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There MIGHT have been some individual mobility between the programs, but even that's doubtful without solid RS to support it. "Seems to me" is not RS. Intothatdarkness 13:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)