Talk:Bien Hoa Air Base

Untitled
Note: check legality of photographs of military bases in Vietnam

There is lots of extraneous information included in this article that has little to do with the Air Base itself... for instance the "Skoshi Tiger" section belongs in the F-5_Freedom_Fighter article (and is there already, though it doesn't link to this article), and can be cut down to something like "12 new F-5 Freedom Fighters were based here from X to Y during the Skoshi Tiger evaluation program". Other sections can be similarly editted. -- Medains 16:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the number of other large units stationed on Bien Hoa during its life, it is a shame that more info couldn't be included bout them. At least two Army Divisions (101, 173) and 145th Combat Avn Bn were lodged here.July 2008

Material removed from main article
This is wrong info. I was there from May 19 1972 till after Oct 72 and No Airforce was aboard this base.

I was there in May - June 1972 as part of the 377 FOL, TDY from Ubon AFB. I was part of the Air Force serviceing personnel for the F4 turnaround.


 * I removed the above material from the main page because it appears to have been meant for the discussion page. It was not signed and I have no idea who put it there or its validity.Cuprum17 (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

unsigned post of 17 February 2014
Sir, I was in Bien Hoa from May72 to Oct 25,73,,I was with Kilo co 3/9 Marines. We helped the USAF and MAB12 mag12 VMA, I used to have the USAF bring us MARINES coffee and cool aid, does anyone remember us MARINES. We were there when 1st Cav left the base. I was told that there were more choppers own by 1st Cav at Bien Hoa, then we had in the entire Marine Corps. The RVN had a Co named Lt.Col.Kehn,,,we were told he was a living legend with the ARVN's My Co. was Capt Hoskett, and Gen Leslie Brown. Our 1st day there we had a morter attack and we had the ARVN's shooting at us. We were ordered that if the shit got bad to kill the ARVN's with us. If we were in a fire fight they would raise there weapons above there head and yell"CHOI HOI" and they would turn against us. The ARVN's had orders to kill us if we tried to leave, what a War.Bunker hill 14, bullseye 9. Those are some of the posts we maned,the flight line posts were called DELTA 1-12. Cpl Fran Dutton Spfld,Massachusetts,KILO CO 3rd Bn. 9th Marines.Also PFC Sam Brown from Philly. Was shot in the face by PFC Venezwalla. Zappers were common, and many tried to kill Pilots

Tagged Section: 2.2 405th Fighter Wing (B-57Bs) – Clark AFB, PI (by Dennis Hickey)[original research?]
This section, in my opinion, may be factual but appears to be written by Dennis Hickey himself and is original research. This section needs a complete rewrite and needs to be referenced. Unreferenced material, while interesting, is not encyclopedic and doesn't belong.

I am sure that Mr. Hickey wants to tell his story, however, but the article, without some referencing is not up to Wikipedia standards and I question the "B" Class rating.

Having served at Bien Hoa Air Base from 1966-1968, I can tell you that this article doesn't cover any of the Army units stationed on or near the base, only the Air Force perspective.

Why is this a "B" class article? Cuprum17 (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Only 15 F-102s lost
They never saw any real combat and they call 15 aircraft losses a good safety record??? Redhanker (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Most Important Role of Bien Hoa Missing From The Article
This article deals only with the use of Bien Hoa as a US air base. From a historical point of view, this is the least important role the place played. The importance of Bien Hoa lies in the fact that its was overrun at night, in 1962 as I recall, by FLN (later called "Vietcong" by the Americans after their invasion) who shot up a bunch of planes sitting around unguarded. The US subsequently claimed a.) that there had been no serious damage, although $55 million worth of planes had been bulldozed as unrepairable, and b.) this showed the need for increased American "aid" to the Diem regime. Acknowledged and offical US troop strength was increased from 700 to 10,500 as an immediate result of the raid. Neither number has any strong connection with actual numbers of overt and covert US troops in the country. "Bien Hoa Raid" is thus one of the most important symbolic events in Kennedy's involvement of the US in an already-lost war. -dlj. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bien Hoa Air Base. 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/20090130025918/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bien Hoa Air Base. 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/20070202033712/http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/rso/wings_groups_index.asp to http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/rso/wings_groups_index.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirect of 19th TASS
User:Buckshot06, your original justification for changing my redirect was that "we use the redirects that exist, just in case a separate article is one day written", as I said when I reverted your change that will not occur because "no standalone 19th TASS page will be allowed to exist as it will be merged into the 19th Weapons Squadron" as it was simply an earlier designation of what is now the 19th Weapons Squadron. So how do you think WP:NOTBROKEN is relevant? Mztourist (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First and most importantly, NOTBROKEN is the editing guideline. It's the rule we should be following unless there's a compelling reason not to do so. Second, I was somewhat surprised about the timescale you appeared to assume about this website. I know I'm only going to be around for such-and-such number of years, but the way you worded the edit summary appeared to indicate that you would be able to control what happened to the 19 TASS/WS page perhaps in perpertuity(?) I know I'm not going to be around for ever, you may not be, but or people like him, who continue to work intensively on USAF unit articles, may be. In twenty, thirty, forty years, we may start seeing separate articles for separate periods of existence of USAF squadrons. If and when they come along, WP:NOTBROKEN means that all data relevant to the 19 TASS will be pointed to the correct page.
 * Instead of picking another fight with our overall policy, the result you're aiming for might be better done if you redirected the 19 TASS page, instead of only to the 19 WS page en generale, to 19th Weapons Squadron. Any future separate 19 TASS page would be developed from that section. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Current policy is that all iterations of the same squadron are combined on one page and where someone tries to create a separate page for a separate time period they are quickly merged. I am following current policy. I don't claim to see the future (once again you making assumptions about me), but regard it as highly unlikely that this policy would change in the future given the limited utility of such a move and the lack of source material. Finally I am growing tired of you stalking me and picking fights. Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I changed the link to conform to the policy. You took on the WP:BURDEN of reversing the edit, back to out-of-conformity with the policy. Your reversal again breached the general policy. Conform to the established policies and there will be no trouble whatsoever.
 * How long do you think, currently, that you might need to rewrite/re-cite all the about ten USAF Vietnam base articles? I've had various ideas about giving you a time limit over the last couple of weeks but would like to hear your estimate first. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't accept any time limit that you try to impose, particularly when you are simultaneously stalking my work and creating problems for me elsewhere. You need to wait until the presumptive deletion discussion plays out Mztourist (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Current policy is that all iterations of the same squadron are combined on one page and where someone tries to create a separate page for a separate time period they are quickly merged." This misrepresents policy, which also calls for splitting articles that become too long.  The most common area where this occurs for USAF units is for units tracing their lineages to aero squadrons that saw active service in WW I. (e.g. 90th Aero Squadron and 90th Fighter Squadron, but there's also 509th Composite Group and 509th Operations Group.  There are also editors who will fight tooth an nail against a single article when articles have been created for a unit that has changed its number as well as its mission designation over history.  IMHO the 509th Composite Group contains too much detail for an encyclopedia article, but Chacun a son gout, and there may be other good reasons to keep it as a separate article.  This contrasts with 330th Bombardment Group (VH) and 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So there is no clear position then? What is your view of 19th Weapons Squadron? The page is only 22KB which doesn't seem overly long and justifying a split. Mztourist (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mztourist, right now it is decided on a case by case basis depending on how much information there is in each article. The 19th TASS doesn't seem to have enough for a separate article currently, but I don't see the point of arguing over the target as long is it goes to the same article. Kges1901 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fatherland - Space.png