Talk:Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War

Cite don't plagiarise PLEASE
Remember Wikipedia articles aren't cut and paste jobs. Any 6-year-old can do that. Find more than one source on a specific thing then write a succinct interpretation and link it to your next point. --Brainsurgeonrocketscientist 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts needing citations
A one off contributer to the wiki included a lot of interesting information in the Vietnam War article which I have taken here. See this diff. The problem is there are quite a few facts which really need citations. My competence is not in militaty history and I just don't have access to the sources. Jeffrey Grey's Military History of Australia does not help. I am having no luck with Google. Would really appreciate some assistance or I think I should take them out.--A Y Arktos\talk 07:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The difficult facts are (pretty much the whole lot in the military section actually):
 * Unlike their US counterparts, the Australian and New Zealand soldiers used small scale guerilla warfare rather than large scale assaults.


 * They also employed counter-insurgency operations that were much less destructive than the search and destroy operations that the US used.
 * Consequently, the ANZACs received more support from the local population and suffered fewer casualties than US forces.
 * the US complained that these operations were too detailed for a place like Vietnam
 * the body count was significantly lower than that achieved by US soldiers
 * the NZ and Aust SAS achieved a stunning kill ratio of 500:1, the highest of any unit in Vietnam

Okay then, how do I citate my facts if I got them all from books? Help me out here. Try a book cllaed The Decisive Battles of Vietnam. I'm not sure if thats the excact name of the book so don't hold me to it. I'll get back to you. Some of the other stuff like:
 * They never used paths or trails,
 * always carried extra water
 * and fired less ammunition by about 60%.

I can't excactly remember what book I read that out of, but I know I read them correctly. Once I find the book I read the facts out of, I'll get back to you as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.16.225.80 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 25 July 2006  (UTCAEST +10 hours))

Referencing a book

 * Use the template cite book and reference tags as follows:

Description of book reference parameters

 * Author: Last name, First name. The First, Last parameters are preferred.
 * First: First name of author (ignored if Author field is used).
 * Last: Surname of author (ignored if Author field is used).
 * Authorlink: Title of Wikipedia article about author. Article must already exist.
 * Coauthors: Additional author or authors (Firstname Lastname is the standard format for the most common citation styles), separated by ", " (comma space).
 * Year: Year of publication
 * Chapter: Produces:"Chapter" ahead of Title. Punctuation other than quotes should be included in the value passed to the parameter (e.g., Chapter = Meet Dick and Jane.)
 * Editor: No text is added, so labels such as "(ed.)" has to be supplied by user.
 * Title: Title of book. This is the only required parameter.
 * Others: For uses such as "illustrated by Smith" or "trans. Smith".
 * Edition: When the book has more than one edition. eg: "2nd edition".
 * Pages:  1–2 : first page, and optional last page.
 * Publisher: Publisher should not include corporate designation such is "Ltd" or "Inc".
 * Location: Place of publication. Produces Location: Publisher (ignored if the Publisher field is not used).
 * ID: Identifier such as  ISBN 1-111-22222-9  or  

to call on the same note later use in text:

Thanks for researching, it really helps if sources are cited. I couldn't find a book called Decisive battles of Vietnam in the National Library catalogue.

If you find the citation template too confusing, feel free to leave the reference here on the talk page, and I will insert into the article--A Y Arktos\talk 00:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Source
Okay, I found the other book I got all the other infomation on, try looking for The History of the Vietnam War. I know the title sounds a bit vague, but the cover has a US Marine looking behind himself, his holding an M14(theres other pictures accompaning him too). The words Vietnam War are in red and the background is white. The other book is actually called "Vietnam The Decisive Battles". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.83.242 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006.


 * My local library has two books called The History of the Vietnam War in its catalogue, but I don't think has copies of either. It might be able to get them for me or I could try elsewhere.  One is by Douglas Welsh published 1981.  The other is by Charles Tustin Kamps published 1988.  The catalogue gives no details of cover illustrations (it does sometimes for recent acquisitions).  Can you please tell me the author?  Thanks --A Y Arktos\talk 09:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that citaiting these facts is going to be a long process.

Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War
Should this article be renamed Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War to bring it into line with Military history of Australia during World War II and Military history of Australia during World War I. Hossen27 11:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with the rename--Arktos talk 11:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, Ill do it in a while. Also I just created Australian Military History what do you think. Hossen27 11:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what the issue is now, its going to be all those protests and imprisonment for not signing up ... - are they military history? I think the article should include them.  We have much the same problem for WWI but perhaps not quite as much.  So should this be History of Aust during Vietnam War?--Arktos talk 19:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg
Image:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations still needed
This is a good general article. I first read it about a year ago when I noticed the discussion above about citations needed. This still seems to be unresolved to some extent, especially the claims in the paragraph beginning "Unlike their US counterparts, ..." I'm going to try to add some, or at least slightly reword these statements about different tactics so they are clearer.

Also, I think the sudden use of the term ANZACs in this para is potentially confusing. Maybe the 9 battalions that served (and their tours of duty) could be listed at the bottom - including the Aust/NZ battalions that were designated ANZAC battalions? Any opinions?--Nickm57 (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So - have added a section on Australian tactics, which im sure others will want to add to. however, the more I look at it the more it seems to stick out like a sore thumb. Might do some work on the preceeding section. --Nickm57 (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that I'll have a bit of a fiddle with that - both Palazzo and the official history conclude that Australian tactics were ultimately unsuccessful as they mainly targeted Communist military units and did not reduce public support for the Communists in Phuoc Tuy province. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. In the meantime, I'm about to have a go at reordering and adding to the preceeding section. See what you think.--Nickm57 (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC) I guess there's always a risk that military histories can become unnecessarily nationalistic in tone. Tried to avoid that in this revision, and have integrated most of the original text. Withdrawal section still needs work and citations.--Nickm57 (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC) And... the RAN isn't mentioned!--Nickm57 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
I'm not very experienced at this, but for the infobox, isn't it supposed to be one side for each of the sides? For this, it is not that way. --Supergeek1694 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

RAAF Sabres
It's my understanding that the Royal Australian Air Force deployed Sabre fighters to Thailand early in the conflict, to provide air cover for the United States Air Force bases there. Perhaps information on this should be added to the article? - The Bushranger (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea - the article on No. 79 Squadron RAAF (the relevant unit) has information on this deployment. The Sabres were primarily in Thailand to defend the country against attack, and arrived before there was a large scale US (and Australian) involvement in the fighting in Vietnam. The RAAF's legal advisors later determined that the squadron was, in legal terms, participating in the bombing of Northern Vietnam by protecting the USAF bases in Thailand once the war got going. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gday gentlemen, I've added a bit on this now. If your interested pls have a look and let me know if you think it is adequate. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. There's no need to cover this in detail in this article given that the deployment wasn't directly related to the war and was fairly uneventful. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers Nick. Agreed. Anotherclown (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

POV language in protests section
"Extremists" and arguably "devolved". "Degenerated" also needs elaborating, and may or may not be POV. 109.144.241.133 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Longest Australian War?
Is this really still the longest war Australia has been involved in? I am pretty sure the Afghanistan War has surpassed this?--Empire of War (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday. Of course you raise a very valid point and some rewording is definitely req'd. That said I'm not quite sure how to do this myself so hopefully other editors can provide some suggestions. In my mind at least I think the point that Vietnam was Australia's longest war up until very recently remains poignant and illustrates its place in the national consciousness, while any comparisons b/n Australian actions in Vietnam and more recent operations are crude and should be avoided by anyone with even a credible understanding of these conflicts. Whilst the involvement of Australian forces in Afghanistan has now run longer than Vietnam the scope of this commitment never approached that of the former (which req'd conscription as opposed to the far more limited commitment of all-volunteer forces). Although Vietnam also did not require mobilisation on the scale of World War II, it req'd a level of commitment far greater than that of more recent times and hence affected the lives of more of the population. The burden of operations in Afghanistan, in contrast, fell on the Regular Army and their families, and even then only a part of it. Bottom line I guess is we need to avoid undue weight. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I agree with everything AC has said about the difference in the level of commitment between Vietnam and Afghanistan. OTOH if we're talking purely about the length of time Australia was involved, then it seems fair to mention this. My feeling is that if we want to avoid attaching too much weight to it then we don't have to mention in the lead but perhaps just towards the end of the main body, e.g. that the length of Australia's presence in Vietnam was only surpassed by Afghanistan in 2012 (I think that's the year, needs citation of course). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that would work for me. Anotherclown (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

PD images from 1967
As a note, with the new year all the Australian Government-created images in the AWM's database and other sources from 1967 should now be in the public domain. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick. They would qualify for the licence on Commons, I believe, which would make them PD worldwide. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers. This prompted me to update the details of a few older images I uploaded years ago under fair use rationales that are now PD according to the AWM. Hopefully I did this right. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A particular highlight is that the iconic photos taken by Mike Coleridge during his year in Vietnam during 1967 are now PD. This includes the famous photo of Australian soldiers preparing to board US Army helicopters which graces the Vietnam War Memorial and has been used in countless other places. The version on the AWM's database is rather un-developed and is suffering some damage, but I've uploaded this slightly cropped version with tweaked colours - not sure that it's exactly right though, or whether it's better than the version the AWM used to use which is currently in this article (it's much more vibrant, but the colours also look a bit off). Searching for 'Coleridge, Michael 1967' in the AWM's database returns dozens of excellent photos. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Further on this, all 1968 government-created images are PD, and the 1969 ones will be shortly. This has brought lots of high quality images into the public domain, and should allow for the US military images which are being heavily used to generally be replaced with better ones. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War. 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/20060616010910/http://grunt.space.swri.edu/aussimem.htm to http://grunt.space.swri.edu/aussimem.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512191532/http://www.army.gov.au/Our-history/Army-History-Unit/Chief-of-Army-History-Conference/2002-Chief-of-Army-Conference to http://army.gov.au/Our-history/Army-History-Unit/Chief-of-Army-History-Conference/2002-Chief-of-Army-Conference

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) 06:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Media interpretations of the Australian involvement in the Vietnam War
I think this article should include a section about the film's inspired by the Aussie intervention in Vietnam. For example the first was The Odd Angry Shot] in 1979. And last year, there was [[Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan. Or maybe a stand alone article. The two film examples are poles apart in their interpretation of the conflict and the role that Australia played in it.81.153.37.113 (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to).  Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.