Talk:Operation Frequent Wind

1975 Thai Khac Chuong photo
No American dude punching the Vietnamese guy off the helicopter? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that photo (see here: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://neon.pictura-hosting.nl/wpp/wpp_mrx_bld/thumbs/632x632/wpp/00/JPEG_-_winners_1975/1975002.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.archive.worldpressphoto.org/search/layout/result/indeling/detailwpp/form/wpp/q/ishoofdafbeelding/true/trefwoord/photographer_formal/Thai%2520Khac%2520Chuong&usg=__0-RstFk9VlVD5cFcgUljJzX1SVk=&h=426&w=632&sz=149&hl=en&start=95&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=nv04roNibrxKjM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfall%2Bof%2Bsouth%2Bvietnam%2B1975%2Bphoto%26start%3D80%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1 ) was taken during the evacuation of Danang or Nha Trang several weeks earlier and so wouldn't belong on this page. Mztourist (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Source: . —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 20:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

50 000 in two days?
Maybe it is a typo? "U.S. tactical victory with US forces airlifting over 50,000 people to safety". Please check. Cheers, -- C opper K ettle  11:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

7000 in the helicopter evacuation - what we know as Operation Frequent Wind. 50,000 in the fixed-wing evacuation in the preceding 6 weeks. Mztourist Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No mention of the C-130 which apparently took off with more than 450 people on board, April 29th? Account says 4500kg (9900lbs) overweight. 198.53.137.96 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source and you can put it in. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Van Es photo
The article mentions, repeatedly, the iconic Hubert van Es photo of refugees lined up to climb up to a rooftop helipad, and there's even a recent photo of the building, but the famous photo itself is nowhere to be seen. How come??--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because its copyrighted by Corbis User:Mztourist talk) 10:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

C-47 accident
This accident seems to have connections to OFW. The article is outside my area of knowledge, so if an editor is able to work it in, please feel free to do so. I've already added the accident to the articles on the airline and airfield. Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was undoubtedly taking part in OFW (whether formally or informally), but as it was one of hundreds of fixed wing and rotary aircraft that left Saigon or what was left of South Vietnam around this time (a number of which crashed or were ditched at sea) its only a minor detail not really worthy of inclusion in the OFW article. I think it best belongs in the article on Air America and U-Tapao where you have placed it. Regards Mztourist (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tactical victory?
My knowledge of this subject is quite limited, but as far as I know this was an evacuation operation not a combat operation, so how did the U.S. forces won a "tactical victory". Who did the Americans defeat in this operation? I prefer a rewording of this result, to something more neutral like "tactical success".Canpark (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They evacuated all Americans and most 3rd party nationals while at the same time deterring the NVA (and the ARVN for that matter) from interfering with the evacuation. That ranks as a tactical victory.Mztourist (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was in the North Vietnamese interest not to interfere with the evacuation process, because that could provoke a military response from U.S. forces. North Vietnamese leaders were sensible enough to realise that. In such context, the claim of "tactical victory" is really overstating the achievements of the U.S. operation, and is only a matter of opinion. Unless you could provide a reliable source which specifically states that Frequent Wind was a "tactical victory", I will stand oppose to the wording which you applied. The same applies to Operation Eagle Pull.Canpark (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are one editor, many many others have raised no similar objection. Your agenda is obvious.Mztourist (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tactical Victory is standard wording on Wikipedia, while Tactical Success is not. Wording should be standardised, inventing wording on-the-fly leads to hundreds of different classifications of the outcome, and this make the status fairly meaningless, and in that case we'd be better off without an 'outcome' at all if we can't be clear-worded and concise with it. Kyteto (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue that Tactical Victory is appropriate here in that the entire undertaking WAS a military operation and that the mission goals WERE successfully completed. The tacit cooperation of the NVA (beyond the shelling and closing of the airfields to fixed-wing extractions) was a fortunate circumstance which they made for their own tactical reasons, but it does not detract from the fact that the U.S. military forces executed a successful operation under very trying circumstances. Mark Sublette (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mark Sublette I completely agree with your analysis. Actually there was limited combat - the 2 Marines being killed at the DAO Compund being the obvious example. One writer, John Guilmartin, who was a pilot of a 40th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron HH-53 during the Operation claims [] that his gunners engaged NVA machine guns on approach to the DAO Compound and that he heard over the radio that an air strike was conducted against an NVA 57mm radar-guided gun, but I have not been able to find another independent source to verify this and so did not include it on the page. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good intel there about the possible airstrike, but you are correct to hold off reporting it until a credible source can be cited. My most frustrating unreportable "truth" is the origin of the name of British guitarist Robin Trower's song "Bridge of Sighs" - corresponded with the artist via his manager via e-mail, and got a straight answer - but, as ORIGINAL RESEARCH, I can only list it on the album article's Discussion page.   Damn it!  Mark Sublette (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Trivia section
I've twice removed a wodge of trivial "in popular culture" material. It would be helpful if anyone proposing to restore it could read WP:IPC and find some proper references to demonstrate the real-world notability of anything that is here. --John (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said when I reverted your deletions, Operation Frequent Wind has passed into popular culture in a wide range of media as shown by the examples given. You need to specify which section(s) of WP:IPC you are relying on for proposing these deletions. Mztourist (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Content. It relates to WP:V, if you've ever come across that. It's one of our core policies. --John (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They are verifiable, for example the Simpsons episode is clearly cited. Rather than focussing your attention on trying to remove a small section of a page that has been there for over 2 years why don't you go and create some new pages? Mztourist (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I take it you added it yourself and nobody has ever challenged it before? Here's a clue for you; when you read serious sources on OFW (as I'm sure you do), do they tend to talk about the Simpsons mention or not? If they don't, why do you think that is? Rather than focusing on trying to preserve a small section of no encyclopedic merit, why don't you go and try to find proper sources for it (eg BBC, Guardian, CNN or a serious book, the old-fashioned type made out of paper)? Fansites and other primary sources won't work. --John (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As WP:IPC puts it, "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources." --John (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, your real problem with the examples given is that you don't think they're notable enough? The Simpsons is a (world-)widely-seen program that, after over 20 years on the air, is pervasive in popular culture in its own right. I'm not familiar with the Nick show, but 5 seasons and a movie suggest it was at least somewhat popular. I do remember China Beach. All three seem like reasonable examples. If you have better ones, fine, but I see no reason why these should not stand. (I did remove the Miss Saigon reference because the original editor could not verify it and I could not find a source for it.) I'd like to see this resolved to nom the article for GA again, as the only complaint by the previous reviewer was the cn tags. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 12:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This section should be removed, as there is no indication of the significance of these entries. Per WP:IPC, "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." It also fails the three-point test and contravenes what Wikipedia is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Most In Popular Culture sections are simply lists of where the relevant topic appears in books, movies, television and music. Please give some examples of military pages where the In Popular Culture section is supported by "reliable secondary sources". Mztourist (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * RAF Northolt, Horses in World War I, and Battle of the Alamo are quick examples. When reliable secondary sources are unavailable, the editors of most high-quality military articles exclude such material. See also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As another example, see the Battle of Agincourt article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * RAF Northolt just states where the base has been used in film and television, how does that indicate its "cultural reference is generally significant"? Horses in World War I, I assume you are referring to the Legacy section? If you read it, it effectively just lists out memorials and paintings of horses in WWII, arguably the number of these testifies as to the significance. Battle of Alamo, I assume you are referring to the Legacy section? I don't argue that the battle was culturally significant, but in my read the only statement that evidences its cultural significance is "there can be little doubt that most Americans have probably formed many of their opinions on what occurred at the Alamo not from books, but from the various movies made about the battle." otherwise it is generally just details of books, movies and songs about the battle, longer but not materially different than what exists for Operation Frequent Wind. Battle of Agincourt again I wouldn't dispute its cultural significance, but basically the Popular Representations section lists out books (Henry V is of course very convincing) and films. My fundamental point is that the IPC or Legacy section tends to be a listing of representations of the topic in popular culture, rather than a discussion of the cultural impact of the topic and the more numerous, tangible (statues, paintings etc) and older (Shakespeare) those representations are the more credible the section is deemed to be.Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But now you're moving the goalposts: the comment to which the examples were a response asked for "some examples of military pages where the In Popular Culture section is supported by "reliable secondary sources"", as inclusion in secondary sources is an indicator of significance. The examples I gave fulfill that request; this article does not. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found to support the material in this article, it should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not moving any goalposts, just pointing out that the examples you gave don't satisfy the criteria you cited. Surely you can see that the IPC for RAF Northolt is just a listing of movies and tv shows that have used it as a setting? There is nothing there that says for example "RAF Northolt's place in popular culture has been affirmed by ...." And is Bristow (the reference cited for Northolt) really a secondary source or is it an official history and therefore a primary source? Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The criteria I cited was "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment". The examples I cited use reliable secondary sources; this article does not. Do you intend to attempt to find reliable secondary sources to support the material in this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm no RAF Northolt doesn't and nor do the others, as I said these are just recitations of where the topic appears Mztourist (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to attempt to find reliable secondary sources to support the material in this article, or do you not? The current sourcing in that section here is abysmal. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a source for the Simpsons and reinstated Miss Saigon with sourceMztourist (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

All: I'd be keen to know folks think if we're likely to be able to resolve this issue soon, or whether it would be better to close the current GAR for the time being. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved the Photo section into IPC and am awaiting any further comments from the authors who have a problem with the sectionMztourist (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to add reliable secondary sources for the other entries, please. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from the Simpsons I am unable to locate reliable secondary sources (though the Hey Arnold Christmas episode features prominently in online commentary), I reiterate my view that this section is being held to a different standard than many other pages on Wikipedia Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nikki - are you content with the sourcing as it stands now? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are still a few problems: most of the Miss Saigon paragraph isn't sourced by the given citation - only the last sentence is, and that is a bit closely paraphrased for comfort ("considered legal action against the show, but decided against it" vs "considered legal action but decided against it"). I don't have access to the Richmond source, so can't evaluate how much of the Simpsons paragraph is supported; the other source supports only the quote and is of unclear reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thunderstorms
"Thunderstorms increased the difficulty of helicopter operations." Are there references that explain to what degree this was a problem? --20yardsaway (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the Marine history by Dunham.Mztourist (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not close enough

 * " Japanese journalists, concerned that they would not recognize the tune, had to get someone to sing it to them".(ref name=Pilger/>)

Needs clarification; notability not demonstrated. --20yardsaway (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This article passed GA, I don't agree with the extensive edits you are making and will review and revert them when I have some spare time. Mztourist (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

HMM-164 and other Marine Corps squadrons
I didn't see HMM-164 mentioned as one of the squadrons involved. HMM-164 had the call sign of Swift and played a significant roll. A photo of Swift-22 was the CH-46 Sea Knight often used showing the "last helicopter out." I flew with both HMM-164 and HMM-165 in 1972. Our command ship was the Blue Ridge. the same command ship for Frequent Wind.

I'm not sure how HMM-462 & 463 tied in. The 400 series are usually Marine Corps Reserve squadrons. I have seen the squadron numbers on the helicopters in videos. This doesn't mean those squadrons participated, and they probably did not participate, in the evacuation. It's important to understand how the air element of a Marine MEU, and a Marine MAU at that time, is organized. The air squadron was based around an HMM squadron, today it would be a VMM squadron of MV-22 Ospreys. At that time it was organized around an HMM squadron of CH-46 Sea Knights. When deployed to sea, the HMM squadron picks up a couple of CH-53 Sea Stallions, a couple of AH-1 Cobras, and a couple of UH-1 Huey gunships for support. The squadron is then called HMM-xxx reinforced. The CH-53's were probably attached to either HMM-164 or HMM-165. I have never seen a squadron of CH-53's aboard ship as a unit. I know people who were in HML-367 at the time. The had helicopters attached to HMM-164 and HMM-165. They also sent helos to the Philippines in anticipation of refugees. You can't say a certain Marine squadron was involved in an operation just because you see that designation on the helicopter. You will never see a squadron of Ch-53's, AH-1's or UH-1's operating from aboard ship as a unit. They are a part of an HMM or VMM reinforced squadron.

Most of these squadrons were from MAG-36 and transferred to MAG-39 for this operation. A terse item: https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2015/05/operation-frequent-wind# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.148.28 (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * HMM-462 & 463 are mentioned in the official US Navy history, while HMM-162 is not and so HMM-164 is not specifically listed among the units forming part of Task Force 76, although presumably it was part of MAG-39. In the Embassy section it is specifically mentioned that it was a CH-46 of HMM-164 that lifted the last Marines from the Embassy roof. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Operation Frequent Wind. 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/20110724082745/http://www.ussbausell.com/page4.html to http://www.ussbausell.com/page4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101105213959/http://www.utdallas.edu/library/collections/speccoll/Leeker/history/Vietnam3.pdf to http://www.utdallas.edu/library/collections/speccoll/Leeker/history/Vietnam3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225121213/http://www.3rdmaw.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/8112/Article/89248/lady-ace-09-unveiled-at-aviation-museum.aspx to http://www.3rdmaw.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/8112/Article/89248/lady-ace-09-unveiled-at-aviation-museum.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125040332/http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F13.html to http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F13.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713163516/http://www.kohtang.com/Multimedia/21stSOSUSAF.pdf to http://www.kohtang.com/Multimedia/21stSOSUSAF.pdf

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) 09:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

U.S. operational victory
Howdy. Given that the American objective of Frequent Wind was to evacuate mass civilians, and not to execute military incentives against North Vietnamese forces, is it safe to assume there should be a mention of the U.S. operational victory? I would think landing troops, evacuating thousands of civilians, then withdrawing, would be a success if that is the stated goal of the operation. MarkMcCain (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, victory is binary with defeat and no-one was defeated in the operation. The operation was a success and the infobox addresses that and so should be left as is. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mztourist. Smallchief (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Total Figures/Update
Due to recent political events in Afghanistan, this page is probably seeing heavy traffic. Seeing alot of simply wrong estimates of evacuees, since the figure for Operation Frequent Wind as given by the USAF is closer to 130,000. 7,000 were evacuated through RVN/US State helicopters, but this is not the figure for the whole. However many people are pulling the 7,000 figure, likely after reading this page.

See the official USAF monograph on the evacuation. https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/28/2001330140/-1/-1/0/last_flight_from_saigon2.pdf
 * Frequent Wind was the helicopter evacuation only. The fixed wing evacuation, Frequent Wind and sea evacuation totalled over 130,000, this is all clear on the page with no further changes necessary. Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)