Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 18

NVA Strength facts
I really would like to know how come these numbers are inaccurrate?

First, the Tet Offensive has more troops than listed in the Vietnam war article. Second, during different parts of the war, there were different amounts of Vietconc/North Vietnamese troops throughout the war. Tet had 595,000 NVA forces, while 80,000 Vietcongs were there, according to History Channel. Allied had 1,000,000 troops. Should the Vietnam War have the total numbers of troops, based on what I saw from all of the other wikipedia articles about the Vietnam war? Look at all the Vietnam battle articles then tell if I was right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXF971 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For data on the Viet Cong numbers one can refer to the Phoenix and CORDS programs (q.v.), which kept track of the VC and purposefully sought to eradicate the VC using various methods; hence they would keep accounts. Here's some brief data:  During Tet in 1968 the North Vietnamese suffered 32,000 KIA and 5,800 captured (NVA and VC).  Of the remaining 80,000 Viet Cong who survived Tet, 1,950 defected, 2,250 were killed, and 10,800 captured by the end of the year.  By the end of 1971, the number of "neutralized" Viet Cong was 17,000 who had accepted amnesty, 20,000 killed, 28,000 captured, and many thousands more fleeing to sanctuaries in Cambodia.  Large areas of Vietnam were now "Viet Cong free" and the NVA was now forced to turn to conventional warfare.  The Viet Cong, with it's power broken throughout most of the South, took little part in the armor-heavy offensives of 1972 and 1975.  --From "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling Publ., NY, 2006, pgs. 229-231.  So there were 80,000 Viet Cong after Tet...  209.77.230.226 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Combatants
We need a source for the figures presented for the NVA it seems very high (its a massive junp). Was there ever 2 million communist forces in the field at one time? This [] seems to indicate that at its highest (in 1971, the newly inserted ppoint of greatest steength) it was around 230,000Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Going back to p. 428 and looking through the table, I see the following peak-month strength estimates:


 * The peak of 287,465 coming in Jan 1968, a few months before the March 1968 Tet offensive. That's a lot less than the unsupported figures currently in the article. I'd say remove the unsupported figures and replace them with supported figures from this source and possibly also other figures supported by other cited reliable sources. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is lower (by some way) then the lowest estimate we currently have. I will however leave it another few hours to allow other sources. I am assuming that the edd who made these changes was working from a source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancilery to this. How are the figures worked out, The USA seems to represent the high point whilst austraila looks very high (they has one brigade). This whole Info box section needs re-working. So a simple question do we list total number of cambatants or highest commitment?Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC).
 * It looks like this may need more space to cover properly than is available in the infobox. Once there's a handle on what is supportable, how much of a difference there is between supporting sources, and how the info might be presented, perhaps the article should have a short section on this and the infobox should refer readers to that section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Estimates are that 35,000 to 50,000 Communists were killed in the Tet Offensive. (The Americans knew Tet was coming, they were expecting some sort of Battle of the Bulge by the North.)  This troop loss would be reflected in the data tables, using a graph showing troop strength plotted against time.  During the Easter Offensive Giap had 40,000 troops KIA also.  Giap would throw men away needlessly, so data of troop strength would invariably reflect Giap's losses.  69.104.55.67 (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What reliable source did you get the 35,000 to 50,000 range figure from?
 * See P. 434-437 here for one such graph. However, some consensus is needed about what figures supported by what reliable sources should be presented before considering the mode of presentation (prose, table? graph? other? combination?). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one source: During Tet "the VC suffered disastrous casualities among their regular soldiers and especially their political cadre, perhaps as many as 40,000 dead".  --From "Eyewitness Vietnam", Gilmore & Giangreco, 2006 Sterling Publishing, NY, pg. 152.  Here's another source:  By February 3, Tet was over, "leaving between 35,000 and 50,000 Communists dead and wounded.  The Americans lost 1,500 killed, the ARVN 3,000 dead".  --From "Vietnam War Experience", Souter & Giangreco, 2007, Barnes & Noble, pg. 33.  What percentage of North Vietnamese soldiers were draftees, one wonders, since they were suffering these very high attrition rates?  Amongst Americans, the draft rate was less than 25%.  69.104.55.67 (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Before discusing casulaties can we decide what the Number of combatants refers to. Total comited over the whole conflict or highest comitment at one time?Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's also important to recognize that the intelligence estimates you're citing here count only what MACV considered combatants, while your US figures include ALL troops in theater, not just combat troops. The MACV figures also don't include support and garrison troops in Laos or Cambodia. If you're wanting a more accurate picture, I'd suggest going with peak troop strength (to include support troops, since that's automatic with the US) instead of skewing the picture by using the current model.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By way of illumination, though the US had 2.6 million troops (boots on the ground) in Vietnam over the course of the war (3.4 million in SE Asia overall), the highest number of troops in country at a given time for the US was 500,000 (with another 250,000 attached TDY (Temporary Duty), as I recall. The number of North Vietnamese combatants in the field at any given time would seem to be around a couple hundred thousand, as the aforementioned numbers attest.  So the war was being carried on by troops numbering in the hundreds of thousands, not millions.  69.104.55.67 (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So do you have a source that says that the NVA had some 2 million support troops? Also at its peak the US had (according to Dupey and Dupey) 625,866 (as of 27/3/69) around 100,000 more then the figure we give. It also gives a figure of 72.000 (19669) for the FW forces (excluding RVN at 1 million) and total communist strength at 1 million (estimated), half the amount that I have contested.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I can find one (in fact, a quick search of Global Securityturns up the figure of 100,000 personnel at any given time working for Group 559 - and they just worked on the trail network in Laos). But the point I was making is that your basic comparison is flawed. The MACV numbers for NVA troop strength don't include support troops, while every US figure does. To get a full picture of the North's commitment to the conflict you have to widen the scope.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you mean widen thed scope? include all support personel (we would need sources, not our own extrapelations) or imnclude the total number of combatants for the whole conflict?. I agree the figures we have an not all thast accurate (as I have pointed out all the figures we are using for all sides seem low). I am not comparing numbers I am asking how we improve a clearly flawed set of figures. The way we do not do it is to iinsert random conjecture based upon differing criteria for each side (for eample it could be argued that you would have to include all US service personel who supplied support to US operations, including storesman in fort bragg). Which of course raises a new question do we include only in thearter personel?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the US figures you're using DO include support personnel in country, while those that you have for the NVA do NOT consider support personnel. If you want to start with a basic improvement, change the title from combatants to something else (say military personnel, for example). And the figures for trail personnel aren't conjecture...any more that using a MACV intel report to determine NVA strength is conjecture. MACV intel estimates were concerned mainly with what we would call rifle or foxhole strength (in other words personnel in the line infantry companies), while the US numbers count everyone who was stationed in RVN (including mechanics at Long Binh, clerks in MACV Saigon...you get the idea).Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They figure from the Laos section of the Ho Chi Min trail is not, but extrapolation from the figure would be. Nor did I disagree that the figures are dubious and incomplete. What I am asking is what figures do we use. Total forces deployed or combat strength? Maximum strength or greatest at point strength? We can argue about exact figures latter but least try and establish some kind of universal criteria we can use first. So what kind of strength do you think the info box should list?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would aim for a generic "troops in country" title, and present the figures with proper notation. It will be hard to determine exact US combat strength (not total strength) without (gasp) original research, as the line strength of various units isn't often listed in anything other than original returns. It will be hard to get total NVA deployed strength, and then you run into the question of counting (or not counting) VC troops and the like. If you present "Troops in Country" and then qualify it with a note about inexact sources and reporting, I would think that would be a good and workable start. There just needs to be a mechanism to let people know the limitations of the sources, IMO.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK but you have not specified if you mean an agrigate for the whole duration or at a given point.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aggregate for the whole duration is tough. I'd suggest that we use the strength figures for 1968, since when you're dealing with the US combat involvement that's considered the peak and/or midpoint.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK so now we can work on the figures, sources. USA seems fine. ANZAC though is way off. Also we need better sourcing for the NVA.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Australian and New Zealand figures given in the infobox, whilst fairly accurate, represent the total number of personnel that served in the conflict, not the number deployed at any one time. AFAIK total Australian strength peaked at around 8,000 pers in 1968. Anotherclown (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have a sources (I have one for 69, but if we accept the 68 date then we need a source for that).Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a copy of Shelby Stanton's Vietnam Order of Battle that should have the information for 1968. Stanton also includes numbers for other nations.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a copy too, but we have a lot of work going on so I have no idea where it is. But I seem to recall that (for the ANZACs at least) it only lists units, not numbers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Stanton does give numbers for ANZAC. It's something like 6-7,000 for the Australians and a few hundred for NZ in 1968 (these are located in either Appendix 1 or 2...I looked last night but don't have the book in front of me at the moment). The US numbers are about 536,000 at the end of 1968. I looked up some sources on the NVA, and I did find figures for the end of 1967 (works out to about 170k in SVN, but it also notes that headquarters and support units were NOT included in the estimates).Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know if this will help, but it is common knowledge that during 1972 the NVA had thirteen regular combat divisions of which twelve were unleashed into South Vietnam during March of 1972. Additionally, the following source provides information pertaining to U.S. support and combat troops in Vietnam: In so far as U.S. troop levels were concerned, by the end of 1967 the number of U.S. military personnel in Vietnam had climbed to 486,000, rising to 536,000 during. . . 1968. During April of 1969 the number of American troops in Vietnam reached its zenith of 543,300. In regards Army combat and support roles in Vietnam, one author (with supporting sources) has written: “If one considers that South Vietnam was slightly smaller than the State of Florida, and if one realizes that only 22% of all the Army soldiers in Vietnam were in combat roles, with the remaining 78% providing support, then this meant that during 1965 less than 40,000 soldiers were actually out in the jungle trying to kill the enemy. Some contend that only 15% (vice 22%) of the soldiers serving in Vietnam were actually in combat arms (10% serving in the infantry, and 5% serving in the artillery and armor). However this 15% figure does not take into account medics, helicopter pilots, and combat engineers, which many contend should also be added to the mix, so I have elected to stay with 22% as being a realistic, albeit conservative, percentage of those soldiers in Vietnam at any given time that were considered to have served in combat roles. I have heard of people using higher ratios than 4 to 1 in referring to support troops, some have used ratios as high as 9 to 1, but I assume they must be focusing on the 10% infantry figure, whereas I consider the 4 to 1 ratio as being more realistic, based on the 22% figure of soldiers serving in combat roles. In addition to the three combat branches (Infantry, Armor, and Artillery), the Army has thirteen other branches (Air Defense Artillery, Adjutant General Corps (admin), Aviation, Chemical Corps, Corps of Engineers, Finance Corps, Medical Service Corp (of which its medics served in the field with the infantry), Military Intelligence, Military Police Corps, Ordnance, Quartermaster Corps (supply), Signal Corps, and Transportation) as well as some additional specialties, such as chaplains and lawyers (Judge Advocate General’s Corps). If only 22% of the Army troops who served in Vietnam were in combat roles, then, for every soldier out in the jungle seeking to engage the enemy, there were four. . . [soldiers] in the rear providing support by driving trucks or working as clerks or supply guys, and those guys might pull some guard duty around the division base camp perimeter, but the fact of the matter is, that of all the Army soldiers who actually went to Vietnam, only about one in five was out in the field hunting the enemy, and if you take away the medics, helicopter pilots, and engineers from this mix, then only about one in seven soldiers in Vietnam was actually in the combat arms.” Source: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, pp. 102-103. [footnoted sources: Statement of Vietnam Veterans of America (cites the 15% figure), submitted to the Subcommittee on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the Institute of Medicine on 6 July 2006, and Melvin R. Laird, “Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam.” (cites 10% infantry figure) Article, Vol 84, Number 6, (NY: Foreign Affairs, November/December 2005)] Troop levels were cited on pages 160 and 204.72.197.57.247 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is some good info on troop strength, however we still have to look at the number of troops who were in South Vietnam on Temporary Duty (TDY). As I recall, we were limited to about 500,000 troops in-country on PCS orders (Permanent Change of Station) but we supplemented this with TDY troops which brought the number up to around 750,000.  I recall the war peaked in 1969, because that's when President Nixon started taking troops out of Vietnam (the first several thousand troops to be returned, though, were Marines who were already due to be rotated back to the States, so there's some political chicanery involved there).  However, it started the exodus.  A lot of troops were TDY in Vietnam for 6 months or more, so there's more ambiguity--were they TDY or PCS at this point?  The orders would say TDY, consequently they wouldn't be annotated as PCS for the historical record.  A lot of troops went to Vietnam on an emergency basis ("we'll cut your orders later") and there is no record of them being in Vietnam, which creates havoc for them when they apply for Veteran's benefits later.  Also, if you stayed more than 60 days, then those days would be taken off your overseas tour (say if you were stationed at Guam, Japan, Philippines, etc.) so eventually TDY's were limited to 53 days to avoid the ruse of troops "accidentally" missing their flight and staying in Vietnam over the 60 day mark, thus getting back to the States and their families that much sooner. (But after a couple of days at their home base, they'd get another set of TDY orders sending them right back to Vietnam, so they were actually "stationed" in Vietnam.)  Then we have the lack of a front line, which meant there was no safe rear echelon area and almost all troops were subjected to being fired upon (155 mm rockets and so forth).  And troops pulled double duty--their normal workday might consist of working on aircraft radar but then they'd volunteer to be crew on combat flights and get shot at by SAM missiles, then go back to their regular jobs the next day.  Or they might volunteer to be gunners on a Huey gunship.  So there's a great deal of ambiguity, and the situation is like a bar of slippery soap.  (Sailors offshore would be involved in fire missions from their battleships but weren't fired on in return so were they in combat?  B-52 crews flying out of Guam and dropping bombs were not stationed in Vietnam but were fired upon, etc.)  We could break it down by MOS (military specialty) since it was the grunts in the field who sustained the brunt of the ground fighting, but this is the bureaucratic approach and would not represent the actuality of the war in Vietnam.  So it's a perplexing issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.155.54 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets just leave it at total commitemtn in 1968.Slatersteven (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Helicopters used by US is missing at least four
Omitted were the OH-13, OH-23,OH-6,OH-58 that were used as scout and spotter aircraft. Also the first Army large troop transports were CH-21, H-34, CH-37, and the Marines had CH-46. There were a few others but these were major players. You can see the list of aircraft lost at the VN Helicopter Pilot's Assn website. http://vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf I can testify that the first four OH's were there as I flew them. We lost 842 OH-6's and a total of 1152 Observation Helicopters. Please add at least the first four. R. Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasconc (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Italian peace efforts of 1965-68
Hi, I'd like to add mention of the Italian-led peace efforts of 1965-68: Wehere could these information be added in the page? Thanks, --Dans (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The mission of Giorgio La Pira to Hanoi in April 1965 (see M. Sica, La Pira e la ricerca della pace in Vietnam, Il Politico, Pv 2004)
 * 2) The Operation Marigold, a Polish-Italian attempt to reach a compromise, thanks to the Italian ambassador in Saigon, Giovanni D'Orlandi, and his Polish counterpart, Janusz Lewandowski (member of the International Control Committee), in the so-called Operation Marigold. The Marigold peace efforts were supported by the Italian foreign minister Amintore Fanfani. The final compromise reached between D'Orlandi and Lewandowski in September included: free elections under international control before 2 years; a South Vietnam government including representatives of the extreme parts (general Ky and the NLF), and keeping to a policy of neutrality; a final withdrawal of the American troops. The peace efforts were halted by the reprise of the American bombing over Hanoi on the 2 and 4 December 1966 (see Mario Sica, Marigold non fiorì; Florence, 1991).
 * 3) The Operation Killy, trough Giorgio d'Orland, the PCI member Carlo Galluzzi and the North Vietnam ambassador to Prague, Pham Van Su.

Cuba?
Should we add Cuba under communist forces as according to the Cuban section in the article there was a small Cuban presense? Spongie555 (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given its not proven they were there (and neither they nor the Veitnames admit they were there) no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Highest estimate"
Saying the N viet's causalities being the "highest estimate" is like saying the Holocaust deniers' estimates are the highest. Even those who made the estimates would probably faint seeing their estimates being labels as highest. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Effect on the United States -- Section
Presently, the first two sentences of the last paragraph of the section titled, Effect on the United States, read as follows:

“More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War. By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed,[2] more than 150,000 were wounded, and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled.[257].”

Due to information in Archive 16 and on the present discussion page, I would like to take a stab at re-writing these two sentences (which now becomes three sentences), with the hope that the Wiki editors will accept them and include them in the article. They would read as follows:

“A total of 3,403,100 personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, which includes flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters). From this total, 2,644,000 U.S. personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam. [Footnoted Source: VFW Magazine April 1997]. By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed,[2] and 303,644 U.S. military personnel were wounded (153,303 who required hospitalization, and 150,341 who did not require hospitalization but rather received treatment at field aid stations. [Footnoted Source: CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 -- here is the website for the CRS report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf].” 72.197.57.247 (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops! One must say 58,220 military personnel died (vice 58,220 soldiers were killed) -- soldiers just refers to the Army, but of course deaths occurred in all of the Services, and 10,786 deaths were non-hostile, meaning they died from other causes besides combat, which included illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, etc., so it is more accurate to use the word "died" instead of the word "killed."72.197.86.130 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Preparations to 1949
Here it says that North Vietnam was supposed to be occupied by nationalist Chinese forces in 1945- and then nothing about what happened to said forces. Did they ever show up? If not, why?
 * Where does it say that? -- Esemono (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "the major powers came to an agreement that British troops would occupy the south while Nationalist Chinese forces would move in from the north".Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've added some info on that and cited a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox (Casualties and Losses for U.S.) and Effect on the United States -- Section
I note that Archive 16 contains corrections, and authoritative sources, to U.S. casualties and losses (58,220 dead vice 58,159, and 303,644 wounded vice 303,635 [153,303 wounded who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 wounded from shrapnel or small arms fire who received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units]). Will this information in Archive 16 find its way into the article? 72.197.57.247 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am still hoping Wiki editors will make the correction to the Infobox regarding U.S. casualties and losses. It should be corrected to read 58,220 dead vice 58,159, and 303,644 wounded vice 303,635. The Department of Veterans Affairs fact sheet, dated May 2010, confirms the number of American deaths in Vietnam at 58,220 (10,786 non-hostile deaths and 47,434 hostile deaths). The Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division, Defense Manpower Data Center, had provided me these numbers back in December of 2007 when I was working on my book, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173. Additionally, the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 states a total of 303,644 U.S. military personnel were wounded in Vietnam. There were 153,303 who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 (wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire who received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). Additional detail is provided in Archive 16.72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I medited the article to use the 58,220 figure, with a supporting note and cites. Someone else may wish to improve my edit, which is pretty wordy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In regards improving the edit, you might wish to change Annotation 2 to read:

The figure of 58,220 U.S. deaths comes from the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, as well as from a Department of Veterans fact sheet dated May 2010, and the book Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173. The figure of 303,644 U.S. wounded comes from the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010.

The reason I cite the book Crucible Vietnam is because the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division, Defense Manpower Data Center, provided the author a detailed breakdown of the 58,220 figure back in 2007.

Notes 5, 6, 7, and 8 would need to be rearranged. You only need two notes: 5 (for deaths) and 6 (for wounded) to read as follows:

Note 5 (for U.S. deaths) should be corrected to read:

The Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, as well as a Department of Veterans fact sheet dated May 2010, and A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173.

Note 6 (for U.S. wounded) should be corrected to read:

CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010.72.197.86.130 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, somewhere in the article, it is important to make mention of the fact that of 303,644 U.S. military personnel wounded in Vietnam, 153,303 required hospitalization, while another 150,341 (wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire) received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units. Otherwise, there will be confusion, because oftentimes historians just pick up the 153,303 wounded who required hospitalization, and they often neglect the other 150,341 wounded who were treated at field aid stations and sent back to their units.72.197.57.247 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see you made the correction for U.S. deaths 58,220, but you did not correct for U.S. wounded, which should read 303,644 and not 303,635.72.197.57.247 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that the edit had other problems as well, which I had missed seeing yesterday in my rush to move on to something else I had to do. I've redone the edit -- though not precisely as you suggest. I've also made some other fixes, including
 * removed citation of "A. T. Lawrence, author of ..." as not verifiable
 * moved ref for the cite of The Personnel Missing  from the wounded figure to the missing figure
 * Again, improve it as may be appropriate. I'll leave it to someone else to add the other figures you mentioned. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In Annotations 2, I don’t see why, now knowing the accurate numbers of 58,220 deaths and 303,644 wounded, it is necessary to include the last sentence that reads as follows: “Some other sources give different figures (e.g. the 2005/2006 documentary Heart of Darkness: The Vietnam War Chronicles 1945–1975 cited elsewhere in this article gives a figure of 58,159 U.S. deaths [5], The 2007 book Vietnam Sons: For Some, the War Never Ended gives a figure of 58,226. [9]).”  This simply leads to unnecessary confusion. The info box still cites 303,635 instead of 303,644 wounded. You mention that you removed the citation of "A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam as not verifiable, however if you dial up Crucible Vietnam Appendix A on Google, you will see the reference to 58,220 American deaths, which is cited in three other places in the book.72.197.57.247 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC) If you go online to Google ebooks and call up the book, Crucible Vietnam, and go to the search option and input “58,220,” it will come up with all four entries in the book concerning total U.S. deaths in Vietnam.72.197.57.247 (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I read into that a presumption that sourcing from particular sources indicates accuracy and factualness, and a view that information of such accuracy and factualness is worthy of inclusion, and a further view that conflicting information (clearly being neither accurate nor factual) should be excluded. I may have that wrong, but that's my read.
 * Re accuracy and factualness ("Truth" with a capital T, one might say), see the initial sentence of WP:V. What we have here which is verifiable is that several sources, all of which might generally be considered to be reliable, give somewhat conflicting figures. We've chosen to use figures from one particular source. If there were a serious dispute about which figures were correct, WP:DUE would require us to present all significant sets of disputed figures &mdash; and would require us not to take a position concerning which are accurate and which are inaccurate.
 * I don't think that's the case here. What we have is figures from different sources, compiled at different times, by different sets of compilers, probably from differing information sources, and probably using differing selection criteria. I don't think that WP:DUE requires us to present, or even to mention, the differing figures in this particular case.
 * However, other sources giving different figures than the ones we've chosen to present do exist, and some of them are cited in this article (cited in support of assertions other than the figures we're discussing here). Persons looking at those other sources are likely to come across figures there differing from the figures which we've chosen to present, and might wonder at the differences. I think a clear statement that sources other than the one we've chosen to use do contain different figures is useful. Other editors might feel differently about the usefulness of such a statement. In this case, it's not a big deal to me either way. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The accurate figures of 58,220 U.S. Military deaths in Vietnam and 303,644 wounded are set forth in the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 (here is the website for the CRS report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf). These casualty figures are substantiated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and a sourced book in which the author received casualty figures directly from the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, who is responsible for assembling these figures, together these sources create an indisputable affirmation of the accuracy of these casualty figures. It seems important to get this right in the Wiki article. For too long there have been inaccuracies concerning these casualty figures among historians; here is an opportunity for Wiki to get it right and to serve as a reputable source for those seeking accurate U.S. casualty figures. I still don't see any reason, at this point, to include sources providing other numbers, when those cited above are the most recent and incontestable.72.197.86.130 (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoping the Wiki editors will make the correction and change the number of wounded in the info box from 303,635 to 303,644 (the references do not need to be changed). The most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 verifies this number, though you have to go into the Report and put the two wounded categories together (153,303 who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 who were wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire who were not hospitalized but rather received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units).72.197.57.247 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Annotations -- #5 is incorrect and needs to be corrected
Annotations #5 states: “On 6 May 1965 the first American combat troops the, Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division, are sent to Vietnam to protect the Da Nang airport."  This is not correct.

Marines first arrived in Vietnam on March 8, 1965. I wrote the following in my book, Crucible Vietnam, on page 27: “on the 8th of March 1965, 3,500 Marines of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, the lead element of the 3rd Marine Division, stormed ashore near Da Nang, about 100 miles to the south of the DMZ, to become the first U.S. ground combat troops to set foot upon Vietnamese soil (the 1st Marine Division would be dispatched to Vietnam one year later).” Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 27. In the first paragraph of the section titled, Escalation and ground war, the issue is handled correctly (though it could be expanded a bit), however there is no footnote. And when you ping on the Annotation #5 it takes the reader to the section titled, Exit of the Americans: 1973–1975, whereas it should be addressing the section titled, Escalation and ground war, and the arrival in Vietnam of the Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division.72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * other sources support the 8th march date too. Corrected. its not good formk to cite yourself though.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I should have looked for other supporting sources. It’s just that I feel that the accuracy of these details, as well as correct casualty figures, are so important for us Vietnam Vets and for the historical record, which will be here when we are gone. Please excuse me.72.197.57.247 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Annotations #5 should be corrected to read “9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Third Marine Division” vice “Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division.”72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If supported, and as IAW WP:DUE.
 * The currently-cited supporting sources say (1) "Battalion landing team 1/3 (1st Battalion, 3rd Marines) begins landing at Danang air base. At the same time, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing deploys from Japan and Okinawa to Vietnam to support U.S. Marine Corps operations in I Corps.", and (2) "The first American ground combat troops landed in South Vietnam during March 1965, specifically the U.S. Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division, deployed to Vietnam from Okinawa to defend the Da Nang, Vietnam, airfield." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are three Marine Corps websites that support the usage of 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade vice Third Marine Regiment, as only one of the battalions, 1/3, in the Expeditionary Brigade was from the Third Marine Regiment. The Marine Corps consistently cites the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade as the Marine unit that arrived in Vietnam on 8 March 1965.

www website tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Chronologies/Campaign/Vietnam_War_1962-1975.htm, states as follows: “8 March 1965 - The 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB), commanded by Brigadier General Frederick J. Karch, landed at Da Nang, Vietnam. The brigade consisted of two Marine battalions, one arriving by air and the other over the beach.”

www website tecom.usmc.mil/HD/This_Month_History.htm, states as follows: “8 March 1965: The 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade landed at DaNang, Republic of Vietnam as the first U.S. ground combat troops to be committed to that conflict. The 3,500 men arrived both across the beach with Battalion Landing Team 3/9, and at DaNang Airfield with Battalion Landing Team 1/3.”

The www website leatherneck.com, the Marine Corps Community for Marine Veterans states as follows: “March 8, 1965 - The 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) commanded by BGen Frederick J. Karch landed at Da Nang, Vietnam, consisting of two Marine battalions, one arriving by air and over the beach.”72.197.57.247 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven--Re the "Crucible Vietnam" citation above, I think it's very good form for a Vietnam veteran to cite himself. Who else is going to know more about the Vietnam War?  No one.  I wish more Vietnam vets would contribute to this site.  Then we'd get some real insight.  Perhaps a special section with quotes from Viet vets telling the "actual factual" should be added to improve the article.  After all, do I believe what the academic pedants who were never in Vietnam have to say about the war?  No.  And as Lawrence says, after Vietnam vets are gone, who's going to tell the real story?  Hollywood?  Here it is, 150 years since the American Civil War and over at the Wiki site on the Civil War people still can't agree on what caused the Civil War.66.122.184.111 (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a seemingly minor correction, for instance, but a critically important one in aerial warfare--the picture in the article stating a B-66 was dropping bombs with four F-105's may be incorrect, it may actually be an EB-66, providing ECM or other such electronic assistance rather than dropping bombs, which makes sense. One of the F-105's doesn't have camo paint yet so the picture happened early in the war.  I think only a Vietnam vet would actually know the tactical flight arrangement used.  A history professor with a Phd would be clueless while a Vietnam vet in the USAF would know.  66.122.184.111 (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that the caption sourced from here which was provided when the photo was uploaded (click on the image in the article to see that caption) reads

""'Flying under radar control with a B-66 Destroyer, Air Force F-105 Thunderchief pilots bomb a military target through low clouds over the southern panhandle of North Viet Nam. June 14, 1966.'Italiano: Volando sotto il controllo radar di un Douglas EB-66 Destroyer, alcuni Republic F-105D Thunderchief bombardano un bersaglio militare nel Nord Vietnam attraverso nuvole basse in una missione pathfinder (nella stagione dei monsoni non c'era modo di avere visibilità dei bersagli, gli EB-66 guidavano, grazie al loro radar, i bombardieri fino al bersaglio, dove questi sganciavano alla cieca in seguito alla segnalazione dell'aereo guida). 14 Giugno 1966, foto scattata dal tenente colonnello Cecil J. Poss, 20th TRS USAF, da un McDonnell RF-101C Voodoo.""


 * According to Google Language Tools, the Italian translates approximately to

""Flying under the radar control of a Douglas EB-66 Destroyer, Republic F-105D Thunderchief some bomb a military target through low clouds in northern Vietnam in a pathfinder mission (in the monsoon season there was no way to have visibility of the targets, the EB-66 were leading, thanks to their radar, the bombers to the target, where they dropped blindly following the recommendation of the plane guide). June 14, 1966, photo taken by Lieutenant Colonel Cecil J. Poss, USAF 20th TRS, a McDonnell RF-101C Voodoo.""


 * Note also
 * this edit which changed "EB-66" in an earlier version of the caption to "B-66", and this still-earlier edit which changed it from "B-66" to "EB-66", and
 * this earlier edit which modified a different part of the caption, and this edit which added the mention of the EB-66 to the caption in the article, and
 * this edit which labeled the F-105s, and this edit which modified the caption without identifying the aircraft, and
 * this edit which added the image with the caption "U.S. bombers dropping explosives.". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * However, there are those pesky Wikipedia policies on original research and verifiability to think about. Also, a cite of is not a VN Vet citing himself, it's a cite of a book authored by a VN Vet and published by a reputable publishing house which apparently has enough editorial oversight to be considered a reliable source here (see ). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good research, Wtmitchell. I think you should get one of those Wiki awards.  So, should the caption be changed to read something like "Four F-105D's on a Pathfinder mission drop bombs in the monsoon season guided by an EB-66 used to penetrate cloud cover"?  That would clarify the picture.  66.122.184.111 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a bit more research which may not be so welcome. shows a copy of the photo and credits it to "CORBIS". A bit of googling turns up this, which says that the image is copyrighted by Corbis as part of the Bettmann Collection there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am the author of the book Crucible Vietnam. I did write a book about that war in which I had fought. I have simply attempted to make some corrections pertaining to casualties, for example the number of wounded in the info box should be changed from 303,635 to 303,644 based on the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010. Additionally, a change should be made to the section titled, Effect on the United States: 8th paragraph, first sentence, currently states, “More than 3 million Americans served in Vietnam.” This statement is not correct. VFW Magazine (April 1997), which I consider to be a reliable source, states that a total of 3,403,100 personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, which includes flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters). From this total, 2,644,000 U.S. personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam. I brought these issues up during August of 2010, and yet the Wiki editors have still not made the correction. Also during December 2007, when I was writing my book, the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, provided me the yearly breakdown of the 58,220 Americans who died in Vietnam by category (killed in action; died of wounds; missing in action/declared dead; captured/declared dead; illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, and homicides). I don’t know of any other source that breaks these figures down by category and year. It was simply the Director’s Excel spreadsheet that he was using as a working file to compute annual composite figures, so in this instance I only have the Director’s spreadsheet to verify some of these casualty figures. However I have come up with three Marine Corps websites that support the usage of 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade vice Third Marine Regiment as the Marine unit that arrived in Vietnam on 8 March 1965, and I would hope the Wiki editors might make that change.67.188.237.74 (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see that back in August the Wiki article stated: “More than 3 million Americans served in Vietnam.” Whereas now the article states: “More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War.” So apparently a change was made, however it might be helpful to expand on this issue by saying that 3,403,100 personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, including flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters) of which 2,644,000 U.S. personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam.67.188.237.74 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Im going to have to buy a copy of Lawrence's book. Anyway, there's probably been a lot of confusion on how many people served in the Vietnam War because of various criteria.  I remember when the war ended they said that 2.1 million vets had served in Vietnam, then it went up to 2.2 million, 2.3 million, etc., as more data came filtering in.  Then they included guys in all the Southeast Asia theater, which brought it up even more.  A certain number of guys went there without written orders, since they didn't have time to cut the orders, etc.  Then what about classifed missions?  SOG teams, CIA missions, etc.  You can't acknowledge they were there.  I notice that the 563rd Tactical Fighter Squadron was flying missions out of Thailand between 8 April 1965 and 15 August 1965.  In that 5 month tour they lost 10 of their original 18 aircraft, picked up two Air Force Outstanding Unit Awards with Combat "V" (a very rare decoration and they got two of them!) and yet they were never awarded the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry Unit Citation, which should have been an automatic award.  Were they pulling missions on a classified basis?  Could our government even acknowledge that they were in Vietnam?  Seems strange.  Anyway, I agree with Lawrence's current estimates.  By the way, were B-52 crews flying out of Guam on Arc Light missions ever included in the troop estimates for service in Vietnam?    66.122.184.111 (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedias rules on sources are clear. You may not cite yourself, SPS are generaly not acceptable and sources should be third party.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I'll cite Lawrence by proxy. That should resolve the issue.  But does anybody know if B-52 crews flying over Vietnam from Guam were included in the troop count for Vietnam service?  Did they get Vietnam Service Medals or Vietnam Campaign Medals, for instance?  I'm really wondering about it now.  Any B-52 crew members out there?  Thanks.  66.122.184.111 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These issues have become exasperating. I am simply attempting to make three corrections to the Wiki article. 1) the issue of U.S. deaths and wounded in Vietnam for which I have cited the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 as a source.  2) the number of U.S. personnel that served in the Southeast Asia Theater and within the borders of South Vietnam for which I have cited VFW Magazine (April 1997) as a source, and 3) the issue of 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade vice Third Marine Regiment as the Marine unit that arrived in Vietnam on 8 March 1965, which is the only issue to which I referred to my book, because I had obtained that information from my classroom notes when I was attending the Naval War College, though I have since found and provided Wiki with three U.S. Marine Corps websites that confirm this point.  The only reason I initially became involved with Wiki back in August of 2010 was because someone had misquoted me in my book in regards the reorganization of the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) into country-specific units.  Still hoping Wiki editors will proceed to make the three corrections cited above.67.188.237.74 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki editors often paint themselves into a corner. Try to get Wiki editors to admit that Steven Spielberg or James Cameron are script thieves, for instance, despite the vast evidence that they are.  Wiki editors are often in denial, don't know what causes it.  I still like Wiki articles because they have lots of info.  66.122.184.111 (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not stating USA was defeated is POV
We state who was defeated in other wars, to not state that USA was defeated in this war is clearly a POV violation. ScienceApe (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, then we better fix World War II, which doesn't state that the Axis lost. Oh, and Franco-Prussian War which only mentions that Germany won. Oh, and American Civil War, which doesn't mention in the result that the Confederacy lost. Please, point out on which "other wars" that the loser is listed next to "Result". --Habap (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's more important to dispel the myth that the United States 'won every major battle but lost the war' in Vietnam, such as the fights in Kham Duc, Hill-937 (FSB Ripcord) and the An Lao Valley. Once that had been achieve to some degree, than we shall discuss the American defeat in greater detail.Canpark (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Americans were not defeated. The Americans left in 1972 and three years later in 1975 the South Vietnamese lost, not the Americans.  When General Giap invaded with 200,000 troops in the Easter Offensive the Americans killed 40,000 of them and sent General Giap scurrying back across the border with his tail between his legs where he was fired and they never let him be a general again.  (Giap was the general who had defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu.  The Americans not only defeated him, they got him fired.  That doesn't sound like the Americans were losers to me.)  Where is all this disinformation about losing coming from?  I think a lot of these lies about the Vietnam War are perpetrated by ignorant grade school teachers (91% of whom in the USA are female and are just those gum chewing high school girls who thought they'd become school teachers so they'd make thousands of dollars a year for babysitting and who are completely ignorant).  Then there's the liberals who are promoting their political agenda.  Me, I'll stick with the supportable facts, which is what Wiki is supposed to do instead of relying on pop culture fads and notions.  66.122.184.111 (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * America failed to meet its objectives and left. The North Vietnamese achieved theirs. The loss is pretty clear. Also, your irrelevant invective undermines you. ( Hohum  @ ) 11:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Canpark, WP is an encyclopedic publisher of verifiable information which has been reported by reliable sources, not a dispeller of myth as perceived by individual WP editors. I do know that the specific example you bring up has been asserted (See e.g., this from a source cited in the article as a general reference secondary source), though I don't think that it is currently mentioned in the article and I don't know what supportable refuting counterexamples might exist. I doubt that this this would pass WP:DUE in this article, but that source I've mentioned could be cited (possibly along with others) to support a mention that it has been asserted that the U.S. was never defeated on the battlefield, contrasted with mention of major U.S. battlefield defeats supported by other reliable sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The American objective was to prevent the worldwide spread of Communism. America bled off the will and the ability of Communism to spread throughout the world in Vietnam.  Also, the North Vietnamese totally ignored the Paris Peace Accords.  America left with South Vietnam secured, and honored its side of the Accords while North Vietnam did not.  To state it in the most simple of childs terms, I think we all know that "cheating doesn't count".  66.122.184.111 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read proper history books, kid. The average North Vietnamese soldier fought for his country, with concerns for his wife and kids like every normal human being. He did not fight for Communism. Communism only stopped in Indo-China because the Vietnamese Communist Party were too small and too insignificant, in a global context, to spread its ideology. Not because the "almighty" USA stopped them. I know it's very hard for people like you to grasp the truth, but grow up and you shall learn. In the meantime, however, stop making a complete fool of yourself.Canpark (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * North Vietnam received 85% of its war goods from Russia, they were just a puppet state of the Soviets. You would have preferred the US and Russia fight each other directly?  No, no.  Bad idea.  Better that they should fight each other indirectly, through other countries.  And Vietnam--you are missing the mystery and seductiveness of the Orient.  63.198.18.247 (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a good way of looking at the war: the Vietnam War was the USA's Uncle Remus "tar baby".  As per the fable, the way to win the situation was to extricate yourself from the tar baby.  Which is what the USA did indeed accomplish in Vietnam.  It got out and left the mess in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to whatever fools tried to straighten it out.  Remember when Red China tried by invading Vietnam in 1979?  what a debacle that turned out to be.  63.198.18.247 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead Photo
The lead photo of the Huey helicopter at a landing zone might use some clarification--that's Major Bruce Crandall flying at the famous battle of Ia Drang (Mel Gibson made a movie of the battle called "We Were Soldiers"). Major Crandall received the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, four Distinguished Flying Crosses and 23 Air Medals. That's a great photo to lead off the article with. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is that photo so great? Why not have a photo of Vietnamese fighting to kick the Americans out of Vietnam?Owain the 1st (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's one of only two photos of someone winning the Medal of Honor. The other is of a besieged dirt strip in Vietnam with a lot of wrecked planes and helicopters, but I can't remember the name of the besieged airbase right now.  Anybody remember?  And I don't think a picture of a North Vietnamese torturing a civilian would be a great photo.  The North Vietnamese played dirty.  66.122.184.111 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a nice picture of the Vietnamese entering Saigon when they won the war?Who cares who won a medal of honour invading someone else country and butchering their population. As for playing dirty I suggest you read up on what the Americans did in Vietnam.Actually I would go as far to say that this whole article is pro USA in pictures, it needs some pictures of the NVA and VietCong fighting to make it equal. All we have now is Americans killing, Americans bombing, Americans on the river, American this and Americans that. Also most of the sources are American or western..I think I count about less than 5 out of over 200 that were North Vietnamese/VietCongOwain the 1st (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here it is: the only other photo of a Medal of Honor action is of Kham Duc airfield.  So these two are very unique, historically important photos.  While Owain the 1st seems to display an anti-American bias, I agree with him that the article needs representation from the North Vietnamese for their POV.  But how many people in Vietnam are connected to the Internet?  How many books by the Vietnamese have been translated into English?  How much censorship is there in published literature in Vietnam?  We might be surprised by accounts of North Vietnamese who were brainwashed, indoctrinated and pressed into service (but then I'm sure Owain the 1st would say the same of American soldiers).  There's a big difference between the political bigwigs and their typical pack of lies and the experience of the common soldier on the battlefield.  There might be a good deal of commonality between ordinary soldiers of both sides, experiencing the same terrain, weather, bugs, snakes, etc.  66.122.184.111 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does not matter how many people in Vietnam are on the internet and plenty of books from the North Vietnamese/VietCong point of view are printed in English.As for anti American bias,that is a weak argument,it is clear that this articles pictures are pro American when it should be neutral under the rules of wikipedia.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's some more info on Major Crandall: he flew 22 unarmed missions (that's right unarmed) into Ia Drang to evacuate the wounded and bring in supplies; he wasn't "butchering" anybody.  He was saving lives.  I counted about 20 photos in the article, including one of the My Lai massacre (which certainly can't be counted as "pro American"), and though there was a photo of Aussie troops I didn't see any photos of New Zealand troops or ROKs (Republic of Korea troops).  So yes, we could use more photos but what's the Wiki policy on the number of photos that can be used?  66.122.184.111 (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy flew over 900 combat mission.Of course he butchered Vietnamese.As for the photos, we take out some of the American ones and put in some North Vietnamese/Vietcomg ones.They are well under represented in this article.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So we insert photos of North Vietnamese committing war atrocities and torturing and butchering people--which was their modus operandi. Hanoi Hilton prisoners being beaten and starved?  Okay.  Morbid but it is a war article.  Don't want to make the article too hideous for schoolchildren though.  66.122.184.111 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we insert pictures of Vietcong/NVA fighting off American invaders.Talking of war atrocities..the Americans committed loads, people are still dying today from American agent orange..I can see there is no point discussing anything with you at all and this is not a discussion forum so I will change or add pictures myself when I get around to it.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Americans were specifically prohibited from committing war atrocities by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and The Geneva Convention, which the North Vietnamese did not abide by. If you have verifiable instances of Americans committing war crimes in Vietnam, you'd have to cite sources.  And yes, Agent Orange is hideous, I absolutely agree with you, but American soldiers were exposed to it too, they weren't told of its horrible effects so we'd have to blame the manufacturing company I suppose.  You ever try to sue an American corporation?  Our corrupt American laws protect corporations because there's a body of law passed by a Justice Field in the USA in the latter part of the 1800's which says that the interests of corporations are more important than the rights of individuals.  This isn't the USA, this is the USA, Inc.  Corporate America is the bad guy here, not the ordinary American or the footsoldier in the field.  Americans complain about their corrupt government all the time.  66.122.184.111 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here you go, Americans committing atrocities in Vietnam..Tigerforce My Lai..those are just two off the top of my head there are plenty more.As I said this is not a discussion forum so I am done here with you.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We all know about Tiger Force (founded by Col. Hackworth) and My Lai. Occasionally soldiers will go beserk.  However, these are the exceptions to the rule.  By contrast, the North Vietnamese committed war atrocities as standard, normal procedure (the North murdered thousands of civilians during the battle of Hue for instance).  Some members of Tiger Force protested but were threatened with retribution and My Lai had subsequent court martial proceedings.  Tiger Force is still being investigated the last I heard.  On Feb. 19, 1970, five Marines murdered 16 non-combatant women and children in the village of Son Thang and were court martialed.  Lt. Calley was sentenced to life in prison but was pardoned by Nixon.  War crimes are forbidden by the US.  But then, war in itself is a crime is it not?  And what can any of us do about that?  It's part of the human condition.  Watch the movie "Grand Illusion" by Jean Renoir.  The grand illusion is that someday war will dissappear.  You and I both hate war but are we not warring with each other now?  Why do so many pacifists like to pick fights?     66.122.184.111 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So now I notice the lead picture was changed. So what does this mean? That the Vietnam War Wiki article is an anti-American site? As such, it has no credibility.66.122.184.111 (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the lead image from a collage emphasizing bodies and the My Lai massarce to the previous helicopter image. If you look at the lead images for other war articles, they do not focus on massacres or bodies, although these are common features of war. This collage also strikes me a propagandistic approach -- the Dak Son Massacre and the Massacre at Huế produced gruesome images as well. The Huey is an obvious choice for the lead image since it is often described as the "symbol of Vietnam" -- the visual image that is most readily identifiable with the war. Kauffner (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Described as the symbol of Vietnam by who? Americans? I have never heard of it described as that frankly.It might well be to Americans but they do not make up the whole world.The pictures in this article are mostly of the Americans fighting, killing,rounding up Vietnamese..we need some photos of the Vietnamese NVA/Cong. We need a balance as that would be neutral.Owain the 1st (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Google and you will get hundreds of results. I am not responsible for "the pictures in this article", but I can tell you that the reason Wiki has many images that originate with the U.S. military and government is because many such images are available without copyright and this policy of the U.S. government has long been understood by those who organize and upload images. Kauffner (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I opine that this image, currently positioned as the lead image in the article, is inappropriate as a lead image for this article. That image, a photo apparently taken during the 1965 Battle of la Drang would be better placed in the Lyndon B. Johnson expands the war, 1963–1969 section, perhaps replacing this image which, as is mentioned here above, may have copyright problems. An image more reflective of the article as a whole would be better as a lead image for the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've studied cinema and have been a journalist--in photographic and film semiotic terms, the composition of the Bruce Crandall Huey helicopter photo is a good lead image because the action in the photo is from right to left, leading the viewer's eye into the article instead of away from it; the soldiers and the Huey are poised for action, re-emphasizing that this is the start of the article in symbolic terms. The photo draws the reader into the article, which is what a good newspaper editor would desire; the massacre collection of photos would tend to repel a potential reader.  66.122.184.111 (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have neither studied cinema nor been a photographic journalist, but then we're neither making a movie here nor illustrating a news story -- we're writing an encyclopedia article, one of many articles in this online encyclopedia. Other articles on similar topics include the World War I, World War II and Korean War articles. Looking at the lead images in those articles, I see more stylistic similarity to the lead image in this version of the article than to the image in this current version. It seems to me that it's a good idea to use similar styles for articles on similar topics.
 * Those images in the other articles, like the image from the older version of this article, are photo montages. In contrast, the current lead image of this article is a single image. A photo montage has an advantage over a single image as a lead image for an article about a multi-year conflict in that it can show a number of representative illustrations ranging across the wide sweep of the conflict. A single image can only show a snapshot -- in this case a snapshot from 1965, illustrating a war which the article lede presents as ranging over the 20 year period from 1955 to 1975.
 * One image in the previous montage used in this article was a photo of Vietnamese civilians killed by U.S. troops during the My Lai Massacre, and that drew editorial objections as being unnecessarily gruesome. It was remarked above that lead images for other war articles do not focus on massacres or bodies, although these are common features of war. That image in the montage formerly used for this article could be changed -- perhaps replaced with the helicopter image currently used as the lead image, though I still think that helicopter image would be better placed in the other section which I mentioned in my earlier comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner.Just because the US government lets us use images does not mean that an article has to be full of them. It is clear that this article is just American propaganda in pictures as I have already stated it is just Americans bombing,killing rounding up Vietnamese.There should be more pictures from the other side to make this article more balanced.As for your symbol of Vietnam bit I do not agree with it at all and just because there are loads of results on google means nothing as it it is just a fact that the Americans have pushed their version of events, well the rest of the world does not really buy that and because this is supposed to be a neutral world wide site I feel the picture should be removed and replaced with something else.I suggest the NVA entering Saigon Presidential Palace thru the gates in a tank..that would at least be one NVA image that portrays their victory.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I was in the Vietnam War so I could offer one of my photos to use as the lead image (LOL), but that would be rejected as OR. I remember a great photo somebody took at Nha Trang--someone had stolen a huge, colorful grocery store banner from back in the States and hung it on the outside of a barracks building.  The banner read "We Give S&H Green Stamps", which sums it all up.  The absurdity of war.  A lot of our guys would dump their white girlfriends back in the states and marry a girl from Southeast Asia.  In Vietnam we'd know when there would be rocket attacks on base because soldiers' Vietnamese girlfriends would tell them.  People think it was an "us against them" situation but it wasn't--we intermingled with them, lived with them, married them.  We all had to live together.  There were no front lines. Many of us wanted to go back to Vietnam after the war and open up beach resort hotels like in Miami and become millionaires.  I appreciate everyone's interest in the war and am drawn to this site now and then to see what's up and that phrase from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" always occurs to me:  "When the facts contradict the legend, print the legend".  66.122.184.111 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Color beats black and white. I don't care much for montages. In this case, one element is gruesome and two others are just blah. So I suggest using this as the lead image: Kauffner (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We have enough American photos in this article, too many actually so putting forth yet another one is not very constructive. What this article needs are more pictures of the NVA and VietCong because frankly as of now the only pictures with them supposedly in are when they have supposedly been captured by Americans.Remember the Americans lost the war.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Effect on Vietnam section
I can see the effect on the United States section.Is there a section for the effect on Vietnam? Pretty sure they were more effected by that war than the Americans.Owain the 1st (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting concept. I remember reading a TAC Attack magazine in 1970 which said, incongruously enough, that we had dropped 90% of our bombs on South Vietnam at that time, not North Vietnam.  So there may be some surprising revelations.  The war introduced Vietnam to American capitalism--America is now Vietnam's biggest trading partner.66.122.184.111 (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * China is Vietnams biggest trading partner.1. Anyway getting back to the subject.There is no section on the effect on Vietnam but we have one on America. We should have one on Vietnam as the effect of the war was devastating, from the loss of so many of its people to all the chemicals sprayed by the Americans, the boat people.etc.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I probably should have said the US is Vietnam's biggest "investment" partner.  And yes, I agree with you, a section on the effect on Vietnam would be a good addition.  63.198.18.247 (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am up for changing the Chemical defoliation section into the effect on Vietnam section as a lot of the stuff in it is to do with American servicemen which could be placed in the effect on US section and the other stuff in the effect on Vietnam section.The effect on Vietnam section could then cover the chemical spraying,the deaths of millions of Vietnamese and the boat people,reeducation camps etc.Thoughts?Owain the 1st (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea but could prove to be a massive undertaking--after the US left, Vietnam became embroiled in Laos and more particularly Cambodia (Vietnamese and Cambodia are traditional enemies and this kept the Vietnamese economy in a shambles for 20 years). Then Vietnam went to war with China and killed 30,000 Chinese.  So Vietnam had many problems after the US left, many problems were endemic to the region, and had nothing to do with the US.  Agent Orange has its own article (q.v.); the boat people are important; then there's the Vietnamese who immigrated to the US after the war, etc....it looks like it could be an article unto itself. 67.117.25.62 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2011_April_13
All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 18:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:TrangBang.jpg


Is specifically allowed to be used on Wikipedia by permission of The Associated Press. SpeakFree (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I reorganized your comment above to separate the text and the image, eliminating visual garble. I hope you don't mind.


 * Isn't the restriction, "... solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any media" a problem? It appears so from a look at WP:COPY. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No becasue it also says thyat Wikipedia is permited to display them to its users.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this conflicts with the portion of WP:COPY which reads,

""The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom. This principle is known as copyleft in contrast to typical copyright licenses.""


 * As I understand that, WP users are free to copy, modify, and redistribute WP content (including images) as long as the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included. This would seem to be disallowed by the terms of the AP authorization. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thew way I rad that is that it does not preclude the use of the material, just its copying.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and since WP users are free to copy, modify, and redistribute WP content, this permission does not grant sufficient rights for this material to be hosted as WP content. That is my understanding, anyhow. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an exception for English Wikipedia as it allows fair use, under Florida law. SpeakFree (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying that the appearance of this image in this article is allowed under Fair use, not allowed because of permission given by AP (but, as I argue above, permitted only with restrictions which make it unusable by WP under that permission). I have no problem with that but, as I understand it, a fair use rationale for the appearance of the image in this article should be supplied here, as is done there for its appearances in for the Phan Thị Kim Phúc and Nick Ut articles. See Non-free use rationale guideline.
 * Additionally, the invisible comment in the article recently updated in this edit should be changed to indicate that the image appears here under Fair Use rather than being allowed by AP with credits given in that comment (and also with restrictions not mentioned in that inline comment).
 * Also, beside the point here but relevant to usage of the image on WP, I see here that the image also is linked without a fair use rationale from the Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, 1973 Pulitzer Prize articles, and in various places outside of article space. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

tags
The CN tag that’s been placed after the veterans against the war, is that ofr the idea that veterans joined veterans against the war or for the idea that Mai lai led to an increase in the anti war movement?Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Is All Wrong
From the first sentence the article is wrong. Stating that the Vietnam War was a "Cold War era military conflict" implies that Vietnam was a "cold" war. It was not. It was a "hot war". The Cold War is a different conflict altogether, involving the US and USSR strategically using nuclear bombers and missiles. The Vietnam War was primarily battlefield tactics and weapons. It did not start on Nov. 1, 1955. It began on March 8, 1965, 10 years later, when the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade landed at Da Nang. It ended on Dec. 29, 1972 after Linebacker I and II had brought the defeated North Vietnamese to their knees and forced them to the negotiating table where they were made to sign the Paris Peace Accords on Jan. 27, 1973, the US stating that it would withdraw the few remaining US military personnel within 60 days, thus formally ending the war on March 28, 1973. Two years after the US had left, the North Vietnamese, in total non-compliance with the Paris Peace Accords, defeated the South Vietnamese on April 30, 1975. We all know these dates, they're not in dispute. However, anti-American Wiki editors are attempting to use such easily detectable brainwashing stratagems such as the false premise, the diversionary tactic, the syllogism, the straw man fallacy, etc., to construe things differently to suit their own personal political agenda. The POV of the article seems to be skewed to be pro-Communist. This whole matter needs to be looked at by Wiki editors from an unbiased point of view and re-evaluated. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... I arrived in Vietnam on 11 November 1964. I guess I misread my invitation and showed up early by mistake. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very witty, I like that. Then let's start it on Nov. 11, 1964.  I've no problem with that.  I seem to recall we had fighter aircraft flying out of Thailand on missions in 1964, I'd have to check on the dates, will get back to you.  We had American military personnel moving in and out of Vietnam for years, like we do everywhere; I'm just trying to use March 8 as the first significant buildup of ground forces which led to a massive war.  The "Star of the West", for example, was a Union supply ship fired on by the Confederacy way before Ft. Sumter but people still prefer the Ft. Sumter date because it really got things moving.   66.122.182.154 (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's something really interesting--the first F-105D mission of the war was against an anti-aircraft artillery site in the Plaine de Jarres in Laos on Aug. 14, 1964. They call it the Plain of Jars because it's littered with these mysterious old, huge stone jars (it's like Easter Island!).  So we start the F-105 air war by bombing an archeological site.  We actually didn't bomb the enemy back into the Stone Age--we bombed the Stone Age itself (well, megalithic Iron Age actually).  And of course, operation Rolling Thunder began on March 1, 1965.  But I prefer that the war started on Nov. 11, 1964 when WtMitchell arrived in 'Nam.  66.122.182.154 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The war began for me during September of 1967, however U.S. government reports currently cite November 1, 1955, as the commencement date of the “Vietnam Conflict.” This was the day when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman), was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established. I believe this early date also had to do with the fact that the first acknowledged American soldier to die in Vietnam occurred on the 8th of June 1956 (when Air Force Tech Sergeant Richard B. Fitzgibbon Jr., was murdered by a fellow airman).67.188.237.74 (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's some more interesting stuff--apparently the Vietnam War was started by the Viet Minh version of the Three Stooges: on Sept. 26, 1945 a US Army Lt. Col. named Peter Dewey of the OSS was leaving Vietnam when three Viet Minh mistook him for a Frenchman and shot him.  Dewey was headed back to the States to tell his superiors that US involvement in Vietnam was a really,  really bad idea and that the US should get out.  Nice going Moe, Curly and Larry.  So Dewey was actually the first American killed in Vietnam.  Then the first American airmen were killed in combat in Vietnam at the battle of Dien Bien Phu when civilian pilots James McGovern and Wallace Buford died when their C47 Dakota was blown up. (Ironically, the 105 mm howitzers that the Viet Minh used at Dien Bien Phu were American-made.)  And for the longest time the first US military deaths in Vietnam were listed as Maj. Dale R. Buis and Sgt. Chester Ovnand, military advisors killed by the Viet Minh on July 8, 1959 at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam.  66.122.182.154 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems very odd to give a start date that is several years before major fighting began. Many sources give 1959 as the start date since the first large unit military action was on 26 September 1959. The was a lot of guerilla activity in 1958-1959, so a slightly earlier date can be justified. The 1955 date has to do with eligibility for placement on the Vietnam War Memorial, not with military activity in Vietnam. Kauffner (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a list of U.S. military Vietnam War casualty deaths by year, provided to me by the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, during December 2007. This includes hostile and non-hostile deaths.  The reason why you see additions beyond 1975 is due to the fact that some wounded were moved into the death column.  From these figures it appears that the war for U.S. military personnel began before U.S. combat ground forces arrived during the spring of 1965.67.188.237.74 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

1956	1 1957	1 1959	2 1960	5 1961	16 1962	53 1963	122 1964	216 1965	1,928 1966	6,350 1967	11,363 1968	16,899 1969	11,780 1970	6,173 1971	2,414 1972	759 1973	68 1974	1 1975	62 1987	1 1990	1 2004	1 2005	2 2006	2 Total	58,220
 * I also agree that this page should be re-evaluated but for its extremely pro-American stance, on articles relating to the topic. The Paris Peace Accords was signed on North Vietnamese terms, that's why their troops remained in South Vietnam and the U.S. had to f**k off, like a bunch of losers that they were. Only poorly educated, brainwashed right-wing morons would say otherwise.Canpark (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Canpark, your invective does little for your credibility. Please adhere to WP:CIVIL. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

IP67 did some excellent work--perhaps a graph of the rise and fall in American deaths could be emplaced in the article to visually give the reader a rendering of the rise and fall of the war. I also looked up the qualifications for the Vietnam Service Medal and it goes from July 3, 1965 to March 28, 1973. So the year 1965 does seem to be an incipient one for the Vietnam War. As a side note, I should mention that tomorrow, April 12, marks the beginning of the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War and they know exactly when it started--they're going to mark the occasion at Ft. Sumter by pointing a single beam of light skyward and then at exactly 4:30 AM the beam of light splits in two. As for me, I went to UC Berkeley in 1966 before I joined the Vietnam War. I don't think that qualifies me as a poorly educated, brainwashed, right-wing moron although I do appreciate the interest in my education. 66.122.182.154 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the deaths in Vietnam after the war ended. Also, is it casualties (wounded + deaths, or only deaths? A link to the original source would be helpful.) ( Hohum  @ ) 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It was only deaths and did not include wounded. The "official" number of 58,220 American deaths in the Vietnam War is confirmed in the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 on page 3. Here is the website for the CRS report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf  Here is some additional U.S. casualty info.  During the Vietnam War, according to the official DoD figures, Americans suffered 47,434 hostile deaths, comprised of four categories:  Killed in action (40,934); died of wounds (5,299); missing in action/declared dead (1,085); and captured/declared dead (116)); while an additional 10,786 deaths (18.5%) were non-hostile, meaning they died from other causes besides combat, which included illness, accidents (which comprised nearly 85% of all non-hostile deaths), missing/presumed dead, and even homicides.  It is these two categories (hostile and non-hostile) that comprise the total of the 58,220 troops who died in the Vietnam War.  Following is a list of Americans killed in action by year:

1959-1961	14 1962	30 1963	71 1964	146 1965	1,313 1966	4,432 1967	8,454 1968	13,005 1969	8,239 1970	3,659 1971	1,206 1972	327 1973	20 1975	18 Total	40,934 Again, this info was provided to me by the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, during December 2007, but I realize that it is inappropriate to cite statistics from my own book Crucible Vietnam. However the Director provided me with his Excel working spreadsheet which provided category breakouts by year, and I know of no other source that provides a breakdown of hostile and non-hostile categories by year.67.188.237.74 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that describing Vietnam as a Cold War era military conflict implies it was, itself, a cold war at all. In fact the term military conflict suggests otherwise. It only means that it took place during the Cold War, and needs to be considered in that context. Barnabypage (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, somewhere in the article, it is important to make mention of the fact that of 303,644 U.S. military personnel wounded in Vietnam, 153,303 required hospitalization, while another 150,341 (wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire) received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units. Otherwise, there will be confusion, because oftentimes historians just pick up the 153,303 wounded who required hospitalization, and they often neglect the other 150,341 wounded who were treated at field aid stations and sent back to their units. These figures concerning the wounded are also confirmed in the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010.67.188.237.74 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent graph. I think it should definitely be included in the article.  66.122.182.154 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the official U.S. Government number of 58,220 American deaths in the Vietnam War should not be reduced to 58,213. The people at the Defense Manpower Data Center are extremely conscientious and I believe they have added to the figure after 1975 by considering those who "Died of Wounds Received in Action" even if they died sometime after the U.S. military personnel came home.67.188.237.74 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 58,220 tallies exactly with this source, which also explains why there are some casualties reported after 1975
 * "Inclusive dates are November 1, 1955 to May 15, 1975. Casualty dates after the end date represent service members who were wounded during the period and subsequently died as a result of those wounds and those service members who where involved in an incident during the period and were later declared dead."
 * I can't find a yearly breakdown yet though - which we would need to include it. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I may be the only person with the breakdown (by year and category), which adds up to the official U.S. Government totals. The Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center provided me this information when I was working on my book, Crucible Vietnam, and though I have acknowledged him in my book, when I went to personally thank him, I was apprised that he had retired.  I know it sounds strange, but I might be the only person who has this info (which was the Director's working spreadsheet) and since I cannot cite my own book, I suppose someone else could cite from it.99.29.232.64 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is possible to get a similar breakdown from the "The Coffelt Database" in the US National Archives here, and searching between Jan 1 and Dec 31 for each year of Actual date of death, then reading the number of results. This would only include the people who died during the war, and not those that died of injuries later - which is ok to use as long as we make a note in the chart. Many records don't have an Actual date of casualty, so that field isn't a good one to search. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose this could be construed as a form of original research, though they are actually the casualty figures off the working Excel spreadsheet of the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, provided to me during December 2007, before he retired, when I was working on my book. Death casualties are broken down by year and category (hostile deaths: killed in action, died of wounds, missing in action/declared dead, and captured/declared dead; as well as non-hostile deaths: illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, and homicides).  These yearly and category figures match up precisely with the official DoD total figures (i.e. killed in action (40,934); died of wounds (5,299); missing in action/declared dead (1,085); and captured/declared dead (116)), along with the breakdown of non-hostile deaths).  I would have no problem with Wikipedia using the year and category casualty breakdowns pertaining to the 58,220 troops who died in the Vietnam War as well as to the 40,934 killed in action that I have already provided, as I feel that Wiki will be hard-pressed to find another supporting source.  Perhaps Wiki could simply cite that these figures are provided courtesy of A. T. Lawrence, author of (2009), Crucible Vietnam: memoir of an infantry lieutenant, McFarland, ISBN 9780786445172.  I would expect that Wiki would not change the totals, in other words reduce the total of 58,220 because some wounded died of their wounds after 1975.  I don’t know if Wiki can do this, though I do feel that these casualty figures by year are informative and insightful.  A. T. Lawrence  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.237.74 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems, for the chart pertaining to casualty deaths, to simply use the figure 58,220 with an asterisk that sim[ply states seven deaths were added after 15 May 1975 which represent service members who were wounded during the war and subsequently died as a result of those wounds and those service members who where involved in an incident during the war and were later declared dead. A. T. Lawrence67.188.237.74 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also you need to check your chart; I believe the U.S. Government claims that no military personnel died in the Vietnam War during 1958.67.188.237.74 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Should a formal notation be made that the only American woman to die in combat in Vietnam, 1st Lt. Sharon Ann Lane, an Army nurse, died on June 8, 1969, during a 122 mm rocket attack? 63.198.18.247 (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is female specific US combat mortality the specific subject of academic study? If so, then it would be WEIGHTY to note it.  Basic searching ( http://www.springerlink.com/content/x8711phh44153800/ ) indicates that in studies of Vietnamese mortality, the standard focus has been on class, educational attainment and social status, and, that women disproportionately did not die as a result of war.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A bit of googling turned up
 * (See tables 3, 11-16).
 * There's no doubt more stuff out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt more stuff out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt more stuff out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt more stuff out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so, should the graph above on US casualities be included in the article? I think so, it's one of those "everything explained at a glance" visual graphics. It quite succinctly delineates America's involvement in the Southeast Asian imbroglio. But as noted, the graph should be amended to reflect that no US deaths happened in 1958 and 2 US deaths happened in 1959. It's a great graph, I'm surprised no one thought of it before. 71.148.52.82 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an impressive graph, visually. It needs to be clearly sourced to one or more verifiable reliable sources. "... provided to me by ..." sourcing won't do it. If it is a compilation from more than one source, it needs to be comprehensively sourced and footnoted to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the individual who provided the yearly breakdown of U.S. deaths during the Vietnam War. I did not provide a list of American deaths by year in my book (which I provided to Wiki), rather I made reference to deaths for selected years within my narrative. In my book, Crucible Vietnam, I concentrated on those “killed in action” (KIAs) as I felt this was the best gauge of the intensity of the fighting, and I did provide a list of KIAs by year in my book (Appendix C).  When I set out to write my book I was determined to obtain the “official” and accurate yearly U.S. Government casualty figures and I persevered in this endeavor because most all of the experts whom I had read invariably cited conflicting figures; some would unintentionally cite hostile deaths totals for killed in action or visa versa, and neither they nor the government provided detailed casualty breakdowns by year, rather government reports in particular published just total casualty figures for the war.  The Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), who provided me with his Excel worksheet during December 2007 is the individual responsible for gathering the casualty figures for all official U.S. government reports, yet his worksheet additionally and meticulously included yearly breakdowns by category of death (killed in action, died of wounds, etc.).   In regards the total casualty numbers for the Vietnam War I would hope that Wiki would use these current total numbers (of 58,220 deaths and 303,644 wounded) that are substantiated in the most recent U.S. government reports.  You will note that two deaths (from wounds) were added to the total death count of 58,220 as late as 2006 and perhaps that is why earlier figures are different, though I feel that these most recent figures should be used as they represent the “official” U.S. Government casualty figures.  Even if the total of 58,220 American deaths were to change by future additions, the yearly totals that I have provided will not change; I suppose one could trace back the individual’s military record to ascertain when he was wounded, but that would entail a fair amount of research.  It is preferable, in my opinion, to simply state that these additions to the U.S. death total are a result of individuals who died of their wounds after 1975.  As I have previously mentioned I have no problem with Wikipedia using the year and category casualty breakdowns pertaining to the 58,220 troops who died in the Vietnam War as well as to the 40,934 killed in action that I have already provided, as I feel that Wiki will be hard-pressed to find another supporting source. Perhaps Wiki could simply cite that these figures are provided courtesy of A. T. Lawrence, author of (2009), Crucible Vietnam: memoir of an infantry lieutenant, McFarland, ISBN 9780786445172. A. T. Lawrence67.188.237.74 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. "Crucible Vietnam" has a lot of great information.  71.148.52.82 (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would third it, but... &mdash; I'm trying to look for a way. See here for my first stab at it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't just take some anonymous internet address' word for it. We must use only verifiable information, which must have been published in a reliable source. If these numbers were not published, then they cannot be used. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's a core principle here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can create a chart that simply addresses the number of Americans killed in action (KIA) by year, which would result in a similar looking chart to the chart of American deaths, and the KIA chart has been published in a reliable source: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009, p. 154 (for hostile and non-hostile deaths) and Appendix C (for list of KIAs by year).


 * (Responding to Orangemike, above) Right; and that is what I was trying to address. I vaguely remembered encountering a way to deal with such a situation on WP years ago, but I haven't been able to locate info on it. I just came across this, and I suspect that OTRS might help here, if the anon above is A. T. Lawrence, and is is willing to set up his end of it. Another approach would be for him to set up an author-owned website about the book, and to publish the material there on an "additional information" (or somesuch) page. McFarland has a web page on the book here; perhaps they would be willing to put such additional info on a sub-page there. Such web-hosted info could then be recast into a different presentation format and published here, citing the web page as a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

1959-1961	14 1962	30 1963	71 1964	146 1965	1,313 1966	4,432 1967	8,454 1968	13,005 1969	8,239 1970	3,659 1971	1,206 1972	327 1973	20 1975	18 Total	40,934 While pointing out that Americans suffered a total of 47,434 hostile deaths in the Vietnam War comprised of four hostile death categories: killed in action (40,934); died of wounds (5,299); missing in action/declared dead (1,085); and captured/declared dead (116), while an additional 10,786 deaths (18.5%) were non-hostile, meaning they died from other causes besides combat, which included illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, and even homicides. It is these two categories (hostile and non-hostile) that comprise the total of the 58,220 U.S. military who died in the Vietnam War.67.188.237.74 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Hohum, IP66, Orange Mike, and Wtmitchell for prompting me to get in touch with my publisher. Appendix C (pgs 223 and 224) will now incorporate totals for hostile and non-hostile, and thereby include a yearly breakdown of the 58,220 Americans that died in the Vietnam War. My publisher, McFarland & Company apprises me that they expect to issue reprints of my book, Crucible Vietnam, Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant, as early as June. I suppose at that point, in order to apply the statistics to a graph (showing deaths by year), it will probably be necessary to obtain permission from my publisher, but that should not be a problem as they are very nice people. A. T. Lawrence72.197.57.247 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)