This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
March 8/06
I realize that I have included a significant amount of detail in this article, including the names of many officers and enlisted personnel involved in the battle. I have not yet finished this page, so please bear with me a few more days.
The purpose of including this much detail is so that interested individuals who have had relatives or friends who were at the Ia Drang may know what their loved ones did and underwent in this battle. I have purposely avoided providing details that would be troubling for those who may have known the combatants (such as detailed causes of death, for example).
While all of this information and much more is available in Moore and Galloway's book (in fact, it's my primary source), my hope is to respectfully inform those who knew the combatants of the Ia Drang (or any veterans of the Ia Drang who may read this article). For those who have never known these men but wish to honour their experience (like myself), the purpose of this page is to provide information on what I believe is among the most interesting and tragic battles of the War.
For those who are interested in learning more, I highly recommend the LZ X-Ray site and We Were Soldiers Once...And Young - which, in my view, is one of the best war books ever written.
James Cameron
Canada
Sometime ago I started a page called "Landing Zone X-Ray" to be about the place in present-day reality, not about the battle. Now I have all my research complete but the page redirects here. Would someone please detach or remove the redirect so I can just write the page out as I initally intended it to be? (I'm planning to use TerraServer or Google Earth to pinpoint the exact field or sunnink like that, but now I can't since the page is gone. Also I want a clear assurance that the embleer hraka rah who did this to me is stopped and will never do it again. Thank you all so much!) -- Shenshuai 16:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
So, I went in to edit the info box entry to put in Colonel Brown's first name, and I noticed that the entry also included Lt. Colonel Moore and Lt. Colonel McDade as the commanders of their own Battalions. The thing is, these last two bits don't show up in the template. Does anyone know how to modify it so they fit?-- Raguleader 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I went in and fixed all. Without going into a lot of detail, the hierarchy is as shown. Brown was the overall commander, Moore the on-scene commander, and McDade's battalion the one ambushed at Albany.-- 131.238.92.62 12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any information available on the NVA/VC order of battle and their commanders? Does anyone want to add it in for the Infobox?-- Raguleader 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Would the number given for American forces include both Colonel Moore's and Colonel McDade's men combined? I'm pretty sure that would be far more than 395, though any counts should take care to remember that Lieutenant "Hard Corps" Rescorla's platoon fought in both actions.-- Raguleader 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Come on.
Also, the second battle has only one paragraph (and should have even separate article). -- HanzoHattori 06:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
LZ Albany ambush? -- HanzoHattori 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the references section be "notes" and be formatted as "Moore p. 219" instead of numbingly listing the whole title, and ISBN number for each ref? You can put that once in a section called references and just keep the surname and page number in the renamed notes section can't you? SGGH speak! 19:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It should, but it's more difficult than you think because they might get moved around. This should really be automated in the CITE system, but don't hold your breath. Maury 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The Second Battalion, 7th Cavalry lost 155 men killed and suffered 124 wounded, while Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry and Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry both suffered only 2 wounded? -- HanzoHattori 08:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If my memory is correct , there was a battle where the French were annihilated a few years before the American battle but on the same valley. Is this a fact?
-- YoavD 06:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This was NOT the first major US combat operation in Vietnam. Operation Gibraltar involving the 2/502nd and 2/327th infantry battalions of the 101st Airborne Division took place two months prior in September 1965. There were significant American casualties in this engagement, and it involved at least two American battalions pitted against a well entrenched Main Force VC battalion--certainly criteria for a "major battle". I'm changing that line in the article, and added a reference to Operation Gibraltar. Don't know how to add a citation, but here are some references:
"In mid-September, elements of the 2nd of the 502nd won the honor of first defeating a Viet Cong main force unit, before any other U.S. unit." ( http://bastogne.org/regiment_history/vietnam.html),
"...the battalion deployed to Vietnam in 1965 and fought the Division’s first engagement from the 18th to the 20th of September as part of Operation Gibraltar." ( http://pao.hood.army.mil/1stcavdiv/units/2-12cav/history.htm). -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.209.200 ( talk • contribs)
It was PAVN not VC. LTG(Ret) Charles Dyke refers to "the ill-fated airlift of the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry into a confined, narrow valley ringed by a battalion of well dug-in PAVN 95th Regiment" in a letter to the editor in September 1989 issue of Army Magazine in response to a book review of David Hackworth's book About Face. Then MAJ Dyke was the S3 (battalion operations officer) of 2/327th IN at the time of Operation Gibraltar.
What's the accuracy when this battle is compared to We were soldiers? There are many differences execpt the Alabny ambush?-- Stefanomencarelli 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Rather than starting an edit war in the infobox about the outcome, may I suggest that editors working on this article ensure that the outcome is properly referenced and that consensus is reached here. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a newbie at Wikipedia. I don't know if adding this to the talk page is necessary but I thought I would list some changes I made anyway. On 7/29/05 I edited lots of little things here and there. I'm pretty sure "battalion" and "regiment" should be capitalized when they refer to a specific unit. I retyped "1/7" as "1st Battalion, 7th Cav," and so forth. I rewrote several sentences which I thought confusing. Also, when listing casualties the original article called the US dead "soldiers" but the PAVN dead "fighters." If I understand correctly, the PAVN troops were regulars and therefore should also be considered soldiers. As it was I changed both to "killed." Good day and happy editing, -Schmitty3347
Terry J. Carter ( talk) 04:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't this article entitled the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley? I have been a student of the conflict since it was going on and I have never heard it refferred to as anything else (with the exception of Operation Silver Bayonet of which it was the major action). RM Gillespie 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Now as "strenght" in the infobox, but should be in the order of battle section in the main body of the article. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 05:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The article states "The U.S. lost 234, with 242 wounded ... The PAVN lost 1,037 killed with an estimated 1,365 wounded."
However, the side box says 234/242 and 837/1365. Any reason for the discrepancy between 1037 and 837? Also, should the 1365 in the side-box read "1365 est." since it is an estimate, but the other figures (as far as I know) are not?
-Anonymous
Also, American strength is listed in the side box as 395 men but casualties are "239 dead, 242 wounded." Furthermore, "The PAVN forces had suffered thousands of casualties and were no longer capable of a fight" according to the article's text but the total North Vietnamese casualties are less than 1,000 in the side box. The information is wrong either in the text or the side box, or maybe both. -KS 1/6/07
Good grief, what happened to the numbers now? This is from the source it links to:
Overall, Kinnard's forces suffered 305 killed and 524 wounded during the campaign while killing, according to official records, 1,519 of the enemy by body count and another 2,042 by estimate. The figures for the enemy's losses... are open to doubt. At X-RAY Colonel Moore ... reduced the total of 834 killed submitted by his men to 634 because the former figure seemed too high.
The numbers in the info box don't seem to resemble that at all. Abeall ( talk) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The figures of casualties in this article (particularly the side box) are atrociously incorrect. For both American and NVA troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.19.3 ( talk) 18:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Also figures for US casualties in the infobox are vastly different than in the text. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 05:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The name of the location is Ia Drang (with a capital i), but the article's title is la Drang (with a lowercase l). 97.102.194.244 ( talk) 18:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
North vietnam also revendicated that battle as a victory for them.
Also, other languages for this wikipedia page state that there is no victor: italian deutsh french polski etc etc. If the English page is the only one to state that battle as a victory for USA then we can doubt about the partiality of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 ( talk) 21:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
This battle can be seen as a victory for the US in regards to the aggressive search and destroy strategy employed by General William Westmoreland. The US was actively seeking out large VPA and Vietcong units which they could engage in a set piece battle. This was just that. Although it may appear to be a loss from Colonel Moore's point of view, in the perspective of grand strategy at the time it was seen as a victory. Whether history determines this to be a victory or not is irrelevant here. It should be noted that it was seen as a victory with respect to grand strategy in the US high command. However, this did overshadowed the defeat of LZ Albany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91killer ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Be careful, this war hasn't just about casualties. McNamara's encounter with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Thach was clear: "'You're totally wrong. We were fighting for our independence. You were fighting to enslave us.'
'Do you mean to say it was not a tragedy for you, when you lost 3 million 4 hundred thousand Vietnamese killed, which on our population base is the equivalent of 27 million Americans? What did you accomplish? You didn't get any more than we were willing to give you at the beginning of the war. You could have had the whole damn thing: independence, unification.'
'Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you'd had, you'd know we weren't pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn't you know that? Don't you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence. And we would fight to the last man. And we were determined to do so. And no amount of bombing, no amount of U.S. pressure would ever have stopped us.'" [1] (I'm new to wikipedia, I don't know how can i "hide" part of this quote)
Thus, vietnamese morale and will could sustain much more casualties than U.S.A. It's correct to classify this battle's result as "controversial". U.S accomplished the goal of weaken VC/VPLA forces, and they denied important position [since the countryside was a source of supplies and recruits to the VC] to U.S troops and gradualy damaged U.S morale. RdClZn ( talk) 20:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
http://www.vietnampix.com/fire3.htm says "2500 dead". -- HanzoHattori 07:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The historical account of this battle in the book "We Were Soldiers Once... And Young" places the figure of NVA losses much higher than listed here as well. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.64.19.3 (
talk)
18:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
In the book "We Were Soldiers Once... And Young" never mention 2500 casualities of NVA. Your link is not the book. In addition,"body count" is very untrusting. -jimmy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"body count" is very untrusting. NVA claims that they just suffer 208 killed 146 wounded at Xray and Albany in Ladrang. Totally 554 killed and 669 wounded in the campaign. In my opinion, the figure of NVA casualities may be higher, however it cannot reach more than 500 death for the following reasons: first, NVA just got 66th PAVN Regiment with totally 2000 troops in La drang and after that their still be capable of participating PleiMe campaign. Second, American merely hold their position at X ray and call the support of artillery and air forces before retreating quickly by choppers. Albany they were ambushed by NVA and beaten heavily, losing their and position and retreat. It is difficult to belive they still are in mood to collect and count enemy bodies. - Jim- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"PleiMe campaign": The Siege of Plei Me was just the initial part the Pleiku Campaign. [1] It was not in the aftermath and it was the 33rd NVA that besieged the Plei Me SF-Monty camp and ambushed the Arvin relief column. Operation Silver Bayonet, that led to the NVA counterattacks at/near the landing zones X-Ray and Albany, the subject of this article, was the U.S. Air Cavalry response to Plei Me, and the 66th NVA was not "totally 2000".
In October, the 33rd Regt attacks Plei Me Special Forces Camp approximately 40 miles south of Pleiku City in the Pleiku Province. Plei Me is garrisoned with a 12 man US Special Forces Team and 350 Montagnard mercenaries. The siege continues for several days. An Army of Vietnam relief force is sent out from Pleiku and is ambushed enroute by the PAVN 32nd Regt. 1st CAV Artillery supports the ARVN column and the ambushers are beaten off, and the siege is lifted. The 1st CAV Division is then committed in late October to find and destroy the defeated enemy. The 1st Brigade pursues the withdrawing enemy force over a very large area south and west of Pleiku City and west of Plei Me. It harasses and hounds the 33rd into the eastern area of the Ia Drang Valley. The two most significant events are the capture of a PAVN Field Hospital on Nov 1st along with numerous troops, weapons, and enemy documents; and the ambush of a unit of the fresh 66th Regt along the Ia Drang River in the western area of the Valley. On 10 Nov, the 3rd Brigade relieves the 1st Brigade and moves into the area to the east and west of Plei Me and conducts patrolling actions. No enemy contact. UPI reporter Joe Galloway accompanied 1/7 CAV units on these patrols. Late in the afternoon of Saturday, 13 Nov, the 3rd Brigade Commander, COL Thomas Brown, gave the 1st Bn, 7th Cavalry commander, Lt. Col Hal Moore orders to move his battalion on 14 Nov into the Ia Drang Valley with the mission: "Find and kill the enemy". Moore would have 16 Huey helicopters to move his unit. Two 105 mm Howitzer batteries (12 tubes) to render fire support. Three battalions of PAVN were reported to be in the Valley. Moore put out a warning order to his staff and 5 company commanders, made a map study, formed a tentative plan, arranged for supplies, and set up an air recon for early 14 Nov to select a landing zone to be followed by the operations order to the staff and commanders. The air recon goes as planned and at 8:50 AM, 14 Nov Moore issued his operations plan of maneuver and plan of fire support. All companies were to land in one clearing dubbed landing zone X-Ray. [2] -- Niemti ( talk) 15:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe there should be articles about Operation Silver Bayonet and/or Pleiku Campaign (it is currently just a redirect to Pleiku) to dispel such a confusion. -- Niemti ( talk) 15:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
As of bodycount itself, at LZ X-Ray the Americans seized and policied the battlefield following the NVA retreat and didn't really "quickly evacuated". It's debatable if the body count can be really trusted, but it's the official minimum number (of course many bodies would be either taken by the retreating NVA or just not found or destroyed such is in napalm strikes). Moore: At approximately 1330 hours all companies on the perimeter screened out for 300 meters and policed the battlefield. Dead PAVN, PAVN body fragments, and PAVN weapons and equipment were littered in profusion around the edge and forward of the perimeter. Numerous body fragments were seen. There was massive evidence e.g. bloody trails, bandages, etc, of many other PAVN being dragged away from the area. Some of the enemy dead were found stacked behind anthills. Artillery and TAC Air was placed on all wooded areas nearby into which trails disappeared. Numerous enemy weapons were collected along with other armament. Two prisoners were taken and evacuated. Friendly dead and wounded were also collected. Some friendly were killed and wounded in this screening. Total estimated number was 1215. Also, many sources say 634, but it was really 834 claimed by bodycount (Moore's after-action report). -- Niemti ( talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The actual commander of the 66th is irrevelant because he was not there, so I instead inserted the political officer Ngoc Chau who actually commanded the regiment during the battle. -- Niemti ( talk) 17:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me this article's most serious shortcoming is that no Vietnamese sources have been used in writing it. Much the same can be said about most articles on en.WP covering this conflict - the sourcing is unfortunately biased. Roger ( talk) 12:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the casualty figures in the slightest. Can someone explain to me what's what? 24.212.137.195 ( talk) 05:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm uncertain of the availability of PAVN accounts of this battle, but right now it reads as being very US-centric. Not that its bad...actually it's sort of a gripping narrative account, but it would add some colour and improve the historical context to provide at least part of the North Vietnamese side in this engagement. if a reliable source could be found, that would really improve this article. Antimatter--- talk--- 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Vietnam should talks.
Here is the PAVN take "We sent our men into the field and they were turned into ground beef by accurate and sustained US artillery." No sarcasm intended, but how could it NOT be US centric when the battle under Moore's command (that is, the initial engagement at the LZ but not including the idiotic orders to march and then be ambushed subsequently) achieved better than 8:1 casualties against the NVA. Insofar as the strategic purpose of the battle from the US side was to test the utility of air cavalry mobilized warfare, it was a stellar success and showed the NVA that they were NOT fighting the French any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.139.119 ( talk) 04:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with the unsigned opinion that opens this thread. For example, article accounts for heroisms by U.S. soldiers, but it's possible that there are heroism acts also on the other side this article doesn't tell of. As it is, IMHO the article seems to be a little too U.S.-centric (POV?). To obtain the netrality wikipedia should have, the Vietnamese point of view should be considered. If information for the Vietnamese side are not alvailble, IMHO such thing should be stressed at the beginning of the article.
Thank you for your attention. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.40.190.21 (
talk)
20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You must remember that Vietnamese speakers are rare, and most of Vietnam War sources are from U.S "researchers". It's easier to seek for chinese sources, or any american recent revisionist research material. It's hard... Also, how could they have such precise estimatives (americans) about enemy casualties if they (U.S troops) left the battlefield and had no precise idea about enemy strenght at and after the Battle? This is a bit of a nonsense IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RdClZn ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hal Moore's book does include quite a bit of input from some senior PAVN officers concerning their perspective on the battles - very interesting on many levels. 62.196.17.197 ( talk) 11:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
In September 13th 2007 editor Civil Engineer III, in an attempt to reduce POV, changed nearly every mention of the words enemy and communist to Viet Cong, even though in many instances the words enemy and communist probably did not refer to NLF or PLAF but to PAVN. Perhaps Civil Engineer III was not well informed of the differences between People's Liberation Armed Forces a.k.a. Viet Cong and People's Army of Vietnam, and, hence, was prone to confusing the two. Could someone more knowledgeable please go through the article and change these possibly incorrect references to something more appropriate? Thank you. -- 130.234.5.137 ( talk) 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Changed to "Vietnamese" or "enemy" when in context. -- RamboKadyrov ( talk) 12:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Just for the sake of discussion I am wondering at the classification of this battle as a "draw."
Is this for political correctness, because it seems to me that around 1,500 enemy dead vs. around 500 U.S. dead is a victory. Is it because the U.S. forces left the field of battle? I could understand this although because of the unconventional nature of the war, gaining and holding territory had little if no meaning. Just wondering.
By the way, I did a search of other source material on Ia Drang Valley and couldn't find anything on amazon.com anyway. I certainly would very much like to have the other sides views, comments and any heroism on their part. As a vet of Nam yet after 40 years even I have some sense of reconciliation and can recognize that in their view the enemy then were fighting a war of liberation and many men and women on their side have very interesting and important stories to tell.
98.165.79.166 ( talk) 15:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)TDurden1937
Most popular sources counted the NVA forces in Ia Drang around 3000 and 4000 troops. However, both the NVA's 33rd and 66th and other forces together only commited 5 battalions worth of troops, which according to VPA's official document, only about 300-500 men each. There's also the harsh condition of their operating ground, previous combat losses... should reduce the active combatant even more. So in this sense, should we stick to the famous 4000, or the logical 1800?-- Zeraful ( talk) 15:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
(copy from HowCheng's talk page)
You recently put up a sign "needs additional citations" at the top of the article. Do you care to point out specifically which statements or sentences or parts or sections need additional citations? Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 19:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: the topic 'Overhauling this Article' of the talk page of the Battle of Ia Drang article, it was said: ... I'm overhauling this article to provide a more human side to the battle. My primary source is Moore & Galloway's We Were Soldiers Once...And Young. Thanks! James Cameron March 6/06. Therefore, I deem your tag is not relevant. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
If a 'general reference' does nothing to you, then it is preferable to put a tag 'citation needed' at each end of sentence or paragraph where needed; that is if you want to induce people to action and add citations. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 21:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
If you can, then you can keep that 'general tag' while inserting the individual tags. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 22:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has inserted the phrase "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed" into the info box for this article. This is not in accord with Wikipedia's usual practice for info boxes. The info box for the Battle of the Little Big Horn states only that it was a Native American victory; it does not say "Custer's command mostly destroyed" or anything similar. The info box for the Battle of Iwo Jima states only that it was an American victory. It does not say "Japanese defenders destroyed"
Thus, inserting the comment "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed" into the info box of this article is not consistent with other articles and is, in fact, a point of view that is more appropriately discussed in the text of the article.
Moreover, the phrase is misleading. One might with accuracy say in the info box that 2 American battalions suffered nearly 50 percent casualties. Why don't we also say that in the info box? Saying that would be just as relevant as saying that the "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed." The answer is that it's best to leave judgmental POV arguments out of the info box. Let's just say "Both sides claimed victory" and leave the argument about who did what to whom for the text of the article.
The phrase "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed" was added to the info box only on 20 October 2015. It is a recent and questionable addition to a long-existing article and should be discussed thoroughly before being inserted. It appears to be a latter-day sleight of hand effort to claim American victory in a battle in which both sides claimed victory.
Thus, I have reverted the phrase "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed." Smallchief ( talk 10:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well first of all it's a pleasure to meet you all. Jumping right in, I don't believe mentioning the 50% casualties would be just as relevant at all. Despite the high casualty rate, the battalions remained in tact and ultimately held the field while 6 out of 9 (the majority) communist battalions were entirely wiped out. I apologize for seeing that as significant. No sleight of hand attempt, just trying to add a bit more detail to the vague "Both sides claim victory." But I'm clearly outnumbered and the consensus is against me, so I'll leave the page as it is. Cheers. Amerijuanican ( talk) 02:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Battle, operation, campaign: Ia Drang, Ia Drăng, Ia Drang Valley, Plei Mei, Plei Me, Pleime, Plây Me, Plâyme, Long Reach, Trường Chinh, Pleiku, LZ X-Ray, etc.
Locations: Plei Me/Pleime, Chu Pong/Chupong, Chu Pong Massif/Chupong Massif,Ia Drang/Iadrang, Ia Drang Valley/Iadrang Valley, Chupong-Iadrang complex, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnguyen4321 ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Precisely:
There have been two requests for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning whether the ARVN should be listed as a participant. Both have been declined because one of the editors has declined to participate, and moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. At this point, there are two possible steps forward. The first is further discussion here. However, discussion at this talk page is also voluntary. The other possibility is a Request for Comments. A Request for Comments appears to be the most likely way forward. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment about whether South Vietnam should be included in the infobox as a belligerent. 113.190.165.78 ( talk) 17:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The information from the book Why Pleime was misinterpreted. In the preface, Gen. Westmoreland meant that the ARVN had contributed mainly to the "final phase" of the battle, which was Operation Than Phong 7, carried out from 18 November 1965, after the Battle of Ia Drang was over. In fact, almost no info about the involvement of the ARVN is found in Chapter V of the book. 113.190.172.153 ( talk) 16:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)D. Nam
The Battle of Ia Drang is the extension of the Siege of Pleime. Initially, upon learning that the NVA B3 Field Front (first belligerent)was staging for an attack of the Pleime camp with its three 32nd, 33rd and 66th Regiments from their bases established in the Chu Pong Massif areas by December 1965, the ARVN II Corps (second belligerent) made plan to destroy the three regiments at their assembly areas with B-52 strike as early as September 1965. When the NVA decided to attack earlier on 19 October with only two readied 32nd and 33rd Regiment, the ARVN employed a delay tactic in repulsing the attacking regiments back to Chu Pong where they would join force with the 66th Regiment to attempt for a second attack of the camp. The ARVN requested the help of the 1st Air Cavalry Division with their airmobility capacity - with the ARVN Airborne as reserved force on standby - to round up the three enemy regiments into suitable targets for B-52 strike with the insertion of the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion in a blocking position at LZ X-Ray. This insertion enabled the 5 consecutive days of B-52 strikes all over the Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex from 15 to 20 November, including the LZ X-Ray on 17 November. (See McChristian, Intelligence Aspect of Plei me/Chu Pong campaign from 20 October to 20 November 1965, http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_intel_J2-2.htm). The ARVN II Corps Command had the operational control of the Battle of Ia Drang, providing the operational concept and the intelligence to the Air Cavalry. After the LZ X-Ray battle, the ARVN II Corps Command acknowledged 1/7th Air Cavalry Battalion’s heroism with VN Gallantry Cross with Palm, because LTC Hal Moore’s battalion was attached to II Corps Forces in that battle (see http://www.generalhieu.com/vinhloc-moore.jpg). My conclusion is that the ARVN should be included in the in-box of belligerents. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 04:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't think you can draw up casual relationship between two or more battles if they are not planned as such in a campaign. All the operations in the Pleime (Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang) were performed to facilitate the 5 day B-52 strike operation (Dan Thang 21, Trường Chinh, Than Phong 7). Within Trường Chinh (Long Reach in English) operation are All The Way (rounding up), Silver Bayonet I (fixing with LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany), and Silver Bayonet II in conjunction with Than Phong 7 (finishing off). Secondly, the ARVN still maintained an active participation during the Battle of Ia Drang; and therefore should be inserted as a belligerent in the box. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 10:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, the NVA as a belligerent chose to attack at Pleime, while the ARVN as a belligerent chose to counter attack at the Chupong-Iadrang complex. And the main action in the Battle of Ia Drang was the B-52 strike operation, not the air assault of the Air Cav at the LZ X-Ray. In comparison to the main action conducted by the Arc Light operation, the secondary action of Air Cavalry operation weighed much less in time (2 days –November 14-15 versus five days – November 15-19), space (LZ X-Ray versus the entire Chupong-Iadrang complex areas), units committed (1/7, 2/7 and 2/5 Air Cavalry Battalions versus the 3AC's B-52 fleet stationed at Guam), enemy forces engaged (2 NVA battalions versus 3 NVA Regiments). The main role played by the ARVN in the battle should not be ignored and go undetected, as it is currently. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 12:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
After the relief of the siege of the Pleime camp, on 27 October 1965, the ARVN II Corps Command made plan for a counter attack at the footstep of the Chupong Massif where the enemy had staged its attack. The counter attack will be called by the popular name 'The Battle of Ia Drang'. A joint ARVN-US Command Task Force was created which comprised the II Corps Command and the 1st Air Cavalry Forward Command Post and co-located in the compound of the ARVN II Corps Headquarters in Pleiku) [1]. The pursuit operation that lead to the Battle of Ia Drang was named Operation Trường Chinh ̣(Long Reach in English) [2] conducted by an Allied Task Force composed of the US 1st Air Cavalry Division as the main force and the ARVN Airborne Brigade as the reserve force) [3]. The Battle of Ia Drang was conducted with a close ARVN-US modus operandi [4].
The Battle of Ia Drang did not end at the footstep of Chu Pong massif when the US Air Cavalry troops abandoned the LZ X-Ray. It ended further west of the Ia Drang Valley toward the Duc Co camp near the Cambodian border, after the US 2nd Air Cavalry established a second blocking position at LZ Crooks and after the ARVN Airborne Brigade annihiliated the two remnant battalions of the NVA battalions on 20 and 24 November. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 12:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
References
Therefore, it is reasonable that the ARVN be entered in the belligerent in box as a component of the Allied Task Force. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It is noteworthy to point out that the appellation of 'Battle of Ia Drang' leads to a lot of imprecision. Even within the military people, it can be loosely substituted by 'Operation of Ia Drang' or 'Campaign of Ia Drang'. Our IP 117.6.88.137 editor, for example writes, The term "Battle of Ia Drang" has for long been commonly used to refer to the combined battles at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany from 14-18 November 1965. I have corrected with, LZ X-Ray battle and LZ Albany battle were within Silver Bayonet I operation. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Let me offer you some quotations from the G3 Journal/IFFV ( http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_arclite_g3-2.htm) that show the ARVN were actively present at the Ia Drang Valley during the so called Battle of Ia Drang:
I think your criteria of 'combatant' and 'non-combatant' role (boots on the ground) is irrelevant in determining the qualification of being a belligerent. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 19:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
We have said enough. Let's wait and see comments from other members. 71.183.238.53 ( talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 22:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I have elaborated my point exactly on the talk page, so I have nothing left to say. I don't think a tag is something that affects the content of the page, so an OR tag is appropriate, unless you can explain otherwise. 113.190.165.78 ( talk) 15:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Through some studies I've just realized that the what the ARVN exercised in this battle is not even OPCON. The reasons are:
By pinning the tag original research?, your claim is that the opinion the ARVN is a 'belligerent' and Vĩnh Lộc a leader are the products of OR instead of facts backed up by reliable and published sources; you argue that these two statements are "things you've written down' [1]. You are wrong: the two facts are backed up by several reliable and published sources (Vinh Loc, Coleman, Kinnard are cited).
References
Your other mistake is in thinking that the ARVN troops and General Vĩnh Lộc did not play an active role in the Battle of Ia Drang. You do not consider being a reserved force the ARVN Airborne Brigade had an active role, and General Vĩnh Lộc's operational control of the battle was an active role. Furthermore, you fail to take into consideration the active role played by the ARVN II Corps Command in the B-52 strike operation conducted at the Battle of Ia Drang. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 00:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I see now what causes the misunderstanding between the two of us: my wrong choice of the acronym OPCON for "operational control'. In the Trường Chinh/Long Reach operation, the US 1ACD is 'opcon-ed' to ARVN II Corps Command, which means the US troops are put under the ARVN II Corps Command's 'operational control' under the special modus operandi (procedure, protocol):the operations had been conducted through a close cooperation between ARVN and US Forces: that was the latest procedure ever put into application since the second World War. It is characterized by: - Joint intelligence and support activities. - Commonly-shared concept of operations and results. - Separate TAOR. - Separate command. - Separate deployment of forces. - Separate conduct of activities. - Separate reserve. In this special protocol, the two military partners are at par footing, equal; either one is not subaltern to the other's authority. This special modus operandi was necessary to manage the sensitivity of both sides and to avoid the prima diva complex. I have left out the rest of the quote: The above procedure has brought many good results, especially in a country such as ours where the psychology of the people is charged with complexities and subtleties. I also find in that procedure a real competitive spirit between the two armed forces and between units. The Battle of Ia Drang was executed under the joint ARVN-US command task force, with the two commands "co-located" at the II Corps headquarters compound in Pleiku. It was carried out under a joint ARVN-US leadership. In this joint ARVN-US action the ARVN's principal contribution was in the aspects of "intelligence' and 'concept of operations'.
In brief, it is reasonable to insert the name of Vĩnh Lộc in the section "Commanders and Leaders" of the info-box, and subsequently the ARVN icon flag in the section of "Belligerents". Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 12:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The general public fails to notice that the main military action of the Battle of Ia Drang was performed by the 5-day B-52 strike from November 15 to 19. [1] The military action performed by the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion at the LZ X-Ray was only a secondary action, in support of the B-52 strike operation.
The B-52 strike at the Battle of Ia Drang is code-named "Plei Me/Chu Pong Campaign (20 October - November 20 1965)" http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_intel_J2-2.htm .
In comparison, the main action conducted by the Arc Light operation, was much more significant than the secondary action of Air Cavalry operation in terms of time (5 days – November 15–19 versus 2 days – November 14–15), of space (the entire Chupong-Iadrang complex areas versus the LZ X-Ray), of units committed (the 3AC's B-52 fleet stationed at Guam versus the 1/7, 2/7 and 2/5 Air Cavalry Battalions), and of enemy forces attacked (3 NVA 32nd, 33rd and 66th Regiments versus 2 NVA 7th and 9th battalions). Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 14:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
References
Allow me to use an allegory: I am aiming my gun at an animal. The animal runs toward me. I ask someone to chase the animal back to his place and hold him steady. I shoot the animal. The animal is not quite dead. I ask another person to join in and finish him off. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 21:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Since the Battle of Ia Drang has a two part engagements: one at the LZ X-Ray and the other one at the LZ Albany, it is necessary to clarify which one, one is talking about. LZ X-Ray is precisely located at "eastern foot of the Chu Pong massif" (Vinh Loc, p.82) and LZ Albany further up northward in the Ia Drang Valley (see map). Therefore it is confusing to call the two-part battle the "Battle of Ia Drang". The engagement at LZ Albany should get the name of "Battle of Ia Drang Valley" or "Battle of Ia Drang" for short; the one at LZ X-Ray, "Battle of Chu Pong"; and the Battle of Ia Drang", the "Battle of Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex" or "Battle of Chu Pong-Ia Drang" for short! To add to more confusion, the appellation "Battle of Ia Drang" should be reserved to Operation Than Phong 7 that the ARVN Airborne Brigade conducted in the Ia Drang Valley (see map). Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 10:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
References
It needs to stop. the IP and User:Tnguyen4321 need to work things out here on the talk page. I will request page protection if this continues. ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 19:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
user:Tnguyen4321 keeps adding unnecessary info under a section named "The air assault at LZ X-Ray". The whole info in this section has already been stated in other sections, so it's senseless to create a new section with such a content. When I deleted or fixed such info he just wages edit warring without explanation. 222.252.32.116 ( talk) 07:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The section is a combinative repetition of the following sections:
If nobody explains for this, I'll delete this in 3 more days. 117.6.88.137 ( talk) 11:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Dino nam preferred editing tool is original research?. Here is what our wolf in sheep's clothing intends to achieve with his OR tagging subterfuge. The tag will be dated. Other editors are constraint by a deadline. Two eventualities could happen: one, nobody care to comment on the issue; or two, editors can argue with him until they are blue in the face, he would say he is not convinced, and still maintains it is an OR and declares it should me removed according to Wikipedia policy. And he would remove it on his own authority, not on consensus. He then would just blank it or replace with his own version pertaining to this specific material.
Look how pointless his last OR-tagging examples are:
References
Either it is WP:BLUE (case#1 and #2) or citation is provided (case #3). Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 00:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Look, nobody else took issues with my positive contributions to this article, ONLY YOU! You even went as far as qualifying my contributions as "rubbish". Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 14:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Got permission to remove bogus OR tags: Do you care to remove the 3 bogus OR tags that Dino nam had pinned after been warned not to start an editing war? Thank you.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Yeah, go ahead, if you think they're undeserved. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You've evade the regulations quite well, but not well enough. You still fail to explain for the ARVN involvement and the "2 days" info. Dino nam ( talk) 11:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Herbert Banks has given the duration of ground action as 35 days (Oct 23 - Nov 25). He has also given that the Arc Light strikes' role was totally supporting. [1] Your point is not only an OR; it's a wrong OR. Dino nam ( talk) 11:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Just have suddenly discovered another not-OK point: You compare the number of sorties to the number of infantry battalions. It's like saying 1 kg is heavier than 1 meter. Dino nam ( talk) 11:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 20:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC) In light of the recent necessity to provide you with all the basic notions, it is obvious you have a very limited understanding of the subject. Stop editing a subject you have no clue of at all, will you? Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 10:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I gave up reasoning with you long, long time ago. You are the ONLY ONE. NO ONE ELSE bothers with your issue. When are you going to realize nobody is that obtuse as you are? Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It started with sock puppetry (113.190.165.78, 222.252.55.135, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116). The article got a semi-protection for one month on 14:52, 16 May 2016. The disruptive editor circumvents the blocking by switching to Dino nam to continue the disruption with persistent abusive bogus OR tagging. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
My newest info is WP:BLUE, just like what you've edited, huh? It's too obvious that air action suffered less casualties, that 0 is smaller than 305, huh? Now what do you say? Dino nam ( talk) 01:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The restored sentence that is thought to be a SYNTH is actually just a rewording of the conclusions states by both sources of Vinh Loc and Kinnard.
Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 13:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
than the ground action. These facts are of the type WP:BLUE, basic arithmetic that does need citations, i.e 5 days is more time than 2 days.
That said, it is worthy to note that both citations emphasize the deathly effectiveness of the air action in the campaign. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 00:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was under the impression that the following sentence was WP:SYNTH (and another editor thought it was WP:OR) because it implies that the air action of the Pleiku Campaign was more significant than the ground action of the Battle of Ia Drang without the sources making that claim, or that it violates WP:N by challenging the significance of this battle; I also feel that the comparison being made is between two things that aren't easily compared, so I don't think the comparison needs to be made in this article at all:
"The air action spent more times,[68] operated in a wider areas,[69] committed more units[70] and attacked more enemy forces,[71] than the ground action."
The editor that wrote this sentence claims that it is a statement of facts that're reliably sourced, and that the comparison is WP:BLUE. Does this sentence violate any policy or guideline, need rewording, or need removal? ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 05:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
::@Sturmgewehr88, I don't have access to the reference so that is a problem. I do know that part one of the article, normally considered the lead except in this case it is too long, states, "...about 1,000 North Vietnamese bodies on the battlefield and estimated that more were killed by air strikes and artillery", and includes a reference. This is a direct conclusion and if the reference doesn't support it then there are problems. The content in the Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley section, mentioned above, does make clear comparisons even though the wording is questionable. The content is followed by four references that should support the content.
@ Dino nam: @ Tnguyen4321: Stop edit warring. Neither one of you have sufficient grasp of policy to be dictating actions to the other. I guarantee that neither of you will be happy if I become convinced that this sniping will not stop. My advice is that both of you stop editing in the article mainspace and invite uninvolved editors to monitor a properly formatted RfC. Matter of fact, you probably should think about obtaining help in formatting the RfC. Tide rolls 19:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
As the issues about WP:SYNTH is over, I renew the discussion about South Vietnamese involvement here. I think South Vietnam should not be put into the box because of the following:
@ Sturmgewehr88: Please consider my points. I especially welcome your intervention. Dino nam ( talk) 06:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I did my university thesis on the Vietnam War and am really interested in the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley. I couldn't believe there was so little information in this article beyond the technical aspects of the battle. Therefore, I'm overhauling this article to provide a more human side to the battle. My primary source is Moore & Galloway's We Were Soldiers Once...And Young.
If I make any factual errors, please do not hesitate to correct me. Otherwise, please give me a few days to get everything in and the formatting right before making any significant changes.
Thanks!
James Cameron
March 6/06
It was a US victory. Vietnamese forces were in retreat when US troops left the valley.
Actually the most fair result is a N. Vietnam Strategic victory and a US Tactical victory.
Yes the NVA did own the valley however both sides got what they wanted, the US wanted to destroy the NVA that was in the valley but had no desire to control it thus making a tactical move. The NVA controlling the valley once US forced arrived wanted to remove the US so they could still control that valley thus making it a strategic move. The US got what they wanted of destroying the NVA division while the NVA got what they wanted by having US forced leave. Thus not making it a draw because if it was a draw then both forced would not of gained their over all goal.
@ Sturmgewehr88: Didn't you tell Dino nam I had provided reliable source re: ARVN involvement? Here are some more verifiable sources: The entire campaign, including the Battle of Ia Drang, was operated under the command of the joint ARVN-US task force, with the 1ACDF CP and the II Corps Command co-located at II Corps Headquarters compound in Pleiku. [1] [2]. on Nov 9, Brown and Moore went to the joint ARVN_US CP to be briefed of the military situation in preparation for the LZ X-Ray air assault. [3] The night before the air assaul, Nov 13, II Corps Command gave to Moore the enemy situation communication in Mandarin dialect. [4]. II Corps Command made sure the enemy did not positioned anti-aircraft guns and heavy mortars hillsides overlooking the LZ X-Ray that would gun down the air assault helicopters. [5] Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 17:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Dino nam: Finally now you have the humility to admit: I really don't understand Mr Tiderolls. If you are not able to understand the simple thing he says, how can you understand the complexity of the Wikipedia notions of OR, SYNTH and the US military jargons. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 16:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Irrelevant discussion crossed out. Dino nam ( talk) 01:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Nguyễn Đức Thắng, Westmoreland, Larsen, Kinnard, Chu Huy Man were directly and actively - meeting in person and giving direct order to the local commanders - involved in the Battle of Ia Drang as indicated by cited sources. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 21:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody object to have these names in the section "Commanders and leaders" of the infobox?
Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 22:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
March 8/06
I realize that I have included a significant amount of detail in this article, including the names of many officers and enlisted personnel involved in the battle. I have not yet finished this page, so please bear with me a few more days.
The purpose of including this much detail is so that interested individuals who have had relatives or friends who were at the Ia Drang may know what their loved ones did and underwent in this battle. I have purposely avoided providing details that would be troubling for those who may have known the combatants (such as detailed causes of death, for example).
While all of this information and much more is available in Moore and Galloway's book (in fact, it's my primary source), my hope is to respectfully inform those who knew the combatants of the Ia Drang (or any veterans of the Ia Drang who may read this article). For those who have never known these men but wish to honour their experience (like myself), the purpose of this page is to provide information on what I believe is among the most interesting and tragic battles of the War.
For those who are interested in learning more, I highly recommend the LZ X-Ray site and We Were Soldiers Once...And Young - which, in my view, is one of the best war books ever written.
James Cameron
Canada
Sometime ago I started a page called "Landing Zone X-Ray" to be about the place in present-day reality, not about the battle. Now I have all my research complete but the page redirects here. Would someone please detach or remove the redirect so I can just write the page out as I initally intended it to be? (I'm planning to use TerraServer or Google Earth to pinpoint the exact field or sunnink like that, but now I can't since the page is gone. Also I want a clear assurance that the embleer hraka rah who did this to me is stopped and will never do it again. Thank you all so much!) -- Shenshuai 16:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
So, I went in to edit the info box entry to put in Colonel Brown's first name, and I noticed that the entry also included Lt. Colonel Moore and Lt. Colonel McDade as the commanders of their own Battalions. The thing is, these last two bits don't show up in the template. Does anyone know how to modify it so they fit?-- Raguleader 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I went in and fixed all. Without going into a lot of detail, the hierarchy is as shown. Brown was the overall commander, Moore the on-scene commander, and McDade's battalion the one ambushed at Albany.-- 131.238.92.62 12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there any information available on the NVA/VC order of battle and their commanders? Does anyone want to add it in for the Infobox?-- Raguleader 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Would the number given for American forces include both Colonel Moore's and Colonel McDade's men combined? I'm pretty sure that would be far more than 395, though any counts should take care to remember that Lieutenant "Hard Corps" Rescorla's platoon fought in both actions.-- Raguleader 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Come on.
Also, the second battle has only one paragraph (and should have even separate article). -- HanzoHattori 06:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
LZ Albany ambush? -- HanzoHattori 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the references section be "notes" and be formatted as "Moore p. 219" instead of numbingly listing the whole title, and ISBN number for each ref? You can put that once in a section called references and just keep the surname and page number in the renamed notes section can't you? SGGH speak! 19:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It should, but it's more difficult than you think because they might get moved around. This should really be automated in the CITE system, but don't hold your breath. Maury 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The Second Battalion, 7th Cavalry lost 155 men killed and suffered 124 wounded, while Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry and Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry both suffered only 2 wounded? -- HanzoHattori 08:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If my memory is correct , there was a battle where the French were annihilated a few years before the American battle but on the same valley. Is this a fact?
-- YoavD 06:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This was NOT the first major US combat operation in Vietnam. Operation Gibraltar involving the 2/502nd and 2/327th infantry battalions of the 101st Airborne Division took place two months prior in September 1965. There were significant American casualties in this engagement, and it involved at least two American battalions pitted against a well entrenched Main Force VC battalion--certainly criteria for a "major battle". I'm changing that line in the article, and added a reference to Operation Gibraltar. Don't know how to add a citation, but here are some references:
"In mid-September, elements of the 2nd of the 502nd won the honor of first defeating a Viet Cong main force unit, before any other U.S. unit." ( http://bastogne.org/regiment_history/vietnam.html),
"...the battalion deployed to Vietnam in 1965 and fought the Division’s first engagement from the 18th to the 20th of September as part of Operation Gibraltar." ( http://pao.hood.army.mil/1stcavdiv/units/2-12cav/history.htm). -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.209.200 ( talk • contribs)
It was PAVN not VC. LTG(Ret) Charles Dyke refers to "the ill-fated airlift of the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry into a confined, narrow valley ringed by a battalion of well dug-in PAVN 95th Regiment" in a letter to the editor in September 1989 issue of Army Magazine in response to a book review of David Hackworth's book About Face. Then MAJ Dyke was the S3 (battalion operations officer) of 2/327th IN at the time of Operation Gibraltar.
What's the accuracy when this battle is compared to We were soldiers? There are many differences execpt the Alabny ambush?-- Stefanomencarelli 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Rather than starting an edit war in the infobox about the outcome, may I suggest that editors working on this article ensure that the outcome is properly referenced and that consensus is reached here. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a newbie at Wikipedia. I don't know if adding this to the talk page is necessary but I thought I would list some changes I made anyway. On 7/29/05 I edited lots of little things here and there. I'm pretty sure "battalion" and "regiment" should be capitalized when they refer to a specific unit. I retyped "1/7" as "1st Battalion, 7th Cav," and so forth. I rewrote several sentences which I thought confusing. Also, when listing casualties the original article called the US dead "soldiers" but the PAVN dead "fighters." If I understand correctly, the PAVN troops were regulars and therefore should also be considered soldiers. As it was I changed both to "killed." Good day and happy editing, -Schmitty3347
Terry J. Carter ( talk) 04:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't this article entitled the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley? I have been a student of the conflict since it was going on and I have never heard it refferred to as anything else (with the exception of Operation Silver Bayonet of which it was the major action). RM Gillespie 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Now as "strenght" in the infobox, but should be in the order of battle section in the main body of the article. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 05:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The article states "The U.S. lost 234, with 242 wounded ... The PAVN lost 1,037 killed with an estimated 1,365 wounded."
However, the side box says 234/242 and 837/1365. Any reason for the discrepancy between 1037 and 837? Also, should the 1365 in the side-box read "1365 est." since it is an estimate, but the other figures (as far as I know) are not?
-Anonymous
Also, American strength is listed in the side box as 395 men but casualties are "239 dead, 242 wounded." Furthermore, "The PAVN forces had suffered thousands of casualties and were no longer capable of a fight" according to the article's text but the total North Vietnamese casualties are less than 1,000 in the side box. The information is wrong either in the text or the side box, or maybe both. -KS 1/6/07
Good grief, what happened to the numbers now? This is from the source it links to:
Overall, Kinnard's forces suffered 305 killed and 524 wounded during the campaign while killing, according to official records, 1,519 of the enemy by body count and another 2,042 by estimate. The figures for the enemy's losses... are open to doubt. At X-RAY Colonel Moore ... reduced the total of 834 killed submitted by his men to 634 because the former figure seemed too high.
The numbers in the info box don't seem to resemble that at all. Abeall ( talk) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The figures of casualties in this article (particularly the side box) are atrociously incorrect. For both American and NVA troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.19.3 ( talk) 18:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Also figures for US casualties in the infobox are vastly different than in the text. -- 94.246.150.68 ( talk) 05:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The name of the location is Ia Drang (with a capital i), but the article's title is la Drang (with a lowercase l). 97.102.194.244 ( talk) 18:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
North vietnam also revendicated that battle as a victory for them.
Also, other languages for this wikipedia page state that there is no victor: italian deutsh french polski etc etc. If the English page is the only one to state that battle as a victory for USA then we can doubt about the partiality of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 ( talk) 21:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
This battle can be seen as a victory for the US in regards to the aggressive search and destroy strategy employed by General William Westmoreland. The US was actively seeking out large VPA and Vietcong units which they could engage in a set piece battle. This was just that. Although it may appear to be a loss from Colonel Moore's point of view, in the perspective of grand strategy at the time it was seen as a victory. Whether history determines this to be a victory or not is irrelevant here. It should be noted that it was seen as a victory with respect to grand strategy in the US high command. However, this did overshadowed the defeat of LZ Albany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91killer ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Be careful, this war hasn't just about casualties. McNamara's encounter with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Thach was clear: "'You're totally wrong. We were fighting for our independence. You were fighting to enslave us.'
'Do you mean to say it was not a tragedy for you, when you lost 3 million 4 hundred thousand Vietnamese killed, which on our population base is the equivalent of 27 million Americans? What did you accomplish? You didn't get any more than we were willing to give you at the beginning of the war. You could have had the whole damn thing: independence, unification.'
'Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you'd had, you'd know we weren't pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn't you know that? Don't you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence. And we would fight to the last man. And we were determined to do so. And no amount of bombing, no amount of U.S. pressure would ever have stopped us.'" [1] (I'm new to wikipedia, I don't know how can i "hide" part of this quote)
Thus, vietnamese morale and will could sustain much more casualties than U.S.A. It's correct to classify this battle's result as "controversial". U.S accomplished the goal of weaken VC/VPLA forces, and they denied important position [since the countryside was a source of supplies and recruits to the VC] to U.S troops and gradualy damaged U.S morale. RdClZn ( talk) 20:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
http://www.vietnampix.com/fire3.htm says "2500 dead". -- HanzoHattori 07:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The historical account of this battle in the book "We Were Soldiers Once... And Young" places the figure of NVA losses much higher than listed here as well. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.64.19.3 (
talk)
18:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
In the book "We Were Soldiers Once... And Young" never mention 2500 casualities of NVA. Your link is not the book. In addition,"body count" is very untrusting. -jimmy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"body count" is very untrusting. NVA claims that they just suffer 208 killed 146 wounded at Xray and Albany in Ladrang. Totally 554 killed and 669 wounded in the campaign. In my opinion, the figure of NVA casualities may be higher, however it cannot reach more than 500 death for the following reasons: first, NVA just got 66th PAVN Regiment with totally 2000 troops in La drang and after that their still be capable of participating PleiMe campaign. Second, American merely hold their position at X ray and call the support of artillery and air forces before retreating quickly by choppers. Albany they were ambushed by NVA and beaten heavily, losing their and position and retreat. It is difficult to belive they still are in mood to collect and count enemy bodies. - Jim- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"PleiMe campaign": The Siege of Plei Me was just the initial part the Pleiku Campaign. [1] It was not in the aftermath and it was the 33rd NVA that besieged the Plei Me SF-Monty camp and ambushed the Arvin relief column. Operation Silver Bayonet, that led to the NVA counterattacks at/near the landing zones X-Ray and Albany, the subject of this article, was the U.S. Air Cavalry response to Plei Me, and the 66th NVA was not "totally 2000".
In October, the 33rd Regt attacks Plei Me Special Forces Camp approximately 40 miles south of Pleiku City in the Pleiku Province. Plei Me is garrisoned with a 12 man US Special Forces Team and 350 Montagnard mercenaries. The siege continues for several days. An Army of Vietnam relief force is sent out from Pleiku and is ambushed enroute by the PAVN 32nd Regt. 1st CAV Artillery supports the ARVN column and the ambushers are beaten off, and the siege is lifted. The 1st CAV Division is then committed in late October to find and destroy the defeated enemy. The 1st Brigade pursues the withdrawing enemy force over a very large area south and west of Pleiku City and west of Plei Me. It harasses and hounds the 33rd into the eastern area of the Ia Drang Valley. The two most significant events are the capture of a PAVN Field Hospital on Nov 1st along with numerous troops, weapons, and enemy documents; and the ambush of a unit of the fresh 66th Regt along the Ia Drang River in the western area of the Valley. On 10 Nov, the 3rd Brigade relieves the 1st Brigade and moves into the area to the east and west of Plei Me and conducts patrolling actions. No enemy contact. UPI reporter Joe Galloway accompanied 1/7 CAV units on these patrols. Late in the afternoon of Saturday, 13 Nov, the 3rd Brigade Commander, COL Thomas Brown, gave the 1st Bn, 7th Cavalry commander, Lt. Col Hal Moore orders to move his battalion on 14 Nov into the Ia Drang Valley with the mission: "Find and kill the enemy". Moore would have 16 Huey helicopters to move his unit. Two 105 mm Howitzer batteries (12 tubes) to render fire support. Three battalions of PAVN were reported to be in the Valley. Moore put out a warning order to his staff and 5 company commanders, made a map study, formed a tentative plan, arranged for supplies, and set up an air recon for early 14 Nov to select a landing zone to be followed by the operations order to the staff and commanders. The air recon goes as planned and at 8:50 AM, 14 Nov Moore issued his operations plan of maneuver and plan of fire support. All companies were to land in one clearing dubbed landing zone X-Ray. [2] -- Niemti ( talk) 15:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe there should be articles about Operation Silver Bayonet and/or Pleiku Campaign (it is currently just a redirect to Pleiku) to dispel such a confusion. -- Niemti ( talk) 15:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
As of bodycount itself, at LZ X-Ray the Americans seized and policied the battlefield following the NVA retreat and didn't really "quickly evacuated". It's debatable if the body count can be really trusted, but it's the official minimum number (of course many bodies would be either taken by the retreating NVA or just not found or destroyed such is in napalm strikes). Moore: At approximately 1330 hours all companies on the perimeter screened out for 300 meters and policed the battlefield. Dead PAVN, PAVN body fragments, and PAVN weapons and equipment were littered in profusion around the edge and forward of the perimeter. Numerous body fragments were seen. There was massive evidence e.g. bloody trails, bandages, etc, of many other PAVN being dragged away from the area. Some of the enemy dead were found stacked behind anthills. Artillery and TAC Air was placed on all wooded areas nearby into which trails disappeared. Numerous enemy weapons were collected along with other armament. Two prisoners were taken and evacuated. Friendly dead and wounded were also collected. Some friendly were killed and wounded in this screening. Total estimated number was 1215. Also, many sources say 634, but it was really 834 claimed by bodycount (Moore's after-action report). -- Niemti ( talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The actual commander of the 66th is irrevelant because he was not there, so I instead inserted the political officer Ngoc Chau who actually commanded the regiment during the battle. -- Niemti ( talk) 17:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me this article's most serious shortcoming is that no Vietnamese sources have been used in writing it. Much the same can be said about most articles on en.WP covering this conflict - the sourcing is unfortunately biased. Roger ( talk) 12:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the casualty figures in the slightest. Can someone explain to me what's what? 24.212.137.195 ( talk) 05:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm uncertain of the availability of PAVN accounts of this battle, but right now it reads as being very US-centric. Not that its bad...actually it's sort of a gripping narrative account, but it would add some colour and improve the historical context to provide at least part of the North Vietnamese side in this engagement. if a reliable source could be found, that would really improve this article. Antimatter--- talk--- 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Vietnam should talks.
Here is the PAVN take "We sent our men into the field and they were turned into ground beef by accurate and sustained US artillery." No sarcasm intended, but how could it NOT be US centric when the battle under Moore's command (that is, the initial engagement at the LZ but not including the idiotic orders to march and then be ambushed subsequently) achieved better than 8:1 casualties against the NVA. Insofar as the strategic purpose of the battle from the US side was to test the utility of air cavalry mobilized warfare, it was a stellar success and showed the NVA that they were NOT fighting the French any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.139.119 ( talk) 04:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with the unsigned opinion that opens this thread. For example, article accounts for heroisms by U.S. soldiers, but it's possible that there are heroism acts also on the other side this article doesn't tell of. As it is, IMHO the article seems to be a little too U.S.-centric (POV?). To obtain the netrality wikipedia should have, the Vietnamese point of view should be considered. If information for the Vietnamese side are not alvailble, IMHO such thing should be stressed at the beginning of the article.
Thank you for your attention. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.40.190.21 (
talk)
20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You must remember that Vietnamese speakers are rare, and most of Vietnam War sources are from U.S "researchers". It's easier to seek for chinese sources, or any american recent revisionist research material. It's hard... Also, how could they have such precise estimatives (americans) about enemy casualties if they (U.S troops) left the battlefield and had no precise idea about enemy strenght at and after the Battle? This is a bit of a nonsense IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RdClZn ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hal Moore's book does include quite a bit of input from some senior PAVN officers concerning their perspective on the battles - very interesting on many levels. 62.196.17.197 ( talk) 11:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
In September 13th 2007 editor Civil Engineer III, in an attempt to reduce POV, changed nearly every mention of the words enemy and communist to Viet Cong, even though in many instances the words enemy and communist probably did not refer to NLF or PLAF but to PAVN. Perhaps Civil Engineer III was not well informed of the differences between People's Liberation Armed Forces a.k.a. Viet Cong and People's Army of Vietnam, and, hence, was prone to confusing the two. Could someone more knowledgeable please go through the article and change these possibly incorrect references to something more appropriate? Thank you. -- 130.234.5.137 ( talk) 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Changed to "Vietnamese" or "enemy" when in context. -- RamboKadyrov ( talk) 12:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Just for the sake of discussion I am wondering at the classification of this battle as a "draw."
Is this for political correctness, because it seems to me that around 1,500 enemy dead vs. around 500 U.S. dead is a victory. Is it because the U.S. forces left the field of battle? I could understand this although because of the unconventional nature of the war, gaining and holding territory had little if no meaning. Just wondering.
By the way, I did a search of other source material on Ia Drang Valley and couldn't find anything on amazon.com anyway. I certainly would very much like to have the other sides views, comments and any heroism on their part. As a vet of Nam yet after 40 years even I have some sense of reconciliation and can recognize that in their view the enemy then were fighting a war of liberation and many men and women on their side have very interesting and important stories to tell.
98.165.79.166 ( talk) 15:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)TDurden1937
Most popular sources counted the NVA forces in Ia Drang around 3000 and 4000 troops. However, both the NVA's 33rd and 66th and other forces together only commited 5 battalions worth of troops, which according to VPA's official document, only about 300-500 men each. There's also the harsh condition of their operating ground, previous combat losses... should reduce the active combatant even more. So in this sense, should we stick to the famous 4000, or the logical 1800?-- Zeraful ( talk) 15:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
(copy from HowCheng's talk page)
You recently put up a sign "needs additional citations" at the top of the article. Do you care to point out specifically which statements or sentences or parts or sections need additional citations? Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 19:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: the topic 'Overhauling this Article' of the talk page of the Battle of Ia Drang article, it was said: ... I'm overhauling this article to provide a more human side to the battle. My primary source is Moore & Galloway's We Were Soldiers Once...And Young. Thanks! James Cameron March 6/06. Therefore, I deem your tag is not relevant. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
If a 'general reference' does nothing to you, then it is preferable to put a tag 'citation needed' at each end of sentence or paragraph where needed; that is if you want to induce people to action and add citations. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 21:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
If you can, then you can keep that 'general tag' while inserting the individual tags. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 22:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has inserted the phrase "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed" into the info box for this article. This is not in accord with Wikipedia's usual practice for info boxes. The info box for the Battle of the Little Big Horn states only that it was a Native American victory; it does not say "Custer's command mostly destroyed" or anything similar. The info box for the Battle of Iwo Jima states only that it was an American victory. It does not say "Japanese defenders destroyed"
Thus, inserting the comment "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed" into the info box of this article is not consistent with other articles and is, in fact, a point of view that is more appropriately discussed in the text of the article.
Moreover, the phrase is misleading. One might with accuracy say in the info box that 2 American battalions suffered nearly 50 percent casualties. Why don't we also say that in the info box? Saying that would be just as relevant as saying that the "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed." The answer is that it's best to leave judgmental POV arguments out of the info box. Let's just say "Both sides claimed victory" and leave the argument about who did what to whom for the text of the article.
The phrase "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed" was added to the info box only on 20 October 2015. It is a recent and questionable addition to a long-existing article and should be discussed thoroughly before being inserted. It appears to be a latter-day sleight of hand effort to claim American victory in a battle in which both sides claimed victory.
Thus, I have reverted the phrase "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed." Smallchief ( talk 10:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well first of all it's a pleasure to meet you all. Jumping right in, I don't believe mentioning the 50% casualties would be just as relevant at all. Despite the high casualty rate, the battalions remained in tact and ultimately held the field while 6 out of 9 (the majority) communist battalions were entirely wiped out. I apologize for seeing that as significant. No sleight of hand attempt, just trying to add a bit more detail to the vague "Both sides claim victory." But I'm clearly outnumbered and the consensus is against me, so I'll leave the page as it is. Cheers. Amerijuanican ( talk) 02:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Battle, operation, campaign: Ia Drang, Ia Drăng, Ia Drang Valley, Plei Mei, Plei Me, Pleime, Plây Me, Plâyme, Long Reach, Trường Chinh, Pleiku, LZ X-Ray, etc.
Locations: Plei Me/Pleime, Chu Pong/Chupong, Chu Pong Massif/Chupong Massif,Ia Drang/Iadrang, Ia Drang Valley/Iadrang Valley, Chupong-Iadrang complex, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnguyen4321 ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Precisely:
There have been two requests for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning whether the ARVN should be listed as a participant. Both have been declined because one of the editors has declined to participate, and moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. At this point, there are two possible steps forward. The first is further discussion here. However, discussion at this talk page is also voluntary. The other possibility is a Request for Comments. A Request for Comments appears to be the most likely way forward. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment about whether South Vietnam should be included in the infobox as a belligerent. 113.190.165.78 ( talk) 17:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The information from the book Why Pleime was misinterpreted. In the preface, Gen. Westmoreland meant that the ARVN had contributed mainly to the "final phase" of the battle, which was Operation Than Phong 7, carried out from 18 November 1965, after the Battle of Ia Drang was over. In fact, almost no info about the involvement of the ARVN is found in Chapter V of the book. 113.190.172.153 ( talk) 16:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)D. Nam
The Battle of Ia Drang is the extension of the Siege of Pleime. Initially, upon learning that the NVA B3 Field Front (first belligerent)was staging for an attack of the Pleime camp with its three 32nd, 33rd and 66th Regiments from their bases established in the Chu Pong Massif areas by December 1965, the ARVN II Corps (second belligerent) made plan to destroy the three regiments at their assembly areas with B-52 strike as early as September 1965. When the NVA decided to attack earlier on 19 October with only two readied 32nd and 33rd Regiment, the ARVN employed a delay tactic in repulsing the attacking regiments back to Chu Pong where they would join force with the 66th Regiment to attempt for a second attack of the camp. The ARVN requested the help of the 1st Air Cavalry Division with their airmobility capacity - with the ARVN Airborne as reserved force on standby - to round up the three enemy regiments into suitable targets for B-52 strike with the insertion of the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion in a blocking position at LZ X-Ray. This insertion enabled the 5 consecutive days of B-52 strikes all over the Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex from 15 to 20 November, including the LZ X-Ray on 17 November. (See McChristian, Intelligence Aspect of Plei me/Chu Pong campaign from 20 October to 20 November 1965, http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_intel_J2-2.htm). The ARVN II Corps Command had the operational control of the Battle of Ia Drang, providing the operational concept and the intelligence to the Air Cavalry. After the LZ X-Ray battle, the ARVN II Corps Command acknowledged 1/7th Air Cavalry Battalion’s heroism with VN Gallantry Cross with Palm, because LTC Hal Moore’s battalion was attached to II Corps Forces in that battle (see http://www.generalhieu.com/vinhloc-moore.jpg). My conclusion is that the ARVN should be included in the in-box of belligerents. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 04:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't think you can draw up casual relationship between two or more battles if they are not planned as such in a campaign. All the operations in the Pleime (Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang) were performed to facilitate the 5 day B-52 strike operation (Dan Thang 21, Trường Chinh, Than Phong 7). Within Trường Chinh (Long Reach in English) operation are All The Way (rounding up), Silver Bayonet I (fixing with LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany), and Silver Bayonet II in conjunction with Than Phong 7 (finishing off). Secondly, the ARVN still maintained an active participation during the Battle of Ia Drang; and therefore should be inserted as a belligerent in the box. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 10:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, the NVA as a belligerent chose to attack at Pleime, while the ARVN as a belligerent chose to counter attack at the Chupong-Iadrang complex. And the main action in the Battle of Ia Drang was the B-52 strike operation, not the air assault of the Air Cav at the LZ X-Ray. In comparison to the main action conducted by the Arc Light operation, the secondary action of Air Cavalry operation weighed much less in time (2 days –November 14-15 versus five days – November 15-19), space (LZ X-Ray versus the entire Chupong-Iadrang complex areas), units committed (1/7, 2/7 and 2/5 Air Cavalry Battalions versus the 3AC's B-52 fleet stationed at Guam), enemy forces engaged (2 NVA battalions versus 3 NVA Regiments). The main role played by the ARVN in the battle should not be ignored and go undetected, as it is currently. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 12:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
After the relief of the siege of the Pleime camp, on 27 October 1965, the ARVN II Corps Command made plan for a counter attack at the footstep of the Chupong Massif where the enemy had staged its attack. The counter attack will be called by the popular name 'The Battle of Ia Drang'. A joint ARVN-US Command Task Force was created which comprised the II Corps Command and the 1st Air Cavalry Forward Command Post and co-located in the compound of the ARVN II Corps Headquarters in Pleiku) [1]. The pursuit operation that lead to the Battle of Ia Drang was named Operation Trường Chinh ̣(Long Reach in English) [2] conducted by an Allied Task Force composed of the US 1st Air Cavalry Division as the main force and the ARVN Airborne Brigade as the reserve force) [3]. The Battle of Ia Drang was conducted with a close ARVN-US modus operandi [4].
The Battle of Ia Drang did not end at the footstep of Chu Pong massif when the US Air Cavalry troops abandoned the LZ X-Ray. It ended further west of the Ia Drang Valley toward the Duc Co camp near the Cambodian border, after the US 2nd Air Cavalry established a second blocking position at LZ Crooks and after the ARVN Airborne Brigade annihiliated the two remnant battalions of the NVA battalions on 20 and 24 November. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 12:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
References
Therefore, it is reasonable that the ARVN be entered in the belligerent in box as a component of the Allied Task Force. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It is noteworthy to point out that the appellation of 'Battle of Ia Drang' leads to a lot of imprecision. Even within the military people, it can be loosely substituted by 'Operation of Ia Drang' or 'Campaign of Ia Drang'. Our IP 117.6.88.137 editor, for example writes, The term "Battle of Ia Drang" has for long been commonly used to refer to the combined battles at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany from 14-18 November 1965. I have corrected with, LZ X-Ray battle and LZ Albany battle were within Silver Bayonet I operation. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Let me offer you some quotations from the G3 Journal/IFFV ( http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_arclite_g3-2.htm) that show the ARVN were actively present at the Ia Drang Valley during the so called Battle of Ia Drang:
I think your criteria of 'combatant' and 'non-combatant' role (boots on the ground) is irrelevant in determining the qualification of being a belligerent. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 19:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
We have said enough. Let's wait and see comments from other members. 71.183.238.53 ( talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 22:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I have elaborated my point exactly on the talk page, so I have nothing left to say. I don't think a tag is something that affects the content of the page, so an OR tag is appropriate, unless you can explain otherwise. 113.190.165.78 ( talk) 15:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Through some studies I've just realized that the what the ARVN exercised in this battle is not even OPCON. The reasons are:
By pinning the tag original research?, your claim is that the opinion the ARVN is a 'belligerent' and Vĩnh Lộc a leader are the products of OR instead of facts backed up by reliable and published sources; you argue that these two statements are "things you've written down' [1]. You are wrong: the two facts are backed up by several reliable and published sources (Vinh Loc, Coleman, Kinnard are cited).
References
Your other mistake is in thinking that the ARVN troops and General Vĩnh Lộc did not play an active role in the Battle of Ia Drang. You do not consider being a reserved force the ARVN Airborne Brigade had an active role, and General Vĩnh Lộc's operational control of the battle was an active role. Furthermore, you fail to take into consideration the active role played by the ARVN II Corps Command in the B-52 strike operation conducted at the Battle of Ia Drang. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 00:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I see now what causes the misunderstanding between the two of us: my wrong choice of the acronym OPCON for "operational control'. In the Trường Chinh/Long Reach operation, the US 1ACD is 'opcon-ed' to ARVN II Corps Command, which means the US troops are put under the ARVN II Corps Command's 'operational control' under the special modus operandi (procedure, protocol):the operations had been conducted through a close cooperation between ARVN and US Forces: that was the latest procedure ever put into application since the second World War. It is characterized by: - Joint intelligence and support activities. - Commonly-shared concept of operations and results. - Separate TAOR. - Separate command. - Separate deployment of forces. - Separate conduct of activities. - Separate reserve. In this special protocol, the two military partners are at par footing, equal; either one is not subaltern to the other's authority. This special modus operandi was necessary to manage the sensitivity of both sides and to avoid the prima diva complex. I have left out the rest of the quote: The above procedure has brought many good results, especially in a country such as ours where the psychology of the people is charged with complexities and subtleties. I also find in that procedure a real competitive spirit between the two armed forces and between units. The Battle of Ia Drang was executed under the joint ARVN-US command task force, with the two commands "co-located" at the II Corps headquarters compound in Pleiku. It was carried out under a joint ARVN-US leadership. In this joint ARVN-US action the ARVN's principal contribution was in the aspects of "intelligence' and 'concept of operations'.
In brief, it is reasonable to insert the name of Vĩnh Lộc in the section "Commanders and Leaders" of the info-box, and subsequently the ARVN icon flag in the section of "Belligerents". Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 12:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The general public fails to notice that the main military action of the Battle of Ia Drang was performed by the 5-day B-52 strike from November 15 to 19. [1] The military action performed by the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion at the LZ X-Ray was only a secondary action, in support of the B-52 strike operation.
The B-52 strike at the Battle of Ia Drang is code-named "Plei Me/Chu Pong Campaign (20 October - November 20 1965)" http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_intel_J2-2.htm .
In comparison, the main action conducted by the Arc Light operation, was much more significant than the secondary action of Air Cavalry operation in terms of time (5 days – November 15–19 versus 2 days – November 14–15), of space (the entire Chupong-Iadrang complex areas versus the LZ X-Ray), of units committed (the 3AC's B-52 fleet stationed at Guam versus the 1/7, 2/7 and 2/5 Air Cavalry Battalions), and of enemy forces attacked (3 NVA 32nd, 33rd and 66th Regiments versus 2 NVA 7th and 9th battalions). Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 14:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
References
Allow me to use an allegory: I am aiming my gun at an animal. The animal runs toward me. I ask someone to chase the animal back to his place and hold him steady. I shoot the animal. The animal is not quite dead. I ask another person to join in and finish him off. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 21:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Since the Battle of Ia Drang has a two part engagements: one at the LZ X-Ray and the other one at the LZ Albany, it is necessary to clarify which one, one is talking about. LZ X-Ray is precisely located at "eastern foot of the Chu Pong massif" (Vinh Loc, p.82) and LZ Albany further up northward in the Ia Drang Valley (see map). Therefore it is confusing to call the two-part battle the "Battle of Ia Drang". The engagement at LZ Albany should get the name of "Battle of Ia Drang Valley" or "Battle of Ia Drang" for short; the one at LZ X-Ray, "Battle of Chu Pong"; and the Battle of Ia Drang", the "Battle of Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex" or "Battle of Chu Pong-Ia Drang" for short! To add to more confusion, the appellation "Battle of Ia Drang" should be reserved to Operation Than Phong 7 that the ARVN Airborne Brigade conducted in the Ia Drang Valley (see map). Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 10:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
References
It needs to stop. the IP and User:Tnguyen4321 need to work things out here on the talk page. I will request page protection if this continues. ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 19:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
user:Tnguyen4321 keeps adding unnecessary info under a section named "The air assault at LZ X-Ray". The whole info in this section has already been stated in other sections, so it's senseless to create a new section with such a content. When I deleted or fixed such info he just wages edit warring without explanation. 222.252.32.116 ( talk) 07:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The section is a combinative repetition of the following sections:
If nobody explains for this, I'll delete this in 3 more days. 117.6.88.137 ( talk) 11:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Dino nam preferred editing tool is original research?. Here is what our wolf in sheep's clothing intends to achieve with his OR tagging subterfuge. The tag will be dated. Other editors are constraint by a deadline. Two eventualities could happen: one, nobody care to comment on the issue; or two, editors can argue with him until they are blue in the face, he would say he is not convinced, and still maintains it is an OR and declares it should me removed according to Wikipedia policy. And he would remove it on his own authority, not on consensus. He then would just blank it or replace with his own version pertaining to this specific material.
Look how pointless his last OR-tagging examples are:
References
Either it is WP:BLUE (case#1 and #2) or citation is provided (case #3). Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 00:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Look, nobody else took issues with my positive contributions to this article, ONLY YOU! You even went as far as qualifying my contributions as "rubbish". Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 14:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Got permission to remove bogus OR tags: Do you care to remove the 3 bogus OR tags that Dino nam had pinned after been warned not to start an editing war? Thank you.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Yeah, go ahead, if you think they're undeserved. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You've evade the regulations quite well, but not well enough. You still fail to explain for the ARVN involvement and the "2 days" info. Dino nam ( talk) 11:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Herbert Banks has given the duration of ground action as 35 days (Oct 23 - Nov 25). He has also given that the Arc Light strikes' role was totally supporting. [1] Your point is not only an OR; it's a wrong OR. Dino nam ( talk) 11:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Just have suddenly discovered another not-OK point: You compare the number of sorties to the number of infantry battalions. It's like saying 1 kg is heavier than 1 meter. Dino nam ( talk) 11:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 20:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC) In light of the recent necessity to provide you with all the basic notions, it is obvious you have a very limited understanding of the subject. Stop editing a subject you have no clue of at all, will you? Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 10:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I gave up reasoning with you long, long time ago. You are the ONLY ONE. NO ONE ELSE bothers with your issue. When are you going to realize nobody is that obtuse as you are? Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It started with sock puppetry (113.190.165.78, 222.252.55.135, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116). The article got a semi-protection for one month on 14:52, 16 May 2016. The disruptive editor circumvents the blocking by switching to Dino nam to continue the disruption with persistent abusive bogus OR tagging. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
My newest info is WP:BLUE, just like what you've edited, huh? It's too obvious that air action suffered less casualties, that 0 is smaller than 305, huh? Now what do you say? Dino nam ( talk) 01:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The restored sentence that is thought to be a SYNTH is actually just a rewording of the conclusions states by both sources of Vinh Loc and Kinnard.
Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 13:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
than the ground action. These facts are of the type WP:BLUE, basic arithmetic that does need citations, i.e 5 days is more time than 2 days.
That said, it is worthy to note that both citations emphasize the deathly effectiveness of the air action in the campaign. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 00:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was under the impression that the following sentence was WP:SYNTH (and another editor thought it was WP:OR) because it implies that the air action of the Pleiku Campaign was more significant than the ground action of the Battle of Ia Drang without the sources making that claim, or that it violates WP:N by challenging the significance of this battle; I also feel that the comparison being made is between two things that aren't easily compared, so I don't think the comparison needs to be made in this article at all:
"The air action spent more times,[68] operated in a wider areas,[69] committed more units[70] and attacked more enemy forces,[71] than the ground action."
The editor that wrote this sentence claims that it is a statement of facts that're reliably sourced, and that the comparison is WP:BLUE. Does this sentence violate any policy or guideline, need rewording, or need removal? ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 05:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
::@Sturmgewehr88, I don't have access to the reference so that is a problem. I do know that part one of the article, normally considered the lead except in this case it is too long, states, "...about 1,000 North Vietnamese bodies on the battlefield and estimated that more were killed by air strikes and artillery", and includes a reference. This is a direct conclusion and if the reference doesn't support it then there are problems. The content in the Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley section, mentioned above, does make clear comparisons even though the wording is questionable. The content is followed by four references that should support the content.
@ Dino nam: @ Tnguyen4321: Stop edit warring. Neither one of you have sufficient grasp of policy to be dictating actions to the other. I guarantee that neither of you will be happy if I become convinced that this sniping will not stop. My advice is that both of you stop editing in the article mainspace and invite uninvolved editors to monitor a properly formatted RfC. Matter of fact, you probably should think about obtaining help in formatting the RfC. Tide rolls 19:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
As the issues about WP:SYNTH is over, I renew the discussion about South Vietnamese involvement here. I think South Vietnam should not be put into the box because of the following:
@ Sturmgewehr88: Please consider my points. I especially welcome your intervention. Dino nam ( talk) 06:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I did my university thesis on the Vietnam War and am really interested in the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley. I couldn't believe there was so little information in this article beyond the technical aspects of the battle. Therefore, I'm overhauling this article to provide a more human side to the battle. My primary source is Moore & Galloway's We Were Soldiers Once...And Young.
If I make any factual errors, please do not hesitate to correct me. Otherwise, please give me a few days to get everything in and the formatting right before making any significant changes.
Thanks!
James Cameron
March 6/06
It was a US victory. Vietnamese forces were in retreat when US troops left the valley.
Actually the most fair result is a N. Vietnam Strategic victory and a US Tactical victory.
Yes the NVA did own the valley however both sides got what they wanted, the US wanted to destroy the NVA that was in the valley but had no desire to control it thus making a tactical move. The NVA controlling the valley once US forced arrived wanted to remove the US so they could still control that valley thus making it a strategic move. The US got what they wanted of destroying the NVA division while the NVA got what they wanted by having US forced leave. Thus not making it a draw because if it was a draw then both forced would not of gained their over all goal.
@ Sturmgewehr88: Didn't you tell Dino nam I had provided reliable source re: ARVN involvement? Here are some more verifiable sources: The entire campaign, including the Battle of Ia Drang, was operated under the command of the joint ARVN-US task force, with the 1ACDF CP and the II Corps Command co-located at II Corps Headquarters compound in Pleiku. [1] [2]. on Nov 9, Brown and Moore went to the joint ARVN_US CP to be briefed of the military situation in preparation for the LZ X-Ray air assault. [3] The night before the air assaul, Nov 13, II Corps Command gave to Moore the enemy situation communication in Mandarin dialect. [4]. II Corps Command made sure the enemy did not positioned anti-aircraft guns and heavy mortars hillsides overlooking the LZ X-Ray that would gun down the air assault helicopters. [5] Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 17:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Dino nam: Finally now you have the humility to admit: I really don't understand Mr Tiderolls. If you are not able to understand the simple thing he says, how can you understand the complexity of the Wikipedia notions of OR, SYNTH and the US military jargons. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 16:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Irrelevant discussion crossed out. Dino nam ( talk) 01:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Nguyễn Đức Thắng, Westmoreland, Larsen, Kinnard, Chu Huy Man were directly and actively - meeting in person and giving direct order to the local commanders - involved in the Battle of Ia Drang as indicated by cited sources. Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 21:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody object to have these names in the section "Commanders and leaders" of the infobox?
Tnguyen4321 ( talk) 22:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)