Talk:Operation Lam Son 719

Edit request from Alanwbaker, 5 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The following sentence is partially correct.

"As a response, a completely new airstrip had to be built and the first aircraft arrived on 15 February.[33]"

According to the declassified Project CHECO (Contemporary Historical Examination of Current Operations Report) Tactical Airlift in SEA, 15 Feb 72, by Major Ronald D. Merrell:

"On 4 February the new 3,200 foot runway was completed and the first C-130 landed. It was apparent that the dirt strip was too soft when the wheels of the lightly loaded aircraft sank into the surface more than six inches. Consequently, engineers covered the runway with aluminum matting, completing the work on 15 February. The first POL sortie arrived the same day."

Alanwbaker (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"

So - no offence - but please make an actual specific suggested improvement. And use another{{editsemiprotected}}. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Edit request from Alanwbaker, 10 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change:

"As a response, a completely new airstrip had to be built and the first aircraft arrived on 15 February.[33]"

to:

"As a response, a completely new 3200' dirt airstrip was built. On 4 February the first C-130 landed there bringing in an Air Force Combat Control Team. The wheels of the lightly loaded aircraft sank into the surface more than six inches, making it clear that the airstrip could not handle heavily-loaded aircraft. Engineers covered the runway with aluminum matting, completing the work on 15 February. The same day the first operational C-130 sortie arrived, bringing in fuel for helicopters."

Source:

Project CHECO (Contemporary Historical Examination of Current Operations Report) Tactical Airlift in SEA, 15 Feb 72, by Major Ronald D. Merrell. Available online at http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/039/0390203001a.pdf

Alanwbaker (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Can I suggest that you make a few (5 more) minor edits so that you become autoconfirmed and then make this change yourself? I would have a hard time justifying the requested level of detail about the runway in the middle of that high level summary. A simple change from "first aircraft" to "first fully-loaded aircraft" would seem more appropriate to me. Celestra (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: No consensus to make the change right now. Feel free to make the request again if the consensus changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Oschlag, 27 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} URL in "External links" to "Lam Son 719 at 101st Aviation Battalion site" is dead. New correct URL is: http://www.comanchero.org/LamSon719.html

Oschlag (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Viet Cong

Under "Background" the article states "the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF or derogatively, Viet Cong)". I believe that "derogatively" is entirely the wrong word. I don't believe that "Viet Cong" was used in a derogative way at all: I thnk the word should be "commonly" (actually I thought of a better word about 2am but I've forgotten it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baska436 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Bernard Fall in "Street Without Joy" says that the term Viet Cong was a pejorative term used for the enemy by our forces. In our Area of Operations, Quang Tri Province Northern I Corps, when I was there '69–'70, "Viet Cong" or "VC" was the name in standard use by our side for partisans in the south. Whereas the regular forces form the north (our primary enemy there and then) were referred to as the "NVA", and they were feared and respected. The Vietnamese people were generally called "gooks" even by the officers, treated with contempt and looked down on generally, though not universally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 18:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Prior ops against the Trail

See alsos or other linkage to prior offensives against the Trail would round out the historical picture. I have in mind links to Operation Junction City Jr., Operation Left Jab, Operation Diamond Arrow, and Operation Honorable Dragon at present. To be written in the near future are the Tchepone Operation, Operation Maeng Da, and several others. In other words, there were a number of strikes against Tchepone and the Trail that are not generally known, even if they are part of the history.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add Infobox:military conflict for each new operation/battle page you create. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Result

The result is far too long, confusing and needs to be shortened. Using the Template:Infobox military conflict the result should be simple or if over complicated "Use Aftermath section". Most reliable sources I have found have all said the operation was a failure. With these sources the result should be either be 'Operational Failure', 'North Vietnamese victory'. Shire Lord (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have recently been involved in several lengthy debates/RFCs regarding how the outcome of operations should be described see Talk:Operation Castor#RfC: Result and Talk:Operation Léa#RfC: Result and believe that we should keep the outcome as it is or refer to the Aftermath section. I do not support just "North Vietnamese victory". regards Mztourist (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The result at present is not an outcome and partially disrupting does not fit the Template:Infobox military conflict result criteria and completely avoids the overall conclusion of the operation. It needs to be changed so here's just a few quotes regarding the operation as a whole itself -

• was military disaster for the South Vietnamese, a public relations and political embarrassment for Nixon
• the failed attempt to cut the Ho Chi Minh trial.
• The campaign famously known as Operation Lam Son 719, was a disaster for the ARVN.
• Lam Son 719 turned into an utter disaster
• Lam Son 719 was clearly a failed operation.
• The most stunning evidence of Vietnamization's failure came when Saigon's best troops were dealt a shattering defeat in their extensive Lam Son 719.
• the NVA chose to stand and fight - transforming a a seemingly successful ARVN attack into a bloody rout.
• a clear defeat at the hands of the North Vietnamese Shire Lord (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I am fully aware of what various sources say about the outcome. As advised above, I agree to changing the Infobox to Refer to Aftermath, however changing the Infobox to North Vietnamese strategic victory goes against the results of the 2 recent RFCs that I mentioned and so I cannot support such a change. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Im fully aware of the two RFC's mentioned but the problem was finding a source/reference to reflect the outcome and a consensus was made. This article however is totally different - if you look at the sources there is one general outcome and that is as an operational failure or North Vietnamese victory. Also with this I'm not suggesting it should be be North Vietnamese Strategic victory and there is no need to change to 'See Aftermath'. Therefore with those sources in mind it's best to change the result to those quoted words. Shire Lord (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I will agree to Operational failure. Mztourist (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

References

"Closed out"

The article states that "the isolated firebases were closed out or overrun by the North Vietnamese and each withdrawal was costly". There are two problems with this: "overrun" is not a withdrawal, and I have no idea what "closed out" even means.Royalcourtier (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that overrun is not withdrawal. Closed out means the base was abandoned by the ARVN rather than being overrun. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Lom Son 719 documentary

I served in Quang Tri Provence in '69–'70. Our company commander Captain Bodenhorn participated in Lom Son 719 in '71 after my return from Vietnam. The following link is to a very informative short Lom Son 719 documentary featured on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV8L7liuzXA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.48.240 (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Its Lam Son, not Lom Son. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Fuji

By these edits: [1] I added details of Dennis Fuji, notable as one of the few US servicemen on the ground during the operation, instrumental in the defence of Ranger North for which he received the Distinguished Service Cross and for which there are numerous WP:RS. Fuji probably doesn't satisfy WP:GNG for a standalone page so I put him in here, however User:Quenreerer reverted my edits, opinions please. Mztourist (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Fujii to receive the Medal of Honor on 5 July 2022. Mztourist (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Dennis Fuji

There is a clear consensus to restore the content here.

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (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.

---

Should this detail: [2] on Dennis Fuji be retained? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC). Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes Fuji is notable as one of the few US servicemen on the ground during the operation, he was instrumental in the defense of Ranger North for which he received the Distinguished Service Cross and for which there are numerous WP:RS. Fuji probably doesn't satisfy WP:GNG for a standalone page so I put him in here. The detail about Fuji isn't excessive in comparison to other battle/operation pages which also single out individual actions/accomplishments. Mztourist (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• NO gives undue weight to the actions of a single man. Quenreerer (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes His actions are notable and relevant enough. But perhaps more should be added on the actions of other individuals as well.HAL333 01:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, because history books cover this action and DSC award. But maybe condense this story/award into one paragraph instead of spreading it out? Kacper IV (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Clear consensus for inclusion so I have reinstated the details. They need to be spread out timewise as the events occurred over different dates and bases. Mztourist (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above 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.

A class status

This 2007 promotion is not close to meeting 2020 requirements. There is a lot of unsourced text as well as inconsistent ref format and lack of page numbers in some cases. (t · c) buidhe 06:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I was going to go through the page and add a lot more detail from Nguyen Duy Hinh's monograph, but haven't managed to motivate myself to do so. Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Found my motivation and added in more detail from Hinh. Mztourist (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ironically, the two Phantom pilots were not recovered by the search and rescue effort that had abandoned the firebase; instead, they wandered in the jungle for two more days before being picked up"

I'm working on the article for Thomas M. McLaughlin, who was one of these two pilots. Their own accounts, and contemporary reports, has them being picked up the following day (i.e., 26 February 1971) by a helicopter rescue from the area of FB 31. The version where the Phantom pilots were picked up two days later is based on the Keith Nolan book Into Laos, which I don't have access to - does this accurately reflect the version in Nolan's book? Hinh doesn't mention it though he was critical of the diversion of air-support to the rescue effort. I think if this is what it says in Nolan's book then there may be confusion with another Phantom shoot-down around the same time. I'm inclined to strike this part of the account based on the conflict between it and what is said in other sources. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)