Talk:Operation Bribie

Operation Bribie

The translation of the insult is wrong, either out of incompetence or deliberate Political correctness by the translator YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Noted... yeah, probably the later. Do you think we should change it or go with the wording 'loosely translated'? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The relevant volume of the official history On the Offensive states that it was "translated in soldier's vernacular as, 'Get fucked Australians'" (p. 111). I've seen other sources which used 'stuffed' in placed of 'fucked' though, presumably to avoid offense. However, if 'fucked' is good enough for the official history then it's clearly what Wikipedia should use. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

When I see wrong translations or info I tend to just eschew the piece of information.....but with translations sometimes I just my own in there. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW I have now reworded this further following the re-write, as the previous language I had used was admittadly a little euphamistic. Essentially I have adopted the language used in McNeill and Ekins, per Nick above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

DU ME UC DAI LOI

'Đụ mẹ Úc Đại Lợi' literally means "F*** your mother, Australia(ns)!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.19.30 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

@Anotherclown: I did look at the previous discussion. My purpose was to provide a literal translation. It does indeed have the force of "get fucked", but whereas in English one says "get fucked", in Vietnamese one literally says "fuck your mother".

probably the closest the Australians came to defeat in a major battle during the war

Surely this counts as a defeat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyphatma (talk • contribs) 07:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My perception of Long Tần is that the Communists limped off to lick their wounds, but in this case it sounds like they said "Well, we've won - nothing else to do here." Does anyone know of any reputable scholars' views on this?Lyphatma (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They're already cited in the article - Horner, McNeill and Coulthard Clark are all reputable scholars. IMO it's difficult to say its a defeat given likely communist casualties (50 to 70 killed), but impossible to claim as an Australian victory given their casualties too (nearly a whole platoon). Hence 'inconclusive'. Anotherclown (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that both sides abandoned the battlefield. Anotherclown (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In my recent email exchange with Dave Sabben on February 8 2011, a veteran of Long Tan who was present during Bribie, had this to say about the result:

"I was at Operation Bribie and can confirm the Australians lost there. That was one Australian Company from 6RAR against more than 1 VC Company from D445. It was a loss for the Australians, but I would not consider it a "major" battle as it had no strategic importance like Long Tan did."Canpark (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Gary McKay, who fought at the Battle of Nui Le, also had this to say: Operation Bribie is a different kettle of fish and if you read the Official account you would be hard pressed to find a claim that it was victory. In my opinion the Australians were lucky to get out of the Bribie battle with as few casualties as they did.Canpark (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Recovery of Destroyed APC

Hi, I happen to know a crew member (Driver) of the M113 that recovered the damaged APC. He is adamant that the damaged M113 was towed back the entire way to Nui Dat behind his carrier. It is particularly memorable because the damages to the vehicle meant that it caused considerable drag on his vehicle. It does appear (unreferenced) in some books that the vehicle was recovered on a flatbed. His belief is that this comes from the fact that the vehicle was subsequently moved within Nui Dat on a flatbed. I would like to edit the article to correct this, however the only reference is personal discussion, and a written (but unplublished) personal account of the battle. Whats the most appropriate way to reference this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Turner69 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Gday, thanks for this. The 3rd Cavalry Regiment history by Paul Anderson (When the Scoprion Stings p. 54) states that it was recovered on a flat bed, yet on checking the official history by McNeill and Ekins (On the Offensive p. 111) does indeed say that it was towed back. As such given that the two sources are contradictory I've reworded using a more generic phrasing to say it was recovered to Nui Dat and then added an explanatory note with a reference. Does this work? Anotherclown (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I think that's a good fix. I was aware of the Paul Anderson book, but hadn't seen the McNeill and Ekins reference (in relation to this particular matter). As I said, I also have a three page written account of the actual battle and subsequent recovery, by a crew member that did the recovery,but that's not citeable. Thanks for the adjustment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Turner69 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 May 2015

No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)