Talk:Battle of Lào Cai

May 2016

"it is believed by historians". Citation needed: which historians believed that?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That was from the book of Edward C. O'Dowd (p. 62), which he cited from Li Man Kin's book (2 historians at least, right?). The citation is at the end of the sentence, so learn to read properly before editing anything please.:

“ The order of battle of the Vietnamese defenders is more difficult to assess. Li Man Kin, who has done the most to estimate the strength of the PAVN during the 1979 campaign, believes that the Vietnamese 316th Division and the 345th Division were deployed in the area and identifies among the defenders the 192nd, 148th, 147th, 254th, 121st, and 95th Regiments. Six regiments are consistent with a two-division force, but of the regiments that Li identifies only the 148th appears to be connected to the 316th Division. It is entirely possible that Li has his order of battle correct at the divisional level but that it is less accurate at the regimental level. ”

Then say so. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Stretching from 2 historians to "historians" constitutes original research.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Unreliable source: Infonet – Báo điện tử của Bộ Thông tin và Truyền thông being an e-newspaper is an unreliable source (WP:NEWSORG). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

e-newspaper, not e-commerce, read the regulations carefully please. Dino nam (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a well established newspaper anyway, it is a government propaganda tool.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Any regulations prohibit info from those source?
• Any material from the source that I put into this article has the characteristic of propaganda? Dino nam (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Chinese pyhrric victory

It was a Chinese victory but a pyrrhic one:

• It was not a "notable victory", as Sapa wasn't a town of strategic importance.
• Among the Chinese targets, they only succeeded with one (inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy), yet they themselves also suffered heavy losses to achieved it as well (Zhang, p. 104). Dino nam (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You make it sound like it's all about Sapa. The article also gives that impression in the current aftermath chapter. But Sapa is just one small town and not the same as Lao Cai. And Aftermath chapter gives way too much weight to a single Vietnamese soldier's interview who is not an expert. This battle was more than just Sapa alone. It's primarily about Lao Cai and so trying to make it seem like they done all of this fighting for a small town, is both very false and irrelevant. The capture of Lào Cai was the main prize and it was strategically important as geographically it allowed Chinese forces a northern base to penetrate into Vietnamese territory and exert pressure on Vietnam during the conflict.(King C. Chen 1979). So it was a sound strategic victory in that regard. 49.186.98.52 (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Pyrrhic" victory

The definition of a pyrrhic victory is when one party succeeds at something, but the expense of the victory hinders the effort of the larger campaign in some way. I see "heavy" casualties for the victors here, but where is it explained how the casualties seriously hindered the Chinese campaign?IEsuredI (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day, I'd just go with however it is described in the source. If the sources just say "victory" without "Pyrrhic" then its best just to go with that. "Pyrrhic" is, as you say, more nuanced than a victor suffering heavy or heavier casualties. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

How is it a tactic victory?

Chinese forces were larger. Vietnamese were smaller. So even though both sides suffered heavily in this battle, it would be Vietnam that suffered the most overall as well as losing a lot of territory and failing to defend it. So how can it even be spun as a victory for Vietnam in that outcome? From what I read from the books (China's War with Vietnam, 1979: Issues, Decisions, and Implications" by King C. Chen), China had showed their military superiority during the Battle of Lào Cai in 1979 through successfully completing their invasion plan, which involved quickly ticking off strategic objectives within a short timeframe, such as capturing Lào Cai and advancing further into Vietnamese territory with effective coordination and force deployment. They demonstrated a capacity to overwhelm Vietnamese defenses and maintain control of those captured areas which shows their military strength and operational efficiency. If they had captured the city and Vietnamese regular forces failed to stop them, then it's an indisputable clear victory for China. And it's unsourced statements to claim Vietnam losing their city and suffering heavy casualties themselves, as somehow still equates to a victory for Vietnam. 49.186.98.52 (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)