Talk:NLF and PAVN battle tactics

Related Articles

• NLF and PAVN strategy, organization and structure
• NLF and PAVN logistics and equipment
• NLF and PAVN battle tactics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enriquecardova (talk • contribs) 04:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say that this article is awesome. I didn't expect such detailed scholarship on wikipedia. 69.136.235.54 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Expert needed

• "Pike, Viet Cong, op. cit" Previous citation is in article body not reference section.
• "Pike, op. cit" Two works by Pike are previously cited, it is unclear to which one this is referring.
• "Sorley, "A Better War" op. cit" A Better War is not previously cited.
• "Sorley, op. cit" Two works by Sorley are previously mentioned, it is unclear to which this is referring.

a_morris (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

added inline templates to above mentioned references. a_morris (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have Pike's stuff handy, but there are errors in the cites from Nolan's "Sappers in the Wire."Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed references to Pike and Sorley. Serbchingo (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Propaganda

The article reads like a glorification of the NLF and PAVN. While they were certainly effective and brave, this idealized account does not ring true of any military unit. It is full of self promotion, and it also lacks good references. Typical gushing statement:-

The VC/NVA battle philosophy placed great stress on learning and adaptability, and systematically strived to improve battle techniques at the lowest levels. Units and individuals were expected to be problem solvers, making creative use out of what might be fleeting opportunities and scarce resources.

Tuntable (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The claim above makes little sense and seems based more on feelings rather than sober analysis. Saying "The VC/NVA battle philosophy placed great stress on learning and adaptability, and systematically strived to improve battle techniques at the lowest levels. Units and individuals were expected to be problem solvers, making creative use out of what might be fleeting opportunities and scarce resources..." is a simple statement of fact. Where is the so-called "glorification" or "NPOV"? What "gushing"?

And there is nothing "idealized" about it- it is straight fact. Indeed, the sentence above rather UNDERSTATES what credible historians say. I invite you to check out the footnote- the RAND Study on the Viet Cong. It is freely available online and the link is provided below. There is nothing to hide. Matter of fact, if the RAND study is used more, there might be even BETTER things to say about the Viet Cong and NVA- such as their commendable efficiency on certain things. Yes, the RAND study- which is a hardcore analysis by experts, does note that efficiency. The article is UNDERSTATED if anything, to judge from credible histories cited, including histories of actual Marines and soldiers who fought the NVA/VC. In fact the American experts recommend that the US learn from the enemy- quote: "should adopt the concept of the enemy as a learning, adapting and reacting organization." (page xiv) See: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2005/RM5239-1.pdf ChuMao (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Issue resolved with full quotation and citation from expert US military sources noted above. Lincolnland (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on NLF and PAVN battle tactics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121192421/http://www.afa.org/magazine/April2006/0406lima.asp to http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2006/0406lima.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6453/uwvietnam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Assessment of NLF/PAVN performance tone

I would recommend some copy editing to change the slightly biased language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi mohammed mahmoud (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Vietnam war

How was USA defeated 41.115.41.148 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• NguyenVanBe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)