Talk:Operation Coburg

Tet is not Buddhist

It is secular new year. Also the background can be easily plundered from Tet Offensive if desired or needed YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Links to South Vietnamese military things

A lot of them exist now, so I linked to them. All teh divisions and corps exist. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The location appears to be Trang Bom, which is in the same province where Bien Hoa is. The name was inconsistent in the text. I have also described the location of Long Binh and Bien Hoa. Is this article heading towards FAC? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, its Trang Bom, not Tran Bom or Tram Bom - my mistake. Good work. I have added the coords now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvement from DRVN sources

Amazon's key phrases lists Bien Hoa for Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam, (Hardcover) Trans. Merle L. Pribbenow. If you want to keep the Tet context in at such a high level (ie: Northern party commanders) I suggest you use Scholar to search on General Offensive / General Uprising. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and look at that: Abstract Journal of Vietnamese Studies Summer 2008, Vol. 3, No. 2, Pages 1–33 , DOI 10.1525/vs.2008.3.2.1 Posted online on May 21, 2008. (doi:10.1525/vs.2008.3.2.1)

General Võ Nguyên Giáp and the Mysterious Evolution of the Plan for the 1968 Tết Offensive Merle L. Pribbenow II‌

<quote>The 1968 Tết Offensive was the brainchild of Communist Party Secretary Lê Duẩn and General Văn Tiến Dũng. The Hà Nội government wanted to exploit the 1968 US presidential elections by opening negotiations with the United States. When General Võ Nguyên Giáp failed to devise a workable plan to win a military victory to give the communists leverage in the planned negotiations, Lê Duẩn and Văn Tiến Dũng pushed the risky plan for a nationwide "general offensive" through a reluctant Politburo in spite of opposition from General Võ Nguyên Giáp and Hồ Chí Minh.</quote>

First search too. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair call. I guess I'm not really trying to write a history of Tet though, just provide a little context for the battle in question. I suppose the section could be re-worded slightly to include the blokes listed above. Would do you think? Anotherclown (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you've set a very broad context for the article, but its a general context, rather than an Australian context. Something to think about. Reducing the broader contexts, and being more specific about Australian context. But if you're going to pull big picture contexts, then it helps to get it right. The biggest problem is the Australian narrative voice and the lack of NLF/DRVN accounts/voices. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to reflect your concerns re the planning of the Tet Offensive, including the role of General Nguyen Chi Thanh. Anotherclown (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have endevoured to add more PAVN sources but it seems that not much is readily available. I have now added a reference to the PAVN Official history now, although it is not much. To be exact the books coverage of the battle consists of no more than 2 lines. Quote - "The 5th Division atacked the Bien Hoa air base, the Long Binh warehouse complex, and the headquaters of the U.S. [2nd] Field Force." Unquote. Equally a search of the Australian War Memorial library reveals no histories for the PAVN units that took part (273, 274 Regiments, the Dong Nai Regiment etc). A quick search of Google doesn't reveal anything to me - but I'm not really an expert on its use for academic research. I have also gone through the sources used to date and cannot locate much. Even the Australian Official histories, which have a fairly impressive academic pedigree, have little in the way of PAVN/Vietnamese sources. I suspect that the reason for the limited coverage is that this battle was in many ways fairly insignificant from PAVN perspective, as the main attacks during Tet really took place in Saigon, Hue and other places.Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work! Fifelfoo (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving article to Operation Coburg

Having written the article and chosen the name Battle of Bien Hoa, I'm now a bit concerned that this isn't really reflective of the subject. In many ways this article focusses on the Australian component of the battle, namely Operation Coburg. 1ATF operated in conjunction with an American brigade to defend the Long Binh-Bien Hoa complex and occupied the western AO (AO Columbus), while the Americans occupied AO Uniontown around Long Binh and the airbase itself. By my own admission this article largely ignores the activities of the US 199th Infantry Brigade and all casualty figures etc are for Operation Coburg only.

As such I propose to move the article to Operation Coburg. A larger article, perhaps named Battle of Long Binh-Bien Hoa or something similar is really needed to cover the overall battle and can be written at a latter date. Any objections? Anotherclown (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just need an Admin to delete the redirect at Operation Coburg. Anotherclown (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Units Involved - 3RAR

Under units involved there is:

Australia 1st Aust Task Force 2 RAR/NZ 7 RAR A Sqn, 3 Cav Regt 4th Field Regt, RAA

Although 3RAR is mentioned within the article body text they are not included here. i can't see how to edit/update this. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.18.102 (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes that seems a fair call. I've added it now. Thanks for taking the time to read the article and to point this out. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Coburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ausvets.com.au/vietnam/1968/ops1968.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture in pop-up hover preview broken

Greetings,

so this article was just featured in the news on the main page, and upon hovering over the article link (to show the po-pup preview) the picture was broken, i.e. not showing properly. Clicking the "broken picture"-placeholder and selecting "view image" in firefox lead me to this site here where I was shown an error message. Does anybody know why this is happening? Is it just me or is this broken for everyone? --LordPeterII (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)