# Talk:Battle of Kham Duc

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly was the Ngok Tavak outpost relative to CIDG camp at Kham Duc? South? How far? —xanderer (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your article on the battle of kham duc has some very wrong information, I was the loadmaster on the aircraft cited as being overwhelmed on the 11th of may. That occurred on the 12th, we had brought out hundreds of military and civilian evacuee's on the 11th for sure, but the 12th is when absolutely hundreds of people scrambled aboard the aircraft before I could offload the cargo we took into the base. I buttoned up the ramp and door so we could take off but a mortar round blew out the right rear main gear tire. since we were overloaded already, the blown tire made takeoff impossible. We rolled back to the parking area where the engines were shut down and everyone on board scrambled off. I exited the rear of the aircraft and surveyed my surroundings. The day was very hot and the base was under very heavy attack from enemy forces that had already penetrated the perimeter wire. My crew and I were taken to the base command post in a jeep where we were trapped for two hours or so. We noticed that the enemy had stopped firing on our aircraft after we had abandoned it on the far side of the field. This gave us an idea. The aircraft commander Lt.Col Daryl D. Cole, the aircraft engineer and an army engineer drove over to the aircraft, to see if they could cut the blown tire off, so we could try a takeoff. Well the rubber could not be removed from the rim because of steel beading around the rim. When green smoke was thrown it was a signal for everyone at the command post to come to the aircraft to attempt a takeoff. The three men that was rescued, later that day and earned the the medal of honor for the C-123 pilot who just happenned to be a squadron commader for the 123 outfit, was airlifted out by my crew and I. We had brought them out when we restarted our engines, rolled the cargo out the back and took off from Kham Duc. We landed at Camron Bay, on a foamed runway because of a fuel leak in the left wing. Those three men were ordered back into Kham Duc by ALCC in Saigon so they could formally show that they were the last of those evacuated from Kham Duc. I am happy that the man got the CMH but it was given to him to cover a stupid mistake by ALCC. The base effectively had been over run when we left because to our knowledge at the time, we had brought every body who was left at the base out whith us. However ALCC sent several other aircraft into the base after we departed, one a C-130 from our squadron was shot down on landing, another was shot down whith the loss of the entire crew and all the civilian evacuees they were trying to save as they were attempting to take off. One C-123 landed and deposited the three men (we had already gotten out safely), back into the fallen base! The second C-123 then landed and picked them back up, the aircraft by the way recieved no combat damage; which was a miracle under the circumstances! I was Sgt Robert L. Pollock, the loadmaster on the aircraft. Lt Col Daryl D Cole and our crew recieved the Mackay trophy for the year 1968 for the operation at Kahm Duc. Our part in the operation lasted two days, and a foot note, Each year since that fateful day of the 12th of May 1968 (mothers day) I always stop what I am doing to remember those who did not survive the fall of Kham Duc. I always call it Kham Duc day It was nice to see it in print but please try to get the story correct. Any other questions about that action that you have questions about and I can recall, please feel free to send me a email at: robertlpollock@yahoo.com.  I spent three years and two months in the direct theater of combat, I have time as a gunner on assault helicopters in Laos and Cambodia after after I finished my tour on C-130's. Just wanted to help set the record strait, I know the article was written in good faith.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertlpollock (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC) 

Hello, as per the request on WP:MHA, I have taken a look at the article. I can see that a lot of hard work has been put into the article so far and have the following comments/suggestions for improvement:

at five paragraphs, the lead is too long, per WP:LEAD. It should be four paragraphs maximum;
there are a number of punctuation issues, I've fixed some but might have missed others;
some of the grammar needs tightening (past tense/present tense issues, mainly), I'd suggest a copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors;
I am slightly concerned about some of the language used in the article, for instance using words such as "tragically" should usually be avoided as it can be seen by some to be creating a point of view;
there are a couple of citation needed tags, which I've added, which I feel need to be dealt with prior to B class;
in the Notes, the citation style is slightly confused. For instance generally you have chosen the short citation style, which is fine, but Note # 1 uses the long citation style. They should all be consistent, I feel;
Note # 91 could probably be formatted with the {{cite web}} template, which would provide full bibliographic details
I believe that the references should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname and should appear as surname, first name (e.g. Davies, Bruce). These could be formatted with the {{cite book}} template. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've undertaken a light copy edit of the article as there were a few grammatical issues. I am satisfied that it is now at a B class level. I have the following suggestions/comments for consideration that I think should be looked at before nominating for GA (if that is what is being considered):

be careful with refering to people by rank in the prose, per WP:SURNAME, once introduced, the rank shouldn't be used again. There are a number of instances that should be fixed in this regard;
in the Background section, "located about 7 kilometres" - consider adding a {{convert}} template (there are other examples too where this could be added). This will automatically convert kilometres and miles so readers who have trouble conceptualising one will be able to understand the other;
this sounds like editorialising: "would be overcome by scenes of heavy fighting, treachery and heroism". Probably best just to be "would be overcome by scenes of heavy fighting";
be careful using words like "blunders", "unfortunately", "enemy", "ordeal", etc. Once again they can be seen to be promoting a point of view;
prior to nomination for GA, I think it would be a good idea to have the article copy editted by someone from the Guild of Copy Editors. After that is done, I would suggest nominating the article for a peer review at WP:MHPR. That would help iron out any issues that might hold it back from GA.
Anyway, good work so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a copy edit, and I think I've at least improved on these things. I got rid of lots of instances of "enemy" and "unfortunately", etc., but there are lots left. As someone who's not really familiar with the subject matter I sometimes didn't know how to reword things to get rid of these POV words. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Kham Duc/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
During the Tet Offensive of 1968, the Vietnam People's Army (VPA) 2nd Division tried to capture the of Da Nang but their attacks were quickly blunted by elements of the U.S. 1st Marine Division, the Americal Division, and the Korean Brigade. "tried to capture the of Da Nang"?
I hope this read better: 2nd Division tried to capture Da Nang but their attacks were quickly blunted by elements of the U.S. 1st Marine Division, the Americal Division, and the Korean Brigade that were guarding the city.Canpark (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Viet Cong initiated large-scale attacks on the South Vietnamese capital of Saigon and all 34 provincial cities, towns, villages, and major military installations throughout South Vietnam. This reads badly: Sounds like there were a total of 34 provincial cities, towns, villages and major military installions, which i don't think is right.
I have rewrite the sentence like this: Towards the end of January, regular units of the Vietnam People’s Army and the Viet Cong initiated large-scale attacks on Saigon and all 34 provincial cities of South Vietnam. Several major towns, villages, and  allied military installations throughout the country were also attacked during the same period.Canpark (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References check out.  Assume good faith for off-line sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Good coverage
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Appropriately tagged and captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed.
OK, thanks for fixing those bits, I am happy to list this now. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again for reviewing my work.Canpark (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought it was well-researched and written.  Thank you for your efforts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.97.5 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The May 12 evacuation events are either exaggerated, inaccurate or USAF propoganda. I ran the evacuation and was their all day. If anyone reading this post is interested in what really happened please ontact me:jtoddassoc@msn.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.41.19 (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 

In the aftermath section there is a statement that the battle was "the worst defeat ever suffered by American soldiers during the Indochina conflict". A reference is given for this, but it is the only use of that reference in the whole article. This is a big claim and I would expect it requires more verification than just one isolated ref.
I have studied the Vietnam War for a long time, but until I read this article I had never even heard of the Battle of Kham Duc. If it was truly "the worst defeat" I would expect a lot more coverage of it. Mztourist (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's because the quoted source doesn't actually say that. I'm changing it. It does make we wonder about some of the other quotes, though. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I looked up the quotes from Mrozek as well, and some of them were either very close paraphrases or twisted the original intent of the source. Someone with the Davies book might want to do the same with those citations. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Canpark who wrote most of the article had a particular POV Mztourist (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I remember the Lima Site 85 stuff. What bothers me was the degree of error in the quotes. If I had Davies' book I'd check those, too. Some of the casualty figures are troubling.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts, I have gone through the USMC history of this period and can only find a few scattered references to the battle and don't have access to any decent bookshops which may have other references Mztourist (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully we can get it sorted out. Given the type of errors I've found thus far, I really don't think it should retain GA status without more serious work. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I have just read the 5th Special Forces Group report on the battle from January 1969 and it refers to 1 Special Forces and 12 USMC KIA with 2 Special Forces, 24 Army and 5 Air Force MIA, so a total of 13 KIA and 31 MIA, not the 40 KIA and 64 MIA as stated in the article. I have read the Gropman article from which the higher figures are sourced, but now need to check the background source cited in Gropman if I can find it Mztourist (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I've also had trouble verifying the 64 MIA figure given. Summers' "Atlas of the Vietnam War" gives figures close to those you just posted. I've also got Stanton's "Green Berets at War" and "Rise and Fall of an American Army" which might provide some more information. I've been bashing on the FSB Mary Ann article, so haven't put as much into this as I'd like.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
And I just noticed that the US unit designations are formatted incorrectly. Will the fun never end?Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Both Stanton and Summers mention that the fall of Kham Duc closed the last SF camp along the Laos border, making ground surveillance of the Ho Chi Minh Trail much more difficult than it would otherwise be. It seems to me that this is a notable outcome of the fight.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that is worth noting. On casualties the Gropman article takes its casualty figures from a Project CHECO report No 129 on Kham Duc dated 8 July 1968 which I haven't been able to find online. As the 5th Special Forces Group Report I mentioned above is dated January 1969, I would expect it to be more accurate and so I propose that we adopt those figures, do you agree? Mztourist (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I looked for the CHECO report as well. Odd that it was one of the few not available. In any case, most of the MIAs would have come from the downed aircraft and their crews. MIA doesn't always mean POW, after all. The 5th SFG report sounds good, as it's echoed by the other two sources I mentioned. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's the CHECO report you guys couldn't find: https://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/virtualarchive/items.php?item=F031100041076
Interview Transcript with Major Jack Anderson re: Action at Kham Duc - Support Document from Project CHECO Report #129, F031100041076. Vietnam Center and Sam Johnson Vietnam Archive. 29 May 1968, Box 0004, Folder 1076, Sam Johnson Vietnam Archive Collection, Vietnam Center and Sam Johnson Vietnam Archive, Texas Tech University, https://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/virtualarchive/items.php?item=F031100041076, Accessed 19 Apr 2022.

This article uses VPA and PAVN interchangeably when discussing North Vietnamese forces. It seems to me that it should be standardized. Which should we go with? I'm in favor of either PAVN or NVA (to agree with the infobox). Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I prefer NVA as they were the Army of North Vietnam, whereas VPA and PAVN imply that they are the only legitimate army of Vietnam, which may be the case since 1975, but wasn't when South Vietnam still existed Mztourist (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind either NVA or PAVN, honestly. It's the switching between the three that bothers me. And I agree that we shouldn't use VPA in articles dealing with this period.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm copying the message I posted on an IP's talk page: Thanks for wanting to help with this article, but you're still sourcing the wrong information. The page you're continually citing is casualties for the entire reporting period and within all of I CTZ, not the battle of Kham Duc. If you look at the page MZTourist cited, those figures do include South Vietnamese losses (CSF and MSF, in addition to VNSF). Aside from VNSF, there were no ARVN units involved on the ground. 
The IP is citing PDF page 143 of the AAR, which covers losses for the entire reporting period in I CTZ, not just Kham Duc. Kham Duc's stats are on the report's page 13 (p 18 of the PDF). I'm posting here because I'm about to run into 3RR dealing with this. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
"Kham Duc's stats are on the report's page 13 (p 18 of the PDF).". No, it's only US's casualties. I don't see ARVN's casualties113.181.124.122 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

ARVN was not involved on the ground, so their losses are not listed. The South Vietnamese losses at Kham Duc are listed on the page I referenced as VNSF (South Vietnamese Special Forces), MSF (Mobile Strike Force) and CSF (the CIDGs). The page you keep referencing is compiled statistical data for the entire reporting period, which includes many actions other than Kham Duc. Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Intothatdarkness is correct and see the comments on casualty figures above under Worst Defeat Mztourist (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Was I wrong when place PAVN commanders' name under flag of National Liberation Front of South Vietnam ?
Anyone can explain why Intothatdarkness reverted my edit without explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kham_Duc&diff=1062535050&oldid=1062532152 , please. Leemyongpak (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

For your information, this article Liberation Army of South Vietnam declares that According to American documents, the main battle force in South Vietnam was the NLF, not the People's Army of Vietnam. And it is unreasonable when US and Australian commanders have flags beside while Vietnamese commanders not. Leemyongpak (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The VC was always part of the PAVN, we don't need flags to distinguish commanders as PAVN or VC. Mztourist (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The article also identifies the 2nd Division as being PAVN. There were NFL forces present, but the article itself consistently refers to the main aggressor force as PAVN.Intothatdarkness 14:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The problem is PAVN units fought under NLF flag Officially in all battles of Vietnam war. Have you ever seen any battle of Vietnam war picture that has North Vietnam flag present? (Maybe some, but just at the last days of the war). In fact, North Vietnam sent reinforcement to South regularly via Ho Chi Minh trail, half of VC troops coming from North.
If you look at deeply in dozen battles in [Military engagements during the Vietnam War] box, you will see most of them have both North Vietnam and Vietcong in Belligerents section but just a few of them have Flag before PAVN / VC Units and Commanders. It is Unfair because most of US and South Vietnam Units and Commanders have their flag before.
I believe all soldiers love their flag as their life, and it is Unreasonable and Not Neutral to keep flag for one side while remove flag of its enemy. Leemyongpak (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
You're arguing with the wrong person. I don't care for flags next to commanders in infoboxes in any case. And if you were going to do this, Man at least was without question PAVN. You're going to disrespect him by sticking a NLF flag next to his name? And listing Westmoreland as a commander at this battle is also to my way of thinking silly. Intothatdarkness 18:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, I just show my opinion. No problem if you don't care what I care. Leemyongpak (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The VC were always part of the PAVN. Post 1968 all "VC" units were predominantly made up of PAVN soldiers. There is no need to distinguish commanders as VC or PAVN, as they were all part of the same military and command structure, unlike when the US and ARVN fought in the same battle/offensive. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with "There is no need to distinguish commanders as VC or PAVN". Just feel it is more consistent and balanced if we have National Flag before Commander and Unit involved names for both sides. Reverting with clear explanation will save our time :) Leemyongpak (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
You only need national flags before commanders and units if there were several different country's units participating in the battle e.g. Operation Toan Thang I, its not necessary when there was only one belligerent on each side e.g. Operation Wheeler/Wallowa Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Let's check Operation Wheeler/Wallowa for example.
Its Infobox looks balanced. OK, turn to other contents:
1) Its Aftermath section mentions "Total PAVN/VC losses". 
2) Its cited source #5b - page 226 describes "the 2d PAVN Division" 
3) Its cited source #6 - Operation Wheeler/Wallowa describes "the Viet Cong local force unit" and "the 2d NVA Division" 
These three points proved that PAVN (or NVA) and Viet Cong (VC in short) go together in this operation. 
So the problem is why NLF flag of Viet Cong was not added to Infobox's Belligerent ? Leemyongpak (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Please check this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_zsE-e_yek&t=420s to see which flag the PAVN forces used in the Fall of Saigon event in fact. Leemyongpak (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
and another animation that shows which flag the PAVN forces used in Tet Offensive 1968 in Danang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEwLXdqXOrQ&t=300s Leemyongpak (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The North Vietnamese denied throughout the war that they had forces in the South which was obviously false. After the war they acknowledged that the VC had always been part of the PAVN and under North Vietnamese operational control. Mztourist (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Correct. So it is more Reasonable to put both North Vietnam and National Liberation Front flags in Infobox's Belligerents, and only NLF flag in Commanders and Unit Involved, right ?
PAVN (NVA) have never used North Vietnam flag in South Vietnam battlefields Officially, so we have never found any reliable source (especially viewable visual source like photo or video) to assign North Vietnam flag to its forces in Vietnam war battles Reasonably. To imagine, we all know wikipedia.org is backed by mediawiki.org, but it is Unreasonable to replace Wikipedia logo by Mediawiki logo. Leemyongpak (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
No, there is no need to differentiate them at all, they were all part of the PAVN. Mztourist (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, so just keep it your way. I already showed all my evidences and inferences.
I can understand your hidden inference but I still believe the Flag Mismatch between the historical films and photos and the wiki articles about Vietnam war topics lead to misunderstanding. Leemyongpak (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I have just found that another Vietnamese editor User:Thái Nhi tried to replace North Vietnam flag by NLF flag on 26 December 2019. So I will come back to this problem when I have enough supporters on my side. Leemyongpak (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
So you're going to canvass? Good to know. Intothatdarkness 16:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
No, it is much better than you guess. I just wait for another comrade coming. Thái Nhi have been waiting for 2 years for the 2nd comrade. Maybe we need another 2 years for the third one. In fact, I'm a peace lover. Leemyongpak (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I have found another very interesting thing when checking the article history. Both North Vietnam and National Liberation Front flags were there from the 1st revisions 18 December 2006‎ by the Original and Main contributor User:Canpark, they passed GA reviews in 2011 and stayed there in another 7 years, then was mostly removed by User:Mztourist on 6 March 2018. Now I strongly believe I have many comrades who share what I care here. Just wait and we will have chance to bring what we believe the reasonable flags back, sooner or later. Leemyongpak (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
"Comrades"? Really? As I keep saying to you, the VC were part of the PAVN, that is the fact, despite whatever propaganda North Vietnam put out during the war. Accordingly the only flag needed is the North Vietnamese flag. Surely you have something more worthwhile to do with your time than argue over this. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Not Really. It is "Comrades" Funny !!. This is an example for how harmful if we use Sensitive Word or Sensitive Flag without sub label or related flag.
In Vietnam, "Comrade" has a lighter, broader meaning in the 21st century, it is just similar to Supporter or Companion that share the same idea. For this flag problem, if you just use North Vietnam flag, then someone can think this is Purely an invasion carried out by PAVN - it is not neutral thinking. With both North Vietnam and NLF flags (at least) in the Infobox's Belligerent, we have a more Clear and Neutral article.
For overall, I know this is a Talk page, not an Argue page. Leemyongpak (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The VC were part of the PAVN, it is misleading to argue or present it otherwise. North Vietnam sought to overthrow the government of South Vietnam, that is beyond debate. Mztourist (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
According to Paris Peace Accords - Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet Nam, there are 4 parties in Vietnam War, each party has its own Signatory. Leemyongpak (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
And what happened to the NLF in 1975? It was always just a front organization for North Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I know one of the authors personnally (Jim McLeroy) and provided research that resulted in one source that was used in the book.
This book, written by someone who participated as an officer in the battle and another who participated in the analysis of the battle one year later in preparation for a joint operation in the area of Kham Duc, and both of whom hold Masters degress in History, raises some serious questions about the portrayal of the battle in this article. This Wikipedia article relies heavily on The Bruce Davies 2008 account, The Battle at Ngok Tavak: A Bloody Defeat in South Vietnam. Its title betrays the outlook of the author. As with so many who have written about it, Kham Duc is considered a major defeat for the US by the PAVN. Yet, Davies' book only deals with Ngok Tavak, not Kham Duc, which was the main thrust of the NVA attack.
The authors of Bait point out that Kham Duc was never intended to be a fortress, if you will, but rather ended up being bait to lure the NVA into a trap where they would suffer massive losses through concentrated airpower.
"Kham Duc was a U.S. Army Special Forces camp near the Laotian border of  Quang  Tin Province, I Corps in the former Republic of Viet Nam. Its two functions were basic training for Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) recruits and occasional launches of top-secret SOG (Studies and Observations Group) reconnaissance-commando teams into Laos."
"All these negative evaluations of the battle are based on the erroneous assumption that it was an unsuccessful attempt to defend the place. In fact, it was a successful effort to inflict mass attrition on a major NVA force with minimum US and allied losses by voluntarily abandoning an anachronistic little trip-wire border camp serving as passive bait for the attack."
What Kham Duc did was lure PAVN into attacking the base in force. They were met by a massive air attack involving some 350 sorties flown by about 150 combat aircraft, incluidng B-52s that pounded the area with over 19,000 bombs, that resulted in the loss of likely at least half of their fighting force.
It's interesting that the NVA casualties aren't even listed in the infobox, yet they lost an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 personnel in the battle. (Vietnam has never revealed their losses from the battle.) Total U.S. Army, Air Force, and Marine fatalities at, near, or as a direct result of Kham Duc and Ngok Tavak were forty-six men. That is a kill ratio of at least 35 to 1.
"Despite  the appalling NVA casualties in their attack on Kham Duc, it was both a tactical and a strategic failure for seven reasons:  1)  It failed to penetrate the camp or the airstrip while U.S. troops were there;  2) It failed to lure a large U.S. military unit from a populated area; 3) It failed to attract major media attention; 4) It failed to kill or capture enough U.S. or allied troops for a propaganda film; 5) It failed to capture any  source of food or civilian labor; 6) It failed to enable the NVA to occupy the site, as long as U.S. combat forces were active in I Corps; and 7) It failed to enable the NVA to use the road south of the camp any more or differently,  while U.S. combat forces were active in I Corps." 
I question the use of Vietnamese sources, untranslated, in an English wikipedia when the average reader has no ability to read the articles much less determine their veracity. 
Reference #6 is a laughably biased brief portrayal of the battle that provides no facts whatsoever, except for some grossly inflated numbers for American casualties. It claims to have captured 140 personnel, including 2 American advisors. Only one American was captured. It claims the shootdown of eleven American aircraft when twelve were shot down. And the entire article is couched in the typical language of communist propaganda that bears no relation to facts known to be true.
Reference #8 provides almost no factual information at all and merely celebrates the "liberation" of Kham Duc. But, if, as BAIT argues, the purpose of Kham Duc was to lure PAVN into a massive killing field, then the "liberation" of Kham Duc came at an extremely heavy cost that could hardly be called a victory.
Are references #6, #8, and #9 really considered WP:RS? 
I would like to engage the authors in a serious discussion of the article to determine areas for improvement. The article describes the battle as 'a defeat for U.S. forces, described by one historian as "a Khe Sanh in reverse".' However, Bait brings that statement into serious question. At a minimum, it requires offsetting factual information that portrays the battle in a more neutral light. A battle where one side loses almost 50% of their fighting force of 3,000 to 5,000 men and the other side loses less than 10% of theirs can hardly be described as a victory for the former, unless what is meant is a phyrric victory.
The article relies heavily on US sources to describe, in detail, every thing that went wrong during the battle but completely ignores what went wrong from the PAVN perspective. It's almost as if the PAVN were there but suffered no significant losses at all.
Rather than scrap the article entirely and beginning anew, I would like to suggest that each section be carefully studied, and contrasted with the statements made in BAIT, to sort fact from fiction and bring more balance and perspective to the article. Txantimedia (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Since you pinged my talk, I'll say I am very wary of a rewrite based on one source, especially one you have contributed to. Quite a few of the Vietnam articles have issues such as the ones you've highlighted, but I'd also suggest using more that one source. I see you're using the CHECO reports, which are solid as far as they go. But they also are products of the USAF and often ignore or slight some areas to accent others. Intothatdarkness 01:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree with Intothat. Txantimedia you are relying on one book to completely reverse the outcome of the battle and that simply isn't an encyclopaedic approach. There are multiple RS that describe Kham Duc as an allied defeat. I am highly skeptical of the premise of Bait as some brilliant plan to lure the PAVN to an attack where they would be slaughtered by airpower, the US had tried and failed such tactics unsuccessfully for more than 3 years by the time of Kham Duc. Claims of 1,500-2,000 PAVN killed cannot be relied on as the allies abandoned the battlefield and had no way of verifying such numbers. No contemporaneous US sources claimed a PAVN defeat at Kham Duc. Ultimately I rely on Abrams who described the loss of Kham Duc as a "minor disaster". Mztourist (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm also not impressed by the failure to respond here. If you're going to ask for input, you could at least reply. Intothatdarkness 17:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I haven't failed to respond. Today was the first day that I saw a notice that there was input on my talk page. I've been checking it periodically, but, as you can see, I posted my initial comment on 4/18. Subsequently, since I had gotten no response, I asked a couple of contributors for their input. The first one to respond was Intothat, but for some reason, I wasn't notified of that until today.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss the article in detail and agree on changes. That is why I asked for input. There were a number of inaccuracies with the existing article. For example, the mention of Montganard CIDG. There were no Montganard CIDG at Kham Duc at that time. The numbers of KIA and MIA were inaccurate according to both TTU and BAIT sources. The number of downed aircraft was incorrect. (It was twelve, not nine.) The article said that all seven outposts were overrun. Two of the seven were not even in use. Two others were manned only by CIDG. One of those was never attacked. The other was abandoned as soon as the attack began. The remaining three were manned by both CIDG and Americal troops, and they took heavy casualies. (I'm still trying to figure out how many of the 42 dead were from those outposts. I believe it was a significant percentage.)
Mztourist, you wrote "I am highly skeptical of the premise of Bait as some brilliant plan to lure the PAVN to an attack where they would be slaughtered by airpower, the US had tried and failed such tactics unsuccessfully for more than 3 years by the time of Kham Duc." Two things. First, if I've given the impression that it was a brilliant plan, I'm not done a good job of describing what happened. It was more happenstance that led to the battle, and pure luck that the weather held. It could easily have ended up being a slaughter of the American and allied forces if the normal weather in that area had prevented air support. Second, can you cite some of those failures over the previous 3 years? Examples where mass wave attacks by PAVN troops did not suffer huge casualties due to air power would be nice. Khe Sahn is a perfect example of what happened to PAVN troops when they were exposed to massive airpower.
As as "relying on one source to reverse the outcome of the battle, I have to ask. If you take the lower number of 345 PAVN killed (which is laughable), the PAVN still lost more than 8 men for every American that was killed. Even if you include the CIDG, it's about 3 times as many. How is that a victory for the PAVN? They never occupied the base. They never overran the base. They didn't prevent the evacuation. What exactly was their victory?
With regard to my contribution to the book, it consisted of one cite that I dug up on the TTU website after one of the authors contacted me and asked me if I knew where to find something. That's the full extent of my contribution. (I don't even recall now what it was.)
What I have been attempting to do is correct inaccuracies and adjust the narrative to more accurately describe what took place there. I'm completely open to discussion and to making changes to what I've edited. Txantimedia (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Txantimedia the entire US approach to operations since early 1965 was to try to lure the PAVN/VC into situations where superior US firepower could be brought to bear on them. The PAVN/VC were too smart for that and knew to stay close to Allied forces to reduce the weight of firepower and withdraw when they had lost the advantages of surprise/terrain/numbers etc. You ask "can you cite some of those failures over the previous 3 years?" Yes, pretty much every battle with just a few exceptions. Noone knows the true numbers of PAVN killed at Khe Sanh except the Vietnamese and they've kept that secret for 50+ years now. The North Vietnamese were always willing to accept high casualties to kill Americans. Like US generals you seem to view body count and kill ratios as the key metric of victory and just like the Americans the North Vietnamese would inflate their claims of enemy killed. I'm not sure where Bait gets its 1500-2000 PAVN killed figure from, it certainly wasn't from a body count on the ground, so if we take the 345 figure instead, the body count and kill ratio 345 PAVN: 184 Allied (not just Americans as you cherry-picked above) isn't at all impressive and actually worse than many other battles of the war. Kham Duc was a North Vietnamese victory because they forced the evacuation of the base, killed a good number US and Allied troops and destroyed equipment and aircraft and could now operate unhindered in a broad area of the Central Highlands. Revisionist histories like Bait can't change the fact that a withdrawal under fire, even if successful, is still a defeat. Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this as well. Any time the NVA attacked one of these bases the goal was to force an evacuation. There are any number of examples of this spanning the entire history of the US involvement in the war. Losses weren't a concern to them...gaining freedom of movement was. They were willing to accept high casualties to kill Americans, but they were just as willing to accept serious losses to gain control of an area they deemed vital to their goals. This was especially true when it came to forcing the US out of many of the Special Forces border camps. Intothatdarkness 21:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There are two ways of looking at battles in Vietnam. Loss of territory and attrition of troops. If you look at every battle as a battle for territory, then the US seldom won a battle. Hamburger Hill is a typical example. Mztourist, you view the loss of Kham Duc as a base to be a defeat for the US. But, the two functions of the base, training of CIDG troops and cross-border surveillance, were assumed by other bases. Furthermore, two years later, Kham Duc was reoccupied by American forces who operated out of there for six weeks. So, did the PAVN really take that base? Or was it all a part of the chess match between the two sides? You ask, "I'm not sure where Bait gets its 1500-2000 PAVN killed figure from". It's based on two things. Known attrition rates of 50% from previous human-wave attacks, and the eyewitness knowledge of one of the authors, who fought in the battle and saw the bodies piling up. It's not a count. It's an estimate. And we will never know how many were actually killed unless the country of Vietnam releases the figures. How do we know that 10,000 to 15,000 died at Khe Sahn? Or 5,500? The PAVN were notorious for removing their bodies from the battlefield so that accurate counts would never be known. Is the 345 figure for Kham Duc an accurate figure based upon actual counts of bodies? Through the entire war, the US claimed a body count of about 900,000 and many have made fun of that number. But, communist Vietnam admitted (in the 1990s) that they had lost 1.4 million. It's obvious the real numbers will never be known. I didn't remove the 345 figure. I added the figure from BAIT, which I think is legitimate use of a source. Kham Duc had never restricted the movement of the PAVN troops. So, abandoning it didn't change that either. What did the PAVN gain in return for their loss of troops?
What I'd really like from both of you is specific criticisms about the changes that I've made. Are there factual changes that you disagree with? Are there specific things that you think I should revert? Txantimedia (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Intothat is absolutely right. Having written or editted many of the WP pages about the Vietnam War, I am fully aware of the issues surrounding body counts and claims of victory or defeats. As I said, the loss of Kham Duc allowed the PAVN to move freely in a large area, the fact that the US briefly reoccupied Kham Duc in 1970 doesn't really mean anything as the PAVN didn't try to oppose the operation. One person's eyewitness account isn't good enough, nor are "Known attrition rates of 50% from previous human-wave attacks" as that assumes that there were actually human wave attacks and that the 50% figure (from where?) holds true. I have already answered the "What did the PAVN gain in return for their loss of troops?" but will repeat it again, for the loss of 345+ men they killed 184 Allied troops, destroyed 12 aircraft and overran a base area. I have put my specific criticisms into the page, Kham Duc was not a PAVN defeat, PAVN losses were anywhere between 345 and 2,000. Mztourist (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Reoccupying an area means little. How many times did the US establish temporary firebases in the A Shau, for example? They may have occupied a small bit of ground for a short period of time, but the fact remains that once the NVA forced the evacuation of the A Shau camp in 1966 they had more or less permanent and mostly unobserved use of that transportation corridor for the remainder of the war. Buried in the "losses incurred" section is, to me, the most important outcome: the battle resulted in the closure of the last Special Forces camp in I CTZ that was close to the Laotian border.
The US measured victory by body count...the North Vietnamese measured it very differently. You ask what they gained by closing Kham Duc? They gained unobserved use of a wide stretch of the Laotian border. Kham Duc had also served as a training location and alternate launch site for SOG, and the NVA was well aware of their capabilities. It may have been downgraded from FOB-1, but it still played a role in their operations. Shutting it down would have been reason enough for the NVA to launch an attack. Intothatdarkness 16:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This statement, "On 11 May, in response to increasing PAVN pressure, about 30 B-52s were called in to hit PAVN positions, but those strikes had little effect as mortar rounds continued to fall on Khâm Đức and the surrounding outposts." contradicts the operational summary generated by 5th SF for the month of May. It states that the base received "sporadic mortar attacks resulting in negative casualties or damage." I question whethe the claim of B-52 bombings that day is accurate. I cannot find any evidence that there were any sorties ordered before 12 May, and the first FAC on station arrived at 0515 on 12 May.
The CHECO report of the battle describes the B-52 attacks on both Ngoc Tavak and Kham Duc, and lists zero B-52 strikes before 12 May. So, I'm removing that statement as disproven.

It says later in the article that PAVN lost the fight at Da Neng during the Tet Offensive, but the second paragraph reads otherwise. 
Begin quote
Following their defeat at Đà Nẵng, U.S. military intelligence agencies in I Corps Tactical Zone were confused by the movements of the 2nd Division
End quote 66.41.165.13 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No...that paragraph means the 2nd Division was defeated at Da Nang, and that their movements after that defeat confused US military intel. Intothatdarkness 01:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I would consider making that clear by saying something like "following the 2nd divisions defeat..." 66.41.165.13 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)