# Talk:Battle of Lima Site 85

"Americans" is a plural noun; "American", "Hmong" and "Thai" are adjectives; "killed" can be a verbal noun, and modified by adjectives; or a verbal adjective modifying nouns; adding -s to "American" makes "killed" do both. --Pawyilee (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you certain that the Thai government did not send troops here on its own accord? The Thai government supported South Vietman and sent troops to fight under its own authority rather than as mercinaries.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I"m troubled by the ref to "Thai Mercenaries" too, but a friend in Mukdahan whose knows some of the survivors who allegedly said they were only in it for the money, and that meets the definition of mercenary. for the more-or-less official Thai position, refer to Border Patrol Police. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Well lots of soldiers in national armies fight for the money, but that doesnt make them mercenaries. Legally if the soldiers were from a Thai goverment sanctioned unit and sent there on government orders then they wouldnt be mercenaries.XavierGreen (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thai Border Patrol Police, as well as their hirelings, were a national arm, if not an army. I favor either NOT calling the hirelings mercenaries, or apply the same term to the 'sheep-dipped' Americans who had been technically discharged from their national military arm and were at the time hirelings of Boeing. Pawyilee (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have changed it back to Border Patrol Police "volunteers".Mztourist (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I object to the renaming of this page. The battle may have taken place on and around Phou Pha Thi, but the whole objective of the battle was the destruction of Lima Site 85. Comments please Mztourist (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I may have been mistaken in changing the name of this article, because even official Vietnamese histories refer to this battle as the "battle at the TACAN Site". However, North Vietnamese objectives was to capture the entire Phou Pha Thi area and Lima Site 85 was a significant part of the Phou Pha Thi puzzle, so I thought it was more appropriate to refer to the entire geographical area instead of one installation alone. If you choose to revert this page, I will not object. However, I strongly object to the section which is devoted to the name of U.S. KIA/MIA. I don't mean to offend U.S. audiences, but what make those American individuals so special that they deserve one section, while the North Vietnamese dead have none? To be fair, I thought it would be better to omit the section which list the name of U.S. personnel.Canpark (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I will rename. In relation to the US MIA section, many different authors contributed to that section last year, before you unilaterally decided to delete it. Authors on Wikipedia contribute for a range of reasons and motivations. The fate of the 12 missing Americans is an integral part of the story of Lima Site 85 which you ahve no right to remove. If you want to add information about the 1 NVA that was supposedly killed in the attack, (yet more GVN propaganda) go ahead. Mztourist (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
If you don't like the contribution which I have made than that is your problem, no need to give the Vietnamese version of events such a dressing down simply because it doesn't conform with your view of history. Every country's history is shrouded by a level of propaganda, and there is no such thing as the gospel truth. If you want to force only the American view on the audience, knock yourself out but at least provide the appropriate citations for those statistics.Canpark (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This article has multiple issues:
Bias: I'm USAF retired drawing retired pay, despite being no long proud of USAF achievements, particularly in Laos.
Propaganda clouds issues, but has its place, such as the use of a Cuban anti-American poster introducing the article formerly named CIA Secret War in Laos, now incorporated into the Laotian Civil War.
Lima Site 85 is a misnomer that amounts to CIA and USAF jargon. It derives from LS = Landing Site with L pronounced LIMA from the NATO phonetic alphabet. LS 85 was a 700-foot landing strip in the valley below; its designation is commonly used to refer to the facilities it served.
The above assertion about "Landing Sites" is incorrect and incomplete. It is true in that Lima Strip 85 would apply to the airfield. However, because because any other facilities near the air strip were maintained by its air bridge, they were commonly lumped together as Lima Site 85 when overall operations were discussed. See page 64 of Ahern's Undercover Armies for details.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
U.S. KIA/MIA section is also covered at 1st Combat Evaluation Group section on Laos in a footnote; what make those American individuals so special could be their propaganda value in support of the Afghan war, and the Drone attacks in Pakistan, the modern manifestation of what was going on in the Secret War in Laos; the 1 NVA that was supposedly killed in the attack is of no propaganda value to the current Vietnamese government, which keeps its hagiography of battle casualties to a minimum.
--Pawyilee (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
In regards to American versus Vietnamese accounts, equal weight should be given to each whenever possible. If the sources differ signifigantly then for those portions that differ both versions should be included in the text. I see no general bias towards one side or the other in the article as it is now (the only thing that stuck out to me has been fixed), but i am no expert on the subject. As for casualties both the high and low estimates of casualties should be included with citations in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The single Vietnamese source which I've used actually correlate very well with the Western books cited; from the very first mortar attack right down to the first U.S.  airstrikes early in the morning to cover the evacuation. However, unlike other battles, North Vietnamese casualties were not numbered at 100, 1,000 or 10,000 deaths, and they won the battle. So some people dismiss that as propaganda.Canpark (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Accounts are almost all American — in published histories, declassified official reports, personal accounts from (peer-reviewed) survivors web sites, including a novel by surviving B-52 pilot Maier in the 1CEVG article that gives the best description of how their equipment worked. On the Vietnamese side, there's a museum exhibit of an AN-2 supposedly involved, an interview with their 'commander" that many suspect was drafted for the position long after the fact, and assistance in location downed American airmen. If the focus of this article is to be the battle on the mountain top, then it becomes a very minor part of the history of wars in Indochina, in which the Americans were minor players, with the fewest participants and the fewest casualties, and the focus of the Vietnamese was to take out the TACAN site, not the COMMADO CLUB radar. If, however, the focus is the battle for Lima Site 85, the access to said maountain and the battle revolving around the radar sited on it, then is a significant factor in the evolution of American air power from balloons in their Civil War down to their drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen today. Only then do the eight American casualties stand out in stark relief as the largest single loss of American AIRMEN in GROUND combat during the all the wars in Indochina. As part of the overall history of attempts to deliver ordinance precisely on target, it casts light on the airmen's role as technicians, "sheep-dipped" or not. Technicians they were, in a tradition that goes back to when the word Engineer was first coined, and which for many centuries applied to specialists many of whom were only quasi-military. The US Army's first balloonists were contracted civilians who could have been shot as spies if captured by the enemy, just as the site 85 airmen could have been. From then until now the air arm has contracted civilians, or enlisted technicians who got little if any ground combat training. If my experience is any guide, then the only combat training these airmen got was qualification on a rifle range with an M2 carbine, and perhaps the M16 rifle.
Either way, this article needs a major rewrite. I condensed the lede down to essential points, and moved most of the rest of what was there to SUMMARY; but this duplicates much of what is in PRELUDE. The 7AF CHECKO report follows BATTLE with DENOUEMENT before AFTERMATH. A subject heading that should be considered if the focus is to be Site 85. Either way, we will lack documentation as to Chinese, Soviet, North and South Vietnamese, Thai Border Police and Defense Volunteers, American contract civilians, CIA, etc., etc., and the many varieties of Lao involved. some of whom would not have considered themselves Lao except by country of birth. All of that would utterly ignore the greatest number of casualties, that of non-combatant civilians who continue to fall victim to malfunctioned ordinance, the sparing of whom is alleged to be  the point of precision delivery of ordinance. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Pawyilee, your edits are appreciated. The article is about the battle for the radar (Tacan and Commando Club) sites what is known as the Battle of Lima Site 85 (whether that name is correct or not) and is notable for a variety of different reasons - USAF ground casualties, VPAF air attacks etc. It is not an article that does or should attempt to address the wider issues that you have raised. Mztourist (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
While I will continue to monitor the article and have corrected a few of my typos, I will bow out of editing it -- I'm biased, and haven't read Do. --Pawyilee (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The lede is much too long. Recommend everything following largest single ground combat loss of United States Air Force members during the Vietnam War be merged into Background, which already repeats much of what's now in the lede.--Pawyilee (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead is suppose to summarize the content of an article, which is four paragraphs maximum.Canpark (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I defer to others' judgment on the lede. Did my amendment to the "memorial" sentence help matters? I also added the info to Operation Arc Light. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I tend to think the lede's too long as well. Noticed that with some other articles as well. Just because the lede CAN be four paragraphs doesn't mean it SHOULD be. And those paragraphs don't need to be massive.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary has postumus.
Neither that nor Posthumous recognition will serve. Wiktionary is a wiki, so suggest amending it with an applicable definition. Won't do it, myself, as I don't know their criteria. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
USAF casualties at Lima Site 85 are listed at 1st Combat Evaluation Group in (present) footnote 8, the six lost surveying for OL-24 in footnote 4, and the Andersen Memorial in 5 (repeated in 13 — maybe that should be fixed.) The reference for 4 also follows with the losses at Lima site 85, and one more on 24 February 1968, at Gia Dinh: Lowell V. Smith, killed by shrapnel from rocket/mortar, at Tan Son Nhut AB, Saigon-Gia Dinh. That's all the combat losses for 1CEVG, and all but the last (who was unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) because they had no combat training. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the link to Operation Arc Light? Not only does it have info on the Arc Light/CombatSkyspot memorials, but also informs that the terms were sometimes synonymous. If nothing else will do, stick it in See also: --Pawyilee (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Added Wiktionary sheep-dipping definition; that entry would benefit from a citation, i.e., reliable source using the term as defined. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find any definition of "sheep-dipping"in the article. If there was one it has been removed. I had to look it up since I am not familiar with the "argot" (another fancy word meaning "jargon" or "slang") of the Central Intelligence Agency. See:
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency argot for a cover assignment given to covert operatives—see wikt:sheep-dip#Verb
It just irks me no end when I come here to wikipedia to learn something new and leave more frustrated than when I arrived. 
Linstrum (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Raven Forward Air Controllers were preceded by "sheep-dipped" enlisted "Butterflies" who operated in and out of their own Lima Sites. I considered adding the Ravens (and Butterflies) to See also, but guess both these and many other clandestine operations are subsumed in Project 404. Can't help but wonder if that's in some way related to the HTTP 404, or just a case of spooky action at a distance. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you will pardon a bit of OR in the guise of personal experience:
When I was there, I was told that Project 404 was numbered to disguise it as a routine supply mission of some sort. Of course, this obviously predates the computer error of 404--page not found. Project 404 supplied augmentees to the Ravens. I know, because I was one of them. The Ravens were recruited through the Steve Canyon Program (see description in Robbins "The Ravens").Georgejdorner (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

IP address 71.207.98.187 is making numerous edits, large and small to this page. While I believe these are being done in good faith, I also believe they are excessive, almost requiring a citation for every sentence used. Mztourist (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears my earlier edit may have resulted in an edit war when I identified numerous problems with this article (including several tags), as an editor who doesn't have a username then addressed those tags and performed what seems to be other improvements and additions.  It looks like User:Mztourist then began the war by reverting the anon editor's post by claiming he couldn't post talk to the anon editor's user page at Talk:71.207.98.187 despite being able to post at this talk page about the article.  I just added a small section (Battle of Route 602 to the article in the sectioning created by the anon editor) but withheld some additional substantial edits since I'm concerned they will likewise be thrown out.  30 SW (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not starting an Edit War, just getting the attention of IP 71.207.98.187 who appears to be making excessive edits to the article. Mztourist (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked the anon editor's claim about "Linder innuendo" in an edit summary and it appears that source is the reason this article was so poorly written: it has been based (prior to my earlier edit) almost verbatim on the CIA report in Chauhau's book and written by Linder, which in addition to the innuendo, has been discredited by one of the contemporaries of the battle: "full of factual errors and several mistakes in interpretation" (Secord).  I'd like to reassessed the article, but again; am concerned of an somewhat loose cannon just reverting and throwing out the baby with the bathwater like in the edit war.  30 SW (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

...the battle resulted in the largest single (clarification needed). I agree, but don't know how to go about it. Technically, the airmen who died were not USAF, as they had been "sheep-dipped" as civilian contractors, though their USAF status was restored posthumously. One of the external links, which I haven't checked to see if it is still linked, attempted clarification. USAF ground personnel, like me, received NO ground combat training, except for one of the two career fields in the Security Police, and even they seldom engaged in what you might call ground combat, and I never heard tell of any of them suffering any casualties, although as Air Police in the Korean War, they did. My wife is hollering at me, so I have to leave it at this.--Pawyilee (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"...little or no combat training..." reference: Airman receiving Medal of Honor for '68 actions
This was the lartest single ground combat loss of USAF personnel during the Vietnam warThis article and 1CEVG's are presently so screwed up I can't find the better references. I'm going to restore 1CEVG's to an earlier version, to save to my computer so I'll have 'em at least for my own use, then restore it to its present FUBAR state - though my wife is still hollering. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Didn't need to restore it after all, just copy it with a dated title. This should help clarify why there were so few ground combat losses, keeping in mind it was true of most REMFs, though a large part, if not THE largest, were USAF technicians.With few exceptions, COMBAT SKYSPOT was not a particularly demanding mission. As the war dragged on and physical conditions improved on the bases where the sites were located , the worst aspects were probably boredom and heat, and separation from family. With few exceptions, crews slept in relatively comfortable hootches on real beds, had real showers, had access to real chow halls, and had many amenities that grunts only occasionally experienced. The sites located on the Thai bases were particularly comfortable. But, there were a lot of repeat tours, and these separations took a heavy toll on families and relationships. As far as actual combat, that just didn’t happen, certainly not anywhere near the sense we think of it involving patrols, firebases, troop insertions into hot LZ’s, and so on. Bases on which the COMBAT SKYSPOT sites were located were in fact subjected to enemy attack, but these were general in nature. The few casualties suffered were not so much the result of combat operations but rather some tactically naive technicians being slaughtered through stupidity on the part of the command. That doesn’t make it any easier, and it certainly does not lessen their individual courage and accomplishments;if anything, those attributes tend to illustrate that the leadership was often unworthy in comparison.  My wife quit hollering. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
See also
United_States_Air_Force_Security_Forces#Changes_to_Deployment_Length_and_Training
--Pawyilee (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting...before I departed for SEA, this airman had three days combat training at Hamilton Field. Having previously completed infantry training courtesy of USMC, I was impressed with how much info the USAF instructors imparted in those three days. The major drawback was the lackadaisical attitude of the trainees.
Georgejdorner (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The attributions for the painting illustrating this article are incorrect.  It was NOT the work of a CIA employee and, therefore, NOT public domain.  The painting was commissioned by two former CIA officers and painted by U.K. artist Keith Woodcock. It was donated to the CIA collection at the University of Texas Dallas Research Library in Richardson, Texas, by the individuals that had commissioned it.
Under copyright law, the copyright to the work is retained by the artist, unless he has assigned his rights.  There is no evidence available that this is the case.

You only need to google "Keith Wookcock artist" to verify this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chhamilton3 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 
I will email him and ask if he objects to it being used only on this page Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
CIA artworks are not public domain.  If there is any connection between CIA and public domain, it is usually that CIA works are not in the public domain, not the reverse.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

from a french bourgeois (who now has time to discover that, while during the spring of 1968 he was erecting barricades and hurling cobble-stones at policemen to keep the right to become like his friends MD or bank executive, more serious things were happening on the planet) : "Does one know why the North-Vietnamese army did'nt send some Migs to straff off the Lima Site 85 instead of sending old Antonov crop-sprayers, and then commandos clambering up the cliff ? Thanks beforehand for your answers (and for your very good text, which I just summed up in WP fr. And could you be so kind, & copy your answer on the "discussion page" of the french article, I'm afraid my memory about the questions I ask here & there is not as good as it used to be...Arapaima (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the main author, and the one to which I contributed no longer exists. But to answer your question, the NVA simply had no way to train intensively in the air, and so made do with what they had. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The article refers to 1,000 soldiers of the Kingdom of Laos.  But if this was the 1,000 Hmong commanded by the CIA, they weren't Laotian, but Vietnamese mercenaries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 

The CIA did not use Vietnamese mercenaries in Laos. As noted, they did raise an army of Hmong. They also hired a few Thai fighter pilots to augment the Royal Lao Air Force, as well as battalions of Thai mercenaries as infantrymen and artillerymen. Other talented mercs hired included French copilots and Filipino crew chiefs for Air America, and a battalion of Nationalist Chinese.
Georgejdorner (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, all,
My snooping into edit history reveals that this article has undergone serious change since it was adjudged GA. I am working on the citation problems. The cite style has been partially changed since then; I am going to restore it to the short form used to gain its GA status. Also, there are cites now lacking in spots; I also intend to clear them up.
Georgejdorner (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, fellow editors,
After a thorough reading of the Edit history, plus a comparison of the approved GA text of 1 August 2011 versus the current version, I have come to the conclusion that the current article is irreparable in its present form. Differing citation styles have been added to the GA version. The Reference section is totally changed. Much added material remains uncited. This article has deteriorated from its GA status.
I am going to revert to the GA version to begin revamping the article. I have saved a current version for reference. I intend to work through it, salvaging such useful material as I can cite to a source, and adding it to the GA text. I also have the Secord/Wurts book at hand, along with A Day Too Long; I will refer to them, of course.
Georgejdorner (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, my fellow editors,
There are several accounts of this raid, no two of which seem to agree with one another. Having made some corrective edits that diminish detail, I want to leave notice of my reasoning. This is based partially on my personal experiences while stationed next door to Military Region 2; I was based in Military Region 1.
Some accounts state only two or three AN-2s took place in the raid. Although two or three may have been all that were visible at a given time, there were four planes.
More problematic is the identity of the type of Air America helicopter. In my experience, Air America operated H-34 Choctaws. Without any specific source for reference, I edited the text to simply read "helicopter". Incidentally, in one version I have read, the Air America pilot is said to shadowed the AN-2 from above and downed it by depriving its wing of lift.
There is even more confusion about the Air America crew chief's assault rifle. I have seen it variously identified as an M-16, an AK-47, and a Swedish K sub-machine gun. I never saw an M-16 while I was in Laos, though some few CAR-15s were about. An AK-47 is possible. A Swedish K fires a pistol bullet—kind of small rounds to down an airplane. At any rate, the weapon in question has become, in the text, "assault rifle".
The above is a bit lengthy, I know, but accuracy is paramount.
Georgejdorner (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It was an Air America Huey, there are numerous references for this.Mztourist (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Air America (airline)#Helicopters shows that they didn't operate any Hueys, although they had some of the civilian equivalents, the Bell 205.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
That really is splitting hairs. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Lima Site 85. 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/20110717102828/http://combat-skyspot.tripod.com/commandoclub.htm to http://combat-skyspot.tripod.com/commandoclub.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Lima Site 85. 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/20161227015927/http://www.laoveteransofamerica.org/ to http://www.laoveteransofamerica.org/
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) 03:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The portion of the article that says that a helicopter arrived at the airstrip and picked up both the CIA officers and surviving technicians is incorrect, the surviving technicians were cut off from the helipad (there was no airstrip) and they were evacuated by two helicopters that hoisted them out via sling from the summit (This is from Castle's book and other sources).  I can make the change myself once I figure out Wikipedia editing. Comassion (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)