Talk:Battle of Kham Duc

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Location of Ngok Tavak outpost

message: 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)
thread_title:  some facts are wrong 

message: 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  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  template. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for further improvement

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Further suggestions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article Inaccuracies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  VPA, PAVN, or NVA? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Intothatdarkness is correct and see the comments on casualty figures above under Worst Defeat Mztourist (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent IP Edits and losses