Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

message: The article says
"Both sides routinely exaggerated the number of casualties inflicted on the other, and figures vary considerably depending on source"
And then states that the Vietnamese claims 1500-1700 US causalities and 1,228 (559 killed and 669 wounded) own causalities.
This seems to be an american exaggeration about the vietnamese claims.
According to Vietnamese wikipedia there was:
208 killed and 146 wounded on the Vietnamese side
234 killed and 245 wounded on the US side  
The figure of 559 killed and 669 wounded Vietnamese is the figures from the South Vietnamese Liberation army for the whole La Drang campaign according to Vietnamese wikipedia
: This unsigned "contribution" is placed in the wrong place. It should be at the bottom of the Talk page and is not signed at all. Please follow Wikipedia conventions when adding to any page. The casualties figures are bound to be exaggerated, especially Vietnamese Wikipedia.  Viet Nam is hardly a democratic country.  Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source, unless backed-up with reliable, secondary, sources. David J Johnson (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: You recently replaced "air assaulted" with "air lifted". Can you clarify and justify your choice of words?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air assault versus airlift 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Ia Drang. 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/20150315053431/http://www.virtualwall.org/dg/GeogheganJL01a.htm to http://www.virtualwall.org/dg/GeogheganJL01a.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The three summary paragraphs for this article contain material that should not be in the summary paras.  The most important facts about the battle are lost in details that are of little interest to the average reader.  
The first summary para need not list every military unit involved in the battle.  That material is in the infobox.  Nor do we need to know in summary paras 2 and 3 the U.S. justification for the combat losses in the battle and the public relations response of Gen. Westmoreland. That stuff is interesting and relevant but can be summarized in a single sentence or two rather than two long -- overly long -- paragraphs.  Nor do we need in the summary paras a long section on the literary and film history of the battle. A one sentence summary will suffice.  
In my opinion, the three summary paragraphs should be shortened by more than one-half, the focus on important elements of the battle should be sharpened, and the material deleted from the summary paras should be put into the body of the article as appropriate. Any takers to do it? Smallchief (talk  (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but the entire article is a bit of a mess, the result I think of some edit wars in the past. I'm going through slowly when I get the chance, but don't know when I can get round to the lead. FactotEm (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a start, but it has some way to go yet. FactotEm (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Think it's in a bit better shape now, but its completely missing any Vietnamese perspective, although that's probably true of most of the article anyway. FactotEm (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary paragraphs not suitable

message: Last sentence, 1st para, "Americans dig in for the night" section...
By nightfall, the battle had taken a heavy toll on Lt. Col. Moore's battalion: B/2/7 had taken 47 casualties (including one officer) and A Company had taken 34 casualties (including three officers); C company had taken only four casualties. (my emphasis)
Is the B/2/7 above a typo? Moore's Bn was 1/7. It's confusing because B Coy of the 2nd Bn 7th Cav had also just landed. Can't check the sources - none provided. FactotEm (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great. Thx. Do you have his book with you? Interested to hear whether p202 supports any of the information I copied to Dubious Statement number IV above, if you get the chance to have a peek. FactotEm (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 202 does not mention Col. Tim Brown in the edition which I have.  Page 194 mentions that General Knowles on 15 Nov planned to tell Col Brown to withdraw Moore's battalion (1/7) on 16 Nov for two days of rest and rehabilitation.  There's no mention of Plei Me as a reason for the proposed withdrawal. In a quick look through the book, I don't find a suggestion of a command problem between Moore and Brown. In other words, I would say this para could be deleted from the article unless somebody can come up with a reliable source.  Smallchief (talk  (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Not sure what to do with this para. I'll leave it there for now and see what comes up after a bit more research. FactotEm (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q 

message: This  06:16, 1 November 2017‎ Day to day (Undid revision 807820029 by David J Johnson (talk) I did examine and can't see it in the source) should be undone. Here are the two references he could not see:
- "The initial request would include the general situation, target information, objective, distance from friendly forces, and contemplated ground follow-up, if any. If beacon emplacement was precluded by virtue of target locations, normal radar bombing techniques would be used. When a request was initiated, approval for the strike, MACV said, would be expedited to allow a TOT not later than 24 hours after the initial message was transmitted." (Meyan, p.9)
- "However, during November, the B-52s were used in a close-support role in conjunction with a major battle in the Ia Drang valley of Pleiku Province, involving the 1st Air Cavalry Division in Operation "Silver Bayonet," a bitter fight with North Vietnamese elements. On five consecutive days, beginning 17 November, strikes were conducted in the 1st Air Cav battle area. To meet these close-support needs, scheduled strikes in Binh Duong Province were deferred and, within 14 hours and 57 minutes of the COMUSMACV request, 18 B-52s launched from Guam to provide necessary support." (Meyan, p.23)
Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Day to day's 1 November 2017 deletion 

message: There is an issue with the Vietnamese casualty counts from the sourced material. The current Vietnamese side casualty counts are referenced correctly from the source "The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History. Spencer C. Tucker. ABC-CLIO. P. 529".
I looked at the references for that figure in the previoulsy mentioned source and found this "Pribbenow, Merle L. "The Fog of War: The Vietnamese View of the La Drang Battle." Military Review 81, no. 1 (Jan, 2001): 93-97. (Proquest)" the following link is a copy I found http://www.generalhieu.com/e66pleime-2.htm.
In this referenced source I found the numbers mentioned however the numbers mentioned are for the claimed kills and wounded from the regional command on the Vietnamese side of the battle. The direct quote from this source is
"A 1966 Central Highlands Front report claimed that in five major engagements with US forces between 14 and 18 November 1965, NVA forces killed 559 soldiers and wounded 669."
I will admit it is oddly precise but that is the direct wording from the source. So a correction is needed but I have not found any updated figures from the Vietnamese side yet.
Just a heads up to people on this article.
Cladors (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with the Vietnamese casualty counts 

message: I propose to merge Ia Drang Valley into Battle of Ia Drang. Ia Drang valley is completely unsourced and is 2 lines long. Why have a Ia Drang valley article at all when the most note worthy thing it mentions in this article as happening is the battle? Theprussian (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Smallchief (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I recall that the M16's used at Ia Drang still used the IMR 4475 stick powder instead of the WC846 ball powder (which caused the M16's to jam).  Thus the M16's were reliable at Ia Drang and contributed to success in battle along with artillery and air support.  Anybody got any info on this?  75.4.34.74 (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hal Moore gave a statement to the press after the battle crediting the M16 as one of the factors that contributed to US success, so he clearly saw no issues with it. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  M16 reliable at Ia Drang 

message: Is Ia Drang situated in what used to be, at the time, North Vietnam or South Vietnam? Thank you, Maikel (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: South Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Where?

message: as of 11 May 2023, Fort Benning has been re-named Fort Moore, after Hal Moore. See 173d Memorial website for verification. Also includes 33x Australians 'who fell' - as a unit under 173d Brigade command - in '65-'66. photos and names listed on 'facebook'.
Colin Rayfield, 1 RAR '65-'66. (1st Bn - Royal Australian Regiment) 211.30.7.57 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fort Benning now Fort Moore