Talk:Easter Offensive

message: This is the only place I have ever heard of this called the "Eastertide Offensive."  By those who fought there it was known simply as "the Easter Offensive." Food for thought. Buckboard 08:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On 8 May, South Vietnamese planes dropped napalm on the village of Trang Bang, an incident recorded in the famous photo of Kim Phuc.
Wasn't it on 8 June ? Bukvoed 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per convincing argument from requester, other comments above, and apparent lack of opposition.  I'm sure if someone has a good reason to call it the "Easteride Offensive", we'll be hearing from them before long. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trang Bang bombing

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support as nom. --Groggy Dice 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The battle summary lists American dead at an estimated 10,000, yet the Aftermath section says 1972 saw 300 American deaths, most of which came from the Easter Offensive. I believe the 300 figure to be more reliable, as 10,000 dead would have been significant percentage of the total US presence (all branches) in Vietnam, not to mention equal roughly 20-25% of total war deaths. Both numbers give references, but the 10,000 figure's reference is not robust enough to easily look up. 
Someone with the means should independently look up and correct both numbers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.162.170 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The 10,000 number originates (traced back far enough) with North Vietnam. Its goes along with other figures from the same sources claiming that ARVN (south vietnam) losses were in the hundreds of thousands. Enemy casualty figures originating with the PAVN/North Vietnam are generally not considered trustworthy. The American number of 10,000 has been removed, but other numbers from similar sources remain all over the article. 75.17.127.178 (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties?  

message: Speaking as a crewman from one of the ships involved, I'd like to see more details of just what our contribution was.  I don't have access to the source material needed to do a proper job, but I would like to point out a few things.  First, as the article does say, we provided artillery support during the opening stages of the battle, but it doesn't go on to say that we continued in that role (often with reverse-slope trajectories to fire over coastal mountains) all through the campaign.  Second the Navy completely controlled the eastern flank of the battlefield at all times meaning that we could intervene anywhere we were needed on surprisingly short notice.  Also, the NVA made almost no attempt to hinder us; my ship, the USS Ouellet (FF-1077) was only targeted twice by counter-battery in seven months and was never hit, and I have no reason to think that our experience wasn't typical.  In fact, it could be argued that the NVA's failure to take naval shore bombardment into account was one of the reasons for their lack of success.  If anybody feels qualified to write this up in the proper form I'm sure that everybody who spent time in Tonkin Gulf would be grateful.  If you need more detail, feel free to ask either here or by email and I'll do what I can to assist.JDZeff (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding on the US Navy's role 

message: Is there seriously no better source for South Vietnamese strength? The current box just lists their entire military, including units that could not have possibly have had any participation in this campaign (such as most of the Regional Forces). It's a bit misleading.--Nihlus1 (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no better sources and its not so easy coming up with better numbers. The scale of the battle was national. Three of the corps areas were involved. Trying to decide what constitutes participation is also not an easy question in a military situation of this scale. You could get better numbers for individual battles that made up the 1972 offensive, but trying to calculate the whole thing is probably futile. 75.17.127.178 (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 75.17.127.178, this was a national battle and units were moved from Corps to Corps as needed. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troop Numbers 

message: The previous result in the Infobox: South Vietnam repulsed the main assaults with U.S. support. North Vietnam gained significant territories is a perfectly balanced summary of the outcome and reference to the Aftermath section is not necessaryMztourist (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Easter Offensive. 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/20061105053444/https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/aces_aerial_victories.pdf to https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/aces_aerial_victories.pdf
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) 08:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified