Talk:Operation Linebacker II

message: Also, while the bombing did severe infrastructure damage in Northern Vietnam, it did not break the stalemate in the South, nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Ho Chi Minh trail.
"nor did it halt the endless stream of supplies flowing down the Ho Chi Minh trail"
This is not appropriate language for an Encyclopedia, nor is it sourced. Specifically "endless stream of supplies...". Literally endless, or...   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.5.169 (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why do people think Operation Linebacker II forced North Vietnam to agree to all terms of the Paris Peace Treaty? Is there any proof to this? The US agreed to let the NVA remained in South Vietnam so the DRV was not "forced". The only thing that forces the leaders of Hanoi to agree to the Peace Treaty was the civilian casualties inflicted by American B-52s.
:The term "Christmas Day Bombings" is misleading. Operation Linebacker II began on December 18 and ended on December 29, but sorties were only flown on 11 of these days; bombing was halted on Christmas.
29-18 = 11, yet "only" 11 days, and "halted on Christmas."  Is this supposed to be funny? -St|eve 00:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion

message: The bombings are much more known as the Christmas bombings, ([] compared with 
[]). Hardly anyone outside of the US knows the names of American military operations. I propose we move the article to Christmas bombings of Hanoi, or just Christmas bombings. --Merat 10:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article should be renamed 

message: General military histories may use generic titles like "the Christmas bombing" to describe military actions, but specific histories utilize the names of operations to identify the campaigns. This website aspires to be more specific, not generalist, and "Linebacker II" is appropriate as an article name, delineating it from, say, Linebacker I or Rolling Thunder.  "Christmas bombings" could apply to actions of a wide variety of natures, anywhere in the world - it could be terrorist activities, or Irish Republican Army incidents, or...? By titling articles with their exact names, we strive for specificity here, not the coffee-table book cutline generalist approach. Writing these articles is not about YOU - we're writing for the general edification of the readers, and accuracy is key.
Mark Sublette 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xmas bombings 

message: I don't think it's suitable to make this look like some sort of battle. --Merat 23:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm as much anti-American as I'm anti-Mongolian or anti-Haitian, thank you. Ok, I'll do that. --Merat 13:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It looks like a combat article 

message: This site [] claims that 1,318 people were killed in Hanoi and 306 in Haiphong. I'll use these numbers instead. --Merat 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: "These claims, however, bear little resemblance to the truth, since both sides had proclaimed their willingness to continue. The goal of President Nixon was not to convince Hanoi, but to convince Saigon. President Thieu had to be convinced that "whatever the formal wording of the cease-fire agreement, he could count on Nixon to come to the defense of South Vietnam if the DRV broke the cease-fire."[22]"
The preponderance of historical opinion, Ambrose aside, agrees that the North Vietnamese had no intention of coming to an agreement before Congress convened.  In light of this, surely this statement is a bit strong?  I will update this section, making use of Pierre Asselin's work, which makes great use of Vietnamese sources to analyze Hanoi's negotiating stance. Cripipper 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: I edited the summary box, removing "although, it forced North Vietnam to negotiate a peace treaty". I believe some American editors on Wikipedia should stop being so one-sided and stop turning everything into an American "victory". If memory serves me right it was the United States that wanted to go to the negotiating table following the Tet Offensive of 1968. And North Vietnam was not "forced" as the terms of the Paris Treaty was not entirely Amercan, as noted above, many North Vietnamese troops were allowed to stay in parts of South Vietnam under the terms of the treaty. Canpark 04:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A pedant writes.  Unfortunately, in the English language 'American' is the standard adjective applied to the United States of America, and is universally understood as such.  When prefixed with 'North' or 'South' it is then understood to refer to an entity larger than the United States.  Cripipper 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sinzov is correct and in fact, at one time this was emphasized in public schools IN THE US. But since the quality of education in the United States has declined so badly, a lot of ignorant people don't seem to know or understand that the United States is a country, while America is two continents. 116.231.75.71 (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: why did the usa bomb an already devasted 3rd world country at the very moment the usa tried to get out of the war ? the answers given are not really satisfying. to convince Thieu ? he and his government were by all means a puppet regime. to bomb north vietnam to the tables ? the peace accord was more or less the same in january 1973 as it was in nov. 1972. 
the north vietnamese have a different point of view, and it deserves to be mentioned in the article as well. they speak of an "arial dien bien phu". they think that the usa tried to bomb them into submission and that they won this last battle against the usa.
many historians think that one of the most important objectives of the bombing was to inflict as much damage as possible in order to deny the fruits of the victory to the vietnamese by making a recovery a very long and painful process, thus "warning" other insurgent people not to wage an uprising. simple deterrence against national liberation ideas. a theory which at least should be considered.  Sinzov 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why ? objectives of the christmas bombing 

message: There was much done simultaneously by Task Force 77 Surface Warfare ships to interdict supply lines along Highway One in North Vietnam. My ship, the USS Lawrence, per her Deck Logs....
USS Lawrence DDG-4 reported as an element of TU 77.1.1 on 21 December 1972, [in effect relieving the Goldsborough who was hit by shore batteries the night before].
 During this period through 30 December, Lawrence was flagship for COMDESRON 11. Eighteen (18) 
Linebacker strikes were conducted, expending 1,089 rounds against primary targets and 296 
rounds of counter-battery fire against enemy coastal defense gun sites. During this period 
enemy fire was heavy and accurate.
 Lawrence was under enemy fire for a total of 123 minutes with 388 rounds 
of enemy fire falling in the immediate vicinity with some air bursts and surface bursts as close as 10 yards.'''
As many as 35 other ships participated in similar strikes.
'''
The Secretary of the Navy takes pleasure in presenting the Meritorious Unit Commendation to
USS LAWRENCE (DDG-4)
CITATION:
For meritorious service during operations against enemy forces in Southeast Asia from 7 August 1972 to 10 January 1973. Upon assignment to the US SEVENTH Fleet in support of United States objectives in Southeast Asia, USS LAWRENCE consistently displayed a high degree of professionalism and resourcefulness while carrying out arduous combat support missions along the coast of the Republic of Vietnam and 116 high speed strike missions against North Vietnam. During this period, USS LAWRENCE damaged or destroyed significant enemy fortifications and logistic support facilities. The sustained high level of personnel and material readiness achieved by LAWRENCE enabled her to respond instantly to every commitment ranging from pilot rescue to emergency naval gunfire support. By the exemplary performance of duty throughout this period, the officers and men of the USS LAWRENCE reflected great credit upon themselves and the United States Naval Service.
								John W. Warner
							       Secretary of the Navy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDT71 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval Surface Warfare During Linebacker II 

message: One of the planes sits in Huu Tiep Lake in Ha Noi, Vietnam. Pictures are available because the B-52 bomber still sits there today in the middle of the lake. Perhaps a small article on this would be nice. Lukeduk1980 (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of down B-52 from Operation Linebacker 2 

message: I agree that this sentence defies the neutral point of view policy:
"Although Hanoi claimed that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people", the North Vietnamese government itself claimed that only 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing."
I suggest we remove the word "only", replace the "Hanoi" with "Noth Vietnamese" and split this sentence into two separate ones like this:
1) The North Vietnamese criticized the operation stating that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people". 
2) The North Vietnamese government claimed that 1,624 civilians had been killed by the bombing.
This way we retain all the information contained in this paragraph, but avoid making any political judgement, thus keping in line with the neutral viewpoint policy. We quote the north vietnamese statement, while at the same time making it clear that this is precisely just that - a North Vietnamese account of said events.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelm Klave (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusions. 

message: In the paragraph it was said that 3 planes were lost to AAA fire but in the table none seem to be listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.66.250 (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planes lost to AAA's 

message: I know this is rehashing, but the title of this article should be renamed to a commonly recognizable title (WP:Title).  Linebacker II is far too obscure.  Hardly anybody outside of the US military would recognize this title - and I own a few Vietnam military histories that don't use it. A quick search on Google books yields some 560 with Operation Linebacker II, practically 100% of them highly specialized military books (and the bulk of them narrowly air force-related). Whereas a search for "Christmas Bombings" yields sevenfold times as much.  I don't have problems with Rolling Thunder, etc. - those names are well-known.  But Linebacker II is far too obscure, and the Christmas bombings far too well known. Walrasiad (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas Bombing 

message: The text says "Although an 20 SAMs" - should that read "Although an estimated 20 SAMs" ?  I can't make the edit myself as I don't know the original intent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.112.119 (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 SAMs 

message: Nixon could implement the "12 days of Christmas" bombing campaign because (1) he had handily been re-elected; (2) the draft had ended so student protests were rare (young men protested because they didn't want to die, not because there was a war); (3) the new Congress had not convened yet; and (4) it was Christmas break so college campuses were empty and could not mount student protests.  The 36 hour break over Xmas day provided the Air Force much needed time to do maintenance on the airplanes, which were very high maintenance since they were high performance aircraft (an F-105 engine had to be gone over every 125 flying hours, for instance).  My squadron, the 561st TFS flying F-105G Wild Weasels, participated in Linebacker I and II; we initially sent over 12 aircraft when Giap invaded the South with 200,000 troops, we killed 40,000 of them and four of our F-105G's got shot down, one of them was the last F-105 shot down in Vietnam.  We won the Vietnam War, we brought the North to its knees in just a dozen days; however we knew the South couldn't make it without our help because they were so corrupt; we also knew the North would not keep its end of the bargain because Communists lie as a matter of standard policy.  Our mission had been accomplished, however, we kept Communism from spreading out over all of Southeast Asia, we stood our ground and let Red China and the USSR know that the USA would stand up to Communism.  That was the real war--between the USA, Russia and China; Vietnam was just a proxy war.  The Vietnamese were just the poor dumb suckers that got caught in the middle.  2602:306:CEDF:1580:BC32:3559:365:9917 (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 days of Christmas 

message: Bombing resumed Jan 2, the January bombing was condemned by 40 nations at the UN and even the Parliament of Canada, American interests were attacked in Europe during this time, and it finally stopped on Jan 15, 1973 when Nixon said progress was being made in the Peace talks.  Where is this mentioned?! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing or incorrect information 

message: G'day all, as part of a quick review of old Milhist A-class articles, I have noticed that this article currently doesn't meet the project's referencing requirements for its A-class articles. As such, I have marked these in the places where I think they are needed. I also think that the tables of US aircraft losses and the order of battle need references. Is anyone able to add references in these places? If not, I intend to nominate the article for an A-class re-appraisal. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed the article for A-class re-appraisal now: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Linebacker II. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing citations

message: There is scant mention of what was destroyed, how many people and who were killed, how Vietnamese (and other neighbouring nations) are affected, etc. There are fancy tables about the lost aircraft, and none about the patients, medics, people in the street, soldiers, who were killed by them. 
The whole article implicit lauds the US military by being very unbalanced. 
Zezen (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Very US-centric

message: Hello,Dear Bumbubookworm, a while back I added some missing information to the page regarding the firebee UAV usage. It was removed by you saying it was Hearsay. Sir, this is not hearsay. My grandfather, LT COL Harold "Red" Smith was in charge of that operation, Deputy Chief of the RPV sector at SAC. The information I posted is from his book that we are working to get published. How can I properly cite this information so it is added to this page? Many people do not know about UAV use during Vietnam, UAV sorties were flown EVERYDAY during the Vietnam war. Here was my original edit that I tried to add to the article, it is important that this is added as hardly anybody knows of the importance that UAV's played in this war.
"BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) was only performed by the LIGHTNING BUG drone reconnaissance program. LIGHTNING BUG provided daily photo reconnaissance throughout the 11 year campaign. Highlights included the "Model 147E" capture of the SA-2 control frequencies dropping USAF/ US NAVY losses from 7% to 2% of sorties flown saving significant numbers of aircrafts and crews from death and/or capture! ALSO- LIGHTNING BUG was the only system capable of taking BDA photos during LINEBACKER II to assure target data for the B-52's!"
Please advise so we can rectify this matter.
Thank you!
Marshall Smith
Aviation Unmanned Vehicle Museum (AUVM
Dallas, TX
www.auvm.net  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mts6789 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Mts6789 Wikipedia requires that everything is reliably sourced, please read WP:RS. The claimed recollections of your grandfather are not WP:RS and the sensationalist writing style with lots of exclamation marks is not in accordance with WP:MOS. The combat history of the Ryan Model 147 is already extensively detailed on that page including its BDA role in Linebacker II, so only a minor mention with the link is justified on this page and I have added that in. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firebee drone used for BDA for OPERATION LINEBACK II 

message: Does anyone have the names of the people who are in this photo? 216.71.102.197 (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photo at Anderson base