Talk:NLF and PAVN strategy, organization and structure

Focus of article

The focus of this article is on battle from the VC/NVA point of view, as opposed to the massive flood of material covering the American perspective. Does not attempt in-depth coverage of political history, American battles, American equipment, communist theory, political personalities, or general Vietnamese history. For these the reader is referred to the detailed articles below, It seeks to fill a missing gap - a ground-level strategic and tactical view of how communist forces won their war.

• Weapons of the Vietnam War
• Vietnam War (lists)
• Vietnam War
• Guerrilla warfare
• Communism
• Vietnam

Gathering material now to launch. If anyone has any relevant material, by all means. Admittedly article might be a bit ambitious and might need scaling back, but that will be seeen in time. It fills a gap in the other Wiki Articles on Vietnam which cover mostly:

• a names and dates historical rundown,
• American weapons or equipment, or
• political personalities.
• individual battles from American point of view

The gap to be filled is a "ground level" view of "how" and "why" the VC and NVA fought as they did from their point of view. How for example did the VC/NVA "three strongs" doctrine stack up against hard-nosed battalions of Marine or Army troops? Focus is on MILITARY aspects to avoid getting bogged down in pro/anti-war arguments. Those arguments are best left for a more political history type article not this one. Good articles of individual US Military ops to be referenced but not duplicated here. Enriquecardova 05:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Viewer opinion:I think that the military point of view from NVA,VC forces MUST be shown,its not a Communist propaganda,or some biased opinion,from american side or vietnamese side.The Technical aspect that really matters,the NVA military structure,units,tunnel bases and operations.Because the Lack of information about it we cant really understand how the NVA/VC troops works.

Agreed. Which is precisely the reason for this article. There is a lot on AMerican technology and the political aspects, but little on the HOW of the communist side. To understand the full picture of course, things like organization, weapons, logistics and some ideology must be talked about. It is not POV to say that communist theory influenced VC/NVA operations for example- this is part and parcel of the entire Vietnam War. Guerilla warfare mixes politics and war closely. On the balance however the military side is the focus. There is a lot of technical material that may require its own article.Enriquecardova 23:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing a Book?

Uh, good gungho action on the laying the groundwork and all that... but um, are you planning to write a book here? Bwithh 07:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

lol- good question. No book planned, but then again, that's why I say above it might need to be scaled back. The only thing is that if you dont give enough background the article will appear too fragmented and it gets criticized to death for leaving this and that out. Certain tickets have to be punched to add context.

All those headings and sub-headings are intended as memory joggers of info to be mentioned. I mean no one can credibly discuss the VC and leave out their three-part force structure. But in a final article I can't imagine so many headings would be there. WHo knows? Maybe the best way to go is in depth on actual VC/NVA fighting, and lite on the background info, political factors and such. Or alternatively, just discuss offensive and defensive tactics (the bottom half of the outline) and give everything else a rest. Another alternative- split the thing into two articles. Time is a problem... But heck, jump right on in! Enriquecardova 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I like your enthusiasm. I'm not much of history or military buff though. You should definitely check out the member list at Wikiproject Military History. I think you'll be able to find some knowledgeable collaborators there. Have fun editing! Bwithh 03:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know this existed. I'll check it out.Enriquecardova 04:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest some further sources; the assorted RAND studies on the war, particularly 'Viet Cong Motivation and Morale in 1964: A Preliminary Report', 'Pacification and the Viet Cong System In Dinh Tuong: 1966-1967', 'A View of the VC: Elements of Cohesion in the Enemy Camp in 1966-1967'; the 'directive' contained within the book Terror and Urban Guerrillas; and 'When the Communists Come' (good luck finding that last one, though. According to the ILL program there's something like three copies in all the academic libraries in the continental US. And, um, I'm using one). I'd help out, but I'm rather busy at the moment, and will be for the foreseeable future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.104.246.2 (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Headings meant to serve as a guide

Current headings/outline are meant to serve as a guide to help with the info flow, not a rigid structure by any means.

Due to time constraints, currently focusing on putting content in the article, with more detailed editing and Wikification to be done later. Enriquecardova 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Title of Article

Article had been renamed to Viet Cong and PAVN strategy and tactics by User-Blnguyen. This may technically be more correct as both forces were part of PAVN, although the term NVA is used throughout most of the American literature to refer to ground force regulars of PAVN. Leaving the change/rename for now.Enriquecardova 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical Notes and earlier versions

Ths section incorporates technical notes on VC/NVA weapons and organization not in the main body of the article, from earlier versions of the article. Information from these notes and earlier versions is worked into the article but may need its own separate write-up. They are included here for reference.

Diversity of communist force weapons

• A partial list of the range of communist arms is shown below:

SKS Rifles,

K-98 or japanese similar,

Submachine guns

MAT-49 modified barrel to fire Mauser-type or Tokarev Ammo(.45)

Captured "Grease Gun" American Submachine gun

PPSH Russian Submachine gun,

AK-47 Kalashinikov assault rifle

Chicon T-56 Chinese clone

mozin-nagant russian rifle

captured M14,or other american rifles,

Machine guns:

RPK and RPD russian,

captured BAR type

Vickers machine gun,

Tokarev Pistol .45 mauser type bullets(76.2,not AK type)

Makarov pistol 9 mm

• The M-16 compared to the Ak-47: When first introduced, the M-16 sometimes jammed and failed to extract the spent cartridge. This flaw cost the lives of several US troops. Later corrections improved the M-16, fulfilling its promise as an accurate, automatic rifle with greater range than the Ak-47.

American operations The other weapon the Vietcong used was booby traps. These were crucial to the morale building of the Vietcong and brought down American morale. Searches that used to be called search and destroy soon were called search and avoid. The booby traps the Vietcong used were simple, yet lethal. The booby traps weren't however the full attack, when a soldier went down injured a group formed around him and then the Vietcong snipers had a field day and killed the rest of the soldiers. These search and destroy mission took a toll on the Americans and as morale went down so did the will to fight, soon the Americans came to realise they were fighting a war that was already lost. Missions such as search and destroy affected a lot of soldiers psychologically.

Whent the Vietcong built the tunnels to avoid Agent Orange they made a concealed entrance to a cooking station. They would keep food and spare weapons there. If the Vietcong were trapped underground they would be able to secretly collect enough food supplies for the soldiers.

---

Writer unknown but contribution listed here for reference as info given is incorporated into article. Enriquecardova 06:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Title

Viet Cong is a slur used by one side of the conflict, and should be avoided. The correct name is National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, and these were operationally separate from PANV for most of the war, one being a guerrilla army the other an actual national army. Mention of "Viet Cong" is in clear violation of wikipedia NPOV and geo-bias principles, and is similar to naming the Heer in WWII the "Krauts", which breaks the whole purpose of war history. --Cerejota (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The term Viet Cong was in common use during the war, from the highest military circles of the US and GVN to the lowest, and was referenced in Communist broadcasts and material. So I suppose it is used here. Alternative terms such as "Liberation fighter" or "Peoples guerrilla" or even NLF are not as well known and are themselves filled with POV and geo-bias. Attempting to avoid the term Viet Cong is really impossible in an article like this, or in hundreds of history books in dozens of languages across the globe. Another article could well be done on the use of language in politics, warfare and history with various debate positions referenced. This one focuses on the warfighting methods of the VC/NVA/NLF. The statement in the first paragraph of the article qualifies the use of terminology. Brotherreuse (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that "liberation fighter" or "people's guerillas" are completely biased terms, but NLF is not: it is the official name of the organization engaged in combat.

The common use you cite is biased: There is ample literature, in particular in solid reliable sources such as academic histories, and in primary source material such as official peace negotiation declarations that use NLF. Even official US government diplomatic communications refer to the NLF.

There is NLF itself denounced the name Viet Cong, and the redirecting wikipedia page for Viet Cong explains the origin of the term as a derogatory term used by one side of the conflict for propaganda purposes.

The use of the term "Viet Cong" is inevitable in its use in sources and so on, but not in the title of the article. This title remains strongly biased, and should be fixed to reflect a better usage. Just because a side of the conflict the other name it doesn't mean wikipedia should be as biased.--Cerejota (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with what you say but the term is probably inevitable. The term NLF itself can be construed as biased. Indeed many argued during the war- was it liberation the front was seeking or domination by the North or a communist dictatorship? I think the term Viet Cong is not the best, but is better for clarity. No matter which term is used there will always be problems. However if you want to change the title to "NLF and PAVN Strategy and Tactics" I have no objections. If also you or anyone else wanted to go thru the article and clean up the headings, reducing use of the term VC and substituting NLF more, that would be great too.Brotherreuse (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The term NLF is NOT biased since it refers to the OFFICIAL NAME of an organisation. The fact that "Viet Cong" as a term was in general use by the South and by the Americans is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.98.37 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Forking

This article is very long and needs to be spun off into smaller sub-articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have made a 3-way split as follows, with the main article being renamed strategy and organization. Hope it works.

• NLF and PAVN strategy, organization and structure
• NLF and PAVN logistics and equipment
• NLF and PAVN battle tactics

Enriquecardova (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be parallelism in the choice of names? If you want officialese, it should be "PLAF and PAVN." If want common names, it should be "Vietcong and North Vietnamese." Kauffner (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

General Nguyen Loc Loan photo

I removed the photo of the execution of Nguyen Van Lem. Currently, it lacks a fair use rationale for this article, as we need to add according to the non-free content policy. Normally I'd add one, but in this case I'm not sure how it would be worded - the image was being used to illustrate General Nguyen Loc Loan, rather than for its own sake, and the photo itself wasn't discussed in the article beyond describing it. Thus I figured I had better leave it to someone else who knows the topic better to work out if the photo is required here for that purpose. My apologies if this causes in problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppets wrote this article

Has anybody noticed that the top 5 contributors to this article were either sock puppets who have been banned or unregistered editors?

There's good material in this article, but the presentation and the language leave a lot to be desired and the POV is not always neutral. I don't know whether I have the fortitude to undertake a full revision of the article, but it needs it. Smallchief (talk 08:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So what was the political and administrative structure, outside the military organization?

Was it divided into the same regions as the military organization? I don't see anything about this in the article. 108.45.79.25 (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Giap and Van Thai.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)