This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
The article reads like a glorification of the NLF and PAVN. While they were certainly effective and brave, this idealized account does not ring true of any military unit. It is full of self promotion, and it also lacks good references. Typical gushing statement:-
The VC/NVA battle philosophy placed great stress on learning and adaptability, and systematically strived to improve battle techniques at the lowest levels. Units and individuals were expected to be problem solvers, making creative use out of what might be fleeting opportunities and scarce resources.
The claim above makes little sense and seems based more on feelings rather than sober analysis. Saying "The VC/NVA battle philosophy placed great stress on learning and adaptability, and systematically strived to improve battle techniques at the lowest levels. Units and individuals were expected to be problem solvers, making creative use out of what might be fleeting opportunities and scarce resources..." is a simple statement of fact. Where is the so-called "glorification" or "NPOV"? What "gushing"?
And there is nothing "idealized" about it- it is straight fact. Indeed, the sentence above rather UNDERSTATES what credible historians say. I invite you to check out the footnote- the RAND Study on the Viet Cong. It is freely available online and the link is provided below. There is nothing to hide. Matter of fact, if the RAND study is used more, there might be even BETTER things to say about the Viet Cong and NVA- such as their commendable efficiency on certain things. Yes, the RAND study- which is a hardcore analysis by experts, does note that efficiency. The article is UNDERSTATED if anything, to judge from credible histories cited, including histories of actual Marines and soldiers who fought the NVA/VC. In fact the American experts recommend that the US learn from the enemy- quote: "should adopt the concept of the enemy as a learning, adapting and reacting organization." (page xiv) See:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2005/RM5239-1.pdfChuMao (
talk)
21:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 2 external links on
NLF and PAVN battle tactics. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.