Talk:Battle of Hamburger Hill

POV

There probably needs ot be some POV changes made here as well. Specifically to the usage of the word "enemy" Aanghelescu 05:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also the use of: - "treacherous Ashau Valley" in the section battle - "Vietnamese troops and supplies" (soldiers from North and South Vietnam are both Vietnamese troops thus needs to be specified) - "intelligence indicated that the Vietnamese were looking for a big fight." Which North or South? Or from South but supporting the cause the North was advocating (One Vietnam?) - The way this part is written is too much focused on US efforts and not objective report of the battle "the enemy". fbvdloo 05:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • I've attempted to address these POV issues to neutralize the focus, but the material available is thus far exclusively American in reporting. Information from the North Vietnamese POV to be added to this would be helpful. Buckboard 10:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, by 1969 and thereafter, the term PAVN had been largely discontinued by English-speakers, whether in the military, media, or common language. The article switched to NVA halfway thru--so I switched all the references to NVA. Buckboard 10:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

This article is a copy from Studies in Battle Command at the Combined Arms Research Library, a US Army organization within the DoD, and as a work of the US government, is probably in the public domain. -DialUp 15:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Below is the info from Wikipedia:Copyright problems. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 21:37, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Battle_of_Hamburger_Hill copy paste from [1] Preisler 03:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • NOTE: This article and the ehistory article are from Studies in Battle Command at the Combined Arms Research Library, a US Army organization within the DoD. As such is probably not under copyright as the work of the US government but I could find no notice to that effect at their site. Also, ehistory seems to be a collection of public domain works with no original works. Will add a notation to talk page so please delete it if this article is found to be under copyright. Article might need a cleanup tag due to the style. -DialUp 15:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, CARL material is fine to use here. The license is on http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/notice.asp - "Information presented on the CGSC web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." --iMeowbot~Mw 18:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • • • No disrespect to the Army intended, but the material in this study, even considering its intended "professional audience," is very redundant in description. I have heavily editted it and also cross-checked it against Zaffiri, who not only had the after action reports but also interviewed 48 of the participants from general to private, but primarily using the company commanders and platoon leaders as primary sources. Buckboard 10:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming coincidence?

Is it simply a coincidence that there are battles (and books/films about them) called both Pork Chop Hill and Hamburger Hill? Is the latter usage somehow a reference to the former? Is this worth noting somewhere?--82.10.133.130 13:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is coincidental. Neither has anything to do with the other. No need to cross-reference on Wikipedia. It's not unusual for hills to be referred to by their shape, like Sugarloaf or Pork Chop. --Habap 14:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pork Chop Hill was in Korea. Hamburger Hill was in Vietnam. There's no connection.VirgilCoolerKingHilts 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hamburger Hill & Apache Snow

Does anyone know the story here? There was a hammer and anvil operation planned as (or part of) Apache Snow. The idea was to entice a force of NVA to attack a poorly defended base (the bait - FSB Airborne) then chase them with a superior force (the hammer) toward Laos. When their likely entry point into Laos was determined, a second force (the anvil) would be dropped between the NVA and Laos.

The bait (FSB Airborne) was kept intentionally poorly defended. The perimeter defenses consisted of makeshift bunkers of logs and sand bags with a single strand of concertina wire. There were 2-artillery batteries of 3-guns each. The base was on a smaller point on a ridge, surrounded on 3-sides by higher ground. The 4th side formed the head of a side valley leading to the Ashau Valley. Tunnel complexes were found off 2-sides of the hill. This set-up was very inconsistent with practices of the 101st at the time. For a week or more, all material and manpower on the hill were put into building the operation center (the TOC) and nothing was done to improve the the perimeter.

The planned operation, in addition to being rather transparent, was probably leaked to the NVA. The policy of involving the ARVN in operations usually had that effect (at least I heard some disturbing rumors).

The NVA took the bait (over-running Fire Base Airborne) then headed west. However, instead of continuing to run for Laos, they detoured to a well fortified hill (Dong Ap Bia aka Hamburger Hill) where they managed to repel several assaults from the 3rd of the 187th. When more American units joined the fight (including the 2nd of the 501st---part of which had been the bait) the NVA used their tactical advantage to continue to hold off the 101st while the majority of their force dispersed through the jungle. By the time the last assult was made, there was a reinforced platoon defending the hill and most of them escaped.

I will dig up what documentation I can and edit this comment. Meantime, the 2nd Battalion of the 501st Infantry was in the 2nd Brigade not the 3rd. They were involved in the earlier operations in the southern A Shau for 2-months then assigned to the 3rd Brigade for Apache Snow. They took over Fire Base Airborne from the 3rd of the 187th. An official publication of the 101st Division, possibly published in the fall of 1969, gives the American dead as 60+ from the assault on Dong Ap Bia. No mention is made of Fire base Airborne having been over-run. The only mention of enemy dead (as I remember) was around 40 from mop-up operations in the 2-3 days after the main battle and the assertion that captured NVA had given their losses as 80%. My best recollection is shy of 40 Americans killed on FSB Airborne, times 3 wounded (as Tom hanks character might have said). The number of NVA dead found on Airborne after the attack was 6 or 7. Initial reports from the assault on Dong Ap Bia said 20-30 American dead. This was revised to around 50. Rumors among the field troops put the American dead at 250 or more from the assault. This is probably high. The wounded from the main assaults were stabilized at a mass casualty treatment facility set up by the medical battalion of the 3rd Brigade. The number of wounded treated on the heaviest day may be listed as part of the citation recieved by the members of the medical battalion. I think 400-500 wounded might have been treated at the mass casualty facility which would not be 100% of the wounded. The 600+ NVA dead is pure fabrication. The bodies were never found. The early reports listed 500 dead as speculation based on the belief that the NVA carried away their dead. Does this mean that the remaining NVA carried 500 dead comrades through the jungle while evading 3-battalions of Americans and 1- of ARVN that, collectively, had them surrounded? The discovery of a mass grave of 500 dead NVA in the vicinity became a tired joke in the week after the battle. I would, in any case, dispute that this was an American victory. --Dennis-K 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead Link

The link Hamburger Hill On The Historynet appears to be dead. I replaced it with Hamburger Hill - The real Story.

I also wikilinked aerial rocket artillery to Aerial Rocket Artillery. Battery C, 4/77th artillery was supporting 3rd Brigade and was involved in the friendly fire incident. Dan D. Ric 21:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hamburger

The articles does not explain why it was called Hamburger Hill. I have always assumed that the soldiers were likening it to a meat-grinder, but the discussion about Pork Chop Hill, above, implies that the hill was so-called because it was shaped like a hamburger. -Ashley Pomeroy 16:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed now (the soldiers are said to "(refer to the fact) that those who fought on the hill were "chewed-up like hamburger mince""). -Ashley Pomeroy 18:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

This article does not have a proper lead section. At the moment it is just an introduction. The lead should be a summary of the main article and enable the reader to ascertain all the salient features. Tyrenius 02:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also isn't it A) POV and B) Given the total casualty numbers now on the article, unjustified to call this battle one of the most costly? Basmandude 14:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)