Talk:Easter Offensive

Untitled

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)

FYI: Henry Kissinger is listed as Secretary of State in this article, but he did not become Secretary of State until 1973. He should be listed as National Security Advisor.

Trang Bang bombing

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)

Added citation needed tag regarding Gen.Giap's removal.Bharatveer 09:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Requested move

Eastertide Offensive → Easter Offensive — This is by far the more common name, as the Google test verifies. In fact, filtering out "wikipedia" indicates that most hits for "Eastertide Offensive" may be spread by Wikipedia itself! Groggy Dice 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• 28k Ghits
• 7k Ghits
• 26k Ghits
• 2k Ghits

Survey

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)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Who Won?

I've noticed some changes here, I think its misleading to state the NVA won. Discussion appreciated. Surfing bird (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The South Vietnamese won the 1972 easter offensive basically with Air support from the united states.

Thanks to the inspired leadership of the ARVN 23rd Division commander, Colonel Ly Tong Ba, and the American regional chief, John Paul Vann, who were helped at several crucial points by precisely-delivered B-52 strikes, the communists were stopped. In all three areas, it had been a close thing. U.S. air power had been a major ingredient in the South Vietnamese victory, but it was only that. With few exceptions, the ARVN had fought well and in some cases brilliantly; the North Vietnamese had been repulsed with enormous casualties.

[1] "America in Vietnam" by Dr. John F. Guilmartin. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, use the head a little bit. If the South Vietnam won, why they could not reoccupied Dong Ha, Loc Ninh and some other territories ? Remember, they had better equipments and had the great support of the US Air Force, and they could not reoccupy everything they lost !! Thus this is certainly not a South Vietnamese victory !!! I am very sorry if I use vandalism, but if someone say this is a South Vietnam's victory, they only quibble, and who believe them are brainwashed idiot !!! 137.132.3.6 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Though the North Vietnam's army suffered great casualties and only occupied, this can only count a limited or pyrrhic victory for them. Or if you want the informations to be neutral, just call that "both sides claimed victory". I repeat, there is no way that the South Vietnam won in this campaign !!! 137.132.3.6 (talk)

Both sides claimed victory. The Nazi's claimed victory in every battle until Berlin. Let's look at the facts on the ground in 1973 to judge easter 72. In 1973 the RVN still existed, and controlled ALL of it's territory. They were able to lauch offensives into Cambodia (success), and Laos(defeat). If the easter offensive had achieved it's objectives those would have been impossible. The only way that any battle such as this could be cast as ARVN defeat is because the RVN fell in 1975. If SVN still had it's own government noone would even consider calling this anything but ARVN victory.

When your on the defenseive all you have to do is survive, not conquer--Hfarmer (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The ARVN managed to stop the PAVN and push them back and the PAVN failed to fully achieve their main goals. However the Easter Campaign is not reallly completey failure of the PAVN. If in 1968, the PAVN and Viet Cong were virtually pushed out of south Vietnam, in 1972 managed to retake a solid foothold here, and captured 20% of RVN's territory with 1.5 milion people. Tactically, this could be considered a limited victory for the PAVN. Furthermore, these limited victories could be magnify at the negotiating table and that was a good advantage of North Vietnam. 115.74.111.40 (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole invasion fail but the North Vietnamese won so they take severals place in the North including Khe Sanh http://vietnamnews.vn/thumbnail/450/07a.jpg?url=Storage/Images/2013/9/29/07a.jpg http://imagevietnam.vnanet.vn/Upload//2013/9/23/11BaoAnh2392013172235654.jpg

The zones taken in 1972 were very important for the final 1975 invasion — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Casualties?

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)

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)

Expanding on the US Navy's role

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)

Aftermath

The headlines of this article imply that the victor was US and ARVN forces. However, at the "aftermath" section, it write that Hanoi has success in gaining permanent control of half of the four northernmost provinces—Quảng Trị, Thừa Thiên, Quang Nam, and Quang Tin—as well as the western fringes of the II and III Corps sectors (around 10% of the country). And later in 1973-1974, the ARVN exhaust almost all of their reserves trying to get them back, which leading to the total collapse of the Saigon regime in 1975. So does it mean that DRV(North Vietnam) was actually the victor?--Zeraful (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they were the victors but the victory was a hard one. Of course, the US biases here have made the article claim that both sides had a victory (US tactical and N. Vietnamese strategic) which is utter nonsense. Of course, if the victory is not as great for the enemies of the good Ol' USA, the US is given a victory too. Compare Tet, which is considered a victory for the US only, despite the fact that the US had to pretty much retreat from that moment onwards. These articles should be kept fair. If the US get a victory alongside the NVA here, then the NVA and VC should be given victory in many other battles which gave the US victories. The Mummy (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

US did not withdraw troops from that moment on (tet 68) they increased to exploit counter offensives notably Feb/March and April-June, by late summer and Autumn VC were a shadow of themselves and defunct in coastal plain and population centres, the NVA were battered trying to hold on in border areas.Successful US allied offensives in 1969/1970 Apache snow and Texas star to name but a few, then Jefferson Glenn in 1971 through actions of 3rd brigade combat team 1971 to early 72 (Bihn Dihn province) flushed enemy out of those areas and inflicted crippling losses. Troop numbers did not drop to below pre Tet levels until mid 1970 and continued to be significant into 1971. US ground combat role ended March 31st 1972 and after operational success.

The rush to the exit is a myth.

By the way the Easter offensive was an abject defeat for North Vietnam by any objective measure. 82.29.135.200 (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. The one and only way that Tet wasn't a complete disaster for North Vietnam was the fact that the anti-war movement used it as "proof" that we couldn't win and that there was no point in continuing. And, I'd like to point out, that was an accidental benefit to the NVA because it hadn't been part of their plans.JDZeff (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Troop Numbers

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)

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)

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)

Commie always win, even on wiki!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.113.166.19 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Result

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)

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)