I don't recall saying or implying that Ed and I were at odds over the two
books. You are really splitting hairs here.

We were discussing conclusions not documented fact. For the record I agree
in the main with both books. I enjoyed Michael's book immensely. I don't know
the man but those who do have indicated to me that he is an objective author.
As Ed has said Karl's grasp of the facts was also excellent but we both have
some differences with his conclusions. There are places where the authors have
drawn subjective conclusions based on their observations that I disagree with.
Their conclusions were honestly drawn from what they perceived as fact. .Your
arguments seem to tend towards wanting to call those subjective conclusions as
fact and you and I split ways at that juncture.

For example, Michael seems to say that out of operationally ready missiles but
with plenty of missile parts doesn't equate to being out of missiles. Try
telling that to an infantryman on the front line when his ammo pouch is empty
that he really isn't out of ammo because there is plenty of ammo in the rear
even thought it can't be delivered. He will probably use the butt of his rifle
on you. The simple fact is that the NVN in LBII after a few days didn't shoot
much of anything at us period while we continued to attack their
infrastructure. This is as opposed to LB1 and Rolling Thunder when there was
so much metal and smoke in the air that you might as well have been inside a
steel mill. That in my opinion is out of ammo, AAA and missiles and I
consider Michael's attempt at "myth busting" as off base. When you don't have
one in the chamber or more in the clip, and the full clips and boxes are back
home, you are aout of ammo.

Ditto with trucks, and BUFFs and political employment. Your statements at face
value come across as pretty absolute when they are made but when they are
challenged, you throwing in qualifications. With all due respect, I don't mean
to turn this into a personal attack but I have to say that some of your
pronouncements are misleading whether they were intended that way or not. If
you had said that 1) the NVN were out of opeartional missiles and AAA ammo, 2)
there probably weren't many more than 100 trucks operating on the southern
trails at any one time and 3) the BUFFs were sent north on a military mission
to satisfy a political objective or that Nixon elected to up the military ops
intensity to expedite a political objective, I would have agreed. The facts
are that the NVN ran out of stuff they could shoot at us, they had lots of
trucks, some were newer Russian and Chinese models, and the BUFFs were sent
north to blow up stuff.

Respectfully,

Steve





What makes this more interesting Ed is that you and Steve have exact opposite
views on the accuracy of two books on the same subject. Steve feels
Eschmann's
book is spot on and Michel's fails the accuracy test. What's that you were
saying about eyewitness accounts


BUFDRVR