Friendly Fire Notebook

I agree. I read Eschmann many years ago and wasn't particularly
impressed with the conclusions he drew. He did his numbers, call-signs
and names well, but the recounting of the story didn't set well.
Seemed to be some hear-say and poor conclusions drawn.

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

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

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

I don't recall saying or implying that Ed and I were at odds over the two
books.

You commented that you found Eschmann's book very accurate, but had issues with
some of Michel's facts. Ed said nearly the same exact thing except he prefered
Michel's book and had issues with Eschmann's.

Their conclusions were honestly drawn from what they perceived as fact.

Absolutely and I never stated otherwise.

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.

They were more than parts, they were intact Guideline missiles sitting in
warehouses in Hanoi. When you have warehouses full of Guidelines, you're not
out of missiles. What they had was a supply problem. Michel highlights this
issue because it dispels not only the "we ran them out of missiles" myth, but
puts realistic numbers on the quantity of SA-2s actually launched by the North
Vietnamese.

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.

Because it became much more difficult due to a.)improved U.S. tactics and b.)
the absence of B-52s from Hanoi for 3 consecutive nights(providing less targets
for the NVN to shoot at). Once BUFF missions to Hanoi resumed, the number of
firings increased, but not nearly compareable to the first several nights and
this was due to the increasing difficulty of engaging targets due to U.S.
tactics and an increase in SEAD success.

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.

The only "qualification" I made was a simple clarification to you on the truck
issue....and I "qualified" my comment twice.

If
you had said that 1) the NVN were out of opeartional missiles and AAA ammo

I would have been wrong.

2)
there probably weren't many more than 100 trucks operating on the southern
trails at any one time

That's almost exactly what I said. Here, let me lay it out for you and then
will end this:

On 17 APR Ed responded to my statement about NVN already being in the "stone
age" prior to LB II with:

"For a stone age country, the seemed to generate an incredible number
of electronic emissions, starting with the early warning radar that
would ping us on the tankers through the command/control that
integrated the MiGs, SAMs and AAA fire. *Or maybe the transportation
that managed to ship arms and materiel to sustain the combat operations in the
south.*"

I responded on 18 APR with the following:

"Ed, that transportation network consisted of a hundred or so WW II era French
trucks and a few hundred bicycles. Hardly "hi-tech"."

Dweezil Dwarftosser then misunderstood that I was saying NVN had "a hundered or
so trucks" total and said on APR 18:

"Damn! I had no idea that the hundreds of NVN trucks
we destroyed in Laos during 1970/71 had left them with
so few vehicles at home, just a year or so later."

To which I replied on 19 APR:

"First, the "hundred or so trucks" I referred to were the ones in use on the Ho
Chi Mihn trail, not delivering goods in downtown Hanoi." I then went on to talk
about over inflated truck attrition reports.

So please, show me where I have ever wavered from my initial statement, the
info of which I picked up on a Discovery channel program on the Ho Chi Mihn
Trail.

3) the BUFFs were sent north on a military mission
to satisfy a political objective

Since I figured you knew the BUFFs weren't performing a "Good Will Tour" over
Hanoi, I never felt the need to state they were flying military missions.

or that Nixon elected to up the military ops
intensity to expedite a political objective

I nearly said that exactly as well....but I'm not hacking through old posts to
prove it again...

The facts
are that the NVN ran out of stuff they could shoot at us

No.

they had lots of trucks

In North Vietnam, yes. In Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam, no.

and the BUFFs were sent north to blow up stuff.

I never even hinted guys died to drop confetti and balloons.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"