Talk:Operation Ivory Coast

Untitled

When I first read this article, I found that it was two merged pieces, and that one of them was lifted in its entirety from a web page. So I did a major re-write from memory, checked my source material, and editted corrections of my flaws in memory. Buckboard 05:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the clean-ups and the photograph--improves the article 100%.--Buckboard 09:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Feature Film, soon?

Rumor has it that notable screenwriter John Milius is writing script for a movie based on this operation. Does anyone know if those rumors are true? NiceDoggie 08:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs categorization - somebody else want to handle it?

I believe he wrote a spec script that was never picked up. 86.46.56.178 (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Diversionary attack actually the real objective?

According to "Green Berets at War" by S.L. Stanton and other reports, the "secondary school" was full of Russians and Chinese. While Capt. Meadows was searching Son Tay for POWs, Col. Simons' 21 man team "mowed down"* the the Russian and Chinese troops.

• Stanton's words.

It makes sense, because why would you assault a POW camp when the powers that be knew that there was no prisoners there, atleast a day earlier? In Benjamin Schemmer's book Colonel Simons initially denied that his team landed at the secondary school to Mr Schemmer, author of "The Raid", but "came clean" later on saying it was a mistake, albeit a fortuitous one. Who knows, really. Perhaps the POW rescue was a cover for the raid on the school. Maybe the Americans just wanted to make sure the Russians and Chinese know that their presence in North Vietnam is known, and might have wanted to use this as perhaps some sort of leverage, maybe for better treatment of POWs or something else? What would have happened if the US got some POWs out? What would have happened to the rest of the POWs still in captivity? WikiphyteMk1 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

66.82.9.57 23:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I'm not the guy that "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" blocked. I am some other person.

It is indeed noteworthy, and significant, that the the POWs in the Hanoi Hilton were treated far better as a result of the raid. Whether or not the enemy combatants killed were Soviet and/or Chinese, Cuban, or whomever, there were non-Vietnamese "foreign" combatants reported by the operators on the ground at the time of the operation. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have heard the 'Secondary School' was full of Soviet and Chinese advisors who had gained valuable experience of anti-air operations during the Vietnam conflict. The 'real' objective then was to eliminate those experienced advisors.

One of the newest and by far the most comprehensive regarding the raid itself is Gargus's The Son Tay Raid. Gargus was radar navigator on Cherry 02 and a mission planner. He debunks that supposition forcefully, stating such was never practiced nor planned by the JCTG. Simons was a stickler for planning for every contingency and would not have gone along with an unplanned, untrained for, and last minute ad hoc mission-within-a-mission. The navigation error that caused the fight at the "school" was the fault of the first helo, Apple 03, compounded by Banana 01 not only making the same mistake, but compounding it by assaulting the school as rehearsed before realizing that they were in the wrong location. By the time they had lifted off again, Apple 01 had landed south of the school as rehearsed, based on what they saw Banana do. If you're going to "fake" a raid, you won't have 2/3 of your force spend 27 minutes shooting up and searching the decoy site while 1/3 spends only five minutes in the actual target.--Reedmalloy (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft reference

The link from the article for the HH-3 Jolly Green would be more correct if it pointed to the article for the S-61R (the protype for the HH-3) instead of the H-3 Sea King. Here's the better reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-61R.

I would make the edit myself, but I'm new to the Wiki thing. My strength now lies in topical knowledge and not so much on the page editing side.

Laotian Connection

Can anyone explain what exactly does a place called "SITE 32" have to do with this operation. If anyone has a copy of THE RAID maybe they can confirm to me the significance of that place. If I recall correctly the Mission planners and the CIA were talking about that place, but I can't recall why. Is this place one of those "Lima Sites" or something else entirely? WikiphyteMk1 15:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

SITE 32 is the Village of Baum Long, Laos near the border with North Vietnam, and was a CIA outpost during the Vietnam War. It had an airstrip that was frequently used by Air America assets. My guess is that the rescue force was to have staged through this place but during the time period in preparation for the rescue mission it was under attack by Pathet Lao or North Vietnamese ground forces. It think it got overrun, which may explain why it wasn't used in the actual rescue attempt. 58.164.9.10 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Landing Site 32", aka "Lima Site-32" ("LS-32"), or more simply aka, "SITE 32", were indeed the nomenclature and the various acronyms used by covert American and Royal Laotian allied personnel operating against the communist military forces in the Laotian front of the Second Indochina War. For example, Long Tieng was known as "Twenty Alternate" {LS-20A), and Sam Thong was "LS-20". LS-32 was probably included in the operational plan as an alternate emergency extraction location after the assault. Perhaps someone else has more information in this regard. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To the original question, LS32 was to be the staging point for an UH-1H Huey as the backup assault craft in the event an HH-3E was not available or had mechanical problems. The Huey had first been considered for the mission instead of an HH-3, and trained in Florida for the contingency, but only had the carrying capacity for an 11-man Blueboy, and struggled in the airspeed (forced to use 5 degrees of nose down) to stay within the cruise stall speed of the Combat Talons, even when drafting off the left wingtip. They had to stage out of Laos because of fuel considerations, while the HH-3 had aerial refueling capability. The UH-1H and two crews were transported by C-141 to Thailand in case needed, but according to Schemmer, the NVA or Pathet Lao captured LS32 just before JCTG staged to Thailand.--Reedmalloy (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• For American use of Laotian "sites" and their purpose, see Operation Barrel Roll.RM Gillespie (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was born in LIMA SITE 32, now there the elderly tent to vanish I am looking back for more information of my past. A village that had save so many America Soldiers and had given the soldiers opportunity to return home but we were carried to punishment after that. Today I need to refund my past if anyone had more information to share or especially picture of the people or the site, I would like to see if I could still identify some of my people and my past.October 26, 2009 Xeem Vwj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.242.176.66 (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

NVA / Chinese / Russian casualties

Various web pages (including that one) "estimates" NVA / Chinese / Russian casualties ranging from 50 up to 200. Nevertheless, a Trijicon page [1] says that Greenleaf team killed 16 ennemy. Steven Emerson Secret Warriors says 25 ennemy killed in the whole raid. I have read elsewhere (don't remember where) also 25 or 26. Has anyone a good source about thoses casualties ? Rob1bureau (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Even leisurely bodycounts with the victor posessing the battlefield can and have been over actual enemy casualties by as much as an order of magnitude. The notion that troops in the dark over the course of a raid lasting less than half an hour are going to have any idea beyond the vaguest about how many casualties the enemy suffered is pretty ridiculous. As such I'd consider the low figures a lot more credible than whoever is claiming we killed two hundred bad guys in a five minute firefight. Kensai Max (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.242.176.66 (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bright Light

Someone needs to correct the last section of the article. I'm afraid that more than one US serviceman was freed from communist captivity, along with hundreds of South Vietnamese troops and civilians, during operations conducted by the Joint Personnel Recovery Center (under the code name Bright Light). See Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group.RM Gillespie (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not saying it isn't true, but can you give us a source? Nothing in the article you mentioned specifically stated they rescued anyone. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, Brigh Light teams helped ejected crew to escape capture, not to evade from captivity. Rob1bureau (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unplanned loss of an aircraft?

From the article: "Despite the absence of prisoners, the raid was executed with a high degree of success, incurring only two minor casualties and the unplanned loss of one aircraft."

I was always under the impression that the loss of the HH-3 was actually planned for. Even the source article (footnote 5) claims "It was anticipated that damage would occur and the plan provided for the HH-3 to be considered a loss. By means of an explosive charge with a timing device, it was to be destroyed upon departure of our troops from the compound." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.50.48 (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It was, therefore the use of "unplanned" to account for the loss of the F-105G that went down in Laos as result of a SAM hit. But since it was unclear, I tweaked the grammar.--Reedmalloy (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I got ya. Sorry about the misinterpretation on my part. I will say, however, that I think the new way you have it laid out allows for less misinterpretation on the part of the reader. Good job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.50.48 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

battle simulators?

'Cherry 01 transmitted the execute command "Alpha, Alpha, Alpha" to all aircraft[67] as it overflew the prison and dropped four illumination flares, then performed a hard-turning descent to 500 feet (150 m) to drop two battle simulators[68][n 32] south and southeast of Sơn Tây.'

I think it needs to be explained what 'battle simulators' are. The average person is not going to have a clue what that is, I certainly don't. 86.46.56.178 (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's in the article already (note 32). The notes are used to fill in such details without cluttering the article. Battle simulators, also known as "firefight simulators", are firecrackers mounted on pallets dropped into areas to mimic small arms fire.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The need for objectivity

This article is part of an online encyclopedia, and therefore needs to be as unbiased as possible. It is NOT meant to be a tribute page, or a propaganda piece. Future editors need to keep this in mind when considering changes to the article. MainBattery (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• MainBattery, could we collaborate on this Wikipedia article about the Son Tay Raid. The article has a number areas of weak phrasing and references. I am new to Wikipedia editing. I'd like help understanding the appropriate way to contribute. I am quite well read on the topic of the Son Tay Raid. My father was an aircraft commander in Vietnam during the raid and I personally know all the living members that participated in the raid. I'm a member of the Son Tay Raiders Association and we have been performing copious research in preparation for the 50th anniversary of the raid this November. I had a conversation with the AFSOC Historian, Tim Brown, this past week. I've read all the books on the subject mentioned in the references. There are more I can contribute. I have compiled a quite exhaustive presentation with quotes I've gathered from not only participants, but most importantly, POWs. To a man, the latter testify to the tremendous benefits immediately reaped by them as a direct result of the raid. All said, the word "failure" does not apply, neither to the mission execution nor the intelligence community. Documentation, including President Nixon's memo of Nov 18th clearly understood the risk that there'd be no POWs. In fact, the mission was designed, not to rescue all the POWs (85% of the POWs in the country were understood to be at other POW camps), but primarily to SEND A MESSAGE. He and the commanders consciously approved the "go," knowing that, like the Doolittle Raid, the real intent was to send a message (to the NVA, to the families of POWs, and hopefully to the POWs themselves) that America would do whatever it took to bring the POWs home. I have references for all edits (I'm just new and haven't learned how to input them yet.) Let's talk. -Cliff CliffWestbrook (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)