Talk:U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Airfield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U-Tapao Air base was named Ban-U-Tapao as per my orders when I went there in 1966 in the first KC-135 to land there. When I returned in 1967 the "Ban" part of the name was omitted from my orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asa97 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

This will focus in the USAF in Thailand during the Vietnam war, so I'm not sure how appropriate this will be to the civil airport page. - bwmol3

VC-47A 084 of Air America crashed on landing[edit]

I was there when it crashed. Though I did not take part in the recovery, I heard it was grossly overloaded and blew the left tire on touchdown. Its gear dug into the runway and tossed it into elephant grass, which which brought it to a safe stop without injuries. It also left the runway clear for the other aircraft that were streaming in right behind it. --Pawyilee (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wartime manning[edit]

For support of round-the-clock operations, the base was triple-manned. Shifts worked two days, two nights, and two off. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1975 Fallen[edit]

The 1975 Fall of Phnom Penh was preceded by Lon Nol's fleeing first to U-Tapao before being hustled off to Indonesia, and was followed by the rag-tag remains of their Air Force. The Cambodian airmen and their families were sequestered on the recreation beach, and largely ignored when plans were made to evacuate subsequently arriving RVN airmen and their families to Guam. A Cambodian air force major, spokesman for the others, asked that they been returned. The Thai government supplied trucks that took them to the border crossing at Aranyaprathet, where they were ceremoniously welcomed by the Khmer Rouge, then marched off into the jungle and shot. Two wounded survivors made it back across the border to report what had happened to them, but I don't know where their report can be found today. The aircraft they had flown in on were scrapped. As for the VNAF, a cargo plane landed carrying the only enlisted men evacuated, but they had been told they were bound for Saigon. When they found themselves in Thailand, they refused to leave the plane and demanded to be returned. They were instead given tranquilizer shots and became the first evacuees via KC-135 to the Tent City at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. There they formed a clique of Vietnamese wanting to return. A tramp steamer showed up at Guam crowded with refugees, and it was turned over to those who wanted to go back. The last I heard of that boat was when it left Guam. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Orange[edit]

Agent Orange was supposedly used on the base to clear fields of fire. If any editor knows where to find a copy of 635 CSG/SPS Operational Plan 207-71, please advise JUSMAG-Thai, whose website can be found by searching that term. Actually, any source for Agent Orange use on U-T would be of interest to them, and as an addition to this article.--Pawyilee (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV problem[edit]

Much of the section on B-52 operations is a bit one-sided with regard to the relative merits and usefulness of their use during the war. On the one hand, lip service is paid to the continuing debate surrounding Air Force strategic and tactical bombing policies, but only one point of view is really being presented. We are told, for example, that "optimists" claim that the failure of any bombing campaign was the result of restrictive rules of engagement. However, we are not told what the other main point of view is (that of we pessimists, I presume), specifically that no amount of bombing of a relatively unindustrialized nation, which depended almost entirely upon the Soviet Union and China for war materiel, could have ever really made much of a difference. Also, though I was amused by the "killing monkeys" bit, it doesn't seem all that encyclopedic in tone.--172.190.122.204 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, except that Rationalization (making excuses) is the proper term for "optimists," and honesty a better term for "pessimists." Arc Light also needs reassessment to make clear that planners believed the "unindustrialized" nation would be frightened into submission, given that planners were totally ignorant of regional history since the 1500's when industrialization began impacting the region. Alas! I don't know where to find such a study. As for "killing monkeys," it was a sardonic expression used by those of us who thought what we were doing was stupid, that unknown to us at the time has a counterpart in an expression current in several languages of the region: Killing the Chickens, to Scare the Monkeys. More apt, perhaps, would be using elephants to fight a plague of grasshoppers (we don't need research to surmise who's gonna win.--Pawyilee (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the Jason Study (I believe that's the name) is available online, but, though it deals with Rolling Thunder specifically, it would certainly convey many of the difficulties inherent in bombing a relatively unindustrialized nation. I haven't gotten my hands on The Limits of Air Power, either, by Mark Clodfelter, but I understand it did much to refute the more grandiose claims of air power advocates/apologists. On a more basic level, the article just doesn't need that much detail with regard to operations. I'm sure there is a place on Wikipedia for a history of B-52 operations in Southeast Asia, but this rather modest article isn't it. Oh, well.--172.190.84.23 (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rather agree with the unsigned comment above (by 172.190.122.204), and more, as well as with the last of all sentences by 172.190.84.23. Pieces like these:
(1) "The brass didn't want reports showing up in the news media that they had bombed a hospital by mistake." (2) "Six aircraft were blown out of the sky." (3) "B-52 crews had been getting increasingly frustrated with the predictable tactics, knowing they would lead to trouble sooner rather than later, and the result of the losses was an outburst of protest and anger. The crews (...) were not happy about dead-headed military bureaucracy setting them up like ducks in a shooting gallery." (4) "it is clear that the brass decided to sit down and work on getting their house in order". (5) "It is tempting to speculate that such a ruthless air campaign earlier in the war might have changed its course considerably, but history is not a controlled experiment and speculation is all that it is."
... (a) are unsourced; (b) would seem to convey a rather partial POV, with a vocabulary that is not encyclopedic at all. I do know what "brass" is, but does WP's target public? This is a very personal narrative that delves into people's reasonings instead of only stating verified facts. Plus, it uses illustration ("killing monkeys") and metaphors ("getting their house in order") that stray from an encyclopedia's objectivity -- please bear in mind that we intend to reach the widest possible variety of readers, including those unexperienced in Western style. This whole bit of text seems taken from a book, and, frankly, the lack of sourcing is more a confirmation of this than its denial. I propose that the text is toned down, and more, that most of Linebacker II's description is removed, even if only to find a seat elsewhere in WP. SrAtoz (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAPPER ATTACK On 10 January 1972[edit]

I was there, though not an eyewitness, as I was off-base during the action (and still got combat pay for it, due to a quirk in regulations that was subsequently corrected.) Anyone interested in what I was told the next morning, given that it's mostly hearsay? --Pawyilee (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Airfield. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U-Tapao_Royal_Thai_Navy_Airfield&oldid=1207364691"