In the July/August issue of the magazine ‘20th Century Militaria’ the first part of the article ‘Bloody Mission of Spike Team Alabama’ by Maciej Kowasz was published, whose aim was to describe the events of 5 October 1968 when an SOG patrol was fighting for its life in the jungles of Laos. This article, in my opinion, contains some incorrect and controversial information that I will try to quote here. I have also managed to contact the author and exchange my observations with him, so his response will also be put in the following text. I am not going to quote the whole article here, as it is available at press outlets, and I can also share my copy. I shall only quote the controversial fragments. The title itself raises some doubts. It refers to a Spike Team, not Recon Team Alabama. In the article, the author informs us that the ST naming is an early form of identifying patrols: ‘reconnaissance team (also called a Spike Team – ST or, later, since the summer of 1968, Reconnaissance Team – RT; some kept using the ST abbreviation)’. The described events took place in October 1968, which was already after the change of designation to the RT, Lynne Black, the author of ‘Whiskey Tango Foxtrot’ (in which the patrol is thoroughly described, and which is referred to by the author of the article) and a member of the described patrol RT Alabama, uses the RT name himself. In his book ‘On the Ground. The Secret War in Vietnam’ John Stryker Mayer uses the ST designation, but the RT is still dominant, and besides he was not a participant of the events described. Author’s reply: ‘I agree as far as the team’s name is concerned, the abbreviation RT was already in use, but as I have pointed out, some still kept using the old abbreviation. I exchange letters with John Meyer and the abbreviation has very often dominated in the correspondence, just as in the book ‘Across the Fence’, which describes the events covered by the article. However, this is not the most important issue, and it may remain in dispute, without affecting the historical truth. The text also includes an incorrect date of the MACV SOG creation, but this is more of a mistake in print rather than ignorance. The unit was established on 24 January 1964, and not 1965 as stated in the text. ‘(A reconnaissance unit) ... usually consisted of 6-12 men, three of whom were Americans, and the other members were natives – Vietnamese, Nungs, or came from the local mountain tribes...’ The Nung are one of the mountain tribes, an error of repetition, to which the author agrees: ‘As for the description of the squad I also agree, I could have described the ethnic groups in greater detail, but I did not for a simple reason – lack of time and space. During the writing process, the text grew very large, and at one point I had to tell myself ‘that’s it’, and send the text to the editor.’ UWAGA: akapit o M14 pomijam w tłumaczeniu celowo, bo anglojęzyczny odbiorca go nie zrozumie. W angielskim różnica między ‘toe’ i ‘finger’ jest widoczna na pierwszy rzut oka i trzeba byłoby tu dać jakiś przypis, że w polskim ‘palec’ może oznaczać i taki u ręki, i u nogi. To tak jak z tym ‘kalendarzem’ w polskim powiedzeniu i ‘wiadrem’ w angielskim, które przytoczył gość w odpowiedzi (swoją drogą polecam poszukanie etymologii powiedzenia ‘kick the bucket’ – jest bardzo ciekawa). Another issue raised by the author is communication: ‘...The latter was provided with the use of the AN/PRC-10 radio (‘Prick-10’), later on the AN/PRC-77, AN/PRC-25 and, in extreme cases, the AN/URC-10 survival radio.’ I wrote to Mr. Maciej that the issue of the PRC-10 applies more to the early period of the conflict and rather to infantry units than the SOG, and that describing the PRC-10 as an issue item for the SOG is quite controversial in our conditions, as it will lead to people reenacting the SOG using the PRC-10. ‘The PRC-10 radios were used in the early period, but there were many complaints about them (hence the ‘prick’). I would not worry that ‘an inexperienced reader will reenact the SOG with the PRC-10’, an inexperienced reader probably does not do reenacting, and before he decides to do so, he will look for a more precise reference.’ The term ‘prick’ is derived from the abbreviation PRC and not from the complaints, since there were also reasons to complain about the PRC-25. And the author would be surprised to see what kind of people do reenacting nowadays. Yet another controversial issue is the author’s use of the name CAR-15 for the XM177E1 and E2 carbines. The author explains: ‘As for the name CAR-15, a popular source such as the Wikipedia says: ‘the CAR-15 Commando (XM177/GAU-5 series)’. The abbreviation CAR-15 is widely used in all the publications about the SOG that I have had in my hands.’ Unfortunately, using the Wikipedia as a reference is not the best solution for a substantive discussion and the quoting the descriptions from books by veterans to whom every short version from the M16 family is a CAR-15 does not speak well about the author’s wish to share the relevant knowledge. ‘This is not all – for example, the team leader took a map, a watch, a compass, a flashlight, a strobe light, a flare gun with flares, a signal mirror, a signal panel, a knife, a whistle, a camo paint, anti-malaria tablets, salt tablets, a syringe with morphine, a notebook, detonators, a first aid kit, a canteen, a machete, plastic handcuffs, an insect repellent, a poncho, a sleeping bag, a gas mask, field dressings... And as for ammunition, he carried a CAR-15 with 20 magazines (a total 380 rounds of ammunition), six M67 grenades, three V40 grenades, a phosphorous M34 grenade and one M7A2 tear gas grenade.’ I find it strange that according to the description, a watch, a map and a compass were only carried by the 1-0, and why would he only take one canteen? As for the ammunition, where do the exact numbers come from since the description applies to the general practice? Magazines were usually loaded with 18 rounds, so 20 x 18 = 360, and not 380, while 20 x 20 = 400, also not 380. And why specifically 20? The BAR belt can hold 24 +1 in the weapon, and a canteen cover-based gear would also take more. Why only three V40 grenades, when you can take a lot more? The author’s reply: ‘As for the equipment, please note that I wrote ‘For example, the team leader’ – it does not mean that the team leader carried ALL of the equipment while the others walked through the jungle with canteens. And again, I do not think that readers interested in the operations of special groups assumed that only the leader had carried all the equipment needed for reconnaissance missions.’ And the last controversial statement: ‘When General Abrams forbid wearing camouflage uniforms of the ‘tiger stripe’ pattern, the practice of spraying the standard uniform with black paint began.’ Here, the author refers to a quote from a book: ‘As for the tiger stripe uniforms, it was based on Blacks statement: ‘When General Creighton Abrams outlawed the use of tiger fatigues and everyone went to the standard uniform we began to use the spray paint to simulate the Tiger fatigue pattern, or a pattern that fit the terrain we were about to operate in.’ In no other source have I found any comments on this issue, neither have I used this uniform in the field, so I could not write any more. The ‘tiger’ uniforms were never used during SOG patrols, with the common green working better in the jungle, the TS were also too thick and heavy, and when wet, they did not dry as quickly as the TCU. I have received this information during private conversations with the author of the quoted text. Here, unfortunately, the author did not search for information accurately enough. The remainder of the article, and probably the second part, is a description of RT Alabama’s mission in October, probably based on the book ‘Whiskey Tango Foxtrot’, and as long as it is translated correctly you cannot argue with it, as it is an account of a participant of the described events. It is a good thing that the publishing houses in Poland are interested in publishing articles about the Vietnam conflict, and in particular the MACV SOG, but it is just sad that such underdeveloped materials appear (although supported by a good bibliography and contacts with veterans). Let us hope that things will improve.
Posted on: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:08:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015