Jump to content

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,259 posts
6,734 battles

I’m looking for information about the vessels, primarily small vessels that the north Vietnamese used during the Vietnam war.

I’m finding the vessels of the modern Vietnamese navy but not easy finding that info from the 60s and 70s 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
5 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

I’m looking for information about the vessels, primarily small vessels that the north Vietnamese used during the Vietnam war.

I’m finding the vessels of the modern Vietnamese navy but not easy finding that info from the 60s and 70s 

"Throughout the Vietnam War the role played by the Vietnam People's Navy (or North Vietnamese Navy) was largely unknown to the public. However, on 2 August 1964, three North Vietnamese Swatow-class patrol boats attacked the destroyer USS Maddox in what became known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The second attack, which the United States claimed to have occurred on 4 August, was dismissed by the North Vietnamese as a fabrication.

The North Vietnamese, however, had maintained their own version of the events which took place. According to official VPN accounts Maddox penetrated North Vietnamese waters on 31 July 1964, and provoked a battle with the North Vietnamese. In response to American provocation, three 123K-class torpedo boats from the 135th Torpedo Boat Battalion were dispatched to intercept the American destroyer. The resulting clash became known as the 'Battle of Thanh Hóa' in which North Vietnamese "torpedo boats succeeded in driving the Maddox out of Vietnam's territorial waters, shooting down a U.S. aircraft and damaging another"." -Wikipedia

The Swatow-class is a PLAN gunboat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shantou-class_gunboat

PLAN torpedo boat equipped with Radar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_4-class_torpedo_boat

I'd hazard a guess that the VPN didn't have many more ships then that, or they'd end up in the history books because the USN would want to engage them.

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,259 posts
6,734 battles

I expected them to primarily have smaller vessels which were the only ones I am really concerned with right now lol.

it just seems strange that they’d only have a handful of 2 classes of boats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
29 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

I expected them to primarily have smaller vessels which were the only ones I am really concerned with right now lol.

it just seems strange that they’d only have a handful of 2 classes of boats

Having a standing Navy doesn't fit into the whole "guerrilla tactic" strategy.  The only other ships I'm reading about for the VPN are disguised transports.  The VPN got their ships from China, but Chinese-Vietnamese relations were not that great.

Edit: Prior to 1975, the North Vietnamese Navy operated fewer than forty patrol boats along with the coastal junk force. 

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,563 posts
6,872 battles
3 hours ago, Sventex said:

three North Vietnamese Swatow-class patrol boats attacked the destroyer USS Maddox in what became known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

Hello? this has been completely dis proven as a fabrication. A quick synopsis online:

Quote

In retrospect it is clear that the alleged attack was little more than a transparent pretext for war, delivered in a one-two punch. First, media descriptions of the August 2nd attack as an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" hid the fact that the Maddox was providing support for South Vietnamese military operations against the North. Second, the alleged August 4th attack appears to be a fabrication, official accounts attributing the "error" to confusion.  http://911review.com/precedent/century/tonkin.html

 

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,286
[SOUP]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,561 posts
8 minutes ago, Stauffenberg44 said:

Hello? this has been completely dis proven as a fabrication. A quick synopsis online:

1

This is from a US point of view, while the other is from the Vietnamese. Both sides have reason to lie and reason to tell the truth, the only sure-fire way to find out what happened would be from a third party that was there. In the end we just have a He-said-She-said catfight between to bickering idiots that want to look good but in the end just look like two bickering idiots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,563 posts
6,872 battles
6 minutes ago, Chobittsu said:

This is from a US point of view, while the other is from the Vietnamese. Both sides have reason to lie and reason to tell the truth, the only sure-fire way to find out what happened would be from a third party that was there. In the end we just have a He-said-She-said catfight between to bickering idiots that want to look good but in the end just look like two bickering idiots

Not to be captious but, really read up on it:

"While there was some doubt in Washington regarding the second attack, those aboard Maddox and Turner Joy were convinced that it had occurred. This along with flawed signals intelligence from the National Security Agency led Johnson to order retaliatory airstrikes against North Vietnam. Launching on Aug. 5, Operation Pierce Arrow saw aircraft from USS Ticonderoga and USS Constellation strike oil facilities at Vinh and attack approximately 30 North Vietnamese vessels. Subsequent research and declassified documents have essentially shown that the second attack did not happen."

https://www.thoughtco.com/vietnam-war-gulf-of-tonkin-incident-2361345

Edited by Stauffenberg44
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
1 hour ago, Stauffenberg44 said:

Not to be captious but, really read up on it:

"While there was some doubt in Washington regarding the second attack, those aboard Maddox and Turner Joy were convinced that it had occurred. This along with flawed signals intelligence from the National Security Agency led Johnson to order retaliatory airstrikes against North Vietnam. Launching on Aug. 5, Operation Pierce Arrow saw aircraft from USS Ticonderoga and USS Constellation strike oil facilities at Vinh and attack approximately 30 North Vietnamese vessels. Subsequent research and declassified documents have essentially shown that the second attack did not happen."

https://www.thoughtco.com/vietnam-war-gulf-of-tonkin-incident-2361345

I'm well aware of that, but it's of the few statements of the war that identify VPN ships by class, therefore it's very relevant to the discussion.  Unless you can prove to me that such VPN ships classes could not exist, your derailing the thread.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,259 posts
6,734 battles

Ya this thread got derailed quickly...

what vessels did they have in use between 1960-1980?

thats basically the time frame I’m looking for 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
On 3/10/2018 at 4:18 AM, JohnPJones said:

Ya this thread got derailed quickly...

what vessels did they have in use between 1960-1980?

thats basically the time frame I’m looking for 

Uhh well, they did capture some of the VNN ships in 75, and there are tons of details about the makeup of it on Wikipedia.  With assistance from the U.S., the VNN became the largest Southeast Asian navy, with 42,000 men and women and 672 amphibious ships and craft, 20 mine warfare vessels, 450 patrol craft, 56 service craft, and 242 junks.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,259 posts
6,734 battles

When I googled it I didn’t see any info on classes...that bolded section is pretty darn vague 

 

i wasn’t looking up VNN, so that helped lol

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×