10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A entertianing, fact-filled overview of the Vietnam War, April 29, 2005
This review is from: Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War: Military Information You're Not Supposed to Know (Paperback)
The title of this 375-page book about the Vietnam War is not accurate. There really aren't too many so-called dirty little secrets revealed and most of the material is not controversial, but the book does have a lot of interesting perspectives and factual data re the war. Eschewing the chronological approach Dunnigan and Nofi write a lot of short interesting chapters on everything from a sketch of the pre-U.S. involvement history of conflict in Vietnam and adjoining nations (which still continues as the growing ethnic Vietnamese population continues suppressing and displacing minority groups) to summaries of each aspect of combat (Army, USMC, helicopters, air war, Naval campaigns (perhaps the weakest section), etc.), descriptions of major actions and incidents and overviews of in-country "cultural" issues (drugs, racial relations, popular music, etc.).
One hallmark is lots of statistics on various topics (casualties, military demographics, air craft, weapons used, etc.). Most of these are from official sources and source references - increasing lacking in much today's politicized nonfiction - are provided. Some of the statistics are explained and provide illustrative insights but unfortunately some of the intriguing data are not well explained.
For instance, there's a general impression that surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) were the overwhelming danger to U.S. aircraft and air-to-air combat was a significant aspect of the war. But the authors present statistics which show that only 11% of aircraft lost in combat were lost to SAMs, 4% were lost in air-to-air combat while the remaining 76% were lost to anti-aircraft artillery and various conventional ground-based weapons fire. However, the authors don't clarify that many, if not most, of aircraft losses occurred over South Vietnam where SAMs and MIGs were not available to our adversaries. The 25% rate of US Navy loss to SAMs and MIGs compared with only 12% for USAF/USMC presumably reflects that the Navy operated relatively more over North Vietnam itself from Tonkin Gulf-based carriers while the USAF/USMC operated a larger percentage pf their fixed wing aircraft over the South.
Another fascinating tidbit are the statistics about deserters who accepted amnesty in the mid-1970s - many of whom had gone to Canada - showing they were disproportionately (86%) in the lowest two classifications out of four military intelligence test classifications.
A suggested reading list, multi-page glossary and extensive indexing give what is basically an entertaining read for military history buffs who are not expert on Vietnam a bit of extra value as a reference for further study.
Recommended for Vietnam War, Cold War and general military history buffs and is an excellent book about the Vietnam-era for people not even born before the war ended.
Reviewed on the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. On April 29, 1975, Radio Saigon began playing Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" (an interesting fact NOT mentioned in this book) as a signal to begin Operation Frequent Wind, the evacuation of all American personnel from South Vietnam.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Average, November 18, 2002
The title of this book is very misleading in that it promises new items that you might find with a hard hitting investigative report or a new history of the war. What the book gives the reader is a nice overview of facts and interesting details from the war, but it is not a good general study of the Vietnam War. If you are looking for a book to start on the war or just have a book at hand with lots of facts, charts and lists then this is the one for you. There were also some parts of the book that the authors did try and get a little deeper into, but that is not there strong point and I got the feeling they we filling space and hurrying to the next list. Overall the book is a written well and easy to read bunch of facts.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4.0 out of 5 stars
Myth Busters of Vietnam War, July 27, 2010
This review is from: Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War: Military Information You're Not Supposed to Know (Paperback)
The title is misleading - this is not an all encompassing book about Vietnam. But it does have a lot of tidbits, trivia and information all in one book. The authors cover the political, economic and military aspects of the war - from the US, North and South Vietnamese perspectives. That's a tall order in one book.
The best parts of this book are the efforts to de-bunk some myths about Vietnam War. US soldiers were the youngest, a larger share had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, more Viet Vets are homeless, everyone came back addicted to drugs, the impact of the Tet Offensive, peace movement just to name a few. You may find yourself disagreeing with the author's conclusions, but they make you think.
Four stars - a few maps would have been helpful and it's not a book I would consider the final word on a lot of the subjects. The data & trivia are things I'd want to verify.
It's amazing how much information they get into one volume. Background & facts on the Army, Air Force, Brown Water Navy, history of Vietnam, Special Forces just to name a few. These are not in depth discussions, but have enough to give a solid overview. I would not consider this a single source reference, some of the conclusions are more based on opinions, but the authors mention this up front. I think this is a very entertaining book, great for those just starting the study of the Vietnam War, an overview or refresher. This book is not meant to be read straight through, but a section here/there, now/later.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
