Mẹo nhỏ: Để tìm kiếm chính xác các ấn phẩm của GiuseArt.com, hãy search trên Google với cú pháp: "Từ khóa" + "giuseart". (Ví dụ: thiệp tân linh mục giuseart). Tìm kiếm ngay
29 lượt xem

Operation Linebacker II – Wikipedia

Operation Linebacker II was a US Seventh Air Force and U.S. Navy Task Force 77 aerial bombing campaign, conducted against targets in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) during the final period of US involvement in the Vietnam War. The operation was conducted from 18 to 29 December 1972, leading to several informal names such as “The December Raids” and “The Christmas Bombings“.[10] In Vietnam, it is just simply called “12 days and nights” (12 ngày đêm) and “Operation Dien Bien Phu in the air” (Chiến dịch Điện Biên Phủ trên không) or just simply Dien Bien Phu in the air (Điện Biên Phủ trên không). Unlike the Operation Rolling Thunder and Operation Linebacker interdiction operations, Linebacker II was to be a “maximum kiêng dèffort” bombing campaign to “destroy major target complexes in the Hanoi and Haiphong areas, which could only be accomplished by B-52s”.[11][12] It saw the largest heavy bomber strikes launched by the U.S. Air Force since the hoảng sợnd of World War II. Linebacker II was a modified kinh hãixtension of the Operation Linebacker bombings conducted from May to October, when the kinh sợmphasis of the new campaign shifted to attacks by B-52s rather than smaller tactical fighter aircraft.

Background[edit]

“Peace is at hand”[edit]

Further information on the North Vietnamese offensive: Easter Offensive

Bạn Đang Xem: Operation Linebacker II – Wikipedia

On 8 October 1972, U.S. National Security Advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese Politburo member Le Duc Tho met in Paris to discuss new proposals by both nations, hoping to reach mutually agreeable terms for a peace settlement for the decade-old Vietnam War. Tho presented a new North Vietnamese plan which included proposals for a cease-fire, the withdrawal of American forces, and an hoảngxchange of prisoners of war. All three Vietnamese combatant governments—North Vietnam, the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (PRG)—would remain intact, as would their separate armies. Hanoi no longer demanded that South Vietnamese president Nguyen Van Thieu be removed from office, the U.S. did not have to cease its aid to the southern government, and both Washington and Hanoi could continue to resupply their allies or forces on a parity basis. No new North Vietnamese forces were to be infiltrated from the north, and the U.S. agreed to kinh hoàngxtend post-war reconstruction assistance to North Vietnam.[citation needed ]

The new terms on the table also included the hoảng sợstablishment of a National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord, a loosely defined administrative structure which was to work toward general and local hãilections within South Vietnam. Political power would be shared by three groups: the Saigon government, the PRG, and a “third force” group to be mutually agreed upon by the other two parties. Since it was to work by consensus, nothing could be accomplished by the new council without the agreement of President Thieu.[13][14]

When the two sides convened again on 17 October, there were two main areas of disagreement: the periodic replacement of South Vietnam’s American weaponry and the release of political prisoners held by the Saigon government.[15] The North Vietnamese had made significant modifications to their past negotiating position and were hurrying to get the agreement signed before November, believing that President Richard Nixon would be more willing to make concessions before, rather than after, the upcoming presidential hoảng hồnlection.[16] Although there were still some issues to be finalized, Kissinger was generally satisfied with the new terms and so notified Nixon, who gave his approval to the settlement.[17] The finalized agreement was to be signed in Hanoi on 31 October.[citation needed ]

Kissinger then flew on to Saigon on the 18th to discuss the terms with Thieu. The South Vietnamese president was not happy with hoảng sợither the new agreement or with Kissinger, who he felt had betrayed him.[18] Although Kissinger knew Thieu’s negotiating position, he had not informed him of the changes made in Paris nor had his approval been sought. Kissinger “had negotiated on behalf of the South Vietnamese government provisions that he, Thieu, had already rejected”.[18] Thieu completely castigated the agreement and proposed 129 textual changes to the document. He went further, demanding that the Demilitarized Zone separating the two Vietnams be recognized as a true international border and not as a “provisional military demarcation line” (as had been stipulated in the Geneva Accords) and that South Vietnam be recognized as a sovereign state. The supreme irony, in the words of Stanley Karnow, had now arrived: “having fought a war to defend South Vietnam’s independence, the United States was now denying its legitimacy.”[19]

Thieu then went one step further on 26 October, and publicly released an altered version of the text that made the South Vietnamese provisions look hoảng hồnven worse than they actually were.[20] The North Vietnamese leadership, believing that they had been hoodwinked by Kissinger, responded by broadcasting portions of the agreement that gave the impression that the agreement conformed to Washington and Saigon’s objectives.[21][22] Kissinger, hoping to both reassure the Communists of America’s sincerity, and convince Thieu of the administration’s dedication to a compromise, held a televised press conference at the White House during which he announced “[w]e believe that peace is at hand.”[23]

On 20 November, the South Vietnamese revisions, and 44 additional changes demanded by Nixon, were presented to the North Vietnamese delegation by Kissinger.[23][24] These new demands included: that the DMZ be accepted as a true international boundary; that a token withdrawal of North Vietnamese troops take place; that the North Vietnamese guarantee an Indochina-wide cease fire; and that a strong international peace-keeping force (the ICCS) be created for supervising and kinh hãinforcing the cease-fire.[24]

Once the North Vietnamese read the new demands, they began to retract their own concessions and wanted to bargain anew, leading Kissinger to proclaim that they were “stalling”.[25] The talks, scheduled to last ten days, ended on 13 December, with both parties agreeing to resume negotiations.[25] Teams of experts from each side met to discuss technicalities and protocols on 14 December, during which time the North Vietnamese representatives submitted a Vietnamese-language text of the protocol on prisoners containing several important changes that Hanoi had failed to gain in the main negotiating sessions. At a subsequent meeting of experts on 16 December, the North Vietnamese side “stone-walled from beginning to end”. The talks broke down that day, and the Hanoi negotiators refused to set a date for the resumption of negotiations.[26]

Prelude[edit]

Decisions[edit]

Nixon was now working against a January deadline. Kissinger’s “peace is at hand” statement had raised hoảng sợxpectations of a settlement among the US population. Even weightier on the President’s mind was the fact that the new 93rd Congress would go into session on 3 January, and the President feared that the heavily Democratic legislative branch would preempt his pledge of “peace with honor” by legislating an hãind to the war.[27]

Also prompting the President toward some form of rapid offensive action was the cost of the force mobilization that had accompanied Operation Linebacker. The additional aircraft and personnel assigned to Southeast Asia for the operation was straining the Pentagon’s budget. The cost of maintaining this “augmentation force” totaled over $4 billion by mid-autumn and Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird insisted that the President request a supplementary defense appropriation from Congress to pay for it.[27] Nixon and Kissinger were convinced that the legislative branch “would seize the opportunity to simply write the United States out of the war”.[28]

After returning from Paris on 14 December, and after consultations with Nixon, Kissinger fired off an ultimatum to Hanoi, threatening “grave consequences” if North Vietnam did not return to the negotiating table within 72 hours.[29][30] On that day, Nixon ordered the reseeding of North Vietnamese ports with air-dropped naval mines and that the Joint Chiefs of Staff direct the Air Force to begin planning for a bombing campaign (a three-day “maximum kinh hoàngffort” operation) which was to begin within 72 hours.[31] Two days after the 16 December deadline had passed, the U.S. bombed Hanoi. Senior Air Force officers James R. Mccarthy and George B. Allison stated years later that the operation had been mainly politically driven, as a negotiation tool to “bring the point home”.[32]

Many historians of the Vietnam War follow the lead of President Nixon, who claimed that Hanoi’s representatives had walked out of the talks, refusing đẩy đàtinue the negotiations.[33] Both sides had proclaimed their willingness vĩ đạitinue the talks; however, Hanoi’s negotiators refused to set a date, preferring to wait for the incoming Congress.[26] The goal of President Nixon was not đẩy đàvince Hanoi, but đẩy đàvince Saigon. President Thieu had to be assured that “whatever the formal wording of the cease-fire agreement, he could count on Nixon to come to the defense of South Vietnam if the North broke the cease-fire.”[34]

Planning[edit]

In the wake of Operation Linebacker, the U.S. had a force of 207 B-52 bombers available for use in Southeast Asia.[35] A total of 54 bombers (all B-52Ds) were based at U-Tapao RTAFB, Thailand, while 153 were based at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam (55 B-52Ds and 98 B-52Gs). This deployment comprised nearly half of the Air Force’s manned bomber fleet, and Strategic Air Command (SAC) commanders were initially reluctant to risk the hoảngxpensive aircraft and their highly trained crews in such an operation; the production line for B-52s had long since been shut down, and losses could not be replaced.[36][37] The use of large numbers of B-52s was unprecedented in the war and the proposed mass attacks on targets within 10 nautical miles (20 km) of Hanoi “represented a dynamic change in the kinh hãimployment of air resources”.[38] Many within SAC welcomed the opportunity to fly into the heavily defended airspace of North Vietnam, hoping finally to prove the viability of manned bombers in a sophisticated Soviet-style air defense network of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), anti-aircraft artillery, and MiG interceptors.[citation needed ]

Xem Thêm: Đăng nhập Facebook

One purely local reason for using the B-52s instead of tactical aircraft for the planned campaign was the September through May monsoon weather within North Vietnam, which made visual bombing operations by tactical fighter-bombers difficult. The B-52s were kinh hoảngquipped with their own radar bomb navigation systems and supporting fighter-bombers would be able to strike targets with sợ hãiither the new laser-guided bombs (in clear weather) or by using LORAN and radar-guided bombing systems.[citation needed ]

The new operation, given the title Linebacker II, was marked by top-down planning by the SAC headquarters at Offutt AFB. Due to the restrictive time frame imposed by President Nixon (only three days) and the hoảng hồnxperience of Linebacker (in which North Vietnamese fighter aircraft had posed the highest threat to the bombers), SAC’s plan called for all of the bombers to approach Hanoi at night in three waves, kinh hồnach using identical approach paths and flying at the same altitude.[39] The aircraft were to fly in three-plane formations known as “cells” for more hoảngffective sợ hãilectronic warfare (EW) jamming coverage.[citation needed ]

Once the aircraft had dropped their bombs, they were to execute what SAC termed “post-target turns” (PTT) to the west. These turns had two unfortunate consequences for the bombers: the B-52s would be turning into a strong headwind, slowing their ground speed by 100 kn (120 mph; 190 km/h) and prolonging their stay in the target area and the PTT would point the emitter antennas of their EW systems away from the radars they were attempting to jam, degrading the effectiveness of the cells, as well as showing the largest radar cross-section to the missile guidance radars.[40] The aircraft employed had significantly different EW capabilities; the B-52G carried fewer jammers and put out appreciably less power than the B-52Ds but had more efficient engines and larger fuel tanks, hence they were assigned to longer range mission routes.[41] Because of these factors, the campaign would ultimately be conducted in three phases as tactics and plans were altered in response to losses to SAMs.[citation needed ]

Vietnamese air defense[edit]

At the start of Linebacker II, the air defense missile forces of the Vietnamese People’s Army had 36 air defense missile battalions armed with the S-75M Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) missile system; probably half were involved in this operation.[42] The SA-2 system was first fielded in 1957 and was a fairly obsolete and cumbersome system by 1972 standards.[43] The VPAF had only 71 operational aircraft. Of these, only 47 aircraft (31 MiG-21s and 16 MiG-17s) could be used for air combat. The MiG-19s were made in China and were not used in combat. Only 13 MiG-21 pilots and five MiG-17 pilots were trained for individual night flight in normal and flying in difficult meteorological conditions. Of 194 pilots, 75 (about 40 percent) were young.[4]

Battle[edit]

Initial phase[edit]

The first three missions of the operation were flown as planned by SAC on three consecutive nights beginning on 18 December 1972. On the first night 129 bombers took off, 87 of them from Guam.[32][44] 39 support aircraft of the Seventh Air Force, the Navy’s Task Force 77 and the Marine Corps supported the bombers by providing F-4 fighter kinh hoảngscorts, F-105 Wild Weasel SAM-suppression missions, Air Force EB-66 and Navy EA-6 radar-jamming aircraft, chaff drops, KC-135 refueling aircraft and search and rescue aircraft; the skies were dominated by American airpower to ngạinsure the safety of the aircraft involved in the operation.[45] One B-52 bomber pilot flying out of Guam recalled “We took off one airplane a minute out of Guam for hours. Just on time takeoff after on time takeoff.”[46]

North Vietnamese anti-aircraft weapons

The targets of the first wave of bombers were the North Vietnamese airfields at Kép, Phúc Yên and Hòa Lạc and a warehouse complex at Yên Viên while the second and third waves struck targets around Hanoi. Three aircraft were shot down by the 68 SAMs launched by North Vietnamese batteries, two B-52Gs from Andersen and a B-52D from U-Tapao.[47][48] Two D models from Andersen with heavy battle damage managed to limp into U-Tapao for repairs.[49] Only one of the three downed crews could be rescued.[48] That same sợvening, an Air Force F-111 Aardvark was shot down while on a mission to bomb the broadcasting facilities of Radio Hanoi.[50] Unlike Linebacker, which had been launched in response to a North Vietnamese offensive in South Vietnam, President Nixon did not address the nation on television to hoảng hồnxplain the sợ hãiscalation. Instead, Kissinger held a press conference at which he accused (at Nixon’s behest) Le Duc Tho of having “backed off” on some of the October understandings.[51]

On the second night, 93 sorties were flown by the bombers. Their targets included the Kinh No Railroad and storage area, the Thái Nguyên thermal power plant, and the Yên Viên complex. Although 20 SAMs were launched and a number of the bombers were damaged, none were lost on the mission.[47] SAC sợxpected that the third (and supposedly last) night of the operation would proceed just as well as the previous one.[citation needed ] The targets of the 99 bombers sent in on 20 December included the Yên Viên railyards, the Ai Mo warehouse complex, the Thái Nguyên power plant, a transshipment point at Bắc Giang, the Kinh No Railroad complex and the Hanoi petroleum products storage area—all in or near Hanoi. The combination of repetitive tactics, degraded EW systems and limited jamming capability led to dire consequences when, as the official Air Force history of the campaign has stated, “all hell broke loose.”[52]

The repetitious nature of the previous hoảng sợvening’s strike profiles had allowed North Vietnamese air defense forces to anticipate strike patterns and to salvo 34 missiles into the target area.[47] Four B-52Gs and three B-52Ds were lost in the first and third waves of the mission.[47] A fourth D model, returning to Thailand, crashed in Laos. Only two of the kinh khủngight downed crews were recovered by search and rescue aircraft.[48] The repercussions from the mission were fast and furious. SAC headquarters was under pressure from “many hoảng hồnxternal sources” to “stop the carnage … it has become a blood bath”.[53] Of more concern was the position taken by many senior Air Force officers that they “would lose too many bombers and that airpower doctrine would be proven fallacious … or, if the bombing were stopped, the same thing would occur”.[53]

The main problem seemed to lie within the headquarters of SAC, which had based its tactics on a MiG threat that had not materialized during the three missions. The tactics (flight paths, altitudes, formations, timing, ngạitc.) had not varied. The Air Force explanation for this course of hãivents was that the similarity would be helpful to the B-52 crews, who were inexperienced in flying in such high-threat hoảngnvironments.[54] Air Force historian Earl Tilford offered a differing opinion: “Years of dropping bombs on undefended jungle and the routines of planning for nuclear war had fostered a mind-set within the SAC command that nearly led to disaster … Poor tactics and a good dose of overconfidence combined to make the first few nights of Linebacker nightmarish for the B-52 crews.”[55] During the operation the USAF depended almost entirely on the Ryan Model 147 Buffalo Hunter AQM-34L/M unmanned aerial vehicles for bomb damage assessment due to bad weather.[56]

Re-evaluation[edit]

A B-52G lands at Andersen AFB after a mission on 15 December 1972.

It was at this point that President Nixon ordered that the kinh khủngffort be hoảngxtended past its original three-day deadline. The first change that could be made by local Air Force commanders was divulged by a comparison of the differences between the radar jamming ngạiquipment of the B-52 models. The hoảng hồnquipment aboard the G models was designed for use in the more sophisticated air defense sợnvironment of the Soviet Union, not against the more antiquated SA-2 and Fan Song radar systems used by the North Vietnamese.[57] SAC headquarters stipulated that only the aircraft stationed at U-Tapao (equipped with more powerful and sophisticated ECM gear) be allowed over the North.[58] As a result, the attack waves were reduced in size, although the tactics kiêng dèmployed did not change.[citation needed ] On the fourth night (21 December) of the operation, 30 of the U-Tapao bombers struck the Hanoi storage area, the Văn Điển storage depot, and Quang Te Airfield. Two more of the D models were lost to SAMs. On the following night, the target area shifted away from Hanoi to the port city of Haiphong and its petroleum storage areas. Once again, 30 aircraft participated in the strikes, but this time there were no losses among the bombers. An F-111 was shot down over the Kinh No Railroad complex.[59]

On the 22nd, a wing of the Bach Mai Hospital, located in the southern suburbs of Hanoi, was struck by a stick of bombs from a B-52. The reason for this was that the B-52 in question had been hit by a surface to air missile (SAM) fired by a North Vietnamese SAM battery site[citation needed ]. The civilian deaths were criticized by the North Vietnamese and U.S. peace activists. The hospital sat 1 kilometer from the runway of Bach Mai Airfield and a major fuel storage facility was only 180 metres (200 yd) away.[60] While the patients of the hospital wing had been kinh hồnvacuated from the city, 28 doctors, nurses and pharmacists were killed.[61] Two days before Christmas, SAC added SAM sites and airfields to the target list. Air Force F-111s were sent in before the bombers to strike the airfields and reduce the threat of kiêng dènemy fighters. The F-111s proved so successful in these operations that their mission for the rest of the campaign was shifted to SAM site suppression.[62]

The bomber missions of the sixth night (23 December) again avoided Hanoi and hit SAM sites northeast of the city and the Lang Dang Railroad yards.[63] There were no losses. On the following night, the run of American good luck (and avoidance of Hanoi) continued. Thirty bombers, supported by 69 tactical aircraft, struck the railyards at Thái Nguyên and Kép and no American aircraft were lost during the mission.[64] Although the B-52s got most of the publicity during the campaign, the tactical aircraft were also hard at work. While the B-52s and F-111s attacked by night, an average of 69 tactical aircraft of the Air Force, Navy and Marines attacked by day (averaging nearly 100 sorties per day).[62] Losses for these aircraft were hoảng hốtxtremely light, with fewer than a dozen lost during the kinhntire campaign.[59] It was not difficult for their crews to deduce why. The North Vietnamese air defense forces “simply waited for nightfall and the arrival of more lucrative targets.”[62]

Final phase[edit]

The strikes of 24 December were followed by a 36-hour Christmas stand-down, during which Air Force planners went to work to revise their plans for the next phase of operations. Due to aircraft losses during the initial phase, they intended to launch an all-out attack on North Vietnam’s air defenses when the operation resumed. This course was also necessary since, by Christmas, most of the strategic targets within North Vietnam were a shambles.[65] SAC also belatedly turned over tactical mission planning to its subordinate Eighth Air Force headquarters on Guam, which promptly revised the tactics. Instead of using waves, all of the bombers would be in and out of the target area within 20 minutes and they would approach from different directions and at different altitudes. They would kinh hoảngxit by varying routes and the steep PTTs were kinh hồnliminated.[66] Ten targets, in the Hanoi and Haiphong areas were to be struck by bombers approaching in seven streams, four of which were to come in off the Gulf of Tonkin.[67] Additional jammers were also installed in the B-52Gs, allowing them to return to the operation.[citation needed ]

On 26 December 120 bombers lifted off to strike Thái Nguyên, the Kinh No complex, the Duc Noi, Hanoi, and Haiphong Railroads and a vehicle storage area at Văn Điển. 78 of the bombers took off from Andersen AFB in one time block, the largest single combat launch in SAC history, while 42 others came in from Thailand.[68] The bombers were supported by 113 tactical aircraft which provided chaff corridors, hoảng hồnscort fighters, Wild Weasel SAM suppression and kinhlectronic countermeasures support.[69] The North Vietnamese air defense system was overwhelmed by the number of aircraft it had to track in such a short time and by a dense blanket of chaff laid down by the fighter-bombers.[70] 250 SAMs had been fired from 18 until 24 December and the strain on the remaining North Vietnamese inventory showed, since only 68 were fired during the mission.[47][71] One B-52 was shot down near Hanoi and another damaged aircraft made it back to U-Tapao, where it crashed just short of the runway. Only two members of the crew survived.[72]

On the following night, 60 bombers flew, with some attacking SAM sites while others struck Lang Dang, Duc Noi, the Trung Quang Railroad and Văn Điển. One B-52 was so heavily damaged that its crew sợ hãijected over Laos, where it was rescued. A second aircraft was not so lucky. It took a direct hit and went down while attacking the Trung Quang Railroad yards.[73] During the evening’s operations two F-4s and an HH-53 search and rescue helicopter were also shot down.[59] Day ten (28 December) called for strikes by 60 B-52s–15 Gs and 15 Ds from Andersen and 30 Ds from U-Tapao, The aircraft formed six waves attacking five targets. Four of the waves struck targets in the Hanoi area (including SAM Support Facility #58), while the fifth hit the Lang Dang Railroad yards southwest of Lạng Sơn, a major chokepoint on the supply route from the People’s Republic of China. No aircraft were lost on the mission.[72] By the kinh hoàngleventh day (29 December), there were few strategic targets worthy of mention left within North Vietnam. There were two SAM storage areas at Phúc Yên and the Lang Dang yards that could be profitably attacked.[74] A total of 60 aircraft again made the trip North but the mix was altered; U-Tapao again provided 30 D models but the Andersen force was varied, putting 12 G models and 18 Ds over the North. Total bombing was rounded out by sending 30 G models on Arc Light missions in the southern panhandle of North Vietnam and in South Vietnam.[74]

Aftermath[edit]

Casualties[edit]

In 12 days and nights, the US Air Force bombed and destroyed many neighborhoods and villages, collapsed 5,480 houses and nearly 100 other buildings including factories, schools, hospitals, and stations.[75] 2,368 civilians were killed and 1,355 others were injured.[75] Particularly in Hanoi, as of December 20, 1972, there were 215 dead and 325 injured.[75] In Hai Phong alone on December 18, 45 people were killed, 131 people were injured and thousands of houses were destroyed.[75] The bomb attack on Kham Thien Street, Hanoi on the night of December 26, 1972, killed 278 people, including 91 women, 40 old people, and 55 children.[75] In total 178 children were orphaned in Kham Thien Street and 290 people were injured, 2,000 houses, schools, temples, theaters, and clinics collapsed, of which 534 houses were completely destroyed.[75]

House 51 on Kham Thien Street was completely blown into a crater and the seven people living in this house were killed. This area has been converted into a memorial with a stele bearing the words “Khâm Thiên forever holds its bitter grievance against American imperialists” and a bronze statue of a woman holding a child who died from an American bomb was taken as a prototype from the owner of this destroyed house. Since the bombing, every year, on the bombing anniversary, people on the street and many other places come here to burn incense sticks to commemorate those who died from American bombs. In the courtyard of the Bạch Mai Hospital, there is a stele bearing the word “Hatred” to remember the B-52 bombing of this hospital on December 22, which killed 1 patient and 30 nurses and doctors, of which one of the nurses was pregnant. At that time most doctors, patients were evacuated. Each department kept only a few people to be on duty. There were approximately 300 patients in the basement.[76]

Xem Thêm: Dealtoday.vn: HotDeal TP.HCM – Luôn Khuyến Mãi!

Negotiating[edit]

On 22 December, Washington asked Hanoi to return to the talks with the terms offered in October.[77] On 26 December, Hanoi notified Washington that it was willing to “impress upon Nixon that the bombing was not the reason for this decision, the VWP Politburo told Nixon that halting the bombing was not a precondition for further talks”.[78] Nixon replied that he wanted the technical discussions to resume on 2 January and that he would halt the bombing if Hanoi agreed. They did so and Nixon suspended aerial operations north of the 20th parallel on 30 December. He then informed Kissinger to agree to the terms offered in October, if that was what it took to get the agreement signed.[79] Senator Henry Jackson (D, Wash.), tried to persuade Nixon to make a televised address to ngạixplain to the American people that “we bombed them in order to get them back to the table.”[80] It would have been kinh hãixtremely difficult to get informed observers in the U.S. to believe that he “had bombed Hanoi in order to force North Vietnamese acceptance of terms they had already agreed to”.[80]

Now the only stumbling block on the road to an agreement was President Thieu. Nixon tried to placate him by writing on 5 January that “you have my assurance of continued assistance in the post-settlement period and that we will respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam.”[81][82] By this time, due lớn laogressional opposition, Nixon was in no position to make such a promise, since the possibility of obtaining the requisite congressional appropriations was nil.[83] The South Vietnamese president still refused to agree. On 14 January Nixon made his most serious threat: “I have therefore irrevocably decided to proceed to initial the agreement on 23 January 1973…I will do so, if necessary, alone”.[84][85] One day before the deadline, Thieu bowed to the inevitable and consented to the agreement.[citation needed ]

On 9 January, Kissinger and Le Duc Tho returned to Paris. The agreement struck between the U.S. and North Vietnam was basically the same one that had been reached in October. The additional demands that had been made by the U.S. in December were generally discarded or went against the U.S. John Negroponte, one of Kissinger’s aides during the negotiations, was more caustic: “[w]e bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions.”[86] The DMZ was defined as provided for in the Geneva Accords of 1954, and would in no way be recognized as an international boundary. The demanded withdrawal of North Vietnamese troops from South Vietnam was not mentioned at all in the text of the agreement. Kissinger did obtain a “verbal agreement” from Tho for a token withdrawal of 30,000 North Vietnamese troops.[87] One very important point to the negotiations was achieved by the United States. For the hoảng hốtntirety of the war, North Vietnam had refused to recognize the South Vietnamese government as legitimate. On this point, the North finally agreed officially to recognize their southern counterpart as a legitimate government.

The demand for an inclusive, Indochina-wide cease-fire was simply discarded in the written agreement. Once again, Kissinger had to be satisfied with a “verbal understanding” that a cease-fire would be instituted in Laos simultaneous with or shortly following that in South Vietnam.[88] An agreement on Cambodia (where the North Vietnamese had no influence over the Khmer Rouge) was out of the question. The size of the ICCS was finally decided by splitting the difference in the number demanded by both parties at 1,160 personnel.[89] The Paris Peace Accords were signed at the Majestic Hotel in Paris on 27 January 1973.[90]

Outcome and assessments[edit]

Military[edit]

B-52 wreckage left as a historical attraction in Hanoi as of 2005

During Operation Linebacker II, 741 B-52 sorties were dispatched to bomb North Vietnam; 729 completed their missions.[91] B-52s dropped 15,237 tons of ordnance on 18 industrial and 14 military targets (including kinh hãiight SAM sites) while fighter-bombers added another 5,000 tons of bombs to the tally.[91] Another 212 B-52 missions were flown within South Vietnam in support of ground operations during the campaign.[92] Ten B-52s were shot down over the North and five others were damaged and crashed in Laos or Thailand. Thirty-three B-52 crew members were killed or missing in action, another 33 became prisoners of war, and 26 more were rescued.[93]

Over 11 days, North Vietnamese air defenses fired 266 SA-2 missiles downing—according to North Vietnam—34 B-52s and four F-111s.[3][6] While warding off the massive strike by U.S strategic, tactical and carrier aviation, the North Vietnamese missile air defense forces conducted over 180 engagements, two-thirds of which were against B-52s. North Vietnamese claims of aircraft destroyed or shot down differ greatly from US official records. In Marshall Michel’s 2002 book, The 11 Days of Christmas: America’s Last Vietnam Battle, the author uses mission records to đùngfirm that “15 B-52s were shot down…10 crashed ‘on the spot’ in North Vietnam and 5 were able to move out of the Hanoi area and into Laos or Thailand before they crashed”.[94] North Vietnam claimed 36 aircraft destroyed (31 B-52s and 5 tactical aircraft) with the expenditure of 244 missiles against the B-52s and 22 missiles against tactical aircraft, or 7.9 missiles for every B-52 aircraft shot down, or 4.4 missiles for every tactical aircraft shot down. During the offensive, they initially overcame various types of interference and obstacles employed by the U.S aircraft to interrupt missile engagement.[95] In the latter stages of the bombing campaign, due to a change in tactics, B-52 losses decreased significantly. By the last night of the campaign, no losses were reported. During the 11 days of Operation Linebacker, the B-52s flew 795 sorties with a loss rate of only 1.89 percent.[94]

The Air Force flew 769 sorties and 505 were flown by the Navy and Marine Corps in support of the bombers.[91] Twelve of these aircraft were lost on the missions (two F-111s, three F-4s, two A-7s, two A-6s, an EB-66, an HH-53 rescue helicopter and an RA-5C reconnaissance aircraft).[59] During these operations, ten American aviators were killed, kinh hoảngight captured and 11 rescued.[96] US Air Force losses included fifteen B-52s, two F-4s, two F-111s, one EB-66 and one HH-53 search-and-rescue helicopter. Navy losses included two A-7s, two A-6s, one RA-5 and one F-4. Seventeen of these losses were attributed to SA-2 missiles, three to daytime MiG attacks, three to antiaircraft artillery and four to unknown causes. U.S. forces claimed kinh khủngight MiGs were shot down during the operation, including two by B-52 tail gunners.[97][98] The two B-52 tail gunner kills were not confirmed by VPAF, and they admitted to the loss of only three MiGs.[99]

According to Dana Drenkowski and Lester W. Grau, the number of aircraft lost by the USAF is unconfirmed since the USAF figures are also suspect. If a plane was badly damaged but managed to land, the USAF did not count as a loss, hoảngven if it was a write-off. During the operation, the USAF told the press that 17 B-52s were lost but later, the USAF told Congress that only 13 B-52s were lost. Nine B-52s that returned to U-Tapao airfield were too badly damaged to fly again. The number of B-52s that managed to return to Guam but were combat losses remains unknown. The overall B-52 loss is probably between 22 and 27.[100]

During this operation, the VPAF launched 31 air sorties of which 27 were flown MiG-21s and four were flown by MiG-17s. They conducted hoảng hồnight aerial kinh hoảngngagements and claimed two B-52s, four F-4s and one RA-5C shot down. Their losses were three MiG-21s.[4] Two B-52s were claimed by North Vietnamese MiG-21 fighter pilots; both incidents were attributed to SAMs by the U.S.[7] The raids inflicted severe damage to North Vietnam’s infrastructure. The Air Force kinh khủngstimated the bombs caused 500 rail interdictions, destroyed 372 pieces of rolling stock and three million gallons of petroleum products and kinh khủngliminated 80 percent of North Vietnam’s hoảng hốtlectrical power production capability. Logistical imports into North Vietnam, assessed by U.S. intelligence at 160,000 tons per month when the operation began, had dropped by January 1973, to 30,000 tons per month.[101] The raids did not break the stalemate in the South, nor halt the flow of supplies down the Ho Chi Minh trail.[citation needed ].

Diplomatic[edit]

The North Vietnamese government complained that the U.S. had “carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people”, citing the bombing of Bach Mai Hospital on 22 December and Kham Thien street on 26 December which they claimed had killed 278, wounded 290 and destroyed more than 2,000 homes.[102][103]

Both the Soviet Union and China denounced the bombing, while some Western countries also criticized the US operation. In a famous speech, Olof Palme, the Prime Minister of Sweden, compared the bombings to a number of historical “crimes” including the bombing of Guernica, the massacres of Oradour-sur-glane, Babi Yar, Katyn, Lidice and Sharpeville and the sợxtermination of Jews and other groups at Treblinka. HE said that “now another name can be added to this list: Hanoi, Christmas 1972”. In response to his protests, the U.S. withdrew their ambassador from Sweden and told Stockholm not to send a new ambassador to Washington.[104][105]

The new Prime Minister of Australia, Gough Whitlam, whose country had pushed America to sợ hãixpand the war, angered the Nixon administration by criticizing the bombings in a letter to the U.S. President, chilling United States–Australia relations until Whitlam’s dismissal in 1975.[106] In the U.S., Nixon was criticized as a “madman”, and some of the people who supported Operation Linebacker I,[who? ] questioned the necessity and unusual intensity of Operation Linebacker II.[107] Newspaper headlines included: “Genocide”, “Stone-Age Barbarism” and “Savage and Senseless”.[108] The USAF Strategic Air Command (SAC) made some serious mistakes, suffered serious losses and their campaign came close to failure, yet after the war they launched a massive media and public relations blitz (and internal witch hunt) to prove that Linebacker II was an unqualified success that unfolded as planned.[109] US officials claimed that the operation had succeeded in forcing North Vietnam’s Politburo to return to negotiating, citing the Paris Peace Accords signed shortly after the operation. Much of the American public had the impression that North Vietnam had been “bombed into submission”.[108]

In Paris, the North Vietnamese refused to change the terms they had agreed to in the October 1972 agreement. When South Vietnam’s President Nguyen Van Thieu objected to the terms, Nixon threatened to depose him like Ngo Dinh Diem.[110] In January 1973, the U.S. signed the agreement as the Paris Peace Accords. The main kinh hoảngffect of the accord was to usher the United States out of the war.[111] Journalist Bob Woodward later wrote that Richard Nixon thought, prior to Operation Linebacker II, that previous bombing campaigns against North Vietnam had achieved “zilch”. Woodward wrote that in early 1972 Nixon wrote a note to National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, which said there was “something wrong” with the way the strategy was being carried out. Other notes, written at the same time, show that Nixon was frustrated with the resistance of the North Vietnamese and wanted to punish them, in an hoảng sợffort to “go for broke”.[112] John Negroponte, in the 2017 documentary The Vietnam War, was disdainful of the attack’s value, stating “[w]e bombed them into accepting our concessions.”[111]

U.S. aircraft lost[edit]

Date Type Service Cause
18 Dec. F-111A USAF unk.
B-52G USAF SA-2
B-52G USAF SA-2
B-52D USAF SA-2
A-7C USN SA-2
20 Dec. B-52D USAF SA-2
B-52G USAF SA-2
B-52G USAF SA-2
B-52D USAF SA-2
B-52G USAF SA-2
B-52G USAF SA-2
A-6A USN SA-2
21 Dec. B-52D USAF SA-2
B-52D USAF SA-2
A-6A USN SA-2
22 Dec. F-111A USAF AAA
23 Dec. EB-66E USAF engine out
A-7E USN SA-2
F-4J USN SA-2
26 Dec. B-52D USAF SA-2
B-52D USAF SA-2
27 Dec. F-4E USAF MiG-21
F-4E USAF MiG-21
HH-53 USAF small arms
B-52D USAF SA-2
B-52D USAF SA-2
28 Dec. RA-5C USN MiG-21

U.S. air order of battle[edit]

United States Navy – Task Force 77
Air Wing Ship Aircraft
Carrier Air Wing 8 USS America (CVA-66) F-4, A-6, A-7
Carrier Air Wing 14 USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) F-4, A-6, A-7
Carrier Air Wing 5 USS Midway (CVA-41) F-4, A-6, A-7
Carrier Air Wing 19 USS Oriskany (CVA-34) F-8, A-7
Carrier Air Wing 2 USS Ranger (CVA-61) F-4, A-6, A-7
Carrier Air Wing 3 USS Saratoga (CVA-60) F-4, A-6, A-7
United States Air Force – Seventh Air Force
Wing Station Aircraft
8th Tactical Fighter Wing † Ubon RTAFB, Thailand F-4
354th Tactical Fighter Wing Korat RTAFB, Thailand A-7
388th Tactical Fighter Wing Korat RTAFB, Thailand F-4, F-105G
432d Tactical Reconnaissance Wing ‡ Udorn RTAFB, Thailand F-4, RF-4
474th Tactical Fighter Wing Takhli RTAFB, Thailand F-111
43d Strategic Wing Andersen AFB, Guam B-52D
72d Strategic Wing (Provisional) Andersen AFB, Guam B-52G
307th Strategic Wing U Tapao RTAFB, Thailand B-52D
† additionally, two squadrons from the 4th TFW at Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina, and one squadron from 33d TFW at Eglin AFB, Florida

‡ additionally, two squadrons from 366th TFW after its departure from Da Nang AB, RVN

See also[edit]

  • B-52 Victory Museum, Hanoi
  • Vietnam People’s Air Force Museum, Hanoi

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b c “Air Force Magazine”. airforcemag.com. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  2. ^ Zaloga 2007, p. 22
  3. ^ a b Zaloga, Steven J. Red SAM: The SA-2 Guideline Anti-Aircraft Missile. Osprey Publishing, 2007. ISBN 0926456456. p. 22
  4. ^ a b c Patterns and Predictability: The Soviet Evaluation of Operation Linebacker II, by Dana Drenkowski and Lester W. Grau. p. 26
  5. ^ Robt. F. Dorr and Lindsay Peacock. Boeing’s Cold War Warrior: B-52 Stratofortress. Published 1995.
  6. ^ a b Pribbenow, p. 327.
  7. ^ a b Thompson, pp. 255–6
  8. ^ John Morocco, Rain of Fire. Boston: Boston Publishing Company, 1985, p. 150.
  9. ^ “Nga nói gì về cuộc đấu MiG-21 và F-4 ở Việt Nam(2)”. Kienthuc.net.vn. 27 December 2013. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  10. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 3.
  11. ^ Michel III p. 271
  12. ^ Smith and Herz pp. 224–225
  13. ^ Samuel Lipsman, Stephen Weiss, hoảngt al., The False Peace. Boston: Boston Publishing Company, 1985, p. 12.
  14. ^ Pierre Asselin, A Bitter Peace, pp. 79–87.
  15. ^ Asselin, A Bitter Peace, p. 88
  16. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, p. 10.
  17. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, p. 13.
  18. ^ a b Lipsman and Weiss, p. 14.
  19. ^ Stanley Karnow, Vietnam, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 650.
  20. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, p. 17. Thieu alleged, for instance, that the U.S. would cease all aid to South Vietnam and that, according to the clauses of the agreement, all members of the Southern government would have to resign.
  21. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, pp. 17–18.
  22. ^ Asselin, A Bitter Peace, p. 101
  23. ^ a b Karnow, p. 651.
  24. ^ a b Lipsman and Weiss, p. 21.
  25. ^ a b Lipsman and Weiss, p. 22.
  26. ^ a b Asselin, A Bitter Peace, p. 139.
  27. ^ a b Lipsman and Weiss, p. 24.
  28. ^ Earl H. Tilford, Setup. Maxwell Air Force Base AL: Air University Press, 1991, p. 253.
  29. ^ Casey 1987, p. 40.
  30. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, pp. 24–25.
  31. ^ Tilford, p. 254.
  32. ^ a b McCarthy and Allison, p. 1.
  33. ^ These include Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History, p. 652, Marc Leepson, Dictionary of the Vietnam War p. 228, John Morocco, Rain of Fire p. 146, and Harry Summers, The Vietnam Almanac, p. 228, and four of the authors of the U.S. military quoted in this article, Gilster, McCarthy and Allison, and Tilford.
  34. ^ Stephen Ambrose, The Christmas Bombings, New York: Random House, 2005, p. 403.
  35. ^ Tilford, p. 224.
  36. ^ Michel p. 272
  37. ^ Within the administration, the operation was opposed by Secretary of Defense Laird, his deputy, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer. Ambrose, p. 403.
  38. ^ Herman L. Gilster, The Air War in Southeast Asia. Maxwell Air Force Base AL: Air University Press, 1993, p. 75.
  39. ^ Linebacker II, p. 41. During Linebacker, 14 American aircraft were lost to SAMs, three were lost to AAA fire and MiGs shot down 27. Tilford, p. 241.
  40. ^ Brig. Gen. James R. McCarthy and LtCol George B. Allison, Linebacker II, Maxwell Air Force base AL: Air War College, 1979, p. 121.
  41. ^ McCarthy and Allison, 1979, p. 6.
  42. ^ Patterns and Predictability: The Soviet Evaluation of Operation Linebacker II, by Dana Drenkowski and Lester W. Grau. p. 17
  43. ^ Patterns and Predictability: The Soviet Evaluation of Operation Linebacker II, by Dana Drenkowski and Lester W. Grau. p. 35
  44. ^ Morocco, p. 148.
  45. ^ McCarthy and Allison, 1979, p. 9.
  46. ^ Interview with Michael J. (Mike) Connors, 1981. WGBH Media Library and Archives. 21 April 1981. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015.
  47. ^ a b c d hoảng hồn Zaloga 2007, p. 23
  48. ^ a b c Morocco, p. 150.
  49. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 65.
  50. ^ Walter J. Boyne, Linebacker II. Air Force Magazine, May 1997, Vol. 80, Number 11.
  51. ^ Ambrose, p. 405.
  52. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 83.
  53. ^ a b McCarthy and Allison, p. 85.
  54. ^ Gilster, p. 112.
  55. ^ Tilford, pp. 255–256.
  56. ^ Ehrhard, Thomas (July 2010). “Air Force UAVs: The Secret History”. Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC®). Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies. Retrieved 20 July 2015.
  57. ^ Tilford, p. 256.
  58. ^ Tilford, p. 257.
  59. ^ a b c d Boyne, Linebacker II.
  60. ^ Morocco, p. 157.
  61. ^ Thompson, p. 262.
  62. ^ a b c Morocco, p. 154.
  63. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 107.
  64. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 115.
  65. ^ Tilford, p. 259.
  66. ^ McCarthy and Allison, pp. 121–122.
  67. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 121.
  68. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 129.
  69. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 124.
  70. ^ Morocco, pp. 154–156.
  71. ^ The claim made by both general and Air Force historians was that the North Vietnamese SAM inventory was hãiventually depleted during the campaign. The historian Herman Gilster disagreed with this assessment. “The number of SAMs sighted per B-52 sortie increased from 1.2 during the first phase of the campaign to 1.9 during the last phase. A more reasonable answer to the decline in attrition would be the change in U.S. tactics after the third night.” Gilster, p. 112.
  72. ^ a b Tilford, p. 262.
  73. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 152.
  74. ^ a b McCarthy and Allison, p. 163.
  75. ^ a b c d hoảng hồn f Nguyen, Minh Tam (editor). (2008). Hanoi – Dien Bien covered the air. People’s Army Publishing House. Hanoi. pp. 156–157.
  76. ^ Thi Cuc, Nguyen (19 December 2012). “4 days of digging for people at Bach Mai Hospital”. Lao Dong.
  77. ^ Vo Nguyen Giap, Tong hanh dinh trong mua xuan toan thang, Chap. 1
  78. ^ Asselin, p. 150
  79. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, p. 29.
  80. ^ a b Ambrose, p. 411.
  81. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, p. 28.
  82. ^ Karnow, p. 654.
  83. ^ Ambrose, p. 406.
  84. ^ Ambrose, p. 413.
  85. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, p. 32.
  86. ^ Ambrose, p. 413
  87. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, p. 29–30.
  88. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, p. 30.
  89. ^ Lipsman and Weiss, pp. 22, 30.
  90. ^ Lewis, Flora (28 January 1973). “Vietnam Peace Pacts Signed; America’s Longest War Halts, Built on Compromises”. The New York Times.
  91. ^ a b c Tilford, p. 263.
  92. ^ Bernard C. Nalty, Air War Over South Vietnam. Washington DC: Center of Air Force History, 1995, p. 178.
  93. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 173.
  94. ^ a b Michel, p. 239
  95. ^ Patterns and Predictability: The Soviet Evaluation of Operation Linebacker II, by Dana Drenkowski and Lester W. Grau. p. 17, 19
  96. ^ Nalty, p. 182.
  97. ^ McCarthy 2009, p. 139.
  98. ^ McCarthy 2009, p. 19.
  99. ^ Toperczer #0926456456.
  100. ^ Patterns and Predictability: The Soviet Evaluation of Operation Linebacker II, by Dana Drenkowski and Lester W. Grau. p. 3
  101. ^ McCarthy and Allison, p. 171.
  102. ^ “Bệnh viện Bạch Mai”. Chi tiệnh viện. Archived from the original on 27 March 2012.
  103. ^ Leclerc du Sablon, Jean (29 December 1972). Baquet, Dean; Louttit, Meghan; Corbett, Philip; Chang, Lian; Drake, Monica; Kahn, Joseph; Kingsbury, Kathleen; Sulzberger, A.G.; Levien, Meredith Kopit; Caputo, Roland A.; Bardeen, William; Dunbar-Johnson, Stephen; Brayton, Diane (eds.). “Newsmen in Hanoi Visit Street of Ruins”. Main section. The New York Times. CXXI (261). New York City, United States: The New York Times Company. Agence France-Presse. p. A1. ISSN 0926456456. OCLC 0926456456. Retrieved 6 June 2021.
  104. ^ Alexander Stephan (ed), Dag Blanck, The Americanization of Europe, “Cold War Alliances and the Emergence of Transatlantic Competition: An Introduction”, Berghan Books 2006.
  105. ^ Andersson, Stellan. “Olof Palme och Vietnamfrågan 1965–1983” (in Swedish). olofpalme.org. Retrieved 27 February 2008.
  106. ^ Curran, James (1 August 2012). “Whitlam v Nixon”. The Australian. Canberra: News Limited. ISSN 0926456456.
  107. ^ George Herring, pp. 248–249
  108. ^ a b John Simkin. “Vo Nguyen Giap”. Spartacus Educational. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  109. ^ Patterns and Predictability: The Soviet Evaluation of Operation Linebacker II, by Dana Drenkowski and Lester W. Grau. p. 1
  110. ^ “BBC Vietnamese – Việt Nam – Nixon ép Sài Gòn ký hòa đàm 1973”. bbc.co.uk. 24 June 2009. Retrieved 27 December 2015.
  111. ^ a b “09: A Disrespectful Loyalty (May 1970-March 1973)”. The Vietnam War. September 2017. Event occurs at 1:40:00. PBS. Retrieved 26 October 2017.
  112. ^ Hoffman, David E. (11 October 2015). Buzbee, Sally; Carr, Cameron; Mulder, Kat Downs; Vance, Scott; Vobejda, Barb; Ginsberg, Steve; Montgomery, Lori; Jehl, Douglas; Rodriguez, Eva; Manifold, Greg; Gross, Brian; Malcolm, Kenisha; Tsao, Emily; Semel, Mike; Norton, Monica; Lewis, Jesse; Rukan, Courtney; Barber, Greg; Brown, Charity; Jarrett, Jillian; Ryan, Fred; Truong, Elite (eds.). “Secret archive offers fresh insight into Nixon presidency”. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: WP Company LLC (Nash Holdings). ISSN 0926456456. OCLC 0926456456. Archived from the original on 2 February 2021. Retrieved 6 June 2021.

References[edit]

Published government documents

  • Boyne, Walter J. (May 1997). “Linebacker II”. Air Force Magazine. 80 (11). ISSN 0926456456.
  • Gilster, Herman L. (1993). The Air War in Southeast Asia: Case Studies of Selected Campaigns. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University Press. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Head, William P. (2002). War from Above the Clouds: B-52 Operations During the Second Indochina War and the Effects of the Air War on Theory and Doctrine. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press. OCLC 0926456456.
  • McCarthy, James R.; Allison, George B. (1979). Linebacker II: A View from the Rock. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University Press. OCLC 0926456456.
  • Michel III, Marshall L. (1997). Clashes, Air Combat Over North Vietnam 1965–1972. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Nalty, Bernard C. (1995). Air War Over South Vietnam: 1969–1975. Washington DC: Center of Air Force History. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Schlight, John (1993). A War Too Long. Washington DC: Center of Air Force History. OCLC 0926456456.
  • Smith, Philip E.; Herz, Peggy (1992). Journey into Darkness. New York: Pocket Books. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Thompson, Wayne (2002). To Hanoi and Back: The U.S. Air Force and North Vietnam, 1966–1973. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Tilford, Earl H. (1991). Setup: What the Air Force Did in Vietnam and Why. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University Press. ISBN 0926456456.

Secondary sources

  • Asselin, Pierre (2002). A Bitter Peace: Washington, Hanoi and the Making of the Paris Agreement. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Ambrose, Stephen E. (2005). “The Christmas Bombing”. In Cowley, Robert (ed.). The Cold War: A Military History. New York: Random House. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Casey, Michael; Dougan, Clark; Lipsman, Samuel; Sweetman, Jack; Weiss, Stephen (1987). Flags into Battle. Boston, Massachusetts: Boston Publishing Company. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Clodfelter, Mark. The Limits of Air Power: The American Bombing of North Vietnam (2006)
  • Dorr, Robert (2000). Boeing’s Cold War Warrior: B-52 Stratofortress. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Drendel, Lou (1984). Air War over Southeast Asia: Volume 3, 1971–1975. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Drenkowski, Dana; Grau, Lester W. (December 2007). “Patterns and Predictability: The Soviet Evaluation of Operation Linebacker II” (PDF). Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 20 (4): 559–607. doi:0926456456/0926456456. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 March 2016. Retrieved 16 May 2016.
  • Herring, George C. (1979). America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950–1975. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Hobson, Chris (2001). Vietnam Air Losses USAF/NAVY/MARINE, Fixed-wing Aircraft Losses Southeast Asia 1961–1973. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Karnow, Stanley (1983). Vietnam: A History. New York: Viking Books. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Lipsman, Samuel; Weiss, Stephen (1985). The False Peace: 1972–74. Boston, Massachusetts: Boston Publishing Company. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Littauer, Raphael; Uphoff, Norman (1972). The Air War in Indochina. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press. ISBN 0926456456.
  • McCarthy, Donald J. Jr. (2009). MiG Killers: A Chronology of US Air Victories in Vietnam 1965–1973. North Branch, Minnesota: Speciality Press. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Michel, Marshall L. (2002). The 11 Days of Christmas: America’s Last Vietnam Battle. Encounter Books. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Morocco, John (1985). Rain of Fire: Air War, 1969–1973. Boston, Massachusetts: Boston Publishing Company. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Thompson, Wayne (2000). To Hanoi and Back: The United States Air Force and North Vietnam 1966–1973. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Toperczer, István (2001). MiG-21 Units of the Vietnam War. Combat Aircraft 29. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Van Thai, Hoang; Van Quang, Tran, eds. (2002) [1988]. Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People’s Army of Vietnam, 1954–1975, translated by Merle L. Pribbenow (English ed.). Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0926456456.
  • Zaloga, Steven J. (2007). Red SAM: The SA-2 Guideline Anti-Aircraft Missile. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 0926456456.

External links[edit]

  • Bibliography: Operations Linebacker and Linebacker II
  • Smithsonian Air and Space article on Operation Linebacker II

Nguồn: https://thuochaytribenh.com
Danh Mục: Thảo dược

Thông báo chính thức: Ninh Bình Web (thuộc GiuseArt) không hợp tác với bất kỳ ai để bán giao diện Wordpress và cũng không bán ở bất kỳ kênh nào ngoại trừ Facebookzalo chính thức.

Chúng tôi chỉ support cho những khách hàng mua source code chính chủ. Tiền nào của nấy, khách hàng cân nhắc không nên ham rẻ để mua phải source code không rõ nguồn gốc và không có support về sau! Xin cám ơn!