Too many inaccuracies at the start

I had a long Australian Army career and was looking forward to this audiobook. I only got a few hours in when I realised the number of inaccuracies in it so far were appalling and it out me off the rest. Very uncommon for a Peter Firzsimmons book. Almost like it was rushed for pre Xmas sales. If you’ve been a serving Army member from around this era, I don’t recommend it, it’ll drive you nuts.

1 person found this helpful

A reasonable look at an important battle.

The book has some interesting insights into the battle and is well researched. The main players are well described and the author does address controversial aspects of both battle and of the people involved. It is a sound work for the most part. I did find a number of minor errors. I also had some problems with conclusions and have issues with some stylistic choices. Some are more jarring than others.

First to the errors as I see them, though this list is not exhaustive. Early on the kick and controllability of the Owen sub machine gun is described. The text makes it seem like this was a difficult weapon to control with a large kick. When most experts agree that it is a good weapon to handle and shoot. (despite it’s ungainly appearance) It is after all a pistol calibre (9mm) weapon.

Mention is also made of the Armalite (M-16) having 30 rounds magazines, when at this point is the war the standard magazine was a 20 rounds in both US and Australian service. 30 round magazines did not appear until much later in the war.

American Airforce operated Chinook helicopters are mentioned. When these would have been US Army helicopters. The Army operated the majority of rotary wing aircraft in Vietnam for US forces unlike the Australian forces where the RAAF operated most helicopters in Vietnam. Also the Chinooks are mentioned as being heavily armed, when standard cargo carrying Chinooks had no more armament (2 M-60 machine guns) than the standard UH-1 Iroquois throughout the Vietnam war.

M-113 APCs are derisively referred to as battle taxis. When that was what they where meant to be doctrinally.

I found the section on the F-4 Phantom II a little jarring as the Aircraft was referred to as the the Phantom F-4 II. I know this a minor point of nomenclature but it should be the former not the latter or better yet give us the model of phantom. E.g F-4C
When describing the air strikes carried out by the Phantoms at Long Tan the book seems to imply that the 2nd pilot who is in the back seat was prepared to drop the napalm. When it was the pilot in the front seat who did the dropping, as the GIB (guy in back) had very restricted forward view and therefore could not judge the right time to release.

Also the use of the word “pod” in the latter parts of the book when referring to groups of soldiers. It doesn’t really fit in a military history. Just what is a “pod”? It is not defined. Why not standard phrases like “sections” or “squads”

The little Patty and Col Joy sections though an interesting side note to the battle and it’s context have too much time dedicated to that part at the expense of more pertinent issues. Certainly they should be covered but not in the detail that is given.

As to the some of the narrative and analysis.

I think there is an unfair assessment of the ARVN in the book. Certainly the soldiers of both the US and Australia felt like they were not very good. But does that stand up to scrutiny for a historical work and no attempt is made within to justify this assertion. Certainly ARVN units fought (the battle casualties alone support this.) yet the overwhelming impression from the text is they contributed little to the war effort. Which is manifestly untrue. The ARVN units in the main where not the equal of US or Australian units, far from it but they certainly fought.

The author seems to have drawn parallels between a possible assault on Nui Dat and the Viet Minh victory at Dien Bien Phu. Which in my opinion is to draw a very long bow. Vastly different in so many aspect, leagues apart.

The audio book could also have benefited done from a pdf with the maps to enhance understanding. (The is a criticism I have about a lot of military works and the author is not alone in this regard)

My biggest issue is the style of the narrative. I understand that this is the Peter Fitzsimmons style but I did struggle to like it. That is not say it is not valid but to me It seems to seek to dramatise things with the injection of phrases (e.g “oh Christ, here they come again”) that along with the interweaving of phrases and very Australia references (such as to the Redgum song “I was only 19”) comes across as being a little glib and look at how clever I am. That is probably not the intention, maybe he viewed them as Easter eggs in the text. As I have not read any of his other works (I have Tobruk and Kokoda on the shelf) I am not sure if this a standard thing or not.

Despite the above it is great that a popular author has looked at this feat of arms by ANZAC forces and no doubt bought it to a wide audience. The epilogue was very well done. I would recommend this book to the person new to the battle, though probably overly for those more familiar with it. Maybe Kapyong or Maryang San is next.

1 person found this helpful

Great story we’ll told.

I didn’t know much about this battle beyond the words “Long Tan”. Like so many other battles it’s a tragic story of the incompetence of a few and the incredible bravery of many.

Australian History

A must read for every Australian. Brilliant writing so good to hear about it from a soldiers point.

Great to listen to a part of our military history.

This is a very well researched book and goes into great detail to recount the biggest battle of the Australian Army in the Vietnam War.

Wow; I never knew…

As always; extremely well researched and written. Like most people I had heard of Long Tan, however until now, I did not realise the battles significance or what those involved had achieved. Everyone should know this story.

Great insight

I loved it! Great storytelling about the human and strategic side of this battle. My only warning is once you start, you'll unable to stop listening....it is that good. So best to do it over a holiday. :)

Great

Very detailed account of a battle where the Australians punched well above their weight and earnt the respect of the Vietnamese soldiers and were feared by them also.

Long Tan

A brilliant account of the actions undertaken by soldiers who were mostly abandoned by their superiors, and ignored by politicians of the day and all but a few of subsequent governments. Nevertheless, it is a story of young men to be supremely proud of and should never be forgotten.
Lest We Forget

Devil in The Detail

Peter Fitzimonds left no stone unturned in his meticulous exploration of the most significant battle undertaken by Australians in the Vietnam War. Each character was meticulously drawn and his powerful storytelling drew me in completely. Apart from the mispronounciation of Scheyville the narration was excellent and well paced. As a nasho myself, it all rang true and I was moved to tears at times.