Humanities desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 23

How does Russia have 15 closed cities that nobody knows the location of

"There are currently 44 publicly acknowledged closed cities in Russia with a total population of about 1.5 million people. 75% are administered by the Russian Ministry of Defense, with the rest being administered by Rosatom.[4] Another 15 or so closed cities are believed to exist, but their names and locations have not been publicly disclosed by the Russian government.[5]"

How can they hide 15 cities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.187.23 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Closed city. Matt Deres (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're not hidden in the sense that they've been covered in a tarp, they're just not publicly disclosed. Semi-educated guess is that most of them are support housing for secret research facilities (nuclear, military, biohazard, etc.). They exist, but would not be included on maps and their existence would be a state secret. Matt Deres (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more likely to me that they're hidden in plain sight; out-of-the-way towns that are on the map, but you don't find out that there's anything secret about them until you try to go there. Omitting towns from maps would just draw attention to them; after all, any 12 year-old can see Google Earth on their i-phone. Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A fair chunk of Google Earth is censored, including (but not limited to) places mentioned in that article's "National security" section and in Satellite map images with missing or unclear data. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a big difference between the general Western public and governments with access to satellite recon. No doubt the United States government knows that Location X is an active city of around 75,000, where the news media doesn't. Ravenswing 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't North Vietnamese forces overwhelm American patrols in the jungle?

Watching this news report, it looks like a platoon sized isolated American patrols in the jungle were highly vulnerable. They were dropped in by helicopter and far away from friendly ground forces who could reach them. The jungle would make it hard to call in for air support when attacked because of the canopy. The North Vietnamese forces had countless soldiers on the ground who could travel to the same point without the assistance of helicopters. So what prevented the North Vietnamese from routinely positioning hundreds of soldiers to ambush small US patrols? Muzzleflash (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about logistics. A Long-range reconnaissance patrol needs transportation to its start point and it needs supply. This is a whole lot easier using helicopters than by walking. An infinite number of opposition troops require an infinite amount of food, so the "countless" NV troops could not in fact be everywhere, and would need to concentrate their forces after determining where the LRRP was actually located. The NV force being supplied without motorized transport cannot operate more than about 200 miles from its base of supply because the transport men or animals will consume all of the supplies. The Americans could disrupt any NV attempt at motorized transport within South Vietnam. -Arch dude (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. So was the reporter incorrect at the beginning in claiming that the patrol could run into an entire NVA regiment? Muzzleflash (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that armies always have a halo of scouts around them so large groups can't sneak up on them. Perhaps the patrol was too small for scouts and didn't notice a regiment patrol that had encountered them by accident and when they told the regiment its commander decided to ambush them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a myth in the making. The Viet Cong didn't need hundreds to intercept a US platoon. The platoons where mostly conscripts that did not want to be sent to 'Nam. They trumped through the jungle with their ghetto-blasters blearing etc. So the VC knew exactly where they were. The American rifles were more accurate than a AK-47 but due to being design for a perfect battle field, they kept jamming up. In the jungle one doesn't need a rifle that is accurate at 900 yards -too many trees in the way. One needs a 'reliable' short range rifle – which the VC had. The Australians (don't forget) also fought in 'Nam but fought guerrilla warfare and matched and bettered the VC guerrilla warfare, thus did suffer the horrendous US casualty rate. Had the US adopted this approach, Nixon would not had to pull out and let Pol Pot take over, leading to the deaths of millions. It must count as the most shameful retreat due to military incompetence and over reliance on technology in the latter half of the 20th Century. Oh, and as to answer the OP's question. The VC did end up overwhelming the US forces – in their own way. --Aspro (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pull out and let Pol Pot take over"? Pol Pot took over alright — in Cambodia, where we were not (officially) at war. Who eventually ended his murderous reign? The, um, Vietnamese communists. I'm about as anti-communist as you get, but credit where it's due. --Trovatore (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How could tens of men all be that stupid? Did not one guy want to live enough to say patrol stealthily or I'll frag you? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was not tens of men. It was tens of thousands of men lost their lives in Nam. They were mostly forced 'conscripts' that just wanted to get their tour over with and go back home. When they got detailed to go out on patrol, they went out on patrol. To suggest to one's commanding officer that stealth was probably the best option was probable viewed as not having the right stuff i.e., un-American. Anyhow, where in their training were instructed about stealth? They were told they had better rifles, Huey helicopters and B 52's to rain down napalm. When Might is Right why be un- american and stealthily? Unless one wants to lose a war. --Aspro (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tens of men in the platoon who didn't say "leave the boombox when we patrol, yo". I guess anyone cautious and/or smart and/or not susceptible to being called un-American peer pressure would've found a way to avoid combat and not been in this platoon anyway. And smart men anti-communist enough to want to fight would've volunteered for the benefits and not been in a conscript platoon right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aspro Any source for the claim that Austrian troops performed better in Vietnam? Muzzleflash (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very fair question but as this war ended over 40 years ago I can not instantly find references to the accounts of Vietnamese translators and the like, that fled to Australia after the fall of Saigon. Yet, back then, they where critical of US platoons feeling insecure if thy couldn't keep in constant radio contact with HQ. The VC, with there Russian made DFX equipment, easily could and did, track the US ground troops via their radio transmissions. Also, the US ground troops left behind a trail of chewing gum, cigarette butts .and other other rubbish which made it so simple for the VC to close in. As the VC got closer they could even smell the after-shave lotion. The Australian ground troops did not commit any of these errors. Which was why (it has been suggested by themselves) that so many Vietnamese refugees chose Australia rather than America as their new home land. As they weren't at all impressed, by the efforts and conduct of the US in this war. --Aspro (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The Australian battalion has been described ...as the safest combat force in Vietnam... It is widely felt that the Australians have shown themselves able to give chase to the guerrillas without exposing themselves to the lethal ambushes that have claimed so many American dead..." Gerald Stone, 1966. See Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War. Alansplodge (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To address the question more directly, read our NLF and PAVN battle tactics article, also Search and destroy. Alansplodge (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]