Tet in Bien Hoa and Long Binh
Thank you for Lt. Col. John Gross’ story of the battles around III Corps and Long Binh (February 2006). I was there too, and we were very grateful for the mechanized infantry and people like Gross (a lieutenant in 1968), who met the beast face on.

There was also one item I found incredibly fascinating: the appearance of a Los Angeles uniformed deputy sheriff. In all the confusion and chaos, I saw this guy too — but later just chalked it up to combat delusion. I would really appreciate it if someone who knows could clue me in as to why the Los Angeles sheriff was in III Corps helping our MPs during Tet 1968. Talk about distant assignments!

Theodore F. Meyer
Santa Cruz, Calif.

An Hoa Combat Base, Revisited
Ronald J. Brown’s comments in the August “Letters” column about my An Hoa article (“Fighting Forces,” February 2006) made me realize that I had in fact misplaced the main part of the Arizona Territory by saying it was southwest. It was north of An Hoa, but the Arizona Valley covers a large area from the Song Vu Gia in the north down to the hamlets of An Bang, which are southwest of An Hoa.

In my defense, Route 4 was in my original copy for the article, and somewhere in the final edit “National Route” was added. As for Base 112, I just did not have space to mention it. Perhaps Ronald Brown or I could write an article about this area of enemy activity. The main thing is, the Marines who served at An Hoa are not forgotten, and I know Brown and I have tried to ensure that.

Alan Waugh
Suffolk, England

Editor’s note: Our Authors’ Guidelines are available at the addresses below.

M-24 Chaffee Light Tank
As usual, I thoroughly enjoyed your June issue. Christopher Miskimon’s “Arsenal” column on the M-24 Chaffee light tank requires comment.

I don’t doubt that the M-24 was much better than its predecessors in WWII, but it was far from a good light tank. It used the same short-barreled, low-velocity 75mm gun used by the North American B-25H — good for sinking Japanese trawlers, but not for demolishing medium tanks. When I joined the 14th Armored Cavalry in Germany in 1950 as a second lieutenant platoon leader, I inherited two M-24s — sorry excuses for tanks.

The 75s didn’t have a prayer of pen-etrating a Soviet tank. We carried smoke rather than armor-piercing rounds, hoping to blind the enemy long enough to get out of the way.

The powertrain was another problem, with poorly synchronized separate engines and transmissions for the two sides. And the frontal armor was no match for Soviet tanks or AT guns. My own tank had been penetrated during WWII, and the welded patch in its front slope didn’t instill confidence.

We were relieved when the new M-41 tanks with high-velocity 76mm guns and better powertrains arrived.

As mentioned in my article back in your October 2003 issue (“Armor Adviser to the ARVN”), when I arrived in Vietnam as a major in 1965, I encountered a “pillbox” in I Corps that had a familiar-looking patch in its front slope plate. On inspection of its gun book, it turned out to be my own M-24 tank from 15 years earlier!

Colonel Raymond R. Battreall (ret.)
Tucson, Ariz.

Christopher Miskimon states that the M-24 tanks were replaced in the mid-’60s by the M-41 Pershing. The Pershing was the M-26 medium tank and it came out in 1944, entering combat in Germany in 1945. It never served in Vietnam.

The M-41 was known as the “Walker Bulldog.” It was a light tank that entered production in 1951. Those in Vietnamese service were M-41A3s, the final version of the tank, and they began arriving in Vietnam in January 1965. By the end of that year, five squadrons (equivalent to a U.S. company) had been reequipped. Vietnam received a total of 400 M-41A3s.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to