<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Names On The Wall: A Closer Look At Those Who Died In Vietnam</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.historynet.com/names-on-the-wall-a-closer-look-at-those-who-died-in-vietnam.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.historynet.com/names-on-the-wall-a-closer-look-at-those-who-died-in-vietnam.htm</link>
	<description>From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: malikathompson</title>
		<link>http://www.historynet.com/names-on-the-wall-a-closer-look-at-those-who-died-in-vietnam.htm#comment-14948</link>
		<dc:creator>malikathompson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-14948</guid>
		<description>its good for my report on vietnamese.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>its good for my report on vietnamese.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted J. Macinski</title>
		<link>http://www.historynet.com/names-on-the-wall-a-closer-look-at-those-who-died-in-vietnam.htm#comment-1226</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted J. Macinski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:07:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-1226</guid>
		<description>The statistics given are schewed when USAF USCG,and USN services, heavily represented by career specialists and fixed wing pilots, are included.  Naturally exeptions must be made for special operations within the combat zone by (comparatively) very small units from these services.  Despite numbers of pilots in these services that were lost, the fact is that the vast majority of casulties in this war were in the Marines and Army enlisted ranks, lower ranked officer and warrant officer (flight), and in the traditional combat MOS categories.  Males enlisted for many reasons.  My reason and that of many comrades in arms was the desire to avoid being drafted into the Marines.  The 2 year enlistment RA gave an outwardly better chance of surviving if being drafted appeared inevitable...as it was for me.  The draft made it virtually impossible for a male to become employed at most companies if he had a 1-a status, as they did not want to spend money on training draft bait or be tied with a drafted worker and the issues of post service reemployment.  Enlistment for 2 years was the only option short of a quick marriage and immediate multiple pregnancies.  The option of service in the Coast Guard, navy or air force was subject to highly competitive entry requirements and, in many cases, connections with political figures.  A better assessment would be to evaluate the losses by age and MOS.  My information places the average age of Army and Marine KIA and DOW at 19 years and 2 months.  Similar studies on WWII place the same measure at 28, Korea at 24, and for the Civil War in the thirties.  The main reason cited is the virtual exemption from Vietnam Service for NG and ER, especially in the combat arms units.  Casulty numbers are also schewed by bean counters in government by including a very wide theater description that extended well outside the Vietnam combat operational area to units that did not serve in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos. Finally, even inside the combat arms, there was a grading system which placed combat MOS in field units by in country assignments.  Units like the 1st Air Cavalry, 82nd Airborne, 173rd Airborne, and 1st Division got high "draft" picks.  Units like the Americal, 4th Division, and 101st (Now called "Airmobile") were favored with lower quality (and much more likely to be drafted) remnants.  If my memory serves, the Americal (23rd Division) was 80% enlisted Draftee in 2 of it's brigades in 1970.  The same applied to assignment of military academy junior officers.  "Elite" units such as the 1st Cavalry and 82nd Abn got combat arms officers from the academy and the Americal got ROTC and, even worse, OCS officers with virtually no field skills, or West Pointers with non combat arms experience transferred from a missle silo in Montana.  Ted Macinski</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The statistics given are schewed when USAF USCG,and USN services, heavily represented by career specialists and fixed wing pilots, are included.  Naturally exeptions must be made for special operations within the combat zone by (comparatively) very small units from these services.  Despite numbers of pilots in these services that were lost, the fact is that the vast majority of casulties in this war were in the Marines and Army enlisted ranks, lower ranked officer and warrant officer (flight), and in the traditional combat MOS categories.  Males enlisted for many reasons.  My reason and that of many comrades in arms was the desire to avoid being drafted into the Marines.  The 2 year enlistment RA gave an outwardly better chance of surviving if being drafted appeared inevitable&#8230;as it was for me.  The draft made it virtually impossible for a male to become employed at most companies if he had a 1-a status, as they did not want to spend money on training draft bait or be tied with a drafted worker and the issues of post service reemployment.  Enlistment for 2 years was the only option short of a quick marriage and immediate multiple pregnancies.  The option of service in the Coast Guard, navy or air force was subject to highly competitive entry requirements and, in many cases, connections with political figures.  A better assessment would be to evaluate the losses by age and MOS.  My information places the average age of Army and Marine KIA and DOW at 19 years and 2 months.  Similar studies on WWII place the same measure at 28, Korea at 24, and for the Civil War in the thirties.  The main reason cited is the virtual exemption from Vietnam Service for NG and ER, especially in the combat arms units.  Casulty numbers are also schewed by bean counters in government by including a very wide theater description that extended well outside the Vietnam combat operational area to units that did not serve in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos. Finally, even inside the combat arms, there was a grading system which placed combat MOS in field units by in country assignments.  Units like the 1st Air Cavalry, 82nd Airborne, 173rd Airborne, and 1st Division got high &#8220;draft&#8221; picks.  Units like the Americal, 4th Division, and 101st (Now called &#8220;Airmobile&#8221;) were favored with lower quality (and much more likely to be drafted) remnants.  If my memory serves, the Americal (23rd Division) was 80% enlisted Draftee in 2 of it&#8217;s brigades in 1970.  The same applied to assignment of military academy junior officers.  &#8220;Elite&#8221; units such as the 1st Cavalry and 82nd Abn got combat arms officers from the academy and the Americal got ROTC and, even worse, OCS officers with virtually no field skills, or West Pointers with non combat arms experience transferred from a missle silo in Montana.  Ted Macinski</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
