Talk:M59 armored personnel carrier

Latest comment: 12 years ago by SASH155 in topic No evidence of ARVN use of M-59 series APCs

Used in the Gulf War? edit

Huh?172.191.36.77 (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

No evidence of ARVN use of M-59 series APCs edit

I have seen a few reports in the past that the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) had used M-59 series APCs, but this is not supported by the available photographic record, and no reputable source about armored vehicles used during the Vietnam War by the ARVN has ever mentioned the M-59 as having been used during the war by either the ARVN or the US. This article says they had over 800 of the vehicles, which is not credible- they may have had at any one time well over 800 M-113 series vehicles, of which Vietnam received hundreds from the US MAP program, but not the older M-59. I have a copy of the old Gervasi "Arsenal of Democracy" book, and it is replete with errors; however, some of the information is spot on. Other reports are incorrect, primarily as to what exactly the U.S. supplied to certain countries. An example would be the report that Pakistan took delivery of 200 M-60 series MBTs (they were M-48s, not M-60s), or that Bolivia and Chile had respectively 120 and 270 M-48 series medium tanks, vehicles they never got. On the same page Bolivia was reported to have received 40 M-47 medium tanks, and Brazil was reported to have had as many as 680 of these vehicles! Neither of these reports are borne out by the facts, and Brazil never seems to have received any M-47s, despite some reports that she had taken delivery of some during the mid-1970s (however, Brazil did get a fairly large quantity of M-41 light tanks; perhaps these were the cause of the confusion). Israel was reported to have 200 of the same vehicle, but Israel has never used the M-47 either. There are many other examples like these that I could cite. The errors may have been due to contradictory government records of arms deliveries, or public reports of planned deliveries of equipment which were subsequently denied or cancelled, or there was confusion as to exactly which specific weapon type was involved in the transfer.SASH155 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)SASH155, W. Thomas, Alex. VAReply