Vietnam -- FCS Discussion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Vietnam

Author:
Ben.M(UK)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:57:53 12/03/04 Fri
In reply to: Jim (Canada) 's message, "Australians were in Vietnam?" on 14:33:23 12/03/04 Fri

Country
Participation at Height of Involvement
Losses

USA
Over 540,000 troops
Approximately 50,000

Australia
8,300 troops and advisors
Approximately 500 dead

New Zealand 534 soldiers
One battalion under Australian (1st Brigade) command at any one time.
37 KIA

A Brief History of the Australian Forces in Vietnam
http://www.vietvet.org/aussie1.htm

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: 15:22:26 12/03/04 Fri That is apparently why the naval Ensign was changed - because the Australians were flying the flag of a power that was not engaged in the theatre of war. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]