What do you think?
Rate this book
Red Thunder, Tropic Lightning : The World of a Combat Division in Vietnam
"In Apocalypse Now some idiot says 'Ah the smell of napalm in the morning.' That's baloney. You smell death one time, you won't like it, I guarantee it." This is the Vietnam War as it was experienced by the average American soldier. It is the story of the men of the 25th Infantry, the "Tropic Lightning" Division. The film Platoon was inspired by the tour of duty of one famous Veteran of the 25th, Oliver Stone - but the images with which these ordinary GIs confront us are as powerful as any movie and often more eloquent. "I waited a few minutes and I got up and ran, and I fell, and crawled and had tears in my eyes. ... I could hear the rounds hitting close and going by me. It sounds like a dry stick broken in half close to your ear, a snap. ... It felt like the harder I tried to run the slower I was going." The men of the Tropic Lightning Division experienced nearly every facet of the Vietnam War, from tiny skirmishes to the great battles of the Tet Offensive. They confronted a hostile land and climate, fought determined Viet Cong guerrillas, and traded blood with the battle-hardened North Vietnamese Army. They knew the Vietnamese as the enemy, as tenuous allies, and many points in between. Serving in Vietnam from 1966 to 1971, the men of the 25th saw the tempo of the battle swing back and forth. The violent realities, however, remained the same from beginning to end. Based on both interviews with veterans of the 25th and the divisional records, this gripping history provides a vivid view of how the war was actually fought. Listen to what these men have to say about their ordeal - the stifling heat; the brutal terrain; the machinery of death; the horror of being wounded in action; the struggle to bolster morale; life in base camp; life, and death, on patrol. These troops bore the brunt of the Tet Offensive, chased deadly shadows through the Viet Cong's infamous tunnels, and battled the enemy at close quarters during countless swift ambushes and firefights. "Comb
325 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
7 people are currently reading
107 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 12, 2018
Eric M. Bergerud's Red Thunder, Tropic Lightning is an oral history-driven thematic analysis of the 25th Infantry Division's time in Vietnam between the years 1967 and 1971. Bergerud has mined all available official records of the 25th Infantry Division at NARA and other military archives as well as interviewing a few dozen veterans who served in capacities ranging from infantrymen to adjutants. I would note that Bergerud uses the oral histories as the primary driver of the narrative. There are small paragraphs of analysis and narration provided by Bergerud with large chunks of oral history testimony taken verbatim from transcripts. I would guess that roughly 75% of the text is oral history. Bergerud's use of oral history presents some problems that I will discuss below.
The book is divided into seven chapters that discuss, respectively, soldiers' initial reactions and impressions of Vietnam, military technology, "search and destroy" missions, the Tet Offensive, the 25th medical corps, soldiers' relationships with the Vietnamese, and unit moral and group cohesion. The epilogue allows a few veterans to say, in their own words, their most poignant memories of their service overseas and what they think the war meant to them.
Chapters 6 and 7, dealing with soldiers' interactions with Vietnamese civilians, ARVN, and their attitudes toward the enemy, as well as, the discussion of morale provide the two most interesting components of the monograph. Chapter six blends numerous perspectives together that highlight how American soldiers by-and-large always felt like outsiders who were distrusted by the populace. Bergerud blames the U.S. Army for its failure to educate soldiers about the cultures, religions, and customs of the Vietnamese (who were, and still are, very diverse in cultural and religious world views). This omission in training, Bergerud suggests, led to a "culture shock" at the beginning of a soldiers' tour of duty that stuck throughout their one year in combat. Instead of relying on objective information about civilians most replacements found themselves depending on the opinions and views of seasoned NCOs who, at best, distrusted civilians and, at worst, were openly hostile toward their presence. Bergerud's discussion of morale is fairly elementary. He coins the term "field morale" and contrasts it with "political morale" without giving an adequate definition of either term—both are terms I have not seen in other scholarly works. In this instance the veteran interviews step in and provide a lot of useful context about how morale evolved between 1967 and 1971.
There are also major problems with this book. As I see it the two most glaring flaws are (1) credibility problems with at least one veteran whom Bergerud quotes liberally throughout the book and (2) the author's vague use of military concepts, tactics, and terminology.
The irony is thick when Bergerud suggests that "the image [of the U.S. Army at war with itself during the Vietnam War] is so powerful that it has spawned a sad and ridiculous cottage industry that panders to phony veterans who try to look and act the part of the embittered Vietnam vet" (259). Well, Bergerud certainly interviewed and relied extensively on one of these so-called phonies. B. G. Burkett, author of Stolen Valor, read Bergerud's book and became suspicious when an individual by the name of C. W. Bowman was quoted as saying he "carried a very heavy load of ammunition . . . M14 with 22 loaded magazines . . .10, 15, or even 50 pounds of C4 explosive . . . 60mm mortar round in your hip pocket, smoke grenades, CS grenades . . ." (112, Bergerud). The plot thickens. Bowman recalled later that his best friend, Dave, was horribly maimed by a booby-trap: his leg was severed from his body and his arm horribly mangled. Fortunately, Bowman remembers, his friend's leg was "sewn back on" and his continues to "walk with a cane and brace today." Burkett started to fish around and put a FOIA out on Bowman's records. Turns out he was not in Vietnam when he said he was. According to Bergerud, Bowman was in Vietnam at 18 years old (1967) but was in fact in Vietnam when he was 20 years old (1969). Not only had Bowman lied about his years of service in Vietnam, but he spun several yarns for Bergerud and the author took them all hook, line, and sinker. This included an elaborate story about how Bowman crawled through numerous Vietcong tunnel complexes and often had shootouts with his Colt .45. Certainly some of Bowman's testimony is probably true. He did serve. He was infantry. However, his credibility is shot because several of his stories do not match with the facts.
While Bowman's testimony is replete with exaggerations and falsehoods, Bergerud also deploys oral testimony in ways that seem to contradict the very points he tries to make in his narrative. For example, he suggests that by and large the soldiers that served in Vietnam were the best educated of the 20th century and hailed from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, despite the absence of the sons of elites in the United States. However, he quotes a nurse saying that most soldiers had "extremely low IQs" (214) and, of course, C. W. Bowman stating that all the men he served with were "poor whites, blacks, and Hispanics" from the poorest areas of the United States, the sons of "coal miners and field hands" (265). Bergerud uses oral histories in ways that replace his obligation, as a historian, for critical analysis of source materials and historical events. He allows interviewees to provide the analysis, perspectives, and historical interpretation. In the end, one is left confused by the understandably varied and contradictory opinions and remembrances of the dozens of veterans in each chapter.
Finally, Bergerud's uses military terminology in ways that muddle his arguments. As one example, Bergerud argues rightly that the style of fighting in Vietnam was drastically different from World War II or Korea. He goes on to say that with the Vietnam war there were "no longer linear wars" and instead warfare had become "circular." Well, I think he meant "conventional" war. Because if he was discussing linear warfare, that tactical formation died out well before 1942. While this may seem pedantic, Bergerud's loose definitions of military terminology actually cause confusion in some of his chapters as he tries to explain the difference between, for example, "field morale" and "political morale" with the former being something akin to "combat motivation" as James McPherson would use the concept and the latter being roughly equivalent to "initial/ideological motivation." The problem is that "morale" and "motivation" while certainly having some symbiotic relationship during war are two different concepts.
I might recommend this book to historians that seek to understand soldiers' experiences in the twentieth-century. However, I did not find that this book contributed in any meaningful way to the historiography of the Vietnam War.
The book is divided into seven chapters that discuss, respectively, soldiers' initial reactions and impressions of Vietnam, military technology, "search and destroy" missions, the Tet Offensive, the 25th medical corps, soldiers' relationships with the Vietnamese, and unit moral and group cohesion. The epilogue allows a few veterans to say, in their own words, their most poignant memories of their service overseas and what they think the war meant to them.
Chapters 6 and 7, dealing with soldiers' interactions with Vietnamese civilians, ARVN, and their attitudes toward the enemy, as well as, the discussion of morale provide the two most interesting components of the monograph. Chapter six blends numerous perspectives together that highlight how American soldiers by-and-large always felt like outsiders who were distrusted by the populace. Bergerud blames the U.S. Army for its failure to educate soldiers about the cultures, religions, and customs of the Vietnamese (who were, and still are, very diverse in cultural and religious world views). This omission in training, Bergerud suggests, led to a "culture shock" at the beginning of a soldiers' tour of duty that stuck throughout their one year in combat. Instead of relying on objective information about civilians most replacements found themselves depending on the opinions and views of seasoned NCOs who, at best, distrusted civilians and, at worst, were openly hostile toward their presence. Bergerud's discussion of morale is fairly elementary. He coins the term "field morale" and contrasts it with "political morale" without giving an adequate definition of either term—both are terms I have not seen in other scholarly works. In this instance the veteran interviews step in and provide a lot of useful context about how morale evolved between 1967 and 1971.
There are also major problems with this book. As I see it the two most glaring flaws are (1) credibility problems with at least one veteran whom Bergerud quotes liberally throughout the book and (2) the author's vague use of military concepts, tactics, and terminology.
The irony is thick when Bergerud suggests that "the image [of the U.S. Army at war with itself during the Vietnam War] is so powerful that it has spawned a sad and ridiculous cottage industry that panders to phony veterans who try to look and act the part of the embittered Vietnam vet" (259). Well, Bergerud certainly interviewed and relied extensively on one of these so-called phonies. B. G. Burkett, author of Stolen Valor, read Bergerud's book and became suspicious when an individual by the name of C. W. Bowman was quoted as saying he "carried a very heavy load of ammunition . . . M14 with 22 loaded magazines . . .10, 15, or even 50 pounds of C4 explosive . . . 60mm mortar round in your hip pocket, smoke grenades, CS grenades . . ." (112, Bergerud). The plot thickens. Bowman recalled later that his best friend, Dave, was horribly maimed by a booby-trap: his leg was severed from his body and his arm horribly mangled. Fortunately, Bowman remembers, his friend's leg was "sewn back on" and his continues to "walk with a cane and brace today." Burkett started to fish around and put a FOIA out on Bowman's records. Turns out he was not in Vietnam when he said he was. According to Bergerud, Bowman was in Vietnam at 18 years old (1967) but was in fact in Vietnam when he was 20 years old (1969). Not only had Bowman lied about his years of service in Vietnam, but he spun several yarns for Bergerud and the author took them all hook, line, and sinker. This included an elaborate story about how Bowman crawled through numerous Vietcong tunnel complexes and often had shootouts with his Colt .45. Certainly some of Bowman's testimony is probably true. He did serve. He was infantry. However, his credibility is shot because several of his stories do not match with the facts.
While Bowman's testimony is replete with exaggerations and falsehoods, Bergerud also deploys oral testimony in ways that seem to contradict the very points he tries to make in his narrative. For example, he suggests that by and large the soldiers that served in Vietnam were the best educated of the 20th century and hailed from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, despite the absence of the sons of elites in the United States. However, he quotes a nurse saying that most soldiers had "extremely low IQs" (214) and, of course, C. W. Bowman stating that all the men he served with were "poor whites, blacks, and Hispanics" from the poorest areas of the United States, the sons of "coal miners and field hands" (265). Bergerud uses oral histories in ways that replace his obligation, as a historian, for critical analysis of source materials and historical events. He allows interviewees to provide the analysis, perspectives, and historical interpretation. In the end, one is left confused by the understandably varied and contradictory opinions and remembrances of the dozens of veterans in each chapter.
Finally, Bergerud's uses military terminology in ways that muddle his arguments. As one example, Bergerud argues rightly that the style of fighting in Vietnam was drastically different from World War II or Korea. He goes on to say that with the Vietnam war there were "no longer linear wars" and instead warfare had become "circular." Well, I think he meant "conventional" war. Because if he was discussing linear warfare, that tactical formation died out well before 1942. While this may seem pedantic, Bergerud's loose definitions of military terminology actually cause confusion in some of his chapters as he tries to explain the difference between, for example, "field morale" and "political morale" with the former being something akin to "combat motivation" as James McPherson would use the concept and the latter being roughly equivalent to "initial/ideological motivation." The problem is that "morale" and "motivation" while certainly having some symbiotic relationship during war are two different concepts.
I might recommend this book to historians that seek to understand soldiers' experiences in the twentieth-century. However, I did not find that this book contributed in any meaningful way to the historiography of the Vietnam War.
September 23, 2014
This is one of the best books I have read concerning the Vietnam War. The author writes skillfully, with coherent narrative weaved into personal anecdotes from the soldiers who lived it. Bergerud also organized the salient parts of his many interviews into a smooth and logical structure. The tone is not merely a matter-of-fact skeleton of the bare words needed to stitch the primary material together; it puts flesh on the bones in such a way that shows the author has pondered the lives of these men and women with a sympathetic imagination.
I was drawn, specifically, to this book because my father fought in Vietnam with the 25 Infantry Division, the focus of this book. (To narrow it down, it was the 4th Battalion/23d Infantry--"Tomahawks.") As I grew, he spoke of the ordeal only sparingly, though a few anecdotes could sometimes be pestered out of him -- usually somewhat humorous ones. He is of the sort that seems to have consigned all that to the past, sealed it off, and moved forward with his life. I have to say that he has done so successfully; he has been a good father and has led his family well. I have had lingering curiosity/wonder about his wartime experiences, but I have not wanted to seem ghoulish or to dredge up things from the bottom of the memory well that are best left alone. Also, the hellish little world he had to live in for awhile is so foreign to my own experiences that I have doubted I'd have the proper context to fully comprehend it all - I have hardly even known what questions I should ask.
Red Thunder, Tropic Lightning filled in a lot of the picture I hadn't even known how to imagine. Among the most compelling descriptions was a pinkish clay soil that, when dried out, acted much like talcum powder--it got everywhere and was really difficult to get rid of, even in the rain. There was Nui Ba Den, the "Black Virgin" mountain, which stood alone and dominated the view from any angle in the 25th's AO. This was a particularly ominous thing to imagine, the stuff of thriller novels: the US maintained a precarious communications post atop the mountain, while the mountain itself was riddled with caves under firm control of Front/NVA forces. The G.I.'s had to keep a constant watch lest the enemy steal up the slope and wipe them out. The suspense must have been a killer! Or, just imagine this: you base your sense of safety upon an army base (Cu Chi) that you later discover rests above the most intricate network of tunnels (including hospitals, weapons caches, dining areas, and dormitories) that exists anywhere in the country! These folks lived on the knife's edge at all times, and I got goosebumps thinking about the risks they learned to accept as normal.
Sometimes my father's descriptions gave an inkling of a pervasive sense of the pointlessness of the whole enterprise. Bergerud compellingly describes how elements of the 25th would advance to some hamlet or enemy camp, at great personal risk, and endure many casualties to seize it, only to find that the enemy had melted into the woods, leaving behind a few corpses and meager supply caches. The Americans would then leave the objective behind, knowing that they would return to find the enemy had reoccupied it. This they did over, and over, and over...for years. No real ground was gained, no larger purposes accomplished; the strategy was simply to eliminate as many enemy personnel as possible. The sense seems widespread that no one truly understood the "greater good" that was being advanced by this campaign -- there was a thin rationale of "fighting Communism" at the first, but this swiftly faded into a lack of real vision. On the other hand, the Vietnamese on the enemy side could easily tell you why they were fighting. They had a passion and a purpose which we lacked. Bergerud's interviews revealed an often-relayed impression that the American forces were acting the part of "the redcoats" in this affair.
This was certainly not a "fun" read by any stretch. Still, it painted for me a framework that I could use to start to get my imagination around what my father experienced. NOW I know some of the right questions to ask--I've started doing so, and we've had a couple of very enlightening chats. I may be imagining it, but it seems that some of these "right questions" have made it easier for him to share. Understanding my father's world has made the careful reading of this book very worthwhile.
I was drawn, specifically, to this book because my father fought in Vietnam with the 25 Infantry Division, the focus of this book. (To narrow it down, it was the 4th Battalion/23d Infantry--"Tomahawks.") As I grew, he spoke of the ordeal only sparingly, though a few anecdotes could sometimes be pestered out of him -- usually somewhat humorous ones. He is of the sort that seems to have consigned all that to the past, sealed it off, and moved forward with his life. I have to say that he has done so successfully; he has been a good father and has led his family well. I have had lingering curiosity/wonder about his wartime experiences, but I have not wanted to seem ghoulish or to dredge up things from the bottom of the memory well that are best left alone. Also, the hellish little world he had to live in for awhile is so foreign to my own experiences that I have doubted I'd have the proper context to fully comprehend it all - I have hardly even known what questions I should ask.
Red Thunder, Tropic Lightning filled in a lot of the picture I hadn't even known how to imagine. Among the most compelling descriptions was a pinkish clay soil that, when dried out, acted much like talcum powder--it got everywhere and was really difficult to get rid of, even in the rain. There was Nui Ba Den, the "Black Virgin" mountain, which stood alone and dominated the view from any angle in the 25th's AO. This was a particularly ominous thing to imagine, the stuff of thriller novels: the US maintained a precarious communications post atop the mountain, while the mountain itself was riddled with caves under firm control of Front/NVA forces. The G.I.'s had to keep a constant watch lest the enemy steal up the slope and wipe them out. The suspense must have been a killer! Or, just imagine this: you base your sense of safety upon an army base (Cu Chi) that you later discover rests above the most intricate network of tunnels (including hospitals, weapons caches, dining areas, and dormitories) that exists anywhere in the country! These folks lived on the knife's edge at all times, and I got goosebumps thinking about the risks they learned to accept as normal.
Sometimes my father's descriptions gave an inkling of a pervasive sense of the pointlessness of the whole enterprise. Bergerud compellingly describes how elements of the 25th would advance to some hamlet or enemy camp, at great personal risk, and endure many casualties to seize it, only to find that the enemy had melted into the woods, leaving behind a few corpses and meager supply caches. The Americans would then leave the objective behind, knowing that they would return to find the enemy had reoccupied it. This they did over, and over, and over...for years. No real ground was gained, no larger purposes accomplished; the strategy was simply to eliminate as many enemy personnel as possible. The sense seems widespread that no one truly understood the "greater good" that was being advanced by this campaign -- there was a thin rationale of "fighting Communism" at the first, but this swiftly faded into a lack of real vision. On the other hand, the Vietnamese on the enemy side could easily tell you why they were fighting. They had a passion and a purpose which we lacked. Bergerud's interviews revealed an often-relayed impression that the American forces were acting the part of "the redcoats" in this affair.
This was certainly not a "fun" read by any stretch. Still, it painted for me a framework that I could use to start to get my imagination around what my father experienced. NOW I know some of the right questions to ask--I've started doing so, and we've had a couple of very enlightening chats. I may be imagining it, but it seems that some of these "right questions" have made it easier for him to share. Understanding my father's world has made the careful reading of this book very worthwhile.
November 9, 2011
Excellent book on Vietnam from the average soldiers perspective. No left wing filter is present, so there is no "slant". Just the particpants in their own words. Although the author does explain terminology and fills in the blanks where the interviewies speak of events as if they were common knowledge, it helps to have a working knowledge of the wars history.
September 2, 2009
This book is a literary fraud.
See STOLEN VALOR pp389-390
This book is a work of fiction.
See STOLEN VALOR pp389-390
This book is a work of fiction.
December 13, 2018
Eric M. Bergerud’s “Red Thunder Tropic Lightning” presents a meticulously researched, comprehensive picture of the combat experience of the 25th Infantry Division in Vietnam utilizing primary sources and eyewitness reports to compose a detailed and vivid description including some counterintuitive findings.
The starting point for Bergerud’s research has been his detailed research of Division Combat reports, he eventually augmented with interviews soldiers serving with the division. This factual basis is integrated into a structured framework detailing the terrain, equipment, operational history and tactics of the division. Although the average reader may find the very detailed descriptions to be too lengthy, Bergerud conveys a good understanding of the tactics and everyday problems of the soldiers with these chapters and also includes personal perspectives of participants in all descriptions. The reader is in for some counterintuitive findings here, as for example the division deployed with its complete inventory of tanks and APC but could have utilized even more armored vehicles for its operations.
Besides the general factors of the deployment, Bergerud also includes accounts of firefights, tunnel clearing, operations and the critical role of the division’s forces during the Tet offensive. These are the most gripping but also most personal descriptions of the book. Descriptions about the experiences of wounded soldiers, relations to local civilians and security forces and finally morale of the forces complement the book with personal and direct statements on topics with many misconceptions today.
In summary Bergerud provides a very well researched and detailed description of the division as a fighting force, maybe a bit too detailed for average readers but very informative to military professionals and historians alike. Recommended reading for everybody interested in the operational history of the war.
The starting point for Bergerud’s research has been his detailed research of Division Combat reports, he eventually augmented with interviews soldiers serving with the division. This factual basis is integrated into a structured framework detailing the terrain, equipment, operational history and tactics of the division. Although the average reader may find the very detailed descriptions to be too lengthy, Bergerud conveys a good understanding of the tactics and everyday problems of the soldiers with these chapters and also includes personal perspectives of participants in all descriptions. The reader is in for some counterintuitive findings here, as for example the division deployed with its complete inventory of tanks and APC but could have utilized even more armored vehicles for its operations.
Besides the general factors of the deployment, Bergerud also includes accounts of firefights, tunnel clearing, operations and the critical role of the division’s forces during the Tet offensive. These are the most gripping but also most personal descriptions of the book. Descriptions about the experiences of wounded soldiers, relations to local civilians and security forces and finally morale of the forces complement the book with personal and direct statements on topics with many misconceptions today.
In summary Bergerud provides a very well researched and detailed description of the division as a fighting force, maybe a bit too detailed for average readers but very informative to military professionals and historians alike. Recommended reading for everybody interested in the operational history of the war.
December 18, 2020
Learned a lot about Vietnam. I really like the format Bergerud has devised for this book - a general inquiry into how a combat division functioned, instead of a linear recounting of events. (He also uses it in some of his other books.) And he's an excellent writer. Well done!
March 15, 2023
The book was pretty interesting and I feel like it gave an interesting perspective on the Vietnam War which I don’t know much about but I felt like it was a bit repetitive and it was pretty hard for me to stay engaged in.
May 13, 2022
Fantastic, details many accounts of Veterans throughout Vietnam. I highly recommend.
February 2, 2021
I bought this book specifically because I found out that my grandfather was in the 25th Tropic Lightning during Vietnam. He does not talk about his experiences over there, and we were warned many times to not bring it up. I have always been interested in his personal experience, and found this book title while doing an internet search for information about his unit. I'm not really well read on the Vietnam era in history, and I learned a lot. This book was very informative as far as weaponry and how things were done. The description of many of the people who contributed to this book about the heat, the smells, the mosquitoes and other animals, the lack of a clear front, the night fighting, and the struggles with the weather and terrain was really eye opening for me. This was one of the best books I read for the February portion of my 2021 Reading Challenge, and it gave me more of an understanding of my grandfather.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews