The artillery were called in, and as days went on, many men died and almost triple that amount were wounded. In a very narrowed sense, the strategy in battle was likely not the best because rather than surround the enemy where they were on the other side of the hill, men were sent up the in teams, one behind the other. This meant that we were basically giving the enemy target practice, one wave after the other while the Viet Minh held their ground. The high number of wounded soldiers gives the hill its nickname because the men speculated that they were being turned into meat before each other’s eyes as they came up the mountain and were fired on. On the tenth day, “3rd Brigade overran the enemy bunkers and captured Hamburger Hill […] and attached units eliminated more than 500 enemy troops and seized caches of weapons and explosives” (Vowell et al). So it is plain that it was not until the tactic of attack was changed to be less head on, the American forces were losing more than they were gaining. Sorely posits that in total, 47 American soldiers were killed in action with 308 wounded, most coming from a single division- the 187th (Vowell et. …show more content…
First, on June 5th, the hill itself would be abandoned. This made little sense to those who were considering traditional views on warfare which state that gaining territory is the means by which a war is won. According to Chief of Staff at the time, General Abrams, in the case of Vietnam, the objective was instead to get into the West as soon as possible and to infiltrate the enemy’s supply line, damaging as much of their weaponry as possible (Donnely). Hamburger Hill was a battle that accomplished both of these goals, and it is unreasonable to expect such an accomplishment to come without any collateral damage. The general public did not understand this because of their relatively recent experience with the Second World War in which gaining control of enemy territory was of utmost