Changes

Both the Vietnamese and Australian militaries have disputed each other’s version. The first North Vietnamese communiqué claimed that: ''"Liberation Fighters ... wiped out almost completely one Battalion of the Australian Mercenaries in an ambush in the Long Tan Village."''

Both the Vietnamese and Australian militaries have disputed each other’s version. The first North Vietnamese communiqué claimed that: ''"Liberation Fighters ... wiped out almost completely one Battalion of the Australian Mercenaries in an ambush in the Long Tan Village."''

There have also been accusations that the Australians also exaggerated enemy casualties. Casualty figures for the Viet Cong ranged from the 245 reportedly found dead on the field of action to the often quoted American Intelligence Officer's high count of 800 Vietnamese killed,<ref>Vietnam – The Australian War, Paul Ham, p 245 and p 704, HarperCollins 2007</ref> with some 6 RAR veterans<ref>[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/helicopter-pilot-cliff-dohle-cited-for-gallantry-in-mission-to-resupply-long-tan-diggers/story-e6frg6nf-1225792091865 Helicopter pilot Cliff Dohle cited for gallantry in mission to resupply Long Tan diggers, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/...]</ref> accepting the reinforced 275th Regiment's count (including D445 losses) of 47 killed and one-hundred wounded. Australian Military Historians [[Bruce Davies]] and [[Gary McKay]] say claims citing the US Army Intelligence Officer's record purportedly showing that 800 Vietnamese were killed in the battle are wrong for the report does not exist.<ref>"Unfortunately, the diary or parts of it have never been produced. It is also difficult to understand why such an important document was not sent to the combined Document Exploitaton Centre, from where translated copies would have been despatched to all intelligence commanders." (Vietnam: The Complete Story Of The Australian War, Bruce Davies,  Gary McKay,  Allen & Unwin, 2013)</ref>

There have also been accusations that the Australians also exaggerated enemy casualties. Casualty figures for the Viet Cong ranged from the 245 reportedly found dead on the field of action to the often quoted American Intelligence Officer's high count of 800 Vietnamese killed,<ref>Vietnam – The Australian War, Paul Ham, p 245 and p 704, HarperCollins 2007</ref>with some 6th RAR veterans<ref>[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/helicopter-pilot-cliff-dohle-cited-for-gallantry-in-mission-to-resupply-long-tan-diggers/story-e6frg6nf-1225792091865 Helicopter pilot Cliff Dohle cited for gallantry in mission to resupply Long Tan diggers, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/...]</ref>accepting the reinforced 275th Regiment's count (including D445 losses) of 47 killed (including D445 KIA) and one-hundred wounded. Australian Military Historians [[Bruce Davies]] and [[Gary McKay]] say claims citing the US Army Intelligence Officer's record purportedly showing that 800 Vietnamese were killed in the battle are wrong for the report does not exist.<ref>"Unfortunately, the diary or parts of it have never been produced. It is also difficult to understand why such an important document was not sent to the combined Document Exploitaton Centre, from where translated copies would have been despatched to all intelligence commanders." (Vietnam: The Complete Story Of The Australian War, Bruce Davies,  Gary McKay,  Allen & Unwin, 2013)</ref>

Terry Burstall, a private in the 12 Platoon section guarding D Company HQ during the battle, has contradicted Australian official accounts of Vietnamese losses:{{cquote|When I returned to the battlefield the day after the battle, there were bodies lying all through the area ... Would a shell-shocked digger count an arm, a trunk and a leg scattered over several metres as one body or three bodies? Nobody knew or cared at the time, and certainly not the people doing the counting. ...Looking back I don't really think that I would have seen more than 50 bodies and I spent three days in the area.<ref>Terry Burstall, A Soldier Returns, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, 1990, pp 77-79</ref>}}

Terry Burstall, a private in the 12 Platoon section guarding D Company HQ during the battle, has contradicted Australian official accounts of Vietnamese losses:{{cquote|When I returned to the battlefield the day after the battle, there were bodies lying all through the area ... Would a shell-shocked digger count an arm, a trunk and a leg scattered over several metres as one body or three bodies? Nobody knew or cared at the time, and certainly not the people doing the counting. ...Looking back I don't really think that I would have seen more than 50 bodies and I spent three days in the area.<ref>Terry Burstall, A Soldier Returns, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, 1990, pp 77-79</ref>}}

The more recent Australian claim that 2,500-3,000 Vietnamese were involved in the battle with D Company is not supported by all Australian authors. Lieutenant-Colonel [[Bob Breen]], author of ''First to Fight'' (the history of 1 RAR's first tour in Vietnam) has written that ''"the Viet Cong 275th Regiment ran into D Company in teeming monsoon rain"'' and that ''"for several hours just over 100 Diggers withstood the best efforts of over 1500 Viet Cong soldiers to kill them."''<ref>Duty First: The Royal Australian Regiment in War and Peace, p. 215, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1990</ref>

The more recent Australian embellished claims that 2,500-3,000 Vietnamese were involved in the battle with D Company is not supported by all Australian veterans. Lieutenant-Colonel [[Bob Breen]], author of ''First to Fight'' (the history of 1 RAR's first tour in Vietnam) has written that ''"the Viet Cong 275th Regiment ran into D Company in teeming monsoon rain"'' and that ''"for several hours just over 100 Diggers withstood the best efforts of over 1500 Viet Cong soldiers to kill them."''<ref>Duty First: The Royal Australian Regiment in War and Peace, p. 215, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1990</ref>

Vietnam veterans have also reported that Australian soldiers shot or bayoneted captured VC wounded no longer trying to defend themselves. [[Bob Buick]] faced criticism in 2000, after admitting that he killed a mortally-wounded Vietnamese soldier on the battlefield, the day after the battle. Such an act would have been in breach of the [[Geneva Convention]] and therefore a war crime. Buick was criticized by both Burstall and then president of the Australian Long Tan Association, John Heslewood. Burstall commented: ''"Bob says it was a mercy killing ... would he have done the same to an Australian?"''<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s164813.htm Hero of Long Tan's "mercy killing" upsets comrades]</ref>

Vietnam veterans have also reported that Australian soldiers shot or bayoneted captured VC wounded no longer trying to defend themselves. [[Bob Buick]] faced criticism in 2000, after admitting that he killed a mortally-wounded Vietnamese soldier on the battlefield, the day after the battle. Such an act would have been in breach of the [[Geneva Convention]] and therefore a war crime. Buick was criticized by both Burstall and then president of the Australian Long Tan Association, John Heslewood. Burstall commented: ''"Bob says it was a mercy killing ... would he have done the same to an Australian?"''<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s164813.htm Hero of Long Tan's "mercy killing" upsets comrades]</ref>