Vietnam era claymore mine set?

[DiGilio]

9 minutes ago, LE LOUP DES MERS said:

So just to clarify people have different opinions on what is post nam the last one you posted is 73 dated and looks identical to the one on Omahas. I know some collectors say anything past 1970 dated is post nam and some say anything past 1975 dated is post nam. I personally say anything within the 65 to 75 dated range is considered Vietnam well some may say 65 to 70. So what do you consider to be post nam? 

 

Yes, terms like "Vietnam era" and "post-Vietnam" are not well defined and open to interpretation. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be if you want a bandoleer that is actually representative of what was used during the war, I would recommend an finding earlier one. 

[USARV72]

As someone that was in Vietnam in 1972, anyone that has a cut off date of 1970 is extremely uninformed or just plain ignorant. The gooks had Tanks and used them in 72 in their spring offensive. There is an old saying about Vietnam, “ If you weren’t there shut the ——— up” , plain and simple.

[e19]

6 hours ago, LE LOUP DES MERS said:

So just to clarify people have different opinions on what is post nam the last one you posted is 73 dated and looks identical to the one on Omahas. I know some collectors say anything past 1970 dated is post nam and some say anything past 1975 dated is post nam. I personally say anything within the 65 to 75 dated range is considered Vietnam well some may say 65 to 70. So what do you consider to be post nam? 

US Army Special Forces teams were in Nam in 1956.   Capt Harry Cramer of the 14th SFOD (77th SFG) became the first American KIA in October 1956.

[e19]

1 hour ago, e19 said:

US Army Special Forces teams were in Nam in 1956.   Capt Harry Cramer of the 14th SFOD (77th SFG) became the first American KIA in October 1956.

Correction.  His date of death was 1957 not 1956.

[LE LOUP DES MERS]

1 hour ago, e19 said:

US Army Special Forces teams were in Nam in 1956.   Capt Harry Cramer of the 14th SFOD (77th SFG) became the first American KIA in October 1956.

I personally don't count anything before 65 as "Vietnam era" as far as collecting goes. But yes, US troops were in Vietnam in the late 50s. However, they were manly sent over to help train south Vietnam even though they did see combat. But, to my knowledge (I could be wrong about this) they weren't allowed to show the US flag in anyway as US involvement was supposed to be kept a secret. It's interesting that war was never officially declared in March of 1965. I guess America said screw the law were invading anyway lol. 

[e19]

18 minutes ago, LE LOUP DES MERS said:

I personally don't count anything before 65 as "Vietnam era" as far as collecting goes. But yes, US troops were in Vietnam in the late 50s. However, they were manly sent over to help train south Vietnam even though they did see combat. But, to my knowledge (I could be wrong about this) they weren't allowed to show the US flag in anyway as US involvement was supposed to be kept a secret. It's interesting that war was never officially declared in March of 1965. I guess America said screw the law were invading anyway lol. 

So, you wouldn’t consider a type1 jungle jacket belonging Cpt Roger Donlon, 7th SFG, a “Vietnam Era” collectible?

[LE LOUP DES MERS]

Personally no, as it's technically before the Vietnam war started for America. But that's just my opinion, anything before 65 I don't count as Vietnam unless the same uniform was also worn through 64. But like I stated earlier there are some collectors who say anything past 1970 is post nam. 

[917601]

We can go by the dates Congress officially set forth?

 

Congress considers the Vietnam Era to be “The period beginning on Feb. 28, 1961 and ending on May 7, 1975 … in the case of a veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period,” and “beginning on Aug. 5, 1964 and ending on May 7, 1975.

 

https://www.kitsapdailynews.com/military/when-did-the-vietnam-era-officially-start-end-for-the-u-s/

[917601]

…..

“The end: While the United States withdrew troops from Vietnam in 1973 after the signing of the Paris Peace Accords, U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War did not end until the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975. Two Marines — Cpl. Charles McMahon, 21, and Marine Lance Cpl. Darwin Lee Judge, 19 — were killed in a rocket attack the day prior to the evacuation from Saigon.

Congress considers May 7, 1975 to be the end of the Vietnam War for the U.S.,  because on that date President Gerald R. Ford announced that the Vietnam Era had ended.”

[917601]

From the VA: “ Vietnam War era (November 1, 1955, to May 7, 1975, for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period. August 5, 1964, to May 7, 1975, for Veterans who served outside the Republic of Vietnam.)“.

 

https://www.va.gov/pension/eligibility/

[USARV72]

Amazed at how some ignore history, plain and simple. Good friend of mine owns LBT, was in Air America flying into Laos, Cambodia and S Vietnam in 1962. So I guess the early “ hunters camo” worn before 65 are junk?

[LE LOUP DES MERS]

10 hours ago, USARV72 said:

As someone that was in Vietnam in 1972, anyone that has a cut off date of 1970 is extremely uninformed or just plain ignorant. The gooks had Tanks and used them in 72 in their spring offensive. There is an old saying about Vietnam, “ If you weren’t there shut the ——— up” , plain and simple.

I would be careful saying the word gooks, you might offend someone. Just saying that because I don't want to see someone get mad or get in trouble. Personally it does not bother me but some people it might. 

[LE LOUP DES MERS]

Junk? No one ever said anything about being Junk. If your referring to what I said I just said in my opinion anything before 65 is not Vietnam era. I Never said any collectibles pre 65 were junk.

[e19]

6 hours ago, LE LOUP DES MERS said:

Personally no, as it's technically before the Vietnam war started for America. But that's just my opinion, anything before 65 I don't count as Vietnam unless the same uniform was also worn through 64. But like I stated earlier there are some collectors who say anything past 1970 is post nam. 

So, you don’t consider a uniform worn in 1964 by the first recipient of the MOH for his actions on July 5, 1964,  a Vietnam War Collectible!

[DiGilio]

Since I seem to have started this debate by loosely calling the one bag type post VN I figure I will say a few things. As far as I can tell it appeared around 1973, and was used for decades. The bags themselves are undated. Unless your pulling it from dated packaging, your most likely going to get something from the late 70s or 80s. So if you had to sum it up in one or two words, picking "Vietnam era", as in if you were describing them for a sale, would be somewhat misleading. However, If Id had known this debate would start, I would have chosen words other than simply "post-vietnam".

 

Are items related to MAAG Indochina or American CAT pilots in French Indochina of no interest to Vietnam war collectors? What about the Mayaguez incident? Or post-withdrawal JCRC activity in which the last US Army hostile death occurred in December 1973? Or the combat bombings of Cambodia that ran up until August 1973? After all these fall outside many, and in some cases most, definitions of the "Vietnam war". What about the late 60s Korean DMZ conflict in which over 70 US personnel were killed in hostile actions in the span of a few years? This is definitely within the "Vietnam era" and is not wholly unconnected to what was going on in Vietnam. Why isnt there more interest in this? 

 

This can go on forever... 

 

The US government itself uses varying start and end dates the for Vietnam era, or Vietnam war, or Southeast Asia period depending on the purpose. Academics and nationals of other countries have their own ideas. Using "Vietnam era" is by definition describing something in relation to Vietnam and using Vietnam as a reference point. Is 1960s extreme cold weather gear used in Europe and North America better described as "Cold War era" rather than "Vietnam era"? Is that more fitting? 

 

At the end of the day items are just stuff from whatever year or timeframe and with a known history or not. In a collecting sense people have different interests and focuses. I think they can interpret the relation of items to the war or history as they wish. 

 

 

 

 

[LE LOUP DES MERS]

17 minutes ago, DiGilio said:

Since I seem to have started this debate by loosely calling the one bag type post VN I figure I will say a few things. As far as I can tell it appeared around 1973, and was used for decades. The bags themselves are undated. Unless your pulling it from dated packaging, your most likely going to get something from the late 70s or 80s. So if you had to sum it up in one or two words, picking "Vietnam era", as in if you were describing them for a sale, would be somewhat misleading. However, If Id had known this debate would start, I would have chosen words other than simply "post-vietnam".

 

Are items related to MAAG Indochina or American CAT pilots in French Indochina of no interest to Vietnam war collectors? What about the Mayaguez incident? Or post-withdrawal JCRC activity in which the last US Army hostile death occurred in December 1973? Or the combat bombings of Cambodia that ran up until August 1973? After all these fall outside many, and in some cases most, definitions of the "Vietnam war". What about the late 60s Korean DMZ conflict in which over 70 US personnel were killed in hostile actions in the span of a few years? This is definitely within the "Vietnam era" and is not wholly unconnected to what was going on in Vietnam. Why isnt there more interest in this? 

 

This can go on forever... 

 

The US government itself uses varying start and end dates the for Vietnam era, or Vietnam war, or Southeast Asia period depending on the purpose. Academics and nationals of other countries have their own ideas. Using "Vietnam era" is by definition describing something in relation to Vietnam and using Vietnam as a reference point. Is 1960s extreme cold weather gear used in Europe and North America better described as "Cold War era" rather than "Vietnam era"? Is that more fitting? 

 

At the end of the day items are just stuff from whatever year or timeframe and with a known history or not. In a collecting sense people have different interests and focuses. I think they can interpret the relation of items to the war or history as they wish. 

 

 

 

 

That being said, let's move on to a different topic before we turn this into a cage match lol. Anyway, since this original post was about claymores I do have a question. What would be the rarest training claymore kit you could buy? 

[e19]

The US Army period of qualification for the Vietnam Conflict Combat Infantryman Badge was 2 March 1961 to 28 March 1973.

[USARV72]

This is the Last Claymore set I have. IIRC in over 40 years of collecting , have had 5 or 6 decent sets. This one was an Inert training aid that someone ground off the nomenclature and glued the split cover. Reason I kept it it has the steel balls intact. While in Vietnam I handled more Claymores than most will ever see. Was a driver and had a duce and a half that took me all around, many place didn’t want to go, lol. One day Top pulled a buddy and I aside after AM formation and said, hey yous guys go to the bunker line at bunker —— , see Sgt. so and so. We rode out , met Sgt and discovered we had the detail to remove about 1/2 mile of bunker line Claymore mines around bunkers, keep in mind bunkers were every 100 meters. Bunkers had anywhere from 6 to 8 Claymores all behind the razor wire. I had a Gerber Mk II , used it to pry open the cases to remove the C-4, buddy used an utility knife screwdriver blade. We threw the open case in the back of the duce and put the C-4 in a ball. The ball got so big it took both of us to throw it in the back of the duce. EOD got the ball of C-4 , it went up in a “ disposal blast”, last pic.

[mrrm]

Nothing to add to this conversation but will say I have learned a lot from this thread.  Excellent information on these claymore sets. A number of you are very well versed on this topic.  And this discussion could not have come along at a better time for me as I just purchased my first claymore set yesterday at a gun show. I had been following this discussion in the days lending up to the show so I was much more confident when looking the set over.  Seller had a price tag of $125.00 and after asking if that was his best price he immediately said give me $90.00 and it's yours, it is now mine, no pun intended. 

[LE LOUP DES MERS]

4 hours ago, mrrm said:

Nothing to add to this conversation but will say I have learned a lot from this thread.  Excellent information on these claymore sets. A number of you are very well versed on this topic.  And this discussion could not have come along at a better time for me as I just purchased my first claymore set yesterday at a gun show. I had been following this discussion in the days lending up to the show so I was much more confident when looking the set over.  Seller had a price tag of $125.00 and after asking if that was his best price he immediately said give me $90.00 and it's yours, it is now mine, no pun intended. 

Nice that's a good deal, to give an update I just bought the claymore mine set in the original post photo yeah most things are post in the set I bought but I think I did alright for the price. I will do another update when I receive mine. Could you also post photos of yours you got at the gun show on here? I would love to see it. 

[LE LOUP DES MERS]

Well, since my original question was answered I guess feel free to use this post to share you claymore mine kits if you want. I would personally love to see what everyone has in their collection.

 

 

[LE LOUP DES MERS]

So to give an update I received the mine kit today and to my surprise everything is Vietnam era except the mine and possibly the bag. I opened the back of the mine up and it looks like someone took a smashed white cinder block and dumped it in the back so I ended up throwing out the loose pieces however the cast molding of what I call a bunch of bumps were still perfectly intact. As much as I wanted to keep the brick type thing in the back I had to throw it out as everytime I pick the mine up white dust goes everywhere. Other than that there is one small chip in the mine but everything else is in pretty good shape.

[USARV72]

One needs one of these for the cllection.

[LE LOUP DES MERS]

So I read some more stuff about claymores and was that stuff in the back of my mine that I compared to a cinder block c4? My mine still has the metal balls in the back and I read that c4 was placed in front of the metal balls so I'm wondering if that really was c4? I also read that if your mine has those balls in the back that it was live at one time and made demilled. 

[The Rooster]

I had a chance to set off a live claymore back when I was in my late 20's... But being in my late 20's, I declined the opportunity and

 

let one of the younger guys set it off.

 

So I never took one apart but, I would imagine that if I had taken it apart, and the steel cylinders were behind the C4,

 

I would have thought someone was trying to kill me. The C4 goes in the back. The steel cylinders are front towards enemy.

 

The C4 in one of those, when it goes off,  (If you are close enough to it) shakes the ground.

 

Its a seriously large explosion for a little mine. You have to be behind cover and away from it when it fires.

 

The back blast will kill or injure you I think up to 50 meters. In boot camp they fired one off about 150 feet from balloons spread all out tacked to wooden

 

poles.When they let that baby go, it popped every balloon.

 

Steel cyclinders... they said if you got hit by one and it didnt kill you, you will wish it had. Nasty weapon for sure.

 

Giant shotgun.

 

Interesting revelations and pics USARV72.

 

Thank you !