document_title: Viet Cong and Vietnam People's Army logistics and equipment

question_text: who supplied the weapons to the n. vietnamese and vietcong

question_tokens: who supplied the weapons to the n. vietnamese and vietcong

text: Viet Cong and Vietnam People's Army logistics and equipment

text: VC/NVA equipment and weapons[edit]

text: Overall, the supplies and equipment of communist units were adequate, and their infantry small-arms were a match for those of their opponents.[2] Contrary to some popular impressions of simple peasant farmers armed with pitchforks and machetes, the VC/NVA main units (as well as the local forces in the latter years) were well equipped with modern arms either from Soviet bloc or Chinese sources. In the early years of the insurgency in the South a larger variety of weapons were used, ranging from World War I-era bolt action rifles to World War II-era weapons, with procurement via a wide range of methods. Such variation and diversity continued throughout the conflict. By 1970 however, the communist inventory was increasingly standardized, even at the village guerrilla level. The following outline shows major weapons categories:[3]

text: The standard infantry weapon of the VC/NVA was the Soviet 7.62mm AK-47 assault rifle or, more commonly, its Chinese copy, the Type 56 assault rifle. The Soviet SKS carbine/semi-automatic rifle or its Chinese version (Type 56 Carbine) was also widely used. Compared to the early American M16 the rugged AK-47 in particular was, although less accurate, more reliable and easier to maintain. The American M16 also saw service, obtained through capture or black market purchase, the Viet Cong also used the Russian Mosin–Nagant rifle and captured German rifles, such as Mauser Kar98k and Sturmgewehr StG-44.

text: The Viet Cong used a variety of submachine guns early in the conflict, either inherited from the Viet Minh, captured on the battlefield, or received from the north via Chinese or Soviet donors. These included the ex-German MP 40, the US Thompson submachine gun, the French MAT 49, the Soviet PPSh-41 and its licensed copy, the Chinese Type 50, the Soviet PPS-43, and a conversion of the Type 50 produced in North Vietnam arsenals, the K-50M.

text: Also of key importance to communist units was the interchangeability of the 7.62mm ammunition between the AK-47 and other types of weapons including the SKS carbine and the Soviet RPD light machine gun, another standard infantry weapon of the VC/NVA, capable of 650 rounds per minute. Heavier machine guns were sometimes used but often in set piece assaults, or in fixed mode such as anti-aircraft weapons, due to their weight. Communist units also employed mortars frequently, with the Soviet 82mm and its Chinese variants being the most common. French 60mm mortars also saw some use.

text: The VC/NVA also made extensive use of the excellent Soviet-designed rocket propelled grenade anti-tank grenade launcher, the RPG was originally designed for use against armored vehicles but it was adapted for anti-personnel use to good effect. They also made use of the Soviet/Chinese 122mm rocket which was used effectively against populated areas and large installations such as airfields. While inaccurate compared to more sophisticated weapons, the 122 mm rocket made an effective terror weapon when deployed against civilian targets. Other rocket types included tube-launched Chinese 107mm and Soviet 140mm variants.

text: The VC/NVA relied heavily on heavy machine guns and standard Soviet-designed anti-aircraft batteries like the ZPU-series for air defense functions. In the latter year of the conflict, field units of the VC/NVA deployed hand-held Soviet-designed anti-aircraft missiles that presented a significant challenge to US air dominance, particularly helicopters. For strategic aerial defense, the North deployed one of the densest and most sophisticated air-defense systems in the world based on Soviet surface-to-air missile missiles and radar batteries.

text: The VC/NVA used a wide variety of grenades from explosives inserted into discarded American C-ration cans to modern Chicom types. Booby traps were the province of guerrilla level forces more so than the VC/NVA regulars. The infamous punji sticks soaked in excrement and urine received much press, but they were of negligible effect compared to the massive quantity of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines deployed by main communist units. These quantities increased vastly as the North stepped up infiltration into the South. Mines and booby traps applied significant psychological pressure on US/ARVN forces and slowed and disrupted both military operations and civilian life.

text: Fighting a mobile guerrilla war much of the time, the VC/NVA could not deploy large quantities of heavy artillery or tanks. Exceptions were the set piece siege battles such as the battle of Khe Sanh or heavy artillery duels against US batteries across the Demilitarised Zone. It was only after the shift to conventional warfare in the 1972 Easter Offensive, and the final conventional campaign in 1975 (when US airpower had vacated the field) that tanks and heavy batteries were openly used in significant numbers. When using heavy artillery, the VC/NVA relied on high quality Soviet-supplied heavy 122mm and 130mm guns that outranged American and ARVN opposition.

text: VC/NVA logistics[edit]

text: Austerity of communist force requirements[edit]

text: VC/NVA logistics were marked by austerity, but sufficient supplies, equipment and material were on hand to furnish final victory. Consumption levels were much less than those of their American/ARVN opponents. It is estimated that a VC/NVA division in the south typically required only 15 tons of supplies per day.[4] Total requirements to run the insurgency in the south were relatively small compared to the needs of US opponents, well below port and rail capacity. One US Intelligence estimate puts external communist supply requirements for Communist forces in South Vietnam at approximately 100 tons per day- 15 tons via the DMV, 35 tons from Cambodia and 50 tons from Laos.[5]

text: In 1968 with the Tet Offensive and other major operations, these numbers surged but still weighed in at a modest daily 120 tons. By contrast a single US heavy combat division required about 5 times this amount.[6] The problem was not the total incoming quantity but moving material up the Ho Chi Minh trail and other transmission paths, to the point of battle operations. Soviet bloc and Chinese shipments easily met ordinary communist force requirements. Internal supply from within South Vietnam was also crucial, particularly food supplies.

text: Support by the Soviet bloc and China[edit]

text: Communist bloc support was vital for prosecution of the war in the South. North Vietnam had relatively little industrial base. The gap was filled primarily by China and Russia. The Soviet Union was the largest supplier of war aid, furnishing most fuel, munitions, and heavy equipment, including advanced air defense systems. China made significant contributions in medicines, hospital care, training facilities, foodstuffs, and infantry weapons.

text: Since China bordered Vietnam, it was an immensely important conduit of material on land, although the Soviets also delivered some of its aid by sea. Soviet aid outstripped that of China, averaging over half a billion dollars per year in the later stages of the war, with some $700 million in 1967 alone.[6] China provided an estimated $150 million to $200 million annually, along with such in-kind aid as the deployment of thousands of troops in road and railway construction in the border provinces.[7] China also provided radar stations and airfields where North Vietnamese aircraft could marshal for attack, or flee to when in trouble against American air forces. These military airbases were off-limits to American retaliation.[8]

text: The railway network in the Chinese provinces bordering North Vietnam was of vital importance in importing war material. American rules of engagement forbid strikes against this network for fear of provoking Chinese intervention. Thousands of Chinese troops (the PLA's 1st and 2nd Divisions) made important contributions to Hanoi's war effort- building or repairing hundreds of miles of track and numerous other facilities such as bridges, tunnels, stations and marshaling yards. Chinese troops also built bunkers and other fortifications, and manned dozens of anti-aircraft batteries. In all, some 320,000 Chinese soldiers served in Vietnam during the war.

text: The Ho Chi Minh and Sihanouk Trails[edit]

text: The Ho Chi Minh Trail[edit]

text: Construction of what was to become the famous Ho Chi Minh Trail extended over decades, with elements put in place during the anti-French struggle of the Viet Minh. Known to the North Vietnamese as the Truong Son Strategic Supply Route, the Central Committee of the Lao Dong Party ordered construction of routes for infiltration as early as 1959, under the 559 Transport Group.[9] The Trail was a complex web of roads, tracks, bypasses, waterways, depots, and marshaling areas, some 12,000 miles (19,000 km) in total. It snaked through parts of North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. US policymakers made ground attack against Trail networks in these countries off limits, (until limited operations were permitted late in the War) and communist forces took full advantage of this to move massive quantities of men and material into South Vietnam to attack US and ARVN troops. As the war progressed, communist forces expanded and improved the Trail, moving material by truck, installing missile batteries for air defense and laying fuel pipelines. Air interdiction of the Trail hurt communist efforts but failed to stop the logistical buildup on a sustained basis.[10]

text: The Trail had over 20 major way-stations operated by dedicated logistics units or Binh Trams, responsible for air and land defence, and delivery of supplies and replacements to fighting points in the South. Commo-Liaison units also operated along other trail segments and were tasked with providing food, shelter, medical support and guides to infiltrating troops between Trail segments. The Binh Trams were responsible for numerous functions in the sector of the Trail it controlled- including subordinate camps and way-stations, the care and feeding of troops, road repair, anti-aircraft defenses, vehicle repair and maintenance, and medical care. Each binh tram had its own force of porters, guides, engineers, specialists, transportation units and infantry.[10] Some binh trams had extensive anti-aircraft defenses. The Mu Gia binh tram area for example, was estimated to have no fewer than 302 anti-aircraft positions as early as 1966, a deadly flak trap for US aircraft. By 1973, gun batteries had been supplemented with Soviet-supplied SAMs on various parts of the Trail.[11]

text: Sihanouk Trail in Cambodia[edit]

text: The Sihanouk Trail was the American name for the network of roads, waterways and paths cutting through Cambodia that supplied communist forces. This network was considered an integral part of the overall supply system incorporating Laos and North Vietnam and centered around the Cambodian port of Kompong Somor Sihanoukville. The unit tasked by Hanoi with organizing movement was the 470th Transport Group, which established a similar network on binh trams' and way-stations.[12]

text: Of the Sihanouk Trail and Cambodia, one American military history says:[13]

text: Effectiveness of the Trail despite interdiction efforts[edit]

text: By 1969 the Ho Chi Minh Trail was a sophisticated logistical web with paved roads, truck parks, maintenance and supply depots, and well organized and defended terminuses and bases, moving thousands of men per month into the battle zone. A fuel pipeline complete with pumping stations was even in place by 1969, and this was to multiply, together with other installations such as missile batteries, as the conflict extended.[14] The need for massive amounts of manual labor for construction actually decreased on the Trail as heavy equipment like bulldozers and rock crushers were deployed, and both miles of road built and truck traffic expanded. By the war's end almost a million soldiers had made the trip down the Trail and tens of thousands of tons were being transported annually.[12]

text: A massive American effort in the air failed to stop the men and material pushed forward by Hanoi. Bomb tonnages dropped on the Trail in Laos offer some indication of the scale of the American campaign: 1969– 433,000 tons, 1970– 394,000 tons (74,147 sorties), 1971– 402,000 tons (69,000 sorties).[15] However, with only about 100 tons a day required, PAVN could keep its war-fighters in business indefinitely.[16] Amounts ten times or more this size however, were entering the top of the logistical pipeline before trickling down into South Vietnam, Laos and adjoining border regions. With volumes such as these, backed by lavish Soviet and Chinese aid, and thorough organization, PAVN persevered until final victory.

text: Logistical organization and facilities[edit]

text: Supply from inside South Vietnam[edit]

text: While outside material was vital to the war effort, much of the resources needed were obtained inside South Vietnam. Tonnages needed for communist forces were modest for the low-intensity protracted war style. One Central Intelligence Agency study in 1966 found that the bulk of supplies needed were generated within South Vietnam.[17] Food was always had locally, taxed away from peasants, purchased or even grown by Liberation Army units. Captured stocks were also exploited. American logistical largesse also provided a bonanza as fraud and corruption siphoned off resources. Both weapons and food for example were readily available on the black markets of South Vietnam.

text: This capability of generating resources internally contributed to the mixed results obtained by massive US interdiction efforts- such as the bombing campaign in Laos. Big search and destroy operations seized hundreds of tons of rice and other material in remoter base areas, but these could be regenerated and restocked again when roving US troops invariably moved on to their next sweep. The Ho Chi Minh Trail consumed massive amounts of attention, but the internal pipelines were also crucial, and these were not closed off because the US and particularly the GVN failed to control the major population concentrations effectively.[17]

text: North-South organization[edit]

text: NVA headquarters in Hanoi was responsible for the coordinating the North to South logistical effort. To this end, it deployed 3 special formations.

text:
The 603rd Transport Battalion handled sea infiltration and supply movement.
The 500th Transport Group handled movement of troops and supplies in the North in preparation for the journey south
The 559th Transport Group was the biggest of the three, numbering an estimated 50,000 troops with 100,000 civilian porters in support. It handled all storage, movement, anti-aircraft defense and fortification on the Ho Chi Minh Trail which snaked through parts of Laos and Cambodia.
The 470th Transport group was established to move material from Cambodia

text: Logistical organization inside South Vietnam[edit]

text: Within SVN, the NLF military HQ, COVSN, had responsibility for overall logistical coordination. This changed as the war went on, and the NVA took over more responsibility in-country after the 1968 Tet offensive. This takeover involved setting up new headquarters and replacing fallen VC with NVA regulars. Within the southern logistical organization, 3 agencies were responsible. Sub-sections of these operated at different levels, from Interzone to village.

text:
The Finance and Economic grouping was the chief fund raiser, banker and purchasing agent.
The Rear Services grouping provided logistical support for military operations, such as digging bunkers or hauling supplies.
The Forward Supply Council marshaled the money and resources raised by the Finance section, and the services of the rear Group. It controlled civilian labor recruitment, and military recruitment including drafting men into the VC, among other things. Party membership was strongest in the Forward Supply Council.

text: Overlap and duplication[edit]

text: There was a significant overlap of logistical functions in the communist organization, as the NVA and the VC/NLF civilian agencies worked an area. However overall control was always in the hands of party cadres at all levels, from province down to village. Duplication also produced a wider range of alternative sources for supplies, and made the whole structure more resilient. An American or ARVN sweep for example that wiped out several supply caches did not shut down the whole district. Supply routes using multiple sources, (waterways, black-market transactions, cross-border sanctuaries, etc.) could be reopened, and laborers from other regions could be shifted into reconstruction work once the Americans or ARVN left (as they usually did).[18]

text: Civilian porters[edit]

text: Civilian labor was crucial to VC/NVA success, and was deployed in building fortifications, transporting supplies and equipment, prepositioning material in readiness for an operation, and general construction such as road repair. Labor was recruited primarily by impressment/draft, or as a way to pay off VC taxes, although volunteers motivated by ideology also took part. Twelve to sixteen hours of work per day were expected of laborers. Civilians undertook various pledges as directed by the regime (the "three readies", the "three responsibilities" among others,) as part of a high mobilization of the population for total war in the North and areas controlled by the VC/NVA in the South.[19]

text: Load bearing by porters was greatly enhanced by the use of ingenious "steel horses" – bicycles specially modified by widening the handlebars, strengthening the suspensions and adding cargo pallets. Guided by two men, the specially modified bikes could move 300–400 pounds, several times that of a single porter.[20] Older men made up many of the long-term laborers as those younger were drawn off into combat and female labor was used extensively in a wide range of logistics tasks.[21]

text: Port and water transport facilities[edit]

text: Communist forces also made extensive use of Vietnam's large network of rivers and waterways, drawing heavily on the Cambodian port of Sihanoukville, which was also off-limits to American attack. Some 80% of the non-food supplies used by the VC/NVA in the southern half of South Vietnam moved through Sihanoukville.[22]

text: Some port areas of North Vietnam were also vital to the logistical effort, as were ships by socialist nations that fed the continual stream of war material. Attacks on these were also forbidden by American policymakers. Until late in the War, American pilots, hindered by their government's rules of engagement, could only watch helplessly as munitions, heavy weapons and advanced components like SAM missile batteries were unloaded at such harbors as Haiphong.[23] By 1966, some 130 SAM batteries were in North Vietnam by US estimates, manned primarily by Russian crews.[24]

text: Weapons resupply and communications[edit]

text: VC/NVA weapons had to be moved from shipment points in the North, Cambodia or down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Small, jungle workshops produced simpler types of ordnance such as reloaded rifle cartridges and grenades. A large amount of small supply depots, widely dispersed to guard against attack, furnished units on the move. Impressed labor groups of civilians also hauled ammo and supplies for the Front. ARVN and US sources were also significant localized conduits of arms. VC fighters in some areas ironically treasured the American M16 rifle despite its sometimes quirky performance, for the wide availability of both the weapon and its ammunition on the black market or through purchase from corrupt ARVN soldiers, or through the careless handling and loss of magazines by US troops.[25]

text: VC/NVA formations suffered a shortage of modern radios. Although wire was sometimes run for field telephones in selected operations, they relied heavily on couriers for transmission of messages on the battlefield. A "dead drop" system for couriers was also extensively used for intelligence communications. The whole network was segmented, so that one part did not know the other branches. A courier might leave a message at a specific drop location for another courier (a stranger to him or her). This segmentation helped protect against compromising the network when couriers were captured or killed. Segmentation enhanced security and was also sometimes used in moving troops – with guide units only knowing their section of the trail or transport network.[26]

text: Food and medical care[edit]

text: Food. The bulk of VC/NVA foodstuffs was procured within South Vietnam via purchase, taxation on peasants in controlled areas, and personal farming by troops in remote areas. Households in areas under VC control were required to keep a certain minimum supply of rice on hand, and a large number of secret caches and supply dumps honeycombed the countryside. Food, along with almost any other item, was also obtained on Saigon's thriving black market. This included large quantities of American food aid to South Vietnam, a phenomenon sometimes observed by US troops that found enemy supply caches.[27] Ironically, even the remnants of American airstrikes were pressed into food production. US patrols encountered numerous B-52 bomb craters used as fish and duck ponds by Communist troops.[25]

text: Medical care. Medical supplies used on the battlefield came from several sources, including Soviet bloc and Chinese shipments and humanitarian donations earmarked for civilian use from neutral countries, including Scandinavian nations. Medical care like other aspects of the logistical system was austere, and field hospitals, whether in caves, underground bunkers or jungle huts usually suffered shortages. A one-day supply of medicines was usually kept on hand, with the rest hidden off-site until needed. About 7% of a typical VC/NVA division's manpower was made up of medical personnel.[19]

text: The struggle against US bombing[edit]

text: Comparison of the contenders[edit]

text: As one of the world's foremost military powers, the US could bring a massive variety of sophisticated aerial technology to bear on the communist side, ranging from heavy B-52 bombers, to carrier-based striking forces, to precision munitions. Throughout most of the conflict the US generally enjoyed air superiority, although this was often challenged in the north by MiG fighters and especially modern Soviet surface-to-air missiles. Primarily an agrarian country with little industrial and technical base, North Vietnam compared poorly with the advanced material and technical systems of its American opponent, and often invoked a David versus Goliath comparison in its propaganda campaigns.[28] However, Communist forces had several important advantages that translated into successful tactics to survive American bombing:[29]

text:
American war makers ran a restrained start-stop aerial campaign for fear of Chinese or Soviet intervention – exempting MiG airfields in China, targets above certain geographical or navigational boundaries, and many dams and locks associated with North Vietnam's agricultural system,
PAVN possessed privileged enclaves in Laos and Cambodia, immune from ground attack – creating vital sanctuaries and strategic depth,
Friendly socialist allies that provided a massive pipeline of war material – off-limits to US strikes until it had entered North Vietnam, including the vital border with an unassailable China
Heavy tropical vegetation and periods of poor weather in the battle zone, that facilitated the movement of men and material and hindered aerial attacks
The ability for ruthless total mobilization of almost the entire population, for as long as the struggle required.

text: The aerial onslaught[edit]

text: From 1965 to 1968, North Vietnam was bombed on a scale heavier than that of the entire Pacific theater during World War II, and absorbed about 20% of US bombing efforts in Southeast Asia.[6] Targeting however was tightly controlled and limited, and while most major industrial centers had been destroyed by 1967, imports from Soviet bloc countries and China furnished most war-making material. The country continued to function for war despite the aerial onslaught.[6] The American bombing campaign was geared towards attrition, wearing down the will of the Communist North to fight. As one historian notes "Knowing that the Vietnamese could replace their losses indefinitely, and were doing so, the American war planners counted on the psychological wear and tear of modern air-power upon a land-bound adversary. McNamara pictured enemy soldiers under combined assault in the South, utterly devoid of flying machines for mobility or retaliation in the sky.. 'They only thing that will prevent it [stalemate] Mr. President, is their morale breaking...' he said... 'that's the only chance we have of winning this thing... because we are just not killing enough of them to make it impossible for the North to continue to fight."[30]

text: The North Vietnamese however kept fighting. The initial American Operation Rolling Thunder campaign while inflicting painful local damage, did not halt the continual stream of men and materiel into the south. Rolling Thunder imposed several limitations on US operations, and allowed Soviet and Chinese ships freedom to continuously deliver munitions and supplies into the battle zone. American bombing was sometimes ineffective against both the landscape and determined repair attempts. A massive 1966 bombing mission by thirty B-52's for example attempted to pulverize vital stretches of the strategic Mu Gia pass. Two days later however the traffic was moving again, despite huge landslides caused by the bombing, and the use of numerous delayed action munitions.[31] On the vital China to Hanoi corridor, most major bridges, roads and rail lines were back in operation within five weeks after the American bombing halt in 1968. The large number of waterways in Vietnam were also put to good use in moving materiel.[31]

text: The Nixon administration, looking for a way out, pursued a less restrained course under the brief but devastating Operation Linebacker and Operation Linebacker II bombing raids. These attacks removed many of the restrictions upon previous American targeting, seeded Northern waters with mines that cut Soviet and Chinese imports to a trickle, exhausted national air-defenses and crippled whatever significant remaining industrial plant and transportation network was left in the North. LINEBACKER caused more damage to Northern lines of communication, than the previous 3 years of ROLLING THUNDER, particularly as the Easter Offensive brought communist forces out into the open.[32]

text: Distinct restrictions were still applied however. Critics of the US effort charged that it was deliberately targeting civilians, but while several instances of collateral damage did occur, US policy and practice was concentrated on strategic military targets not the elimination of civilians. The Nixon regime forbid the bombing of dams for example, along with POW camps, hospitals and religious shrines. Precision munitions aided this mandate. For example, US F-4 aircraft destroyed power generators at the Lang Chi Hydroelectric Plant during Linebacker I, but left its dam 50 feet away untouched to minimize civilian collateral damage.[33]

text: The successful and severely damaging American Linebacker efforts however were not sustained. By the time of the aerial offensives (a few weeks each), most US forces (over 500,000 troops) were already out of the Vietnam theater. Over 150,000 Northern soldiers however remained in the South after the 1972 Offensive, expanding the conquered zone, building up logistics capacity (including the construction and extension of pipelines) and biding their time, until the final Ho Chi Minh Campaign in 1975.[3]

text: Personnel mobilization for the struggle[edit]

text: Northern leader Ho Chi Minh chose to defy US airpower, arguing that though Hanoi, Haiphone or other cities were destroyed, the Vietnamese people would not be intimidated, and called for a massive war mobilization of reserves.[35] American bombers caused substantial damage to Northern road and rail infrastructure, including bridges, culverts, depots, ports and docks. Nevertheless, an enormous effort kept transportation networks open. Some 500,000 workers were mobilized to repair bomb damage as needed, with an additional 100,000 constantly at work.[28] The largest repair organization was the Youth Shock Brigades Against the Americans for National Salvation. Numbering some 50,000 to 70,000 laborers, the brigades were made up of recruits between 15 and 30, with heavy female representation as young men were siphoned off for combat. Joined by assorted militia and self-defense forces, these quick-reaction units were often stationed along heavily bombed routes and deployed to repair bridges, roads, tracks, tunnels and other structures. Pre-positioning of these groups allowed them to spring rapidly into action after an attack had passed.[31]

text: Female representation was substantial. Beyond male troops, approximately 1.5 million Northern women were mustered into support and even some combat units, both on the northern home front and further south on the Trail. A female fighter, Ngo Thi Tuyen', was hailed as a model of patriotic resistance and devotion for heroic repair efforts to the important Dragon's Jaw Bridge, a structure that stood up against several attempts to destroy it, until laser-guided bombs knocked it down in 1972. The party sponsored competitive essays among the girls, with selected winners volunteering to join special "dare to die" unexploded bomb squads. Some 170,000 girls were also mobilized into emergency youth troops, marching south to provide support on the Ho Chi Minh trail, equipped with shovels and supplies. One historian asserts:

text: Another history notes that while female home front activity in war (clearing rubble, manning factories, nursing the sick etc.) is familiar to Westerners, less is known about the tens of thousands of teenage girls and young women (ages 13 to 22) sent south:

text: Evasion, concealment and repair methods[edit]

text: Dispersal of assets and pre-positioning of material. The hub of the North Vietnamese material distribution was Hanoi with its numerous railheads, bridges, major roads and its seaport. Much of Hanoi however, along with other key port areas such as Haiphong, were off-limits to US air attack until late in the American war. During the bombing campaign over the north, facilities and installations were widely dispersed and concealed. Some 2,000 imported generators provided essential power, and oil and gas were shuttled ashore on small craft from Soviet ships and stored in thousands of small 55-gallon drums throughout the countryside, alongside roads and in rice paddies. A massive number of civilians were also evacuated to the countryside from the urban areas, along with factories and machine shops. Population was also dispersed with massive movement of civilians out of major cities like Hanoi, into the countryside.[6] Prepositioning was essential to PAVN tactics. Every few miles stockpiles of tools and material were positioned, both on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and on key transportation routes within North Vietnam. Ready-reaction labor units were also held in various areas, deploying for action to repair bomb damage. Action units sometimes helped with supply movement, such as floating 55-gallon drums of fuel down waterways – a crude yet sometimes effective method of moving such material in bulk. Soviet ships also aided dispersal by bringing in fuel and other material already pre-packed in drums, offloaded on to barges for quick distribution, with the ships themselves off-limits to US air attack.[38]

text: Road and bridge repair methods. There were several ways to keep traffic moving amid the destruction wrought by the bombers. Simple pontoon bridges were made of lashed together bundles of bamboo, topped by heavy wooden planking. Sturdier pontoon structures were made by tying wooden canal boats together – with camouflage measures to hide them during the day from aerial observation. Bridges were also built underwater to escape detection. As noted above, supplies, equipment and material was pre-stocked along roads, and near various choke points like ferry crossings so that repairs could be made quickly. Delayed action bombs caused special problems. Designated personnel were tasked with dismantling them, or watchmen kept them under observation- signaling all within blast distance to disperse when the bombs showed signs of detonating. Repairs were often done at night when the enemy aircraft would be less active.[31]

text: Concealment and evasion. Camouflage was used heavily. Roads were sometimes "roofed" with a network of branches, brush and other greenery, and vehicles on the roads sported foliage to aid in concealment. Night movement was almost constant, with drivers being guided on the roads by white poles painted by the Youth Shock Brigades, or personnel dressed in white. Truck headlights were sometimes mounted under the vehicle to help escape detection from the air. Truck driving was a dangerous task, and drivers were expected to not only dodge aircraft but help with vehicle and road repairs. Traffic was regulated by numerous civilian helpers, often young girls.[39] In the air defense effort around important targets, labor units often constructed up to 4 dummy positions for each real anti-aircraft concentration.[40]

text: Exploitation of US Rules of Engagement[edit]

text: Fear of massive Chinese intervention in Vietnam continually caused a number of restrictions on US options. These constraints implicitly granted North Vietnam's continued existence, and sought to avoid antagonizing Peking by attacking targets too close to the Chinese border with North Vietnam, or within China itself. The Chinese were content to provide supportive diplomatic rhetoric, manpower and material, but signaled they would not enter the fray unless the Americans invaded North Vietnam.[41] The Nixon regime removed some of the operational constraints on American power late in the American war, but was already committed to removing US forces from the theater, and the punishment inflicted by expanded bombing, while heavy, did not fundamentally threaten Hanoi's existence. Nor did it stop China from continuing to massively supply its North Vietnamese client. The North Vietnamese were quick to take advantage of the leverage afforded under both the Johnson and Nixon regimes. When a 25-mile (40 km) buffer zone policy was in effect near the Chinese border for example, US recon planes could see hundreds of loaded trucks massed in the buffer zone during the day, waiting to roll later at night.

text: Exploitation and deception were also used in air defense operations. In early 1965 for example, the Johnson Administration refused to hit SA-2 missile sites before they became operational against US aircraft, despite the urging of the Joint Chiefs that the price of postponement would be paid for in pilot lives and aircraft losses. Defense secretary McNamara initially opposed striking the missile batteries because he feared killing Chinese or Soviet technicians working at the sites. North Vietnam was allowed almost 4 months to complete preparations and 13 days after a 11 July press conference in which a US spokesman said there were "no plans at this time" to attack the missile threat, Hanoi's SAM batteries downed an Air Force F-4C Phantom and its 2-man crew- one survivor spending 8 years in a POW camp. Other missile salvos damaged accompanying aircraft. A limited strike was authorized 3 days later in retaliation. This delay allowed PAVN defenders time to reinforce the sites with additional anti-aircraft guns, which damaged several US aircraft and shot down six. Subsequent US analysis indicated skillful movement and dispersal by the North Vietnamese, with one of the missile sites a decoy, and another left empty – deployed as bait to lure the American pilots to their doom.[40]

text: Resilience of the PAVN logistics effort[edit]

text: One 1972 analysis for the US Senate on bombing notes the tenacity and resilience of PAVN and its logistics system:

text: The infiltration south[edit]

text: Trail movement and hardships[edit]

text: Routes south. NVA units deemed ready for infiltration were transported from the training centers by train or truck to the coast, at places like Dong Hoi, where they received additional rations. From there they marched south and southwest, towards the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) or Laos, using a variety of routes. Movement was at night to avoid American air attacks. Within the DMZ, there was a rest pause of several days as infiltrators staged for the crossing. Moving in company or battalion sizes, units departed at two-day intervals, with most crossing into Laos along a system of thousands of tracks, roads and paths known as the Ho Chi Minh Trail.[43] NVA infiltration routes were keyed to the military regions the infiltrators were assigned to. PAVN units headed for the Tri-Thien region closest to the northern border might infiltrate directly across the DMZ. Those headed further beyond might travel through Laos. The Sihanouk Trail in Cambodia was opened in 1966 to enable PAVN to infiltrate and resupply COVSN in the southernmost zone of South Vietnam.[43]

text: The hardships of the Trail were many. Casualties caused by American airstrikes were low, accounting for only 2% of total losses. More dangerous enemies included malaria, foot infections and a variety of other maladies. Total losses to disease are estimated at around 10 to 20%. Sick soldiers were left to recuperate at various way-stations. Transit time could take months, and sometimes entire units were disrupted and disbanded.[44] Recruits were generally given an optimistic picture of conditions in the south, with claims that victory was close at hand and that they would be welcomed as liberators by their oppressed southern brethren. They were often quickly disabused of such notions as they encountered sullen peasants and withering US firepower.[45]

text: Movement techniques. The Trail covered a wide diversity of rough terrain. Steep mountain slopes had steps gouged into them for climbing. Ravines were bridged with crude bamboo suspension bridges. Ferries shuttled troops across rivers and streams. Large gangs of civilian laborers were drafted to keep the network functioning. Binh Trams stations at intervals on the Trail, hosted the stream of men, weapons and supplies flowing to the battle zone. Most material movement in bulk was not by gangs of sweating laborers, but modern Soviet-supplied trucks. Vehicles rolled on a "relay" basis, moving mostly at night to avoid American air power, and the trail was plentifully supplied by jungle-like camouflage at all times. Way stations were generally within one day's travel from each other. Trucks arriving at a station were unloaded, and the cargo shifted to new trucks, which carried out the next segment of the journey. Having plenty of both time and manpower, this "relay" method economized on wear and tear upon the valuable trucks, and maximized hiding opportunities from prowling US aircraft. The method also spread out available cargoes over time and space, enabling the entire network to better bear losses from such deadly enemies as the American C-130 Gunship, and such technologies as movement sensors.[46]

text: Another technique used to lower casualties and loss was to separate the movement of men from the movement of material. NVA soldiers were limited to old pathways, while trucks were increasingly routed along newer, improved stretches of road. Since most of the US effort focused on trucks, the bulk of the fighting men were able to travel without the full weight of US pressure, although they sometimes came under attack.[47]

text: A daily march cycle might begin at 4:00am with a pause around noon, and continuation until dusk-6:00pm. Generally there was ten minutes of rest per hour, with one day of rest every five. Fifteen to twenty-five kilometers were covered daily depending on the terrain. Movement was in column, with point and rear elements. Armed liaison agents, who knew only their section of the Trail, led each infiltrating group between way-stations. Way-stations were located deep in the forest, and contained caches of supplies for use by the infiltrators. They were guarded by detachments of the 559th Transport Group. Sometimes the troops camped on the Trail itself between stations.[43]

text: Techniques to deceive or fight US airpower and technology[edit]

text: Camouflage and concealment. By 1968, business was brisk on the Trail. Ten thousand trucks could move at a time, and improvements were made continuously by the 559th Transportation Group. US air interdiction against the Trail increased as PAVN stepped up its activities. As noted above, the risk of air attack caused men and material to move along linked, but separate routes, and truck loading operated in shuttle fashion. The sheer volumes moving down the trail however meant that the PAVN effort came under severe strain. Great pains were taken to camouflage movement. Bridges across water obstacles were often built under water, difficult to detect from the air, and multiple crossing points were developed. Wherever possible PAVN units minimized disturbances to the jungle cover, and even transplanted foliage from elsewhere to cover and conceal signs of movement. PAVN sources claim that the 559th Transport group camouflaged some 2,000 miles (3,200 km) out of the 12,000 miles (19,000 km) of trail.[48]

text: Techniques used to fool US air-power also included placing gasoline-soaked rags along the trail to fool pilots into thinking they had hit or ignited something of value. Truck lights were dimmed or mounted under vehicles, and at regular intervals on some routes, spaces were cut into the jungle trees, forming small cups into which kerosene or some other flammable liquid was poured. This was lit to provide guide lights to moving men and material, invisible from the air. Waterways were also pressed into service via use of the "floating barrel" technique- steel drums packed with supplies that floated downstream for later collection.[49] About 100,000 people were kept working on the Trail as porters, drivers, mechanics and anti-aircraft troops. By 1970, the entire Trail bristled with anti-aircraft batteries.[48]

text: Anti-sensor techniques. PAVN troops also faced US movement, auditory and chemical ("people sniffer") sensors on various parts of the Trail. One example of this was seen in Operation Igloo White, which used air-dropped acoustic and seismic sensors in Laos, linked to processing computers in Thailand. Data collated from the sensors were analyzed to predict the movement of PAVN convoys and units. Air-power then hit suspected locations. Special Operation teams were also inserted for reconnaissance and assessment, and sometimes the guidance of airstrikes on to targets. Sound/seismic sensors were countered by destroying them, moving them to useless locations, removing their batteries, playing tape recordings of truck traffic, and running herds of cattle over them. Chemical sensors were neutralized by leaving buckets of urine hanging on trees over the transportation network. Esoteric American technology- such as the Calgon brand "mud maker" compounds deployed to slow movement on the Trail were met with typical People's Army practicality. Logs and bamboo were laid over the quickly dissolving mud and the Northern fighters moved on.[50] Special trail-watching and reaction units were also used to counter infiltration by US-MACV Special Operations teams. Local tribesmen recruited by PAVN for example would beat on pots or gongs to warn of the presence or landing of US Special Ops teams and high rewards were offered for assisting with their capture.[51]

text: Volume of infiltration[edit]

text: VC/NVA Troop strengths during the Vietnam War are the subject of numerous controversies and contradictory claims. Official post-war North Vietnamese sources claim over half a million troops in place by 1967. US MACV estimates posit a more modest total of around 280,000.[52] Force strengths will always be imprecise given the large number of irregular or part-time guerrilla elements.

text: Infiltration numbers increased yearly. In 1968 alone, some 200,000 NVA troops made the journey south according to some American estimates.[43] Official Communist sources also confirm the massive buildup, although figures differ between American and Northern sources. According to the official People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) History:

text: Throughout a large portion of the War, North Vietnam denied that any of its soldiers were even in the south, but it is clear that the Communist forces were able to place tens of thousands of troops in the southern war zone, including complete units of regular NVA, rather than simply individual fillers.

text: Summary[edit]

text: North Vietnam did not take the Americans at their word that they were exercising restraint. Total war was preached from the beginning of the US intervention and a huge mobilization started as early as 1965 with population evacuation and construction of massive air defenses. In terms of stopping Hanoi's ruthless drive for reunification, the overall US bombing campaign, with its varied stops and starts, was ultimately ineffective in the face of cascading imports from socialist allies, political restraints on American action, the remorseless marshaling of the populace, and the stoic endurance of the North Vietnamese.[54] A post-war analysis by the BDM Corporation, a think-tank contractor in Vietnam, summarized the efficiency and effectiveness of VC/NVA logistics as follows:


document_title: Abundance of elements in Earth's crust

question_text: which is most abundant metal in earth crust

root

text: Abundance of elements in Earth's crust

text: The abundance of elements in Earth's crust is shown in tabulated form with the estimated crustal abundance for each chemical element shown as either percentage or parts per million (ppm) by mass (10,000 ppm = 1%).

tag: p

text:
Abundance of chemical elements in Earth's crust, from various sources

Rank
Z, element & symbol
Abundance in crust (ppm) by source
Annual production

Darling[1]
Barbalace[2]
WebElements[3]
Israel Science and Technology[4]
Jefferson Lab[5]
(2016, tonnes)[6]

1
8
oxygen
O
466,000
474,000
460,000
467,100
461,000

2
14
silicon [A]
Si
277,200
277,100
270,000
276,900
282,000
7,200,000

3
13
aluminium
Al
81,300
82,000
82,000
80,700
82,300
57,600,000

4
26
iron
Fe
50,000
41,000
63,000
50,500
56,300
1,150,000,000

5
20
calcium
Ca
36,300
41,000
50,000
36,500
41,500

6
11
sodium
Na
28,300
23,000
23,000
27,500
23,600
255,000,000

7
19
potassium
K
25,900
21,000
15,000
25,800
20,900

8
12
magnesium
Mg
20,900
23,000
29,000
20,800
23,300
1,010,000

9
22
titanium
Ti
4,400
5,600
6,600
6,200
5,600
6,600,000

10
1
hydrogen
H
1,400

1,500
1,400
1,400

11
15
phosphorus
P
1,200
1,000
1,000
1,300
1,050

12
25
manganese
Mn
1,000
950
1,100
900
950
16,000,000

13
9
fluorine
F
800
950
540
290
585

14
56
barium
Ba
500
340
340
500
425

15
6
carbon
C
300
480
1,800
940
200

16
38
strontium
Sr

370
360

370
350,000

17
16
sulfur
S
500
260
420
520
350
69,300,000

18
40
zirconium
Zr

190
130
250
165
1,460,000

19
74
tungsten
W

160.6
1.1

1.25
86,400

20
23
vanadium
V
100
160
190

120
76,000

21
17
chlorine
Cl
500
130
170
450
145

22
24
chromium
Cr
100
100
140
350
102
26,000,000

23
37
rubidium
Rb
300
90
60

90

24
28
nickel
Ni

80
90
190
84
2,250,000

25
30
zinc
Zn

75
79

70
11,900,000

26
29
copper
Cu
100
50
68

60
19,400,000

27
58
cerium
Ce

68
60

66.5

28
60
neodymium
Nd

38
33

41.5

29
57
lanthanum
La

32
34

39

30
39
yttrium
Y

30
29

33
6,000

31
7
nitrogen
N
50
25
20

19
140,000,000

32
27
cobalt
Co

20
30

25
123,000

33
3
lithium
Li

20
17

20
35,000

34
41
niobium
Nb

20
17

20
64,000

35
31
gallium
Ga

18
19

19

36
21
scandium
Sc

16
26

22

37
82
lead
Pb

14
10

14
4,820,000

38
62
samarium
Sm

7.9
6

7.05

39
90
thorium
Th

12
6

9.6

40
59
praseodymium
Pr

9.5
8.7

9.2

41
5
boron
B

950
8.7

10
9,400,000

42
64
gadolinium
Gd

7.7
5.2

6.2

43
66
dysprosium
Dy

6
6.2

5.2

44
72
hafnium
Hf

5.3
3.3

3.0

45
68
erbium
Er

3.8
3.0

3.5

46
70
ytterbium
Yb

3.3
2.8

3.2

47
55
caesium
Cs

3
1.9

3

48
4
beryllium
Be

2.6
1.9

2.8
220

49
50
tin
Sn
0
2.2
2.2

2.3
280,000

50
63
europium
Eu

2.1
1.8

2.0

51
92
uranium
U

0
1.8

2.7
74,119

52
73
tantalum
Ta

2
1.7

2.0
1,100

53
32
germanium
Ge

1.8
1.4

1.5
155

54
42
molybdenum
Mo

1.5
1.1

1.2
227,000

55
33
arsenic
As

1.5
2.1

1.8
36,500

56
67
holmium
Ho

1.4
1.2

1.3

57
65
terbium
Tb

1.1
0.94

1.2

58
69
thulium
Tm

0.48
0.45

0.52

59
35
bromine
Br

0.37
3

2.4
391,000

60
81
thallium
Tl

0.6
0.530

0.850
10

61
71
lutetium[7]
Lu

0.5

62
51
antimony
Sb

0.2
0.2

0.2
130,000

63
53
iodine
I

0.14
0.490

0.450
31,600

64
48
cadmium
Cd

0.11
0.15

0.15
23,000

65
47
silver
Ag

0.070
0.080

0.075
27,000

66
80
mercury
Hg

0.05
0.067

0.085
4,500

67
34
selenium
Se

0.05
0.05

0.05
2,200

68
49
indium
In

0.049
0.160

0.250
655

69
83
bismuth
Bi

0.048
0.025

0.0085
10,200

70
52
tellurium
Te

0.005
0.001

0.001
2,200

71
78
platinum
Pt

0.003
0.0037

0.005
172

72
79
gold
Au

0.0011
0.0031

0.004
3,100

73
44
ruthenium
Ru

0.001
0.001

0.001

74
46
palladium
Pd

0.0006
0.0063

0.015
208

75
75
rhenium
Re

0.0004
0.0026

0.0007
47.2

76
77
iridium
Ir

0.0003
0.0004

0.001

77
45
rhodium
Rh

0.0002
0.0007

0.001

78
76
osmium
Os

0.0001
0.0018

0.0015

tag: table

text: Jump up ^ 5,000 tonnes of annual production is electronic grade

tag: ol


document_title: Blowoff valve

question_text: where does the blow off valve connected to

text: Blowoff valve

text: Characteristics[edit]

text: A compressor bypass valve (CBV), also known as a pressure relief valve or diverter valve, is a manifold vacuum-actuated valve designed to release pressure in the intake system of a turbocharged vehicle when the throttle is lifted or closed. This air pressure is re-circulated back into the non-pressurized end of the intake (before the turbo) but after the mass airflow sensor.

text: A blowoff valve, (sometimes "hooter valve" or BOV) performs the same task but releases the air into the atmosphere instead of recirculating it. This type of valve is typically an aftermarket modification. The blowoff action produces a range of distinctive hissing sounds, depending on the exit design. Some blowoff valves are sold with a trumpet-shaped exit that intentionally amplifies the sound. Some turbocharged vehicle owners may purchase a blowoff valve solely for the auditory effect even when the function is not required by normal engine operation. Motor sports governed by the FIA have made it illegal to vent unmuffled blowoff valves to the atmosphere.[citation needed]

text: Blowoff valves are used to prevent compressor surge, a phenomenon that readily occurs when lifting off the throttle of an unvented, turbocharged engine. The sound produced is called turbo flutter ( the slang term ' choo-choo' is sometimes used ). When the throttle plate on a turbocharged engine closes, the high pressure air in the intake system is trapped by the throttle and a pressure wave is forced back into the compressor, the resulting collision of pressure waves creates an effect similar to cavitation producing the unique noise.

text: Operation[edit]

text: A blowoff valve is connected by a vacuum hose to the intake manifold after the throttle plate. When the throttle is closed, the relative manifold pressure drops below atmospheric pressure and the resulting pressure differential operates the blowoff valve's piston. The excess pressure from the turbocharger is then vented into the atmosphere or recirculated into the intake upstream of the compressor inlet.

text: Disadvantages[edit]

text: In the case where a mass airflow sensor (MAF) is used and is located upstream from the blowoff valve, the engine control unit (ECU) will inject excess fuel because the atmospherically vented air is not subtracted from the intake charge measurements. The engine then briefly operates with a fuel-rich mixture after each valve actuation.

text: The rich mixing can lead to hesitation or even stalling of the engine when the throttle is closed, a situation that worsens with higher boost pressures. Occasional events of this type may be only a nuisance, but frequent events can eventually foul the spark plugs and destroy the catalytic converter, as the inefficiently combusted fuel produces soot (excess carbon) and unburned fuel in the exhaust flow can produce soot in the converter and drive the converter beyond its normal operating temperature range.

text: An alternative method for utilizing both a MAF and a blowoff valve is to have the MAF located down stream between the intercooler and the throttle plate. This is known as Blow-through rather than the traditional Draw-through set up. Care must be taken as to the position of the MAF to prevent damage to the sensitive element. For example, on a SR20DET engine, the MAF must be at least 12" from the throttle plate, and the blowoff valve must be 6" from the MAF sensor. By using a blow-through method, the MAF won't be affected by the blowoff valve opening as the pressure is vented before the air reaches the MAF.

text: One approach used to mitigate the problem has been to reduce the boost pressure, which reduces the required venting volume and yields less charge over-calculation by the ECU. The air can also be recirculated back into the intake, a typical stock setup for cars with an upstream MAF sensor. The situation can also be corrected by switching the fuel metering system over to a manifold absolute pressure sensor, a conversion that usually requires a compatible aftermarket ECU or piggy-back fuel controller. The MAP sensor monitors the absolute pressure in the manifold at all times and will correctly detect the change that occurs when the valve vents, allowing the ECU to reduce fuel metering accordingly.


document_title: Rachel

question_text: who did rachel give birth to in the bible

text: Rachel

text: Marriage to Jacob[edit]

text: Rachel is first mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in Genesis 29 when Jacob happens upon her as she is about to water her father's flock. She was the second daughter of Laban, Rebekah’s brother.[3] Jacob had traveled a great distance to find Laban. Rebekah had sent him there to be safe from his furious twin brother, Esau.

text: During Jacob's stay, he fell in love with Rachel and agreed to work seven years for Laban in return for her hand in marriage. On the night of the wedding, the bride was veiled and Jacob did not notice that Leah, Rachel's older sister, had been substituted for Rachel. Whereas "Rachel was lovely in form and beautiful", "Leah had tender eyes".[4] Later Jacob confronted Laban, who excused his own deception by insisting that the older sister should marry first. He assured Jacob that after his wedding week was finished, he could take Rachel as a wife as well, and work another seven years as payment for her. When God “saw that Leah was unloved, he opened her womb” (Gen 29:31), and she gave birth to four sons.

text: Rachel, like Sarah and Rebecca, remained unable to conceive. According to Tikva Frymer-Kensky, "The infertility of the matriarchs has two effects: it heightens the drama of the birth of the eventual son, marking Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph as special; and it emphasizes that pregnancy is an act of God."[5]

text: Rachel became jealous of Leah and gave Jacob her maidservant, Bilhah, to be a surrogate mother for her. Bilhah gave birth to two sons that Rachel named and raised (Dan and Naphtali). Leah responds by offering her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob, and names and raises the two sons (Gad and Asher) that Zilpah bears. According to some commentaries, Bilhah and Zilpah are actually half-sisters of Leah and Rachel.[6] After Leah conceived again, Rachel was finally blessed with a son, Joseph,[3] who would become Jacob's favorite child.

text: Rachel's children[edit]

text: Rachel's son, Joseph, was destined to be the leader of Israel's tribes between exile and nationhood. This role is exemplified in the Biblical story of Joseph, who prepared the way in Egypt for his family's exile there,[7] and in the future figure of Mashiach ben Yosef (Messiah, son of Joseph), who, in the Rabbinic Jewish view, will fight the apocalyptic Wars of Gog and Magog, preparing the way for the kingship of Mashiach ben David (Messiah, son of David) and the messianic age.[citation needed]

text: After Joseph's birth, Jacob decided to return to the land of Canaan with his family.[3] Fearing that Laban would deter him, he fled with his two wives, Leah and Rachel, and twelve children without informing his father-in-law. Laban pursued him and accused him of stealing his idols. Indeed, Rachel had taken her father's idols, hidden them inside her camel's seat cushion, and sat upon them. Laban had neglected to give his daughters their inheritance (Gen 31:14–16). Rachel becomes a trickster like her father, her aunt (Rebekah), and her husband.[5]

text: Not knowing that the idols were in his wife's possession, Jacob pronounced a curse on whoever had them: "With whoever you will find your gods, he will not live" (Genesis 31:32). Laban proceeded to search the tents of Jacob and his wives, but when he came to Rachel's tent, she told her father, "Let not my lord be angered that I cannot rise up before you, for the way of women is upon me" (Genesis 31:35). Laban left her alone, but the curse Jacob had pronounced came true shortly thereafter.

text: Death and burial[edit]

text: Near Ephrath, Rachel went into a difficult labor with her second son, Benjamin. The midwife told her in the middle of the birth that her child was a boy.[8] Before she died, Rachel named her son Ben Oni ("son of my mourning"), but Jacob called him Ben Yamin (Benjamin). Rashi explains that Ben Yamin either means "son of the right" (i.e., "south"), since Benjamin was the only one of Jacob's sons born in Canaan, which is to the south of Paddan Aram; or it could mean "son of my days", as Benjamin was born in Jacob's old age.

text: Rachel was buried by Jacob on the road to Efrat, just outside Bethlehem,[9] and not in the ancestral tomb at Machpelah. Today a site claimed to be Rachel's Tomb, located between Bethlehem and the Israeli settlement of Gilo, is visited by tens of thousands of visitors each year.[10]

text: Additional references in the Bible[edit]

text:
Mordecai, the hero of the Book of Esther, and Queen Esther herself, were descendants of Rachel through her son Benjamin. The Book of Esther details Mordecai's lineage as "Mordecai the son of Yair, the son of Shimi, the son of Kish, a man of the right (ish yemini)" (Esther 2:5). The designation of ish yemini refers to his membership in the Tribe of Benjamin (ben yamin, son of the right). The rabbis comment that Esther's ability to remain silent in the palace of Ahasuerus, resisting the king's pressure to reveal her ancestry, was inherited from her ancestor Rachel, who remained silent even when Laban brought out Leah to marry Jacob.
After the tribes of Ephraim and Benjamin were exiled by the Assyrians, Rachel was remembered as the classic mother who mourns and intercedes for her children.[5] Jeremiah 31:15, speaks of 'Rachel weeping for her children' (KJV). This is interpreted in Judaism as Rachel crying for an end to her descendants' sufferings and exiles following the destruction by the Babylonians of the First Temple in ancient Jerusalem. According to the Midrash, Rachel spoke before God: "If I, a mere mortal, was prepared not to humiliate my sister and was willing to take a rival into my home, how could You, the eternal, compassionate God, be jealous of idols, which have no true existence, that were brought into Your home (the Temple in Jerusalem)? Will You cause my children to be exiled on this account?" God accepted her plea and promised that, eventually, the exile would end and the Jews would return to their land.[11]
In the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew (part of the New Testament), this reference from Jeremiah is interpreted as a prediction of the Massacre of the Innocents by Herod the Great in his attempt to kill the young Jesus. The Jeremaic prophecy is the inspiration behind the medieval dramatic cycle Ordo Rachelis, concerned with the infancy of Jesus.

tag: ul

text: In Islam[edit]

text: Rachel (Arabic: راحيل Rāḥīl), the wife of Jacob (Yaqub), the mother of Joseph (Yusuf) and Benjamin (Binyamin), is an honored woman in Islam. Yaqub and Yusuf are frequently mentioned by name in the Qur'an whilst Rachel is only referenced and not mentioned by name.


document_title: Media cross-ownership in the United States

question_text: who owns the news media in the us

question_tokens: who owns the news media in the us

text: Owners of American media[edit]

text: Over time the amount of media merging has increased and the number of media outlets have increased. That translates to fewer companies owning more media outlets, increasing the concentration of ownership.[1] In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; today, 90% is controlled by just 5 companies.[2]

text:
Company[3]
Media Outlets
Revenues

Comcast
Holdings include: NBCUniversal, NBC and Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Illumination Entertainment, Focus Features, DreamWorks Animation, 26 television stations in the United States and cable networks USA Network, Bravo, CNBC, The Weather Channel, MSNBC, Syfy, NBCSN, Golf Channel, Esquire Network, E!, Chiller, Universal HD and NBC Sports Regional Networks. Comcast also owns the Philadelphia Flyers through a separate subsidiary.
See: List of assets owned by Comcast.

US$80.40 billion (2016)[4]

The Walt Disney Company
Holdings include: ABC Television Network, cable networks ESPN, the Disney Channel, Disney XD, Freeform, History, A&E and Lifetime, approximately 30 radio stations, music, video game, and book publishing companies, production companies Touchstone, Marvel Entertainment, Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, mobile app developer Disney Mobile, Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media, and theme parks in several countries. Also has a longstanding partnership with Hearst Corporation, which owns additional TV stations, newspapers, magazines, and stakes in several Disney television ventures.
See: List of assets owned by Disney.

US$55.13 billion (2017)[5]

Time Warner
Formerly the largest media conglomerate in the world, with holdings including: CNN, The CW (a joint venture with CBS), HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network/Adult Swim, HLN, NBA TV, TBS, TNT, TruTV, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Bros. Pictures, Castle Rock, DC Comics, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, and New Line Cinema.
See: List of assets owned by Time Warner.

US$29.32 billion (2016)[6]

21st Century Fox
Holdings include: the Fox Broadcasting Company, cable networks Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, FX, FXX, FX Movie Channel, MyNetworkTV and the regional Fox Sports Networks ; film production companies 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios.
See: List of assets owned by 21st Century Fox

US$27.32 billion (2016)[7]

National Amusements
(CBS) Holdings include: CBS Television Network and the CW (a joint venture with Time Warner), cable networks CBS Sports Network, Showtime, Pop; 30 television stations; Entercom, owner of hundreds of radio stations; CBS Television Studios; book publisher Simon & Schuster.
(Viacom) Holdings include: MTV, Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite, TV Land, VH1, BET, CMT, Comedy Central, Logo TV, Paramount Network, Paramount Pictures, and Paramount Home Media Distribution.
see: List of assets owned by CBS, List of assets owned by Viacom.

US$27.15 billion[citation needed]

text: *Although Viacom and CBS Corporation have been separate companies since 2006, and Entercom nominally acquired CBS's radio assets in 2017, all three are partially owned subsidiaries of the private National Amusements company, headed by Sumner Redstone. As such, Paramount Home Media Distribution handles DVD/Blu-ray distribution for most of the CBS Corporation library.

text: The former News Corporation was split into two separate companies on June 28, 2013, with publishing assets and Australian media assets going to New News Corp, and broadcasting and media assets going to 21st Century Fox. Both companies remain under the control of Rupert Murdoch[8] In 2018, most of 21st Century Fox, with the exception of its broadcast licenses and news and sports assets, will be sold to The Walt Disney Company.[9]

text: Others of note[edit]

text: History of FCC regulations[edit]

text: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution included a provision that protected “freedom of the press” from Congressional action. For newspapers and other print items, in which the medium itself was practically infinite and publishers could produce as many publications as they wanted without interfering with any other publisher's ability to do the same, this was not a problem.

text: The debut of radio broadcasting in the first part of the 20th century complicated matters; the radio spectrum is finite, and only a limited number of broadcasters could use the medium at the same time. The United States government opted to declare the entire broadcast spectrum to be government property and license the rights to use the spectrum to broadcasters. After several years of experimental broadcast licensing, the United States licensed its first commercial radio station, KDKA, in 1920.

text: Prior to 1927, public airwaves in the United States were regulated by the United States Department of Commerce and largely litigated in the courts as the growing number of stations fought for space in the burgeoning industry. In the earliest days, radio stations were typically required to share the same standard frequency (833 kHz) and were not allowed to broadcast an entire day, instead having to sign on and off at designated times to allow competing stations to use the frequency.

text: The Federal Radio Act of 1927 (signed into law February 23, 1927) nationalized the airwaves and formed the Federal Radio Commission, the forerunner of the modern Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assume control of the airwaves. One of the first moves of the FRC was General Order 40, the first U.S. bandplan, which allocated permanent frequencies for most U.S. stations and eliminated most of the part-time broadcasters.

text: Communications Act of 1934[edit]

text: The Communications Act of 1934 was the stepping stone for all of the communications rules that are in place today. When first enacted, it created the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).[10] It was created to regulate the telephone monopolies, but also regulate the licensing for the spectrum used for broadcasting. The FCC was given authority by Congress to give out licenses to companies to use the broadcasting spectrum. However, they had to determine whether the license would serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity”.[11] The primary goal for the FCC, from the start, has been to serve the "public interest". A debated concept, the term “public interest” was provided with a general definition by the Federal Radio Commission. The Commission determined, in its 1928 annual report, that “the emphasis must be first and foremost on the interest, the convenience, and the necessity of the listening public, and not on the interest, convenience, or necessity of the individual broadcaster or the advertiser.”[12] Following this reasoning, early FCC regulations reflected the presumption that "it would not be in the public’s interest for a single entity to hold more than one broadcast license in the same community. The view was that the public would benefit from a diverse array of owners because it would lead to a diverse array of program and service viewpoints."[13]

text: The Communications Act of 1934 refined and expanded on the authority of the FCC to regulate public airwaves in the United States, combining and reorganizing provisions from the Federal Radio Act of 1927 and the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910. It empowered the FCC, among other things, to administer broadcasting licenses, impose penalties and regulate standards and equipment used on the airwaves. The Act also mandated that the FCC would act in the interest of the "public convenience, interest, or necessity."[14] The Act established a system whereby the FCC grants licenses to the spectrum to broadcasters for commercial use, so long as the broadcasters act in the public interest by providing news programming.

text: Lobbyists from the largest radio broadcasters, ABC and NBC, wanted to establish high fees for broadcasting licenses, but Congress saw this as a limitation upon free speech. Consequently, “the franchise to operate a broadcasting station, often worth millions, is awarded free of charge to enterprises selected under the standard of ‘public interest, convenience, or necessity.’”[15]

text: Nevertheless, radio and television was dominated by the Big Three television networks until the mid-1990s.

text: Cross ownership rules of 1975[edit]

text: In 1975, the FCC passed the newspaper and broadcast cross-ownership rule.[16] This ban prohibited the ownership of a daily newspaper and any "full-power broadcast station that serviced the same community".[13] This rule emphasized the need to ensure that a broad number of voices were given the opportunity to communicate via different outlets in each market. Newspapers, explicitly prohibited from federal regulation because of the guarantee of freedom of the press in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, were out of the FCC's jurisdiction, but the FCC could use the ownership of a newspaper as a preclusion against owning radio or television licenses, which the FCC could and did regulate.

text: The FCC designed rules to make sure that there is a diversity of voices and opinions on the airwaves. “Beginning in 1975, FCC rules banned cross-ownership by a single entity of a daily newspaper and television or radio broadcast station operating in the same local market.”[17] The ruling was put in place to limit media concentration in TV and radio markets, because they use public airwaves, which is a valuable, and now, limited resource.

text: Telecommunications Act 1996[edit]

text: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was an influential act for media cross-ownership. One of the requirements of the act was that the FCC must conduct a biennial review of its media ownership rules “and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.” The Commission was ordered to “repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest.”[18]

text: The legislation, touted as a step that would foster competition, actually resulted in the subsequent mergers of several large companies, a trend which still continues.[19] Over 4,000 radio stations were bought out, and minority ownership of TV stations dropped to its lowest point since the federal government began tracking such data in 1990.[20]

text: Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, restrictions on media merging have decreased. Although merging media companies seems to provide many positive outcomes for the companies involved in the merge, it might lead to some negative outcomes for other companies, viewers and future businesses. The FCC even found that they were indeed negative effects of recent merges in a study that they issued.[1]

text: Since 2000[edit]

text: In September 2002, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stating that the Commission would re-evaluate its media ownership rules pursuant to the obligation specified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[13][21] In June 2003, after its deliberations which included a single public hearing and the review of nearly two-million pieces of correspondence from the public opposing further relaxation of the ownership rules[22] the FCC voted 3-2 to repeal the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban and to make changes to or repeal a number of its other ownership rules as well.[13][23] In the order, the FCC noted that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule was no longer necessary in the public interest to maintain competition, diversity or localism. However, in 2007 the FCC revised its rules and ruled that they would take it “case-by-case and determine if the cross-ownership would affect the public interest.[13] The rule changes permitted a company to own a newspaper and broadcast station in any of the nation’s top 20 media markets as long as there are at least eight media outlets in the market. If the combination included a television station, that station couldn’t be in the market’s top four. As it has since 2003, Prometheus Radio Project argued that the relaxed rule would pave the way for more media consolidation. Broadcasters, pointing to the increasing competition from new platforms, argued that the FCC’s rules—including other ownership regulations that govern TV duopolies and radio ownership—should be relaxed even further. The FCC, meanwhile, defended its right to change the rules either way.“[17] That public interest is what the FCC bases its judgments on, whether a media cross-ownership would be a positive and contributive force, locally and nationally.

text: The FCC held one official forum, February 27, 2003, in Richmond, Virginia in response to public pressures to allow for more input on the issue of elimination of media ownership limits. Some complain that more than one forum was needed.[24]

text: In 2003 the FCC set out to re-evaluate its media ownership rules specified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. On June 2, 2003, FCC, in a 3-2 vote under Chairman Michael Powell, approved new media ownership laws that removed many of the restrictions previously imposed to limit ownership of media within a local area. The changes were not, as is customarily done, made available to the public for a comment period.

text:
Single-company ownership of media in a given market is now permitted up to 45% (formerly 35%, up from 25% in 1985) of that market.
Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed.
All TV channels, magazines, newspapers, cable, and Internet services are now counted, weighted based on people's average tendency to find news on that medium. At the same time, whether a channel actually contains news is no longer considered in counting the percentage of a medium owned by one owner.
Previous requirements for periodic review of license have been changed. Licenses are no longer reviewed for "public-interest" considerations.

text: The decision by the FCC was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC in June, 2004. The Majority ruled 2-1 against the FCC and ordered the Commission to reconfigure how it justified raising ownership limits. The Supreme Court later turned down an appeal, so the ruling stands.[25]

text: In June 2006, the FCC adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPR)[26] to address the issues raised by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and also to perform the recurring evaluation of the media ownership rules required by the Telecommunications Act.[27] The deliberations would draw upon three formal sources of input:(1) the submission of comments, (2) ten Commissioned studies, and (3) six public hearings.[13]

text: The FCC in 2007 voted to modestly relax its existing ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership.[28] The FCC voted December 18, 2007 to eliminate some media ownership rules, including a statute that forbids a single company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin circulated the plan in October 2007.[25] Martin's justification for the rule change is to ensure the viability of America's newspapers and to address issues raised in the 2003 FCC decision that was later struck down by the courts.[29] The FCC held six hearings around the country to receive public input from individuals, broadcasters and corporations. Because of the lack of discussion during the 2003 proceedings, increased attention has been paid to ensuring that the FCC engages in proper dialogue with the public regarding its current rules change. FCC Commissioners Deborah Taylor-Tate and Robert McDowell joined Chairman Martin in voting in favor of the rule change. Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, both Democrats, opposed the change.[30]

text: UHF discount[edit]

text: Beginning in 1985, the FCC implemented a rule stating that television stations broadcasting on UHF channels would be "discounted" by half when calculating a broadcaster's total reach, under the market share cap of 39% of U.S. TV households. This rule was implemented because the UHF band was generally considered inferior to VHF for broadcasting analog television. The notion became obsolete since the completion of the transition from analog to digital television in 2009; the majority of television stations now broadcast on the UHF band because, by contrast, it is generally considered superior for digital transmission.[31][32]

text: The FCC voted to deprecate the rule in September 2016; the Commission argued that the UHF discount had become technologically obsolete, and that it was now being used as a loophole by broadcasters to contravene its market share rules and increase their market share through consolidation. The existing portfolios of broadcasters who now exceeded the cap due to the change were grandfathered, including the holdings of Ion Media Networks, Tribune Media, and Univision.[33]

text: However, on April 21, 2017, under new Trump administration FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, the discount was reinstated in a 2-1 vote, led by Pai and commissioner Michael O'Rielly. The move, along with a plan to evaluate increasing the national ownership cap, is expected to trigger a wider wave of consolidation in broadcast television.[34][35] A challenge to the rule's restoration was filed on May 15 by The Institute for Public Representation (a coalition of public interest groups comprising Free Press, the United Church of Christ, Media Mobilizing Project, the Prometheus Radio Project, the National Hispanic Media Coalition and Common Cause), which requested an emergency motion to stay the UHF discount order – delaying its June 5 re-implementation – pending a court challenge to the rule. The groups re-affirmed that the rule was technologically obsolete, and was restored for the purpose of allowing media consolidation. The FCC rejected the claims, stating that the discount would only allow forward a regulatory review of any station group acquisitions, and that the Institute for Public Representation's criteria for the stay fell short of meeting adequate determination in favor of it by the court; it also claimed that the discount was "inextricably linked" to the agency's media ownership rules, a review of which it initiated in May of that year.[36][37][38]

text: The challenge and subsequent stay motion was partly filed as a reaction to Sinclair Broadcast Group's proposed acquisition of Tribune Media (announced on May 8), which – with the more than 230 stations that the combined company would have, depending on any divestitures in certain markets where both groups own stations – would expand the group's national reach to 78% of all U.S. households with at least one television set with the discount. On June 1, 2017, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a seven-day administrative stay to the UHF discount rulemaking to review the emergency stay motion.[39][40] The D.C. Court of Appeals denied the emergency stay motion in a one-page memorandum on June 15, 2017, however, the merits of restoring the discount is still subject to a court appeal proceeding scheduled to occur at a later date.[41]

text: Local content[edit]

text: A 2008 study found that news stations operated by a small media company produced more local news and more locally produced video than large chain-based broadcasting groups.[13][42] It was then argued that the FCC claimed, in 2003, that larger media groups produced better quality local content. Research by Philip Napoli and Michael Yan showed that larger media groups actually produced less local content.[13][43] In a different study, they also showed that "ownership by one of the big four broadcast networks has been linked to a considerable decrease in the amount of televised local public affairs programming"[13]

text: The major reasoning the FCC made for deregulation was that with more capital, broadcasting organizations could produce more and better local content. However, the research studies by Napoli and Yan showed that once teamed-up, they produced less content. Cross ownership between broadcasting and newspapers is a complicated issue. The FCC believes that more deregulation is necessary. However, with research studies showing that they produced less local content - less voices being heard that are from within the communities. While less local voices are heard, more national-based voices do appear. Chain-based companies are using convergence, the same content being produced across multiple mediums, to produce this mass-produced content. It's cheaper and more efficient than having to run different local and national news. However, with convergence and chain-based ownership you can choose which stories to run and how the stories are heard - being able to be played in local communities and national stage.

text: Media consolidation debate[edit]

text: Robert W. McChesney[edit]

text: Robert McChesney is an advocate for media reform, and the co-founder of Free Press, which was established in 2003.[44] His work is based on theoretical, normative, and empirical evidence suggesting that media regulation efforts should be more strongly oriented towards maintaining a healthy balance of diverse viewpoints in the media environment. However, his viewpoints on current regulation are; "there is every bit as much regulation by government as before, only now it is more explicitly directed to serve large corporate interests."[45]

text: McChesney believes that the Free Press' objective is a more diverse and competitive commercial system with a significant nonprofit and noncommercial sector. It would be a system built for the citizens, but most importantly - it would be accessible to anyone who wants to broadcast. Not only specifically the big corporations that can afford to broadcast nationally, but more importantly locally. McChesney suggests that to better our current system we need to "establish a bona fide noncommercial public radio and television system, with local and national stations and networks. The expense should come out of the general budget"[46]

text: Benjamin Compaine[edit]

text: Benjamin Compaine believes that the current media system is “one of the most competitive major industries in U.S. commerce.”[47] He believes that much of the media in the United States is operating in the same market. He also believes that all the content is being interchanged between different media.[48]

text: Compaine believes that due to convergence, two or more things coming together, the media has been saved. Because of the ease of access to send the same message across multiple and different mediums, the message is more likely to be heard. He also believes that due to the higher amount of capital and funding, the media outlets are able to stay competitive because they are trying to reach more listeners or readers by using newer media.[49]

text: Benjamin Compaine's main argument is that the consolidation of media outlets, across multiple ownerships, has allowed for a better quality of content. He also stated that the news is interchangeable, and as such, making the media market less concentrated than previously thought, the idea being that since the same story is being pushed across multiple different platforms, then it can only be counted as one news story from multiple sources. Compaine also believed the news is more readily available, making it far easier for individuals to access than traditional methods.[50]

text: American public distrust in the media[edit]

text: A 2012 Gallup poll found that Americans' distrust in the mass media had hit a new high, with 60% saying they had little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust had increased since the previous few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in the years before 2004.[51]


document_title: Lethal Weapon (TV series)

question_text: who plays damon wayans wife on lethal weapon

text: Lethal Weapon (TV series)

text: Synopsis[edit]

text: For the first two seasons, Roger Murtaugh, an aging detective with a wife and three children, is partnered with Martin Riggs, a younger, somewhat unstable detective whose wife and unborn child were recently murdered. While Riggs' devil-may-care methods of collaring criminals puts his and Murtaugh's lives in danger on a regular basis, the two are able to develop a respect and friendship. Following Riggs' death in season three, Wesley Cole, a former CIA operative who has been everywhere and seen everything, finds himself navigating a new partnership with Murtaugh, as he adjusts to life in Los Angeles.

text: Episodes[edit]

text: SeasonEpisodesOriginally airedFirst airedLast aired118September 21, 2016 (2016-09-21)March 15, 2017 (2017-03-15)222September 26, 2017 (2017-09-26)May 8, 2018 (2018-05-08)315[6]September 25, 2018 (2018-09-25)TBA

text: Cast and characters[edit]

text: Main[edit]

text:
Damon Wayans as Roger Murtaugh, a senior Los Angeles Police Department Detective who returns to the force after recovering from a heart attack and is partnered with Texas transfer Martin Riggs. He is married with three children (two teenagers and a toddler). He is a native of Inglewood, California, and currently resides in Sherman Oaks. He carries a Heckler & Koch USP as his duty weapon, in early episodes, and later switches to a Glock. In "Family Ties", Murtaugh is promoted to Captain after Avery decides to step down in order to run for office. He was originally played by Danny Glover in the film series.
Clayne Crawford as Martin Riggs (seasons 1–2), a Navy SEAL-turned-police officer from El Paso, Texas. He moved to Los Angeles after the death of his wife and unborn child, transferring from the El Paso County Sheriff's Office to the LAPD's Robbery-Homicide Division. Riggs lived in a trailer on the beach, drives a 1977 Ford F-350, and his weapon of choice is the Beretta 92F, very similar to his movie counterpart. He was shot in the season 2 finale and died in the season 3 premiere. He was originally played by Mel Gibson in the film series.
Jordana Brewster as Dr. Maureen Cahill (seasons 1–2; guest, season 3), the police department's psychologist who treats Det. Riggs (and occasionally Det. Murtaugh). Although sometimes she is referred to as a psychiatrist and prescribes drugs (for example in "Better Living Through Chemistry"). The character is based on Dr. Stephanie Woods played by Mary Ellen Trainor in the film series.
Keesha Sharp as Trish Murtaugh, Det. Murtaugh's loving wife and mother of his three children who works as a defense attorney. In the season one episode "As Good As It Getz", Trish quits her job after being passed over for managing partner at her law firm. She was originally played by Darlene Love in the film series.
Kevin Rahm as Captain Brooks Avery, the Commanding Officer of Robbery-Homicide Division. Before his promotion, Capt. Avery was partners with Det. Murtaugh. In "Lawmen", it is revealed that years ago he and a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputy (Malcolm-Jamal Warner) planted evidence to convict a murderer after previous evidence was excluded from trial; he was prepared to resign over the incident when it came to light, but Murtaugh convinced him to stay because if his impropriety was revealed it would mean that all of Avery's cases (many of which he worked with Murtaugh) would be reviewed if not overturned entirely. The character is based on Captain Ed Murphy played by Steve Kahan in the film series.
Johnathan Fernandez as Bernard Scorsese, a medical examiner, forensic scientist and aspiring screenwriter who works alongside Dets. Murtaugh and Riggs.
Michelle Mitchenor as Detective Sonya Bailey, a fellow detective with Robbery-Homicide Division. She is partnered with Det. Alex Cruz during the first season and Det. Zach Bowman during the second season.
Chandler Kinney as Riana Murtaugh, Det. Murtaugh's teenage daughter. The character is based on Rianne Murtaugh, played by Traci Wolfe in the film series.
Dante Brown as Roger "RJ" Murtaugh Jr., Det. Murtaugh's teenage son. He graduated from high school at the end of season 1 and briefly attended college before dropping out during season 2. The character is based on Nick Murtaugh, played by Damon Hines in the film series.
Seann William Scott as Wesley Cole (season 3), a war veteran and father who moves to Los Angeles to be closer to his child. The character shares the same surname as Lorna Cole, Riggs' love interest played by Rene Russo in the film series.[7]

text: Recurring[edit]

text:
Thomas Lennon as Leo Getz, a comedic ambulance-chasing lawyer who once worked in the District Attorney's office before being fired. He befriends Murtaugh (and to a lesser extent, Riggs) after he witnesses a client's murder, and is put under their protection. His friendship with the duo is strengthened in the second-season episode "Let it Ride" where he works with them again and Murtaugh assures Leo that they don't have to be on a case to be friends. Getz is partially inspired by the character of the same name played by Joe Pesci in the film series.
Hilarie Burton as Karen Palmer (seasons 1–2), a DEA agent who sometimes works with Riggs and Murtaugh on drug trafficking cases, and is also Riggs' love interest. The two break up early in season 2.
Floriana Lima as Miranda Riggs (née Delgado) (seasons 1–2), Det. Riggs' late wife, who is seen in flashbacks. Originally from the Los Angeles area, she moved to Texas when she married Riggs, and after her death, he moved to LA and joined the LAPD. The character is based on Victoria Riggs from the film series, although she was never seen as she had already died before the events of the first film.
Richard Cabral as Detective Alejandro "Alex" Cruz (season 1), formerly an undercover officer with the LAPD's Gang Division who once worked at the Robbery-Homicide Division.
Tony Plana as Ronnie Delgado (seasons 1–2), the Los Angeles City Attorney and Det. Riggs' father-in-law. He is stabbed in prison in the Season 2 episode "Diggin' Up Dirt", and dies in the hospital.
Andrew Patrick Ralston as Jim McNeile, a dentist and neighbor of the Murtaughs.
Michelle Hurd as Gina Santos (seasons 2–3), a police big shot who arrives to take control of the division as chief, superseding the authority of Captain Avery. She and Murtaugh had previously partnered as detectives on a stakeout.
Andrew Creer as Detective Zach Bowman (season 2), a young detective who starts working at the precinct. He is soon partnered with Bailey. Leo Getz condescendingly calls them "The B-team", which the naïve Bowman thinks is because their last names both start with "B".
Kristen Gutoskie as Molly Hendricks (season 2), Riggs' childhood friend and the ex-wife of his old best friend Jake, who has been in and out of prison. Riggs and Molly have a brief relationship that Riggs ends when he sees his work is putting Molly and her son in danger. They later are able to reconcile, and make plans to move back to Texas together just before Riggs is shot in the season 2 finale.
Rex Linn as Nathan Riggs (season 2), Martin Riggs' abusive father.
Chase Mangum as Young Martin Riggs (season 2)
Sophia Woodward as Young Molly Hendricks (season 2)
Duncan Joiner as Ben (season 2), Molly's son via her ex-husband Jake.
Peter Coventry Smith as Garrett Riggs (seasons 2–3), Riggs' half-brother.
Maggie Lawson as Natalie Flynn (season 3)
Mykelti Williamson as Tom Barnes (season 3)[8]

text: Production[edit]

text: The series was ordered on May 10, 2016 and premiered on Fox on September 21, 2016.[1] On October 12, 2016, Fox picked up the series for a full season of 18 episodes.[9] On February 22, 2017, Fox renewed the series for a 22-episode second season, which premiered on September 26, 2017.[10][11][12] On May 13, 2018, the series was renewed for a 13-episode third season, with Seann William Scott replacing Clayne Crawford as the series' co-lead, playing a new character.[2][13]

text: Casting[edit]

text: On February 12, 2016, Damon Wayans was cast as Roger Murtaugh.[14] On February 19, 2016, Golden Brooks was cast as Trish Murtaugh.[15] On March 3, 2016, Jordana Brewster was cast as Dr. Maureen Cahill.[16] On March 7, 2016, Kevin Rahm was cast as Captain Avery.[17] On March 10, 2016, Clayne Crawford was cast as Martin Riggs.[18] On March 15, 2016, Chandler Kinney was cast as Riana Murtaugh.[19] On March 17, 2016, it was announced that Keesha Sharp would take over the role of Trish Murtaugh from Brooks.[20][21] Also on March 17, Johnathan Fernandez was cast as Scorsese.[21][22] When the pilot was picked up to series, Johnathan Fernandez was made a series regular. Though showrunner Matt Miller has expressed interest in making Leo Getz (Thomas Lennon) a series regular at some point, the character is confirmed to be making frequent guest appearances throughout season two.

text: In May 2018, it was reported that Crawford had been dismissed from the show for on-set behavioral issues, and that the producers were looking to replace him for a potential third season.[23][24] On May 13, 2018, Seann William Scott was cast as the new co-lead ahead of a third season renewal and will be playing a new character named Wesley Cole.[2][25] However, in October 2018, Damon Wayans also announced his exit from the series as he will leave following the end of production for the third season in December 2018.[4]

text: International broadcast[edit]

text: In United Kingdom, ITV started airing the series beginning on March 3, 2017.[26] Its viewing figures remained consistent with around 2.5 million tuning in each week. Series 2 started January 12, 2018. In Australia, the Nine Network[27] premiered the series on January 29, 2017.[28] In the Philippines, it premiered on June 10, 2017 on ABS-CBN[29] and ended on September 9, 2017. Only 14 episodes were aired. In Hong Kong, the TVB Pearl premiered the series with switchable dual-language in original English and local Cantonese version on October 11, 2017. In India, Zee Café premiered the first season on 29 September 2016.[30] In Brazil, it has appeared since September 22, 2017 on the Warner Channel Brasil and on the open TV on Rede Globo. In Canada, the series is on Netflix with new seasons arriving each September.  [31]

text: Home media[edit]

text:
DVD & Blu-ray

Title

Release date

Additional

Region 1/A[32]

Region 2/B[33]

Region 4/B[34]

The Complete First Season

September 19, 2017

September 25, 2017

September 20, 2017

showFeatures

Set Details:

4-disc DVD (all regions)
3-disc DVD (all regions)
791 minutes
1.78:1 aspect ratio
Audio:
English: Dolby Digital 5.1 (DVD)
English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 (Blu-ray)
German: Dolby Digital 5.1 (Blu-ray)
French: Dolby Digital 2.0 (Blu-ray)
Spanish: Dolby Digital 2.0 (Blu-ray)
Subtitles:
English SDH (see additional subtitle options as they vary on different regions)
Special features:

Extended Pilot (Uncensored)
All-New Featurette: "Reloading Lethal Weapon"
Deleted Scenes
Gag Reel
Rating:

BBFC: 15
ACB: MA15+

The Complete Second Season

September 18, 2018

October 1, 2018

TBA

showFeatures

Set Details

1.78:1 aspect ratio
Audio:
TBA
Subtitles:
TBA
Special features:

TBA
Ratings:

TBA

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical reception[edit]

text: Lethal Weapon has received mixed to positive reviews from critics. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported a 65% approval rating, with an average rating of 5.35/10 based on 40 reviews. The consensus says, "Lethal Weapon's overly polished production values and tired narrative are somewhat overcome by solid chemistry between its two leads."[35] On Metacritic, the first season has a weighted average of 56 out of 100 based on 24 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews."[36]

text: Ratings[edit]

text:
Season
Timeslot (ET)

Episodes

First aired

Last aired
TV season
Rank
Avg. viewers(millions)
18–49 rating(average)

Date

Viewers(millions)

Date

Viewers(millions)

1
Wednesday 8:00 pm

18

September 21, 2016 (2016-09-21)

7.93[37]

March 15, 2017 (2017-03-15)

6.02[38]
2016–17
35
8.63
2.2/8[39]

2
Tuesday 8:00 pm

22

September 26, 2017 (2017-09-26)

4.37[40]

May 8, 2018 (2018-05-08)

3.15[41]
2017–18
90
5.38
1.3[42]

3
Tuesday 9:00 pm

15[13]

September 25, 2018 (2018-09-25)

3.43[43]

TBA

TBD
2018–19
TBD
TBD
TBD