Talk:Battle of Chosin Reservoir/Archive 1

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ARTICLE

I feel that the statement "Chinese Volunteers" seriously erodes the fact that these soldiers were not "volunteers" but were instead full-fledged Chi-Com soldiers. To say otherwise is disingenuous. Look at the history. They were not volunteers, but were ordered into battle. Brutusbuk 05:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Brutusbuk, as long as your edits can sourced to reliable and published references, feel free to correct the article. However, countless reference books on the subject clearly state that the Chinese who fought were officially members of the Chinese People's Volunteer Army, which was created solely for the Korean War by transferring units from the PLA into the CPV. Officially the PLA never entered Korea, regardless of the fact that it was merely troops transferred from one 'umbrella' to another. The article People's Volunteer Army may need a bit of additional referenced material to help clarify the exact composistion of the CPV, but it was the CPV itself in Korea. As much as I don't like it myself at times, Wikipedia is not about the truth, but only about what has been published by verifiable and reliable sources. On a side note, in the future, new 'discussions' get added to the bottom. It took me a couple of edits to get the hang of it myself. wbfergus ^Talk 11:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel that the article, as currently written, gives an accurate depiction of the 7th Infantry Division's participation. First, only parts of the 7th, to be precise roughly 1/3rd of the division, was in or near the battle at all. The major units of the 7th which were present include Task Force MacLean/Faith, located east of the reservoir and northeast of the Marines and B Co. of the 31st Infantry Regiment, which formed part of Task Force Drysdale, the relief effort from the south. In other words roughly one regimental combat team, approximately 3,000 men total out of a division which numbered between 12 and 15,000 men.

Also, I have never read anywhere that the Marines picked up the "abandoned equipment" of the 7th and used it in their "advance to the rear." There was little or no equipment to pick up as Task Force MacLean/Faith, which was virtually destroyed and did lose all of its equipment, was miles away from the Marines, and not on their marching route south from Chosin. An Army tank company - manned by soldiers - did play an important role in the battle, fighting its way to Hagaru in company with the Marines and providing much needed firepower.

So, in the next day or so(this being 11-9-05)I would like to see some sources for the assertions that the Marines picked up the abandoned equipment of the presumably fleeing 7th Division, or I will alter the article to reflect what I believe is a more accurate description of the battle.

MY sources are: Clay Blair's, THE FORGOTTEN WAR, Times Books, NY(1987); Roy Appleman's, EAST OF CHOSIN, Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station(1987); and ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE KOREAN WAR, Spencer Tucker, ed.,Checkmark Books(Facts on File), NY(2002).

Beau Martin, aka dubeaux

Your suspicions are correct--the story about Marines picking up abandoned equipment has no basis in fact although it is still taught to Marines in boot camp that Marines recovered abandoned army artillery (totally false). At any rate, it appears to have been deleted.

I added a few things in regards the army but am unskilled in restructuring the article itself. P1340 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)P1340

Glad to see this topic! I play wargames and have one on this topic, called "Semper Fi!" by The Gamers. Some good historical notes in the rulebook, and I also have a book on the subject. May add a bit to this down the road. Something that struck me in the reading (and I haven't finished) is the friction between the Army and the Marines (an Army general was the overall commander of the operation and wasn't very highly thought of by the marines who seemed to do most of the work). The battles for the hills (Fox Hill for instance) were something I would never want to be a part of, a few battalions holding off a couple of Chinese divsions over two nights. It's too bad this war is so forgotten except in M*A*S*H episodes. I'm against war myself (a paradox I know, in that I play the games) but the marines who participated in these battles have my utmost respect for their conduct in the battle itself. --Rgamble

As a Chinese, I could only show my utmost respect for these Chinese soldiers who fought in such an extreme condition with such poor equipments. It was them who reevaluated China to a status of great power and ended a century of impotence against foreign army. --Zhouyn

Welcome, Zhouyn. My father actually fought in the Chosin Reservoir with the US Marines, which is where my interest, and a great deal of information I have contributed to this article, have come from. He's expressed great respect for the skill of the Chinese forces in Korea. He told me once about one time that the US forces had trouble getting their radios to work (I'm not entirely sure whether or not this was in the Reservoir, but it was in Korea). While they were having this trouble, he heard bugles in the distance. The Chinese were using bugles to coordinate their troops in the field, and were doing a better job at it than the Americans could do with their radios.

It's truly interesting to learn that this battle is remembered with as much if not more pride among the Chinese as it is among the US Marines. Thanks for your input into the article, Zhouyn. Philwelch 02:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Factual innacuracy revert

Phil, you changed my taxobox to say that the commander was 'Howlin' mad smith instead of Oliver Smith. You are thinking of Holland Smith, a marine corp general of approximately the same time period. However, you are very wrong. Check out the USMC bio of Oliver Smith. Different people, similiar names and occupations. →Raul654 20:29, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Numbers

The numbers of combatants and casualties in the text do not match the numbers in the box. If there are conflicting estimates, then the right thing to do is to pick a median (or give the range) and cite the conflicting sources. Gdr 11:41, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

The number of casulties of the PRC is grater than the number of combatants from China . Deleting until someone corects it! AdrianCo (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)AdrianCo

Well, I for one have never seen the Battle of Chosin with such a low number of PRC combatants. (I'm referring to the info box, the article seems to be on the lower side of normal but reasonable) The minimum I have read was 125,000 with most sources describing 150,000 - 200,000 Chinese troops. I would make the change, though I'd be interested in hearing who came up with 30,000 and why... James (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

_____________ According to this website, http://www.koreanwar.com/the_battle_of_chosin_reservoir_one.htm, as well as a book that I have (USMC by Russ Bryant and W. David Perks ISBN 0-7603-2532-4 pg.123) the numbers were 20,000 UN vs. 200,000 Chinese also the current numbers in the opening paragraph and info box on the right are conflicting as well as contrary to the two sources I have named.

I would make the necessary changes as well as the necessary citations, but I don't have the know how...somebody needs to change it though.

Fightinginthestreets (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fox Hill

Someone above mentioned Fox Hill. It is not mentioned in the article, nor in the wiki article on Ray Davis. It would perhaps make a nice entry in one or the other. It would more naturally belong here, but, it might be a US-POV problem. I can't write about it without using a US POV, and I gather that this article is attempting neutrality between the UN and the Chinese combatants. Sivamo 09:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

medals

I read that Almond gave DSCs to Smith, Litzenberg, Murray, Beall, and Puller on Dec 4 (1950) at Hagaru-ri, but that later Smith recommended all three regimental commanders for upgrade to Navy Cross, and it was approved at least for Puller -- so probably also for Liztenberg and Murray -- does anyone know for sure if Litzenberg and Murray were awarded Navy Crosses for their leadership at Chosin? Sivamo 10:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Navy Cross is the Navy/Marine equivalent of the DSC. They're both equal--there's no upgrade.

I know Murray had a Navy Cross but don't know the details. P1340 16:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory

I took out the part where it claims the Marine mauled the Chinese divisions to the point where the Chinese division didn't take part in later engagement. In fact, the 9th Army Group [Bing Tuan}'s divisions took part in the subsequent combats up to the US counter offensive. --Centralk (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am changing the result from Chinese Pyrrhic victory to just Chinese victory. Chosen reservoir wasn't a pyrrhic victory for the Chinese they defeated the UN-forces and drove them back, albeit with heavy casualties. Chosen reservoir didn’t seriously damaged the Chinese army, they could easily replace there losses. - Carl Logan

The definition of a Pyrrhic victory would be a victory in which the losses required to attain it exceeded the gain earned through victory. The assault by the Chinese against the 1st Marine Division and its accompanying UN units was unnecessary, as the 1st Marine Division was not going to assault forward on its own without the rest of the UN force and would have been forced to withdraw under any circumstances. The Chinese, however, decided to attempt to destroy the Division, and lost eight of their own in the process. The loss of eight divisions in an unsuccessful attempt to kill one renders this a Pyrrhic victory in terms of the specific and discrete resources expended compared to specific and discrete gains achieved. - Tommythegun

I agree with Tommythegun; I can't recall the specifics but all those divisions were rendered ineffective for months. P1340 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)P1340

I'm changing it back to "Chinese victory" independent of this discussion. IMO "pyrrhic victory" is a tactical victory that is worse than defeat. To quote the "Aftermath" section, "This campaign, with the simultaneous victory against U.S. forces to the west, was the first time in a century a Chinese army was able to defeat a Western army in a major battle, despite the heavy losses." Not only did the Chinese achieve their strategic goals after the battle, the Chinese's reputation soared in anti-American countries during the Cold War after the battle. Moreover, if Mao: The Unknown Story and a few other controversial books could be taken seriously, losing the divisions (said to be ex-Nationalists) was actually Mao Zedong's goal. Or, if we take it from another perspective, the South Korean and US forces failed in their offensives. Aran|heru|nar 07:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also dont forget that even thought the Chinese lost many division during this battle against the Marines, dont forget that Mao Zedong said that he wouldnt mind to sacrifice another 10 division just to reach his goal, this prove that the Chinese still has the human resource to remain fighting.

Hanchi 26 November 2006

But we have to remember that it was a pyrrhic victory from the perspective of the Soviet Union, which had a vested economic as well as political interest in the war. The fact that Mao disagreed only made matters worse. To the American leadership only the Soviet's goal really mattered (with the notable and ultimately ironic exception of General MacArthur), and in that sense the battle and the war's eventual outcome was far from a loss for the American side. So "pyrrhic victory" would make sense if we're talking about the Communist alliance and/or the Soviet sphere of influence in Asia, but it is also understandable from a short term perspective why it would simply be called a Chinese victory. On the other hand, Mao is not a good source for determining whether or not human costs were worth it. 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The box is wrong in stating a Pyrrhic Chinese victory. From Pyrrhic victory: "However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers and their losses did less to their war effort than Pyrrhus's losses did to his." The chinese (unlike Pyrrhus) had the larger pool of soldiers to draw from compared to the UN forces. They lost more soldiers than their opponents, however since they could replace these losses, it was not a pyrrhic victory. --Xeeron 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Strategically, a Chinese victory, but based on this battle alone, I think it is a UN/American Pyrrhic victory. The Chinese PVA failed to destroy the UN forces and badly mauled themselves. The 1st Marine Division and RCT 31 is largely intact despite heavy casualties but due to the uncertain situation, they are forced to retreat.

--SCSI Commando 14:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize this discussion is a bit old, but I'd like to chime in and say that I don't think the battle was at all Pyrrhic for the Chinese. SCSI Commando makes a good point that the UN forces were not completely destroyed, but the question of whether an enemy is annihilated or not, doesn't spell the difference between "victory" and "Pyrrhic victory." The fact is, the PVA did suffer horrendous losses in this action, but still managed to push UN forces back over the 38th parallel in the ensuing months, before the front stabilized at the present-day border. The losses suffered at Chosin did not, apparently, cripple the ability of the Chinese forces to make war. On the other side, the US 2nd Inf. suffered devastating (by American standards) losses as well, while making their breakout to Sunch'ǒn. I think that had the US divisions not made it out of there, we'd be talking about the Battle of Chosin Reservoir as a "decisive" victory for the Chinese. I'm not going to change the result to "Chinese victory" ATM, but wait to hear any more arguments on why we should consider Chosin to be Pyrrhic.

On the comment made above, about the Soviets' interest in Korea: You certainly may be right on this point, but considering how removed Stalin tried to make himself from the Korean War, I think we ought not be reading things from a Soviet standpoint... while the War itself would have a major impact on Soviet affairs (particularly regarding their relationship with Mao and China), I think that on the level of the battle, we should concentrate on the military ramifications to the combatants themselves. Louiebb (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd put "Chinese strategic victory", "UN tactical victory".Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the Chinese, their casualties are around one third of all the Chinese forces committed into battle. I'm still trying to decipher the list of numbers from Chinese. Jim101 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chinese sources confirmed that it is a Pyrrhic victory. To quote one Chinese historian, the entire 9th Army was turned into a "field hospital" unit for three months in the aftermath of the battle, and Mao himself publicly expressed "sorrow" for the outcome of the battle. This just tells how much Chinese really lost in this battle. Jim101 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

In text, one can read "Around 20,000 UN troops, with advanced weaponry and air power, clashed with 200,000 poorly equipped but well organized Chinese soldiers" but the table compare strengths: 25,000 vs 120,000.

which are the right numbers?

ThierryVignaud 7 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Is the link to Bill Barber the person intended for this article?

---

For the record I changed it a few months ago to: 30,000 vs. 60,000. P1340 16:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)P1340

According to this website, http://www.koreanwar.com/the_battle_of_chosin_reservoir_one.htm, as well as a book that I have (USMC by Russ Bryant and W. David Perks ISBN 0-7603-2532-4 pg.123) the numbers were 20,000 vs. 200,000 also the current numbers in the opening paragraph and info box on the right are conflicting as well as contrary to the two sources I have named.

Fightinginthestreets (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese said they put the entire 9th Group Army, which is around 150,000 soldiers, into battle. Jim101 (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

One note about the Chinese number: A normal Chinese division is about 10,000 soldiers at full strength, while a Chinese army usually has an artillery regiment attached. So the total Chinese number can't be much greater than 130,000 (12x10,000 + 3x3000), thus the 200,000 Chinese at Chosin does not make any sense whatsoever. Further more, almost all Korean War histories, including the research by historian Patrick Roe of the Chosin Few, concluded that there were only ten Chinese divisions present at Chosin, so that cut the number down to around 100,000. Finally, there are ample sources and UN intelligence reports that state all of the Chinese divisions were at 70% strength with most of its soldiers dying before they even arrived for battle, so that finally round the numbers down to between 60,000 to 70,000. Jim101 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone fix this article!

Someone who has a good military history book of the Korean War must get to work immediately to fix this article. Most of it is just cut and paste from other sites, and the part that isn't is just written sloppily. The article repeats itself and is not, in my opinion, from a completely neutral POV. Notice the list of Americans who got medals, but not only does it not mention any Chinese soldiers, it doesn't mentioned anybody from the UN allies either. If I knew anything about the Korean War, I would help. But I don't :( (Which is why I came to the article in the first place!!!) Lou N.

You're right about fixing it

You're right. The article is lousy as is. I might try to completely revise it, but right now I haven't got the time to do the necessary research. I do suggest, if you are interested and have the time, to check out Clay Blair's excellent history of the Korean War, THE FORGOTTEN WAR, which has a very good account of the Chosin Reservoir.

As for the lack of mention of individual Chinese participants, there is, even today, very little in English(indeed, virtually nothing)from the Chinese side. Many of the generals who commanded Chinese units were later disgraced during the Cultural Revolution of the 1960's, or otherwise fell out of favor with Mao's regime. The few Chinese accounts(translated)I've seen of the war are little more than formulaic communist diatribes where the virtuous peasant-soldiers of Mao trounce the evil capitalist war-dogs of the West.

It would be great to have the story of the Chosin campaign from both sides.

But you can't write history worthy of the name based on the Chinese propaganda currently available. BEAU MARTIN/dubeaux

Great work starting the article but even to get more balance on the UN side would be good. The article starts with describing things from the US/ UK perspective then half way through forgets about anything but the US. The impression is that all the other UN forces had packed up and gone home at this point.--82.133.79.7 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all Chinese war diary was written by Leaders or generals or "propaganda", dont you think the American side use "propaganda" as well? For example by praising the small victory for the Marines as a "Feel Good" factors. Anyways there are alot of none written accounts about Korean War by surviving Chinese veterans who fought in the war, but doesnt have the writing skill to put it down, most of their story is just "memories". Also in Hong Kong there are written study of the Korean War from the Chinese point of view, and just because its written by a Chinese doesnt mean its going to be "propaganda" (Must all "Neutral" view be written by a "Westerncentric" point of view?).

Hanchi 00:18 16 Januari 2006 Greenwhich Time.

To Hanchi: I'm all in favor, as I said above, of including Chinese accounts of Chosin Reservoir. However, until recently, there have been no translated accounts generally available in the USA(my location)that were not mere propaganda. This situation is changing and as soon as I or other interested parties, competent in English, obtain and study such accounts, I'm sure the article will be modified to integrate the Chinese POV as well as the American.

dubeaux 14 May 2006

The admitted POV of this article is just evidence of a systemic problem here - you can only cite sources in English, and the vast majority of information about the Korean War from the DPRK or Chinese side hasn't been translated. I also think it's wrong to dismiss all Chinese accounts that seem too optimistic or positive as pure propaganda. The Volunteers were an incredible bunch of soldiers on an individual level, and you can't get that without high morale as well. Of course, there are plenty of propagandistic accounts, but we shouldn't silence all aspects that don't fit with the UN forces line. Deleuze 09:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me an article written by american participants in the war, as this Talk page shows: most of the comments are from USA veterans, welcomed, of course, but without a view of the other side of the conflic. English sources can be quoted by those who talk english, chinese ones by chinese speakers, I refuse to believe there are no chinese historians, whose point of view surely deserves respect. Referring to China's army as "Chinese communist forces" is a shame for Wikipedia, even if no Chinese has contributed to this article; the article seems to evoke here and there texts from USA Army propaganda. For example, the "Background" section put McArthur to fight PLA forces after their invasion of Korea, while the main article in the Korean war mentions the opposite: McArthur engaged the PLA before they crossed the Yalu. I'm not qualified to make many changes, but, if I find no arguments about it in this page a prudential time, I will substitute the CCF tag with the official name of PLA. As for a self-defeating win, perhaps a more NPOV would be to say that the chinese army seems to have achieved a clear victory with high losses, against an army better equiped. PLA flanked and encircled US Army, or so the map of the battle shows. It also can be qualified as costly, as shown by the 7700 to 37500 death and wounded toll, implying a 1 to 5 casualty ratio, similar to the numbers achieved by Russia against Germany in WWII when fighting in similar conditions of numeric superiority and equipment inferiority. The unnecesary qualification to the battle would be true if the chinese casualties could be trusted, but they are greater than the strength, as pointed out by Hanzo Hattori. Even if these figures are true, nobody would qualify the Eastern Front battles as pyrrhic.--Ciroa 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new layout

I was thinking under battle we should maybe have a layout like:

Battle

Fighting at Yudam-ni and Hagaru-ri

Task Force Drysdale

Task Force Faith

Breakout and relief of the Toktong Pass

Consolidation

Withdrawal to the sea

Aviation support

Just a rough idea. Interested to hear any other ideas--Looper5920 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Chinese total casualties are greater than the strenght

--HanzoHattori 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. The Chinese casualties seem greatly exaggerated. If the numbers on the page are to be believed, The Chinese strength was 60,000, but suffered 67,500 casualties (25,000 killed, 12,500 wounded, 30,000 frostbite injuries). If the numbers are to be believed, half the Chinese in the force died, while everyone who didn't die some suffered from some sufficiently serious injury to become a casualty.--61.221.52.85 (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The name of the place

The actual name of the location where the battle took place is Changjin, although the continued use of Japanese name for the location for some reason led to the wrong name (Chosin) being stuck. Although the name of the battle remains in history books, I felt that it would be best to at least get the place names right and made a few changes. H27kim 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

CCF?

Why are the Chinese forces referred to as the CCF in numerous places, rather than PLA troops? It would seem to make more sense, particularly as CCF means Combined Cadet Force in the UK - making for very amusing reading! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.251.97 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on several factors, such as the time the writing was done, the author, etc. CCF as it pertains to the Korean War stands for Chinese Communist Forces, which were also called CPV (Chinese People's Volunteers) or just PVA (People's Volunteer Army). The Chinese created the new name PVA and then transferred PLA units over, so they could claim that they weren't fighting the US (and the rest of the UN countries), but instead the fighting was being done by indivudual volunteers. Now almost everybody outside of mainland China knows thats a crock, but almost all references to the Korean War make the distinction between the PLA and the PVA (or CCF, CPV). wbfergus ^Talk 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhm...everybody inside mainland China also know PVA is PLA. For the sake of political correctness, PLA troop in Korean should be all labelled as PVA, since all Chinese sources does that once a PLA formation crosses the boarder. Jim101 (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Casualties?

It would be nice just to have some estimates, if it really was a Pyrrhic victory, some numbers, even "disputed" ones, would help. Perhaps "unknown but heavy", or "estimates range from X to Y" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.241.83 (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just found an official Chinese source on the battle...if anyone has time please translate it.

I don't have the time to do this myself, but I would like to give everyone a heads up.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

Sanctioned and endorsed by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which means it is a reliable source within the PRC academia circle.

The usual disclaimer applies, don't be fooled by the Chinese propaganda from the 50s. The Chinese side of the story is usually censored before it can be published.

Jim101 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect identification of the commander on the US side in the Infobox

The identification of Major General Oliver Smith as the "commander” of US Flagged forces is incorrect and misleading. Major General Smith commanded the 1st Marine Division USMC, a subordinate maneuver element of the US Army X Corps at that time. The 1st MARDIV was one of (and the largest) forward maneuver element of the X Corps; the other being Regimental Combat Team 31 of the 7th Infantry Division (US Army). This battle was NOT just a Marine Corps fight, but involved the 1st MARDIV, the 7th INF DIV and the 3rd INF DIV as well as other X Corps assets. As the article indicates "30,000 United Nations (UN) troops (nicknamed "The Frozen Chosin" or "The Chosin Few") under the command of American General [Edward] Ned Almond faced approximately 150,000 Chinese troops..." Unless proof that MG Edward Almond was not the commander of the X Corps, and that this battle was not a X Corps fight this element of the article should be changed to reflect the correct senior tactical commander of the UN Forces, Major General Almond. An awful lot of US Army Soldiers died serving with RCT 31 on the east side of the Changjin Reservoir.Meyerj (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No one would ever try to deny due to the Army soldiers on the east side of the reservoir and Gen Almond was the 10th Corps commander. He was never the commander on the ground though except for the occasional helo flight in. Once the fighting broke out the commanders on the ground were MajGen Smith and Col McClean. I would be more comfortable with their names in the box then with Almond's. Also in your OOB you have listed the entire 3rd ID. That is a bit misleading since most histories of the battle define it as the fighting that took place from Koto-ri north to the reservoir. I don't believe that those troops guarding Hungnam and Wonson should be considered part of the Chosin Reservoir OOB. The OOB should be 1st MarDiv, those 7th Inf units east of the Reservoir and those that made up of TF Dog. Right now TF Dog's contribution to the fight is a bit exaggereated in the article b/c so much of the rest of the battle has not been spelled out. No one is denying the Army's part in the battle but there should also not be an overemphasis on their contribution.--Looper5920 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I would most seriously disagree, as a former Marine and Soldier; this was a X Corps fight, as it was a X Corps attack to the Yalu to start with, that the 3rd Infantry Division would most seriously agree with and as would Lt Col. John Page, US Army, X Corps Artillery, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for actions leading a couple of Marines in the vicinity of Sudong, which is south of TF Dog and about two miles north of the 65th Infantry at Majon-dong. In fact G Company, 65th Infantry was located there along with the Scout Platoon from TF Dog. Read Cowart, Glenn C. (1992). Miracle In Korea: The Evacuation of X Corps from the Hungnam Beachhead and the first hand account, "The Forgotten War's Forgotten Task Force" by Colonel George O. Taylor, JR. Up to the point that the 1st MARDIV cleared Majon-dong, 3ID was spread WSW from Majon-dong before collapsing into the perimeter vicinity Hamhung-Hungnam. Despite all the hype that my beloved Corps would like to read about it was an Army attack and blunder that led to a bad situation. I suppose it will have to go to one of those Wiki discussion groups for a "consensus".Meyerj (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold up a bit. We have only begun to discuss. I did not mean to imply that I was drawing any lines that could not be crossed. Guess we need to define what exactly encompassed the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. If we can get on the same page there then we are well on our way. No one will deny the heroics that occured on the Army side at some points in the fighting but are all of those incidents part of the "Battle of Chosin Reservoir" or are they other parts of the larger X Corps incursion into Eastern North Korea? No matter what conclusion we come to this article still needs a ton of work. There is no description of the events surrounding the 5th and 7th Marines at Yudam-ni and their subsequent breakout, the defense of Hagaru-ri, close air support and medevac flights in support of the ground troops, the 2 MoHs that were awarded for actions during the relief of F/2/7 at the Toktong Pass, RCT-31's actions east of the reservoir..... What I am saying is we should take some time, hash it out and come to a consensus. It can be done right here and if anyone else wants to jump in then all the better. Cheers--Looper5920 (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(This statement started out to be short and I apologize for its length, it is addressing this discussion from the UN perspective) The battle of the Chosin Reservoir is a grouping of smaller battles in the vicinity of Changjin Lake. From the East side of the Changjin Lake well north of Hudong-ni (vicinity of present day Sinhung-ni) to the west side at Yudam-ni and south from hill 1081, vicinity Task Force Dog, (Seized by A Co 1/1 MAR commanded by Bob Barrow, future Commandant of the Marine Corps) to Sudong and Majon-dong (both manned by the 65th Infantry). The battle is prescribed by “time” (Nov 27 to Dec 13, 1950) and it includes not only the 1st Marine Division who destroyed the better part of three Chinese Divisions with its two forward deployed regiments but also Regimental Combat Team 31 of the 7th Infantry Division who significantly reduced the combat effectiveness of the Chinese 80th Division and Task Force Dog (significant enough to be commanded by a Brigadier General) from 3d Infantry Division who were sent forward at the request of the Marine Division Commander. It includes the Marine withdrawal from Yudam-ni to passing thru the 65th Infantry lines established by the 3d Infantry Division at Majon-dong (1st and 2nd Battalions of the 7th Infantry and the 15th Infantry regiment were in position west of the 65th Infantry Regiment at Majon-dong to block the CCF from completely enveloping the Marines.) It was a time when Marine and Soldier fought the same weather conditions and the same enemy together. It was a time when Marine aviation sometimes hit friendly U.S. Army troops. Of course the Air Force was good at that also (ref Task Force Smith). It was the transition point from the UN Offensive Campaign of 16 Sep - 2 Nov 1950 to the CCF Intervention Campaign of 3 Nov ’50 - 24 Jan ‘51. It was a period in which the Marine combat photographer and the “media” celebrated a major defeat by identifying a hero which the Marine Corps gladly accepted and completely overshadowed the efforts of US Army participants for almost 50 years, until Roy Appleman’s “East of Chosin: Entrapment and Breakout in Korea, 1950” and “Escaping the Trap: The US Army X Corps in Northeast Korea” were written along with Cowart’s “Miracle In Korea: The Evacuation of X Corps from the Hungnam Beachhead” and the poignant article “The Forgotten War's Forgotten Task Force” by Colonel George O. Taylor Jr,. And now one I just found that feels its contribution was significant can be read at: http://www.valerosos.com/ForgottenTaskForce.html . But that overshadowing does not mean it was a Marine Corps alone battle. Look at per capita figures of unit casualties and note that less than one fifth of RCT 31 remained combat effective at Hagaru-ri after mixing it up with the CCF 80th Division. 3d Infantry Division played a part and not an insignificant part of the battle all of which is supported in a variety of publications, some mentioned above, not one of which attempts to make insignificant the contributions of any player within the X Corps AOC. There is sufficient evidence to support the Order of Battle for X Corps as a matter of fact and the paragraphs about TF Dog as originally written, prior to edits by Looper5920; although grammatical changes are appreciated. I encourage any additional contributions to information about RCT 31 or the individual Marine regiments. Meyerj (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Using the phrase "comprised of"

Dictionary.com,... comprised (—Idiom) Usage note: Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, “to include” and “to consist of” (The United States of America comprises 50 states), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning “to form or constitute” (Fifty states comprise the United States of America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original meanings “to consist of, be composed of”: The United States of America is comprised of 50 states. These later uses are often criticized, but they occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing. Using it in this way, in this article, although not wrong, may not be the best use, however, used this way it does require a "verb"; either is or was, and since this is a historical article, the past tense is the appropriate tense.Meyerj (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Other United Nations forces

Can the USA list of units be expanded into a UN list of units with 41st Independent Commando Royal Marines, the South Korean units and the USN close air support listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My focus at the moment is the 3d Infantry Division. I guess if you have the information that is verifiable, post it; You can start researching with this: UNITED STATES ARMY IN THE KOREAN WAR, SOUTH TO THE NAKTONG, NORTH TO THE YALU (June-November 1950) CHAPTER XXXVIII, The X Corps Advances to the Yalu By Roy E. Appleman, Page 744. < "During the time the 7th Marines was heavily engaged in combat with the CCF 124th Division, a controversy between General Almond and General Partridge over the control of the 1st Marine Air Wing came to a head. Under existing procedure the Fifth Air Force Joint Operations Center at Seoul controlled the assignment of missions to the 1st Marine Air Wing. General Almond felt that, during a period of active ground combat when the local ground tactical situation could change drastically within an hour or two, he, the local commander," (Emphisis on He, the LOCAL COMMANDER which supports the arguement that Almond should be listed as the commander vs Smith) "should have complete command over the air units supporting the ground troops. On 4 November General Partridge flew to Wonsan to hold a conference with General Almond on the subject. General Almond won his point; the Fifth Air Force ordered the 1st Marine Air Wing to assume direct responsibility for close support of X Corps without reference to the Joint Operations Center. Close support requests beyond the capabilities of the 1st Marine Air Wing were to be reported to the Fifth Air Force."> This might need a word smith as it appears published authors make mistakes too.Meyerj (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

Agree with Looper5920, TF Dog was not requested by Smith to be a rescue, nor was it sent by Almond to be a rescue. Some authors do address the entire withdrawal situation from 'the Chinese trap' as a rescue of the 1st MARDIV / RCT 31 and according to Wikipedia rules if it is published and verifiable, it can be included in an article, but nowhere is it written (that I have found) that TF Dog was on a rescue mission. A smaller than regiment sized unit cannot rescue three infantry and one artillery regimental units, plus RCT 31 and all the X Corps cats and dogs that were forward of Chinhung-ni. TF Dog was sent to relieve one battalion of the 1st Marine Regiment (in tactical terms means to take the place of) so that the Marine Corps battalion could be free to maneuver against the enemy. TF Dog's AAA and FA units directly supported that Marine Corps battalion's attack on 8 and 9 December; which made it possible for an Army bridging unit with the 1st MARDIV to construct the Treadway Bridge so the Marine division could begin moving from Kot'o-ri toward Hungnam. Then the TF mission was to protect (adding it's fire power) with direct and indirect fire the Marine division and RCT 31 move south and finish up as the rear guard for that column and move in trail with it.

I also don't agree (and I could be wrong) that the comments about President Truman are consistent with a "neutral point of view" for this article and I support their removal. They seem to be opinion and need citation to support continuation in the article.

Authors to this section and this entire article need to refrain from stating opinion that cast aspersions on one participant or the other. State the verifiable facts and provide the ability to others to find and review those facts in other publications. I have commanded companies in both the Marine Corps and the Army and they are both fine organizations at what they do. They just do things a little differently from each other. Meyerj (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your observation about the Truman comment. It is suggesting that the only way for US to win this battle is to invade and destory China (which is complete ludcrious and sucidial decision to make at that time). I suggest remove this statement ASAP unless there are sources to back this statement up. Jim101 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have published sources that states the US's loss at this battle contribute to the decision not to invade North Vietnam, because it is too dangerous to liberate Communist countires. But none of them say that Truman is afraid of China nor that Truman wasted American lives because he is afraid of China. Jim101 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

the world according to....

It appears that Looper5920 has taken jealous charge of this article and intends that it should reflect his concept of history telling. Let’s have an Oo-RA for the young. I had no idea that Wikipedia allowed for that. Obviously recent edits have been inserted to articulate someone’s beef with decisions of 58 years ago. I certainly hope that this recent outburst exhibited by deletion of items from the article is not contagious. I have no idea as to when those now moved items were originally included in this article but I certainly applaud the intent of someone who wished to provide readers with often hard to find information. As for the use of abbreviations, they should not be used without a key to explain to the unknowing. It is far simpler to spell ranks out. Meyerj (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My age and your age are irrelevant to the conversation so please do not bring it up again. The two paragraphs that I deleted, while a popular opinion in many circles, are not written in a style that belongs in this encyclopedia and were only recently added by an anonymous editor. I will guarantee that the removal of them in their current forms, not being NPOV and with no references, would withstand any review by members of this community. I have not taken jealous charge of this article at all. You need to be able to accept that others will make changes to your edits and that overtime the end product will be better off for it. Putting a list of units in the middle of the article is poor formatting and adds nothing to the meat of the article on the fighting of the battle.--Looper5920 (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I clean up the article and added more researches, by my copy editing skill sucked. More help is appreciated. Jim101 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say your written english also needs work, but you did a very good job telling the story. A few additions about Army units supporting the event, such as the Army's Treadway Bridge unit assisting the Marines install the treadway bridge are in order. Really good depth. Meyerj (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Task Force Dog's story is that by the time Task Force Dog joined the battle, all 8, maybe 10 Chinese divisions were already destroyed. The only time the Task Force Dog did save the column (from Chinese perspective) was to stop the Chinese ambush at Sudong...other than that, but looking at the story from both sides, it really did not do much.

As for RCT-31's attack on the Threadway Bridge, most Chinese were already frozen to death by the time it got there...few stragglers tried to disrupt the process, but they were dying anyway...not much accomplishment to present in the overall scheme of things. Jim101 (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about TF Dog. However, TF Dog assumed defensive positions from 1/1 Marines freeing them to attack hill 1081 and also supported that attack with AAA fire uesd in the direct fire mode and FA support in the indirect fire mode. So I gues you are wrong. However, Army Engineers sent forward with the 1st MARDIV to prep a forward airfield and Corps forward HQ provided the Marine Combat Engineers with truck/lift capability without which the Treadway bridge would not have been errected. That battle was not just a Marine engagement. Meyerj (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Triple A and FA support...I'll have to check that. Appleman keeps on rambling about close range fightings on the peaks of the hills, Cowart's book said the weapons were deployed, but he didn't say it was used on Hill 1081. The Chinese just said they don't have any soldiers left to attack Chinhung-ni with or without the task force. Tricky to incorporate it into the article.

As for the truck...I know the army has the truck, but I did not understand its capabilities, could you provide me with more pointers? Jim101 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Meyerj, you are correct, 58th Engineer Treadway Bridge Company of the army rebuilt the bridge...btw, I'm not biased against the army, because RCT-31 did literally destroyed the 27th Corps during the battle and prevented the Chinese 58th Division from getting reinforcements at Hagaru-ri. Its a shame that both the marine and the Chinese refuse to say that out loud, otherwise I could put it in the article. Jim101 (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

UN tactical victory...

User:DagosNavy insisting that UN did not achieve a victory at the Chosin Reservoir, I disagree base on the following observations:

• Chinese sources made it clear that they had failed to destroy the 1st Marine Division, THE primary goal of the battle. The efforts by the 1st Marine Division on foiling the Chinese plan is a major tactical success on the UN side.
• Chinese wanted to destroy four UN divisions but could only destroy one UN regiment. At the same time, UN forces destroyed 8~10 elite Chinese divisions (out of 12 total) — the trade off between 80,000 irreplaceable elite infantryman with 4-plus years of combat experience vs 10,000 UN personal is not something to be discounted.
• Confirmed by both UN and Chinese sources, UN forces did literally knock out the Chinese 9th Army for months, which made it unable to participate in some of the crucial battles during 1951. That itself is a minor strategic victory on the UN side.
• Most reliable sources have stated that this battle is a victory for both sides.

Thus, I believe it is fair to say at least that UN forces achieved a tactical victory at Chosin.

Jim101 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What were the objectives for each side at the start of the battle? The Chinese wanted to remove a potentially hostile force from their border and Doug wanted to reunify Korea. Who achieved their first objective? Hcobb (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Chinese objective: Destory all UN forces on the east side of North Korea, reach the 38th Parallel.
• UN Objective: X Corps reach Yalu River, 1st Marine Division cut Chinese supply line.

So technically even though China achieved one out of two goals, nobody really achieved their full battle objectives...Although Chinese managed to reach the 38th Parallel, losing 8 elite divisions is something compeletly unexpected, which is a huge blow to the Chinese by consulting their records. Jim101 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)