Talk:Battle of the Imjin River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Imjin River article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] battlebox

I added a battlebox, but much of the pertinent information is missing from the article. I guess, I can get around to looking the info up on the U.S. military history websites.--The Jacobin 04:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] expansion

This article needs serious expansion. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


I agree, the action needs a clearer explanation; it also needs to be tied in with the pages on Gloster Hill, and Kapyong. I would be interested to give it a try when I get back from holiday; If anyone else wants to do it, the information is in "The Edge of the Sword" by Anthony Farrar-Hockley,(who was there) and C N Barclay's book "The First Commonwealth Division".Xyl 54 16:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK thenXyl 54 09:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious contradiction in figures

The battle summary box states that approximately 40,000 chinese soldiers lost approximately 11,000 men in the battle against approximately 750 british soldiers who only sustained approximately 300 casaulties. The figures alone raise eyebrows, but the article then goes on to list figures of at least 10,000 chinese vs 750 british soldiers of whom approximately 700 were KIA. Just which is true? Question2 12:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tactical victory / strategic loss?

should we not list this as being a phyrric tactical Chinese victory and a strategic UN victory as the Chinese won the battle but the UN forces successfully withdrew and stopped the PLA and NK armies advance on Seoul BritBoy 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese always used "pyrhhic victory" right? Their flood tactics. Unless there's literature for it, no. (Wikimachine 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Battle of Kapyong

The Battle of Kapyong and the Battle of the Imjin River are clearly related because the take place over the same dates and the objective of the attackers was the same "advance on Seoul". What is needed is an over view of the Chinese/NK offensive/campaign and were these battles fit into it. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; a page on the Chinese Spring Offensive, or the Fifth Phase offensive would cover it, though both these actions (Kapyong and Imjin) merit pages on their own; you aren't proposing to merge them, are you? I'm not in a position to do it just now, though I've got the information somewhere; are you? Xyl 54 15:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commander?

shouldn't the commander be listed as Brody, since he was brigade commander and therefore more appropriate than Ridgway, who was commanding the entire UN defence as opposed to this particular battle? perhaps Carne should be listed also as he was operational commander of the Glosts and they were at the centre of the battle for its entirety BritBoy 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

As you may have noticed, I have expanded the background section with information based on an essay by Anthony Farrar-Hockley in the Oxford History of the British Army and a chapter from Max Hastings' "The Korean War". If I have the time in the next few days, I will try to work on other sections of the article as well. I have tried to make the connection between Kapyong and Imjin clear but I think that an article about the entire Chinese Spring offensive would be very helpful to clarify the issue.--PINTofCARLING 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have managed to expand the rest of the article, especially the battle section which I divided into four subsections. However, I couldn’t come up with nice titles for the sub-sections. Any changes are very welcome. I also tried to keep as much of the previous contributions as possible. This was difficult because the previous versions included hardly any references and described the action in very general terms. Other changes are listed below:

  • added Luxembourg to the list of combatants in the infobox. Their contribution was small but nevertheless, they participated in the battle as part of the Belgian battalion and should therefore also be included in the infobox
  • there was some inconsistency concerning the name Brody/Brodie; based on my sources, I changed it to Brodie
  • added a See also section which includeds Gloster Hill and the Battle of Kapyong
  • added Further Reading, includes books mentioned by Xyl 54 above
  • I could not verify the number of casualties mentioned in the article. Farrar-Hockley and Hastings both provide exact numbers of the Glosters' and 29th Brigade's casualties. Therefore, I changed the casualty section and the infobox accordingly. I could not verify the Chinese casualties mentioned in the infobox either (tens of thousands is just unbelieveable), Hastings puts them at 10,000 based on several campaign histories, I changed that number, too.
  • added a section on the importance of the battle

--PINTofCARLING 18:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)