Talk:Battle of Chipyong-ni

Globalize

This article needs more of the Chinese side of the battle. Units, commanders, that sort of thing. Cerebellum (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to work on it, but I can't touch this article until Battle of Ch'ongch'on River and Third Battle of Seoul are finished. In the meantime, does anyone have time to read the book I put up in the reference? It is THE most authoritative account of the battle. Jim101 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time to dig the records, but judging from the map in the article, Chinese 39th and 40th Corps was involved in the battle, and the map imples a total Chinese strength of 4 regiments with 12,000 soldiers. Chinese commanders should be the same as the one I put up in Battle of Unsan. Also, this battle is far more important than this article implies, it should be considered as a major battle with far more detail. Jim101 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on it. Thanks for the info! Cerebellum (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to dig deeper on the Chinese side of the battle, I recommand you read Shrader, Charles R. (1995). Communist Logistics in the Korean War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-29509-3. My grandfather fought around there during this battle, and this book tells you exactly what my grandfather told me everytime: Chinese were fighting on 10 rifle rounds per person with no food, and it is the reason why the UN managed to hold out here. Jim101 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The important point this article did not address is why Ridgeway tell 23rd Regiment to hold. It should be expanded to provide the importance of the battle. By my understanding, after Chinese took Seoul, Mao forced Peng to continue south even when PVA supplies are running dangerously low. At the same time, everyone at UN was panicking except Ridgeway, who realized the Chinese supply problem. Ridgeway told the 23rd to hold in order to blunt the Chinese advance, then after this victory he immediate ordered the Eighth Army in a series of counterattacks, which utterly devastated the Chinese during their Fourth Phase Campaign. This point should be expressed in the article to show that this battle is a huge turning point in the Korean War. Jim101 (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Background

"After Chinese forces entered Korea in November 1950, the UN Forces, uncertain about the intentions and warfighting capabilities of the Chinese, drew back behind the 38th parallel and waited to see what the Chinese would do." Anyone see a problem with this statement in the Background section? Weren't the UN forces defeated by the Chinese at the Battle of Chong'chon River? This statement is misleading because it suggests that the UN forces withdrew without a fight. 98.208.57.195 (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Chipyong-ni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221080931/http://www.2id.korea.army.mil:80/news/articles/2009/03/06/chipyong-ni_memorial_2009 to http://www.2id.korea.army.mil/news/articles/2009/03/06/chipyong-ni_memorial_2009/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015092845/http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/Chipyong-ni.htm to http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/Chipyong-ni.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091115162203/http://www3.ausa.org:80/WEBINT/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/CCRN-6CCS55 to http://www3.ausa.org/webint/deptarmymagazine.nsf/byid/ccrn-6ccs55
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805175250/http://www.2id.org:80/wonju-chip.htm to http://www.2id.org/wonju-chip.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

apparent errors

To me it appears that 9,000 has an extra 0 and should read 900 yards. 9,000 yards is a little over 5 miles and the perimeter of the defense is only about a mile. 900 yards is about 1/2 mile ( 0.5) which seems more reasonable for an attack from within the perimeter. "By 12:30, it was still 9,000 yards from what remained of the earlier counterattack."

At the end of the first day the article says 1st battalion was attacked from the west, but it was on the east side of the perimeter. Seems like west should be east.

"At first light the Chinese renewed their attack in the west, against the 3rd Battalion. "MikeO78 (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC) (MikeO78 (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC))