Talk:Chinese Spring Offensive/Article Comment by Jim101

The Scope

The current article uses the title "Chinese Spring Offensive", which technically concludes on May 22 when Chinese forces ceases all offensive activity, yet the current article scope stretches all the way to June 10, when UN forces recovered all lost grounds in Operation Piledriver and Chinese forces declared an end to the "Fifth Phase Campaign" after UN forces stopped their counter offensives. This is critical distinction to make since "Chinese Spring Offensive" was technically a flop while "Fifth Phase Campaign"'s result is more debatable as I will outline in the next section

Result

Currently the status states: Chinese tactical victory, United Nations strategic victory, Operational draw

I'm wondering why this is the case, given the viewpoints presented below:

Official Chinese History page 358

In this campaign, the PVA and KPA stopped the UN strategy of frontal attack in coordination with flanking amphibious assault, their intent to setup new defensive line across the waist of Korea, and re-seized the initiative after losing it in the Fourth Phase Campaign. Our new soldiers also passed the trial of fire and gained the experience in fighting against the modern US forces. This campaign also forced the UN to remeasure the effectiveness of PVA and KPA, ruined their plan to reunify Korea by force, forced them into the defensive and finally force them onto the negotiating table.
The Fifth Phase Campaign, although the PVA and KPA cannot achieve its plan of annihilating the enemy during the first impulse, they did manage to seize the initiative of the campaign. This results in second impulse successfully fulfilling its original aim. But after the completion of the second impulse, because we could not anticipate the UN forces' counter attack, our main forces lost the initiative while withdrawing. After, we immediately re-positioned and actively interdicting enemy forces, broke the UN counter offensive, and stabilized the front around the 38th Parallel. Looking at the whole picture, although the PVA and KPA gained some success, it was an incomplete success from command perspective, primarily because our attacks are "a bit too rushed, a bit too large, and a bit too far." Attack too rushed, we can't prepare; Attack [scope] too large (especially the first impulse), we can't break down the enemy, thus cannot finish our objective of annihilating the enemy; Attack too far, our logistics cannot keep up, while we are vulnerable to enemy counter attacks once we stopped the pressure.

Official US History, page 491 and 494

General Ridgway in assessing the results of recent operations for the joint Chiefs on 30 May indicated that conditions in Korea already were favorable, at least on a short term basis, for seeking to open armistice negotiations. Enemy forces, he reported, had suffered a defeat so costly that without reinforcement from China they would not again be capable of attacks as strong as those launched in April and May; even assuming- as some prisoner and agent reports indicated- that a new Chinese army group arrived in Korea, the Eighth Army within the next two months could face enemy forces no stronger than those it had already soundly defeated. Thus, for the next sixty days, he predicted, "the United States Government should be able to count with reasonable assurance upon a military situation in Korea offering optimum advantages in support of its diplomatic negotiations." Predicting further that as an immediate course enemy forces would attempt to put up strong defenses below the Iron Triangle and in the ground flanking the triangle on the east and west, he outlined General Van Fleet's preparations to advance through these defenses toward line Wyoming and toward the altered segment of line Kansas east of the Hwach'on Reservoir. Barring the arrival and rapid deployment of sizable Chinese reinforcements, Ridgway expected the Eighth Army to reach these lines within two weeks. If the attack progressed as he expected, he told the Joint Chiefs, he would within a few days give his recommendations for operations to follow the Eighth Army's seizure of its Kansas Wyoming objectives.
[...]
With the seizure of line Wyoming and the adjusted segment of line Kansas in the east, the Eighth Army had reached its allowed limit of general advance in support of efforts to open cease-fire negotiations. As yet there had been no clear sign that Chinese and North Korean authorities favored that kind of resolution, but there had been a search for a way to open armistice talks, and with some result.

Official South Korean History, page 771

The Communist forces, already driven into a corner due to their failed Spring Offensive, reluctantly had to accept armistice negotiations as a way out after this second counter offensive by the UN forces, using armistice negotiations as a bait, the Communist forces began to take measures to save face and build up strength to turn the tide of war.

Official British History, page 157, 159

In fact, the United Nations has won the battle. P'eng had already signaled his army groups to draw back. His decision was not due to the advance against him - his instruction had been drafted while General Milburn's corps was still closing up on 21st May - but to his losses of man and equipment....
General Ridgway...gave his approval to the deliberate approach to Line Kansas, its extensions eastward, and an advance to Wyoming to the base of "Iron Triangle", but no further: the territory to be gained did not justify the risk involved in its seizure. The Eighth Army was to consolidate on Wyoming and Kansas. The army commander was to prepare an appreciation of his situation and operational aspects over the next two months. On these terms, as the victor, General Ridgway brought the Fifth Phase Campaign to an end.

First of all, gaining/losing ground was never discussed here, so I don't know how did someone started to measure outcome base on that. My general feeling after reading all the above POV was that there is a general agreement that Chinese did suffered a costly defeat at "Chinese Spring Offensive", but the two points of dispute on the exact outcome of "Fifth Phase Campaign" were whether Chinese resistance at Kansas/Wyoming objective the main reason why UN forces stopped at Kansas/Wyoming objectives, and the question of who forced who onto the armistice negotiation table. On the first point of dispute, I have to note that all claims that fierce Chinese resistance at Kansas Wyoming objectives was the only reason why UN stopped advancing was exclusively coming from Chinese sources, which I was unable to find any clues about it happening from UN source. On the second point, the narrative is stacked against the Chinese claim because UN did try to negotiate after realizing that they can't drive Chinese out of North Korea after the Second Phase Campaign, while the Chinese war aim was to drive UN forces out of Korea through decisive battle until "Fifth Phase Campaign" ended. In the end the result of the "Fifth Phase Campaign can only be logically summarized as Decisive UN military victory, with the caveat of either "UN Strategic victory" or "Strategic outcome disputed".

Strength and casualties

In all ye olde edit wars, people will jump over this like moth to a lamp light. So let's do it right the first time instead of just AGF everything that just seemed to make sense.

Strength number context: given this is a full on battle between all UN and all Communist forces, do we cite numbers on total strength or just front line strength? FYI, the total Communist vs UN strength is 1 million plus vs. ~650,000.
Historiography tradition: The current source to cited for strength was O'Neill 1985, p. 132. As a historian that follows Commonwealth tradition, I am having suspicion that his number is on the UN forces west of Kapyong than the entire UN forces across the line. The tell I'm looking at is the relative low numbers of ROK force when compared with US forces available, when my gut feeling is that they should be on parity at least. I'll drop this point if this is confirmed otherwise.
Chinese casualty: Citation here being misused used. the correct way to cite is to use Zhang 1995, p. 152. to cite the number 85,000 since that is the only source that used authenticated Chinese document from the battle. The 110,000 number used by Millett 2010, pp. 441, 452. is technically a back of envelope estimation to give an possible range since there is no definitive answer on the subject. If people believe this 85,000 is too low then the number 85,000+ along with the disclaimer that UN forces estimated 100,000 losses (Millett 2010, p. 452) also works.
UN casualty: Regardless of what number people are using, is there really a POV that described that UN losses were "heavy"? And in what context was this term used? My memory do offer one possible context why this could be called heavy losses for the UN: Paik Sun Yup's memoir states ROK Armed Forces Headquarters was disbanded and replaced by US Commands due to their poor performance in May 1951, and ROK Armed Forces technically ceased to exist because of that. Still, that was not related to the mental picture of a massive South Korean body count inflicted by Chinese from the battle, which may or may not have happened. Finally, the total UN losses was 39,274 (Millett 2010, p. 452).

Article Structures

Do people really think it is a good idea to cramp three huge engagements (Fifth Battle of Seoul in April, Battle of the Soyang River in May and Operation Piledriver in June) into a single article? My opinion is that develop each article separately and then summarize them into this article can remove a lot of confusion.

Article Content

Where do I start on a battle that lasted two months that involves around two million men...

First Impulse, or Fifth Battle of Seoul

This battle involves three stages:

Stage 1: Initial UN Stand on April 22-23

Currently this section only contains two minor battles from this stage only...from west to east we are missing:

ROK 1st Infantry Division's stand against KPA I Corps, PVA 64th Army, and PVA 65 Army
US 65th Infantry Regiment and Filipino's 10th RCT's stand against PVA 15th Army
Turkish Brigade and US 25th Infantry Division's stand against PVA 12th and 60th Army
US 24th Infantry Division's stand against PVA 20th, 26th, and 27th Army
ROK 6th Infantry Division's collapse against PVA 40th Army
US 1st Marine Division's stand against PVA 39th Army
Harassment of ROK units east of Kapyong by KPA III and V Corps.

Stage 2: Withdraw to the No Name Line to north of Seoul. There are several interesting of topic to talk about:

Why can't the Gloucestershire withdraw? Was it a heroic sacrifice or Bordie sound the retreat a tad bit too late like the 1RUR ambush at the Third Battle of Seoul?
What about Van Fleet Rate of Fire and its devastating effect on Chinese forces, plus the logistics strain on UN artillery units in this battle?
How did the UN forces out run the Chinese, dug in and fortified the No Name Line, and thus ruined the Chinese battle plan?
Don't forget the Greek Battalion, Thai Battalion and US 1st Cavalry Division here.

Stage 3: This stage is pretty straight forward since the battle was pretty much won by UN at this point, but still few questions:

Was there really a battle to defend No Name Line? Or did Van Fleet's artillery turned the Chinese forces into a smoldering crater before they can even approach it? Or the Chinese just throw in their towel and gave up?

Second Impulse, or Battle of the Soyang River

This battle involves two stages:

Stage 1: Initial Chinese attack on May 16-21

Chinese attacked, ROK broke and ran away, while UN forces (Mainly US X Corps, including US 2nd, 3rd, 7th Infantry Division) made a stand after ROK units ran away in front of them:

What is the contribution of French/Dutch Battalion at this stage of battle? I have heard glowing reviews.
Was ROK losses large or small? I heard contradictory facts on this...one hand the ROK unit disintegrated really quick, on the other hand ROK units was really good at hiding from Chinese forces because they disintegrated really quick.
Again, the Van Fleet Rate of Fire factor in breaking Chinese attacks

Stage 2: UN Counter Attack on May 21-30

How did US X Corps knocked PVA 12th and 60th out of action and turned the entire Chinese withdraw into a full blown rout?
What was Edward Almond's reputation after he led the X Corps to inflict the worse Chinese defeat in the entire Korean War?

Operation Piledriver

I got nothing to say due to the POV dispute in the Results section above. I will say however that most western histories tend to take a break here since it is assumed that Chinese accepting the negotiation talk after Battle of the Soyang River meant mission accomplished on the UN side.

Aftermath

Why is Battle of Triangle Hill mentioned here? Which history (including Chinese histories) actually linked this battle with "Fifth Phase Campaign"?

END OF DOCUMENT, signed Jim101 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]