# Talk: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 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree. 203.17.235.23 (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

this article is so apparently not written in a neutral point of view, i´d say it is a shame for wikipedia in the actual status. tammo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.28.45 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC) 

Care to elaborate? Anotherclown (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can dig up in Chinese archives. Don't worry about the POV mate, everything checked out fine. Jim101 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again Jim excellent work. Thanks greatly for your efforts. Anotherclown (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be an Australian based account, heavily biased in favour of the Australian contribution, relying on 8 Australian sources as opposed to only 1 Canadian source. About 4/5ths of this article details the Australian experience, and only a brief mention of the Canadian role, although it was the Canadian stand which actually decided the outcome. There should be much greater balance in this article, a reduction in the profuse details of the Australian battle. Someone seems to have felt the need to justify what amounted to a quickly decided and unorganized forced retreat from the battlefield made by battlefield commanders under fire, with the Australians hotly pursued by the victorious Chinese forces. It seems that the prolific details here were included in an attempt to explain how that could happen. And also a downgrading of the 700 Canadians role in stopping a full enemy division. There should be a more detailed account of how the Canadians were able to prevail against the overwhelming numerical odds. There exists a major battlefield monument today at Kapyong dedicated to the 2 PCCLI and the Canadian Army, surrounded by South Korean and Canadian flags, but not including the Australian or British or American flags. This indicates how the battle is generally perceived.Tennisedu (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Tennisedu adding these comments to a 12 year old discussion is unlikely to gain the attention of other users, you should create a new section. Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the observation. I have now done that by reorganizing and adding much new material and adding new section titles. I would expect that much further discussion could well develop on this important article.Tennisedu (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
No, I meant that you should create a new section on this Talk Page, but it seems that you have just gone and editted the main page, so we'll see what the views of other Users are to your changes. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Having a reputation for unreliability in defence, the South Koreans...

The reputation should be elaborated a bit, explanations are needed on why ROK 6th Division has a problems at this battle...I'll dig my South Koreans sources on this issue.  

Thanks, please do. I think I can add something here too. I'll have a look also. Anotherclown (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

US casualties during the period 22–29 April numbered 314 killed and 1,600 wounded, while Commonwealth, South Korean and other UN contingents brought the total to 547 killed, 2,024 wounded and 2,170 captured.

This is completely different from the US I Corps' casualty number, which is provided in the article Battle of Imjin River, and 3 times higher.

I have checked my sources and both Johnston and Mossman agree with the figures I have cited, however I think this only relates to the first week of the offensive. I will reword.  Anotherclown (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I have looked at this again and really can't figure out a solution. Mossman is a fairly good source and seems fairly explicit when I read it. Johnston supports these figures (and adds Commonwealth stats etc). I just cannot reconcile this discrepancy with the figures cited in the Battle of the Imjin River article, I'm afraid. I'm open to suggestions... Anotherclown (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
::: Well, the problem I see is the Chinese number 80,000. Is there a source that directly compared the 80,000 number with some UN casualty numbers? I know the source on the Battle of the Imjin River article did, which is a direct comparsion between 70,000 vs 16,000. Jim101 (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
: I'll have to look into this issue too. Given that Roy Appleman and Mossman both served together as combat historian in Korea, their widely different numbers on I Corps is really puzzling. Jim101 (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It may not help but below is the quote from Johnston p 109:
"During its first week, the spring offensive had cost the communists 13,349 known dead, and Eighth Army headquarters estimated that a total of 24,000 enemy [sic] had been killed. With US Army losses at only 314 killed and 1,600 wound - Commonwealth, ROK, and other UN contingent lossess brought the totals to 547 killed, 2,024 wounded, and 2,170 caputure - the disparity between the two sides' casualties reflected the devasting effect of the UN's enorous firepower when directed against massed infantry. UN Command headquarters in Tokyo estimated that the enemy [sic] lost between 75,000 and 80,000 in killed and wounded in the offensive." Anotherclown (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears I'm in error. 16,000 were the causalty number from April 2 to May 1. The exact US causalty number from April 22 to 29 were 413 KIA, 1,709 WIA, 448 POW, 69 MIA for a total of 2,645. After scanning Johnston's book, the numbers he used were in the ball park. Jim101 (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

...fierce resistance in battles at the Imjin river and at Kapyong had blunted the impetus,...Undoubtedly the defence mounted by the 27th Brigade ultimately helped to halt the advance on Seoul and prevented its capture...

Since Kapyong was not on the Chinese route of attack, is this still a valid conclusion?

I see what you mean, I think its still valid but needs to be tweaked to acribe the correct weight. Have done this now - please review and let me know what you think. Anotherclown (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I cannot comment too much on this issue unless someone wrote a book that compares the Chinese and Commonwealth records...but one useful metric on the importance of Kapyong was did the road junction at Kapyong served any purpose before Chinese could capture it? Like for example, the defense of Kapyong allowed some reinforcements for the I Corps, etc. Jim101 (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The battlefield was littered with the corpses of Chinese soldiers, a testament to the discipline and firepower of the defenders. And yet, despite their ultimate defeat the battle once again demonstrated that the Chinese were tough and skillful soldiers, inflicting heavy casualties on the Australians and forcing their eventual withdrawal, albeit intact and orderly.

A few citations here would would be nice.

Added one. Anotherclown (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, those are the content issues that I believe that needs to be looked at. Chinese record didn't say much about this battle, since the 40th Field Army was only ordered to block at Kapyong, not to capture Kapyong. Jim101 (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Striking all issues, looks fine now. The Chinese 80,000 casualty numbers were replaced with the confirmed dead number plus a note, given UN estimations and authenticated Chinese telegraphs does not match. South Korean analysis of the aftermath were also added, plus the real Chinese intention at Kapyong and why Chinese did not exploit the breakthrough at ROK 6th Division sector. Jim101 (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The word 'Commissar' is misspelt in the article's footnotes as 'Commassiar [sic]'. Commissars were officials of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in this instance, responsible for political education and organisation within military units. It was a term and concept copied by the CCP from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Kobalt08 01 Mar. 2010

It is a popular misconception that the Chinese Spring Offensive had completely failed to capture Seoul on April 29. There was a second attempt to captured Seoul by the Chinese in mid-May by outflanking the UN defenders at the east of Kapyong. I corrected this error in the article. Jim101 (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
And another thing, "they had little recourse but to withdraw back into North Korea and regroup" is somewhat incorrect. There was a change of plan on April 29 by shifting the 3rd Army Group further east, but no Chinese unit withdraw back to North Korea on April 29 or gave up their gains. Chinese forces did not withdraw back to North Korea until May 21 in the aftermath of the Soyang River battle. Jim101 (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I also modified the Chinese war aim...160 km advance type objective was completely illogical in Chinese military thinking due to their logistics constraints. Thus the Chinese war planning during the entire Korean War always aimed at Cannae style annihilation with the least amount of walking. Jim101 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Good work. Thanks again for clearing that up, my only defence is that thats what my sources said! Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes: Coulthard-Clark, Chris (2001). a reliable tertiary source? Are articles individually authored, if so did you only consult particular articles? [by Fifelfoo]
Why wouldn't it be? The author is an official historian at the Australian War Memorial and has written dozens of books. Articles in the Encyclopaedia are not individually authored (AFAIK he wrote them all). Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, author expertise satisfies me greatly here.   Academic encyclopaedia often have individually authored articles of journal article length which impart original research.  I was asking if it was this kind of encyclopaedia.  But I'll accept a sole-authored expert (AWM official historian) as a good thing. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
London, England. England, Really?
I think that means 'England is so obvious it should be removed'. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I more meant that London is in the UK; but removing the national origin due to obviousness is also acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course, I missed that... that makes more sense. Anotherclown (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Help me out with what makes Centre of Military History and Australian Military Historical Publications reliable publishers?
Not sure how to respond to this... IMO there is no reason to assume they are not. CMH is a US gov organisation that sponsors academic research on US Army history and has been around for a long time, while AMHP is definately less well known but has published numerous unit histories, biographies and memoires (many in concert with the Army History Unit, such as 'The Fight Leaders'). Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries, actually now that I think about it I should probably add 'US Army' to the citation template for CMH... Anotherclown (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I am very very satisfied with these answers and they were exactly what I was looking for.  Very reliable: academic specialist and specialist publisher non-fiction. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review and cheers for the response. I'm a bit embarrassed that there were so many errors in my citations, well spotted. This has forced me to look a bit closer at some of my other articles. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

At dawn the Chinese intensified their attack, driving the Australians off the high ground, and killing and wounding the bulk of the Medium Machine Gun section and the Assault Pioneer Platoon:
^ Breen 1994, p. 54/55
A P pl 1 KIA ,A/T Pl 1 WIA (sub deceased)  ,Sig 2 KIA in Acoy lines,  4 more KIA in BHQ.  2  RP in Jeep, 2 from LMG section.  4 were wounded. This does not tally with the above statement "killing and wounding the bulk of the Medium Machine Gun section and the Assault Pioneer Platoon".  This is taken from O'Niell's Official History, but is disputed by Breen.  Most of these casulties occured prior to 1 am.
This is controversial re actions of Lt Coln I.B. Ferguson .
NB driven of what high ground?  A Coy still hold hill at dawn.
NB Leonard Francis Turton-Sainsbury was with support coy, (My Father).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsainsbu (talk • contribs) 07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Unfortuantly it is a problem I have often encountered in my research, that is two reliable sources seemingly contradicting each other. Perhaps you might suggest how this could be re-written in a way that it is more accurate? To be honest though I have been burnt by Breen previously and am tempted to go with O'Neill. Cheers again. Anotherclown (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have reworded this slightly to remove the implication that A Coy had been pushed of their position, merely that MMG and Assault Pioneers had, per O'Neill. Still not sure how to reconcile your concerns re the casualties, although as you say most of those identified above occurred prior to 1 am, whilst O'Neill appears to be recounting the situation a number of hours later at dawn. Might they therefore both be accurate? Anyway please let me know what you think. Anotherclown (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
If sources are in disagreement on some of the facts, the solution is to mention the diversity of opinion in the sources. We do not and are not in the position to make our own decision about which source is correct and then eliminate the other sources. That would constitute original work which is beyond the scope of editing here.Tennisedu (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I've reduced the scope of the comds and units listed in the infobox. Ultimately Kapyong was a small battle which was part of a much larger action, and was primarily fought b/n the 27th Brit Com Bde and 118th Chinese Division. The South Korean 6th Division was heavily involved in the initial stages of course, while the US 5 Cav Regt reinforced the 27th Brit Com Bde later in the battle. South Korean and US divisions were of course involved in the wider action and on the flanks, although given the focus of this article on Kapyong I don't think it is really necessary to list them in the infobox. Likewise with the comds. I have tried to reduce this to a more appropriate level. Previously it included Ridgeway and Van Fleet (CinC and Comd US 8th Army respectively) and Peng Dehuai (comd Chinese PVA). Obviously a level of comd much above that at Kapyong. I seem to recall this was actually my addition a few years ago and I believe it may have been questioned by another editor at the time (if my memory serves me correctly). I've had a bit of a rethink about it now and now think this may have been a bit excessive. Happy to discuss if others disagree of course. Anotherclown (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I just changed the type of weapon used by the 213th AFA from M101 towed howitzers to M7 self-propelled guns. It was an armored field artillery battalion of the Utah National Guard so it would not have towed guns. Unfortunately, this article is structured to leave out their heroic hours in the Battle of Kapyong on 19 May, but you can read about it (and watch an excellent video) at https://www.ldsliving.com/Latter-day-stripling-warriors-The-Korea-Seoul-Mission-s-touching-visit-to-sacred-ground/s/93698?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=email. 71.220.219.16 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This was a much different battle nearly a month later. Not sure of the "heroics", a term which lacks objectivity and sounds like a promotional account. Could you be more objective in your statements? Tennisedu (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I am assuming that the Canadian Encyclopedia is an acceptable source for this article. The Canadian Encyclopedia has been a source for many Wikipedia articles, so I would expect that it is satisfactory as a source here. And also contemporary newspapers should be acceptable as a source for details of battle. Tennisedu (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Its a reliable source, but its not public domain, meaning that you can't just copypaste it. Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Understood.Tennisedu (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
If there is a diversity of opinions within the sources as to the facts of the battle, then we should be mentioning that diversity and not deciding for ourselves which facts should be excluded. That would constitute original work and is outside the scope of editing for our concerns. Personal judgment constitutes original work.Tennisedu (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
This article, like many military articles, contains speculative statements and "what if" musings. Such material is not relevant to the article, which should be grounded on actual events and developments. The article should not be sidetracked on speculations about what might have occurred if something had happened. That is well beyond the scope of the editing boundaries.Tennisedu (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Tennisedu you have been making small edits to this page since July 2022: [1]. When will you be done? Frankly I don't see that many of your edits are improvements e.g. adding "Chinese" before "PVA" or replacing "PVA" with "Chinese"; YouTube is not WP:RS and cannot be used as a reference; ranks and first names are given once and not repeated; and some of your additions verge on the dramatic ignoring WP:NPOV. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is done as far as I am concerned. It took some time to get the details from various sources. As far as "PVA" is concerned, that seems to be a technical term which the average reader would not be aware of. Should we not choose a term which readers can understand? I am open to suggestion on that point. I can remove citations which rely on Youtube. I can remove or reword some edits which appear dramatic.Tennisedu (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Please make all those changes and confirm when you are done. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
What is the best way to deal with the "PVA" issue? That is a technical term which most readers are not familiar with.Tennisedu (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
It is defined at the beginning of the article and in common use across all Korean War pages and in many RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I will eliminate the "Chinese". I need some time to find alternative citations for the ones which I have just removed. Most are available in local libraries, but it takes a bit of time to get them in hand.Tennisedu (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Tennisedu are you done yet? Mztourist (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by "done"? There could well be more relevant sources which come to light going forward. Especially on some of the issues for which there has not yet been a clear and definitive information base. Tennisedu (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
There are still some citations to finish up, necessary to locate a university library. I think that everything else should be enough, unless further important material comes to light. References to "Chinese" and "Australian" and "Canadian" have been eliminated. That is what you requested, right? Do you still see a problem? Not sure what your issue would be.Tennisedu (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
You said on 11 January that "This article is done as far as I am concerned", so not sure why you are quibbling over "done" now. Once I know you have stopped making your ongoing small edits to this page I plan to review it in detail. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Done with the changes you requested, and with the information available as of that date, but as you know there could very well be further information which is central to this article still to discover. You can proceed to review whenever you wish. I have noted where there is still further information required for the citations.Tennisedu (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
User:Tennisedu it is now December and you continue to make minor edits to this page. In fact you have made a total of 1,326 individual edits to this page, here is a diff of all the changes since you started editing it: [2]. As I said back in January, I do not believe that many of your edits are actually improvements and request that you stop editing this page so that I can review it without edit conflicts from you. Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

As I stated before, you can proceed to review and edit whenever you wish. I was actually waiting for you to participate in the editing. As you were already aware, there are missing citation page materials which need to be added to the current state of the article. Just this week I was able to obtain a copy of one of the major sources for this article and complete many of those {page needed} notices. But there are still more to be done related to another source which I will be looking for. The new material added to this article is certainly pertinent to the narrative, so I am not sure what is your specific problem. You think that they are "not improvements". Perhaps you could clarify. As I pointed out earlier, much important material regarding Hill 677 was never included in the article before I began editing. That material is certainly pertinent to this article.Tennisedu (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
You said you were done back in January, but obviously weren't. I want you to stop editing this page for a while so I can review and fix it uninterrupted. Among the non-improvements readily visible from the compare are unnecessarily expanding 27th Brigade out to 27th British Commonwealth Brigade, using 16th NZ Field Regiment when it is defined as 16 Fd Regt and not using dmy dates. Mztourist (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for those observations, I see no problem to resolving those types of issues over nomenclature. Feel free to change anything like that if you feel that another nomenclature is preferable or dates format. The main problem I had with the article before I edited it was the extreme lack of details in the Hill 677 section. I did quite a bit of research to add detail to that section. I would only be concerned if the content was radically removed.Tennisedu (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Concerning the question of nomenclature, it is rather complicated for 27th Brigade. While it was referred to as British Army 27th Brigade from its reconstitution in 1948 through to September 1950, it was then rebranded and officially named as 27th British Commonwealth Brigade when Australian and New Zealand units were added in September and a Canadian battalion was added in December. At this point the British Army 27th Brigade no longer existed, it was now a British Commonwealth Brigade, thus the official change in nomenclature. The 27th British Commonwealth Brigade itself was terminated permanently during the Battle of Kapyong. I refer you to the Wikipedia article on 27th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom) for this explanation. British Army 29th Brigade which fought at the Imjin River was referred to as 29th Brigade, because it consisted entirely of British or UK forces. Hope this helps, but it is obviously not simple. In the Kapyong article as it currently stands, the reference is to 27th British Commonwealth Brigade, which is also to be found in the relevant source literature. The final disposition of this matter was the formation on 28 July 1951 of the 1st British Commonwealth Division.Tennisedu (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The formal name should be used once at first instance and then as its unwieldy you abbreviate it down to something shorter, so it should just be 27th Brigade. Mztourist (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC) You already frequently refer to "the brigade" anyway. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
We still have, unfortunately, another problem with nomenclature, and this is a strange one. The 27th Brit Comm Bde was effectively renamed to 28th Brit Comm Bde on the morning of 25 April when Brigadier George Taylor assumed command. The strange part is that 27th Brit Comm Bde continued to exist on paper and Brigadier Burke continued to be listed as commander of the 27th, which, as it turned out, existed only on paper. He was not formally removed from command, but his command was emptied of all forces. Furthermore, the command of the 27th was formally listed as transferred to Hong Kong together with Burke. Perhaps this was a ruse designed to fool Chinese and Soviet intelligence, but that is just a guess. But the actual process was that the 27th did not cease to exist, Burke continued to be its commander, and the 27th was gutted of any content. Therefore, in the text we should list the brigade as the 28th, not the 27th, beginning on 25 April.Tennisedu (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Both too complicated and trivial to be worth mentioning. You can put it in a footnote. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The source for the Middlesex company disappearance was questioned. The source purports to be official and is listed as follows in the source first page,
UNITED STATES ARMY IN THE KOREAN WAR
EBB AND FLOW
NOVEMBER 1950-JULY 1951
by
Billy C. Mossman
CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY
UNITED STATES ARMY
WASHINGTON, D.C., 1990
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
UNITED STATES ARMY IN THE KOREAN WAR
Advisory Committee
(As of 8 September 1988)
Charles P. Roland
University of Kentucky
David B. Miller
City Hall
Scranton, Pa. 18503
Maj. Gen. Robert H. Buker
Deputy Surgeon General, U.S.A. 
Jamie W. Moore
The Citadel
Edward M. Coffman
University of Wisconsin
Brig. Gen. Stephen Silvasy, Jr.
U.S. Army War College
Brig. Gen. Roy K. Flint
U.S. Military Academy
Maj. Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
Maj. Gen. Raymond E. Haddock
U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command   
Russell F. Weigley
Temple University
L. Eugene Hedberg
H.D. Reid Foundation
Don W. Wilson
National Archives and Records Administration
Ernest R. May
Harvard University
U.S. Army Center of Military History
Brig. Gen. William A. Stofft, Chief of Military History
Acting Chief Historian
Morris J. MacGregor, Jr.
Chief, Histories Division
Lt. Col. Richard O. Perry
Editor in Chief
John W. Elsberg Tennisedu (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The author is described as follows,
"A graduate of Wayne State (Nebraska) College, Billy C. Mossman is the author of studies and monographs on U.S. Army operations in the Korean War and of two chapters, "Peace Becomes Cold War, 1945-50," and "The Korean War, 1950-53," in American Military History, a volume in the Army Historical Series. He contributed to Origins, History, and Accomplishments of the U.S. Army Reserve, published by the Historical Evaluation and Research Organization, and to Challenge and Response in Internal Conflict, published by the Center for Research in Social Systems, American University. He is also coauthor of The Last Salute: Civil and Military Funerals, 1921-1969.During World War II, Mr. Mossman served as a platoon leader with the 381st Infantry, 96th Infantry Division, and participated in the Leyte and Okinawa campaigns in the Pacific theater. In the Korean War, he was a military historian with the Eighth Army; Army Forces, Far East; and United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission. Mr. Mossman joined the Office of the Chief of Military History as an Army officer in 1954 and became a civilian staff member in 1957. As a civilian staff member, he served successively as historian, deputy branch chief, branch chief, and acting division chief. He retired in 1983 but remains active in the field of military history."Tennisedu (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is what the book looks like. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16256646-ebb-and-flow.Tennisedu (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm just wondering in what universe where the outcome is so lopsided as it was that the losing side is entitled to this kind of praise and value judgement?  
"And yet, despite their eventual defeat, the battle once again demonstrated that the PVA were tough and skillful soldiers capable of inflicting heavy casualties on the 3 RAR and US tanks and forcing their retreat off the battlefield." WLucking (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, that statement merely points out that this was a close battle, the PVA nearly won against the 2 PPCLI (which had run out of ammunition and supplies), and the other UN units in the battle had already been pushed off the battlefield and were apparently positioned to flee. The consequences of failure in this battle would have been catastrophic for the UN forces.Tennisedu (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
The problem is this claim "...the PVA were tough and skillful soldiers capable of inflicting heavy casualties..."  We can agree that the PVA might have been tough. They suffered and sacrificed substantially, but no historian would ever argue that they were skillful. They were undertrained, undersupplied peasants who the PVA used as cannon fodder and who could only act in the capacity of cannon fodder. To say they were skillful would suggest there was some kind of effort behind them that taught them modern war fighting capacity.  Their losses attest to their lack of skill and training. It was an utter tragedy. To say they were skilled makes them sound as if they were a modern army on par with the UN.  But, the loss ratio proves a undisputable lack of skill.  You can't say the results were so lopsided over artillery.  Everyone knows the PVA were often sent in waves without rifles, told to pick up the rifle of their fallen comrade in the prior wave.  Again, this isn't a tactic of a highly skilled commanders and soliders. WLucking (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
How can you make such a claim?  The losses of the PVA were 100 to 1. That isn't "close". Close might be 3:2.  How can you say a 100 to 1 loss is "nearly winning"? What relevance are the consequences of UN failure to whether the battle was close? Your argument is just plain false. The sentence should be struck from the article. It is false and is entirely out of place. WLucking (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
You seem to avoid the obvious point that the Chinese PVA nearly won this battle, and that is the objective in war. One more full-scale attack at Hill 677 would probably have been successful. The other UN forces at Kapyong had already retreated into a reserve position in the face of Chinese attacks. The consensus of military opinion is that a Chinese breakthrough at Kapyong would have led to disaster for the UN forces which were at that time in general retreat. It was a close war.Tennisedu (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Can either one of you provide the passage from the source which says that? The sentence uses the second edition of David Horner's Duty First: A History of the Royal Australian Regiment but I don't have his book. If it can't be provided, then I think the sentence needs to go. I checked the other sentence right before it (starting with "Indeed, despite their numerical advantage and possession") to see if it lined up what the source was saying (which I can access) but found there was a complete mismatch between the two, so I've went ahead and made some changes. Sgbreaker (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
These are summary statements, no new information is introduced. The information is found in the body of the article. The UN casualties of 59 killed and more than 111 wounded are significant numbers.Tennisedu (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I would dispute your argument that there is anything in the article that would support the sentence "This edge in artillery fire allowed the 2 PPCLI to survive and succeed at Kapyong." or "the battle once again demonstrated that the PVA were tough and skillful soldiers capable of inflicting heavy casualties." These seem to be very much just your personal judgment of what situation. "The UN casualties of 59 killed and more than 111 wounded are significant numbers." Again, that appears to be your personal judgment. However, even if I grant you that the sentences were just summary statements, you'd still need a source to substantiate them which right now you clearly don't have. We can't have a situation where the sentences are saying one thing while the sources are saying something completely different, that just doesn't make any sense. Sgbreaker (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
The sources are listed, where do you have a problem? Check the info box for sources on casualties.Tennisedu (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)