Talk:Battle of the Imjin River

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

message: 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)
replies: text: The Chinese were using 'human wave' tactics which were similar to WW I in that large 'waves' of soldiers attacked the enemy. Against dug-in machine guns such losses are not only plausible, but are actually highly-likely. The Japanese also used such tactics at Kohima and Imphal with similar results.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious contradiction in figures

message: 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)
replies: text: Bullshit. Chinese never used human wave attack, it is call "short attack", in which Chinese infantry groups (a hoard composed of 3 to 5 soldiers) keeps on rotating at the UN unit boundaries until the UN forces are wored out. Most of the Korean military history books and Chinese military studies had already disapproved the notation of a flood or wave tactic, starting with the work by Alexander L. George in his book The Chinese Communist Army in Action; The Korean War and Its Aftermath in 1969. Jim101 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical victory / strategic loss? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Battle of Kapyong

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commander? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Expansion

message: What exactly is the scope of this article? Are we talking about the Battle of the Imjin River between the Chinese 63rd Corps and the 29th Commonwealth Brigade, or the entire CCF Spring Offensive? Because the number in the info box is way off. Jim101 (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the article... 

message: After consulting American, Chinese and South Korean sources on this battle, it is incredible to see this article only talks about the fighting between the 29th Commonwealth Brigade and the Chinese 64th Corps, while the entire battle was fought between the US I Corps and four Chinese armies.
To give a scope of the systemtic bias, according to casualty data of this battle, the 29th Commonwealth Brigade only suffered 1,310 casualties while the entire US I Corps suffered 16,092 casualties along the Imjin River. The Chinese also had one army (~40,000) knocked out during the battle, but this was achieved by the ROK 1st Division, not by the 29th Commonwealth Brigade. Since we already had an article on the Gloster Hill with regards to the delay action by the 29th Commonwealth Brigade, I don't see why this article has to be purely focused on the 29th Commonwealth Brigade. I'm putting a tag on the article until either I worked my way to this article or someone else do a rewrite. Jim101 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article definately focuses on the actions of the 29th British Brigade, although perhaps this was the original editors intention? I know that there was a British battle honour 'Imjin River' for their role in fighting the Chinese Spring Offensive and perhaps it is reasonable to deal with this in a distinct article. What does seem necessary is an article that covers the entire Chinese Spring Offensive to tie in articles like this one, Battle of Kapyong and others for instance. I guess the question is do you intend on turning Battle of Imjin River into an article which covers the entire period? I think that may lead to issues with the article name etc. Anotherclown (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume by the title of the article, it meant the whole attack across the Imjin River, so that pretty much covered the half of the entire Chinese Spring Offensive, or in Chinese and some US sources, it is called CCF Fifth Phase Campaign, First Impulse. Jim101 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text:  By digging through US Army records, the Chinese Spring Offensive is composed to two major battles, one across the Imjin River with the US I Corps, which ended in a costly tie, and another across the Soyang River with the US X Corps, which resulted a crushing Chinese defeat. I believe that by covering those two battles should be enough to cover the Chinese Spring Offensive. Jim101 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds promising. I suppose the question then is what do we do with the 29th Brigade focussed content in the current Battle of the Imjin River article? Should it be moved into a new article or perhaps moved to Battle of Gloster Hill? I assume it would be too focussed to remain in this article should it be developed into looking at the whole (I Corps) battle. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, crap, I just changed the info box...anyway, good idea. Move it, then turn this article into a redirect for now until the rewrite time. Jim101 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I expanded the original article, which also dealt only with the British perspective,systemic bias was not my aim. The sources that I read (among them Farrar-Hockley's contribution to the Oxford History of the British Army and Hasting's overview of the Korean War) used the term "Battle of the Imjin River" to refer to the engagement between 29th Brigade and CCF. In addition, the British National Archives website also uses the term in a way which suggests that it refers only to the engagement involving 29th Brigade. A map from the office of the defense attache at the British embassy in Seoul also uses the term in order to refer to events from 21 - 25 April. As far as I could find out, Mossman doesn't use the term "Battle of the Imjin River" at all, but devotes some lines to the engagement of 29th Brigade and the 65th Infantry under the title "Along the Imjin", while other areas where fighting took place are dealt with under different titles. As it appears, it all boils down to a question of terminology: Does "Battle of the Imjin River" refer to a specific engagement or is it synonymous with a larger part of the Fifth Phase Campaign as suggested above. It seems that there is evidence in sources for both which raises the question: How can confusion be avoided? From what I have read the term "Battle of Gloster Hill" does not appear to be helpful since it wasn't used in any of the sources that I consulted.PINTofCARLING (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), the current article title works only if it is universally agreed that Battle of the Imjin River only means the action against the 29th Brigade, but this is not the case. According to Mossman's colleague Roy Appleman, the Battle of the Imjin River includes the action of the entire I Corps. For Chinese, it meant the entire first half of the Chinese Spring Offensive. To South Koreans, it meant the heroic stand of the ROK 1st Divisions. In case where people cannot agree that Battle of the Imjin River only include the action of the 29th Brigade, then the name must be strictly interperted according to the location name Imjin River. In this case, This article must at least include the actions of ROK 1st Division, 29th Brigade and the US 3rd Infantry Division. Jim101 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for explaining and making things clearer for me. Based on what you have written it makes sense that an article on Battle of the Imjin River includes more than what was described so far. With regard to strictly interpreting the name according to the location name I would say that this does not make connections as clear as interpreting it as the first half of the offensive like you said above. To avoid confusion, it would be useful if the article could explain that the different participants in the battle also have a different focus on events, for example the British focus on the 29th Brigade or the Korean focus on the stand of the ROK 1st division. This would perhaps reduce the problem of confusion about terminology. Based on the naming conventions, Battle of Gloster Hill is an easily identifiable title for an article dealing specifically with the involvement of 29th Brigade, it's better than using other geographic names like Battle of Solma-ri, even if it is not a name that is used in any sources. An explanation clarifying possible misunterstandings in connection with Battle of the Imjin River would certainly be needed. If I find the time, I would be glad to work on that article, using some of the information already present in this article.PINTofCARLING (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemtic bias 

message: I notice that this article has now been rewritten to give undue providence to the role of peripheral forces during the battle, sic namely the Americans. The infobox now lists all the American deployments ahead of the Belgium, Turkish and 29th Brigade.  The Americans fell back on the 22nd to Line Kansas while the Belgiums and the 29th held their lines!!
That is why it's called the Battle of Imjon River because the fighting was being done by the British Brigade and Belgiums. The yanks had "bugged out" 24 hours before the Belgiums were forced from their positions and 48 hours after the remnants of the surrounded 1Bt Glosters made their bid for freedom. If due credit must be given, then it should be to the 1ROK which also stood and fought heroically under its legendary commander Paik Sun-yup. Both the 29th Infantry Brigade and the 1ROK stopped the advance by Chinese forces into Seoul.
Their sacrifice gave I Corps time to withdraw to positions along Line Utah and No Name. But the judicious editing that has now been done gives undue providence to battle groups that did not contribute anything to the Battle of Imjin River (except for being there). This article is now an absolute travesty and one that demonstrates the ideological agendas of so-called "neutral" editors. 
Thankfully I know the real history behind this particular battle so I recommend that any interested party pick up a history book rather than rely on this jaundiced drivel!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.48.185 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh huh.  From the (US) 1st Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment's Presidential Unit Citaion:  "...On the morning of. 23 April, the 1st Battalion was given the mission of cleaning out enemy pockets in the rear and on the right and left flanks of the 29th British Independent Brigade. After fighting fiercely the entire day, the battalion was ordered to attack an enemy force estimated to be composed of two regiments which had forced the withdrawal of friendly troops resulting in the entrapment of the Belgian United Nations Battalion. Under Intense enemy small-arms, automatic-weapons, mortar, and artillery fire, the battalion launched a night attack which was pressed with such aggressiveness, determination, and skill that the enemy was required to commit his entire force to meet the onslaught, thereby relieving pressure on the Belgian Battalion and allowing them to withdraw all equipment and vehicles. Following the withdrawal of the Belgian Battalion, and although surrounded on three sides by enemy troops, the 1st Battalion immediately started a brilliantly executed disengagement. The 1st Battalion inflicted such staggering losses on the enemy that he was unable to continue action in that area."   "... This gallant unit killed over 3,000 enemy troops and wounded an estimated 5,500 of the enemy."   There's more, but you get the point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by P1340 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Yet according to the Chinese, the very reason why they couldn't capture Seoul was because the Americans "bugged out" and consolidated their positions, which made the Chinese completely exhausted by chasing them...That positions is hardly American-centric. Jim101 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  America-phile wikipedians rewrites history (again) 

message: There are just far too many errors in this article that it pains me to be even bothered. But the Chinese have a good saying "Only a dog returns to its own vomit" but I could not resist. I will therefore make only these short points. Firstly the editor has really used three sources Mossman, Farrar-Hockley and [shudder] Hastings. The first two although official histories take a great deal of liberty with the truth. Mossman paints a wonderful picture of the united US 3rd Division when in fact the communications breakdown between  Soule and Brodie was a significant reason for the disaster (Soule first visit to 29th BDE HQ/Brodie on the 24th). Farrar-Hockley, who was the 1st Glos. adjutant (so no question of personal bias, then?), does a wonderful job covering the cracks and the abjects failure of the 29th Brigade to a) fortify its positions (no mention of that) b) that none of the company  positions even overlooked the Imjin (therefore concerted small arms fire could never be brought down on to the Imjin = a defensive water feature) c) that the Glosters failure to pull out was the result of various factors including a dull-witted commander, a slow-witted Divisional commander and an egotistical Brigade commander. Hastings' book is a paperback and hardly a peer-reviewed academic work. It makes good story but nothing else.
My other point is this:  when the 65th Inf. pulled out promptly at 1330 on 23 April in its withdrawal to Line UTAH, the teamwork in the 3rd Division was so wonderful [sarcastic laugh] the Belgium's right flank was only left completely exposed (WO 308/49, ‘Operations of the 1st Belgium Contingent in Korea’, The National Archive, London.). It wasn't but for the grace of god and a great deal of luck that the 44th Chinese Army didn't realise what was happening and sweep them off Hill 194. The 7th Inf. being rushed into help the Belgiums masked the other reason for their rapid deployment = the 65th was no longer there. You see where proper academic rigour leads, to more f**king questions!!!!! The stuff that is written here is no better than an average high school essay paper.
Warnings should be slapped on articles telling people that they only reiterate opinions of published authors, they are no more objective, accurate or neutral than a letter in a "Readers Digest". Unless an article is based solely on actual primary sources (e.g. the National Archives of the USA or UK), it is just a collaborative essay that contains a collection of statements that lack any analysis, assessment or academic scrutiny. BTW the rule about original research is very interesting because it means that any published opinion becomes a verifiable fact on Wikipedia. It's like money laundering with information, take a published viewpoint from a given source,  reference it here = FACT. Try to question that FACT i.e. review that statement (i.e. who is the source, when was it made, why was it made etc ) and you hit the wall of introducing Original Research. And without that methodology you get something like this....And if you are wondering, no I wouldn't want to contribute to improve this article because in a collaborative effort the result is only as good as its weakest element. I am not going to waste my life "arguing the toss" with every "I-need-convincing" know-it-all who has got a copy of Max Hastings on their keyboard. I will stick to research where the best work actually comes from the most imaginative, intelligent and open-minded individuals. Charles T  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.141.206 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course WP:RS has some obvious drawbacks, but IMO allowing original research would lead to far more problems so I guess its a compromise to achieve the most workable solution. Certainly that seems to be the community consensus anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: " ... and the abjects failure of the 29th Brigade to a) fortify its positions... " - The Brigade had recently taken over the positions from a previous occupant and the Chinese attack occurred before the Brigade had time to fortify the positions, which should in fact have already been done by the previous occupants. The Turkish commander next to the Brigade kept calling the Brigade commander to see if they were still there, the previous occupants having gained a reputation for 'bugging out' at the slightest sign of trouble leaving their section of the line undefended.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is almost a work of fiction.... 

message: After the Battle of the Imjin, the forces of the United Nations had been able to stabilise the front north of Seoul on the "No-Name Line", before taking up some of their former positions on the Imjin later in the year. As a result of the battle, Chinese 63rd Army, which had started out with three divisions totalling approximately 27,000 men between them, had lost over a third of its strength and was pulled out of the front line. British 29th Brigade Group (including the attached Belgian Battalion) had borne the brunt of 63rd Army's attacks, and had gone into battle about 4-5,000 men strong. The Brigade Group lost 1,091 in killed, wounded and missing, of whom 620 were from the Glosters. The battle had been a Pyrrhic victory for the Chinese, and a short-lived one at that.
Through out my researches in British, Chinese, American and South Korean materials, this statement, which is from the Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum, is the only source I can find that explicitly label this battle as Pyrrhic. Although Chinese losses is great by consulting Chinese sources, this statement is full of errors that the claim about Pyrrhic victory just can't be taken at face value.
Point 1: 63rd Army was never pulled off the frontline, it was moved to the eastern sector of the Chinese Spring Offensive and participated in the Battle of the Soyang River. Historiography wise, most British sources kept on ignoring the Second Chinese Spring Offensive happened during May and June of 1951 on eastern Korea because both Commonwealth brigades (27th & 29th) was deployed to western Korea, thus did not see any action.
Point 2: Even though Seoul is a huge prize, Chinese battle objective was never focused on Seoul. To quote Farrar-Hockley and Chinese Military Science Academy, the Chinese objective was "wiping out three divisions of American Army, three brigades of British and Turkish troops, and two divisions of South Korean Army to the west of the northern Han River." Capturing Seoul, through an important aftermath of the victory, was besides the point.
When you take out the two pillars of assumptions in Commonwealth sources in declaring this battle as a "Pyrrhic victory", is it still neutral to label it as "Pyrrhic victory" without any form of historiography discussion in the article? Jim101 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like you are sceptical of the circumstances involved here. I just put some sources up which you withdrew and there is no point conjuring your own POV. All sources point to pyrrhic victory US, Korean, as well as British... but if you have any Chinese sources that describe this battle as a Chinese victory (although I can't imagine why) then by all means cite them. You say and I quote: Even though Seoul is a huge prize, Chinese battle objective was never focused on Seoul well please do tell what was the main focus of attack and where you got hat information? Also to add to that; that the offensive itself got the Chinese nowhere and that is a known fact.  Whether the 63rd army was destroyed, moved about, left in the rear etc is irrelevant most sources describe the formation as being severely mauled. Also most sources (British too) do mention the May attack which failed disastrously mainly because the attack in April was a failure (Ridgway Duels for Korea has good info as well as Max Hastings War in Korea) to answer your last question where do take any pillars to label this as a Chinese victory? Pfifer11 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, "pyrrhic" is a loaded word, and tacking it on without crosschecking other POVs can't hardly be viewed as a responsible action. Second, all of your sources merely said that 29th stopped a possible Chinese advance on Seoul, but with regards to whether Chinese did intended to capture Seoul through 29th's area is open to speculation (the presence of the weaker ROK 1st Division on the 29th Brigade's flank and the fact that Chinese stationed three armies in front of it to break through makes the Chinese choices of breakthrough even harder to determine). The Chinese order I cited (with is authenticated by both Chinese and British official history) only hinted that destruction of the entire 29th Brigade is the real aim, while none of your sources cited used the word "pyrrhic" (nor any American and South Korean sources explicitly used the word). On the issue of whether Chinese did gain a victory here is dependent on the scope of this article, which is still fluid and covered in the long and drawn out discussion above. If you intended to frame this article as 63rd Army vs. the Glosters, then it is a Chinese victory since the Chinese managed to eliminate an UN unit, and it is the only battle of the Chinese Fifth Offensive that went according to plan after consulting with Chinese sources. But if you intended to frame this article as an examination of the entire action of the 29th Brigade (the preservation of which included the participation with almost all units of the US I Corps and the Chinese 19th Army Group), then it is a Chinese defeat since one brigade of British and one divisions of South Koreans got away in contrary to the order. Jim101 (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again using the result as a Chinese victory without crosschecking other POVs can't hardly be viewed as a responsible action either. The source I mentioned use the word 'failure' for the Chinese attack I have not yet seen a source that states Chinese success let alone victory. The use of the word victory is also dubious since there is no source to support it. All the sources mention the word 'failure', so therefore I will have no hesitation to remove 'Chinese victory' from infobox unless it is sourced/cited properly. As you say this is 29th Brigade as whole and not the Glosters as a sinlge unit.Pfifer11 (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with that. Jim101 (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Pyrrhic victory

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of the Imjin River. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/gpvillain/1997-11mar1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/peftok/10thbct3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of the Imjin River. 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/20060918092611/http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/1_Citations/05_korea-dsc/dsc_18korea_foreign.html to http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/1_Citations/05_korea-dsc/dsc_18korea_foreign.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918092611/http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/1_Citations/05_korea-dsc/dsc_18korea_foreign.html to http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/1_Citations/05_korea-dsc/dsc_18korea_foreign.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918092611/http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/1_Citations/05_korea-dsc/dsc_18korea_foreign.html to http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/1_Citations/05_korea-dsc/dsc_18korea_foreign.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/gpvillain/1997-11mar1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/peftok/10thbct3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of the Imjin River. 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/20070929084025/http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1101397831756 to http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1101397831756
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228220638/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part19.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part19.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823091247/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/rem_col_online.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/rem_col_online.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/gpvillain/1997-11mar1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/peftok/10thbct3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm curious to know what part the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand forces played in this battle. They are represented in the infobox, but do not appear in the narrative. FactotEm (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I went WP:BRD and removed mention of these from infobox and awards section. Battle of Kapyong is thataway. FactotEm (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian, Canadian and New Zealand? 

message: I've replaced the lead image on the basis that the Centurions of 8th Hussars disabled during the withdrawal of the 29th Brigade on 25 April are more relevant to the article's topic than an image of US troops, who do not figure in the narrative, going on patrol before the battle started. As a note of interest, I suspect that the image's Commons description is wrong. From what I've read, no Centurions were knocked out during the attempt to relieve/reinforce the Glosters on 24 April; the column was halted when the leading M-24 Chaffee of the Fillipino 10th BCT blocked the road on being knocked out. They did lose a few during the race down route 11 though. FactotEm (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: * Per WP:NOTGALLERY, I don't think the glut of images in the "Casualties and memorial" section adds anything to the article. I've already added a link, in the "External links" section, to the commons category for Gloucester Valley Battle Monument, which is the way this sort of presentation is normally done, and propose to remove the images from the article.
* I don't think it's necessary to have a copy of the entire presidential citation in the article. We can paraphrase the important bits, and the citation itself is already linked to as the first entry in the "Further reading" section.
Comments? Factotem (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing edits