Talk:Battle of Yultong/Archive 1

Copyvio
This article contains a copyvio from http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=22488.0 - also note that this is a forum, and nowhere near a WP:RS. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also should mention that it's pretty much unsourced and non-verifiable, and it reads like a diary entry unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Tagging. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

ed: Just realised that tl:Labanan sa Tulay ng Yultong reads: "04:04, 15 Disyembre 2008 Bluemask (Usapan | ambag) nabura ang "Labanan sa Tulay ng Yultong" ‎ (nilalaman ay: original research/hoax)" - nomming for deletion --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 04:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean up
This battle is not a hoax, both Chinese and South Korean official history has a record of it (albeit no more than three sentences each). I cleaned up the article and added appropriate sources and footnotes.

Another thing is that I cannot find any reference to a bridge at Yultong, although South Korean history did say a battle occurred around a village named Yultong. I move the article to Battle of Yultong in accordance with official South Korean history. Jim101 (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese casualties
I don't care which sources did the 12,000 Chinese casualties number coming from,...a Chinese infantry division at full strength only has 10,000 soldiers. You just can't hurt 2,000 soldiers that doesn't exist. Jim101 (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The same bullshit keeps on repeating. To put the purported 12,000 casualty number into perspective, the entire US Eighth Army (5 infantry divisions plus 3 infantry brigades and the Filipinos Battalion together) caused 30,000 Chinese casualties during the First Chinese Spring Offensive - are people really stupid enough to believe, without a doubt, that few hundred Filipinos alone caused nearly half of them? Jim101 (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio, 2011-07-02
WP:COPYVIO removed, as per this basic google search. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 03:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, there are plenty of slightly reworded versions of the same text - adding a few synonyms here and there and changing the word ordering doesn't make it original enough to not be a copyvio. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 04:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Strength figures
Talk moved from User talk:Benlisquare, because this is a more appropriate place for discussion. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 05:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The amount of strength of each of the forces is said here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/225235/filipino-soldiers-story-of-korean-war-valor-redux

Additional Piece of info: Go to the part of the article named "Wounded in action". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoaringSkies.V. (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That article specifically says that the author is a self-designated "historian" from www.peftok.blogspot.com. Furthermore, this "story" makes no sense, because the 44th Division never had more than 20,000 troops (40,000 in a division is outright illogical, and is one of the most stupidest things I've ever read), and it's foolish to obtain information from personal accounts rather than official figures due to obvious reasons. If you can find a veteran who "claims" he killed 500 soldiers, I too can "claim" that I've slept with 12 Saudi Arabian princesses. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 05:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Gee, this source again. Why don't anyone do some proper research before inserting outrageously illogical info. Seriously, if you believe your information is correct, then it wouldn't really hurt to find a second independent source to make your case stronger...Let's see just how much nationalistic chest pumping this piece/blog really contains, shall we?


 * 1) As for the total Chinese strength, there are only two possible way for UN sources to estimate that there were "around 40,000" Chinese in the area. The first way is that there were four Chinese divisions (34th, 35th, 29th and 44th, each division containing 10,000 men) near 10th BCT's location, but the problem is that 34th and 35th was attacking the Turkish Brigade to the west of Yultong, the 29th was attacking the US 65th Infantry Regiment at the south of Yultong, and only the 44th Division managed to trap "an element 65th Infantry Regiment" at the Yultong area. So saying that there were "40,000 Chinese face off against 900 Filipinos" due to the above fact is pure Xinhua style propaganda news release. The second way to estimate that there were "40,000 Chinese face off against 900 Filipinos" is to estimate that the entire Chinese 15th Army (compose of 29th, 44th and 45th Divisions, each division containing 10,000 men) was attacking the Filipinos, yet this is contradicted by the fact that 29th Division was attacking the US 65th Infantry Regiment at the south of Yultong, while the 44th plus 45th Division should be no more than 20,000 combat strength (not to mention 45th Division was never IDed in UN sources that I have access to)...so take your poison: lying with half-truth or pretending not to be able to do grade one math.
 * 2) As for the fact a Filipino soldier can inflict 260 "confirmed kills" with only a single machine gun and with no support whatsoever, may I direct people's attentions to similar examples such as Ernest R. Kouma and Audie Murphy, the current two record holders in the US Army. Kouma used four tanks attacked undefended North Korean light infantry and got 250 "estimated kills", while Murphy killed 230 Germans by himself over a period of several month. How can a Filipino soldier break those two records with a single machine gun in less than 8 hours period is beyond me.
 * 3) As for the fact that Chinese suffered 12,000 casualties, let me rephrase my question again. 20,000+ UN soldiers stationed near the Filipino during the battle (the South Korean 1st Infantry Division, the British 27th Infantry Brigade and the British 29th Infantry Brigade at the battles of Imjin River and Kapyong), facing more severe Chinese attack than the Filipinos (defending the direct approaches to Seoul), with infinitely better firepower (several battalions of artillery and tanks, including the feared British Centurion Tank), inflicted ~15,000 Chinese casualties over the period of three days. How can 900 Filipinos, with almost no firepower, inflict 12,000 casualties within the period of 8 hours (short of using tactical nuke), is beyond me.

Unless a serious historian (ie, a combat historian commissioned by the military, or an academic employed by universities, or a reputable journalist that shows his/her detailed research on the topic) can answer the above three questions without resorting to "Filipino stuff better than Chinese/US stuff" argument, I call the entire www.peftok.blogspot.com source bullshit...which by the way, a blog is not a reliable history source according to Wikipedia policies anyway. Jim101 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions
I know that systemic bias is a major problem in Wikipedia; I also know that lack of quality sources on Filipino contribution to the Korean War is frustrating; finally I know that recent events around South China Sea tend to carry real world tensions into Wikipedia editing. But please, for Christ's sake, follow the Wikipedia policy of verifiability and reliable source before adding contents in to this article and removing cited information without discussions. At least it will make other editors job easier in determining which edit is made in good faith and which edit is a real vandalism.

Now, since most of the recent edits seems to be added in good faith without support of reliable sources, I'll add the following bits from so that new editors can have some pointers in doing some proper research before adding unverifiable text that will inevitably be removed due to lack of sources.

The experience of the Philippine Battalion Combat Team (actually four different teams rotated to the Eighth Army) is scattered reports on file with the Military Historical Activities Division, Office of Adjutant General, Army of the Philippines; in the memoirs of Gen. Dionisio S. Ojeda; and in Lily Ann Polo's A Cold War Alliance: Philippine-South Korean Relations, 1948-1971.

Also, blogs (both ROKdrop and peftok.blogspot.com) are not considered to be reliable history sources in Wikipedia. So please stop adding it to the reference section and insulting others for being "brainwashed Commies who knowing nothing about The Truth". Jim101 (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent additions, 22-09-2020
During the second week of September, the "CancelKorea" hashtag trended and I took notice of Filipino tweets citing the Filipino actions in the Korean War, especially the Battle of Yultong. Some of them posted links of a YouTube video about the said battle. Link to video:. I wish the uploader could have cited his sources regarding his narrative of the battle. Unfortunately, the uploader only cited links to the images he used in the video. Going back to the story of the battle, I noticed that "900 Filipinos vs 40,000 Chinese" doesn't sound right. Plus, reading Jim101's explanations on why such thing wasn't plausible added to my doubts. So I researched everything I could on the battle using the already cited references on the article and some additions.

The reason I put the PVA force's figures to 5,000-6,000 is because, according to Xiaobing Le's China's Battle for Korea : The 1951 Spring Offensive, the 34th Division command sent two of its three regiments, totaling 3,200 troops, to attack the Turkish Brigade. With the usual division numbering around 10,000 troops, it may imply that only around 5,000-6,000 troops fought the Philippine 10th BCT at Yultong, which makes the events at Yultong more realistic.

It also made me wonder if the Philippine Army has a proper military historian of its own, since I read a post in the Philippine Army's official Facebook page acknowledging the "900 vs 40,000" claim. See post here:.

I also noticed that some past edits were referencing some excerpts from the PEFTOK Blogspot page. The blog's timeline of the PEFTOK in the Korean War included the "900 Filipinos withstands the night attack of an entire Chinese army of 40,000 men." claim of the Battle of Yultong. The blog's author, Arthur Villasanta, is the son of the late Juan Villasanta who wrote Dateline Korea: Stories of the Philippine Battalion and according to his blog, the accounts of the PEFTOK operations there come from his father's memoirs and papers. While such thing is commendable, he should also attempt to update the recorded accounts of the Korean War, based on multiple and updated sources as it is delivering the wrong interpretation of what I could say an important part of Philippine history with regards to international affairs. Unfortunately, many Filipinos have come to believe such a ridiculous claim of the battle.

Stories of last stands and outnumbered armies undoubtedly capture the readers' imagination. Unfortunately, it has captured the Filipino imagination to the point of ridiculous exaggeration. WikiKnight15 (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions 01-10-2020
I came across a question in Quora referring to the veracity of the belligerents' strengths in the battle. Link here. According to the top answer, from Chinese records, the 2nd Battalion, 132nd Regiment, 44th Division, 15th Army was the PVA unit who attacked the Philippine 10th Battalion Combat Team's sector. Looking at past versions of the Battle of Yultong article, the 44th Division has also been cited as the Chinese combatant unit, which I believe was Jim101's contribution to the article. It's probable that the Quora answer's source is also the History of War to Resist America and Aid Korea book.

I also overlooked a detail from Xiaobing Li's China's Battle for Korea: The 1951 Spring Offensive regarding the 34th Division's engagement against the Turkish Brigade. It stated that the 34th Division Command sent two of its three infantry regiments to attack the Turkish Brigade, which totaled 3,200 troops (pp.137-138). This would infer that each infantry regiment comprised of 1,600 men—the same number of troops remaining in the three-regiment division, ergo, the strength of the 34th Division who attacked the 10th BCT if I would go with Chae et al's narration (The Korean War: Volume 2). This would dispute my own estimate of 5,000-6,000 men. According to Gordon Rottman's Korean War Order of Battle : United States, United Nations, and Communist Ground, Naval, and Air Forces, 1950-1953., a PVA infantry regiment and an infantry battalion is made up of 2,200 and 852 men, respectively (p.176).

With these statements coupled with the positioning of the belligerent military units (see Billy Mossman's Ebb and Flow : November 1950-July 1951 Map 32, p.380), I thought of the possibility that a two battalion-size or one regiment-size force (max. 2,500 troops) from the 12th Army's 34th Division and 15th Army's 44th Division assaulted the 10th BCT. Then again, it's possible that only either one of the aforementioned units were the Chinese belligerent (around 900-1,600 troops). Multiple sources still mention that the 10th BCT was outnumbered. I may decide to insert both the 34th Division and 44th Division in the Wikipedia article's infobox for the reasons of impartiality. WikiKnight15 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Philippine veterans' accounts, 05-10-2020
I found transcripts of speeches made by several Filipino veterans of the Korean War in Ateneo de Manila University's Ateneo Initiative for Korean Studies (AIKS) online journal archive. In the 2016 conference titled Revisiting the Korean War: History, Memory and Its Implications on Contemporary Nation-Building, Ret. Maj. Maximo P. Young—who himself was part of the PEFTOK 10th Battalion Combat Team—stated that 40,000 Chinese soldiers attacked the defense line of the 10th BCT's 900 men. See the transcript of his speech here (pp.38-39). On the other hand, Ret. Col. Paterno V. Viloria, Ph.D.—a member of the 20th Battalion Combat Team—stated that the Filipino defenders at Yultong successfully repelled a regiment of the Chinese PVA. Transcript of his speech here (pp.26-27).

In an interview video uploaded by The Korean War Legacy Foundation Inc. channel on YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnKzD1Zof0&ab_channel=TheKoreanWarLegacyFoundationInc. (link here)], Ret. Maj. Young stated at the 28:59 timestamp:

There (were about?) 40,000 in front of us. 40,000 Communists in front of us. Yeah. Those were the Chinese that attack[ed] us on 22—through the night of 22 April. They continue[d] attacking.

Personally, I would agree with Ret. Col./Dr. Viloria's statement regarding the size of the Chinese force. WikiKnight15 (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Battle of Yultong.jpg

The only time philippines can beat china
this is the only time the filipino will beat china now their population is 1 billion so they outnumbered us and they are a world super power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.104.95 (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * How can losing territory be seen as a clean victory? Seems like history revisionism to claim victory when it's not that clear. As that's not really defeating. That's more like a single battle and also being in a fortified advantageous terrian south of Hantan River and delaying the enemy military advance so they can have enough time to retreat. They didn't even capture any land but instead all UN forces eventually got pushed out of NK. I don't see how this article can even label this battle neatly as a Chinese defeat and UN win considering the ultimate outcome is that the Chinese had gained More Territory and the UN forces including the fillipinos was pushed south and withdrew to Line Kansas after realising that many units in I and IX Corps were in danger of being enveloped by the Chinese forces. What official source actually calls this a victory? Fillipino and biased American sources? 49.195.49.80 (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding a User
A anonymous user by the name of "2405:8D40:4466:E583:FD98:CAAB:AE9A:5EA6" has been vandalising parts of the article Sebby249294 (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Numbers
In another source, the number of enlisted men for the 10th Battalion Combat Team is given as 64 officers plus 1,303 enlisted men, total of 1,367. That should be reflected in the article. Tennisedu (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see that this total was reduced to about 900 men by casualties. Is that a firm number or just an approximation?Tennisedu (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)