Talk:First Battle of Maryang-san

320 Allied strength...
A question: 3RAR was left with 320 soldiers at the middle of the battle on October 5, and this didn't include other battalions' strengths. What is the exact stength of 3RAR (or the entire attack force) before the battle?

The reason why I ask this is because the Chinese indicated that at least more than 2 battalions attacked 191st, and the 6000 number was the Chinese strength before the battle, not on October 5 like the 3RAR number. Jim101 (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim. 320 was 3RARs strength at the start of their assault on Maryang San. Not sure about the strength before the earlier fighting for Kowang-San or indeed the totatl strength for 28th Bde. The reason I settled on using this figure in the info box (and the smaller chinese figure of 1,200) was that those were the strenghts identified in my sources for 5 October at Maryang San, which is the focus of the article. Likewise with the Chinese casualty figures in the infobox only relate to those suffered at Maryang San (as far as I'm aware). I'm open to suggestions though... Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there are two ways. Either list all the units involved, or revert back to the 320 vs 1200 numbers on October 5. Since you are doing a review, the second solution is the best for now. Jim101 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting materials...
Hi AnotherClown. Jiang Tingyu, the director and the chief researcher of the Military Museum of the Chinese People's Revolution, published some new information for the commemoration of Korean War 60th anniversary. Two bits of information I believe need to added for this battle are:


 * Besides the 191st Division, there were also two armor, 15 field artillery and three anti-aircraft artillery companies present in support of the Chinese defenders.
 * The official casualty number for the 191st Division from October 2 to November 7 (a.k.a. total casualties from both First and Second Battle of Maryang San) were 1,600.

I'm having problem interpreting this article's structure and narrative flow due to my English deficiencies, so I'll left you to add the information to where it is appropriate. In case you need a citation:



Cheers. Jim101 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why...
The US is listed at the top of the infobox fields while the article states that the primary combatants where "Australian and British" troops. This seems incredibly bias. Surely Britain and Australia should be at the top for this particular battle? --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)