Talk:Republic of Korea Marine Corps

This article needs to be cleaned up a lot
Came across this page and found it severely lacking in clarity and organization. I've tried to reorganize the content more intelligibly and correct grammar, but it still needs a lot of work. In particular, I've tried to avoid addressing the actual facts and figures on this page (as I'm not qualified to speak to them all); there are inconsistencies (e.g. kill ratio in Vietnam: is it 1-to-24 or 1-to-25?) and potential hyperbole ("one of the deadliest fighting forces in the world"), and no specific references are provided to back up this content.

Not trying to knock the article, as I've heard independently of the exploits of the Korean marines; I just think additional cleanup on facts and references is warranted.--143.127.3.10 00:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to add to this section because I believe I've also discovered a detail that needs updating. I would change it myself, but I know very little about South Korea and even less about its Marine Corps, and I don't presume that just because there appears to be a discrepancy, that one actually exists (especially when dealing with foreign languages one is not familiar with).


 * I discovered the discrepancy while attempting to get schooled up on South Korea's Marine Corps. Not knowing much about it, I first turned to Wikipedia.  After seeing that Lieutenant General Lee Yeong-ju, ROKMC is listed as its current commander I tried to find out more about him.  Without a Wikipedia article to turn to, I went to the Korean Marine Corps website and it appears someone other than Lee Yeong-ju is now in charge.  (See http://www.rokmc.mil.kr/intro/sub01.jsp for reference.)  If the man on this page is the current commander, Google Translate tells me that he is Marine Lt. Gen. Lee Sang-hoon.  Could someone confirm this and/or update this page with that information?  Emerald Evergreen 02:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)  Emerald Evergreen 02:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Beck (talk • contribs)

I Agree that this needs to be cleaned up.
As far as the previous comment, I can attest to that many US Vietnam Vets also knew of the reputation of the ROK Marines. My father is a ROK having served in Vietnam and he always has former Vets thanking him for their contribution to the war. It is true that the ROK marines fought fiercely with minimal casualities. However, it was left out that they were not as constrained as their US counterparts were. Many times, battles were fought in an all out manner whereas the US forces fought to complete an objective. Perhaps this is the reason for their success.

I also disagree that many people were confused about the Korean involvement in Vietnam and that is deeply affected Korea. Many soldiers went as a duty to their country as well as a way to earn money. Remember that many of the soldiers that went to Vietnam saw the same threat that they had grown up with the invasion of Communist forces from North Korea. And unlike US forces, very few Korean troops returned with psychological problems. Matter in fact, it may surprise you that many are successful business owners in the US and many are CEOs of major companies.

Whoever wrote this was obviously trying to put a liberal spin on the topic. No Korean saw Vietnam as an invasion by a foreign country.

By the way, my father both laughed and cursed at this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenchiBMW (talk • contribs) 20:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not saying all Korean marines that came back from Nam were ok in the head. But unlike their American counterparts, they seemed to not have suffered PTSD to the same degrees and numbers.  I have 2 uncles besides my father that came back from Nam without PTSD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.74.87 (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

One, Two or Three cases do not a statistic make...
In a way, you are both right. Many American soldiers, Marines, etc, came back with PTSD, truth... but many did not. In fact, PTSD or "shell-shock" was first identified around the time of the American civil war...but surely it existed before then. In either case, although ancedotes are useful for histograpghy, one tale of PTSD or three tales of abscence do not make a useful statsitic, especially when dealing with battallions, regiments or larger formations. Find some research, for although South Korea did not have the numbers in Vietnam that the United States did, there are most probably medical reports and statistics. Further, for the record, the American units that suffered worse from PTSD and other medical problems were mostly Army draftees, rather than Marines or elite Army (Rangers, etc). Just my two cents... again V. Joe 16:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree
This article is highly POV, especially as concerns the section of Viet Nam. I have no idea if those facts are correct, but I know POV when I see it. If someone who knew more about the Korean language could write it. If not, I suggest that the section on Viet Nam be deleted until someone can make it NPOV. I'd do it, but I don't know anything about this topic. Reply here and let me know if you agree --V. Joe 21:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's obviously very POV. it should be deleted until someone can update it to NPOV standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

ROK Marines
"is considered to be one of the deadliest fighting forces in the world." From what I hear from all the US Marines who trained with them, I would definately have to agree. Apparently their method of training is incredibly harsh and vigorous, and instead of the song cadences we use in the US, they have whistles. But oddly enough, they seem to have an intense respect for the US Marines instead.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.230.73 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They certainly are bad mutherfuckers. The tae kwon doh is not the olympic kind its the killer variety, I saw a demo they did near Busan, it's jaw breaking, neck snapping Bruce Lee shit. If those malnourished asshles in the North ever tried it again, they'd be tanked in close quarters. Advice: don't have a bar fight in ROK one of the other patrons might be Haebyeongdae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.29.71 (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Operation Van Buren
Hi, friends; I was reading about the ROKMC and the incredible kill ratio during Operation Van Buren today. I couldn't believe those numbers (13 taking 400+ with only two losses), so I did a little digging for source material. Here's what I've found.

1) I found a US military wartime document concerning military developments in South Vietnam. This doc was Secret but has been declassified. http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/041/0410335001.pdf

Quoting page 12, section 5:

"In II Corps Area, US forces conducted batallion-size search and clear operations. ARVN forces initiated pacification activities along the east side of Route 1 north of Bong Son, and ROK forces continued to secure Route 1. Cumulative friendly losses from this month-long operation are now 366 killed (239 US, 4 ROK, 123 RVN), 1,206 wounded (828 US, 28 ROK, 358 ARVN) and 6 US missing. Enemy losses were 1,742 killed, 430 captured, and over 2,000 suspects detained, 302 individual weapons and 63 crew-served weapons seized. Operation VAN BUREN, conducted by the 1st Brigade, US 101st Airborne Division and the Korean Marine Brigade in the rice harvest area southwest of Tuy Hoa, terminated on 21 February with over 30,000 tons of rice harvested. Friendly losses from this 32-day operation were 98 killed (54 US, 44 ROK), 309 wounded (194 US, 115 ROK) and 2 ROK missing. Viet Cong losses were 670 killed, 49 captured and 153 weapons seized."

2) I found a forum posting that seems to detail the battle where those hard to verify stats come from. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/74-571.aspx

Quoting directly,

"HanKim  RE:koreans and operation Van Buren   1/25/2004 6:32:27 AM

The web page is probably talking about the battle at Tra Bihn Dong between the ROK Marines of 11th Company, 3rd Battalion, 2nd Brigade(aka Blue Dragons) and a regimental sized NVA force. I believe the web page is off by ONLY one order of magnitude. It was around 300 Korean marines defending a company OP rather than 13. There were around 15 KIA on the Korean side with many more wounded. The NVA suffered at least 240 confirmed KIA with possibly 60 more KIA, and 2 NVA were captured. The marines captured scores of enemy weoponry, including 3 czech-made flame throwers, several rpgs and machine guns and assorted small arms. The NVA goals were to overrun the company and with follow on forces attack the ROK artillery units and an American airbase at nearby Chu Lai. During the 4 hour night battle, the NVA penetrated the barb wire multiple times and had artillery support. NVA artillery hit the ammunition stores for the ROK's 4.2" mortars but the collapsing sandbags prevented secondary explosions which would have been devastating. The ROK marines disassembled their own heavy machine guns, mortars and recoiless rifle to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. Squads and fire teams moved behind the NVA that had penetrated the base along the trenches the NVA had previously overrun to counter attack. In these counter attacks, the ROK marines captured the flame throwers and machine guns the NVA had used to break through on the NVA. There were many instances of hand-to-hand combat with trenching tools. The presence of mind and combat skills displayed by the ROK marines that night is truly amazing. Han" Wingchild 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Battle_of_Tra_Binh_Dong has a page, and seems to be more accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.241.158 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment
Definitely needs expansion and cleanup. I do not notice any glaring problems with the Vietnam War section, other than some clunky language and the fact that it disproportionately dominates the article. It does not necessarily need to be removed, but does need to be subsumed into a lengthier, broader discussion of the overall history and structure of the Corps. The articles for the ROK Army, Navy, and Air Force are all fine examples of ways to discuss military branches without unbalancing the article towards the branch's role in a particular conflict. LordAmeth 14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed
"which a squad of ROK Marines wiped out an entire battalion of Communist forces." Can we have a citation for this? I know they're elite troops, but this is amazing/unbelieveable. They won't even have enough ammunition to kill 800 men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.87.1.172 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


 * No citation, but the event was an ROK Marine battalion, not squad. They eliminated an entire battalion of communist forces to the last man, but it was two forces of essentially the same size engaged in the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.133.1.228 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

BOTH "Operation Van Buren" and "Tra Binh Bong" Existed
The Operation Van Buren existed, it is NOT the Battle of Tra Binh Bong, and the numbers are not exaggerated.

From http://www.landscaper.net/offense.htm

Counteroffensive, 25 December 1965 - 30 June 1966

Following the U.S. victory in the Ia Drang Valley, American forces for the remainder of 1965 and well into 1966 sought to keep the enemy off balance while building base camps and logistical installations. This involved search and destroy operations to protect the logistical bases under construction along the coast and the base camps for incoming U.S. units in the provinces near Saigon.

Also of particular concern to the American military mission was the protection of the government and the people of South Vietnam. To accomplish the tasks outlined U.S. efforts were concentrated in the most vital and heavily populated regions. The III Marine Amphibious Force supported the South Vietnamese I Corps in the northern provinces; the I Field Force supported the Vietnamese II Corps in the central region; and the II Field Force supported the South Vietnamese III Corps around Saigon. Consequently, the major battles of the year occurred in these critical areas. The 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, the Korean 2d Marine Brigade, and the ARVN 47th Regiment began Operation VAN BUREN on 19 January to locate and destroy the North Vietnamese 95th Regiment, which was believed to be in the Tuy Hoa Valley. Their mission included protecting the rice harvest produced in the coastal region. The successful execution of these assignments resulted in serious enemy losses. During 20-23 January, a temporary cease fire was proclaimed in honor of the lunar new year (Tet), although minor clashes continued throughout this period.

From http://www.flyarmy.org/panel/battle/66011900.HTM

joint operation VAN BUREN information

for 1 BDE 101 ABN

2 ROK MC BDE

47 ARVN REG

From date 660119 to 660221

1 BDE 101 ABN was a US Army unit

2 ROK MC BDE was a Korean Marine Corps unit

47 ARVN REG was a Undefined unit

Operation VAN BUREN

South Vietnam

Description: Operation VAN BUREN begins in Phu Yen Province where the recently relocated USA 1st Bde, 101st Abn Div, ROK 2nd Marine Bde, and ARVN 47th Regt are to locate and destroy the NVA 95th Regt (believed to be in the Tuy Hoa Valley) and to protect the rice harvest in the coastal region. The 1st Bde was still moving from Phan Rang. As they arrived at Tuy Hoa, they moved into operational areas. The joint operation claimed 679 known enemy casualties. The USA results were 282 enemy KIA plus 66 KBA, 33 captured and 238 suspects detained, over 100 weapons, and several caches of ammo and supplies were taken. The 1st Bde's casualties were 55 KIA and 221 WIA

Now the final and irrefutable proof of its existence is http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/allied/ch06.htm

The Korean Marines Operation is throughly described in the Army.mil, although they don't mention the operation code name. The Operation Van Buren detailed description begins in the page 135, the whole operation and details are describing the Van Buren Operation: Viet Cong and North Vietnam's 95th Regiment control over the Rice Fields, the dates, etc...

For the people who are a little lost and still believing that it may be referring to the same battle, read the details of the battles and you will understand that:

1) In the Tra Binh Dong Battle is no rice at all involved.

2) The mission and the enemy regiment are different: In the Van Buren Operation the target is the 95th Regiment of the North Vietnam Army. There is no mention of this regiment in the Tra Binh Dong Battle.

3) The Geographical locations are different.

4) The dates differ, the Van Buren Operation was made in 1965-1966. The Tra Binh Dong battle starts in 1967.

Linyera (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

About the Killing Ratio, not that exaggerated.
http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/allied/ch06.htm (Page 149)

"...The ratio of enemy to friendly casualties has been phenomenal, on one occasion in excess of 100 to 1."

-Lt. General William R. Peers, USA, then the commander, US 4th infantry Division

And it follows:

Generally Korean large-scale operations during 1969 were of regimental size or less, of brief duration, and with a specific target. One significant operation of this kind was Dong Bo 7, carried out near Cam Ranh from 9 to 11 May 1969. Soldiers of the 2d Battalion, 30th Regiment, 9th (White Horse) Division were airlifted onto Tao Mountain, a base for units of the 5th North Vietnam Army Division, and searched the caves and trenches on the mountain. Wizen the operation ended, 155 enemy soldiers had been killed while the Koreans had three killed and one wounded.

Throughout 1970 the Koreans continued to conduct many operations of short duration aimed at supporting the over-all pacification program and the general campaign goals. The Korean Army division conducted an average of 150 small unit actions each day, including ambushes, search and clear operations, and the normal efforts to secure the areas around minor installations. The major results of Korean efforts were reflected in the infrequent larger scale operation of the Koreans; however, their kill ratio remained high for all operations.

Every time the Koreans performed a mission they did it well. A study of the tactical area of responsibility assigned them shows clearly that they were stretched to the limit geographically, with the job of keeping the roads open from above Phu Cat north of Qui Nhon all the way to Phan Rang down in Ninh Thuan, three provinces below Binh Dinh. They had several hundred road miles of responsibility-and they kept the roads open.

The enemy feared the Koreans both for their tactical innovations and for the soldiers' tenacity. It is of more than passing interest to note that there never was an American unit in Vietnam which was able to "smell out" small arms like the Koreans. The Koreans might not suffer many casualties, might not get too many of the enemy on an operation, but when they brought in seventy-five or a hundred weapons, the Americans wondered where in the world they got them. They appeared to have a natural nose for picking up enemy weapons that were, as far as the enemy thought, securely cached away. Considered opinion was that it was good the Koreans were "friendlies."

Damn, it is really really impressive. If this wasn't an official document I wouldn't believe it. Linyera (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Who did what in Vietnam?
The accounts of ROK forces' actions in Vietnam in this article confuse those of the ROK Army units and ROK marine units. Somebody needs to clear these up. 68.32.208.118 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

POV edits -- February 2011
A persistent editor has added a rather broad accusation of war crimes. The support for the addition was a WP article (reference now deleted) and a vague reference from the Asian Human Rights Commission regarding war crimes committed by Korean soldiers. This AHRC citation includes an appeal for readers to write to the ROK government, which makes it POV. The reference is tagged as needing 3rd party and the section is tagged POV. Justification, better references, details, or general fixing of this tagged paragraph is requested. --S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)