Chapter XII: Korean Reflection (2)

With a new tactical exercise held nearly every month, HMR-161 operations that once had rated world-wide headlines were now practically routine. VTOL-style battalion troop lifts were no longer novel and regimental resupply operations were becoming almost standard practice. In both relocation of units and logistical support, combat helicopters had provided high mobility and reasonable speed. They had introduced a new infantry technique of “hit and run” tactics. The transport helicopter squadron had proved most effective when employed in major tactical movements and not when used piecemeal on minor missions. Marine Corps wartime use of the new aerial vehicle had clearly proven that helicopters had become a necessary and integral component of the modern-day balanced military force.

_FMF and Readiness Posture_[719]

[719] Unless otherwise noted, the material in this section is
derived from: Semianl Rpts of SecDef (including SecNav),
1951–1955; _PacFlt EvalRpts_ No. 4, Chaps. 9, 10, No. 5,
Chaps. 8, 9, No. 6. Chaps. 9, 10; _USMC Board Rpt_, vs.
1-11; _Generals’ Summary_; Brochure titled “Historical
Outline of the Development of Fleet Marine Force, Pacific
1941–1950 (Preliminary),” held at HRB; HRS Log Sheet of
Korean War Statistics prepared for Policy Analysis Br.,
HQMC, dtd 21 Aug 67; Ernest H. Giusti, _The Mobilization
of the Marine Corps Reserve in the Korean Conflict,
1950–1951_ (Washington: HistBr, G-3 Div, HQMC, 1967 ed.),
hereafter Giusti, _Mobilization, MCR_; _USMC Ops Korea_,
vs. I-II; Public Affairs Unit 4-1, _The Marine Corps
Reserve--A History, 1916–1966_ (Washington: Division of
Reserve, HQMC, 1966); HQMC Press Kit, “Men of Color,”
issued July 1968; U.S. Bureau of the Census, _Historical
Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957_
(Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1961).

The flexibility and readiness capability inherent in the Marine Corps FMF structure was a strong undergirding factor in its swift response to the Korean crisis. As noted, in June 1950 the Marine Corps had 74,279 officers and men on active duty. Its Fleet Marine Force, consisting of FMFPac and FMFLant, numbered 27,656. The 11,853 personnel of FMFPac included 7,779 men in General Smith’s 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton and 3,733 in General Harris’ 1st Marine Aircraft Wing at El Toro. On the East Coast, FMFLant numbered 15,803 with approximately 8,973 Marines in the 2d Division at Camp Lejeune and 5,297 air personnel attached to the 2d Wing at Cherry Point.

Outbreak of Korean hostilities thus presented the Marine Corps with the tasks of organizing and deploying for combat first a brigade and then a full war-strength reinforced division, each with supporting aviation elements. Despite the low strength to which FMFPac had shrunk due to stringent national defense economy measures, the heavy demands placed upon it were met. Both missions were accomplished quickly and effectively. In fact, “few achievements in the long history of the Marine Corps can equal what was achieved in the 11 weeks which elapsed between the outbreak of the Korean War and the amphibious assault of the 1st Marine Division at Inchon.”[720]

[720] Historical Outline of the Development of FMFPac,
1941–1950, p. 49.

As early as 2 July, CinCFE MacArthur had requested that a Marine RCT-air unit be dispatched to the Far East. On 7 July the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade was activated; on 12–14 July it embarked. With departure of the brigade, personnel shortages within the 1st Division and 1st Wing became acute. The division was reduced to 3,459, less than a RCT; and the wing to 2,300. Meanwhile, as the increasing demand had continued for a Marine Division deployed to Korea, it became equally apparent that if the Marine Corps were to fulfill this requirement of deploying a full-strength division to Korea,[721] its reservists would have to be called up to alleviate these shortages.

[721] With 7,779 men in 1stMarDiv and 8,973 in the 2dMarDiv,
even “had they been combined into a single unit, its
numbers would still have fallen 20 percent short of one
war-strength division.” Giusti, _Mobilization_, MCR, p. 9.

Manpower potential of the Marine Corps Reserve was 128,959, nearly twice that of the regular establishment. In June 1950, the Organized Marine Corps Reserve (Ground) numbered 1,879 officers and 31,648 enlisted personnel being trained in 138 OMCR units of battalion size or less. Membership of the ground reserve was approximately 76 percent of its authorized strength. At the same time the Organized Reserve (Aviation) consisted of 30 fighter and 12 ground control intercept squadrons attached to the Marine Air Reserve Training Command organized at Glenview, Ill. in 1946. These MARTCOM squadrons numbered 1,588 officers and 4,753 enlisted, or approximately 95 percent of authorized strength. In addition to nearly 40,000 members of the OMCR, the Marine Volunteer (nondrill, nonpay status) Reserve carried approximately 90,000 on its rolls.

A warning notice went out on 19 July from the Commandant, General Cates, to District Directors that the OMCR would shortly be ordered to active duty; later that same day mobilization of the Reserve was authorized by President Truman, with Congressional sanction. On 20 July, the first 22 ground units, with nearly 5,000 men, were ordered to active duty on a schedule that took into account the unit’s state of readiness, proximity to its initial duty station, and facilities there for handling the personnel overload.

Less than a month after hostilities began in Korea, key infantry, artillery, and engineer units of the OMCR had been ordered to extended active duty. On 31 July, West Coast ground reserve units from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and Phoenix were the first to report in to Camp Pendleton for augmentation into the 1st Marine Division. The following day their opposite numbers from the East Coast units arrived at Camp Lejeune. By 11 September, all of the organized ground units had reported for duty and the OMCR (Ground) had ceased to exist.

While the organized ground reserve was being mobilized, the first of the 42 MARTCOM fighter and intercept squadrons began arriving at El Toro. Personnel of six reserve VMF and three MGCI squadrons were ordered to duty on 23 July as replacements in the 1st MAW which had furnished units and men for the MAG-33 component of the brigade.

Commenting on the success with which the Marine Corps achieved this expansion, the Secretary of Defense was to note later:

The speed with which this mobilization was effected was an
important factor in the rapid buildup of the First Marine
Division, the first units of which sailed for the Far East in
July 1950.[722]

[722] Semianl Rpt of SecDef (1 Jan-30 Jun) 1953, p. 187.

As late as 20 July, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had informed MacArthur that a Marine division could not be sent before November or even December. Finally, on 25 July, the CinCUNC’s third request for the division was approved. It would, however, be a division minus one RCT, and the Joint Chiefs were “adamant in their decision that MacArthur must wait until autumn or even winter for his third RCT.”[723]

[723] _USMC Ops Korea_, v. II, p. 23.

The JCS also directed on 25 July that the Marine Corps build its division (less one RCT) to full war strength. The date of 10–15 August was set for its departure to the Far East. Among the many steps taken in the mobilization schedule, the JCS directed that the Camp Lejeune-based 2d Marine Division be expanded immediately to war strength.

Fleshing out personnel--against short-fuzed manpower and time factors--for the 1st Marine Division and Wing, due to embark in mid-August, a month after the brigade had left, was a round-the-clock operation for all hands. Between 25 July-5 August, the Marine Corps provided personnel for the expanded Division/Wing by:

transfer of FMFLant-selected, 2d Division/Wing air and ground
units, of 6,800 men, to FMFPac;

transfer of 3,600 regular Marines from 105 posts and stations
throughout the U.S.;

mobilization of 2,900 from early OMCR ground and air units; and
utilization of two replacement drafts, number 900, intended for
the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade.

Expansion of the 1st Marine Division was in two phases, bringing the division (less one RCT) up to war strength and then organizing its third reinforced infantry regiment, the 7th Marines. With the cadre of 3,459 men in the division after the brigade left and the influx of regulars and reservists, the 1st Division embarked for Korea between 10 and 24 August. It had reached wartime strength (less one RCT) on 15 August, just 27 days after beginning its buildup from a peacetime T/O. As it had approached war strength, the Division CG, General Smith, was directed by CMC ltr of 4 August to activate a third RCT and prepare it for departure to Korea no later than 1 September.

While mounting out, the division transferred approximately 1,000 of its rear echelon to be used in the buildup of the 7th Marines. The 6th Marines of the 2d Division provided the base for building this new regiment. (Approximately 800 Marines of 3/6 were reassigned from Mediterranean duty and ordered to the Far East, via the Suez Canal, to join the 7th Marines upon its arrival there.) By drawing men from widely scattered sources, it was possible to activate the 7th Marines on 17 August. Departure of this regiment on 1 September was thus far in advance of the late fall or winter target date originally set by the JCS.

With all OMCR ground units called up and absorbed into the 1st and 2d Divisions, and air squadrons being mobilized on a slower schedule (due to less-urgent combat needs for air personnel in the early war stage), the Marine Corps dealt with its remaining body of reserve strength. Bulk orders went out beginning 15 August to the Volunteer Reserve, and by the end of the year 58,480 men and women in this category were on active duty. More than 80 percent of the volunteer reservists on Marine Corps rolls served during the Korean War.

Attesting to the impact of events in Korea is the fact that “following the epic withdrawal of the 1st Division from the Chosin Reservoir, the number of new enlistments into the active Volunteer Reserve jumped from 877 in December to 3,477 in January.”[724]

[724] Giusti, _op. cit._, p. 36.

Complete mobilization of the organized ground reserve had been accomplished in just 53 days, from 20 July to 11 September. A previous estimate had shown an expected 80 percent availability of ground reserve on M-Day; the actual mobilization figure was 90 percent. Of 33,528 OMCR ordered to active duty, a total of 30,183 (1,550 officers/28,633 enlisted) reported. Marine aviation also expanded rapidly. By January 1951, 32 organized reserve air units (20 of the 30 existing VMFs and all 12 MGCIs) had been activated and by October of that year all of the reserve squadrons had been called to active duty. Of the 6,341 organized air reservists, 5,240 received orders; 4,893, or 93.4 percent, reported in. In contrast to the ground reserve, air units had been recalled on a staggered or partial mobilization schedule, a matter which was later to receive Congressional attention (and ultimately to set a new trend) when the Nation’s entire Korean War mobilization procedures were reviewed and subsequently revised.

Of the Marines participating in the Inchon invasion, 17 percent were reservists. By June 1951 the proportion of reservists in Marine Corps units in Korea had increased to nearly 50 percent. Between July 1950 and June 1953, approximately 122,000 reservists, both recruits and veterans, saw active duty with the Marine Corps.

Throughout the war the Marine Corps effected approximately 34 replacement drafts and another 31 rotation drafts. Ground Marines served an average tour of 13 months overseas (although actual time attached to the division was about 10½ months). The collapse of North Korean forces after the Inchon-Seoul operation and the unopposed landing at Wonsan had pointed to an early end of the Korean conflict. Massive Chinese intervention in November 1950, however, changed the prospect of a short war to a long one and made it necessary to implement a rotation and release policy. By March 1951, HQMC had worked out a preliminary phaseout program for reserve personnel (based on the various categories and length of service prior to recall) which was put into effect in June 1951.

During 1952 and up until July 1953, approximately 500 officers and 15,500 enlisted men joined the 1st Marine Division in Korea every six months. Individual monthly replacement drafts generally ranged from 1,900 to 2,500, depending on the combat situation and other personnel needs within the Marine Corps. Monthly rotation drafts of Marines assigned to the States or other duty stations from Korea were usually somewhat smaller than their corresponding incoming numbers. Ranks and MOS of replacement personnel to the end of the war, however, did not always meet the needs of the division. Specialty training conducted by the 1st Marine Division in Korea helped remedy most of the worst deficiencies.

During the latter half of 1952 and throughout 1953, tours for Marine pilots/combat air crews averaged 9 months, and for aviation ground officer/enlisted personnel, 12 months. Following a detailed HQMC study of the advantages of tactical unit as opposed to individual pilot rotation, a new squadron replacement policy was instituted. This procedure assured standard precombat training of all pilots[725] and development of a team spirit prior to the squadron’s arrival in the combat theater. Previously this had not been possible with the continuing turnover of 1st MAW personnel under the individual release system. Despite plans during 1952–1953 for replacement and rotation of squadrons as an entity, this did not come about until late in the war when carrier squadron VMA-312 was replaced by VMA-332 in June 1953. With the end of hostilities, tours were extended to approximately 14 months for both aviation and ground Marines.

[725] Even as late as July 1952, the influx of Class III
volunteer reserve pilots, many of whom lacked adequate
recent precombat flying experience, had presented a
serious wing personnel problem and resulted in on-the-job
training for pilots in the VMO-6 fixed-wing section.
As another measure to improve squadron operational
proficiency and partially correct weaknesses of the
individual pilot rotation system and fast turnover, a
100-mission ceiling was inaugurated in February 1953.
This applied to aviators in the VMF/VMA tactical units,
with the exception of VMF(N)-513 pilots who were rotated
after 60 missions.

Buildup of Marine Corps personnel during the Korean War from the June 1950 base of 74,279 is seen in the following strength figures:

June 1951 192,620 Marines on active duty
June 1952 231,967 Marines on active duty
June 1953 249,219 Marines on active duty

Altogether, an estimated 424,000 Marines served during the period of hostilities. The war also witnessed a sizable increase in the number of Negro Marines on active duty. This figure grew from 2 officers/1,965 enlisted in 1950 to 19 officers/14,468 enlisted by 1953. Marine officials commented on their fine combat performance, including that of many outstanding NCOs. In line with the changing climate of events and legislation,[726] the Korean War marked the first time that Negro personnel were fully integrated into the military services, in contrast to the segregated units before and during World War II.

[726] Assignment of Negro personnel in the armed forces
continued to expand as a result of the President’s 1948
Executive Order on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity.
The Far East Command in July 1951 and the European
Command in April 1952 initiated steps towards the racial
integration of combat units, followed by similar programs
for service units. Semianl Rpt SecDef (1 Jan-30 Jun
1952), p. 21.

Peak strength of the Marine Corps during the Korean emergency occurred on 30 September 1953, when 261,343 were on duty. At the end of the war, 33,107 Marines (26,072 division, 7,035 wing) were stationed in Korea. The time of peak deployed strength in Korea during 1950–1953 appears to have been April 1953, when Marines of the 1st Division/Wing numbered 35,306.[727]

[727] For detailed breakdown of figures, see 1stMarDiv, 1st MAW
ComdDs, Apr 53 and _PacFlt Eval Rpt_ No. 6, Chap. 9, p.
9-54, Chap. 10, p. 10-29. Also, _PacFlt EvalRpt_ No. 5,
Chap. 8, p. 8-33 and No. 4, Chap. 9, p. 9-26.

While the Korean War was still in progress, Congress passed new legislation to remedy certain shortcomings that had become apparent during the emergency, particularly the Nation’s recent experience with partial mobilization. These new laws affected the size of the FMF structure of the Marine Corps, its active-duty strength, and its reserve component.

Public Law 416, enacted 28 June 1952, represented several major advances for the Marine Corps. It authorized an increase of Marine Corps strength to a minimum of three combat divisions and three wings; raised the ceiling of regular active-duty personnel to 400,000 (except for normal expansion in a national emergency or war); and provided for the Commandant to sit as co-equal member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff[728] on matters of direct concern to the Marine Corps. In reaffirming the role of Marine Corps in the seizure and defense of advanced naval bases, as well as land operations incident to naval campaigns, the law also cited the corollary Marine Corps mission of “performing such other duties as the President may direct.” Commenting on Public Law 416, the Commandant observed: “Our views are considered. Our interests are protected. The entire Marine Corps has benefited greatly by these gains.”[729] General Shepherd further noted that the new legislation “expresses clearly the intent that the Marine Corps shall be maintained as a ready fighting force prepared to move promptly in time of peace or war to areas of trouble. It recognizes that in the future there may be a series of continuing international crises--each short of all-out war, but each requiring our nation ... to move shock forces into action on the shortest of notice.”[730]

[728] Previously, Marine Corps views had been represented at
the JCS level by the SecNav or CNO.

[729] _Generals’ Summary_, p. 1.

[730] Thomas, Heinl, and Ageton, _op. cit._, p. 70.

The two new laws affecting the future training and composition of the Marine Corps and other services were: (1) the Universal Military Training and Service Act (UMT&S), as amended, approved 19 June 1951; and (2) the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 (Public Law 476), approved 9 July 1952. Basically, the two laws sought to establish a sounder mobilization base and were complementary in nature. The Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 implemented a new mobilization concept: either a partial or total callup of the Nation’s reserve forces. In the past, the M-Day target had been geared to a total war only. A limited war, resulting in a partial, Korean-type mobilization, had not been envisioned. The 1952 act thereby provided greater flexibility for dealing with both contingencies and also consolidated much of the existing legislation affecting reserve forces.

Members of the reserve were newly designated by different categories of M-Day priority: ready, standby, and retired reserve. These varying degrees of availability for callup reflected training status (OMCR/volunteer), length of prior service, and related factors (i.e., men with the least service were designated for first callup, or the “Ready” category.) Previously, they were all equally subject for recall in an emergency, regardless of prior service.

The 1952 act and its new provisions thereby distinguished between a future national emergency and an all-out war. Theoretically, at least, a national emergency could be proclaimed by the President, calling for a partial mobilization, as in Korea. A declaration of war by Congress, as in World War II, would call for total mobilization. Thus the Marine Corps Reserve was newly earmarked for either a partial or total mobilization.

Under UMT&S, a military service obligation of eight years was established for all young men under age 26 entering the armed forces (whether by enlistment, draft, appointment, or reserve) after 19 June 1951. The act also authorized drafting of male citizens for two-year active duty periods. This new system of eight-year obligors provided the post-Korean MCR with a stable body of personnel who had received their basic training but still had a reserve obligation.

Also as a result of the Korean mobilization, the Organized Marine Corps Reserve troop list was modified in order to provide a manpower pool for additional elements of the regular establishment. Supply, service, and security units were added to provide more of an FMF type of augmentation than that furnished by reserve units in the past. Reestablishment of the OMCR began in October 1951, when the first group of recalled reservists were released from Korean duty. Plans called for a larger reserve and more comprehensive training. Ground units were to be increased from 138 to approximately 255, with the air squadrons to number 42. The Volunteer Reserve was similarly to be strengthened by stricter requirements for participation.

Traditionally the mission of the Marine Corps Reserve, since 1916, had been defined as “providing trained personnel for integration into the Marine Corps in time of national emergency.” The strengthened MCR program as a result of Korea and the new laws led to a more serious reappraisal of its role. In looking to its post-Korea future, the Marine Corps planned a revitalized training program that would now “assist in extending the ‘force-in-readiness’ concept to the Marine Corps Reserve.”[731] More than ever before, the Marine Corps sought to make its reserve a mirror-image of the regular establishment.

[731] _Generals’ Summary_, p. 96.

_Problems Peculiar to the Korean War_[732]

[732] Unless otherwise noted, the material in this section is
derived from: _PacFlt EvalRpts_ No. 4, Chaps. 9, 10, No.
5, Chaps. 1, 8, 9, No. 6, Chaps. 1, 9, 10; _USMC Board
Rpt_ vs. I-II; 1st Marine Division Training Bulletin
No. 5-53, “Lessons Learned,” dtd 10 Jun 53, hereafter
_Lessons Learned 5-53_; _Generals’ Summary_; Futrell,
_USAF, Korea_; Heinl, _Soldiers of Sea_.

The undeclared war of Communist China against United Nations forces resulted in major changes in high-level policy and strategy that affected military tactics for the rest of the war. In an attempt to prevent escalation of Korean hostilities into an all-out nuclear war, the decision was made that U.N. forces, both ground and air, would not strike enemy bases in Chinese territory. After the beginning of truce negotiations in July 1951, the mission of Allied ground forces was changed from initiating offensive operations to one of maintaining an active defense of the MLR across Korea. The basic strategy became one of containment and prevention of any further enemy gains south of the 38th Parallel. It involved attempting to inflict maximum losses on the enemy while attempting to minimize those of the UNC. Militarily, these restrictions removed the possibility of winning a decisive victory. For the next two years, fighting seesawed back and forth across the parallel.

Static and defensive warfare thus characterized the greater part of the Korean War. During this period, the Marine division performed a land war mission similar to other Eighth Army components while Marine aviation squadrons flew under control of Fifth Air Force. Both the 1st Marine Division and 1st Marine Aircraft Wing faced tactical restrictions that resulted from the strategic policies governing the overall role of EUSAK and FAF. Problem areas arose from the limited nature of this particular war. These involved not only the shift in the UNC strategy from an offensive posture to a defensive (“active defense”) concept, but also from the paralyzing effect of the protracted truce negotiations on battlefield tactics.

For nearly two years (16 months in West Korea and 5 months earlier while in IX Corps on the East-Central front), the Marine division assumed an unaccustomed defensive role. Such a sustained, basically non-win position was hardly morale-building to the average Marine unable to see personally any yardage gained, any progress made in his particular war. Not surprisingly, such a passive battle assignment did result in a temporary loss of amphibious skills on the part of both individual Marines and the division. End-of-war evaluations noted that “long and indecisive defensive situations such as existed in Korea do little to foster the offensive spirit so long traditional with the Marine Corps and certainly tend to detract from the immediate amphibious readiness required of a Marine Division.”[733]

[733] _PacFlt EvalRpt_ No. 6, p. 9-2.

Prior to its tour of duty as I Corps reserve in mid-1953, the 1st Marine Division had noted that it would “require intensive training and reequipping for a period of at least 60 days” upon release from active combat in order to “reach a desirable standard of amphibious readiness.”[734] Rigorous MARLEX and RCT exercises initiated in June 1952 after the division had moved to the western coastal sector off the Yellow Sea and expanded during its I Corps reserve period, were important steps in rectifying this skill attrition. This was, of course, in addition to the continuous training schedule in offensive and defensive warfare maintained by the division for the battalions and regiment periodically in regular reserve status.

[734] _PacFlt EvalRpt_ No. 5, p. 8-5. Subsequently, the
division’s ground readiness was rated as excellent; a
conservative estimate placed individual unit amphibious
readiness at between 25 and 60 percent; and indicated
a 30-day training period would bring the division to
complete amphibious readiness. _Generals’ Summary_, p. 53.

Outpost warfare in West Korea was characterized by overextended MLR frontage. The more than 60,000 yards held by the division while in the I Corps sector resulted in a thinly-held line which invited penetration and encirclement. “Normal” frontage for an infantry division in defense with two regiments on line was considered by U.S. Army doctrine to be 8–9,000 yards. Even with four MLR regiments (two Marine, 1st KMC/RCT, and KPR) and the 1st Amphibian Tractor Battalion on line (the third Marine regiment in reserve with a counterattack mission), this was a very lengthy sector. It was further complicated by the Han River obstacle on the left flank and the Imjin River to the rear of the sector that separated Marine frontline troops from rear support and reserve units.

Infantry battalions thus occupied “extremely wide fronts, as a rule 3,500 to 5,000 yards,” while individual rifle companies were assigned anywhere from “1,200 to 1,700 yards of the MLR to occupy and defend.”[735] Prior to the battle of the Hook in October 1952, one of the major engagements on the western front, the 7th Marines at the far right end of the division sector had emplaced all three battalions on line, rather than the customary procedure of two on line and the third in reserve. There was little other choice, for the regimental sector exceeded 10,000 yards, “more properly the frontage for a division rather than a regiment.”[736]

[735] _Lessons Learned_ 5-53, p. 19.

[736] Hicks, _Outpost Warfare_, p. 107.

During a 100 percent watch, at least theoretically, a Marine could be spaced at intervals about every 10 to 15 yards along the MLR. A night 50 percent watch--with personnel of rifle platoons assigned to COPs, listening posts, combat patrols, repair of fortifications, and the KSC nightly supply trains--not infrequently spread personnel to a point where the MLR was dangerously thin, often with 50 yards between men.[737] Such an over-wide lineal deployment dissipated defensive strength and made mutually supporting fires difficult.

[737] Lessons Learned, _op. cit_.

Division artillery, too, was thinly positioned across the wide sector, making it difficult to execute counterbattery missions. This led to development of the innovative counter-counterbattery program (or “roving guns”) devised by the 11th Marines in May 1952 to deliberately mislead the CCF as to the strength and location of divisional artillery; the situation resulted as well in the reinforcement of the four Marine artillery battalions by heavier I Corps 155mm and 8-inch howitzers. The static situation in the prolonged land campaign also led to the growth of large, semi-permanent type camps which somewhat hampered traditional Marine mobility. Organizations had additional personnel and equipment above T/O and T/E because of the peculiar defense requirements of the sustained battle situation.

The lack of depth in the defense did not provide for receiving the shock of a determined enemy attack, particularly since the normal OPLR had been withdrawn to strengthen the overextended MLR in April 1952, shortly after the division’s arrival in West Korea. Ultimately, as we have seen, this main line of resistance concept was modified and rather than a long thin trenchline the Marine division employed a defense-in-depth concept using a series of strongpoints, as in Boulder City and the organization of the postwar main battle position. In contrast to the Marine situation (and that of most other divisions in the EUSAK line), the CCF confronting the 1st Marine Division beyond No-Man’s-Land deployed their forces in great depth, boasted unlimited manpower, and employed an elastic type of defense on mutually supporting key terrain features. The enemy had also developed an artillery capability that was numerically superior to ours. And they held high ground positions that overlooked virtually the entire Marine front.

As in World War II, Korean operations provided another instance in which various military services and components were coordinated by joint commands: EUSAK for the ground defense and FAF for air. These massive operational command structures accomplished the desired goals. On lower level echelons, however, some policies tended to be so restrictive that they precluded normal combat initiative and aggressiveness. The net result was thus to allow the enemy to maintain the tactical initiative while, in effect, hampering UNC counter-defense measures.

New directives issued by I Corps in late 1952, for example, changed the corps policy of large-scale raids for prisoners, previously encouraged in the spring of 1952, which affected infantry raids and patrol activities for the rest of the war. Plans for all raids, company size or larger, required both I Corps and EUSAK approval, and were to be submitted 10 days prior to planned execution. Complete patrol plans for even platoon-size operations had to be submitted at least 24 hours in advance. Although the reason for the new policy stemmed from a desire to minimize casualties during the prolonged stalemate, negative effects of such a lead-time factor were quickly apparent. Battalion or regimental commanders frequently were unable to capitalize on targets of opportunity that developed or changes in local conditions, such as weather or troop deployment, to gain maximum effectiveness from the operation.

Directives covering offensive maneuvers that could be taken on local initiative were so restrictive that “any independent action below the level of the Division Commander became practically nonexistent.”[738] Similarly, counterattack plans to retake previously considered major COPs were countermanded, on several occasions, by corps or army higher echelons shortly before jump-off time with the reason given that the action was not worth the cost of further UNC casualties or possible jeopardy to the fragile peace negotiations.

[738] _PacFlt EvalRpt_ No. 6, p. 9-84.

Allied offensive capability was further restricted by various EUSAK and I Corps orders issued during the protracted period of truce talks. Many directives had as their well-intentioned rationale the desire not to upset the precarious balance in UNC-Communist negotiations by providing the enemy further opportunities for exploitative propaganda victories. The actual record shows, however, that the Communists were never at a loss to conjure up and capitalize on fabricated “events” that suited their purpose--whether charging UNC aircraft had violated the Kaesong neutrality strip, that American fliers were engaging in germ warfare, or deliberately instigating POW camp disruptions and breakouts.

Neutrality restrictions[739] on supporting arms within the entire Kaesong-Panmunjom-Munsan-ni area further complicated the UNC tactical situation and hampered both offensive and defensive operations of the 1st Marine Division. This was particularly true of the center Marine regimental sector which was bisected by the Panmunjom corridor and the no-fire lines. The truce talk neutral zone restrictions prevented the Marines in this area from massing their artillery fires on a desirable scale and also, at times, interfered with proper CAS delivery forward of the MLR. The numerous and sometimes conflicting “no-fly, no-fire” restricting lines stemmed from original agreements made between UNC and Communist representatives in 1951. Subsequently, however, the prohibitions against firing any type of weapon in the area were modified from time to time and added to by FAF, EUSAK, and I Corps, “each time adding to the frustration of the local commanders.”[740]

[739] Basically, these consisted of a no-hostile-act three-mile
circular area radiating from Kaesong; a six-mile radius
forbidding FAF planes in the skies over Kaesong and
another two-mile, no-fly radius over Panmunjom; and
various other prohibitions on military craft, air-dropped
leaflets, and firing of artillery to include propaganda
shell leaflets.

[740] _PacFlt EvalRpt_ No. 6, 9-78.

The double-standard effect of the neutrality restrictions became readily apparent, however. The CCF artfully used this area, by means of his tactics of “creeping” toward the Allied MLR, as a supply and reserve buildup location. The enemy emplaced artillery, assembled troops, and even used the neutral territory for equipment buildups, including tanks, in the Kaesong vicinity.[741] Thus the restrictive lines gave the enemy an opportunity to maneuver within an approximate 12 square-mile area, all within effective artillery range and outside of the Kaesong-Panmunjom restricted territory, but UNC units were powerless to take any action.

[741] _PacFlt EvalRpt_ No. 4, p. 9-37.

Intelligence operations, during the latter stages of the war, were not considered optimum--for either the division or wing. While dug in on the western end of I Corps, the Marine information effort had been “seriously hampered by the lack of prisoners of war.”[742] Only 94 CCF had been captured by the division during the period, compared with more than 2,000 prisoners taken earlier on the East-Central front.[743] This deficiency was attributed to the “static defensive situation, the reluctance of the Chinese to surrender and the heavy volume of fire placed on our reconnaissance patrols.”[744]

[742] _Generals’ Summary_, p. 39.

[743] Between December 1950-July 1953, the 1st Marine Division
took 2,445 _NKPA/CCF_, with an additional 656 enemy
seized by its attached 1st KMC/RCT, or a total of
3,101. Marine capturing units included Headquarters
Battalion, 1st Tank Battalion, 11th Marines, the three
infantry regiments, and 7th Motor Transport Battalion. An
additional 4,792 POWs were also taken by the 1st Division
in the early Inchon-Seoul operations. G-1 Folder, Aug 53
(Box 4), “Personnel Periodic Rpt. No. 94,” dtd 15–31 Aug
53; _USMC Board Rpt_, v. I, p. II-B-46.

[744] _Generals’ Summary_, p. 39.

In the air, photo reconnaissance results were not rated entirely satisfactory as a source of current information by either air or ground Marines. The command channels in effect designated the Air Force as responsible agent for control and coordination of all photo missions in Korea. Requests for photographic missions thus were relayed on to FAF and flown by its Reconnaissance Wing or the Marines’ own VMJ-1 squadron. The system produced relatively good vertical coverage with photos available in about 10 days. Special requests for immediate coverage on areas of local importance, however, customarily were either not flown or “delayed to the point where they were of no value”[745] because the tactical situation had been changed.

[745] _Ibid._

Delays were due to the shortage of photographic aircraft throughout FAF and the limited provision in T/Os for photo interpretation. Intelligence of air-strike targets (particularly post-strike) was consistently mediocre. Oblique photos of frontline positions took an average of three-four days to be processed and sometimes longer. As an expedient, aerial observers began to shoot their own vertical and oblique photos with hand-held cameras slung over the side of a VMO-6 plane.

Probably the most serious problem of all, from the Marine Corps point of view, was that during much of the Korean War Marine air-ground components, trained to work as a team, were to a large extent precluded from operating together. The separate missions of the wing and division reflected, on a smaller scale, the divergent UNC air and ground doctrine and tactics. After the early moving battles, Korean hostilities had settled down to a protracted land war in which ground and air tactical commands did not operate jointly and were never coordinated to deal a truly devastating blow to the enemy. Since the Korean War was a limited one most of the fighting was confined to the stabilized front across Korea. Both air and naval forces were viewed largely as supporting arms for the ground operation.

Due to political-military considerations, UNC tactical air power had been, in effect, handcuffed so that its use would not appear “overly aggressive” and threaten an enlargement of the Korean hostilities into a nuclear armageddon of World War III.[746] Since the earliest days of the war, a strict embargo had been placed on any bombing of Chinese rear supply areas or industrial complexes although it was obvious that much of the enemy’s logistical strength lay beyond the Manchurian border.

[746] Much of the unwritten but basic policy mitigating against
full use of Allied air superiority stemmed from the
desire to employ “humanitarian” standards in the UNC war
effort. Following WW II there had been wide criticism
of the “moral wrong of massed air bombardment” as well
as employment of the atomic bomb by the U. S. to hasten
the end of the war. The UNC goal, in Korea, was to avoid
needless civilian casualties and for air strikes to be
directed against purely military targets. Futrell, _USAF
Korea_, p. 41.

Air efforts were concentrated largely on nuisance or harassing raids within North Korea and close air support efforts of various types, rather than a systematic destruction of the enemy’s primary supply installation’s. Some ranking officers had informally interpreted official Washington policy as “Don’t employ airpower so that the enemy will get mad and won’t sign the armistice.”[747] Indeed, it was not until after the Communists had rejected what the UNC called its “final truce package,” in April 1952, that it was decided to exert greater pressure against the Communists. The list of approved aerial targets was then enlarged to include North Korean hydroelectric power facilities, previously exempted from air attack.

[747] _Ibid._, p. 402.

From late 1950 until early 1953, Marine air squadrons were assigned directly by FAF, with CG, 1st MAW, having virtually no tactical control over his own units. Marine Corps aerial doctrine traditionally employed close air support of ground operations as the primary role of its air arm. FEAF and FAF, however, in their interpretation of employment of tactical air power directed FAF maximum efforts toward interdiction missions, sometimes even to the expense of immediate CAS needs.[748] As Far East Air Forces stated late in 1951, “when required, close air support of United Nations Army forces may take precedence over other FEAF programs.”[749] Interdiction, general support, and close support missions were the normal order of priorities flown by _FEAF_-FAF.

[748] Comments Futrell, _USAF, Korea_, pp. 430–431: “Despite
the fact that responsible Eighth Army and Fifth Air
Force commanders had decided that the rail-interdiction
attacks would best accomplish the United Nations mission
in Korea, Eighth Army subordinate commanders were gravely
dissatisfied with the limitations [96 sorties daily for
the entire Eighth Army front, decided upon by EUSAK-_FAF_
in November 1951] placed on close support.” One of
those dissenting subordinates at the time was CG, 1st
Mar Div. Following the September 1951 heavy fighting in
the Punchbowl area, General Thomas officially described
the Marine division’s air support as unsatisfactory and
stated his division had “taken unnecessary casualties
because its air support had not been adequate or timely.”
Average elapsed time between the division’s CAS requests
and its 187 approved missions that month had been nearly
two hours. Only 32 immediate air-support requests had
been filled within 30 minutes.

[749] _Ibid._, p. 432.

Operation STRANGLE, the 10-month, all-out, air interdiction campaign during 1951–1952 originally had as its objective the destruction of the North Korean road-rail network. The interdiction program had been defined at first as a move to “paralyze enemy transportation in the zone between the railheads at the 39th Parallel and the front lines.”[750] and later somewhat more conservatively as a measure to so “disrupt the enemy’s lines of communication ... that he will be unable to contain a determined offensive by friendly forces ... or to mount a sustained offensive himself.”[751]

[750] _Ibid._, p. 296.

[751] _Ibid._, pp. 435–436.

Despite more than 87,552 interdiction sorties flown during the period, CinCFE daily intelligence summaries showed that aerial harassment of the CCF had not hindered their defensive efforts. Instead, by the summer of 1952 the enemy had “actually doubled in troop strength, reinforced their artillery strength to equal that of the UN forces, developed a tremendous AA capability, and established the capability for launching a general offensive.”[752] With UNC air and sea superiority, the Chinese Communists had still succeeded in keeping their main supply route open. Rail track cuts were being repaired in as little as 36 hours. And the CCF was employing more fire power than ever: in May 1952, some 102,000 rounds fell against UNC positions compared to only 8,000 the previous July.

[752] _PacFlt EvalRpt_ No. 5, p. 9-58.

Even the retiring UNC Supreme Commander, General Ridgway, admitted before Congressional representatives in 1952 that the enemy had greater offensive potential than ever before, and the Commander, Seventh Fleet, Vice Admiral Joseph J. Clark, declared flatly: “The interdiction program was a failure ... It did _not_ interdict.”[753] USAF spokesmen felt it had attained its limited purpose but opined: “Seen abstractly, the United Nations railway-interdiction campaign was defensive and preventive rather than offensive and positive.”[754] In early 1952, CG, FAF, General Everest, recognizing that his pilots “had been so long engaged in interdiction attacks that they were losing their skills in close support”[755] inaugurated a new system. Beginning in March all fighter-bomber squadrons were to be rotated on weekly close-support missions.

[753] Cagle and Manson, _Sea War, Korea_, p. 270.

[754] Futrell, _USAF, Korea_, pp. 437–438.

[755] _Ibid._, p. 434.

Actually, the skies had begun to clear for Marine aviation operational difficulties by the latter half of 1952. A better understanding had developed between both high-level officials and the working day-to-day liaison operations at JOC CG, 1st MAW had “established his position so firmly he was able to guide establishment of the policies which governed his operations merely by expressing his desires to CG 5th AF.”[756] The battle for Bunker Hill in August 1952 had marked excellent cooperation between Eighth Army and FAF, with the 1st Marine Division receiving air priority for two days. In any event, matters were substantially improved from late 1951-early 1952 when, during a 12-month period, 1st MAW CAS sorties for 1st MarDiv had plummeted to the incredibly low figure of 1,956[757] or 15.8 percent of the wing’s total 12,372 CAS sorties during FY 1952 (1Jul51–30Jun52).

[756] _PacFlt EvalRpt_ No. 5, p. 9-45.

[757] By contrast: in FY 1951, 1st MAW CAS sorties for
1stMarDiv were 7,000 of total 14,028 CAS sorties, or 50
percent; for FY 1953, the _figure_ was 4,912 of total
14,540 CAS sorties, or 32.4 percent. _Generals’ Summary_,
Chart C, following p. 58.

Commenting on this unhappy period for both air and infantry Marines, Lieutenant General Richard C. Mangrum, USMC (Retired), who was CO, MAG-12 during part of the STRANGLE operations, said “for the rest of 1951 and well into 1952 the major effort of my Group and of MAG-33 was devoted to cutting the rail lines in North Korea. Without success, of course. Little by little we were able to increase the percentages of effort devoted to close support of the troops.”[758] And by the last six months of the war the bulk of all CAS missions received by the division were flown by 1st MAW aircraft, in contrast to earlier periods when a third or half of the division’s sorties were Marine-flown. As the last Korean War Wing CG noted, despite basic differences between Army-Air Force and Marine Corps-Navy concept and tactics, ultimately “the commanders of the Fifth Air Force in actual daily practice decentralized control to a marked degree.”[759]

[758] Quoted in Heinl, _Soldiers of Sea_, p. 647.

[759] MajGen V. E. Megee, “Tactical Air Support of Ground
Forces,” _Marine Corps Gazette_, v. 39, no. 12 (Dec 55),
p. 17.

Throughout the war, however, a lack of standardized terms and differences in request procedures continued to exist. (This was resolved by using Marine control procedures when flying for the division, and Army-Air Force procedures when scrambled on flights for other divisions.) Whereas EUSAK-FAF considered strikes inside the bombline[760] as “close air support” and those outside it as “general support,” the Marine CAS concept was one of support in close proximity to frontlines (ranging from 50 to 500 yards out) that affects the fire and maneuver of those ground units. In the hands of Marine FACs, Marine planes employed on close support strikes had a definite influence on the MLR tactical situation.

[760] The bombline had been moved in to an average of 3–4,000
meters from the MLR in December 1952 to expose more
targets to the “mass” strike treatment.

Then, too, the Marine system of maintaining aircraft “on air alert” resulted in CAS requests being filled in 5 to 15 minutes. Air support requests screened in the regular manner by Eighth Army and FAF at the JOC level resulted in a delivery of ordnance to the target in a minimum of 30 minutes and delays sometimes of nearly four hours.[761] During fluid situations, when the division required more than 40 sorties per day, the “on station” system proved more tactically effective than the FAF pre-planned “on call” procedure.

[761] _PacFlt EvalRpt_ Chap. 1, No. 6, p. 1-15.

Operational differences between the Marine-Navy and Army-Air Force type of CAS in a critical ground situation were never more apparent than in a major CCF last-ditch effort when the enemy slammed against ROK defenses in the Kumsong area. An end-of-war report noted:

CCF penetration of the II ROK Corps sector, in July, 1953,
brought clearly into focus the ineffectiveness of the Air
Force-Army close air support (CAS) system during periods of fluid
operations. CCF eruption through the II ROK Corps MLR and deep
into friendly territory eliminated, as effective or practical,
the complete reliance by 5th AF on pre-planned CAS strikes (using
aircraft from the ground-alert pool), against fleeting targets
or targets of an immediate nature. These types of targets are
considered normal during a fluid situation.

The inadequacy of communications for rapid transmission of
air support requests in the CAS system employed in Korea, the
impossibility of only four TACP’s per division (U.S. and ROK
Army) to keep up with frontline battalion battle actions in
order to control CAS strikes, and the over-centralization of
control of CAS request approvals and CAS aircraft allocation
were all clearly demonstrated during that period of fluid ground
operations in July.[762]

[762] _PacFlt EvalRpt_ No. 6, p. 10-3.

Despite the accommodation reached during the Korean War, many of these fundamental differences in doctrine and employment of air support to ground troops in combat persisted until recent years.[763]

[763] For a penetrating discussion of interservice problems
dealing with air-ground liaison and communications, use
of FACs, and CAS capability, etc., see U.S. Congress,
Rpt of Special Subcommittee on Tactical Air Support of
the Committee on Armed Services, Otis G. Pike, Chairman
(House of Reps., 89th Congress, 1 Feb 66), Washington:
GPO, 1966.

As military history has shown countless times in the past, wars are fought under the prevailing difficulties of the time. There never was a war waged under ideal conditions. A reflection on operational problems of the Korean period is predicated on the thought that a review of them--and the solutions effected where possible--may help avoid their repetition in a conflict of the future.

_Korean Lessons_[764]

[764] Unless otherwise noted, the material in this section is
derived from: _PacFlt EvalRpts_ No. 4, Chaps. 9, 10, No.
5, Chaps. 1, 8, No. 6, Chaps. 1, 9; _Generals’ Summary_;
_Lessons Learned 5-53_; 1stMarDiv PIR 942, dtd 7 Aug 53;
1st MAW PIR 127-53, dtd 7 May 53, Encl (1) Estimate of
Enemy Ground Situation #1-53 (end-of-war analysis); 1st
MAW PIR 169-53, dtd 18 Jun 53, Encl (1) Estimate of Enemy
Air Situation 1-53, dtd 20 May 53 (end-of-war analysis);
5thMar ComdD, Nov 52, App. VI: Comments on Tactics,
Techniques, and Equipment, pp. 1–12; J. Lawton Collins,
_War in Peacetime--The History and Lessons of Korea_
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969); S. L. A. Marshall,
_The Military History of the Korean War_ (New York:
Franklin Watts, Inc., 1963); S. L. A. Marshall, _Pork
Chop Hill--The American Fighting Man in Action, Korea,
Spring 1953_ (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1956),
quoted with permission of the publisher; Ridgway, _Korean
War_; Hicks, _Outpost Warfare_; Batterton, _Korea Notes_.

In the early phase of the Korean War, the 1st Marine Division deployment was in a moving battle situation similar to numerous engagements it had fought in the past 175 years. Most of the “lessons” learned from the enemy, the tactical situation itself, and the terrain in Korea are derived largely from the later outpost warfare stage when the Marines were employed in a stabilized and sustained defensive situation similar to that facing other Allied units across the entire Eighth Army front. Tactics of defense on a wide front, construction of permanent type field fortifications, and organization of the battle position in difficult terrain was a new experience to Marines. This period of limited objective attacks and battles of attrition highlighted the importance of small unit tactics and demonstrated some modified concepts regarding employment of supporting arms.

During the period of outpost warfare, the 1st Marine Division was never confronted by a general enemy offensive or combined infantry-armor-artillery-air assault. The nature of the conflict was one of limited objective attacks, with strong and sometimes sustained probes. Typically, these were two-battalion assaults against a platoon-size outpost.

Time after time, as UNC defending troops learned, the CCF characteristic pattern of attack was repetitive and almost predictable. After dark, heavy preparatory fires deluged an isolated advance outpost. Crude, but effective, improvised demolitions often reduced COP fortifications[765] so that the enemy could assail the position. Waves of attacking Chinese then overwhelmed the greatly outnumbered defenders. Almost invariably the initial attack made on the front of the position was a feint; the real attack would be made by troops that had enveloped the position and moved to the rear. Enemy ambush forces were also located to the rear of the outpost, between the COP and MLR, at normal reinforcement routes to prevent both a pullback by the defenders to the MLR and to stop reinforcements from reaching the outpost.

[765] If the enemy advanced closer than 50 yards, by closely
following under heavy preparatory fires, he could
penetrate the position. At this close range, normal
box-me-in artillery fires were not close enough to break
up the attack. _Lessons Learned_ 5-53, p. 10.

Effective defensive fire plans for the COPs covered all likely enemy approaches and assembly areas, as well as close-in boxing fires of the COP on all sides. Marine defense positions were sited for all-round defense, with special attention paid to covering the rear approaches at night. This tactic of rear envelopment also applied on a smaller scale to patrols. Invariably the CCF maneuvered to the flanks and rear of a friendly patrol in an attempt to encircle it. The CCF skillfully employed both the terrain and troops and regularly attacked from more than one direction.

Experience with Communist combat techniques forced UNC leaders to reevaluate their own night-fighting tactics. The Chinese had a marked superiority in night operations. Every major attack on Marine outposts during the last year of the war was made at night. When they were not directly assaulting a friendly site, the CCF advanced their own ground positions by digging and their well-known creeping tactics. This enabled them to establish an OP line within small arms and mortar range of Marine COPs and the MLR. The battle for Bunker Hill came about as a result of this enemy tactic. Organization in early 1952 of COP-2A, adjacent to the Panmunjom corridor, was in direct rebuttal to this same tactic. By such indirect methods, the Chinese were further able to extend their already favorable high ground positions which gave them observation over practically all of the Marine front line. Defensively the enemy used the cover of darkness equally well: mountain roads were aswarm with trucks and supply movements, which UNC night-fighters and bombers slowed with only moderate success.

Skilled, rapid construction of field fortifications and excellent camouflage discipline by the enemy were also object lessons. Entrances to tunnels and caves, as well as the bunkers themselves were so carefully disguised by fresh branches, weeds, logs, and other natural foliage that they were rarely visible either by air observer or aerial photographs. Active weapons positions were also effectively camouflaged. Often 60mm and 82mm mortars were housed in bunkers and fired through a narrow opening at the top. If moved out temporarily to an open slope, they were quickly returned to the bunker to avoid detection. The Chinese elaborate underground system of trenchworks and radial tunnels between forward and rear bunkers was sometimes as much as 35 yards long. Underground bunkers and tunnels often had 20 feet or more of protective dirt cover and offered security from anything except a direct aerial hit.

Destruction of the enemy’s trenches, bunkers, and cave network by medium and heavy artillery was only partially successful. Napalm was generally ineffective due to the lack of combustible materials in CCF ground defenses. The well-prepared, deeply dug fortifications were virtually impervious to anything less than air assaults with heavy ordnance (1,000-pound bombs and over) which were required to destroy CCF reverse slope positions.