U.S. Marine Operations in Korea, 1950-1953, Volume 5 (of 5): Operations in West KoreaUnited States. Marine Corps
History
U.S. Marine Operations in Korea, 1950-1953, Volume 5 (of 5): Operations in West Korea
United States. Marine Corps
Korean War, 1950-1953 -- Campaigns; United States. Marine Corps -- History -- Korean War, 1950-1953
Earlier in the year the Marines had revised their estimate of enemy
capabilities after the lengthening of the division MLR by I Corps and
the subsequent heavy enemy attack. The re-evaluation placed the most
likely course of Chinese action as defending their present positions
with the 21 infantry battalions assigned and also cautioned that the
Communists could mount a limited objective attack at any time of their
choosing. Division intelligence estimated that the Chinese could muster
up to “57 infantry battalions supported by 12 artillery battalions
and 40 tanks and/or self-propelled guns” for a thrust into the Marine
sector.[116]
[116] 1stMarDiv ComdD, Apr 52, p. 1.
The enemy, however, showed little disposition for any concerted ground
attack during the remainder of April. But before the month ended,
Marines, in conjunction with other I Corps divisions, had deluged the
enemy with artillery and tank fire in Operation CLOBBER. The purpose of
this shoot was to inflict maximum casualties and damage by employment
of the element of tactical surprise. The reinforced 11th Marines,
augmented for this occasion by Company D, 1st Tank Battalion and nine
of the battalion’s 105mm howitzer and flame tanks, blasted Chinese CPs,
bivouac areas, artillery and mortar positions, and observation posts.
Marine frontline regiments joined in with their organic mortars. Since
most of the firing took place at night when results were unobserved, no
estimate could be made as to the effect of the operation on the enemy.
A new Marine artillery tactic about this time was the
counter-counterbattery program instituted by the 11th Marines. The
regiment had developed this technique to counter superior enemy
artillery strength. This situation, as well as the fact that I Corps
artillery available to the division was considered inadequate for
counterbattery support, led the Marine division to adopt the new
program in May 1952. One provision required a battery in each battalion
to select counter-counterbattery positions and occupy them for 24
consecutive hours each week. Another proviso of the program was the
selection by each battalion of 10 roving gun positions that were to
be occupied by a single weapon rotated to each place at least once
weekly. By these tactics, the artillery regiment hoped not only to
mislead the Chinese in their estimate of the strength and location of
Marine artillery but also to dilute enemy counterbattery intelligence
by causing him to fire into areas just vacated by friendly guns. “The
effectiveness of the program was demonstrated on numerous occasions
when the enemy fired counterbattery into unoccupied positions.”[117] An
added advantage was that of providing deeper supporting fires on target
areas.[118]
[117] _PacFlt EvalRpt_ No. 5, p. 8-51.
[118] LtCol Bruce F. Hillam comments on draft MS, dtd 31 Aug 66.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account