Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Operation Ripper

Operation Ripper was a United Nations Command offensive during the Korean War, launched on 7 March 1951 by the U.S. Eighth Army under General Matthew B. Ridgway to dislodge Chinese People's Volunteer Army and North Korean People's Army forces from positions south of the 38th parallel and recapture Seoul. The operation involved coordinated attacks by multiple UN corps, including heavy artillery barrages—the largest of the war up to that point—followed by infantry advances across a broad front, with U.S., British Commonwealth, and South Korean forces pushing northward against initially light resistance that intensified in urban and mountainous areas. UN troops reentered on 14–15 March after fierce street fighting, secured key objectives like Hongchon and by late March, and advanced to Line just south of the 38th parallel, restoring the front line to pre-Chinese positions while inflicting significant enemy casualties through superior and .

Historical Context

Chinese Intervention and Prior UN Setbacks

In October 1950, the , numbering initially in the hundreds of thousands, secretly crossed the into to bolster North Korean forces against the . By late October, PVA units launched their First Phase Offensive on October 25, catching UNC forces by surprise and initiating a series of attacks that reversed earlier UNC advances toward the Yalu. These interventions, involving up to 300,000 troops by early November, exploited UNC overextension and fragmented the front lines through and mass assaults. Subsequent PVA offensives in and 1950 forced the Eighth Army into a disorganized retreat from northern , abandoning positions north of the 38th parallel and incurring significant territorial losses. The withdrew over 400 kilometers south from the Yalu approaches, with shaken Republic of () units collapsing and exposing U.S. lines of communication, leading to a general retrograde movement. Morale plummeted among troops due to the unexpected scale of Chinese involvement and harsh winter conditions, compounded by logistical strains from rapid withdrawals. The PVA's Third Phase Offensive, commencing on January 1, 1951, culminated in the recapture of on January 4, prompting the Eighth Army to evacuate the city and Inchon port while retreating to a defensive line south of the Han River. This withdrawal, covering approximately 40 miles, represented a strategic contraction that ceded key urban and industrial centers, highlighting vulnerabilities in positioning and the overwhelming numerical superiority of PVA forces, estimated at over 300,000 in the western sector alone. The loss of inflicted not only territorial setbacks but also psychological and operational costs, as forces demolished infrastructure during the retreat to deny it to the enemy, further complicating future advances.

Ridgway's Command and Shift to Offensive Posture

Lieutenant General , commander of the , died in a accident on December 23, 1950, amid the UN forces' retreat following Chinese intervention. , promoted to lieutenant general, arrived in on December 26 and formally assumed command of the four days after Walker's death, inheriting a demoralized force reeling from recent defeats at the and Chosin Reservoir. Ridgway immediately toured forward positions, assessed unit cohesion, and initiated reforms grounded in restoring combat effectiveness through disciplined aggression rather than passive defense. Ridgway prioritized aggressive patrolling to reclaim initiative in no-man's-land, directing units to dispatch daily "fighting patrols"—often or squads—to locate, fix, and destroy enemy elements while leveraging superior UN and for support. He replaced underperforming officers unwilling to conduct such operations and enforced accountability, including courts-martial for dereliction, which reversed the army's defensive mindset and emphasized firepower over in rugged . These measures, implemented from late December 1950 through January 1951, transformed the Eighth Army from a routed formation into one capable of deliberate counteraction, prioritizing enemy attrition through controlled engagements. This reorganization set the stage for , launched on February 21, 1951, as a probing limited offensive across the front to inflict maximum casualties on and North Korean forces south of the Han River. The operation exposed enemy vulnerabilities, such as overextended supply lines and fatigue from prior offensives, while confirming UN advantages in firepower; it resulted in thousands of communist casualties with relatively low UN losses, significantly boosting troop confidence and validating Ridgway's approach. Ridgway's strategy marked a doctrinal pivot from General Douglas MacArthur's earlier emphasis on rapid, deep advances toward the —which had overextended UN lines and invited Chinese mass attacks—to a posture of methodical, attritional warfare focused on bleeding adversary manpower and without risking decisive defeat. By early , this shift enabled UN forces to conduct phased offensives from fortified positions, exploiting communist human-wave tactics' unsustainability against industrialized firepower, while aligning with broader strategic constraints against escalation.

Planning and Preparation

Strategic and Tactical Objectives

The primary strategic objective of , launched on , , was to advance forces to successive phase lines—initially Albany, followed by Buffalo—while inflicting maximum casualties on concentrations of (KPA) and (PVA) forces south of . This methodical progression aimed to exploit UN superior firepower and artillery to attrit numerically superior enemy troops, prioritizing destruction of personnel and materiel over rapid territorial conquest. General conceived the operation to keep enemy units off balance, preventing consolidation for a counteroffensive by forcing them into unfavorable defensive positions through outflanking maneuvers around and the area. Tactically, Ridgway employed a approach, leveraging overwhelming artillery barrages—preceded by the war's largest such bombardment—and coordinated advances to grind down enemy defenses, trading minimal UN losses for disproportionate KPA and PVA casualties. This emphasized empirical targeting of identified enemy strongpoints and nodes, using phase lines as benchmarks for controlled advances that maximized rather than risking overextension. The operation sought to disrupt PVA supply lines extending from the north, compelling withdrawals or engagements on terrain favoring UN firepower. Secondary objectives included securing defensible high ground proximate to the 38th Parallel, establishing a stable line for future operations while denying the enemy initiative in central . By recapturing as an intermediate goal, UN forces aimed to restore South Korean control over key infrastructure and symbolically reaffirm the pre-invasion boundary's viability, though the core focus remained causal degradation of enemy combat effectiveness through sustained pressure.

UN Force Composition and Deployment

The U.S. Eighth Army, commanded by Lieutenant General Matthew B. Ridgway, formed the core of the United Nations forces for Operation Ripper, drawing from U.S., Republic of Korea (ROK), and allied units across multiple infantry divisions equipped with advanced mechanized infantry, tanks, and supporting arms. Key U.S. formations included the 1st Cavalry Division, 2nd Infantry Division, 3rd Infantry Division, 24th Infantry Division, 25th Infantry Division, and 1st Marine Division, alongside ROK divisions such as the 1st Infantry Division; these units emphasized firepower through integrated artillery, armor, and air support, providing a qualitative edge in mobility and destructive capacity. Prior to the offensive on March 7, 1951, Eighth Army positioned its elements south of the Han River, having consolidated gains from prior operations like Killer to establish a stable front line extending from Inchon westward to the east coast via Hoengsong. The operation's structure relied on coordinated corps-level deployments: I anchored the western sector, securing the left flank south and east of with elements including the U.S. 25th Infantry Division and ROK 1st Division; IX held the central front for the main push, incorporating the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division on its left and advancing toward intermediate phase lines; and X operated in the eastern mountainous terrain, with the U.S. (comprising 1, RCT-7, and RCT-5 in reserve) and 2nd Infantry Division positioned to target communications hubs like Hongchon and Chunchon. ROK III supported the overall effort, augmenting allied flanks with additional . Artillery preparation underscored the UN's technological emphasis, with over 1,000 guns—including Marine 11th Marines' 155mm howitzers—delivering the war's largest single barrage on March 7 to soften enemy positions and enable mechanized advances, supported by tank battalions and close air strikes from the . This of heavy , self-propelled guns, and aerial allowed UN units to leverage precision and volume of fire, compensating for disparities in overall manpower through superior and coordination.
CorpsKey Units InvolvedPre-Operation Positioning and Role
I CorpsU.S. 25th Infantry Division, ROK 1st DivisionWestern sector; flank security east of
IX CorpsU.S. 1st Cavalry Division, U.S. 24th Infantry DivisionCentral front; advance to phase lines toward 38th Parallel
X Corps (RCT-1, RCT-7, RCT-5), U.S. 2nd Infantry DivisionEastern sector; seizure of Hongchon and Chunchon

Execution of the Offensive

Initial Advances to Phase Lines

Operation Ripper commenced on 7 March 1951, following an extensive preparation that marked the largest bombardment of the up to that point, delivering overwhelming fire support to (UN) ground elements. In the central sector, IX Corps units advanced against initial (KPA) resistance, employing coordinated infantry and armored assaults to breach enemy lines softened by preparatory barrages. This tactical integration allowed exploitation of gaps in KPA defenses, with tanks providing direct fire support to infantry clearing fortified positions such as Hill 549. By 11 March, IX Corps had secured Phase Line Albany, approximately 30 kilometers north of starting positions, overcoming sporadic KPA counterfire through sustained artillery dominance that disrupted enemy cohesion. The , operating within IX Corps, reported light initial resistance escalating to engagements with log-bunker defenses, but advances proceeded methodically with minimal disruptions by maintaining flank coordination. UN superiority resulted in low casualties during this phase, exemplified by the 1st Marines sustaining only one killed and nine wounded on 11 March amid effective suppression of enemy mortars and small arms. These initial successes to Line Albany built momentum for subsequent pushes toward Line Buffalo, as KPA forces withdrew under pressure from UN operations, setting the stage for broader territorial gains without significant delays.

Central Sector Operations and Seoul Recapture

In the central sector, the U.S. IX Corps, comprising the 25th Infantry Division on the left flank and the 3rd Infantry Division on the right, conducted the primary advance toward following the initiation of Operation Ripper on March 7, 1951. After overcoming scattered initial resistance, the corps attained its first phase line by , enabling subsequent assaults toward the second phase line north of the Han River. The 25th Infantry Division spearheaded the river crossing in this sector, supported by the war's largest artillery preparation to date, which suppressed enemy positions and facilitated rapid movement across the water barrier. This maneuver allowed UN forces to envelop communist defenses around the capital from the south and east, denying the enemy entrenched positions along direct approach routes. By March 14, elements of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division and Republic of Korea (ROK) 1st Infantry Division penetrated the outskirts of , initiating the Fourth Battle of amid the city's extensive ruins from prior conflicts. UN troops encountered determined resistance from North Korean and Chinese holdouts, necessitating house-to-house combat to dislodge defenders from fortified buildings and rubble-strewn streets. Although communist main forces had largely withdrawn northward to avoid envelopment, pockets of resistance inflicted casualties through ambushes and sniper fire, prolonging clearance operations into March 15 and beyond. Seoul was officially recaptured on March 14–15, 1951, marking the fourth change of control over the South Korean capital within a year and restoring UN authority over its symbolic and political center. The city, reduced to approximately 200,000 inhabitants from a pre-war of 1.5 million and with 80 percent of its destroyed, offered limited tactical utility but denied the communists a key victory and administrative hub. This achievement stemmed from coordinated phase-line advances that compelled enemy retreats, preserving much of the urban core from further deliberate devastation during the battle itself.

Eastern and Flank Engagements

In the eastern sector, X Corps—comprising the U.S. 1st Marine Division, Republic of Korea (ROK) 3rd Infantry Division, and ROK 5th Infantry Division—advanced northward starting March 7, 1951, as the eastern prong of Operation Ripper. The 1st Marine Division's regiments encountered only light resistance from retreating enemy units, allowing relatively swift progress despite the challenging mountainous terrain that restricted vehicle mobility and supply lines. X Corps forces captured Hongchon, a critical communications junction, on March 15, following minimal opposition that enabled the securing of phase lines without significant delays. Subsequent pushes incorporated assaults supported by air and , overcoming the harsh eastern landscape where pack animals supplemented in areas impassable to wheeled . By March 20, elements reached unopposed, fulfilling the sector's primary ground objectives and demonstrating the effectiveness of coordinated UN maneuvers in peripheral advances. Flank engagements ensured the stability of X Corps' positions, with follow-up units extending to Line Buffalo by late amid sparse enemy contact. These secondary efforts prevented enemy envelopment, tying into broader UN operations while highlighting the role of in dictating tactical pace over direct . The eastern and flank successes contributed to the overall consolidation north of , though limited by natural barriers rather than foe strength.

Enemy Response and Resistance

North Korean and Chinese Buildup

Following the depletion from their Third Phase Offensive in January 1951, remnants of the (KPA) and (PVA) massed defensive concentrations north of the Han River, particularly in the central sector around , to consolidate positions and prepare for renewed UN pressure. UN intelligence, derived from aggressive patrolling and combat probes during (21 February–6 March 1951), pinpointed these buildups, identifying enemy troop and supply accumulations between and astride key highways, enabling targeted planning for subsequent advances. This regrouping effort was severely constrained by logistical overextension from prior campaigns, with PVA supply lines dependent on porters and limited , rendering them highly vulnerable to UN and the extreme winter conditions of 1950–1951. Non-combat losses mounted due to , , and , as Chinese forces lacked adequate winter equipment and faced disrupted rear-area amid sub-zero temperatures and snowfall that impeded mountain passes. These strains limited the scale and sustainability of reinforcements, leaving PVA units understrength and reliant on foraging, which further eroded combat effectiveness. Tactically, the PVA's emphasis on massed human-wave assaults—favoring sheer manpower over integrated —proved maladapted to confrontations with UN forces possessing dominance, as repeated surges in winter engagements exposed attackers to devastating pre-sighted barrages without adequate countermeasures. Such doctrinal rigidity, rooted in revolutionary warfare experience, compounded vulnerabilities during the buildup phase, where probing UN actions inflicted disproportionate casualties on exposed concentrations.

Counterattacks and Defensive Efforts

Chinese and North Korean forces, primarily the (PVA) and (KPA), responded to the UN offensive with actions designed to delay advances while covering a general withdrawal northward. These defensive measures included establishing temporary blocking positions and conducting limited spoiling attacks, but lacked the coordinated mass to mount effective counteroffensives. In the central and eastern sectors, PVA units prioritized preserving combat effectiveness over holding ground, often disengaging under cover of darkness or fog to avoid decisive engagements. Sporadic PVA counterthrusts occurred near Hongchon and Chuncheon during mid-March, as UN forces approached these communication hubs. On March 15, elements of IX Corps encountered resistance from PVA rearguards attempting local counterattacks to disrupt advances, but these were repelled through preemptive artillery fires and aerial interdiction, which inflicted disproportionate casualties on exposed enemy formations. Similar efforts around Chuncheon on March 22 failed to regain momentum, with UN combined arms tactics—integrating infantry, armor, and air support—neutralizing threats before they could coalesce into larger operations. By March 31, 1951, communist forces had completed their retreat to prepared defenses along the 38th Parallel, unable to reverse UN territorial gains or inflict strategic attrition. units bore the brunt of delaying actions, suffering heavy losses estimated in the thousands from UN and air strikes targeting withdrawing columns and supply lines; for instance, intelligence reports documented over 7,000 confirmed PVA/KPA dead across the , with rearguard engagements contributing significantly to these figures through disrupted retreats and abandoned . These efforts empirically demonstrated limited efficacy, as UN pressure maintained offensive tempo without major setbacks.

Results and Immediate Outcomes

Territorial Achievements

Operation Ripper achieved substantial territorial advances for forces, recapturing and pushing communist troops northward across multiple sectors. In the central theater, the U.S. IX Corps crossed the Han River on March 14, 1951, with the 3rd Infantry Division entering from the west and the 25th Infantry Division from the south, securing the capital by March 15. These operations restored UN control over South Korea's political and economic heartland, denying North Korean and Chinese forces dominance over the region south of the 38th parallel. In the eastern sector, IX Corps captured the communication hubs of Hongchon on March 15 and on March 22, marking the final major objectives of the offensive. UN advances progressed through successive phase lines—reaching the first on March 11 and initiating the second on March 12—culminating in stabilization along Line Idaho, positioned just south of the 38th parallel. This positioning approximated pre-invasion boundaries in key areas, enabling the repatriation of displaced South Korean civilians to recaptured territories and enhancing national resolve against further incursions.

Casualties and Material Losses

United Nations forces incurred relatively light casualties during Operation Ripper, reflecting the effectiveness of preparatory artillery barrages and superior firepower in suppressing enemy defenses prior to major advances. U.S. Army divisions participating in the operation recorded 506 and 3,220 wounded (including 2,891 serious wounds requiring admission and 329 slight wounds) across six divisions over the period from 7 to 4 April 1951. These figures encompassed primarily ground engagements in the central and western sectors, with lower rates in the eastern flanking maneuvers due to lighter resistance. Enemy casualties among (KPA) and (PVA) forces were substantially higher, estimated in the thousands killed from confirmed body counts, artillery interdiction, and , compounded by thousands wounded and captured during retreats from and subsequent phase lines. U.S. intelligence assessments from the period highlighted the attritional impact of the operation's opening —the largest of the war up to that point—which inflicted heavy losses on exposed PVA and KPA positions before UN closed in. Specific counts from divisional after-action reports, such as those from IX sectors, corroborated patterns of 300–700 enemy dead per major engagement, contributing to overall PVA/KPA exceeding 7,000 confirmed fatalities across the front. Material losses on the UN side were minimal in terms of combat equipment but included strains on from spring thaws and heavy rains that turned roads into quagmires, impeding truck convoys and repositioning in the central sector. Eighth records noted increased vehicle wear and occasional reliance on airdrops to sustain forward units, though overall supply lines remained viable due to secured ports like Inchon. Enemy destruction was extensive, with PVA/KPA abandoning pieces, trucks, and caches under and during disorganized withdrawals, though precise tallies were limited by and rapid enemy disengagement.

Strategic Evaluation

Military Successes and Tactical Innovations

Operation Ripper marked a pivotal restoration of United Nations (UN) offensive momentum, with forces advancing from initial positions south of to Line Idaho near the 38th Parallel between 7 and 23 March 1951, securing key terrain including the recapture of on 14 March and the elimination of infiltrated North Korean divisions harassing South Korean units. These gains inflicted disproportionate casualties on Chinese and North Korean forces, as evidenced by the 1st Marine Division's combined efforts in preceding and Ripper, where 958 UN combat casualties (110 killed, 848 wounded) yielded an estimated 7,000 enemy casualties through coordinated assaults. By reaching geographical objectives along the 38th Parallel by 31 March, the operation prevented further erosion of South Korean defenses and reestablished UN control over critical supply routes and communication hubs like Hongch'on and Ch'uncheon. Tactical innovations under General emphasized phased, methodical advances across designated lines, supported by the war's largest pre-assault bombardment to disrupt massed enemy formations and minimize commitment until fire superiority was assured. This approach integrated with ground through dedicated tactical air control parties, assigning briefed fighter flights for precise strikes that reduced enemy antiaircraft effectiveness and enhanced ordnance delivery against troop concentrations. An envelopment tactic on 23 March involved air-dropping a 26 miles north of , exploiting breakthroughs to threaten enemy flanks while air resupply sustained maneuver elements. Such coordination proved causally effective in attriting numerically superior foes with minimal UN exposure, as sustained fire barrages and aerial interdiction broke up human-wave tactics before close engagement.

Criticisms, Challenges, and Operational Shortcomings

The spring thaw commencing in early March 1951 transformed much of the Korean terrain into a quagmire of deep mud and swollen streams, severely restricting the mobility of mechanized units during Operation Ripper. Tanks and vehicles frequently bogged down, compelling commanders to depend more on assaults supported by and air power to maintain advances toward phase lines and . This environmental hindrance slowed the operation's tempo, particularly after initial breakthroughs, as roads became impassable and maneuvers were limited to higher ground or foot marches. Logistical strains compounded these terrain challenges, with supply convoys facing nightmares of rutted paths and weather-induced delays that disrupted and distribution to forward units. Wet conditions exacerbated equipment wear on vehicles already strained by prior operations, forcing adaptations such as manual porterage in some sectors. While not halting the offensive, these issues prolonged engagements and increased vulnerability to enemy ambushes along extended lines. Urban fighting in , recaptured by March 15, 1951, presented additional operational difficulties, including house-to-house combat that displaced thousands of civilians and complicated UN efforts to distinguish combatants from non-combatants amid fortified positions. Artillery barrages necessary to dislodge defenders contributed to structural damage and incidental civilian hardships, though systematic data on displacements remains limited due to wartime chaos. Historians have noted that while UN firepower ultimately prevailed, the People's Volunteer Army's resilient defenses in built-up areas tested tactical flexibility and highlighted the costs of reclaiming contested urban centers. Certain analysts have critiqued broader doctrinal gaps in joint service integration during Ripper, arguing that imperfect coordination between ground, air, and naval elements occasionally delayed or resupply, stemming from evolving interwar practices rather than unique command errors. Ridgway's aggressive phase-line strategy carried inherent risks of overextension against potential counteroffensives, yet empirical outcomes— including heavy enemy losses exceeding 7,000 killed in phases—demonstrated UN dominance despite these pressures, underscoring the operation's measured ambition over recklessness.

Broader War Implications and Containment of Communist Forces

Operation Ripper marked a pivotal shift in the Korean War's momentum, enabling (UN) forces to restore front lines to positions approximating the 38th parallel and transition from defensive retreats to offensive stabilization following the Chinese intervention in late 1950. By recapturing on March 14–15, 1951, and advancing to Line Idaho and subsequently Line Kansas, General Matthew Ridgway's Eighth Army disrupted (PVA) and (KPA) concentrations in the Iron Triangle, inflicting substantial attrition that halted their southward thrusts and prevented further territorial losses in . This operation, building on prior advances like , demonstrated the efficacy of UN tactics—emphasizing artillery barrages, air superiority, and —against massed infantry assaults, thereby containing communist forces within northern and averting a potential collapse of the Republic of Korea. In the context of U.S. doctrine, Ripper exemplified objectives aimed at degrading enemy capabilities without provoking broader Sino-Soviet escalation, aligning with President Truman's policy to quarantine communism's expansion post-1949 . The offensive destroyed or mauled several PVA and KPA divisions, with UN estimates indicating over 7,000 communist in the sector alone, compelling the adversaries to rebuild forces northward and exposing logistical vulnerabilities in their extended supply lines. This not only preserved South Korean sovereignty but also signaled to and the high costs of , fostering a equilibrium that discouraged further massive offensives south of . The operation's success contributed to the war's evolution into a protracted , influencing the initiation of talks on July 10, 1951, as communist leaders recognized the improbability of against UN firepower dominance. By establishing defensible lines and eroding enemy offensive potential, Ripper underscored the strategic viability of , ultimately supporting the 1953 that froze the peninsula's division without communist domination of the entire region. This outcome reinforced Western resolve in , validating by demonstrating that superior technology and alliance cohesion could neutralize numerical advantages in proxy conflicts.

References

  1. [1]
    Korean War Campaigns - U.S. Army Center of Military History
    RIPPER began on 7 March 1951. After overcoming initial resistance, the IX Corps reached the first phase line on 11 March and began the attack to the second ...
  2. [2]
    The Korean War: Phase 4 - ARSOF History
    7 Mar, General Ridgway begins Operation RIPPER; the objective is Line Idaho, just south of the 38th Parallel. ; 14–15 Mar, UN troops enter Seoul, the South ...
  3. [3]
    Korean War Educator: Branch Accounts - Marines in Operation Ripper
    Operation Ripper began according to schedule all along the Eighth Army front on the morning of 7 March. The two Marine regiments encountered light resistance ...
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Joint Operations in Korea, 25 January - 31 March 1951 - DTIC
    Feb 10, 2023 · By the end o4 March, RIPPER had come to a close with Eighth Army forces on the 38th parallel. All geographical objectives had been taken.
  5. [5]
    China Intervenes in the Korean War - Anzac Portal - DVA
    Jul 15, 2025 · In October 1950 the Chinese People's Volunteers (CPV) secretly moved across the Yalu into the central mountains of North Korea. In the first of ...
  6. [6]
    Chinese counterattacks in Korea change nature of war - History.com
    ... People's Liberation Army began to cross the border to assist their North Korean ally. Their numbers grew to around 300,000 by early November. Advertisement.
  7. [7]
    United Nations forced to retreat south - Anzac Portal - DVA
    Jul 16, 2025 · Shaken ROK units retreated, exposing the lines of communications of US 8th Army which ordered a general retreat. By 5 January 1951, Seoul ...Missing: Eighth | Show results with:Eighth
  8. [8]
    Matthew Ridgway's Eighth Army at Seoul - Warfare History Network
    ... 1951, and withdrew south of the Han River. Eighth Army and X Corps withdrew 40 miles to the defensive line that had been prepared for them “as a fighting ...
  9. [9]
    RIDGWAY'S KOREAN WAR (DUSTY SHELVES)
    Feb 15, 2024 · Thrust into command of the Eighth Army by the accidental death of Lieutenant General Walton Walker days before Christmas 1950—the Chief of Staff ...
  10. [10]
    General Matthew B. Ridgway: A Commander's Maturation of ... - AUSA
    Jun 2, 2012 · ... Walker, died in a jeep accident. Less than four days later, Lieutenant General Matthew B. Ridgway assumed command. He immediately met with ...
  11. [11]
    Red Eclipse: Halting the Communist Drive on Seoul
    The massive Chinese offensive in 1951 aimed to destroy the US Eighth Army and drive it from the Korean Peninsula.
  12. [12]
    None
    ### Summary of Operation Ripper from the Document
  13. [13]
    Korean War Overview - National Park Service
    Jul 26, 2022 · ... inflict maximum casualties on the enemy with minimum losses to his troops. ... Operations THUNDERBOLT, KILLER, RIPPER and RUGGED carried the U.N. ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  14. [14]
    1951: Seoul, South Korea, recaptured by UN forces.
    Mar 14, 2026 · Operation Ripper was preceded by the largest artillery bombardment of the Korean War. On the middle, the U.S. 25th Infantry Division ... numbers ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] An Analysis of the United States Leadership's Effective Employment ...
    Operation Killer and Ripper. The attacks by the NKPA and Chinese forces against Eighth Army's X Corps were devastating but did little to diminish Ridgway's ...
  16. [16]
    None
    ### Summary of First Phase of Operation Ripper for US Marines and IX Corps
  17. [17]
    War: Fourth Capture of Seoul - Time Magazine
    The fourth fall of Seoul was a sad business, something like the capture of a tomb. Only 200,000 of Seoul's original 1,500,000 population were still there.
  18. [18]
    March 14th, 1951: The Fourth Battle of Seoul. UN forces recapture ...
    Mar 14, 2023 · Casualties mounted as the forces engaged in desperate house-to-house fighting. Anxious to pronounce the conquest of Seoul, Almond declared ...
  19. [19]
    On This Day, March 14: U.N. recaptures Seoul in Korean War - UPI
    Mar 14, 2021 · On March 14, 1951, Seoul was recaptured by U.N. troops during the Korean War as part of Operation Ripper, also known as the Fourth Battle of ...<|separator|>
  20. [20]
    Fleet Marine Force Korea, Part II | Proceedings - U.S. Naval Institute
    After securing all objectives on schedule, the Marines led the IX Corps advance in Operation RIPPER from March 7 to 26, taking Hongchon and Chunchon while ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] us army war college, carlisle barracks, pa 11013 - DTIC
    The Chinese Communist (CC) intervention into the Korean Conflict (1950-. 1953) caused enormous difficulties to an already strained logistical situation. This ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Operational Lessons Learned in the Korean War - DTIC
    Jan 12, 2011 · During the winter of 1950-1951, marines and soldiers faced sub-zero temperatures and heavy snowfall that blocked mountain passes and clogged ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Chinese intervention in the Korean War - LSU Scholarly Repository
    But the Chinese army was unable to assimilate modern weaponry and tactics and, facing immense logistical difficulties, could not use its superior numbers to ...
  24. [24]
    UNITED STATES ARMY IN THE KOREAN WAR: EBB AND FLOW ...
    466. Counterattack. 470. XXVII. SUBSTITUTE FOR VICTORY. 488. Ridgway's Mission ... Operation RIPPER, Western Front, 6-31 March 1951. 316. 27. Operation RIPPER ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  25. [25]
    Effects of Type of Operation and Tactical Action
    Table 22.- Killed and wounded in actionduring major offensive operations, U.S. Army divisions, Korean War ... Operation Ripper-to outflank Seoul and capture ...Missing: initial dominance
  26. [26]
    [PDF] EBB and Flow, November 1950-July 1951 - DTIC
    Nov 30, 2024 · STA MWEINT A. 4proved fol ;rmiic ro;9CLS4. 04 074,. Page 2. UNITED STATES ARMY IN THE KOREAN WAR. EBB AND FLOW ... Operation RIPPER. Western Front ...
  27. [27]
    Korean War | Eisenhower Presidential Library
    Ridgway, retook Seoul and advanced back to the 38th parallel. From July 1951, until the end of hostilities the battle lines remained relatively stable and the ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Volume III, 1951-1953 The Korean War, Part Two - Joint Chiefs of Staff
    ... Korean conflict ended without clear-cut military victory for either side. It was fought with limited means for limited objectives. In fact, political ...