[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[KOREAN-WAR-L:11383] Re: Partisan Operations and Tan-Do/T'an-Do
Thanks. That solved the mystery! So Donkey 13 really took Ka-Do/Tan-Do.
One other mystery was about the CIA patrol boat at the night of Nov. 30th.
Was it simply missing or did it escape safely? From Chinese records, they
claimed they sank a "boat/ship/vessel" that night. One other account
Taehwa-Do had "3 big wooden vessels, 11 small wooden vessels, 1 small
motorized boat". If the partisans did not have any motorized boat, then
the only such vessel would be the CIA patrol boat. Furthermore, it would
mean that the boat really went north to attack the invasion flotilla, as
by its skipper, and was sunk during the gallantry battle. Chinese had
some seven fishing boats with 75mm field guns and recoilless guns as the
support vessels for the landing flotilla. They reported one such fire
vessel was sunk by the enemy vessels. Of course, it was not clear whether
was lost to that CIA boat or to the ships of the UN blockading fleet.
[mailto:owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu]On Behalf Of Ed Evanhoe
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 9:34 AM
Subject: [KOREAN-WAR-L:11381] Re: Partisan Operations and Tan-Do/T'an-Do
Went back and checked the maps we were using at that time: AMS Series L551
which were 1946 reproductions of AMS Series L441 printed as of 1944. On
these maps maps -- Kanji with both Japanese & Korean Romanization -- the
island you refer to as KA-DO is listed as TAN-DO, alternately as SIN-DO for
the Japanese Romaji. .Looks to me like a case of WWII mis-translation, or
outright error, when the original L441 series was printed in 1944 and not
corrected until the L771 Series (1952) was printed.
As a sidebar to this: When using the L551 series maps back in 1950-1951,
I've found mountains, roads, villages, rivers and so on, located as much as
5 kilometers from where shown on those maps. Of course, the L441 series
(1944) were reprints of maps made from the Japanese Imperial Survey of 1928
and originally printed in 1932.
As for the dates when the Chinese took Ka-do(Sin-do or Tan-do <g>,) &
T'an-do, you may well be right since the after-action report for those two
islands was written several weeks after the event. The dates for the
Chinese taking Sohwa-do and Taehwa-do were confirmed since Hq (and the Brit
supporting ships offshore) were in radio contact with Taehwa-do until it
fell the night of Nov 30-Dec 1, 1951.
And so it goes......
> >>In the chapter "Enemy Strikes Back" in Ed's book (pp. 124-134), Donkey
>13 and 15 took Tan-Do and T'an-Do, respectively, on Oct. 8, 1951. The
>same incident was listed in the "Unconventional Warfare Campaign" at
>However, I could not find Tan-Do on the map at all. From the maps I
>have, the bigger islands at the tip of the Cholsan Peninsula are (from
>north to south):
> T'an-Do (Charcoal Island)
>Hoe-Do (Ash Island)
>One of the maps are available here:
>Your book also mentioned that Chinese took Tan-do back on Nov. 6th and
>T'an-do on Nov. 8th. Chinese records showed differently. They landed on
>Ka-Do on Nov. 6th and did not take T'an-Do till Nov. 24th (the latter
>unconfirmed). However, the USN Korean War Naval Chronology has an
>entry about Chinese took Ka-Do and Tan-Do on Nov. 6th.
>Since Tan and T'an sound similar, could it be possible that they
>actually refer to the same island? T'an-do is larger than Taehwa-Do.
>I suspected that Donkey 13 and 15 hit the different parts of T'an-Do
>on the same day, but it became garbled when the report was sent
>back up the channels. BTW, I don't think it is the mix-up between
>Ka-Do and Tan-Do. Ka-Do is about 3 times the size of T'an-Do.
>Donkey 13 could not take it and hold it alone.
>What do you think?