Three armies in Korea: The combat effectiveness of the United States Eighth Army in Korea, July 1950-June 1952.

摘要

For the first two years of the Korean War, the United Nations relied largely upon the American Army component of the United States Eighth Army to achieve its political goals. As the entity referred to as the Eighth United States Army in Korea (EUSAK) formed, expanded, and matured, it also changed significantly during the period July 1950 to June 1952. These changes produced three distinct organizations in terms of composition, senior leadership, mission, and method of combat operations. The "first" Eighth Army was the army that fought between 13 July--25 December 1950, while the "second" Eighth Army existed during the period 26 December 1950--12 November 1951, and the "third" Eighth Army came into being during the period 13 November 1951--30 June 1952. While this observation is perhaps not surprising from an organizational point of view, it challenges a basic and prevailing American view regarding the evolution of its armies in conflict. This dissertation examines the US Army component of the Eighth United States Army in Korea between July 1950--June 1952 and evaluates it in terms of its combat effectiveness by assessing the six fundamental elements of combat power, leadership, administration, firepower, maneuver, integration, and protection, using a unique battlefield effectiveness paradigm to produce an assessment of the Eighth Army's leadership, battlefield activities, and overall combat effectiveness. This assessment also supports the argument that the "second" Eighth Army that fought in Korea was substantially different from the "first" Eighth Army that preceded it and the "third" Eighth Army that succeeded it, and that the second Eighth Army was the most combat effective of the three armies at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war. A combination of deliberate reform measures, battlefield opportunities, an influx of excellent soldiers and leaders, and a synergistic effect among all of these occurrences explains the remarkable battlefield performance of this organization, which was perhaps the best American field army between World War II and the Gulf War.