"Sunny" wrote in message
...
Read some more please,
http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/origins/commits/commits.htm

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...orea/korea.htm

I believe you need to read those cites; neither claims that the Australian
contingent, as valuable and professional as it was, ever outnumbered that of
Great Britain. Australia provided a max of two battalions of infantry at any
given time, along with CS elements; OTOH, the Turks and Canadians each
provided a full brigade (reinforced in the case of the Canadians). But the
fact remains that the greatest number of troops (outside the ROK) came from
the US (multiple corps) and Great Britain (two infantry brigades plus
various other units), in order.

Brooks


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
.. .

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: ~consul
Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

john wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch

The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied
99%
of the troops in Iraq.

The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
That's
why
the other nations don't bother to.
--

I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War
is
an
exception to that.

I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly
the
single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of
troops
sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored
regiment,
and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates
that
the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm

Brooks


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired