Korea

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Been thinking about the Korean situation in T2k...

IMC, NK only exists as a rump state, shoved up against an impotent China. The USSR is in no position to resupply or in any way support North Korea and won't be for a long, long time.

South Korea has it's hands full trying to rebuild and deal with the millions of refugees. Harsh winters are on their way through the Korean peninsula, and the fewer mouths they have to feed, the better.

As most of the NK armor is now in the SK's hands, and most of the SK's armor is qualitatively vastly better than the NK's armor (the K1 is a quantum leap better than the T62 and T55s the NKs had), the Koreans have the situation as best in hand as possible.

So I'm thinking, how would a withdraw from the PacRim look?

We'd discussed on the forum before the possibility that Tarawa was in the pacific in July of 2000 (I think, anyway) and given that the USN tended to treat the pacific as their own private lake anyway there may well be some naval forces left to form the core of an evac convoy. Given that the SK's probably don't want our armor, that as well as the people (probably 10000 or so) would come home. If the SK's have a floating auto transport, there's the armor. Plus I'd imagine they'd pick up troops from Japan for similar reasons.

just kind of blue-skying; thoughts?

[Targan]

I'm in the "Tarawa in the Baltic" camp myself.

[Olefin]

the problem for a withdrawal may be a total lack of fuel for a large scale withdrawal. If you look at what Matt had in the fanzine he has the USN ships in Korea basically stuck there only capable of local ops because they lack the fuel to go home.

I am thinking that this may be where CENTCOM comes into play - i.e. that they use the fuel they have to be able to bring the US units that are in Korea not to the US but possibly to Iran where those ships, planes, tanks and men would give them enough combat power to push the Soviets out and win the war in the Middle East.

If you add it up you have 3000 Marines who have 20 M60A4's and 12,400 Army personnel with 4 M1's and 7 LAV-75's. Thats a heck of a reinforcement for CENTCOM. they could take the Army personnel and bring the 24th and 9th back up to strength and the two USMC divisions could defiintely use those 3000 men and 20 tanks.

Add in helos, aircraft, naval ships, USAF and USN personnel, etc.. and you have quite the reinforcement.

And their current transport lift could easily bring the Marines and their tanks there from Korea to CENTCOM as is and then go back for the Army. And I could see the French even helping out - i.e. they are helping CENTCOM logistically so they can fight the Soviets, Iraqis and Syrians instead of them - so bringing more personnel to strengthen the US is actually a good idea for them - especially if they extract a "we do this and you agree to more oil for France postwar" kind of deal.

[Legbreaker]

The Naval and Aviation book places the Tarawa in the North Atlantic in the Summer of 2000 I believe - it's mentioned in the colour plate for the Osprey.

Once China was nuked, we can see a number of Soviet Divisions redeployed into Korea where they remain in 2000. The whole Korean experience seems to be pretty much a replay of the 1950s all over again with a North Korean offensive, Southern counterattack bolstered by US (and other UN) forces, then an introduction of allied forces in support of the North (Soviets this time instead of China). By 2000 it's pretty much a stalemate again, just like in 1952-53.

Given the continued presence of the Soviets and the status quo, would the US really pull out all that quickly? How would that action affect future relations with the South? Would it damage potential trade?

In my opinion, any withdrawal would only occur after a LOT of soul searching on the part of the US command structure. Even then, transportation resources would take time to gather (we know from Satellite Down there's not a lot of US military shipping in the region).

[Olefin]

The Soviets are in pretty bad shape in the Far East - and they have more than enough just to hold down what they have conquered in Manchuria. And the Satellite Down depiction of the USN having no presence on the West Coast is out and out wrong - sorry but no way that happens. Hit hard sure - nothing left at all and the USN is basically gone in the Pacific - about as realistic as saying that the Iowa was sunk by orcs.

Restricted to basically coastal ops much like you see in A River Runs Through It - that is a lot more realistic and probably the real situation. I.e. they have ships but they dont have the fuel to go all the way across to Korea with any force big enough to bring back the 8th Army. And you need escorts as well as just merchies or transports to bring them back - or you are dead meat to even a corvette.

I think the real issue may be do the South Koreans even want them still there - considering how much the war has probably ripped them up all they dont need is to feed even more people than they have to. And if the other side doesnt have air power and ships to go around their defense lines then you can hold the NK's and Soviets pretty easily if its men charging dug in machine guns and minefields.

[bobcat]

not really knowing much regarding Korea in canon all i can go off of is my experience there for predicting anything. and my best guess would be rather grim. in the 1950's we had most of the UN helping with the fight in canon it was the US and the ROKA from the south and maybe a small amount of Chinese support from the north.

best case scenario 6-8 years to get any of the airbases back online longer if they got nuked, few naval assets for any extraction, limited fuel. but if enough soju can be gotten ahead of time or enough stills for all elements an overland movement along highway 1 is possible (granted Highway 1 is mostly dirt roads in NK but the rest of it is pretty solidly paved highway all the way to baghdad)

[Olefin]

There are supposed to be other troops in Korea helping us as well but not sure how many - not sure if it was in V1 or V2.2 but I thought I remember the Australians and Thais for sure being on the list of other troops there.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Thailand has the power-projection with an active short carrier. I wonder if they'd give US troops a lift home.

[bobcat]

Thailand has the power-projection with an active short carrier. I wonder if they'd give US troops a lift home.

possibly but considering the variables that i am aware of. the overland route via highway 1 is the most surefire way of getting the USFK elements moved to link up with Centcom. that could be a campaign on its own though.

[Olefin]

Bangkok, Cesspool of the Orient really overlooked the Thai Navy by the way - since they stayed out of the war locally they should have grown proportionally in strength to the local navies that actually took a beating - i.e. the Indonesians and Australians

[raketenjagdpanzer]

possibly but considering the variables that i am aware of. the overland route via highway 1 is the most surefire way of getting the USFK elements moved to link up with Centcom. that could be a campaign on its own though.

Wait, are you talking about driving from Korea to Iraq or Iran? Yeek. Talk about Xenophon's Anabasis.

[Rainbow Six]

There are supposed to be other troops in Korea helping us as well but not sure how many - not sure if it was in V1 or V2.2 but I thought I remember the Australians and Thais for sure being on the list of other troops there.

The Challenge magazine article on Canada mentions an Australian force fighting in Korea. The subject of other nations (including Thailand) being involved has come up here from time to time before, but I don't think anything definitive has ever been published anywhere (if the Thais were involved I would have thought the Bangkok sourcebook would be the most likely place to cover it.)

[Rainbow Six]

I'm in the "Tarawa in the Baltic" camp myself.

As am I...

[Snake Eyes]

If I was running Bangkok, I would certainly allow Aussies.

[HorseSoldier]

We'd discussed on the forum before the possibility that Tarawa was in the pacific in July of 2000 (I think, anyway) and given that the USN tended to treat the pacific as their own private lake anyway there may well be some naval forces left to form the core of an evac convoy.

In a universe where Soviet forces are romping through Alaska and down into British Columbia most of the way to Seattle, it's hard to picture the USN having any significant presence left in the Pacific, in my opinion.

not really knowing much regarding Korea in canon all i can go off of is my experience there for predicting anything. and my best guess would be rather grim. in the 1950's we had most of the UN helping with the fight in canon it was the US and the ROKA from the south and maybe a small amount of Chinese support from the north.

The modern situation is a whole different animal, starting with the fact that the ROK military at the start of the Korean War was an absolute mess in various ways, whereas its modern incarnation is pretty damn burly and probably wouldn't have much trouble dealing with a North Korean attack if the two nations squared off without outside support on either side.

Plus the UN effort in the Korean War included several nations, but most of them, outside the US and Commonwealth nations, did not contribute much, numerically, and sometimes contributed troops who were of limited utility.

And their current transport lift could easily bring the Marines and their tanks there from Korea to CENTCOM as is and then go back for the Army. And I could see the French even helping out - i.e. they are helping CENTCOM logistically so they can fight the Soviets, Iraqis and Syrians instead of them - so bringing more personnel to strengthen the US is actually a good idea for them - especially if they extract a "we do this and you agree to more oil for France postwar" kind of deal.

The Japanese are likely much more interested in US forces in Korea than the French are. In my work-in-progress stuff on Alaska circa 2000, I have the Japanese parking a small brigade on the Cook Inlet oil fields made up of a Japanese airborne battalion task force and a battalion of American mercenaries recruited out of Korea, plus a lot of Americans from Korea also turning up as security detachments for individual Japanese ships or trading/exploration efforts throughout the Pacific Rim, as the situation in Korea turns increasingly falls apart after the nukes.

[The Rifleman]

First, I'd believe that with the collapse of China and the close proximity to the Soviets pacific bases, North Korea would have access to signifigant Soviet reinforcement early in the fight. That would have given the 8th Army units one heck of a fight.

BUT, by 2000, If I were General Cummings, I would question keeping a sole soldier or marine in Korea. We're already leaving Europe. What's worth having in Korea? Also, with most of the Soviet units turning to bands of marauders or marching home on their own accord, why stay?

I also disagree with the idea of "going home" where at the end, the army just starts releasing soldiers to society. Why the hell would you let all these battle harded veterans go loose into the middle of nothing?

I would take the units from Germany and begin setting up enclaves on the east coast. Bring the US back under control. Draft the members of militias and begin organizing.

I would then bring the 8th Army home to the west coast and go after what's left of the soviet forces in Washington. It wouldn't take much to win that fight and then, you can start doing the same thing on the west coast, re-estabilishing control by forming enclaves and organizing the locals.

[Legbreaker]

I also disagree with the idea of "going home" where at the end, the army just starts releasing soldiers to society. Why the hell would you let all these battle harded veterans go loose into the middle of nothing?

I would take the units from Germany and begin setting up enclaves on the east coast. Bring the US back under control. Draft the members of militias and begin organizing.

It appears that's partly what was tried, however with the lack of needed resources in the area (and inability to shift them from areas where the resources were available), this quickly proved unfeasible on a significantly large scale.

And then the drought hit...

We've discussed this before also. http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3130
This pretty much spells out my position:Nobody is saying they're ALL getting demobilised. Those who want to go are likely to be recognised as probable deserters after a relatively short period (possibly after the first thousand disappear over the nearest hill) and demobilisation on a voluntary basis instituted in an effort to prevent those people taking valuable military resources (ie weapons) with them.
Also, as has been pointed out, we're not actually talking about 43,000 military personnel here. 6,000 went to the middle east. Another substantial portion are civilians (lets call it 10% or 4,300), and then there's the permanently disabled from wounds, illness or radiation poisoning, say another 10% (which I judge very low given the length of the war and lack of evacuations and reinforcements).
This leaves us with just 28,400 military personnel.
Now lets take out those shipped to ports other than Norfolk. Shall we say another 10%?
Now we've got 24,100.
How about naval and air force personnel with little use on land, such as cooks, clerks, missile techs (like they're going to be needed post war on more than a reserve basis), navigators, helmsmen, airframe fitters and so forth. At most they'd be assigned a reserve status, subject to recall in the unlikely event they're needed again. I know, lets call that group a conservative 10%
So we're down to 19,800 useful troops.
Of that number, there's going to be some who head for the hills at the first opportunity, taking anything and everything that's not nailed down. Might only be a handful immediately, but as fears of a food shortage kick in around day 3, that trickle will likely turn to a flood.
Voluntary demobilisation, as previously stated, at least puts some sort of a control on what is walking out the door. Perhaps the sweetener is NOT facing a potential firing squad for desertion, AND Milgov provides a parting gift of a couple of weeks food and basic supplies.

Yes, troops could be retrained to cover needed skillsets, but that takes time. Time, which we all know, Milgov doesn't have. Reducing the military's food and support requirements are critical concerns and must be attended to if they have any hope of retaining control of even a cadre of useful personnel.

[The Rifleman]

It appears that's partly what was tried, however with the lack of needed resources in the area (and inability to shift them from areas where the resources were available), this quickly proved unfeasible on a significantly large scale.

And then the drought hit...

We've discussed this before also. http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3130
This pretty much spells out my position:

Yes, you're right about the logistical requirements for sure. You can't bring 43,000 soldiers to one port and dump them off. If you did things according to the cannon in the book, the drought, single enclave, so on.... they would certainly have failed. I would have spread those guys out of over the whole east coast.

[Olefin]

Which is basically what my GM had them do - with some going to Texas as part of Red Star, Lone Star, others securing VA and MD and going into southern PA to secure TMI and the BMY-UD plant at York and parts of other units going to TN and NJ.

As for the drought - after much thought and discussion with various people including meteriology students and teachers at our school he ignored it as being implausible. So basically we took Kidnapped and HW and threw the drought away and we would have played from there if the campaign had continued.

Which from reading the posts here the last few months seems to be a very common approach.

As for how did the Russians bring troops over to the US if their was still a Pacific Fleet - several very plausible scenarios including using decoy forces or intelligence to make the US mass their forces in the wrong place, casualties in PacFlt mean that they cant cover the whole ocean so what there was in Alaska and near Seattle hurt the Russians but couldnt stop them, that fuel was unavailable for units to sortie during the Russian invasion and only got more after they were already ashore or that shipments of ammo and missile replacements kept the US from sortieing a bunch of ships till after the Russians got ashore.

The new fuel and/or ammo meant no reinforcements for the Russians so it slammed the door on their invasion really succeeding - but they still got significant forces ashore.

[The Rifleman]

Which is basically what my GM had them do - with some going to Texas as part of Red Star, Lone Star, others securing VA and MD and going into southern PA to secure TMI and the BMY-UD plant at York and parts of other units going to TN and NJ.

As for the drought - after much thought and discussion with various people including meteriology students and teachers at our school he ignored it as being implausible. So basically we took Kidnapped and HW and threw the drought away and we would have played from there if the campaign had continued.

Which from reading the posts here the last few months seems to be a very common approach.

As for how did the Russians bring troops over to the US if their was still a Pacific Fleet - several very plausible scenarios including using decoy forces or intelligence to make the US mass their forces in the wrong place, casualties in PacFlt mean that they cant cover the whole ocean so what there was in Alaska and near Seattle hurt the Russians but couldnt stop them, that fuel was unavailable for units to sortie during the Russian invasion and only got more after they were already ashore or that shipments of ammo and missile replacements kept the US from sortieing a bunch of ships till after the Russians got ashore.

The new fuel and/or ammo meant no reinforcements for the Russians so it slammed the door on their invasion really succeeding - but they still got significant forces ashore.

+1

I finally got a copy of some missing mods needed to complete my collection. I read Satillite down last night and nearly closed the cover a couple times and walked away. How the hell does the soviet navy have enough surviving surface raiders to range up and down the pacific coast and dominate? They aren't nuclear, how do they keep them fueled???? The bit about some de-commissioned ship returning to life to face a grounded nuclear powered cruiser in combat just turned my stomach. Why would the soviets send a leaking wreck across the ocean on a sortie, by itself, with no fuel or ammunition reserves????? I read HW today and I was just disgusted. It made no sense at all. Running future campaings, I won't be using the cannon with the draught. I'll keep Airlords and the New Americas. Maybe a draught, but no massive weather pattern change.

[Olefin]

To me Satellite Down, Kidnapped and HW, along with the three Return to Europe modules, represent the nadir of GDW writing - the fight between the Virginia and the Russian ship is so badly written that it destroys the whole believeability of the module down the drain and shows that the GDW writers knew nothing about the USN (if the Last Submarine trilogy didnt already show it)

They started the US modules so promisingly and then just suddenly went totally Mad Max and badly written Mad Max to boot.

Thats one reason for the Olefin timeline - i.e. how my GM ran the campaign and began to ignore the canon as it increasingly became clear that it had made a huge deviation that in our minds and his was unsupportable.

So ignoring those modules gives you a US Pacific Fleet of some sort like Matt came up with - and also makes a lot more sense.

[The Rifleman]

The return to Europe mods were terrible. Pretty much a copy paste with some aweful writting slapped on it.... I haven't opened the sub series yet but I'm not looking forward to it now.... I don't know how they could have gone down hill so fast. Red Star/Lone Star, Alleghany Uprising and Gateway were so good! Why did all the sudden they go to crap.

I looked at the list and I noticed that the 87 ones are all awsome, then all the 88/89 ones take a nose dive. I do like the 2nd edition rules better, especially the charater generation. Also, I'd give Bear's Den a pass; it was well written, good plot, plenty of info for a DM to work with. The only problem is that none of my parties ever seem to want to march further into the USSR....

[Olefin]

If you really want to do Bear's Den how about have the party be escaped NATO prisoners from the mentioned but not detailed POW camp? that way you could have a huge mix of characters and nations - and then after the module is done have them march westward and try go get home - i.e. an Escape from Kalisz but instead of central Poland have it be from the Ukraine

[The Rifleman]

Yes, thats true. I guess you could do it as a whole seperate adventure. I guess I was just kicking the can down the road, because it just wasn't what I wanted to see -

either a connected group of top notch mods that are followed in a logical order: Escape from Kakiz, Free City, Pirate, Warsaw, Black Madonna, Going Home

or an outstanding sourcebook that let the DM tailor make great adventures IDF Sourcebook

or a group of stand alone mods, where the DM or players can connect the dots in any order they choose Red Star/Gateway/Armies of the Night/Uprising.

Bear's Den just sort of pops up in the middle of nowhere lol

[pmulcahy11b]

Yes, you're right about the logistical requirements for sure. You can't bring 43,000 soldiers to one port and dump them off. If you did things according to the cannon in the book, the drought, single enclave, so on.... they would certainly have failed. I would have spread those guys out of over the whole east coast.

That could be interesting...a huge amount of troops suddenly show up at a port that wasn't told about it ahead of time...the new troops need food, weapons, equipment, and medical care...when they show up and start pressing the port for help, rioting breaks out.

[The Rifleman]

That could be interesting...a huge amount of troops suddenly show up at a port that wasn't told about it ahead of time...the new troops need food, weapons, equipment, and medical care...when they show up and start pressing the port for help, rioting breaks out.

LOL sounds like things the US army has already been doing for a couple hundred years.

[pmulcahy11b]

LOL sounds like things the US army has already been doing for a couple hundred years.

+1!

[HorseSoldier]

The new fuel and/or ammo meant no reinforcements for the Russians so it slammed the door on their invasion really succeeding - but they still got significant forces ashore.

As written they made it from the Bering Strait to Washington State -- I'm not sure I'd characterize their effort as not succeeding. I'd also not really be able to buy into the idea that they faced significant threat from the USN, since the only way they could have made a go of that would be with basically open sea lanes (especially since the only thing that makes sense is that a lot of their advances would have to have been done via ship).

The only explanation I can see is that the USN in the Pacific suffered some sort of major disaster during the nuclear exchange. Maybe taking pretty devastating losses during the tactical exchange among ships supporting operations in Korea.

To me Satellite Down, Kidnapped and HW, along with the three Return to Europe modules, represent the nadir of GDW writing - the fight between the Virginia and the Russian ship is so badly written that it destroys the whole believeability of the module down the drain and shows that the GDW writers knew nothing about the USN (if the Last Submarine trilogy didnt already show it)

+1. One of the strengths of T2K was really great supplements for the game, but that just went out the window entirely with the later books. I don't really know what the issue was, since that was quite a while before GDW went out of business -- maybe the effort had shifted to other projects (Traveler 2300? I don't think the GDW house system and games related to it were in the works yet, but possibly those as well.)

[Legbreaker]

I agree that the later materials were on the whole substandard (especially compared with the earlier) however I still try and work with them as much as possible. I do however make changes as the situation warrants (yes, you read it here first people! My "canon fixation" applies mainly to work meant to be shared and used by everyone).

The idea of the USN suffering badly in the Pacific is one I support strongly - as HS indicated, how else can the Pact carry out even a fraction of what they've done otherwise? How exactly this occurred obviously isn't written in any of the books, but we are guided by the statement in the history "At sea the plan fares even worse, as coastal missile boats and the remnants of Northern Fleet's shore-based naval aviation inflict crippling losses on the NATO fleet. By mid-June the last major naval fleet-in-being in the world has been shattered."

That seems to indicate the Pacific fleet (and all others) has by that time suffered heavily.

[Olefin]

But shattered doesnt mean the fleet isnt still strong in some ways, it means its ability to project power as a fleet is no longer there.

The Japanese fleet was shattered at Leyte Gulf - but they still had a bunch of battleships, cruisers, destroyers and even a few aircraft carriers (but no pilots to man them)

However their ability to project power as a fleet, to challenge the US fleet, was shattered.

That didnt mean all the ships were gone - the Japanese still had 20 or more destroyers and a bunch of subs still afloat and operational right up to Hiroshima. But the days of them being able to project power were gone.

Most likely the USN in the Pacific is the same - hurt badly and not able to exercise the ability to control vast areas of the sea as they used to be able to. But still with a lot of ships and subs left as compared to the Satellite Down image of the USN in the Pacific being completely destroyed.

And possibly with many of them still afloat and still operational but without the fuel needed for real oceanic operations. Which could explain the Russian ability to invade Alaska - the US could have had the ships and the missiles and the ammo - but not the fuel, at least not at the time of the invasion.

Or you could have a vastly reduced fleet caught with its now limited resoures somewhere else - say off Korea or Japan or Hawaii or Guam - and all that is left to challenge off Alaska is a few Coast Guard ships or a couple of frigates that got overwhelmed trying to stop an invasion.

And obviously the Russians werent able to properly reinforce or resupply or the forces the US and Canadians used to stop them wouldnt have been able to do the job - which implies they got ashore but then couldnt resupply reliably - sort of what happened to the Japanese at Kiska and Attu in WWII and in November 42 and on at Guadalcanal.