|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Korea
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?
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I'm in the "Tarawa in the Baltic" camp myself.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
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).
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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)
__________________
the best course of action when all is against you is to slow down and think critically about the situation. this way you are not blindly rushing into an ambush and your mind is doing something useful rather than getting you killed. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
If I was running Bangkok, I would certainly allow Aussies.
__________________
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Last edited by HorseSoldier; 11-11-2012 at 12:17 PM. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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: Quote:
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|