RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-09-2012, 09:20 AM
raketenjagdpanzer's Avatar
raketenjagdpanzer raketenjagdpanzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,261
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-09-2012, 09:34 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,749
Default

I'm in the "Tarawa in the Baltic" camp myself.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-09-2012, 09:50 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-09-2012, 09:50 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-09-2012, 09:58 AM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-09-2012, 01:38 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 410
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-09-2012, 02:11 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-09-2012, 05:34 PM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,623
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
I'm in the "Tarawa in the Baltic" camp myself.
As am I...
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-09-2012, 08:56 PM
Snake Eyes's Avatar
Snake Eyes Snake Eyes is offline
[Armchair Commando]
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Walnut Creek
Posts: 203
Send a message via MSN to Snake Eyes Send a message via Yahoo to Snake Eyes
Default

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


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-10-2012, 02:54 AM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by HorseSoldier; 11-11-2012 at 12:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-10-2012, 08:49 AM
The Rifleman The Rifleman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vt
Posts: 128
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-11-2012, 03:46 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rifleman View Post
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
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.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-11-2012, 07:32 AM
The Rifleman The Rifleman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vt
Posts: 128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-12-2012, 12:35 PM
Olefin Olefin is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Greencastle, PA
Posts: 3,003
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-12-2012, 01:25 PM
The Rifleman The Rifleman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vt
Posts: 128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-12-2012, 06:31 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rifleman View Post
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.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-12-2012, 06:44 PM
The Rifleman The Rifleman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vt
Posts: 128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.