RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-21-2010, 08:53 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,638
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default Korea: Summer 2000.

(moved from archive -kato13)

Dogger 02-03-2003, 03:05 PM I'm wondering if anyone has any detailed information on what the T2K situation in Korea was at about the time of the "Going Home" module?


All my T2K material is Ver.1 and my games were/are set in the V.1 world.


The v.1 US Army Vehicle Guide lists the following for Korea in the summer of 2000:


8th US Army

II US Amphib Corps.

4th Marine Division: (23rd Regiment only) 400 men, 7 M60A4 tanks. *(USAVG says this Reg was returned to the US.)

5th Marine Division: 2000 men, 9 M60A4 tanks.

6th Marine Division: (16 Regiment only) 600 men, 4 M60A4 tanks.


II US Corps

7th Infantry Division: (Light) (1st Brigade only) 500 men, 0 tanks

26th Infantry Division: (Light) 5000 men, 3 LAV-75's

45th Infantry Division: 2000 men, 0 tanks.


VI US Corps

2nd Infantry Division: 2000 men, 4 M1 tanks.

25th Infantry Division: (Light) 600 men, 0 tanks.

41st Infantry Division: 2000 men, 0 tanks.

163rd Armored Cavalry Regiment: 600 men, 4 LAV-75's.


So what your looking at, (less 23/4th MarDiv) is a total US troop strength of 15,300 men, with 20 M60A tanks, 4 M1 Abrams, and 7 LAV-75's. Still a formidable force in the world of T2K but a force scattered and in poor shape I would bet.


The USAVG describes the 8th Army as taking quite a beating from tactical nuke strikes in the field. I'm basically wondering if anyone played out or planned a campaign in Korea that moved this situation forward (i.e. 8th Army resumes offensive operations into North Korea, or a "Going Home" scenario)


Comments/Ideas welcom.

********************

TR 02-03-2003, 05:45 PM I've always thought the deployments for South Korea a little on the skimpy side... there would have had to be more deployments to that area than accounted for. Of course this doesn't calculate Air Force and Naval unit either unfortunatly.


You would figure they would have to have pockets where the 8th was in control (along with the other units), you figure port areas and surrounding farm communities would be big on the list to be controlled.


I always wondered how troops in Korea would break down, i.e. going native vs staying in the rigid militry heiarchy... same for troops in Japan and other nations of course. That's not always accounted for in the game of course...



Until Later


TR

********************

Dogger 02-03-2003, 06:04 PM Originally posted by TR

I always wondered how troops in Korea would break down, i.e. going native vs staying in the rigid militry heiarchy... same for troops in Japan and other nations of course. That's not always accounted for in the game of course...


Some good points TR...


That brings up other issues as well, for instance, Japan would not be all that hard to reach from Pusan, S. Korea. A lot of troops might have attempted to make the crossing after things fell apart then stay in Korea...anyone remember what condition Japan was in by July 2000?


Also, I wonder what other nations troops wouild have been deployed to Korea? Australia would most likely have sent some SpecOps I would bet.

********************

TR 02-03-2003, 06:17 PM I would think Thailand and Singapore might contribute forces seeing how they are in the neighborhood they might be in trouble if South Korea fell.


Who knows...



TR

********************

Jason Weiser 02-03-2003, 09:29 PM Heh,

Well, there was quite a few theatres demanding troops at the time...but yeah, the deployments to Korea are skimpy. I was surprised no Aussies (Perhaps a Btn TF or two) and perhaps a force from Japan and or Canada?

********************

Matt Wiser 02-04-2003, 01:18 AM The prewar OB for the area was 2 ID for the Army, 8th TFW at Kunsan AB, ROK with two F-16 squadrons, 51st TFW at Osan AB with one F-16 and one A-10 squadron for the AF, with 432nd TFW with two F-16 squadrons at Misawa AB in Japan, 18th Wing at Kadena AB on Okinawa with three F-15C squadrons and an E-3C AWACS squadron. 7th FLT would have USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) with CVW-5 (VF-21, VF-154 with F-14D, VFA-146 and VFA-147 with F/A-18C, VA-115 with A-6F, VAW-115 with E-2C, VAQ-136 with EA-6B, VS-21 with S-3B, VQ-5 with ES-3A, and HS-12 with SH-60F/HH-60H. SAC had the 43rd BW on Guam with B-52G/KC-135.

3rd Marine Division and 1st MAW on Okinawa with MAW assets at MCAS Iwakuni in Japan, and MCAS Kanehoe, Hawaii.


See the old forum for USS Constellation battle group at Guam.

********************

pmulcahy 02-04-2003, 09:13 PM Originally posted by Dogger

Some good points TR...


That brings up other issues as well, for instance, Japan would not be all that hard to reach from Pusan, S. Korea. <snip>


It's not a long stretch of water, but it is by no means a quiet stretch, either. You wouldn't want to try it in a small boat; you would have as hard a time as a Cuban refugee headed to Florida. And in winter, it would be hard to not die of exposure in a small boat. My advice would be to get a ship, the larger, the better.

********************

Dogger 02-05-2003, 01:36 PM Matt,


Some great info there Thanx <S>.



Paul,


I agree about the waters between S.Korea and Japan, my thinking would be that departing units would have done so while there were still large enough ships operating to make the trip in a more or less save manner.


However, that thought makes me wonder about how far feched it might be to run into one of the few soviet attack subs still prowling the Sea of Japan ?

********************

Last edited by kato13; 09-16-2010 at 09:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-16-2010, 01:49 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Having a little time on my hands at the moment I decided to take a look through the archives and found this.

My immediate thoughts were that the Korean War of the early 50's was never actually concluded - there was basically just a ceasefire. Also this was essentially a war between North Korea/China and the United Nations.
With that in mind, I'd be most surprised if we weren't to find all types of nationalities in the area (which would explain what some feel to be minimal US troop numbers). It's quite possible in my mind that many of the neutral countries in the war in Europe are involved here - France, South Africa, Chile, Brasil, Argentina, Japan, and so on. Who knows, you might even find a Swiss unit or two floating about!
__________________
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
  #3  
Old 09-16-2010, 12:45 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,345
Default

That's true, there's still just an Armistice -- the longest-lasting one in the world.

Late-1980s and early 1990s (T2K v1, I guess) short-term help would have come from the 25th ID in Hawaii, the 82nd Airborne, 7th ID in California, and later the 9th ID in Washington, as well as the Marines in Japan and Okinawa, and the Special Forces unit in Okinawa. Help from elsewhere at the time was dicey, but might have included the British, Australians, and New Zealanders; there was an outside chance for Singaporean and Japanese help (the latter very dicey -- the Japanese were really big on neutrality at the time and the ROKs still held a grudge against the Japanese for the treatment they got during World War 2). Air support would have come out of Japan, Okinawa, and the Philippines, and three carrier task forces might have shown up rather quickly, including battleships, which were still operational at the time.

In T2K, a lot of that help would not have been available, as they were deployed elsewhere. Korea would have become a forgotten corner of the war, with the troops there largely on their own. But balancing this, the Chinese in T2K would have stayed out of a PRK invasion of South Korea, and the Russians may also have decided they had too much to handle with a war in China and Europe and stayed out of it as well.

An untapped asset in T2K is South Korean guerrilla activity. In the late 1980s, there were some 18,000 Korean Vietnam vets in South Korea -- and South Korean forces were known to be especially vicious in Vietnam. One CSM I had in the Army said, "The ROKs would go into a village, and when they were done, nothing was left." These vets could become trainers for ROK guerrillas or even regular forces drafted into the Army.
__________________
War is the absence of reason. But then, life often demands unreasonable responses. - Lucian Soulban, Warhammer 40000 series, Necromunda Book 6, Fleshworks

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-16-2010, 02:53 PM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

With Japan being in something like France's position in the Pacific, I had the thought that they might be interested in arranging a Going Home scenario for US forces in Korea, though maybe with some strings attached. My personal thought was that they might recruit US forces to provide the muscle for a Japanese attempt to get the Alaska pipeline back up and running -- the big Soviet troop concentration in Anchorage can't really do anything to interfere with the pipeline, which runs well east of there, and by 2000/2001 they're pretty much falling apart anyway.

Any number of alternate missions could be equally plausible, some CONUS and some elsewhere in the Pacific (security/pirate suppression for Japanese merchant ships, etc.). Could be an interesting campaign idea.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-16-2010, 04:04 PM
JHart JHart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 79
Default

I always wondered if China, on the ropes with the Soviets at the gate, asks the Norks to send help to fight the Soviets, or if the Soviets cut a deal with the Norks to keep them out of it.

THe Norks would be in the catbird seat for a little while. China asks for help, the Norks go to the Soviets and say China's offer is on the table, what do you have?
__________________
If you run out of fuel, become a pillbox.
If you run out of ammo, become a bunker.
If you run out of time, become a hero.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-16-2010, 04:09 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHart View Post
I always wondered if China, on the ropes with the Soviets at the gate, asks the Norks to send help to fight the Soviets, or if the Soviets cut a deal with the Norks to keep them out of it.

THe Norks would be in the catbird seat for a little while. China asks for help, the Norks go to the Soviets and say China's offer is on the table, what do you have?
That brings up an interesting possibility -- Second Korean War averted. If the PRK accedes to Chinese demands for help, the North Korean people might, with a significant number of North Korean troops out of the country, attempt a revolution. Though they may be too indoctrinated for that. A revolution in North Korea might also bring up a second interesting possibility -- an invasion of the North by the South "to help." Where would the US be in that one?
__________________
War is the absence of reason. But then, life often demands unreasonable responses. - Lucian Soulban, Warhammer 40000 series, Necromunda Book 6, Fleshworks

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-16-2010, 05:33 PM
JHart JHart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 79
Default

The impression of the Norks is that they are well indoctrinated, but as the casualties mount, anything is possible. It'd be a hard sell for propaganda. After 50 years of solid Communist international brotherhood BS, they have to sell the fact the the Soviets our now the enemy.

As for the ROK going north to liberate, they really couldn't until they think China is knocked out. If the DKP sends troops to help China and then the ROK invades, it would be a hell of a mess. China would see it as a stab in the back, as in "The DKP was helping to save our country, we're fighting for our lives, and you go and help to hasten our downfall."



Knowing how paranoid the DKP is, they'd assume it was a plot all along, pack up and try to go home, or even side with the Soviets.
I doubt they would help China unless the have an agreement from the ROK preventing an attack

The US can't really be involved until China falls and it crosses the Rhine.
__________________
If you run out of fuel, become a pillbox.
If you run out of ammo, become a bunker.
If you run out of time, become a hero.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-17-2010, 01:58 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Keep in mind this is essentially a United Nations show. The US might have troops involved, but it's the UN in charge (officially).
What's happening in Europe technically has no impact on Korea - enemies in other war zones could, technically anyway, be allies in the east...

It is of course extremely unlikely that participants in the fighting elsewhere would send troops to Korea. At most I'd expect a token force of maybe a few dozen MPs, a handful of medical personnel, maybe ten trucks plus drivers attached to the logistics unit of another nation, that sort of thing.
__________________
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
  #9  
Old 09-17-2010, 02:17 AM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

An ANZAC force seems likely, as was mentioned up thread. Not sure if anyone else in the region is secure enough to contribute forces, but perhaps.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-17-2010, 02:47 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

The Australian contingent might be a little light on though since they're occupied in a conflict with Indonesia at the time. Might manage to pull together a Battalion plus supporting units though - say 1000 men including the New Zealanders?

I'm thinking it may be more likely Australia would send Leopard I's to Korea than infantry though as the infantry is more suited to the tropics. On the other hand, Australian tanks haven't been out of the country since Vietnam - they're often seen as too valuable to risk.
__________________
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
  #11  
Old 09-17-2010, 03:53 AM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
The Australian contingent might be a little light on though since they're occupied in a conflict with Indonesia at the time. Might manage to pull together a Battalion plus supporting units though - say 1000 men including the New Zealanders?

I'm thinking it may be more likely Australia would send Leopard I's to Korea than infantry though as the infantry is more suited to the tropics. On the other hand, Australian tanks haven't been out of the country since Vietnam - they're often seen as too valuable to risk.

maybe have a Battalion sized task force with say 1 company of Leopard I's, 3-4 of infantry, 1 of mech, a commando/ SF unit and a battery of artillery
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
--General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-17-2010, 04:11 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

With all the necessary supporting units, that's a lot more than battalion sized!
Probably more like 16 leopards plus supporting elements, a company of light motorised infantry (trucks), plus a small logistics unit (maybe 30 men). An 81mm mortar battery or 105mm howitzers from NZ may give a little fire support, and a handful of other assets supplied to give some flexibility. NZ might bring in another couple of infantry companies to round out the formation too, possibly bringing in a few of their Scimitars for recon.
__________________
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

Last edited by Legbreaker; 09-17-2010 at 07:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-17-2010, 07:30 AM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,615
Default

I'd agree with those that think an ANZAC force is likely to be present in Korea. Leg's suggested composition seems reasonable. Maybe some Canadians attached also (CAANZAC? ANZACCA?)

With regard to other nations, the Survivor's Guide to the UK makes reference to the British 6th Infantry Division (formed from elements of the Hong Kong garrison) linking up with American forces on the Yalu River in the summer of 1997 (can't recall off hand if it mentions the exact month). It's a fairly brief link up however as I seem to recall that the 6th Division is hit quite hard by nuclear strikes later on that summer and retreats back to the Hong Kong / Shenzen area.

(on a side note, the Gurkha Brigade had its own pipe band. I've always thought it would be a neat scene for the American forces on the Yalu to hear the sound of bagpipes in the distance - cue puzzled looks as the pipes gradually get louder and the lead elements of the 6th Division come into view over the horizon...)

Looking at the British Army's late 80's orbat and reconciling that with existing commitments, the cupboard is relatively bare, so I don't think we'd have had anything spare to send directly to Korea unless you advocate adding additional Battalions to the RL orbat to represent formations raised during the War. One could perhaps argue that the British and German units at BATUS in Canada (1st Battalion, Royal Hampshires and 1st Battalion Gloucestershire Regiment for the UK plus two German Battalions) were tasked to form an expeditionary force that was meant to go to Korea but their deployment was initially delayed by lack of shipping then cancelled altogether after the nukes). It's actually as good a reason as I've ever been able to come up with for the presence of those forces in Canada (and the Glosters served with distinction during the first Korean War).

I'm not so sure about the primacy of the UN and the presence of troops from neutral nations though. Whilst it's correct to state that the first Korean War was a War between the UN and North Korea / China (I'm sure I read somewhere that happened because the Soviets didn't use their veto as they were boycotting the UN at the time) I think that by the time of a Second Korean War in T2K the UN would have been rendered more or less impotent, if indeed it was still in existence (I'm going from memory here, but isn't it mentioned in some of the published material that the UN as an organisation falls apart relatively early on in the War - might have been one of the NATO vehicle guides or maybe even Armies of the Night?)

Therefore I think the US would be the one firmly in the driving seat in Korea. Even if nominally at least hostilities were still covered under a UN mandate, at all practical levels other countries would view the fighting as an extension of the conflict in Europe (and elsewhere). I think it highly unlikely, therefore, that troops from any neutral nations would deploy under a UN banner.

Just some thoughts...

Cheers
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivorís Guide to the United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-17-2010, 07:54 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six View Post
Looking at the British Army's late 80's orbat and reconciling that with existing commitments, the cupboard is relatively bare, so I don't think we'd have had anything spare to send directly to Korea unless you advocate adding additional Battalions to the RL orbat to represent formations raised during the War.
I would think that new British units would be kept at home or sent to Europe, with possibly some of them going to the Middle East. I don't see them going to Korea. I forgot about the 6th, though.
__________________
War is the absence of reason. But then, life often demands unreasonable responses. - Lucian Soulban, Warhammer 40000 series, Necromunda Book 6, Fleshworks

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-17-2010, 07:56 AM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six View Post
(on a side note, the Gurkha Brigade had its own pipe band. I've always thought it would be a neat scene for the American forces on the Yalu to hear the sound of bagpipes in the distance - cue puzzled looks as the pipes gradually get louder and the lead elements of the 6th Division come into view over the horizon...)
Here's an interesting thought: a helicopter assault like that in Apocalypse Now, but with bagpipes pouring from the helicopters' speakers...
__________________
War is the absence of reason. But then, life often demands unreasonable responses. - Lucian Soulban, Warhammer 40000 series, Necromunda Book 6, Fleshworks

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-17-2010, 08:05 AM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
I would think that new British units would be kept at home or sent to Europe, with possibly some of them going to the Middle East. I don't see them going to Korea. I forgot about the 6th, though.
I agree. With all that would be going on, I really don't see any sort of British involvment in Korea other than the 6th Division and (maybe) a handful of Special Forces.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivorís Guide to the United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-17-2010, 11:45 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

It seems we've all been a bit hasty.
This from the Yellow book, edition 2.2...
Quote:
Page 9 under 1993
Sporadic antigovernment rioting in Pyongyang and other large cities force the North Korean government to make further concessions toward a free market economy.
Quote:
Page 237
Korea: The newly reunified Republic of Korea came to the assistance of the Chinese early in the war and was subjected to limited nuclear attacks by the Soviets. Although the capital at Seoul was destroyed and several ports were severely damaged (they are now devastated), most of the rest of the country is organized under martial law, and is an Island of stability In a sea of disorganization. Resuming its reputation as the-Hermit Kingdom, Korea is now extremely xenophobic and distrustful of strangers.
However, we have numerous references in a number of books (vehicle guides mainly) of US units fighting North Korean and Soviet troops. On the other hand we seem to have some conflict - Some sources say US troops were fighting North Korean units, but the above says the country was unified early in the war... :S

It also appears the US was sent in as a response to North Korean aggression (but it's a bit vague on detail - could even have been the US who moved first).

Now I've spent a few hours re-reading and researching, I'm of the opinion that the UN was NOT involved. Therefore, any nation other than the US or the Koreans themselves are extremely unlikely to be present/have participated.

It is now my opinion that the US units located in central Korea in 2000 are rather unwelcome too based on the last line of the quote above. The 2nd ID may be tolerated, having long association with the country, but the National Guard units are another matter.
Mind you, the half dozen or so Soviet units are probably just as uncomfortable...

I was also totally unable to find any reference of the UK 6th actually making contact with US units or getting anywhere even remotely near Korea. It appears they were operating elsewhere in China in support of the PLA.
There is certainly no mention whatsoever in any version of any other nation participating in the far east (hopefully somebody can prove me wrong on that).

Hmm, further hours trawling through Challenge found this in issue #36 on page 3.
Quote:
Korea: The characters were members of the 8th US Army (or of allied Chinese, South Korean, or Australian units)...
__________________
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
  #18  
Old 09-17-2010, 12:24 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
It seems we've all been a bit hasty.
This from the Yellow book, edition 2.2...


However, we have numerous references in a number of books (vehicle guides mainly) of US units fighting North Korean and Soviet troops. On the other hand we seem to have some conflict - Some sources say US troops were fighting North Korean units, but the above says the country was unified early in the war... :S
The first edition timeline and the edition 2.2 timeline are not the same. I don't think Korea was reunified pre-Twilight War in the v1 timeline.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-17-2010, 01:24 PM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
I was also totally unable to find any reference of the UK 6th actually making contact with US units or getting anywhere even remotely near Korea. It appears they were operating elsewhere in China in support of the PLA.
It's mentioned in the Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom, specifically page eight.

"In the Far East, the Chinese launched a major offensive in the
summer. The 6th Division was attached to Chinese forces driving
towards northeast China. In July, it was transferred to the 31stArmy
and linked up with the Americans on the Yalu River soon after.
At this time, the Sino-Soviet nuclear exchange began, and the
division took heavy losses from several tactical nuclear strikes.
The survivors were withdrawn, in surprisingly good order, to southern
China."

The order of battle for the British Army in the SGUK has the Division located in South China as of 1 January 2001, with a manpower of 1,400. The orbat is very, very vague on details of which units made up 6th Division...for anyone that's interested below is something I put together a while ago

6th UK Infantry Division

C Squadron, Special Boat Service
41 Commando, Royal Marines*
660 Squadron, Army Air Corps
7 Intelligence Company, Intelligence Corps

26th Infantry Brigade
1st Battalion, Royal Scots
10th Battalion, Parachute Regiment (TA)
2nd Battalion, Royal Hong Regiment (equivalent to TA)*

48th Gurkha Infantry Brigade
2nd Battalion, 2nd King Edward VII’s Own Gurkha Rifles
1st Battalion, 7th Duke of Edinburgh’s Own Gurkha Rifles
2nd Battalion, 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles*
1st Battalion, The Royal Hong Kong Regiment (equivalent to TA)

The Queen's Gurkha Engineers

Plus some Royal Signals (including Gurkha Signals), REME, etc. RAF presence consisted of a helo squadron (operating the Wessex), and a flight of Harriers.

Units marked with a * do not exist IRL; 41 Commando was disbanded in 1981 and 2nd/7th DoE Gurkha Rifles were disbanded in 1988. I'm generally wary about "inventing" new units, but as I mentioned earlier in the thread, there weren't a lot of spare resources at that point.

The Hong Kong garrison would have been stripped down to the bare bones in anticipation of the 1997 handover (as happened IRL, and in the T2K World was reflected in the two Gurkha Battalions transferred from HK to the MEFF). In my T2K World I reckoned that the start of the Sino Soviet War would warrant a boost to the HK garrison until handover, so I resurrected the two disbanded units, added a second Battalion to the Royal Hong Kong Regiment, and a Battalion of Territorial paratroopers deployed from the UK. Even then, I think it's a seriously understrength Division, and lacks any artillery.

(IRL there was a British Battalion (the Black Watch as it happened) in HK until handover. I know canon has 1 Royal Scots in Europe, but in my work I've moved the Battalions around a bit. For anyone who wants to stick to canon the 1st Battalion, Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters are, I think, unaccounted for).

Of course, the above refers to v1. As Targan rightly says, there are differences between V1 and V2 (I don't know about 2.2), so the information may be different in V2.

On the subject of V2, the US Army Vehicle Guide lists the 2nd Infantry Division as being based at Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam between 1991 and 1996. Does anyone have any ideas / suggestions as to how that could have happened?

Cheers
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivorís Guide to the United Kingdom

Last edited by Rainbow Six; 09-17-2010 at 01:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-17-2010, 01:55 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six View Post
On the subject of V2, the US Army Vehicle Guide lists the 2nd Infantry Division as being based at Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam between 1991 and 1996. Does anyone have any ideas / suggestions as to how that could have happened?

Cheers
The only way I can account for this is a mistake on the part of the designers. Vietnam would still be strongly in the Soviet sphere of influence in 1991, and probably until at least 1995; after that, Vietnam would probably be on its own.
__________________
War is the absence of reason. But then, life often demands unreasonable responses. - Lucian Soulban, Warhammer 40000 series, Necromunda Book 6, Fleshworks

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-17-2010, 05:43 PM
Dog 6 Dog 6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 219
Default

imo some one should work up an Australian obo.
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
--General George S. Patton, Jr.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-17-2010, 07:53 PM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

V2.X timeline just doesn't work on so many levels, really.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-17-2010, 09:38 PM
kalos72's Avatar
kalos72 kalos72 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 921
Default

Was v2 written or changed by someone else? It misses in alot of ways actually...I dont use it for much if anything.
__________________
"Oh yes, I WOOT!"
TheDarkProphet
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-17-2010, 09:40 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six View Post
It's mentioned in the Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom, specifically page eight.
Ah, so it is. The one place I didn't look...

There are a few differences between V1 and V2, but overall most of the info (besides timeline) is the same. Unit histories for example are cut and pasted from the V1 vehicle books straight into V2.

I have the feeling that when V2 history was being updated, the intention was for Korean to reunite sometime between 1993 and 1995 but unfortunately this intention wasn't followed through into action and updating unit histories.

Re the Australian involvement, I'm not convinced they should be there since it's not a UN show afterall. Australian troops are engaged against the numerically superior (although technically inferior) Indonesians. I can't see them diverting units away unless there's a damn fine reason (such as UN "request" or really, really stupid government).
__________________
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
  #25  
Old 09-17-2010, 11:39 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Re the Australian involvement, I'm not convinced they should be there since it's not a UN show afterall. Australian troops are engaged against the numerically superior (although technically inferior) Indonesians. I can't see them diverting units away unless there's a damn fine reason (such as UN "request" or really, really stupid government).
What if Australian forces were involved in Korea before the war with Indonesia started?
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-18-2010, 12:37 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

That could work, but we'd still be left with the high probability of those troops being recalled home as soon as the war with Indonesia heated up. Might be a few advisors left (similar to "the team" in Vietnam), but I can't see whole units.
Besides, it's a war between China and the USSR to begin with, the US appear to have been involved in that area mainly because they already had units in South Korea. I doubt ANYONE would have considered actually entering combat against the other superpower in support of a communist country. Weapons and supplies through an intermediary yes, but troops?

This of course raises the question of why would the Soviets assist the North Koreans in their attack on the South? From deployment dates of various units, and subsequent histories, we can see the attack did not occur until 1997, months after action commenced in Europe. My thoughts are it was an attempt to knock the US troops out of Asia so the Soviet units could be redeployed westward and help stop the Nato advance across eastern Europe.

Any way I look at it, I can't justify Western nations other than the Koreans and US in Korea without United Nations involvement. The UN headquarters were not destroyed until late 1997 when New York was nuked, so it is possible (but I doubt it). The UN may even have relocated itself out of a belligerent country when the nukes were first used. Perhaps the UN still exists in a rather impotent way in say Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or maybe Argentina? A hell of a lot of civilians fled the cities in panic, so I can't see why the UN wouldn't have "temporarily" relocated too...
__________________
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
  #27  
Old 09-18-2010, 05:42 AM
Rainbow Six's Avatar
Rainbow Six Rainbow Six is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
What if Australian forces were involved in Korea before the war with Indonesia started?
That sounds reasonable to me. Anyone know when the War with Indonesia actually started?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Perhaps the UN still exists in a rather impotent way in say Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or maybe Argentina? A hell of a lot of civilians fled the cities in panic, so I can't see why the UN wouldn't have "temporarily" relocated too...
Again, sounds reasonable. I'd say the most logical place to relocate to was probably Switzerland. As well as being 100% neutral, Switzerland was already host to a number of UN Missions / Departments

http://www.unog.ch/
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivorís Guide to the United Kingdom
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-18-2010, 07:31 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

I thought briefly about Switzerland, and France, even Japan for a moment, but I feel they might be a bit close to nuke targets.....
France, we'll they're a nuclear armed country and even though they've withdrawn from NATO, they're right in the middle of things with a number of nuclear targets.
Switzerland, well they're even closer to the action and although they're about the most neutral country in the universe, fallout isn't very discriminating. There's also the chance of neighbouring countries "taking a shortcut" so to speak.
Japan I ruled out because they've got US forces based there, and I'm sure air operations over Korea would originate there (as they did in the 50's). Therefore there's a good chance Japan could get nuked also (not to mention the fallout from China drifting across).

The southern hemisphere is probably the best place to go with nuclear war threatening. Almost everywhere in the northern hemisphere feels a bit too risky for my liking...
__________________
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
  #29  
Old 09-18-2010, 07:49 AM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b View Post
The only way I can account for this is a mistake on the part of the designers. Vietnam would still be strongly in the Soviet sphere of influence in 1991, and probably until at least 1995; after that, Vietnam would probably be on its own.
In V1 there was Soviet unit that was based off there vehicle guide. Maybe someone cut and paste the the wrong things...lol You would of thought the editors would of caught it...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-18-2010, 08:04 AM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

The UK forces around Hong Kong and other locations in between there and Australia have served as the base unit of the 6th UK Infantry Division up until hand over of the Colony to China. Just before this the HQ was finally back to the UK as well the last Supports units and the Infantry Brigade they had their for security. It is hard call whether the Division stays puts or moves to the Korea. I would think it would serve as base for Common Wealth type of Division or larger unit that the UK and her 'Colonies' (now former) had made famous. I can see a Division in both location under the UK banner that would have 1 Combat Brigade of UK troops and rest of the Division being made up of Common Wealth troops. Same with the UK involvement in the Middle East. The UK provides the core of the Division with other Common Wealth nation sending troops to beef up the UK commitment.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
asia, countries, korea, locations


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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 02:03 PM.


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