My Next Project: A Poll

[Patine]

Thanks, Tanelorn, Our_man, fairline, and Case for that order of battle. I think I'll just have UN units enter by turn-based events along that pattern (and similar air and naval deployment), with that player only being able to actually BUILD far inferior South Korean units (mostly infantry and, early on, cavalry). As for activating China, I'll have to ponder that. I've also been considering (at Chris' behest) the non-historical but still possible activation of the USSR and Taiwan, atomic bombs, and WW3 breaking out, but these will require much thought.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Case
While the 28th Commonwealth Bde was under Australia command for most of its time in Korea and eventually two of its three infantry battalions were Australian, it was not an Australian formation as almost all of its support units were British or New Zealand (I think that the 16th NZ Field Artillery Regiment [equipped with 25 pounders] formed part of this brigade).

I'm on dodgy ground questioning Case on OOB information, but here goes

I'm (relatively!) sure that 27th/28th Bde had the following composition:

2 British Bns, 1 Australian and (for a time before the formation of 25th Canadian Bde) 1 Canadian. The following were rotated through the Brigade:

1st Battalion: 1st Middx(1) / 1st KSLI (2) / 1st DLI (3) / 1st Warwicks (4)

2nd Battalion: 1st Argylls (1) / 1st KOSB (2) / 1st R. Fusiliers (3) / 1st Essex (4)

3rd Battalion: 3rd RAR (1) / 1st RAR (2) / 2nd RAR (3)

[temp. 4th Battalion: 2nd PPCLI - later joined 25th Bde]

16th Fd Regt RNZA
60th Indian (Para) Fd Ambulance

Thus at any one time there were usually 2 British and 1 Australian infantry bns.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Patine
Thanks, Tanelorn, Our_man, fairline, and Case for that order of battle. I think I'll just have UN units enter by turn-based events along that pattern (and similar air and naval deployment), with that player only being able to actually BUILD far inferior South Korean units (mostly infantry and, early on, cavalry)....

I think that's a sensible approach. The US and Commonwealth units need to be substantially stronger defensively than either the N. Koreans or the Chinese; witness the last stand of the Glosters who managed to blunt the Chinese advance at the Imjin despite overwhelming numerical advantage to the Chinese. Give the AI lots of units to attack with, but ensure that the US/Commonwealth troops can withstand a lot of punishment.

[fairline]

Originally posted by Patine
...South Korean units (mostly infantry and, early on, cavalry...

The 'cavalry' were the 1st Cavalry Regt, equipped with M8 and M20 armoured cars rather than horses....

[typhoon]

The trigger for Chinese intervention could be the taking of Unsan where the first engagements betweeen UN forces (8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Div) and the Chinese volunteers took place.

Alternatively, it could be the fall of Hyeson to the northeast, which is the only point on the Yalu which the UN (ROK troops this time) actually reached.

[tanelorn]

As for horse cavalry, the Chinese XIII Army group certainly employed in its roster a unit called the 1st cavalry regiment against the US 1st cavalry division, during the October 1950 onslaught. Whether this Chinese unit actually used horses is open to debate. Besides this one instance, I don't think either the communists or the UN used any horse "cavalry". Cavalry usually means mechanised or (later in the 20th c.) air-mobile units.

[BillyBud]

Patine:

I'm not sure how you will work the victory conditions, but if it is objective-based, then you could give the northern cities high objective points to tempt the player to take them.

However, by doing so the player runs the risk of having the war expand (through possible Chinese, USSR, involvement). This could be based on a percentage chance of happening - ie the more cities captured, the higher the chance of foreign intervention.

If the situation escalates (if more cities are taken) then the percentage chance of atomic bombs being used increases, especially if: A) the UN advances to/across the Yalu; and/or B) if the Chinese/North Koreans capture certain key UN-held cities/objectives.

Just a few thoughts....

[Case]

Originally posted by fairline
I'm on dodgy ground questioning Case on OOB information

Not really - I didn't check my source before posting. According to the Australian offical history the main Australian Army units deployed to Korea were:

Headquarters, 28 Commonwealth Brigade (June 1952 – December 1954)
1 RAR (February 1952 – March 1953 and April 1954 – August 1954)
2 RAR (March 1953 – April 1954)
3 RAR (September 1950 – February 1952)
2 Section, Commonwealth Division Provost Company (July 1951 – August 1953)

So, in short, you're right and I'm wrong. I thought that 1 RAR and 3 RAR were in 28 Bde at the same time when that doesn't seem to have been the case.

For the sake of completeness, the other Australian deployments to Korea were:

Air Units

No. 91 Composite Wing (October 1950 – December 1954)
* No. 77 Fighter Squadron (June 1950 – October 1954(?))
* No. 36 Transport Squadron (C-47) (March 1955)
* No. 30 Communications Unit
* No. 30 Transportation Unit
* No. 391 Base Squadron
* No. 491 Maintenance Squadron

No. 91 Wing RAAF also had a British and Canadian(?) transport squadron under its command for some of the war. I think that the South African No. 2 Squadron was attached to the USAF.

Naval Units

aircraft carrier HMAS Sydney (September 1951 – January 1952 and October 1953 – June 1954)
* 20th Air Group
** No. 805 Squadron (12 Sea Fury)
** No. 808 Squadron (12 Sea Fury)
** No. 817 Squadron (14 Firefly)

Destroyers:

HMAS Arunta (January 1954 – October 1954)
HMAS Anzac (August 1951 – October 1951 and September 1952 – June 1953)
HMAS Bataan (June 1950 – June 1951 and January 1952 – September 1952)
HMAS Tobruk (August 1951 – February 1952 and June 1953 – February 1954)
HMAS Warramunga (August 1950 – August 1951 and January 1952 – August 1952)

Frigates:

HMAS Culgoa (March 1953 – November 1953)
HMAS Condamine (July 1952 – November 1953)
HMAS Murchison (May 1951 – February 1952)
HMAS Shoalhaven (June 1950 – September 1950)

Post War contributions

1 RAR (March 1954 – March 1956)
3 RAR (July 1953 – November 1954)
RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) (March 1955 – June 1956)
HMAS Murchison (November 1953 – July 1954)
HMAS Shoalhaven (July 1954 – March 1955)
HMAS Condamine (February 1955 – November 1955)
HMAS Sydney (October 1953 – June 1954)
* 20th Air Group (as above)

(source: Robert O’Neill (1985). Australia in the Korean War 1950-53. Volume II: Combat Operations. Australian War Memorial and the Australian Government Publishing Service. Canberra.)

[Case]

On the topic of triggering Chinese involvement, IMO it should be triggered by the UN forces advancing into North Korea. Historically the Chinese gave the UN plenty of warnings that they would stay out of the war only if the UN stayed out of North Korea. As a result the UN player could have the interesting choice of accepting a limited victory by liberating South Korea or attempting a complete victory by conquring all of North Korea before the Chinese can launch their intervention.

In regards to generating the non-South Korean UN forces, you need to bear in mind that the UN forces replaced several formations which were destroyed during the Chinese counter-offensive. For instance, the US 2nd Infantry Division and 1st Cavalry Division were rebuilt after taking extreamly heavy losses (the 2nd Division was destroyed in all but name) and, if I remember correctly, both Turkey and Britain lost and later replaced battalions which were destroyed in this period.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Smarter and more knowledgeable people have made their suggestions, so I won't go there. Just wanted to throw in my two cents and say I'd love to play a Korean War scenario.

Also, it would be good if the scenario could be winnable by more than just the two main protagonists. North and South Korea would certainly be the main movers, but if the player plays as USSR, USA, UN, or PRC it would be neat for them to be able to at least try for a partial victory of sorts.

That's all. Just wanted to say "hi" and give a blast of Dark Force Lightning to my old pal Patine.

[Patine]

Thanks, Alinestra, for the lightning, but I've got my lightsaber ready. I do, however, appreciate the interest in this project, from you and everyone else. I think that, given the scope of this war, and the OOB's I've seen, that a regiment/squadron/individual ship (for land/air/sea, respectively) scale of unit would work best (I may even break land units into battalions, with only Chinese wave infantry being in full regiments). I also think that I'll use some form of objective system, and may allow escalation beyond the historical level. I'm going to check closely those sites linked to earlier in this thread.

[tanelorn]

Tankwise:
US forces in Korea received 1,326 tanks, including 309 m26 pershing and 200 m46 patton tanks (visually identical, the m46 had an improved engine and transmission), 679 m4e8 shermans and 138 m24 chaffee light tanks. The marines also used some m4a's retrofitted with a short barrel 105mm howitzer. The new m47 mbt and m41 light tank were not deployed in Korea, since the T34-85 threat had largely disapeared after 1951.
However, if the blitzkrieg/counter-blitzkrieg tactics persisted, they could have made a debut... would you consider including them in the tech-tree high-end?

British armor also included a Churchil squadron alongside the Centurions (arguably, the Cent's were the best tanks available). These were Crocodile flamethrowers that had dropped the fuel trailers and fought as tanks.
The NKPA had 258 T34-85 at the moment of invasion in 1950. The T34 was easily superior to the chaffees and shermans but absolutely no match for the heavier pershings, pattons and centurions.
OT, did Paraguay just shoot itself in the foot or what? That's one thing you don't expect to see in a world cup.
Lay back England and let the others score for you...

[fairline]

I think the M46 Patton was used in Korea, but not the M47 or M48 Pattons, as you say.

In terms of armour/gun combination, the various tanks used would rank as follows:

1. Centurion 2. M46 3. M26 4. T34-85 5. M4A3E8 6. Chaffee

The Churchill had excellent armour (better than everything but the Centurion) but a sh1tty main gun (worse than everything but the Chaffee).

Yeah, the old cliche about a game of two halves really applied in the England v Paraguay game; England were all over them in the first half, then a combination of a massively improved Paraguay, a tired England and Sven's 'inspired' choice of substitutions almost caused an upset. What the hell was Eriksson thinking: take off your main striker, replace him with your best winger and then substitute him as well ?? Jesus...

[Case]

Originally posted by fairline
The Churchill had excellent armour (better than everything but the Centurion) but a sh1tty main gun (worse than everything but the Chaffee).

The Churchill seems to have been regarded as being obsolete by the time of the Korean War. Australia's only armoured unit at the time, the 1st Armoured Regiment, was considered completly unfit for service in Korea as it was only equipped with (poorly maintained) Churchills.

[Palaiologos]

All i care is that lost good money on those bloody Serbs.
If England needed Gamara to score for her then so be it.

Wins for Equador and England and a win or draw for Serbia were my bets. 10,5 euros I'll never see again. Snif.....