Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seeing as we have a very active World war II thread I thought I would start one about the Korean war. specifically I have an example or examples I would like to see peoples opinions on.

1: What would have happened during the Korean war if Truman had successfully Killed the USMC? Post WWII President Truman attempted with some congressional support, to disband the USMC, stating it was a useless branch of the military, doing basically what the Army already did.

With that in mind, During the opening of the Korean War, General MacArthur threw roughly 3 US infantry/Cavalry divisions into the defense of the Pusan perimeter but barely held on. During the Pusan perimeter battle, General Walker utilized the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade (Basically the 5th Marines reinforced) as a "fire brigade" basically wherever the Army forces appeared to be in disorder or retreat he ordered this unit into the fray to stabilize the line.

Later, at the Inchon Invasion, the first waves were the entirety of the 1st Marine Division. This landing basically caved in the North Koreans and forced them into a complete Rout that led to the next part that the marines became famous for.

Chosin Reservoir. the 1st Marine Division under General O.P. Smith disobeyed direct orders from General Almond (Commander of X Corps) and instead of running headlong to the Chinese border, advanced slowly, building up supply lines and airfields along their marching route. When the Chinese attacked the UN Forces in North korea the entire 8th Army and most of X Corps were crushed and forced into a withdrawal. However, the 1st Marine Division instead of running fought a series of running battles with the North Koreans and Chinese that eventually led to them regaining Wonsan Harbor.

2: What would have happened if the 1st Marines had been allowed to hold Wonsan Harbor instead of evacuating. Keep in mind that the UN had COMPLETE Air and naval supremacy and carriers and BATTLESHIPS were parked just offshore.

Might want to brush up on why US forces had major issues on dealing with North Korea invasion of South Korea.
Read up on Task Force Smith.

Im intimately familiar with why the US army had those problems, but those same problems existed in the USMC and to a greater extent since funding has always been....limited for the Marines.

Vast majority of North Korea armor was down south at Pusan. North Korea had very few units in and around Incheon being they were relying on the terrain at the bay and around Incheon to deter a US Invasion. Was a pretty good NCOPD tour when I was station there.

Once USMC cut the supply lines damn near at the 38th Parallel a vast majority of North Korea heavy weapons, armor, and vehicles had to be abandon.
I don't think you've done time in South Korea to understand how unforgiven the terrain is there.


Edit

Some weapons were used by the USMC as did the US.
The Bazooka used by both branches were ineffective against Russian T-34's. Also bear in mind a majority of combat troops from WWII were already discharged leaving a senior leadership with the most combat experience and the majority of troops were drafted

USMC had to evacuate. Marine units had taken a tremendous battering and were substantially outnumbered. They had limited heavy equipment.

Assuming they stayed, at best they would have been pinned up for some time. It would not have made a material difference.


Here's a better question.
What if Truman had dropped substantial numbers of nukes and then invaded China?

 Jihadin wrote:
Vast majority of North Korea armor was down south at Pusan. North Korea had very few units in and around Incheon being they were relying on the terrain at the bay and around Incheon to deter a US Invasion. Was a pretty good NCOPD tour when I was station there.

Once USMC cut the supply lines damn near at the 38th Parallel a vast majority of North Korea heavy weapons, armor, and vehicles had to be abandon.
I don't think you've done time in South Korea to understand how unforgiven the terrain is there.


Edit

Some weapons were used by the USMC as did the US.
The Bazooka used by both branches were ineffective against Russian T-34's. Also bear in mind a majority of combat troops from WWII were already discharged leaving a senior leadership with the most combat experience and the majority of troops were drafted

Right, but the 5th Marines (1st Provisional Marine Brigade) had been fighting in South Korea for most of this period of time so they were just as equally under prepared and unsupplied as the Us army counter parts but somehow managed a far better level of combat efficiency. This may in part to training or the integration of Armor/Artillery and Air support into the PMB.

Also, I never got to go to Korea to experience the terrain. You did nail the Inchon invasion perfectly, however what would have happened if it had been the US Army making the initial landings, since none of them had any amphibious training.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
USMC had to evacuate. Marine units had taken a tremendous battering and were substantially outnumbered. They had limited heavy equipment.

Assuming they stayed, at best they would have been pinned up for some time. It would not have made a material difference.


Here's a better question.
What if Truman had dropped substantial numbers of nukes and then invaded China?

Correct for the most part, however the Marines did not have to evacuate, they were actually ordered to evacuate. With Naval and Air superiority the Marines would have been able to hold the port indefinitely and would thereby divert massive amounts of Chinese Attention because you can not leave an enemy division around your supply lines. as far as the casualties sustained, with access to the port facilities the UN would have been able to ferry in reinforcements at will. And as far as Im aware of, no army has ever attacked a well defended position that had Air and naval superiority (including battleships) and won. Personally I believe this was one of the biggest blunders of the war. If MacArthur had authorized Almond to keep the marines in place the X Corps could have reformed and made a defensive stance around the 38th Parallel and eventually rejoined the marines at Wonsan once the line stabilized.

As for the Nukes question? WWIII Would have kicked off and the US would have been fighting alone since the western powers had not yet rebuilt from WWII. A stalemate would have eventually come about because the US did not have the troops to take China and the Chinese/Russians didn't have the ability to project force beyond korea.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Vast majority of North Korea armor was down south at Pusan. North Korea had very few units in and around Incheon being they were relying on the terrain at the bay and around Incheon to deter a US Invasion. Was a pretty good NCOPD tour when I was station there.

Once USMC cut the supply lines damn near at the 38th Parallel a vast majority of North Korea heavy weapons, armor, and vehicles had to be abandon.
I don't think you've done time in South Korea to understand how unforgiven the terrain is there.


Edit

Some weapons were used by the USMC as did the US.
The Bazooka used by both branches were ineffective against Russian T-34's. Also bear in mind a majority of combat troops from WWII were already discharged leaving a senior leadership with the most combat experience and the majority of troops were drafted

Right, but the 5th Marines (1st Provisional Marine Brigade) had been fighting in South Korea for most of this period of time so they were just as equally under prepared and unsupplied as the Us army counter parts but somehow managed a far better level of combat efficiency. This may in part to training or the integration of Armor/Artillery and Air support into the PMB.

Also, I never got to go to Korea to experience the terrain. You did nail the Inchon invasion perfectly, however what would have happened if it had been the US Army making the initial landings, since none of them had any amphibious training.


I can think of two beaches the US Army made Amphibious landing. Can you?
Two major issues with the landing of Incheon.
The island in the bay of Incheon and the seawall.

Also if I remember correctly Macarthar (US Army) rolled the dice by not putting the USMC task force into Pusan. He had to take the Initiative from North Koreans by going on the offensive and in a way "Blue Falconing" North Koreans

 Frazzled wrote:

Here's a better question.
What if Truman had dropped substantial numbers of nukes and then invaded China?

Heh, didn't the rest of the staff immediately turned around and said "ah, you do know that the Russians have nukes as well? And that China's their ally...". Though McCarthy was the one who actually made the suggestion in the real world. Aye the "let's kill come Commies! Get some!" McCarthy.

Russia though was in competition with China to influence North Korea. Majority of arms were supplied by USSR

The US army made amphibious landings in Africa, Italy, Sicily and France during WWII but the point I was making was that they were not trained to do this. Specifically after WWII almost no training was going on to begin with due to massive budget cuts.

The Inchon Landings major problem was not the Islands nor the Seawall, the biggest issue was the MASSIVE tides that pervade that area.

As far as the rolling dice, the 1st PMB was fighting in Pusan throughout the Pusan Battles. Around September 5th I believe, (Can't honestly remember) the 1st PMB was transferred back to the control of the 1st Marine Division and was disbanded to recreate 2 Marine Regiments.

Ironically, General Walker (Commanding General of the Pusan Perimeter) fought tooth and nail against the 1st PMB being sent to the Inchon invasion and was still fighting it even after MacArthur gave him 2 new Infantry Regiments to replace the Marines. Walker even went as far as to say he could not hold Pusan without the Marine Brigade.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
The US army made amphibious landings in Africa, Italy, Sicily and France during WWII but the point I was making was that they were not trained to do this. Specifically after WWII almost no training was going on to begin with due to massive budget cuts.

The Inchon Landings major problem was not the Islands nor the Seawall, the biggest issue was the MASSIVE tides that pervade that area.

As far as the rolling dice, the 1st PMB was fighting in Pusan throughout the Pusan Battles. Around September 5th I believe, (Can't honestly remember) the 1st PMB was transferred back to the control of the 1st Marine Division and was disbanded to recreate 2 Marine Regiments.

Ironically, General Walker (Commanding General of the Pusan Perimeter) fought tooth and nail against the 1st PMB being sent to the Inchon invasion and was still fighting it even after MacArthur gave him 2 new Infantry Regiments to replace the Marines. Walker even went as far as to say he could not hold Pusan without the Marine Brigade.

That's at high tide to

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Here's a better question.
What if Truman had dropped substantial numbers of nukes and then invaded China?

Heh, didn't the rest of the staff immediately turned around and said "ah, you do know that the Russians have nukes as well? And that China's their ally...". Though McCarthy was the one who actually made the suggestion in the real world. Aye the "let's kill come Commies! Get some!" McCarthy.

The Chinese had no nukes. USSR going to to war with a fully engaged nuclear power is unlikely. Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with nukes which broke the stalemate in negotiations.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
The US army made amphibious landings in Africa, Italy, Sicily and France during WWII but the point I was making was that they were not trained to do this. Specifically after WWII almost no training was going on to begin with due to massive budget cuts.

The Inchon Landings major problem was not the Islands nor the Seawall, the biggest issue was the MASSIVE tides that pervade that area.

As far as the rolling dice, the 1st PMB was fighting in Pusan throughout the Pusan Battles. Around September 5th I believe, (Can't honestly remember) the 1st PMB was transferred back to the control of the 1st Marine Division and was disbanded to recreate 2 Marine Regiments.

Ironically, General Walker (Commanding General of the Pusan Perimeter) fought tooth and nail against the 1st PMB being sent to the Inchon invasion and was still fighting it even after MacArthur gave him 2 new Infantry Regiments to replace the Marines. Walker even went as far as to say he could not hold Pusan without the Marine Brigade.

That's at high tide to

I never said it wasn't an obstacle, Im just pointing out the tides were the biggest problem. at low tide ships couldn't even approach the harbor because it turned into a giant mud flat.
"The tides at Incheon have an average range of 29 feet (8.8 meters) and a maximum observed range of 36 feet (11 meters)"

Imagine that, assaulting that seawall which needed a ladder at high tide and at low tide it is now up to 36feet HIGHER then it was at High tide. The entire invasion was planned around the highest tide of the month because the ships needed as much time as possible to unload troops and supplies. When the tide went out the ships had to pull out as well or risk being stranded in the mud flats and destroyed by enemy artillery.

Think on this. Why land RO/RO ships to an unsecure beach the same time as the landing force? The landing force has to land first and push out the opposing forces out of the AO for follow on forces to land and unload unimpeded the vehicles, armor, and supplies. They used the seawall as support for the RO/RO door/ramp frames.

Edit

We're on the same track but you are lacking knowledge of the area.

 Jihadin wrote:
Think on this. Why land RO/RO ships to an unsecure beach the same time as the landing force? The landing force has to land first and push out the opposing forces out of the AO for follow on forces to land and unload unimpeded the vehicles, armor, and supplies. They used the seawall as support for the RO/RO door/ramp frames.

Edit

We're on the same track but you are lacking knowledge of the area.

actually the opposite Inchon has no RO/RO except at the docks, and these weren't utilized during the invasion until after the area was secured. what im saying is that the ships unloading marines into AMTRACKS couldn't even get close enough to do this job and the AMTRACKS couldn't negotiate the mudflats either so during low tide ZERO troops/supplies were sent ashore.

This is going to get interesting.........




This is an old school RO/RO



and another


Over view



Can you see why the seawall (in your case the tides) was so important?

Of course! Inchon is a military study requirement for marines, even boots have to understand Inchon, Chosin and Pusan. But regardless lets What if a bit more though about the general principles I put forward, what would have happened if the USMC had not existed at the time? I personally don't believe the inchon invasion could have been carried out, so another area would have had to be chosen for the landing. probably one that wasn't as hotly contested as Inchon was.

I'm not sure your tracking.

Red and Green beach was landing in what type of area?

For Macauthar landing anywhere else there was no where else to land to pull off what he wanted.

Now look at this map and you have an idea why Incheon was best place to land

Again, Im well aware of why Inchon was "strategically" the best place to land, its next to Kimpo and Seoul, and hell, right after it was "captured" Macarthur had a ceremony giving the capital back to President Rhee. Tactically though, I don't think the US army, without significant time/training could have pulled off Inchon by themselves.

Why would we (US Army) stage an amphibious landing since we had a branch that was already geared towards that. I can see your trying to bask yourself in the "Glory of the Corp". Can the Corp pull off Airborne Operations on the scale of the 82nd and the 101st?

If you really want to get it on with this "measuring" contest then you need to reword the thread title

 Jihadin wrote:
Why would we (US Army) stage an amphibious landing since we had a branch that was already geared towards that. I can see your trying to bask yourself in the "Glory of the Corp". Can the Corp pull off Airborne Operations on the scale of the 82nd and the 101st?

If you really want to get it on with this "measuring" contest then you need to reword the thread title

Jihadin the question was what would have happened if Truman had successfully killed the USMC.

Truman would never have been able to get rid of the USMC. Its Navy and the Navy protects its cash flow.

 Frazzled wrote:
Truman would never have been able to get rid of the USMC. Its Navy and the Navy protects its cash flow.

So I guess the concept of "What If" doesn't register with you?

And Truman came DAMN close to killing the USMC and the reason they exist to this day has less to do with the Navy and more to do with public opinion.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Truman would never have been able to get rid of the USMC. Its Navy and the Navy protects its cash flow.

So I guess the concept of "What If" doesn't register with you?

And Truman came DAMN close to killing the USMC and the reason they exist to this day has less to do with the Navy and more to do with public opinion.

But he didn't because he couldn't. What ifs have to be substantially plausible.

But I'll go with your argument and assume the MC is gone. The Army would have invaded Inchon instead. They performed multiple landings in WWII, and frankly all sides were as ill trained as the other in 1950, and the Army would have taken up amphib operations.

You are seriously hung up on Truman getting rid of the Corp then the actual discussion of the thread.

Retitle it

What "If" Truman disbanded the USMC

 Jihadin wrote:
You are seriously hung up on Truman getting rid of the Corp then the actual discussion of the thread.

Retitle it

What "If" Truman disbanded the USMC

The Army would twirl its mustache and go "heh heh heh."
Chesty Puller would have had a freakout, kicked the Pentagon in the cojones, and done so many rage pushups he would have knocked the earth out of its solar orbit, sending us into an age of eternal darkness. All according to the Eldar's plan. Thanks Obama!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
You are seriously hung up on Truman getting rid of the Corp then the actual discussion of the thread.

Retitle it

What "If" Truman disbanded the USMC

The Army would twirl its mustache and go "heh heh heh."
Chesty Puller would have had a freakout, kicked the Pentagon in the cojones, and done so many rage pushups he would have knocked the earth out of its solar orbit, sending us into an age of eternal darkness. All according to the Eldar's plan. Thanks Obama!

On your lawn to Frazz

If the USMC was disbanded then it's almost certain the army would have modified it's role to take their place

It's inconceivable that an America that had had to conduct sea-land operations so recently would have gone

OK we can fight on the sea, we can fight on the land and we can fight in the air, but god help us if we have to fight on a beach, or dock or mudflat, if that happens we'll have to surrender

The army would have taken over the role wholesale and either recreated most of the USMC capabilities, or possibly gone for a less well trained 'general' capability that most army formations should be able to do

I think the more important "what if" is if McArthur had actually pulled a military coup instead of accepting being relieved of command? Wasn't there actually some worry about that, what with the President chewing out a popular military hero?

Spetulhu wrote:
I think the more important "what if" is if McArthur had actually pulled a military coup instead of accepting being relieved of command? Wasn't there actually some worry about that, what with the President chewing out a popular military hero?

That worry was actually if Macathur went ahead and pulled an attack on China like he wanted that Eisnehower was against


Today is not my dang day to spell

The other was Macauthur telling Eisenhower (POTUS) he was wrong in public domain.

Actual clash of command leadership