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.

Great idea for a thread! I don't have much to add because I know very little about the Korea War, but I'm looking forward to reading what you guys post.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
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?

The end of the USMC doesn't necessarily mean the end of US troops being trained in amphibious operations. Much like the Army has troops trained for specialist mountain and airborne troops, I'd have assumed the the Army would have absorbed the Marines as amphibious landing specialists.

I could be wrong, though? Or maybe part of it is you need a better level of integration with navy?

I never heard of the marines being in danger of being canned.

If it had happened, then either the Army would have done Inchon or in the worst case, there would have been a breakout from the Pusan perimeter.

The NK army was very badly depleted by the time of Inchon and would not have been able to offer very strong resistance.

Of course this would have required a long push up the length of the peninsula, which might have halted at the borderline instead of zooming up to the Chinese border and provoking them into the war.

Interesting thought. If no Inchon and they came back up the peninsula per KK would the Chinese had ended up entering the war?

The reason the Chinese entered the war was because we (the UN) got troops alarmingly far north on to the Imjin river at the border of NK and PRC. There were diplomatic signals from the PRC that they were unhappy with that situation but these were missed or ignored in the general excitement of the situation.

If the PRC had wanted to conquer SK they would have sent troops in much earlier and the US forces would have never managed to hold on at Pusan.

The obvious inference is that if the UN had reestablished the status quo ante bellum, the Chinese would have kept out of things.

 sebster wrote:
Great idea for a thread! I don't have much to add because I know very little about the Korea War, but I'm looking forward to reading what you guys post.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
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?

The end of the USMC doesn't necessarily mean the end of US troops being trained in amphibious operations. Much like the Army has troops trained for specialist mountain and airborne troops, I'd have assumed the the Army would have absorbed the Marines as amphibious landing specialists.

I could be wrong, though? Or maybe part of it is you need a better level of integration with navy?

You are right in the traditional sense that the Army would have eventually taken up amphibious operations. However, it is important to remember that directly following WWII was Truman's "Cutting of the Fat" campaign, designed at reducing wasteful military spending. As an example in 1945 the US Military had over 12 million people in uniform, by 1950 that number dropped to 1.4 million. Funding went from 557Billion in 1946 to 52billion in 1947. Training for all intents and purposes stopped do to lack of funding. One of the biggest problems faced by MacArthur when he sent the occupying divisions to Korea was that the equipment and personnel were under trained or in the case of the equipment broken due to lack of funds for maintenance. Any reorganization to incorporate an amphibious element would have been almost impossible. And as far as personnel transfers the US Army would have been more likely to keep current personnel instead of releasing them back into the general public.

Another good What If question would be what would have happened if China had entered the War with the North Koreans earlier in the war, say after the Inchon Landing?
Or
What if America/UN had listened to the Chinese Warnings and not advanced beyond the 38th Parallel and instead let only ROK forces push the North Koreans northward?

Would be the same results if UN forces let ROK military forces go beyond the 38th Parallel. North Korea would be on the verge of defeat and China would still send their "Volunteer" forces across the border. The idea of buffer state between them and the West is more appealing then actually having Western forces on their border. Also China I believe at that time was not at all "friendly" towards USSR.

They were mainly allied in the sense that they didn't like the US more than they disliked each other.

Inchon is one of those campaigns I like to study now and again, especially the background, and Macarthur's plea for the operation to go ahead. Stirring stuff, especially his quote about General Wolfe.

For me, Macarthur is America's greatest general. His Hollandia campaign in the Pacific is a thing of beauty.

I feel like changing my avatar back to MacArthur.

As for the title of the thread, what if Macarthur had launched attacks on the Chinese mainland? Or even brought in troops that Chaing Kai Shek offered?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Inchon is one of those campaigns I like to study now and again, especially the background, and Macarthur's plea for the operation to go ahead. Stirring stuff, especially his quote about General Wolfe.

For me, Macarthur is America's greatest general. His Hollandia campaign in the Pacific is a thing of beauty.

MacArthur was an asshat. Like the Phillipines he ignored warnings of an impending attack and got a lot of good people killed.

As for the title of the thread, what if Macarthur had launched attacks on the Chinese mainland? Or even brought in troops that Chaing Kai Shek offered?

Then the MPs would have him on the first plane out after his arrest was ordered by the President.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Inchon is one of those campaigns I like to study now and again, especially the background, and Macarthur's plea for the operation to go ahead. Stirring stuff, especially his quote about General Wolfe.

For me, Macarthur is America's greatest general. His Hollandia campaign in the Pacific is a thing of beauty.

MacArthur was an asshat. Like the Phillipines he ignored warnings of an impending attack and got a lot of good people killed.

As for the title of the thread, what if Macarthur had launched attacks on the Chinese mainland? Or even brought in troops that Chaing Kai Shek offered?

Then the MPs would have him on the first plane out after his arrest was ordered by the President.

If it were de facto, and expanded the war, maybe Truman would have no choice but to fight it?

If Truman had canned the USMC, like he should have, then Korea would have gone largely the same way it went. Just substitute USMC with US Army wherever relevant, but the narrative would read largely the same. The only great loss would be the loss of what is the best set of uniforms in the modern day DoD.

 Jihadin wrote:
Would be the same results if UN forces let ROK military forces go beyond the 38th Parallel. North Korea would be on the verge of defeat and China would still send their "Volunteer" forces across the border. The idea of buffer state between them and the West is more appealing then actually having Western forces on their border. Also China I believe at that time was not at all "friendly" towards USSR.

This was before the Sino-Soviet split. Stalin and Mao got along very good. In fact, Mao liked Stalin so much that the entire hostility between China and the Soviet Union came about because the Soviet Union denounced Stalin and his legacy after he died. Mao was not at all amused by that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Inchon is one of those campaigns I like to study now and again, especially the background, and Macarthur's plea for the operation to go ahead. Stirring stuff, especially his quote about General Wolfe.

For me, Macarthur is America's greatest general. His Hollandia campaign in the Pacific is a thing of beauty.

I feel like changing my avatar back to MacArthur.

Don't. MacArthur never even set foot in Korea during the war, and neither did he anything to stop the massacres carried out by South Korean forces. Also, it was MacArthur who ordered the complete destruction of North Korea by bombardment (also non-military targets) and he pardoned some of the worst Japanese war crimes in WW2 both of which also are not very ethical.

MacArthur had his moments as a commander in WW2 but politically he was massive liability and its a damn good thing he never got near the Whitehouse. Far too enthusiastic about potentially using nukes on the Chinese. Truman was right to sack him.

He's also the only commander to get the medal of honour for running away from a battlefield.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If Truman had canned the USMC, like he should have, then Korea would have gone largely the same way it went. Just substitute USMC with US Army wherever relevant, but the narrative would read largely the same. The only great loss would be the loss of what is the best set of uniforms in the modern day DoD.

I would refer you to the Chosin Reservoir Campaign and the battles fought round Pusan where even General Walker (Commanding General 8th Army) went on to say he could not have held the Pusan perimeter without the Marines. As far as Chosin Reservoir, 3 US Divisions were involved, the 2 Army Divisions were more then decimated and ran while the 1st Marines stood like a rock in the way of the Chinese River. I attribute this more to the fact that a lot of Marine combat veterans chose to make a career out of the Marines compared to the draftees that had filled out the Army after WWII

 sebster wrote:
Great idea for a thread! I don't have much to add because I know very little about the Korea War, but I'm looking forward to reading what you guys post.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
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?

The end of the USMC doesn't necessarily mean the end of US troops being trained in amphibious operations. Much like the Army has troops trained for specialist mountain and airborne troops, I'd have assumed the the Army would have absorbed the Marines as amphibious landing specialists.

I could be wrong, though? Or maybe part of it is you need a better level of integration with navy?

At the close of WW2, the Army had dozens of divisions trained and combat tested in Amphibious assaults. There would have been no shortage of veterans who could have filled that role in the US Army.

 djones520 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Great idea for a thread! I don't have much to add because I know very little about the Korea War, but I'm looking forward to reading what you guys post.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
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?

The end of the USMC doesn't necessarily mean the end of US troops being trained in amphibious operations. Much like the Army has troops trained for specialist mountain and airborne troops, I'd have assumed the the Army would have absorbed the Marines as amphibious landing specialists.

I could be wrong, though? Or maybe part of it is you need a better level of integration with navy?

At the close of WW2, the Army had dozens of divisions trained and combat tested in Amphibious assaults. There would have been no shortage of veterans who could have filled that role in the US Army.

I don't want to call you out but no they didn't. The entirety of the training for amphibious operations the US army had conducted was based on individual beaches and only 1 of those beaches was defended and it turned into a blood bath. The US army had almost zero experience in Amphibious operations around the time of the Korean was since most of those officers/men who participated in those earlier operations were either dead or retired. the US military at the start of the 50s was almost completely conscripted/drafted troops who we would have considered to be FNGs

Anzio, Normandy, French Riviera, Morocco, Salerno. From Europe alone.

The Pacific saw many Army Divisions make Amphibious Assaults as well. Aleutians, Marshal's, Phillipines, Okinawa, Anguar, and I could go on and on. Yeah, the Marines got all the glory, but there were still the "smallest" branch during the war. They made up a total of 1/16th the size of the Army, and I'm being generous with that number because I don't feel like getting a calculator out..

So don't worry, you aren't calling me out. Pretending like the Marines were the only guys in existence at the time who knew a thing about amphibious warfare is the cute thing. I mean seriously dude, the Army made more amphibious assaults in the Pacific then the Marines did. This is just basic historical fact. The knowledge was at hand. If they had decided to fold the USMC up, much of it would have rolled into the Army, and their combined expertise in the matter would have continued to live on.

 djones520 wrote:
Anzio, Normandy, French Riviera, Morocco, Salerno. From Europe alone.

The Pacific saw many Army Divisions make Amphibious Assaults as well. Aleutians, Marshal's, Phillipines, Okinawa, Anguar, and I could go on and on. Yeah, the Marines got all the glory, but there were still the "smallest" branch during the war. They made up a total of 1/16th the size of the Army, and I'm being generous with that number because I don't feel like getting a calculator out..

So don't worry, you aren't calling me out. Pretending like the Marines were the only guys in existence at the time who knew a thing about amphibious warfare is the cute thing. I mean seriously dude, the Army made more amphibious assaults in the Pacific then the Marines did. This is just basic historical fact. The knowledge was at hand. If they had decided to fold the USMC up, much of it would have rolled into the Army, and their combined expertise in the matter would have continued to live on.

And none of that training for amphibious operations existed prior to WWII except in the USMC and again post WWII it went out of existence, had the USMC folded I think that the Army would have used that as an excuse to retain a higher number of US army personnel and only taken on a small minority of USMC personnel with experience.

1 branch of the Military trains specifically for Ship to shore operations, Fact. only 1 Branch has/had Amphibious vehicles they were working on PRE WWII. A marine literally wrote the book on amphibious invasions. Im not glorifying the marines IM pointing out that if they had folded then the US army would not have had anywhere near sufficient numbers of trained soldiers in place to carry out the Inchon landing and it would have had to be moved somewhere else. MacArthur even went ahead and pointed out that he wanted the 1st Marines to make the landing.

Marines = Storm Troopers (German language)
Army = Heavy Infantry/Paratroopers.

Little known fact. All USMC divisions are listed as "Light" Divisions.

No USMC? Korea plays out largely the same. Maybe alittle bloodier and messier, but lets not pretend that anything other than the chinese intervention saved the DPRK.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
No USMC? Korea plays out largely the same. Maybe alittle bloodier and messier, but lets not pretend that anything other than the chinese intervention saved the DPRK.

I was hoping for a bit more specifics overall but I agree generally

what is your opinion though on what would have happened if the Chinese had entered the war from the start?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If Truman had canned the USMC, like he should have, then Korea would have gone largely the same way it went. Just substitute USMC with US Army wherever relevant, but the narrative would read largely the same. The only great loss would be the loss of what is the best set of uniforms in the modern day DoD.

I would refer you to the Chosin Reservoir Campaign and the battles fought round Pusan where even General Walker (Commanding General 8th Army) went on to say he could not have held the Pusan perimeter without the Marines. As far as Chosin Reservoir, 3 US Divisions were involved, the 2 Army Divisions were more then decimated and ran while the 1st Marines stood like a rock in the way of the Chinese River. I attribute this more to the fact that a lot of Marine combat veterans chose to make a career out of the Marines compared to the draftees that had filled out the Army after WWII

One would assume that many USMC vets would have been rolled into the Army. People also forget that there were 2 Army regiments at Chosin (and a unit of Royal Marines) with the Marines. One of which, the understrength RCT-31 (aka Task Force Faith) was long vilified for the USMC for being 'cowardly' until declassified Chinese documents revealed precisely why the unit had been effectively destroyed, and that it had inflicted extremely heavy casualties on the two Chinese divisions that were attacking it in the process, and thus successfully defended the Marines right flank, preventing them from being overrun and trapped by the Chinese (who would have otherwise been able to cut off the only route out of the reservoir), and thus saving the 1st Marine Division from capture and/or total destruction. Yes, the Marines are the 'heroes' of Chosin, but only because an Army RCT sacrificed itself to allow them to survive long enough to do so.

1 branch of the Military trains specifically for Ship to shore operations, Fact.

False. The Army actually has more ships than the Navy for this reason, and certain units do train to conduct those ops, though granted its not as widespread or common as with the USMC.

A marine literally wrote the book on amphibious invasions.

And an Airman wrote the Marines book on maneuver warfare. Your point?

Hell a German wrote the book of armor warfare.

As for the USMC unit that was in the pocket it was Walker QRF unit running around shoring up the main points of attacks of the North Koreans.
The other was Aug-Sept time frame where the armor of North Korea was restricted to main road network being most the flat ground was rice paddies.
If they would have launch their attack in Dec-Jan time frame (North Korea) it would have been game over


Edit

I would happily engage in a what if discussion with anyone who is more interested in the Korean War itself instead of USMC/US Army BS

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Great idea for a thread! I don't have much to add because I know very little about the Korea War, but I'm looking forward to reading what you guys post.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
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?

The end of the USMC doesn't necessarily mean the end of US troops being trained in amphibious operations. Much like the Army has troops trained for specialist mountain and airborne troops, I'd have assumed the the Army would have absorbed the Marines as amphibious landing specialists.

I could be wrong, though? Or maybe part of it is you need a better level of integration with navy?

At the close of WW2, the Army had dozens of divisions trained and combat tested in Amphibious assaults. There would have been no shortage of veterans who could have filled that role in the US Army.

I don't want to call you out but no they didn't. The entirety of the training for amphibious operations the US army had conducted was based on individual beaches and only 1 of those beaches was defended and it turned into a blood bath. The US army had almost zero experience in Amphibious operations around the time of the Korean was since most of those officers/men who participated in those earlier operations were either dead or retired. the US military at the start of the 50s was almost completely conscripted/drafted troops who we would have considered to be FNGs

What? The US Army had landed in Africa, Sicily, two landings in Italy and two landings in France. Thats just Europe.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Great idea for a thread! I don't have much to add because I know very little about the Korea War, but I'm looking forward to reading what you guys post.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
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?

The end of the USMC doesn't necessarily mean the end of US troops being trained in amphibious operations. Much like the Army has troops trained for specialist mountain and airborne troops, I'd have assumed the the Army would have absorbed the Marines as amphibious landing specialists.

I could be wrong, though? Or maybe part of it is you need a better level of integration with navy?

At the close of WW2, the Army had dozens of divisions trained and combat tested in Amphibious assaults. There would have been no shortage of veterans who could have filled that role in the US Army.

I don't want to call you out but no they didn't. The entirety of the training for amphibious operations the US army had conducted was based on individual beaches and only 1 of those beaches was defended and it turned into a blood bath. The US army had almost zero experience in Amphibious operations around the time of the Korean was since most of those officers/men who participated in those earlier operations were either dead or retired. the US military at the start of the 50s was almost completely conscripted/drafted troops who we would have considered to be FNGs

What? The US Army had landed in Africa, Sicily, two landings in Italy and two landings in France. Thats just Europe.

I feel justified in saying that Africa, in fact, is not in Europe.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
No USMC? Korea plays out largely the same. Maybe alittle bloodier and messier, but lets not pretend that anything other than the chinese intervention saved the DPRK.

I was hoping for a bit more specifics overall but I agree generally

what is your opinion though on what would have happened if the Chinese had entered the war from the start?

What's your definition of "from the start?" From the DPRK's initial invasion? From the moment Americans engaged with TF Smith? Would the Chinese be at Pusan? How many Chinese? Are you talking about the Chinese crossing the border as soon as Inchon happens?

If the Chinese attack along with the DPRK at the outset of the war in the numbers they would later commit then it's game over barring the use of atomic weapons or a much more massive commitment of American resources to the fight. I would imagine that the PLA would have had the manpower to properly secure their supply lines and that might have made an Inchon impossible.

If the Chinese cross the border in numbers as soon as Inchon happens then I don't think UN forces cross the 38th.

Also, I'd point out that the Marines lost a ton of men at any defended beach in the Pacific. Training or no, Amphibious assaults on prepared positions are bloodbaths.

Japanese had time and everything at hand to make an island a fortress. No amount of preparation bombardment from naval warships and ordinance deliver by aircraft's created a "safe" landing beach. Only time a "safe" landing beach happen is when the IJA let the USMC establish a beachhead and after awhile cut loose with artillery. Not much room on the beach to the front lines to stockpile needed supplies and ammo. Basically they let it get congested and then "bang for bucks" happens.

On 27 June 1950, two days after the KPA invaded and three months before the Chinese entered the war, President Truman dispatched the United States Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Strait, to prevent hostilities between the Nationalist Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China (PRC).[169][170] On 4 August 1950, with the PRC invasion of Taiwan aborted, Mao Zedong reported to the Politburo that he would intervene in Korea when the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) Taiwan invasion force was reorganized into the PLA North East Frontier Force. China justified its entry into the war as a response to "American aggression in the guise of the UN".[171]

On 20 August 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai informed the UN that "Korea is China's neighbor... The Chinese people cannot but be concerned about a solution of the Korean question". Thus, through neutral-country diplomats, China warned that in safeguarding Chinese national security, they would intervene against the UN Command in Korea.[168] President Truman interpreted the communication as "a bald attempt to blackmail the UN", and dismissed it

Over confidence big time.

Earlier I had a mix up with Truman and Eisenhower My bad

chaos0xomega wrote:

1 branch of the Military trains specifically for Ship to shore operations, Fact.

False. The Army actually has more ships than the Navy for this reason, and certain units do train to conduct those ops, though granted its not as widespread or common as with the USMC.

A marine literally wrote the book on amphibious invasions.

And an Airman wrote the Marines book on maneuver warfare. Your point?

What kind of ships does the Army have for amphibious operations? I know that the Army operates ships, but do they have equivalent capabilities to what the Navy uses to conduct amphibious operations with the USMC?

And, not to speak for Ghazkuul, but I think his point is that the Marines, being the force primarily used for amphibious operations, were the primary developers of doctrine and training methods for amphibious operations. That's not to say that the Army didn't participate significantly in amphibious operations during WWII (obviously, we all know they did) but that doesn't change the fact that it is what the USMC specializes in, and was the primary advocate for amphibious operations and the development of amphibious doctrine at a time (pre-WWII) when the general opinion within the Army was that they were uninterested in developing amphibious doctrine and thought that it wasn't viable. Had the USMC not already developed their ideas and methods for amphibious operations prior to WW2, the Army would likely have been behind the curve a bit if they had had to develop everything on the fly after the war had already started.

 LuciusAR wrote:
MacArthur had his moments as a commander in WW2 but politically he was massive liability and its a damn good thing he never got near the Whitehouse. Far too enthusiastic about potentially using nukes on the Chinese. Truman was right to sack him.

He's also the only commander to get the medal of honour for running away from a battlefield.

He risked life and limb numerous times in WW1. I don't think his bravery has ever been called into question, and if it has, IMO it's unjustified.

Yes, he was flawed. William Manchester did a first class biography on him if you're interested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Would be the same results if UN forces let ROK military forces go beyond the 38th Parallel. North Korea would be on the verge of defeat and China would still send their "Volunteer" forces across the border. The idea of buffer state between them and the West is more appealing then actually having Western forces on their border. Also China I believe at that time was not at all "friendly" towards USSR.

This was before the Sino-Soviet split. Stalin and Mao got along very good. In fact, Mao liked Stalin so much that the entire hostility between China and the Soviet Union came about because the Soviet Union denounced Stalin and his legacy after he died. Mao was not at all amused by that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Inchon is one of those campaigns I like to study now and again, especially the background, and Macarthur's plea for the operation to go ahead. Stirring stuff, especially his quote about General Wolfe.

For me, Macarthur is America's greatest general. His Hollandia campaign in the Pacific is a thing of beauty.

I feel like changing my avatar back to MacArthur.

Don't. MacArthur never even set foot in Korea during the war, and neither did he anything to stop the massacres carried out by South Korean forces. Also, it was MacArthur who ordered the complete destruction of North Korea by bombardment (also non-military targets) and he pardoned some of the worst Japanese war crimes in WW2 both of which also are not very ethical.

You are aware that the entire concept of warfare is unethical, not to mention illogical?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
MacArthur had his moments as a commander in WW2 but politically he was massive liability and its a damn good thing he never got near the Whitehouse. Far too enthusiastic about potentially using nukes on the Chinese. Truman was right to sack him.

He's also the only commander to get the medal of honour for running away from a battlefield.

He risked life and limb numerous times in WW1. I don't think his bravery has ever been called into question, and if it has, IMO it's unjustified.

Yes, he was flawed. William Manchester did a first class biography on him if you're interested.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Would be the same results if UN forces let ROK military forces go beyond the 38th Parallel. North Korea would be on the verge of defeat and China would still send their "Volunteer" forces across the border. The idea of buffer state between them and the West is more appealing then actually having Western forces on their border. Also China I believe at that time was not at all "friendly" towards USSR.

This was before the Sino-Soviet split. Stalin and Mao got along very good. In fact, Mao liked Stalin so much that the entire hostility between China and the Soviet Union came about because the Soviet Union denounced Stalin and his legacy after he died. Mao was not at all amused by that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Inchon is one of those campaigns I like to study now and again, especially the background, and Macarthur's plea for the operation to go ahead. Stirring stuff, especially his quote about General Wolfe.

For me, Macarthur is America's greatest general. His Hollandia campaign in the Pacific is a thing of beauty.

I feel like changing my avatar back to MacArthur.

Don't. MacArthur never even set foot in Korea during the war, and neither did he anything to stop the massacres carried out by South Korean forces. Also, it was MacArthur who ordered the complete destruction of North Korea by bombardment (also non-military targets) and he pardoned some of the worst Japanese war crimes in WW2 both of which also are not very ethical.

You are aware that the entire concept of warfare is unethical, not to mention illogical?

There are degrees of being unethical. War is part of human nature, it is not illogical or unethical by default. However, targeting noncombatants or not stopping the massacre of innocent people certainly is unethical.
From what I have read about him, MacArthur was a great general, but not a great person.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
If Truman had canned the USMC, like he should have, then Korea would have gone largely the same way it went. Just substitute USMC with US Army wherever relevant, but the narrative would read largely the same. The only great loss would be the loss of what is the best set of uniforms in the modern day DoD.

I would refer you to the Chosin Reservoir Campaign and the battles fought round Pusan where even General Walker (Commanding General 8th Army) went on to say he could not have held the Pusan perimeter without the Marines. As far as Chosin Reservoir, 3 US Divisions were involved, the 2 Army Divisions were more then decimated and ran while the 1st Marines stood like a rock in the way of the Chinese River. I attribute this more to the fact that a lot of Marine combat veterans chose to make a career out of the Marines compared to the draftees that had filled out the Army after WWII

One would assume that many USMC vets would have been rolled into the Army. People also forget that there were 2 Army regiments at Chosin (and a unit of Royal Marines) with the Marines. One of which, the understrength RCT-31 (aka Task Force Faith) was long vilified for the USMC for being 'cowardly' until declassified Chinese documents revealed precisely why the unit had been effectively destroyed, and that it had inflicted extremely heavy casualties on the two Chinese divisions that were attacking it in the process, and thus successfully defended the Marines right flank, preventing them from being overrun and trapped by the Chinese (who would have otherwise been able to cut off the only route out of the reservoir), and thus saving the 1st Marine Division from capture and/or total destruction. Yes, the Marines are the 'heroes' of Chosin, but only because an Army RCT sacrificed itself to allow them to survive long enough to do so.

1 branch of the Military trains specifically for Ship to shore operations, Fact.

False. The Army actually has more ships than the Navy for this reason, and certain units do train to conduct those ops, though granted its not as widespread or common as with the USMC.

A marine literally wrote the book on amphibious invasions.

And an Airman wrote the Marines book on maneuver warfare. Your point?

None of the books I have ever read vilified the US armies 31st and 32nd Infantry regiments that made up the 7th ID at the time. All the criticism was placed firmly on the shoulders of MG Almond Command general of X Corps and on MacArthur's Intelligence chief General Willoughby for failure to listen to on the ground assessments and instead operated on what they wanted to believe was happening. And I don't know of any criticism from anyone directed at the Royal Marines....ever!

As far as Army ships....nope that is a flat out lie, the US army operates a grand total of 50 ships from 5 different classes almost all are below 200ft. A number of these are Tugs and all are aging and not designed for the landing of amphibious forces until AFTER combat has move out of the area. the US Navy in comparison operates a significantly larger number of ships of similar capabilities, and some that are literally 5-8 times bigger but still carry out the same mission.