I'm looking to put together some forces for the Korean War, particularly after watching an inspirational documentary about
the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir. Probably going to use the Cold War Commander rules.
I'm just wondering whether anyone is aware of any kind of source book or on line site that provides organisation details for
both sides.
I've found a number of separate documents which provide some information about the Chinese PLA forces and indicate that
it was overwhelmingly infantry based. This useful summary was taken from the Civilisation web site :
"The Chinese Division was pretty bare-boned, usually consisting of 3 infantry regiments of 3000 men each, an artillery battalion
and miscellaneous other troops (which added up to about 10000 men nominally in each Division). Each infantry regiment in turn
usually had three infantry battalions, plus (sometimes) an artillery company, a mortar company, a transportation company, a guard
company, and a recon and signal unit. Each infantry battalion in turn had three rifle companies. Each rifle company in turn had
three rifle platoons, a heavy-weapons platoon with 60mm mortars and rocket launchers, and three machine-gun squads."
The new Korean War Pendrakens are luring me in... Any experience out there in building armies for this war ?
Phil
Hi Phi, first thanks for opening the topic.
Your research findings regarding the Chinese are correct. It was an infantry orientated army- which assisted its infiltration into the war zone.
Personally I favour BKC rules - but rules are a personal thing. Leon - last time we chatted - is minded to go for a custom Korean supplement, which will be downloadable.
I am experimenting with railway scenery "mountains" - given like "jungles", such terrain is, by the nature of the table, representative.
A few pieces of mountain with "passes" work well. The rest can be represented by gentle contoured hills of poly. From table level to peak - say 3". My Boxing day Bush war will for trial Korean hills.
Troops. At the end of the day what you put on the table will be governed by one of two principles : -
1. It will be a skirmish game representing a small corner/sector of the battlefield. Korea is good for this. American war movies seem to major on the isolated company/platoon facing perhaps one T34.
OR
2. It will be scaled down to represent a major engagement.
Personally I prefer option 1. But its again personal choice. Korean war games will evolve their own culture, just as WW1 &WW2. And remember it is a war of stages. For me its the opening North Korean attack and the frantic battles around Pusan. Others will opt for the classical amphib landings at Inchon . And there will be others like you who will have good games around the Chosin scenario.
We need to clarify elements like PLA morale for sustained "short attacks" - wrongly described as "human wave". Analysis by Roy Appleman would revise the tactical doctrine to be closer to WW1 Stormtroops. Kevin Mahoney Formidable enemies (2001) is a well researched study and a good start to understand PLA tactical doctrine.
Thank you for the quick response - much appreciated.
I would be very happy to try out the BKC rules, particularly if there is going to
be a Korea supplement. From the little I have read, it does appear to have
its own unique themes which would need to be brought out, not the least
of which are the incredibly difficult terrain and properly reflecting the abilities
of the Chinese infantry.
Looking forward to reading about the conflict and expect to apply some
serious brushwork next year. It certainly looks as though there is substantial
insipration out there in the form of both US and Chinese films.
Phil
Hi Phil
The documentary on Chosin is really good. Books wise I'd recommend Max Hastings 'The Korean War' for a great overview of the conflict. Also Andrew Salmon 'to the last round' which is an excellent account of imjin battle.
Currently I'm focusing on the early stages - north Korean advance and UN breakout from Pusan - opportunity for tank on tank action (t34 blowing up Chaffees then being blown up by Pershing's/cents).
I'll be doing winter Chinese later including chosin.
Matt
I will look forward to the eye candy of Matt J with envy and admiration !
As I research Korea, the Easy Eight Sherman gets a reconsideration. Its not the sad vunerable "Zippo" of WW2, instead with very effective HVAP ammo and superior fire control (the M70/83 series optics) married to the M19 Azimuth - added to UN crews being trained/skilled to use this technology effectively - and the Sherman is more than a match for the much vaunted T34/85.
Its also has to be appreciated that the North Korean tanks were well worn WW2 mounts and not well maintained. Add a third world crew who often lacked literacy and western levels of training.
The M4A3(76)W is credited with destroying no less than 41 T34/85s in the period July-Nov 1950. Indeed Zaloga goes on to claim that the old Sherman is the crew preferred tank 'in later phases of the war', due to easy drive/maintenance. However, by the later phases of the war, tanks were reduced to self propelled artillery, so crew preference may not be based on the Sherman as a battle tank. :)