As I progress (slowly) with the proposed BKCIV Korean War supplement I am finding that for a relatively short and relatively recent conflict, there is a lot of unsubstantiated misinformation about the arms used by various of the combatants.
Leave aside the oddity of some other sets of wargames rules/list that have the US forces using Stuart light tanks (for example) - which they did not - although other sources also claim that the North Koreans and PVA did (or did they?) - the issue of the communist armour is also very blurred.
That the main communist tank was the Soviet supplied T34-85 - used by both North Korean and PLA/PVA forces - is not in doubt but I am discovering sources claiming that the North Koreans used both ISU-152s and also IS-2 M1944 (PVA) along with M4A2E8 76 mm with HVSS Sherman Emcha (ex-US lease-lend WW2 stock) as well.
That SU-76s and SU-100's were used is not in doubt as there is US photographic evidence of US Marines inspecting a destroyed North Korean SU-100 and records of captured SU-76s.
But I am in serious doubt about the IS--2 - as records indicate that the PLA only obtained the 60 that they had between 1950 & 51 but surely if they were deployed in Korea there would have been a much greater 'fuss' made about them from the UN side of things.
Likewise, with the ISU-152 these would have been prized assets if indeed they were ever deployed in Korean - but were they used in combat or just in their artillery role (if they were there at all)?
All thoughts & comments welcomed
Mark
Mark since the Chinese were in theory civiklian volenteers the PLA deployed no armour to Korea. All the types you have mentioned were in service with PLA, as were Type 89's taken from the Japanese, although they may have been scraped by 1950, but were certainly in use during the civil war. To balance Korean lists I have often inculded SU-76 and T34/85, using the pretext they have been borrowed from the NKA (and yes I know that all NKA armour was dead by end of 1950). The use of M5 Stuarts by UN forces is possible, but very unlikley. The French certainly had them, but in Indo-China, not Korea. South Korea only had M8 Greyhounds as far as I can tell. We used Churchill Crocs - nom flame trailer, Cromwells, and Cent 3, the US took M24, M26, and a few M46, alongside M4A3E8, and M4A3 105 + flamethrowers. The Canadians (Priincess Patricas Lt Horse) arrived witrh M36 which wwere rapidly swaped for Easy Eights.
Remember - photographic evidence is always suspect.
Cheers Ian S
Helpful - as always - Ian :D
I've seen docu footage 'reportedly' of Chinese infantry in Korea charging across fields with M5's in support. But not read any accounts of them used against UN forces.
Similarly IS-2, a few stories of them being used against British positions, also stories of ones being found knocked out, but nothing concrete.
On saying that my Chinese forces will have both available :D (I'm assuming they'll be in the lists?)
Matt
I have also read that PVA infantry formations, towards the end of the war, had T343-85s attached to them - in very small number - but again getting any kind of solid intelligence to prove that is proving surprisingly difficult.
As to whether the Chinese forces will have IS-2s in the list - for now I will "plead the 5th" but if they do it would be in very low numbers :D
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/60/52/dc/6052dc558eb98932ac974ac9048871b8.jpg)
https://www.quora.com/What-if-IS-2-or-IS-3-tanks-rather-than-T34-85s-had-faced-American-Pershing-tanks-in-the-Korean-War-in-1950 (https://www.quora.com/What-if-IS-2-or-IS-3-tanks-rather-than-T34-85s-had-faced-American-Pershing-tanks-in-the-Korean-War-in-1950)
IS2's ... but low numbers. 20?
From a source I've forgotten, Chinese translated into English I believe:
The Chinese, according to the Chinese, deployed elements of the 2nd Tank Division into Korea:
"2nd Tank Division, November 1950:
Division HQ (Commander Xiao Feng, Political Commissioner Wang Shiren)
- Recon Battalion.
- Engineering Battalion
- AAA Battalion
- Transport Battalion
- Medical Battalion
- Communication Company
- Military Police Company
- Repair and Maintenance Depot
- Field Hospital
3rd Tank Regiment
4th Tank Regiment
Motorized Infantry Regiment (former 258th Regiment)
Mobile Artillery Regiment (former 306th Regiment) "
"Korean War Period:
On November 11th, 1950, two Soviet Tank Regiments; one from the Ukraine Security Guards and the other from the Moscow Guards arrived in Xuzhou and transferred their equipment to the 2nd Tank Division en masse. Both the 3rd and 4th Tank Regiments received 30 T-34 tanks, six IS-2 heavy tanks, four ISU 122mm self-propelled guns, and two T-34 armored recovery variants each. The Mobile Artillery Regiment received one battalion of twelve ISU-122 and two battalions of twelve 76.2mm field guns and soon they were dispatched to the Korean War. Much as had been the pattern during the Chinese Civil War, in Korea the 2nd Tank Division was not employed as a whole unit, but rather split out to serve as infantry support units performing fire support tasks.
2nd Tank Division's 3rd Tank Regiment, AAA Regiment, and Engineering Regiment entered Korea on May 30th, 1951 and saw action by June as a support element of the 39th and 43rd Army. They claimed two tank kills and one damaged in 18 engagements but were almost wiped out by UN forces at the same time. The 3rd Tank regiment left Korea on July 20th 1952 and returned back to Xuzhou on August 1st. The following year the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Company of the 3rd Tank Regiment took part in the 1953 National Day Parade in Tiananmen Square.
The 4th Tank Regiment arrived in Korea on June 27th 1952 as a replacement for the 3rd and had a better combat performance while supporting the 23rd and 38th Army. As an example, in eight engagements Tank Number 215, a T-34, claimed five tank kills and one damaged. In addition, it was credited with 26 bunkers, nine artillery pieces and one truck destroyed. As a result, Tank 215 was honored as a "People's Heroic Tank" in July 1952 and is currently in display at the Tank Museum in Beijing.
Both the Motorized Infantry Regiment and Mobile Artillery Regiment were deployed to Korea on Feb 15th, 1953, and served as mobile defense units to guard against a possible UN amphibious or airborne operation into China's supply route into Korea and saw no action. On May 1953, they were ordered to the front to support the 23rd and 24th Army during the Battle of Seoul. The AAA Regiment returned back to Xuzhou on May 19th 1954, and the Mobile Artillery Regiment on December 9th 1954. On March 30th, 1955, the Motorized Infantry Regiment took on elements of 13 companies from the 12th, 20th, and 57th Army to reconstitute its former strength. It was placed under the command of Jinan Military Region on July 1st, 1955. "
in addition, elements of the 1st Armoured Division were committed:
1st, 2nd Armoured Regiment, 1 Motorised Regiment in about May 1951
Also committed was the 6th Independent Armoured Regiment about this time.
"Elements of PLA 3rd Tank Division arrived in Korea in June 1952. Its 4th, 5th and 6th Tank Regiments relieved 1st, 2nd and 3rd Tank Regiments in June, while its 2nd Independent Tank
Regiment relieved 1st Independent Tank Regiment in October."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_People%27s_Volunteer_Army_order_of_battle&oldid=910212156
The Chinese did use M5A1 Stuarts, taken from the Nationalists, but it is not known they used them in Korea. The footage of them in action is also reported as from the civil war.
Perhaps you should be distinguishing between Chinese and North Korean armour, rather than lumping them together as "communist". I presume you're doing separate North Korean and Chinese lists?
Photographic evidence shows the Is-2 the Chinese received were a mix of Is-2 and Is-2m, although that probably doesn't make any difference in BKC/CWC terms.
In BKC terms, a Chinese Tank Regiment would be:
RHQ CV8 (T-34/85)
1 Battalion: 1x Is-2 (2 if you want to be generous!)
3 Battalions@ (1 optional HQ CV7)
3 Companies@ 1x T-34/85
1 Battery: 1x ISU-122
Like the North Koreans, they over-reported the unit sizes, a battalion being a mere 10x T-34/85 in the Chinese case. Although doctrinally they seem to have allocated them out as infantry support, so a whole unit of Chinese armour would be rare.
Mark
Have you tried the CIA? I kid you not!
Their Korean War intel documents are now declassified and on line. www.cia.gov
A student's essey I was marking quoted such a reference in the footnotes. :)
Quote from: sultanbev on 05 October 2020, 05:12:22 PM
Perhaps you should be distinguishing between Chinese and North Korean armour, rather than lumping them together as "communist". I presume you're doing separate North Korean and Chinese lists?
Photographic evidence shows the Is-2 the Chinese received were a mix of Is-2 and Is-2m, although that probably doesn't make any difference in BKC/CWC terms.
Like the North Koreans, they over-reported the unit sizes, a battalion being a mere 10x T-34/85 in the Chinese case. Although doctrinally they seem to have allocated them out as infantry support, so a whole unit of Chinese armour would be rare.
Mark
Thanks Mark, the intention is to produce separate list for the PVA and the later 'official' PLA force, as well as North Koreans (& North Korean guerrilla forces). And with the UN - whilst 90%+ of the forces were US we'll produce separate lists for the other UN nations that can be added as allied contingents to the US lists - or which can be fielded seperately along with the various South Korean formations. So lots of interesting variety.
Cheers
Mark
Quote from: Sunray on 05 October 2020, 07:24:52 PM
Have you tried the CIA? I kid you not!
Their Korean War intel documents are now declassified and on line. www.cia.gov
A student's essey I was marking quoted such a reference in the footnotes. :)
Excellent idea - although a lot of their Intelligence was so way off as to be almost fantasy :D
Yes, looking at this one
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp82-00457r009700460008-1
considers the 2 Chinese armoured divisions to be equipped with:
260x KV-1, 300x KV-2, 300x T-38 medium tanks whatever they are(!), 100x MT-21 light tanks, 150 flamethrower and rocket tanks ;D ;D ;D ;D
Later it says the CHinese deployed into Korea:
120x T-34, 160x SF-24 tanks (?), 200x LF-18 light tanks (???) and 80x KV-2.
:D
"T-38 medium tanks whatever they are"
Russian WW2 era amphibious recon tanks. 1500 made apparently. Mostly armed with the 7.62mm DT machine gun, some were upgraded to carry the 20 mm ShVAK cannon.
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/T-38_tank
Quote from: Ithoriel on 05 October 2020, 11:10:05 PM
"T-38 medium tanks whatever they are"
Russian WW2 era amphibious recon tanks. 1500 made apparently. Mostly armed with the 7.62mm DT machine gun, some were upgraded to carry the 20 mm ShVAK cannon.
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/T-38_tank
Well clarified ! Ithoriel is on the ball.
Yes, any "agency" primary source such as early CIA should be treated with caution. Intelligence agencies play their own games and their own agenda. We learned that in Ulster.
If however they had photographic images taken in Korea killing grounds with date/location it would be neat. I recall when researching weapons for Leon I came across a US Military G2 report which was on the money. It was early war, so only T34/85s featured. In the latter stages of the war, MTBs were reduced to static artillery.
Quote from: sultanbev on 05 October 2020, 09:40:17 PM
considers the 2 Chinese armoured divisions to be equipped with:
260x KV-1, 300x KV-2, 300x T-38 medium tanks whatever they are(!), 100x MT-21 light tanks, 150 flamethrower and rocket tanks ;D ;D ;D ;D
Later it says the CHinese deployed into Korea:
120x T-34, 160x SF-24 tanks (?), 200x LF-18 light tanks (???) and 80x KV-2.
:D
Can anyone manage an English translation of this?
80 KV-2s .... of the 203 produced? Given the number abandoned due to mechanical failure or lack of fuel and those knocked out, during the Great Patriotic War, I'd be surprised if there were 8 left to send, let alone 80!.
How many were built between 1945 and 1948?
Quote from: mad lemmey on 06 October 2020, 06:19:21 PM
How many were built between 1945 and 1948?
Zero!. I have recently found a company of KV-2 were used at Kursk, but apart from an odd German one overrun in 1945, they didn't see service after that.
I suspect the "80x KV-2" refers to Is-2 tanks. As for SF-24, LF-18, NT-21 and T-38 medium tanks, well, your guess is as good as mine.
Mark
There is one in a picture of the Russian advamce into Manchuria. OK pictorial evidence is dodgy, but in thgis case the amount of German transport in the foreground would seem to point to it being accurate.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 07 October 2020, 06:23:03 AM
There is one in a picture of the Russian advamce into Manchuria. OK pictorial evidence is dodgy, but in thgis case the amount of German transport in the foreground would seem to point to it being accurate.
Eh? If the Soviet tank is advancing into Manchuria, why would there be German equipment lying around?
Which advance into Manchuria? Nomonhan in 1939 or the 1945 push?
Lot's of Soviet armour in Manchukuo in '39 and plenty of KV-2s in service.
On the other hand German transport would suggest it was taken after the German surrender.
The KV-2 entered production in 1940, so none served in the 1939 war against the Japanese.
I think Ian's post refers to lots of German transport captured in 1944-45, that was transferred to the far east when whole units moved across for the 1945 offensive against the Japanese. I think I've seen the photo he refers to, although it's not definitive proof.
Of more interest would be the uparmoured BT-7 that were used in the 1945 offensive, that had 35mm-ish plates added on frontally.
Adds nowt to our discussion on Chinese armour in Korea :)
Mark
The german kit was captured stuff being pressed into service, Opel Blitz and buses. It's definately 45, there are T34/85 in evidence.
Quote from: Big Insect on 05 October 2020, 08:12:55 AM
As I progress (slowly) with the proposed BKCIV Korean War supplement I am finding that for a relatively short and relatively recent conflict, there is a lot of unsubstantiated misinformation about the arms used by various of the combatants.
Leave aside the oddity of some other sets of wargames rules/list that have the US forces using Stuart light tanks (for example) - which they did not - although other sources also claim that the North Koreans and PVA did (or did they?) - the issue of the communist armour is also very blurred.
That the main communist tank was the Soviet supplied T34-85 - used by both North Korean and PLA/PVA forces - is not in doubt but I am discovering sources claiming that the North Koreans used both ISU-152s and also IS-2 M1944 (PVA) along with M4A2E8 76 mm with HVSS Sherman Emcha (ex-US lease-lend WW2 stock) as well.
That SU-76s and SU-100's were used is not in doubt as there is US photographic evidence of US Marines inspecting a destroyed North Korean SU-100 and records of captured SU-76s.
But I am in serious doubt about the IS--2 - as records indicate that the PLA only obtained the 60 that they had between 1950 & 51 but surely if they were deployed in Korea there would have been a much greater 'fuss' made about them from the UN side of things.
Likewise, with the ISU-152 these would have been prized assets if indeed they were ever deployed in Korean - but were they used in combat or just in their artillery role (if they were there at all)?
All thoughts & comments welcomed
Mark
Hi Mark
Can I make a tabletop suggestion?
The main rules confined to the kit we can confirm was used. And a few columns dealing with "game optional/what might have been" kit - had it been deployed. These also relevant to the dawn of the Cold War. I mean contemporary kit like the Comet, IS2, and ISU-152. It gives the rules a bit more stretch and at the same time keeps the purists happy.
In reality - from combats reports - the Centurion was able to "swan" around the battlefield.
Best wishes
James
A sound plan Sunray :D
I am also looking at what other specific rules/mechanisms we can incorporate.
- Napalm is one of them - but we have the basic mechanism for that from CWC anyway
- static smoke projectors is another - which I have adapted from my Great War Commander tinkering's
- specifics for amphibious coastal assaults - which might also be helpful for BCKIV and CWC as well
- scenarios in deep cold weather conditions might be another
But other thoughts are all welcomed
Mark
Beware inculding too much kit, Churchills lasted til the late 60's in the Irish army, Comets til the mid 80's ? in the Finnish and Burmese armies. OK lists for the Irish and Burmese armies are unlikley but the Finns should be.
A few more lines in the AVF column ? Bring it on! It will help sell the rules if a bit of 1950s Very Early Cold War is now playable. It will also shift Pendraken kit from this era.
I like the idea of some 'might have' kit included in the lists.
Quote from: Steve J on 13 October 2020, 05:59:19 AM
I like the idea of some 'might have' kit included in the lists.
Me too, but that's probably best left for CWC2. Things like T-29, T-32, T-34, T-43, Is-7, FV215 gun carrier, etc are probably too powerful for the WW2 stats. If your BKC Tiger II is 6 hits at 3 to save, tanks with even better armour and bigger guns will end up at with A/T 8/100 and 6-8 hits at 2 to save, which like post-Cold War M1A2, T-80U, Challenger 2 in CWC1, distorts the game too much. In other words, both rules sets have finite limits due to the way the number of hits, saves, and attack dice interact.
The authors of CWC2 and BKC4 will have to consider the overlaps - there will be WW2 kit used in the Cold War era, but they will have different stats, in effect the stats all being relative within each rules set. So where do you do the cut-off? If all wars and potential cold wars up to 1953 are covered by BKC4, that still leaves a lot of WW2 kit in a 1956 CWC2 game for example.
Certainly the early Cold War is an interesting area to game, and 1956 Cold War is something I'm building 10mm armies for; as it allows WW2 gamers to venture into moderns whilst still being able to use a lot of their WW2 models, even German ones.
As for models, Pendraken should perhaps start looking at future 3D printing for the what-ifs and "they only built a few of", I'm picking up lots of alternative WW2 models through 3D printing companies, (although some can't do 1/160 models for 10mm gaming, the smallest they do is 1/100 for 15mm gaming)
Mark
Quote from: sultanbev on 13 October 2020, 09:33:12 AM
The authors of CWC2 and BKC4 will have to consider the overlaps - there will be WW2 kit used in the Cold War era, but they will have different stats, in effect the stats all being relative within each rules set. So where do you do the cut-off? If all wars and potential cold wars up to 1953 are covered by BKC4, that still leaves a lot of WW2 kit in a 1956 CWC2 game for example.
Mark
Exactly why we are looking at Korean (& 1st/2nd Indo-China) as supplements Mark, as the mix of stats may end being unique to the supplement rather than being BKCIV or CWCII specific.
A lot of WW2 kit lingers on - some to this day in certain armies - even only if in Reserve. I like my 1989 Greek National Guard in their US M3 half-tracks (for example).
On the subjects of "what if's" or "1-offs" I am personally cautious - we can end up going down a rabbit hole to build stats for something that might end up distorting the game or generating a mass of work to accommodate. The ideal answer is to create either a PDF supplement with them in, or a unit calculation engine of course, that allows players to build their own view of these units. However, as we have already found, a points calculator is not exactly easy to build in BKC and also CWC - but it is being worked on. FWC has a calculator but it's internal workings are a 'black box' and some of the outputs are very variable or inscrutable ... but it is a start.
Work has started on the Korean War supplement ... so I'll keep you posted as it develops :)
Mark (F)
But the only new tank gun is the 20 pdr, all the rest is WWII kit. M41's wern't sent, the M46 is a hotted up M26. I there think there is no need for new stats, except for the F-86 Sabre. Rest of the air support is WWII for land based. Yes we need to add Skyradier, and either the Cougar or Panther (can never remeber which is swept) for USMC, but it seems the bulk of the USN strile aircraft were late model Corsairs. No need for major changes.