Thanks, Justiciar. I knew that the British continued to use a lot of WWII equipment into the '60s and beyond (the book mentions British forces having their Bren LMGs replaced during the Indonesian Confrontation in 1966-67), but I wasn't sure whether there were any doctrinal changes or other abstract factors that might have led to a reevaluation of British squad values in the near post-WWII era.
From what I have read, the British kept the same weapons for the British units, but they relied on the other Commonwealth nations to keep their units supplied; Canadian Brigade, Austtralian Brigade (with NZ Artillery BN) and the British Brigade (who had many units from the Asia-Pacific area inside of it). The Divisional HQs was British Royal Army, but the staff was filled out by integrating the Commonwealth Nations into the different support positions.
it is Korea
And just for the record, the proper acronym is KWASL (pronounced Ka-WA-Sill) Korean War Advanced Squad Leader.
We could call it the "Tie" ASL module because no one really outright WON.....
I'm always annoyed at people saying the Korean War was a "tie." The North Koreans completely failed to achieve their objectives in starting the war, i.e., their self-defined VC was, "DPRK wins if at the end of the game there are no good order ROK or American units on the map," and they didn't achieve it. That's a "loss" for the DPRK and thus a "win" for their opponents.
How about Manila, Rotterdam, Ponyri.
