Korea 2005

[piero1971]

South Korean Terrost group

anyone has ideas of South Korean terrorist groups?

- communists
- anarchists, etc.?

 

[Case]

I think that they've pretty much gone out of business since the place changed from a military dictatorship to a highly sucessful democracy. You certainly don't hear much about them any more.

 

[piero1971]

indeed

yep, seems like it.

here is what i found:

Terrorist Groups Active in South Korea

Terrorist groups active in South Korea are mainly student activists such as:

National Association of University Student Councils (Chondaehyop) - Violence prone student radicals, although a small minority even among politically active students, demonstrated increasing effectiveness in organizing occupations and arson assaults against facilities.

Seoul Area Federation of Student Councils (Soch'ongnyon) - small groups of students armed with Molotov cocktails, metal pipes, and occasionally tear gas grenades or improvised incendiary or explosive devices, staged more than two dozen raids on United States diplomatic and military facilities.

While groups are still active, by the early 1990s, the violence backers fell into disfavor, with students opting to less martial means to attempt to change the government.

 

[piero1971]

and What are the Chemical capacities of:

1.North Corea

and should NK go for it,

2. South Korea
3. USA

 

[nemo]

If you haven't done it yet, you can check Globalsecurity.org for a first overview :

• Northern Korea
• Southern Korea (bottom of the page)
  
• U.S.

 

[piero1971]

cw

merci
sorry, (yep, read the articles) I meand more than capacity, willingness to use them.

I mean, for example, would SKO or the US start using chemicals on its own without beeing attacked first?

would US and SKO reataliate in kind to a CW attack, or would the US go straight to nuclear? or would it use restraint... like "we dont' use this kind of weapons" (I'd doubt that, personally).

 

[CPangracs]

I found that the scale of the scenario and the number of options that need to be covered in the events engine put my scenario on this topic beyond my capabilities. I think that I'll fiddle about with it for the next few days and release it as a 'beta' version scenario.

Some ideas are:
* If NK attacks first, then the ROK/US forces should suffer from a large shock effect as it is almost certain that the NKs would achieve strategic suprise.
* As the war grinds on, NK should suffer a shock effect as the NK troops see more of South Korea and realise that their government has been lieing to them.
* Include a guerilla war behind the ROK lines - the NKs have literally tens of thousands of special forces troops dedicated to this mission, and it's likely that they have a network of guerillas in South Korea at present.
* One of the problems I found when testing my scenario is that the ROK military is easily capable of stopping the NKs dead in a few turns (this is using the best available TOEs, OOBs and giving the NKs a generous proficency level). As such, in order to make an interesting scenario you need to do something to hurt the ROK Army. You could have it start the scenario dispersed on internal security operations (perhaps following another coup? - Larry Bond used this scenario in his book 'Red Phoenix') or the NKs could use nuclear mines to blast a hole through the DMZ.

I have to disagree with the "shock" value if NK attacks the south. I have been there, and there would be no shock at all to see the North rolling across the DMZ - the US and ROK forces there are absolutely ready if that happened!

Despite the propaganda, I think the shock would be felt by the North if the US and South attack!

 

[piero1971]

curt,
welcome! AS you've been involved in the game that simulates a US attack on NK (one of the options of my scenario - and I haven't bought yet that game), and having been in SK. what are your strategic ideas on such a scenario?

 

[Case]

I have to disagree with the "shock" value if NK attacks the south. I have been there, and there would be no shock at all to see the North rolling across the DMZ - the US and ROK forces there are absolutely ready if that happened

I'd disagree with that - while the units on the DMZ may be ready, it can be expected that in the event of a suprise attack, all the other units on the Peninsular would be at lower levels of readiness. Hence, the 'shock' effect mirrors the advantage suprise would give the NKs, at least in the first few days while the ROK and US units deploy (interestingly, a fairly recent article in Janes Intelligence Review stated that the NKs achieving suprise was one of the few certainties of any second Korean War).

...anyway, the shock value is needed to make an interesting scenario - without it the ROK forces on the DMZ can stop the NKs cold without a great deal of difficulty.

Re: NK Chemical weapons; the general assumption is that they'd probably use them on day one of the invasion. If SK has chemical weapons (which I'd rate as being probable) they'd respond in kind. While the US no longer has chemical weapons, the longstanding US policy is to consider the use of chemical weapons as being equivalent to the use of nuclear weapons and thereby triggering the possible use of US nuclear weapons.

 

[piero1971]

I agree, now two questions.

- should the US and or SKO attack the North. would there be strong shock bonus? or a small one or none?

- should the US use nukes? what political consequances that would bring. I mean, if NK uses chemicals and kills, say 1000-2000 US soldiers die, and the US uses nukes and kills, say 100'000 NK.. would the world opinion be "that's normal" or say "see, once again the US is brutal e,tc etc.*". In political terms, this may have Victory Points effect in a game.

 

[piero1971]

I didn't mean because I said body armor that I meant I was giveing them an armor value. I would have never done that the problem is finding the right defense strength value. Witch requires a lot of play testing it.

but seriously, in TOAW, what should we sue to represent a typical modern infantry 21st century US/Brit/french, etc. squad

Assault AT+ squad AND AT+ team
with
HMG team
with
AGL team

?

 

[Panzer-War]

piero
I don’t think there is really any way to represent modern squads through TOAW currently. As I believe the current EL (equipment list) is not meant to represent a squad with advanced body armor or a squad with 3 fire teams and 3 saws. One way I tried to do this over a year and half ago was assault squad + and put in 3 early mgs to each squad then apply a shock bonus to that force. Though I think the high levels of passive defenders cause problems, I experienced this in my testing with Korea 50-53 where the cw Bdes seemed to retreat to easy and where reorganizing a lot. So I strengthened the cw squads each with a bren lmg and removed the same number lmgs from there toe, witch they had a lot of after doing this they didn’t retreat or reorganize as much. I can’t say for certain that it was passive defender levels to high but it’s my theory on it. When I discovered the bio editor I gave up trying to implement it through the standard EL and started work on a new one.

 

[Case]

I agree, now two questions.
- should the US and or SKO attack the North. would there be strong shock bonus? or a small one or none?

I'd say none - at least initally. The NKs are, aparently, fully expecting the 'imperialists' to cross the border at any stage.

- should the US use nukes? what political consequances that would bring. I mean, if NK uses chemicals and kills, say 1000-2000 US soldiers die, and the US uses nukes and kills, say 100'000 NK.. would the world opinion be "that's normal" or say "see, once again the US is brutal e,tc etc.*". In political terms, this may have Victory Points effect in a game.

I'd say that the US would definetly use limited numbers of tactical nukes on military targets if the NKs used chemical weapons as not doing so would greatly weaken America's deterence policy and encourage the further use of such weapons. The most likely effect of this though would be that Japan would definetly not commit troops.

As such, I'd model this by giving the US player a theatre option to use nukes, with the penalty for doing so being the loss of some VPs and the definete non-involvement of Japan.

 

[piero1971]

canada

for canadians here. what units would be available for deployment in <aisa in a crisis in <korea... <i would guess part of the fleet <1 destroyer and 4-5 frigates< the410. and 416 and 419 squadrons, but no idea on land troops.

 

[piero1971]

australia

for anzacs.

what would be a <new zealand and australia involvement in a crisis in korea?

for NZ I find nothing...

for australia, I would say that elements of n.3, 77 and 76 squadrons would or could be committed, as a few units of the navy.

what about land forces?

 

[Case]

for anzacs.

what would be a <new zealand and australia involvement in a crisis in korea?

The Australian involvement is a little hard to predict. One or two of our modern and excelent Collins Class Subs would definetly be sent, as would a couple of frigates (for escort duties) and a tanker. However, these can't really be modeled in TOAW.

The Air Force would probably deploy a F-111 bomber squadron (probably Number 1 Squadron) and/or a Squadron of F/A-18s (probably 3 or 75 Squadron [3 Sqn specialises in ground attack, and 75 Sqn specialises in air-to-air. 75 Sqn took part in the 2003 Iraq War]).

The Army would have two deployment options
1) A special forces group like the one deployed to Iraq. Given the nature of the theatre, this would be built around the 4th (Commando) Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment with a SAS Squadron attached.
2) One or two light infantry battalions from the 3rd Brigade and a squadron (company) or so of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment with ASLAV-25s (the same vehicle as the USMC's LAV-25).

As the Australian Army is optimised for low-intensity combat in tropical areas, and isn't at all suited to high-intensity combat in North Asia, I've come to conclude that the most likely land deployment would be the Special Forces Group.

My estimate of 4 RAR's TOE is:

27 Assault Squad AT+
3 Engineer Squad
12 Assault Recon Team
3 Rifle Recon Team (snipers)
9 Javelin ATGM
9 Medium MG
6 81mm mortar
Some (not many) trucks

4 RAR is basically equivalent to a US Ranger Battalion (though it's a little larger and 'heavier', and would be used in pretty much the same way.

I suspect that NZ would send a frigate. If the scenario is set in late 2005 then NZ could potentially deploy a LAV-III mounted infantry company (LAV-25 in TOAW terms) attached to the Australian 3rd Brigade.

 

[piero1971]

australia

indeed, I looked at your scenario and the Australian forces there sound wel balanced.thanks.

of course I'd take into accoutn two possible cases:

1. Axis of good (including australia) attacks North Korea, in which cases, probably more Aus forces would be involved - as less NATO reinforcements would come - I assume in 2005 Australian politics are still aligned on the USA ones...

2. North Korea attacks, well, AUS can commit the forces you described.

 

[piero1971]

other nations

nick, i saw you added a columbian unit. any ideas on why or why not colombia would intervene?

what other countries of latin america or central asia/india would intervene?

argentina? chile? brazil? Peru? >I doubt it
mexico? honduras, nicragua? I doubt it as well
cuba? LOL

plus their forces are not suited for this kind of warfare.


I'd guess russia would stay out of this (not to fumble its subs or units into accidents or worse). India too and most of the indian sub-continent.

any middle east forces? probably not as they would like to stay ready in case Iran mooves or Iraq gets even more nasty... perhaps some Egyptian forces... I wonder...

Israel? nah, not their kind of game... to actually help the US!!

Turkey, could send some troops, à la 1950 any idea?

perhaps South Africa, probably some UN rear-guard forces (if UN involved - not in the case the US attacks in a preemptive war)...

any eastern european forces can be used for this rapid deployment role? rumania? others are way over their head in iraq...

 

[Case]

nick, i saw you added a columbian unit. any ideas on why or why not colombia would intervene?

Basically because they sent forces to the Korean War, and are a signatory to the treaty which was signed at the end of the war in which the signatories promised to send forces to assist Korea in the event of any other NK invasion. ...but including the Columbians was probably a bit unrealistic.

india would intervene?

Indian intervention is certainly a real possibility and they could send 1 or 2 infantry or armoured divisions (which is reportedly what they offered to send to Iraq in mid-2003 if the US agreed to put all the occupation forces under UN command).

Turkey, could send some troops, à la 1950 any idea?

Possibly, though I'm not sure how keen Turkish voters would be on sending an expensive force to a war that's totally irrelevant for them.

perhaps South Africa, probably some UN rear-guard forces (if UN involved - not in the case the US attacks in a preemptive war)...

Probably not - the South African military is already overstretched, and doesn't have anything which could make an effective contribution. Some rear-area troops may be sent, but they can't be modeled in TOAW.

any eastern european forces can be used for this rapid deployment role? rumania? others are way over their head in iraq...

The Polish Airmobile Brigade would be the only Eastern European force which could be sent and I'd say that there's a high probability that it would be sent. IMO, none of the other Eastern European countries have useful front line forces, though they'd probably contribute engineers and counter-CBR units.

 

[piero1971]

ROK Police

anyone has a detailed description of the ROK police forces that could be mobilized in an eventual war?