Re: New tactics, equipment, or doctrine

["J.E. Ballow" <bballow@motion.net>]

Going by memory here. I was assigned to GHQ Ordnance Section at the time and
this seems to be correct as to Van Fleet's use of artillery. As I recall we
had a 30 day stock of artillery and mortar shells in country (Korea) and a
60 day stock in Japan and elsewhere in the Pacific and then a 90 day stock
in CONUS. Transportatin locally didn't seem to be much of a problem but as
far as being resupplied from CONUS I seem to recall we had to contend with a
strike by the Longshoremen Union. We were very hard pressed to maintain
these stock  levels. I believe at one time in country (Korea) we were down
to about 4 rounds per mortar tube per day. Many a day and night of acid
indegestion and good old Army coffee seeing who we could rob next to keep
him supplied. But, I'm sure you will agree it's better to expend rounds than
manpower.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Davino <mdavino@yahoo.com>
To: KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
Date: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: New tactics, equipment, or doctrine


>How about the "Van Fleet load?"  GEN James Van Fleet,
>the 8th US Army Commander during most of the war,
>believed in using massive amounts of indirect and
>direct fire instead of fire and maneuver.  During one
>of the numerous Chinese offensives, he directed his
>commanders to "expend steel and fire, not men."  The
>ordnance and transportation units were driven to the
>maximum to keep the artillery supplied.  Van Fleet
>told his commanders "I want so many shell holes that a
>man can step from one to another.  That is not an
>overstatement.  I mean it."
>
>Van Fleet also worked with the Air Force to employ
>medium bombers in close support of ground operations
>at night using MPQ radars to direct the missions.
>
>This notion of firepower instead of manpower is still
>in effect today during the current war.  Instead of
>massive firepower, we are much more reliant on
>precision firepower although the USAF still rolls out
>the B-52's to drop large quantities of dumb bombs when
>required.
>
>Mike Davino
>
>
>
>
>
> This was massive use of firepower instead of manpower
>--- Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> wrote:
>> At 10:57 AM 11/26/01 -0600, Ed Evanhoe wrote:
>> >I'm afraid you are looking in the wrong war for new
>> tactics or equipment
>> >since we basically used WW2 equipment and tactics.
>>
>> WHOA!  The Korean War was vastly different than the
>> Second World War and
>> there was a significant evolution both in doctrine
>> (operational and
>> tactical processes) and in equipment.  The US and
>> its allies began the War
>> with WWII stuff but soon re-evaluated and developed
>> an entirely new
>> approach to the mobile warfare of the Second World
>> War.  (Yes, I would love
>> to have seen the Eighth Army of 1945 deployed in the
>> Korea of 1950 and I
>> expect they would have done a bit better than the
>> Eighth Army of 1950 --
>> but the earlier version had become accustomed to
>> dealing with that most
>> Protean of enemies, the Japanese.)
>>
>> The doctrinal and logistics lessons of the Korean
>> War were rich and were
>> readily adapted by the US military to their heart,
>> to the subsequent regret
>> of the Viet-Nam-era US military ...
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
>> Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
>http://shopping.yahoo.com
>