Re: ROK Army

[<GRBroman@aol.com>]

John, the comments I promised earlier.  

In a message dated 2/28/2002 1:05:18 PM Central Standard Time, Jhk789@aol.com writes:


> Half right! 
>
> When the War began, ROK Army had 28 M-8 armorered cars 
> equipped with 37-mm guns, 15 half-tracks, 
> 89 serviceable105-mm howitzers, 114 57-mm antitank guns, and 
> 98,000 troops. (Encyclopedia of the K.W., p. 356) 
> In addition, ROK forces consisted of 1,865 Air Force, 6,145 Navy, & 
> 48,000 National Police. (The Outbreak, US Army Center of 
> Military History, p.6) 
>
> ROK Armydivisons 1,6,7,8, & 17th Reg. of the Capital Divison 
> held positions along the 38th Parallel. They were also 
> armed with M1 rifle, 30-caliber carbine, 60-mm & 81-mm mortars, 
> 2.36-inch rocket launchers, etc. (The Outbreak) 


John, what is significant about these numbers is that the division were woefully under equipped.  A rifle division of this period would have the weapons you mentioned at the Battalion level, those are all small arms and "light" mortars.  No heavy weapons like 105mm, like a battalion supporting each brigade or regiment, plus a general support heavy artillery battery like 155mm.  No antiaircraft to speak of, no tank battalion at the Division level and very limited logistical tail for the division.  Ammunition was in very short supply.  In fact, the KMAG Korean Military Advisory Group, was still training them when war broke out.  The chief of the KMAG met with GEN Bradley, then US Chief of staff, just before the war broke out.  Interestingly enough, he reported that the SK troops were looking good and could stop a NK attack, which he downplayed.  Bradley left the meeting in Japan reassured..  Sadly, Bradley didn't know that he was having sunshine blown up his fanny.  The KMAG advisors on the ground had quite a different opinion.  The guys on the ground knew that the SK troops were poorly or incompletely trained and under equipped.  Notice we haven't even mentioned the fact that the ROK had no air force per se.  They had no fighters and bombers.  Without American intervention, NK would have immediately gained air supremacy.  If you are a light infantry force, without air cover or AA weapons, and the other guy has fighters and bombers, you are screwed, blued and tattooed.  Trust me on this.  And here's the kicker, if they attacked north, the US would not have supported.  We wanted out of Korea, and planned to pull out the KMAG once the ROK army was trained.   


> With mortars and 105-mm howitzers, I think they could have 
> mounted a limited attack on the North. 


John, you're right.  They could mount a limited attack.  In an area about 5 kilometers wide and 5 kilometers long.  The range of an 81mm is just a few km's and the 105mm runs about 11.  Plus, you site artillery and sometimes mortars with only 2/3 of their range forward of the front line.  If you want to go deeper, you have to displace, that's where you start leapfrogging artillery batteries so you have some firing and some moving forward all the time.  This is very difficult and beyond the level of training and communications equipment of a ROK arty battalion at that stage of the war.  Did I mention that the NK artillery outranged the SK artillery?  That means you can sit back and whomp the other guy while staying out of range.  Not a good thing if you are SK troops.  The ROK also had no effective AT guns. The M1 57mm AT gun was an effective weapon in 1942/43.  It could not knock out a T-34/85 unless it was a suicidally close flank shot or a rear shot, which just turns it into a revenge weapon after you've been bypassed.  A lightly equipped ROK unit could have made a limited attack, but it had to be a place where there were few or no NK troops and they would have been thrown back with heavy losses once the NK counterattacked with their infantry and armor.  We haven't even discussed logistics and the fact that SK did not have enough arty rounds or small arms to mount a limited attack.  What would the military purpose of this attack be?  There isn't one.  Patrolling actions and raids, yes, that is what history shows happens, but a bona fide attack at battalion or division level?  Don't think so.  I need some historical proof here, not theory.  I'm not from Missouri, but Show Me.


> Notice that the number of troops South had, in cluding the police, 
> numbered about 150,000. This exceeded the N.K. forces estimated 
> at 100,000-135,000. This raises an interesting question of whether 
> N.K had mobilized enough soldiers to begin the attack in June. 
> Military logic would have required an attacking force to have at 
> least 2 to 1 superiority in manpower.


Actually, the accepted ratio has always been 3:1 in the attack.  

 In addition, the N.K. forces
> could not continue their attack for three days after they captured Seoul. One S.Korean military expert states that this delay was due to the fact that they didn't have any means to cross the Han river. This indicates 
> that their attack was not well prepared. 


Not necessarily, the attack could have been well prepared, but poorly executed.  And lets face it, the NK army wasn't really world class itself.  The Chinese were far better but severely hampered by rigidity of execution and lack of modern communications gear.  Certainly, they were very brave.  But we are jumping ahead of ourselves here.  And a major river crossing is a real SOB to execute, even if you have all of your ducks in a row.  Been there, done that and got the T-shirt.  Look at what the NK accomplished though once they got across the Han, they headed south to the Naktong before they ran into something they couldn't bull through.  Plus that, the NK logistics tail was falling part.  Anyway, you have to get back to the resources the ROK army had, not enough to attack north, and not enough to successfully defend once they started to run out of ammo and the Inmungun committed their tanks.  Now, Rhee knew he didn't have the strength to attack North.  Kim Il Sung knew that too.  Any chance of you seeing their logic now as well?  I respect the fact that you have an opinion, but if you state your opinion on this mailing list, you have to respect my right to challenge it based on historical facts.  Fair enough? 
Glen Broman