Re: "The Inchon Landing: An Example of Brilliant Generalship"

[robert guertin <wanaki@infionline.net>]

Your information is obviously different than mine. My research indicated quite clearly
that Japan would concentrate on a Kamikaze defense against the Allied Task force,
particularly the troop transports, APA's , LST's, etc.. As I have stated, they were
bereft of Fighter Aces.

Love Shack wrote:

> Actually the Japanese had been for the last two years pulling their best pilots out
> of the front line to bolster home land defense for a last stand.  They were
> stationed in Northern parts of Japan and Korea.  They had a good enough force
> remaining to give us a hard time.  Many were wounded and recovering. Some got back
> in action against US Navy and Army. They flew the hopped up Zeros, Ki43, new Ki84,
> George, Ki100 when they could get gas. Japan had stock piled a lot of weapons to
> have a sustained war on the mainland.
>
> It is intersting that in China they are still digging up old stores of weapons.  In
> Mongolia is was old WW2 Japanese stockpile of weapons captured by the Russians
> given to Maos forces that defeated Gen Chiang kai Chek.
>
> Admittedly they would not have lasted long as the US was finally getting our new
> high performance interceptor, air superiority aircaft in to the battle zone that
> was equal or better then the new Japanese
> fighter planes.  Bearcat, Tigercat, H-Mustang, U4 series Corsair and even the P80
> Shooting Star were all being moved up.
>
> Dan
>
> robert guertin wrote:
>
> > By the end of WW2, the Japanese were bereft of Aces.......their airforce having
> > been reduced primarily to Kamakazi Pilots with less than 10 hrs flight
> > instruction, since they were not expected to execute safe landings.
> >
> > Love Shack wrote:
> >
> > > My take on this is that the Navy would have forced the NK and Chinese to use
> > > the rest of their Air Power.
> > > Since the ground war would require Navy, Marine and AirForce support at a
> > > lower rate it would mitigate some of the Mig 15's performance.  The Navy's
> > > 4-20mm in the F9F would certainly do more damage in a Snap Shot then the 50
> > > cal of the Saber.
> > >
> > > This would have forced the NK, Chinese and Russians to expend too many
> > > resources,
> > > eventually depleted their ranks.
> > >
> > > Also I do not know if the USA would have employeed the Japanese Army and
> > > Pilots to assist in the war.
> > > I believe there was discussion in an earlier post about the potential
> > > Japanese military support as they did
> > > have many skilled Aces after WW2.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jack Hwang" <jackchwang@comcast.net>
> > > To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:57 PM
> > > Subject: RE: "The Inchon Landing: An Example of Brilliant Generalship"
> > >
> > > > > Why did not the UN perform another end round operation after the Chinese
> > > > entered the war?
> > > > > Or was there suxh a plan if the war had continued.?
> > > > > This is woulda shoulda coulda question.
> > > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > > That might not be a good option after Chinese entered the war.  Another
> > > > landing like Inchon was always a big concern for Communists after 1951.
> > > > CPVA and NKPA both assigned a lot of dedicated troops to guard the
> > > > coast lines.  In September 1951, CPVA alone had 4 armies (which were
> > > > actually corps) at the west coast and 2 and half armies at the east coast
> > > > of Korea peninsula solely for this duty.
> > > >
> > > > >From December 1952 to April 1953, in response to the UN's preparation
> > > > for a possible landing, Communists increased the strength of the coast
> > > > defense.  There were at least 6 CPVA armies, 2 NKPA armies, and 16
> > > > tank regiments deployed along the west coast, and another 2 CPVA
> > > > armies, 2 NKPA armies and 1 tank regiment along the east coast.
> > > >
> > > > So it was not likely for UN to achieve another big success as in Inchon.
> > > >
> > > > Jack
> > > >
> > > >