Preparing for Korea : knowing the history

[kodamcity]

1 hour ago, AndreiTomescu said:

Its main theme is that despite Korea being a united nation for about a millenia, its seccesion was due to the different approach regarding Japanese occupation. Some (north) opposed that, some collaborated (south). And that triggered the rupture. The author's view is that no unification or one side winning the war was possible due to this deep dissidence that is alive today even.

As a Korean, the story described in that book sounds somewhat far-fetched. The division of Korea into South and North Korea was not the result of opposing or cooperating with Japan, but rather the consequence of intervention by the Soviet Union and the United States. Towards the end of World War II, the Soviet Union crushed the Japanese forces in Manchuria, advanced south into the Korean Peninsula to secure the territory north of the 38th parallel, and communized North Korea. The United States established the South Korean government south of the 38th parallel to prevent the Korean Peninsula from becoming communist. So, South and North Korea were divided not because they collaborated with or opposed Japanese imperialism, but because of the ideologies of socialism and democracy. There is a lot of negative perception regarding the Japanese Empire's rule over Korea, regardless of whether it is South or North Korea. In South Korea, in particular, the impression of pro-Japanese and pro-North Korean factions is by no means positive. The pro-North faction mentioned here refers to people who are favorable toward the North Korean government. However, given that South and North Korea share the same ethnic roots, most Koreans do not harbor significant hostility toward North Koreans themselves.

If the Korean Peninsula had been unified by UN forces without the intervention of the Chinese Communist Army, Korea would have been well united. Yes, that's right... South Koreans hate the Chinese Communist Army just as much as they hate pro-Japanese or pro-North Korean factions. 🤣

 

Hmm, anyway, I think that book seems to have some issues.

[AndreiTomescu]

1 hour ago, kodamcity said:

Hmm, anyway, I think that book seems to have some issues.

yep, that was my feeling too....

since there are so few Koreans from Korea here on the forum , your help might be invaluable in the future. Like research first hand for campaigns, explanation, translation, etc. 

[AndreiTomescu]

The Korean War: A History : Update on my personal opinion on this book. NO GO.

Just as @kodamcity mildly and politely pointed out, it ...... far fetched. Actually it's strangely biased for a book that states that was written with the aim on impartiality. The accusing and agressive tone upon South Koreans, US/UN leaders and troops, is hardly concealed.  Of course there is some truth in every statement (almost every), but wearing a sheep skin upon the wolf, pretending to be a fair american and embracing some North Korean ideas and principles (unhuman ones) and selling them as the actual truth does not apeal to me.

I find it more fair to read actual N Korean statements: there the exagerations are so obivious that it's easy to make out some truth.

Started the N Korean defector memoires. That should be better. We'll see.

[MajorMagee]

From Naval Aviation In The Korean War p.64

Quote

It was determined that the average Chinese soldier required only about ten pounds of suppliers per day to stay in an effective fighting mode. In other words, one of their divisions consisting of 10,000 men needed only 50 tons of supplies per day, and with what seemed like an unlimited number of vehicles and rail cars, this proved to be an easy task. The problem that air power had with this was to keep  the supply level from exceeding this amount because anything above and beyond this would mean a surplus that could sustain a major offensive. These figures were broken down even further to show that 48% of this was food, 22% was clothing and weapons, 10% pertained to petroleum products and the remaining 20% was ammunition. With this determined, the mobile Navy carriers were given the task of roaming far up the peninsula and doing everything they could to reduce this flow to below what they required.

 

[Habu]

I'm looking for books with maps of battles. Any suggestion ?

[MajorMagee]

From Naval Aviation In The Korean War p.78

Quote

The machine gunner and I traded shots and I think I got him, but I know he got me in the leading edge of my right wing. The round exited back in the fabric of my wing. As you probably know, the North Koreans never fired tracer rounds so one of the hazards was that we never quite got used to the fact that we never knew we were being fired on from the ground, which often lulled us into a false sense of security, which led us into taking unnecessary chances. For most of our low altitude attacks, we were being fired on. Combat report by Lt (jg) Norman Edge flying with VF-884 in Corsairs. Oct 51

I did not know about the lack of tracers in the North Korean AAA. I wonder if the game will take this into account, or will it succumb to our collective desire to see all those Hollywood effects we think of as realistic?

[BlitzPig_EL]

So far what I've seen in the game play videos is that the North Koreans are firing tracer from their AA guns.

[BladeMeister]

On 6/5/2026 at 2:33 PM, LukeFF said:

There are a lot of good open-source articles on the US Marine Corps website, including this one: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/U.S. Marines in the Korean War PCN 10600000100_27.pdf

"CORSAIRS TO PANTHERS: U.S. Marine Aviation in Korea"

So you're saying that Corsairs and Panthers are 2 of the 5 upcoming DLCs and an aircraft carrier is the new play mechanic for IL2 NK. Thanks LukeFF! 😁

S!Blade<><