WI Inchon failed?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
...
I'm actually wondering what happened to make the UN fail at Inchon. From what i've read the landings never really faced serious problems. Along with his work in rebuilding Japan, it is one of MacArthurs' few well thought out actions.

Yep. Part of the "Huge Gamble" myth is MacArthur ego massaging. Since it was a success, the more daring his staff could make it appear, the better the light on 'Ol Doug.
 

Japhy

Banned
The only thing I can imagine that would cripple the Inchon landings is the tides. The marines of the first wave were on their own for hours between the high tides and the next wave. Destroy them when their on their own, you through the whole invasion to the dogs. But the fact is the marines had all the advantages of air and fire support from the fleet and the DPRK didn't have any major forces to spare in the region.
 
The manner in which the invasion fails is a key question. If it fails because MacArthur (or somebody on his staff, but we all know who gets the blame) goofs, then it's one thing. If it fails because the North Koreans are concentrating troops in the center of the penninsula (the forntlines are farther north then Pusan, a breakout has just occured, or the communists fear they cannot stop a coming breakout), it's another. If it fails because spies alerted the North Koreans, we have a completly different war. Some specifics would help.
 
I'm under the impression the North Koreans knew Inchon was vulnerable, they just didn't have the manpower to defend it. It doesn't take a genius to see landing a flanking attack at Inchon would shorten the war. American troops even landed at in Inchon in 1945.

So really Inchon can only fail by two means. One, something goes horribly wrong with the execution. This is hard to believe considering America had ample experience with large scale amphibious operations. Or two, the North Koreans were significantly bolstered by external assistance. Say the Chinese intervene earlier and sends 200,000 men to defend Pyongyang. That would free up the North Koreans to fight at Inchon.
 
But he was dead. Your point?

Anyway, Inchon fails. Lets say that the marines of the first wave cant hold all day waiting for the second and are wrecked. The landings fail and Walker is now in command. The terrain around the Pusan perimiter is not the kind of aland you want to launch a tank assault from. With the Inchon disaster the American people are turning against what many start calling "A Pointless and Illegal war" I'd imagine the UN Forces hold the line and negotiate a cease-fire. South Korea is a tiny corner of the country with a big army, high probability of a dictatorship showing up, and possibly becomeing something of a Singapore like Asian Tiger later on in history, with a very small US presence.


Either that, or the US simply nukes the North Koreans.

After all this is at a time when the US was the SOLE nuclear power in this world. Military doctrine called for use of nukes.
So, why not?
 
Either that, or the US simply nukes the North Koreans.

After all this is at a time when the US was the SOLE nuclear power in this world. Military doctrine called for use of nukes.
So, why not?

Soviet Union detonated their first nuke in 1949 so US wasn't SOLE nuclear pwoer in the world. Though how many each side had I don't know
 
The Soviets didn't have enough bombs to do anything worthwhile with them nor very many bombers. They'd all be shot down long before hitting the target.
 
depending on what their targets would be

Doesn't matter what their targets are, they don't have enough bombs to really do anything nor enough bombers to break through Allied air defense. All of their nuclear capable bombers are Tu-4 Bulls, a slightly inferior copy of the B-29 Superfortress. They simply aren't going to do much.
 
You don't nuke a nuclear power without considering the consequences. US didn't have the nuclear stockpile to wipe out the Soviet Union. What's to prevent them from building up and massively retaliate in a few years? Occupy the Soviet Union like Germany and Japan to make sure they don't rearm?

The Soviets also had significant advantage in ground forces at the time. They could roll up Western Europe even if they had to trade some cities for it.
 
Doesn't matter what their targets are, they don't have enough bombs to really do anything nor enough bombers to break through Allied air defense. All of their nuclear capable bombers are Tu-4 Bulls, a slightly inferior copy of the B-29 Superfortress. They simply aren't going to do much.

even if targets are in South Korea?
 
even if targets are in South Korea?

There aren't any targets worth hitting with the low yield bombs that they have then, especially given that there's only a handful, and you'd be flying straight into what would probably be the densest air defense you could find.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Soviet Union detonated their first nuke in 1949 so US wasn't SOLE nuclear pwoer in the world. Though how many each side had I don't know

Depending on the source (oddly enough, the data is still not nailed down) the numbers in 1950 are as follows:

USSR: 3 - 5
USA: 298 - 450

In 1951

USSR: 25 - 35
USA: 438 - 650

1952

USSR: 50 - 85
USA: 832 - 1005

As you can see, by 1950 the U.S. was into the mass production stage of weapon production and of course had a huge number of nuclear capable bombers. As late as 1960 the U.S. an 8:1 advantage (16,800:2,400) in warheads & a similar delivery system disparity
 
Top