U.S. Marine Operations in Korea, 1950-1953, Volume 2 (of 5): The Inchon-Seoul OperationMontross, Lynn
History
U.S. Marine Operations in Korea, 1950-1953, Volume 2 (of 5): The Inchon-Seoul Operation
Montross, Lynn
Korean War, 1950-1953 -- Campaigns; United States. Marine Corps -- History -- Korean War, 1950-1953
Even when a question could not be answered conclusively, it was up
to the G-2 sections of the Attack Force and Landing Force to arrive
at a conclusion for planning purposes. For instance, it was never
satisfactorily determined from available sources--JANIS publications,
strategic engineering studies, Naval Attaché reports, and photographic
interpretation reports--whether LVTs would be able to traverse the mud
flats of the Inchon harbor area. And since there remained some doubt,
planning proceeded on the assumption that the answer was negative.
This proved to be the correct as well as the prudent decision, later
developments revealed.
Another G-2 planning problem concerned the effect that the height
of the sea walls would have upon the landing. Photographs at hourly
stages of the tide made it appear that the masonry was too high for
the dropping of ramps at any time. As a solution, G-2 officers hit
upon a device reminiscent of the storming of castles during the Middle
Ages. Scaling ladders were recommended with the suggestion that they be
built of aluminum with hooks at one end to be attached to the masonry.
Construction was started at Kobe, but the order could be only partially
filled before D-day, and wooden ladders were built as substitutes.
It is hardly necessary to point out the importance of estimates as
to the numbers and defensive capabilities of the enemy. Yet the G-2
sections on the _Mount McKinley_ were up against a peculiar situation
cited in the 1st Marine Division report:
“Our accumulated knowledge of the enemy’s military tactics, prior
to our landing at Inchon on 15 September 1950, consisted almost in
its entirety of knowledge about the enemy’s offense.... With but
few exceptions, UN forces were forced to take a defensive stand and
denied the opportunity to study large scale enemy defensive tactics
from actual combat. Thus it was that our assault landing was made
with relatively little prior knowledge regarding the enemy’s probable
reaction to a large-scale offensive of this nature, particularly when
it involved the penetration into the very heart of his newly acquired
domain.”[93]
[93] This account of G-2 planning for Inchon is based upon
1st MarDiv _SAR_, Annex Baker.
Photographic coverage showed the Inchon harbor area to be honeycombed
with gun positions and other defensive installations. On the other
hand, daily aerial observation indicated that most of them were not
occupied.
G-2 conclusions during the planning phase often had to be based
on such conflicting evidence, even though the penalties of faulty
interpretation might be drastic. But after being viewed with due
suspicion, signs of negative enemy activity were finally accepted as
valid in estimates of light to moderate NKPA resistance.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account