How was the Korean war from a military technological standpoint?

>>681045
The two Koreas performance was a massive shitshow.
>South Koreans get BTFO in all fronts at the start
>But this is understandable as they didn't get the same military assistance as North Korea (i.e. USSR gave NK a "My first modern army" set pretty much.)
>NK got BTFO by Americans
>NK and its mechanized army was saved by - of all people- a largely infantry Chinese army to whom even THE FUCKING TRUCK is a luxury,
>South Koreans retreat so much, their own officers shot them.

>>681045
On the Chinese side, the innovations were not technological. They were doctrinal and thus were vastly more important than any flash toy.

>>681081
being mostly infantry allowed the PLA to outflank MacArthur and block his supply roads. Trucks can't drive over hilly terrain that well
War , when it comes down to it, is all about the humble grunt. Always have been and always will be, since that is the means by which territory is held and defended

>>681131
What's it like being a French general in WW2?

>>681137
What's it like being an American general in Vietnam?

>>681137
The French generals in WW2 had a preponderance of technic over the Germans. They had better tanks and technology in order to make up for their lack of manpower.
The Germans had a better doctrine, so they won.

>>681121
Don't bother trying to talk about doctrine, you'll just make yourself sad with the responses.

Also I'm pretty sure the CCP developed their assault doctrines long before Korea.

>>681162
Oh, so now it's not just all about the grunt

Saying French tanks were 'better' is also incorrect regarding speed and radio communication.

>>681168
They could have played to those strengths if their doctrine was better. The Germans did not have a streamlined system of radio messages anyway.
It was not a war of maneuver since it took place on a constricted battlefield.

>>681045
>they hoped that this jet shit actually works
both Brits and Germans had jets operational in 1944
fist prototypes were made as early as 1941, engines themselves even earlier

they were already proven to be superior to propeller planes

>>681168
>The engine of the Panzer is a weapon just as the main-gun.
Heinz is that you?

>>681165
The Chinese went into the Korean war with a fairly unified doctrine that worked well with poorly coordinated infantry in difficult terrain.

I think the biggest innovation to come from the Korean war was the first massed use of jet fighters (MiG-15 vs. F86), apart from that most equipment was still WW2 tier.

>>681234
But wasn't this the first conflict where jets actually fought eachother properly? I mean, everyone had developed their jets but wasn't this the real trial by fire for all of them.

>>681401
Yea Germany had jet combat in ww2 but it only fought against props.

>>681045
Friendly reminder that the Korean and Vietnam Wars could likely have been prevented had the US actually followed through on keeping the Red out of China.

>>681137
Armor is always infantry support, whether they are being used in conjunction with infantry units to fight other infantry, or if they're being used to keep the enemy's armor off of the infantry.