North-Korea Army

The South Korean Army is also far superior to what it was 50 years ago. The North would have a hard time advancing into South Korea.
The Korean War wasn't so much a military defeat for the US, as it was a change of policy. If the will power was there to take the whole of North Korea the Chinese couldn't have stopped the US and UN. The uncertainty of the position of the USSR was the only thing, which kept Doug on his leash. If not for that, who knows.

The Chinese lost between 1-3 million men during he war. Massed infantry attacks and old Soviet doctrine, won't win out the day this time.

Give them a gun and some rice .It would be interesting to see a clash between the hightech soldier and the cold war throw backs.
With night vision equipment, real time imagery etc. the NK Army may have a hard time getting close enough to US and SK troops to be effective.

Originally posted by Estragon

These people require no support, no D-J's, and no e-mails: just bullets and rice/noodles.

You did a good point Estragon.But do not forget that our technology is far beyond that what they have.

Now, the wars are not like they were there is 50 years ago. Also, the training is important. And these NK soldiers don't have the US soldiers trainings and their technology.

Look what's happened in the first Gulf War. US Abrams were fighting at 1 VS 13 Irakis MBT. And who won ?


P.S for MadScientist : " Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan " ???? Are u kidding ???


[Edited on 12-1-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

Eastragon - Uh....if you think this war with NK will be a repeat of the first one then you're pretty dumb.

In the first war, the Chinese and Soviets gave them personnel, weapons and funding to fight us. This time NK most likely will be on their own without the support of China and especially Russia. There won't be MIGs chasing our planes out of China with Russian pilots providing air cover for the backwards NK ground forces.

Yeah, NK might have a lot of men to fight a war....but an Army is only as good as its logistics. NK can hardly feed their Army right now, now add in the FACT that we'll blow up their supplies within the first week of the war. A starving Army going up against THE Superpower on this planet....what a joke.

Missing the point entirely: no one has the slightest doubt about technological superiority: the point is, the NK would be on SK soil when such technology was needed: the US bombed the daylights out of Hanoi and elsewhere but Vietnam was still lost: largely because Vietnamese fell stronger ties towards one another than they do to Americans -it will be the same in Korea.
There's precious little to bomb in NK: but how do you liberate Seoul without massive casualties - many of whom will be SK: and who would give the US a mandate to intervene? The UN? Seoul?
Point missed entirely in above posting - it isn't missed in Pyongyang, methinks.

As of what is probably yesterday the US has upgraded it NUCLEAR response status (We are at present at the next level). North Korea may actually want to establish a new benefit package, but it is pushing beyond a point America gives a dam about its sovereign status.

Guys, does anyone know the range of tha North Korean Missiles?

They can easily hit Japan, California and Alaska are supose to be within there range.

Originally posted by barba007
Guys, does anyone know the range of tha North Korean Missiles?

Look for Tae-Po-Dong I & II missiles.

I did a topic on this subject : xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

Another thread realted to North Korean Missiles :

xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

The NK military is more traditional than Vietnam's military, thus you cannot compare Vietnam back then with NK today. Also, we learned from our mistakes in Vietnam and NK will be on the wrong end of those lessons learned.

Originally posted by MT69
The NK military is more traditional than Vietnam's military, thus you cannot compare Vietnam back then with NK today. Also, we learned from our mistakes in Vietnam and NK will be on the wrong end of those lessons learned.

What did you learn ? That when you are in war with another country you have to overrun it if you want to win ? Especially with a dictatorship like NV , NK or Irak !

I don't understand why the US didn't do it.

We learned from the Vietnam war that Presidents and their staff should let the military do the war planning from the war zone and not the politicians from the White House.

We also learned that airpower can't go around chasing grunts everyday, instead airpower should only attack hard targets.

NK will expect us to waste bombs on their grunts hiding in the bush, but we'll use the bombs on the C2 facilities, supplies and industrial base. Carpet bombing the DMZ will be on the table but chasing grunts along dirt paths with airpower won't be on the table.

Beyond those points is the issue of tunnel technology.

What is this issue of 'tunnel technology' ?

As NK's army is arranged along conventional lines, it would make a ripe target for the US military. A stand up fight is exactly what the US would love to have. It is what the US military is geared towards. So if it came to conventional conflict, the NK divisions would be decimated.
Also despite the South wanting to reunite with the North, if it came to war, you can be damn sure that the people of the South would do everything in their power to resists.
No-one wants to be dominated by a Stalinist regime !!

In response to the prior question of what we learned in relation to Vietnam. This being my point that in that war tunnel technology was applied as a means of defeating US interests. The primary issue of the tunnels is in relation of an armies capacity to resupply troops in a forward area. As we are all aware cutting off supply lines in integral to winning a war but how is that done when the supply lines are underground?

Generating shock waves underground, using large amounts of explosives strong enough to collapse the tunnels resolves the problem. This is done by burring them at a certain depth. C4 was actually developed quite a long time ago and since them other more powerful conventional weapons have come into play. How many tons of C4 would equate to say 10 kilotons of TNT? Essentially the most advanced explosive we have todate cuts the weight to about a third.

Originally posted by Toltec


How many tons of C4 would equate to say 10 kilotons of TNT?

1 ton of C4 = 4 tons of TNT. That's why C4 has a " 4 ".

So, you will need 2.5 Kts of C4 if you want to have an explosion who's equal to 10 Kts of TNT.

The same thing with the C3.

1 ton of C3 is equal to 3 tons of TNT.

[Edited on 16-1-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

Ergo tunnel technology is not a viable defence or a means to resuply a fowards area.

Originally posted by Toltec
In response to the prior question of what we learned in relation to Vietnam. This being my point that in that war tunnel technology was applied as a means of defeating US interests. The primary issue of the tunnels is in relation of an armies capacity to resupply troops in a forward area. As we are all aware cutting off supply lines in integral to winning a war but how is that done when the supply lines are underground?

Generating shock waves underground, using large amounts of explosives strong enough to collapse the tunnels resolves the problem. This is done by burring them at a certain depth. C4 was actually developed quite a long time ago and since them other more powerful conventional weapons have come into play. How many tons of C4 would equate to say 10 kilotons of TNT? Essentially the most advanced explosive we have todate cuts the weight to about a third.

Here is a previous thread(s) to military high explosives :

xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

They have been developed for weapons such as the AUP :
xmb.abovetopsecret.com...
and LOCAAS :
xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by Toltec


How many tons of C4 would equate to say 10 kilotons of TNT?

1 ton of C4 = 4 tons of TNT. That's why C4 has a " 4 ".

So, you will need 2.5 Kts of C4 if you want to have an explosion who's equal to 10 Kts of TNT.

The same thing with the C3.

1 ton of C3 is equal to 3 tons of TNT.

[Edited on 16-1-2003 by ultra_phoenix]

C-4 in actual fact is not that much different from the original composition C. The explosive RDX quantities have actually been reduced slightly.
As for the power of Comp C compared to TNT :

• TNT VOD(velocity of detonation) is 22 637 fps
  
• Comp C ( C1 to C4 ) VOD is 26 377 fps
  

During World War II, the British used a plastic demolition explosive that could be shaped by hand and had great shattering power. As standardized by the US, it was designated as composition C and contained 88.3 percent RDX and 11.7 of a nonexplosive oily plasticizer.

Composition C was replaced by C-2, which contained 80 percent RDX and 20 percent explosive plasticizer. This explosive plasticizer was composed of mononitrotoluene.

C-2 was replaced by C-3, which contains 77% (+/- 2%) RDX and 23% (+/- 2%) explosive plasticizer.

C-3 has been replaced by C-4 because of its hardening, volatility, and its hygroscopicity. C-4 contains, RDX, Polyisobutylene, Motor Oil, and Di (2-ethylhexyl) sebacate.

EXPLOSIVES


If your interested in the next generation of explosives, look at the new US AFX-757 and CL-20

CL-20 pdf

[Edited on 22-2-2003 by mad scientist]

Hi you guys!
I'm a guy from Vietnam, which is a buddie of North Korea. What you discuss here seem nonsense. Why? Yankee deem they have the rights to invade Iraq or Vietnam in the past in the guise of "liberation", "MDW disarmement" or #ing else. But actually they don't. You must have been very curious for the reason why Vietnam could be the winner. 'cause we are patriotic, we have been fighting for our independence from US ruling. US can be very proud of hi-tech weapon like dioxin or orange agent put PEOPLE is the most important resoure nowadays.
You conlude NK is dictatorship but US is the biggest dictator in this wolrd. How sad it is!
Sorry if this get you angry but it is true.
Communism is not the best but better than capitalism really!!!!!