Korea : Military Concerns and Summaries

Well sir, you get a S+F from me for the effort and amount of information you have gathered in these last 3 threads. People like you are the reason I still greatly enjoy coming to this site on a daily basis. Well done.

Originally posted by pheonix358
Finally, a thread that says it all in one place.

Yes, the US can beat them, if China and Russia allow it, which they will not.

SK would be in ruins after the first 60 minutes of combat.

Can NK win, hell no. Can they inflict a huge amount of damage, hell yes.

Who wins out of this conflict .... China, when she marches in and secures both NK and SK in the name of world peace. What can the US do after that .... nothing, nothing at all. It is China who wants this to explode so she can rid the Asian land mass of direct Western influence.

Wrabbit, well done!


P

Do you really think China could just wipe the Allies off of the Asian map? You do realize that South Korea alone has about 600 thousand troops at the ready. That's not including the 30 thousand or so highly trained American troops that are there waiting. And if anything sets off the Americans can get hundreds of thousands of troops there faster than China could even think about getting to the north/south border. Unlike North Korea ALL of the Allied troops including the South Korean troops are equipped with updated gear.

So could you explain the logistical path China would take on how China/North Korea would stop the American Navy AND Air force from continuously bombarding 24-7-365? I can assure you the United States would not run out of bombs although China/North Korea most assuredly would be praying that they do.

I'm not saying victory would be easy if China committed troops because it wouldn't be. But the Allies would see victory by a long shot. The kills to death ratio for the Allies would be astronomical.

If China stepped in with troops you will see what the American military is really capable of, and believe me it would be absolutely devastating.

Anyways I don't think China would commit troops as this would be economic suicide for China. What we do have to worry about is China supplying and feeding North Korea during the conflict. This would prolong the war and cost the Allies more money but it would not stop the Allies from achieving victory.

I think China would try to get North Korea to sign a peace treaty and unify the Korea's.


It would make it a lot easier for the Allies to starve the North Koreans into surrendering if China stayed out of the conflict completely but I don't think that's how it would go down. Here is how I think it will go down.

North Korea strikes a devastating blow to South Korea with first blood. The Allies react with a strike that will impress and even shock China to her bones. China feeds and gives some supplies to North Korea to stall the Allied victory in an attempt to gain a better ground in the peace treaty so that the treaty would be in more favor of North Korea/China than it would be if China just stays out of the conflict completely. Once the treaty is signed North/South Korea will be united resolving the pressure. The buffer zone will remain partially intact due to China's involvement in aiding North Korea in helping to stave off the devastating blow being dealt by the Allies in order to win a louder voice in the treaty talks. In the end everyone is happy and Lil Kim is likely dead if not imprisoned.


-Alien

@ Alien Abduct

Well said Sir, my thoughts exactly. I think China would like to see lil` kim gone but they still want that buffer-zone keeping the west at arms length.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You definitely did your homework on this.

I did go to Globr Fire Power Dot Com and had a look at the Country Side By Side Comparison.

It is no surprise that Our equipment capabilities far exceeds those of N. Korea.

The concerning figures to me are the unit strengths.

With the USA at about 3 million for the combined services ( Active & Reserve ).
And N.K. at a combined strength of nearly 10 million.

Now,. . Lets just say the NK allies would actually allow us to go in and clean their clocks. We may Very Easily defeat them in equipment and technology, BUT, NO war is won without going in on the ground.

NK has strength in numbers and I am Not so sure that we could do it on Our own.

Hey Wrabbit2000 are you familiar with planeman's "Bluffer's guide: Fortress North Korea" threads from mp.net?

A little out of date maybe but these might interest you;

Bluffer's guide: Fortress North Korea

Bluffer’s guide: North Korean Naval Power 2007

Bluffer's Guide: North Korea strikes! (2009)

reply to post by Darce

Thank you very much for those links. That certainly gives me something to seriously consider in how I lay out my next informative type thread like that, whenever a subject comes up that it fits for. I just put a couple days into mine. I can only imagine the time put into those. Almost commercial levels of time and it sure shows. Downright encyclopedic.

It's also interesting to see some of the information there.The .kmz file with all the pre-set defense positions and other things of interest, north of the line should also be fascinating to look over when I have a bit more time. Thanks again for that!

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

I agree the ground forces are a serious question. I'm really not sure how that works out either. I mean they could go fanatic like the World War II Japanese did. They also had a society with Divine leadership, a very focused and exceptionally negative view of anyone not of their own culture and geared very strongly to war. That's about where the similarities end and Japan is nothing in 2013 like it was during and pre-WWII but it's one of the examples that may hint toward how they'll react.

On the other hand, I thought the same thing, with a fair % of the nation so I don't feel too bad, for the 1991 war. On paper, Iraq looked like a REAL bad idea and they ranked among the most powerful in the world. On paper. Of course, history shows that all fell apart pretty quick when it came to real military force opposing them....and maybe that's what'd happen here too. Defectors certainly do suggest morale issues among the military itself. Though statements there always need to be taken with a full salt shaker, forget the grain of salt. lol...

I really do hope we don't have to find out either way.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You're welcome

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Those were good links, many thanks, Darce!

Wrabbit, the 3 huge difference between Iraq and NK are terrain, terrain and terrain. Iraq was a war of helicopters and fast moving armored vehicles, Charge!

NK is not like that at all. There will be no charge, there will be cautious slow advance where every turn or ridge line could hold a surprise and where the enemy may be other than where you think they are.

The most useful weapon in the (non nuclear) US arsenal is likely to be the B52.

P

Wrabbit2000: What a wonderfull threat. Good read really.

And I just had to post this somewhere,

Twitter

[BREAKING NEWS]

North Korea threw a nuclear bomb to South Korea, 6 got injured, 9 people died.

cr: (KBS Breaking News)

Errr lol....what is this world coming to common sense seems to be lacking lol. ( its not true btw )

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
Since the US still keeps their F-5s too...

Yeah, but the F-5 won't ever see combat again. It makes a wonderful MiG simulator though for Top Gun, and other exercises, and the Aggressor squadrons love them (until they finally get their new toys, whatever those turn out to be).

Stolen Migs and F-16s. We have tons of them.

reply to post by Patriotsrevenge


Except they don't use the MiG as an Aggressor. The only Russian aircraft I've ever heard of being used as Aggressors are a pair of Su-27s bought by TacAir recently.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Excellent thread Wrabbit really enjoyed reading it (as always)

I do have a question though if you could answer it, the US is only in South Korea defensively correct? so if active war broke out (as in actual engagement) how far can the US go in terms of supplying guaranteed safety for SK?
I only ask because I believe the US could easily take NKorea never mind a coalition but doing it conventionaly will be dangerous and quite possibly painstakingly slow.

Your thread helps paint that thought in my head, with all that artillery and very undesirable terrain ground forces would have a very bad time having any effect. Sea to Air and Sea to Land based weapons would be the best strategy for the US in my eyes atleast till the ranged guns and anti-air weapons are weakened to a point where moving troops can be done with relative safety, I suppose that high altitude or stealth bombing would help too.

If this war happens I doubt it will be over quickly unless the north use nukes and I don't think they would unless backed into a corner or if the US decide to throw some Tomahawks and massive-ordinance bombs at lil Kim.
This is a war nobody with a sane and stable mind would want.

Bigger problems for North Korea beyond old equipment is training and command and control. As soon and NK goes to war they will be blind and unable to direct forces from any centeral control. Add that to lack of training at all levels of the North Korean forces and the crappy weapons become a seconday issue for them. While the North Korean forces spent a good part of the year bringing in the crops and doing other labors the South is training. With so little contact with the outside world I wonder what the North Koreans even know about about modern warfare.

I would like to see what an F-22 could do in an active engagement of this type.

Originally posted by TheBryk
I would like to see what an F-22 could do in an active engagement of this type.

Nothing. Leave those at home. The 22s and the M1s. Useless in NK.

Originally posted by TheBryk
I would like to see what an F-22 could do in an active engagement of this type.

They won't need it so they won't use it. If it didn't run out of fuel or weapons one single F-22 could wipe out their entire air force. It would be like trying to swat an invisible fly with a chopstick.

-Alien

Originally posted by MrSpad
Bigger problems for North Korea beyond old equipment is training and command and control. As soon and NK goes to war they will be blind and unable to direct forces from any centeral control. Add that to lack of training at all levels of the North Korean forces and the crappy weapons become a seconday issue for them. While the North Korean forces spent a good part of the year bringing in the crops and doing other labors the South is training. With so little contact with the outside world I wonder what the North Koreans even know about about modern warfare.

I dont know... they helped digging the tunnels you sunk into in vietnam, you tell me. You fell prey to an ill equipped weaker force.

The US already had trouble in Korea once... and in Vietnam with the help of Korea. You cant fight in the jungle. You can fly, carpet bomb, use your navy etc all this to do everything from a distance, but you'll have to put troops on the ground, and simply put, the US army is not ready to fight under those conditions and will take time to adjust - if war breaks out you can pretty much assume from the start those 20000 US troops in the DMZ as lost. Right of the bat. And if you deploy anything but special forces / recon in any early stage you're in for a bloodbath - don't kid yourself.

You don't have to be a war expert or analyst and many people here keep saying - nk is not a "rag tag army with lack of motivation that will surrender to us troops as they pass by like it happened in iraq". - almost 2 million men and women, and 8 million active reserves - armed, trained, well motivated, suicidal, proud, extremely aggressive, with no respect what so ever for any convention of war or international regulation.

Btw the kind of guerilla warfare there will render lots of tech useless so the old tech, and specially the terrain tactics will dictate a lot - and as you probably know, the us lacks in "tactic" and relies a lot on its tech. This will be a major problem. Even the supply is a problem on the simplest things - NK probably has the ak 47 as the bread and butter of its army and reserves, which I dont need to tell how better than an m16 the ak is and how available the ak round is compared to the 5.56 (which cant be found on site - requires always a supply chain) the ak 47 is also cheap as dirt as you know.

I'm just saying this so people dont get surprised if things turn ugly all of a sudden... like I said, sure as hell hate to be on the ground on that hellhole...

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by TheBryk
I would like to see what an F-22 could do in an active engagement of this type.

They won't need it so they won't use it. If it didn't run out of fuel or weapons one single F-22 could wipe out their entire air force. It would be like trying to swat an invisible fly with a chopstick.

-Alien

Well... depends where. Close in mountain range at low altitude? a Mig 21 would have advantage. Then again a 22 pilot wouldnt risk it, doesnt have the agility of the mig and he would pull out. Only a stupid 22 pilot would follow a 21 there anyway...

Thanks for the facts. Interestingly in the first Gulf war the strength of the Iraqi army was at the time the 4th largest in the world. Other figures for Iraq were 4,500 tanks, 484 combat aircraft and 232 combat helicopters - many of these aircraft were modern. So the US has recent experience of combating such an enemy.