North Korea threatens US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Rroff said:
Fuel and ability to sustain their army would be a major consideration but don't under-estimate their (own brand) tanks (assuming they can actually run them) they are currently being upgraded with assistance from the same Chinese who recently developed one of the most highly regarded main battle tanks in the world and ancedotal evidence suggest that although they still retain many of the vulnerabilities especially to the rear that are inherent to the T72 the frontal arc is supposedly on par with any top 10 main battle tank in the world and they have significantly upgraded mobility and firepower.

The main show stopper would be how combat effective they actually are in reality and ability to resupply which is highly likely to be extremely poor. But they've been digging in (somewhat literally) since the 1970s so if they do decide to have a pop at someone with a long range strike then air based retaliation is likely going to be somewhat less effective than it could be and a ground attack bloody and costly.

EDIT: Wouldn't be too hastey to write off their supply lines, tho it would falter once they left NK, they've put a lot of effort in the last 2-3 decades in being able to rapidly move large amounts of men and vehicles around the country the main issue as you mentioned would be the resupply as by all accounts they simply don't have the resources to back up a sustained war.
Click to expand...

Do you have any links to articles about their tanks? I was under the impression that the home grown tanks were based on the t62..if theyve got them up to the level of modern main battle tanks, id be extremely impressed.

I really dont think the south korean k2 tanks have much to worry about tho :o
 
Balddog said:
Do you have any links to articles about their tanks? I was under the impression that the home grown tanks were based on the t62..if theyve got them up to the level of modern main battle tanks, id be extremely impressed.

I really dont think the south korean k2 tanks have much to worry about tho :o
Click to expand...

Their original own grown tank was based on the T62, the latest incarnation of the Pokpung-ho is based on the T72 with (on paper) significant upgrades from newer Chinese tank tech (supposedly with assistance from some of the people who worked on the 99).

But yeah not sure that South Korea has much to worry about as they currently operate some of the most advanced tanks in the world but at the same time I'm not going to write off NK's latest tanks out of hand assuming they can actually field them in numbers in a combat effective state.
 
ubersonic said:
Seoul is 30 miles from the border, WW2 artillery could laugh at that.
Click to expand...

Really? Which ww2 artillery exactly? As far as i know, the majority of ww2 artillery could not reach 30 kilometers, let alone miles. Even those enormous german railway guns that shot across teh channel couldnt do 30 miles.

The north korean guns thing is not grounded in modern reality. Please read this if youre interested

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=0de7e0e84dc3aff619f936a70&id=c284fb3f9b&e=9d45c18d86

If the DPRK were to begin and sustain a conventional artillery barrage, they would begin with some 20,500 artillery pieces. Sounds overwhelming, but if we go down another level, it’s believed the DPRK has 5,100 Multiple Rocket Launchers (MRL); 4,400 Self-propelled artillery and 7, 500 mortars but not all 20,500 pieces can range Seoul [24]. Going down one more level of detail, initially, we need only be concerned with two systems: Multiple Rocket Launcher 240mm (MRL 240) rocket launchers with a range of 35 km and the KOKSAN 170mm with a 60km range if using Rocket Assisted Projectiles (RAP). Digging just a little deeper, some assess 500 KOKSAN pieces and 200 each 240 mm systems that can range parts of Seoul.
Click to expand...
 
Balddog said:
Even those enormous german railway guns that shot across teh channel couldnt do 30 miles.
Click to expand...

Max range 29.375 miles... so close. Not really familiar with artillery but looking around seems even todays is mostly around 18 miles range aside from some ultra heavy stuff.
 
The US won't want to be deployed on the ground, it's going to be a bloodbath imho, bit like the japs in wwII, they won't quit easy.

Technology and strategy wise it's not going to be that complex, what worries me is what standpoint china and Russia will take, they might have fallen out with NK but ts the back door politics which are of concern.
 
Firestar_3x said:
The US won't want to be deployed on the ground, it's going to be a bloodbath imho, bit like the japs in wwII, they won't quit easy.

Technology and strategy wise it's not going to be that complex, what worries me is what standpoint china and Russia will take, they might have fallen out with NK but ts the back door politics which are of concern.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

I think they will quit very easy. Soldiers are normal folk too. Most will have joined the army just to avoid starvation. I dont believe for a moment they are as brainwashed as our media would have us believe.

They will collapse just like the Iraqi armed forces did.
 
Duff-Man said:
They don't have sufficient fuel to mobilise their army, they don't have sufficient food reserves to feed a mobilised army for an extended period or extend long supply lines, and their weaponry is, at best, of soviet era. Upgraded T72 tank hulls (... a 1960s tank) are still no match for modern armour-piercing anti-tank weaponry launched from helicopters or drones.

North Korea's greatest offensive strength is the mass of heavy artillery they have on the border, targeting Seoul and other South Korean assets.





Let me give you a quick rundown of how a US offensive against North Korea would go...

First, the US would seek to obtain air superiority. Given the massive technological differential and the questionable ability of NK to fuel their jets, this would occur very quickly (much more rapidly than, for example, 1991 Iraq). High altitude bombers and drones would be present to take out anti-air installations, while fighter jets cleared out any enemy aircraft.

The North Korean artillery would cause massive damage to the South's infrastructure, in the first hours and days of the war. Removing these batteries (primarily with drones) would be the first major strategic objective of the campaign.

We can presume that a few hundred thousand North Korean troops would swarm over the border. The US would not be able to prevent these troops pushing tens of miles into the South. However, the North's supply lines are unlikely to allow a rapid advancement (particularly for mechanised units), and any advancement will face continued and heavy bombardment from the air (drones, helicopters, B52s etc), without any means to return fire. The organisational structure of the North's army would be decimated, leaving tens of thousands of troops disbanded into small units, waging a guerilla-type offensive against whatever South Korean targets they can find, and raiding for food etc. This would be perhaps the most damaging aspect of an invasion. Large, well organised military offensives are doomed to defeat against such superior weaponry, but small bands of independent fighting units, that can "blend in" to the terrain, are much more difficult. The US and the South would require tens of thousands of troops to fight the remains of the invading force, and this process would take many months.

With air superiority attained the US would focus on "decapitation"; targetting high-ranking generals, party officials, and Mr Kim himself. North Korea is very much a top-down autocracy, and removing leaders would seriously disrupt their coordination.

A full-scale ground invasion would be delayed for as long as possible. The US has little or nothing to gain from a land invasion, and would face massive casualties. The losses would not match those seen in Vietnam or the first Korean war, but they would be significant. The US would focus on retaking lost ground in the South, and reinforcing the border. From here the goal would be to "destroy" the North's leadership, and and encourage revolt by the common people against the party (how successful this would be is anyone's guess). Drops of propaganda leaflets and food etc among civilian populations would be routine from the first few weeks of the operation.

If the "decapitation and revolt" strategy is unsuccessful, and an invasion is required, casualties will be high on both sides. I strongly suspect that the US would seek assistance in "peacekeeping" from China, whose soldiers will be viewed in a completely different light to those of the US, by North korean soldiers and civilians. The US would lose out strategically by allowing China such a strong hand in North Korea, but given the geopolitical situation, and China's growing strength, this may be a necessary compromise. China would not accept a "US puppet" regime in North Korea anyway, so involving them directly in the occupation and administration of the North would seem relatively attractive.





Edit: There is really no doubt that a North Korean invasion would be doomed to a bloody and (relatively) quick defeat. However such an invasion would cause a *massive* economic impact in the entire Asia-pacific region, on which the US relies very heavily. North Korea's entire strategy right now is brinkmanship based on this fact. They are (as they have been for a decade now) using the possibility of this massive disruption to force concessions from the US. Up until around 2008 this was working quite well, but now it is starting to fail. The US is moving further and further away from dealing with North Korea, and (more importantly) China have started to turn their back on the North as well. Without their powerful neighbours to back them up, the North is becoming more and more desperate, hence the recent rise the the volume of the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

What you're forgetting though is the aftermath. There would be years of peace keeping, making Afghanistan seem like a walk in the park. Unless China got involved and managed to quell most of the disquiet.

I don't think there is that much of a rise in rhetoric, at least non return rhetoric. The US has been rattling the sabre and NK have been responding in kind. The US do "excercises" just off their borders and what do they expect?
 
Balddog said:
Disagree.

I think they will quit very easy. Soldiers are normal folk too. Most will have joined the army just to avoid starvation. I dont believe for a moment they are as brainwashed as our media would have us believe.

They will collapse just like the Iraqi armed forces did.
Click to expand...

If the video I've seen of all the troops jumping in the water to welcome 'the leader', the get neck deep to wave him off, is anything to go by I'd say the are brainwashed.
 
Firestar_3x said:
The US won't want to be deployed on the ground, it's going to be a bloodbath imho, bit like the japs in wwII, they won't quit easy.

Technology and strategy wise it's not going to be that complex, what worries me is what standpoint china and Russia will take, they might have fallen out with NK but ts the back door politics which are of concern.
Click to expand...

If it came to it as Duff-man mentioned earlier I'd bet China will stand back on the condition they get to takeover occupation and administration of the region afterwards, US probably wouldn't be too happy with it but won't have much choice. Russia will probably condemn it in the strongest terms but have no wish to get actually involved especially if the Chinese are tentatively onboard.
 
Firestar_3x said:
If the video I've seen of all the troops jumping in the water to welcome 'the leader', the get neck deep to wave him off, is anything to go by I'd say the are brainwashed.
Click to expand...

I havent seen that video...but the fact that its a video and was almost certainly staged should tell you a lot. Theres also a huge different between the way they act in front of their own officers and the way they act when faced with enemy troops.

Seeing all the parades and propaganda videos from iraq you would have thought they would have put up a fight too..but they folded like a sheet of wet bog roll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom