Author Topic: The New Korean War: Discuss it here  (Read 42136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Whore of Spamylon

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Gender: Male
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2013, 03:23:33 am »
Could you honestly change the title to something that doesn't provoke one into thinking a full scale military conflict has just commenced?  I just awoke from about three or four hours of sleep and the title made my heart race.

Not cool.


“Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.” - William Gibson

Offline Meshakhad

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
  • Gender: Male
  • The Night Is Dark And Full Of Terrors... Like Me
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2013, 05:14:56 am »
Any thoughts on whether or not China might help us out? I think it's more likely than you might think.
I asked my mother on her input. She says China would do everything it can to prevent another Korean War, since in the worst case, North Korean refugees would go straight to China. Only problem is that North Korea has stopped listening to them.

Would there be so many refugees going to China if there are troops coming OUT of China? I'm not talking about China giving us intel; I'm talking about PLA boots on the ground in North Korea.
G-d's Kingdom Is A Hate-Free Zone

Quote from: Reploid Productions
Pardon the interruption, good sir/lady; there are aspects of your behavior that I find quite unbecoming, and I must insist most strenuously that I be permitted to assist in resolving these behaviors through the repeated high-velocity cranial introduction of particularly firm building materials.

Quote from: Meshakhad
GIVE ME KNOWLEDGE OR I WILL PUT A CAP IN YO ASS!

Offline Dynamic Dragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Gender: Male
  • Punisher of the Guilty
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2013, 08:09:33 am »
I liked that "Gun Porn" stuff.  Could you please put it back? You don't have to read it if you don't want to.
Learn from the past, live in the present, prepare for the future.

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2013, 11:13:17 am »
Could you honestly change the title to something that doesn't provoke one into thinking a full scale military conflict has just commenced?  I just awoke from about three or four hours of sleep and the title made my heart race.

Not cool.

Well, the sad fact is that a full scale military conflict probably WILL commence. The Koreas have been on the verge of war for years, and they've had a steady stream of border clashes (along the lines of "North fires a few rifle rounds across the border, South fires a few back") over the years that culminated in an actual artillery exchange that killed two South Korean civilians and two Marines on an island. There's also been over 200 excursions by South Koreans over the border to sabotage facilities, and even more attempts by the North to get over to the South.

The nuclear threat has only escalated the conflict, as now South Korea and the US (as well as anyone else who would join in the fight, such as the rest of NATO and Japan) are very likely actively preparing for a response in case the DPRK tries to act on their threat. We know that they have rockets, and we know that they have nuclear devices. Whereas the Iraqi WMDs were never really confirmed, the North Korean capabilities are known and they're actively threatening to use them.

It was a massive mistake on their part, really. The conflict had remained at a low level, mostly just occasional clashes and bad feelings. The world became wary when they started testing ICBMs, but now they're on full alert and ready to strike at the first sign of a "preemptive strike." They've put themselves in a nasty position, and unless the leadership suddenly gains clarity and publicly disassembles everything and submits to the US and South Korea's whims, it's not going to defuse.

Quote
I liked that "Gun Porn" stuff.  Could you please put it back? You don't have to read it if you don't want to.

Unfortunately, I plain deleted the posts. Unless someone saved a copy, they're not coming back and I really don't want to go through hours of effort again to repost it all. If someone wants to discuss a particular aspect, I'd be glad to provide all relevant information. Though in lieu of continuing the small arms category (which was almost finished when I removed it), I'll move on to vehicles.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 11:14:57 am by chitoryu12 »
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline Scotsgit

  • Is Reenacting Reality or Reality Reenacting?
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2013, 11:32:29 am »
It'll be the live version Team America: World Police.
Kim Jong-Un has Arec Bardwin?

He has nobody, he's too ronery, remember?
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Offline Dynamic Dragon

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Gender: Male
  • Punisher of the Guilty
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2013, 11:37:02 am »


Quote
I liked that "Gun Porn" stuff.  Could you please put it back? You don't have to read it if you don't want to.

Unfortunately, I plain deleted the posts. Unless someone saved a copy, they're not coming back and I really don't want to go through hours of effort again to repost it all. If someone wants to discuss a particular aspect, I'd be glad to provide all relevant information. Though in lieu of continuing the small arms category (which was almost finished when I removed it), I'll move on to vehicles.

I suspect that there might be cached versions somewhere.
Learn from the past, live in the present, prepare for the future.

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2013, 11:38:47 am »
Vehicles of the Ground Forces

The modern army is a highly mechanized one, and vehicles of all kinds are a major force in conventional warfare. Everyone knows about tanks and Humvees, but there's many different categories: self-propelled anti-aircraft guns and artillery, cargo trucks, armored personnel carriers, scout vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles (which often overlap with APCs), and various other types.

One particular quirk of a Korean war is the terrain: while the fighting in Iraq and Kuwait consisted of large, open expanses of desert with lines of sight stretching for miles, Korea is highly mountainous to the point of 80% of the nation consisting of mountains or highlands (all points in Korea above 2000 feet are in the DPRK). The mountains are separated by deep, narrow valleys that present excellent ambush points for defenders. The majority of the population lives in the remaining 20%, consisting of lowlands and plains.

What this means is that there will likely be few, if any, tank battles that consist of vehicles taking shots from long range and close air support (CAS) swooping in to destroy a dozen a day. The vehicles will be moving relatively slowly to their objective along treacherous terrain which can be easily defended, which necessitates cautious. It's likely that portable anti-tank weapons like the RPG-7 will be a major factor in such conditions, as an RPG team can easily hide in ambush and deliver precise shots from relatively close range at vulnerable parts like tracks.

Also, it will be very important for Allied forces ("Allied" referring to the coalition against North Korea that mainly consists of South Korea, the United States, Japan, and NATO) to secure airfields early on, as it will allow them to simply fly vehicles (as well as other supplies and troops) directly into the country near their targets instead of forcing them to cross the DMZ from South Korea.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline mellenORL

  • Pedal Pushing Puppy Peon
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3876
  • Gender: Female
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2013, 11:42:52 am »
By repudiating the truce, PDRK has simply opened the history-book-in-progress to a new chapter title page; "Korean War, Part II". NK's government really need to go down, and that they are willingly inviting their own demise is fine by me. The alternative to finally offing these vicious fucks is to stand by, depending on relatively ineffective sanctions, while NK citizens die by the tens of thousands every year until the country grinds to a halt from lack of labor force and food. Some intelligence analysts estimate that since Kim Il Sung took over in '48, upwards of 8 million NK citizens have died from starvation, unmitigated epidemic disease, and death camps. Those are Holocaust-class statistics. Why the fuck are we (the world) still waiting around?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 11:46:11 am by mellenORL »
Quote from: Ultimate Chatbot That Totally Passes The Turing Test
I sympathize completely. However, to use against us. Let me ask you a troll. On the one who pulled it. But here's the question: where do I think it might as well have stepped out of all people would cling to a layman.

Offline Scotsgit

  • Is Reenacting Reality or Reality Reenacting?
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2013, 11:57:19 am »
A note here about comparing who has the best gun, etc:  It's irrelevant.  The Korean Army could be armed with brown bess muskets and there's a chance they could still win.

The weapons are irrelevant because those with the best weapons don't often win.  Technological superiority does not automatically equate a walk over.  Look at Germany in WWII:  Best planes, tanks (until the Soviets started to build the T-34), camouflage and weapons:  they still lost.  The same could be said for the USA in Vietnam or the British during the American revolution.  Who has the best weapons isn't the determinator for the the fighting.

What does determine the outcome of is the quality of the troops on the ground:  Here we have to look at the quality of the troops on both sides, but for now I think it's best to look at North Korea.

The problem here is that we really don't know as much about them as we'd like to, but going on what we do know, I'd say that what would be needed is a large-scale propaganda war to bring the NK troops over without fighting.  This would involve the use of broadcasts appealing to their basic needs ("Come over and we'll feed you") as well as to remind them of their duty to their own people rather than fighting for Kim.  Ultimately, it would need to have to make them see that Kim is no the all-powerful superhuman that their own propaganda makes him out to be, nor is he the saviour of the nation that his own side portray him as.  It would also have to be followed up with an intensive hearts and minds campaign to win over the population:  This would require delicacy and is really best left to the Koreans themselves, to show the people from the North how much better it is to live under a peaceful democratic regime.  This can only be done by the South Koreans as the North Koreans have lived in a state where everything bad is because of the nasty evil US backing South Korea.  By all means have the US back these efforts, but have them do it through South Korea, let's not have a repeat of what happened in Iraq.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2013, 12:42:37 pm »
A note here about comparing who has the best gun, etc:  It's irrelevant.  The Korean Army could be armed with brown bess muskets and there's a chance they could still win.

The weapons are irrelevant because those with the best weapons don't often win.  Technological superiority does not automatically equate a walk over.  Look at Germany in WWII:  Best planes, tanks (until the Soviets started to build the T-34), camouflage and weapons:  they still lost.  The same could be said for the USA in Vietnam or the British during the American revolution.  Who has the best weapons isn't the determinator for the the fighting.

This is an oversimplification and misunderstanding of the technology levels in World War II. Germany could only even be vaguely determined as "ahead" during the early war period, but their technology was very rapidly overcome by allied tech. German planes weren't vastly superior to the Hurricanes and Spitfires used by the British (and indeed could be determined as inferior in the case of the Spitfire), and their tanks were notoriously overengineered and more expensive and complex to mass produce than simpler designs that could still effectively kill them. Their firearms were almost entirely equal to what they faced from the Allies, and the Americans soundly beat their rifles with the introduction of semi-automatic firepower as standard issue instead of special issue. The Soviets also beat them in urban combat through heavier use of submachine guns, which the Germans never quite caught up to. The M4 Sherman had a lot of advantages that German tanks didn't have: better metallurgy that improved the armor without merely making it thicker, superior fuel efficiency on roads, a longer track life, better power traverse for the turrets, better radios and more of them, and the first gun stabilizers.

The theory that Germans had the best technology and were merely beaten by tenacity by the underdogs is a myth that doesn't follow actual combat capabilities. They only held the advantage early on through the speed of the Blitzkrieg and fighting small nations that were still in the process of modernization. As soon as they had to fight comparable technology, they were rapidly driven back.

On the subject of a Korean war, the technology plays a very large part. The M1 Abrams and T-62 are both extremely different vehicles, with the M1 superior in pretty much every capacity except for cost and complexity. At the same time, the mountainous terrain will limit the advantages of the M1 due to it not being a simple "tank vs. tank on an open field" scenario. The differences in power, armor, equipment, and training are all extremely important and should be carefully considered without oversimplifying it.

Quote
The problem here is that we really don't know as much about them as we'd like to, but going on what we do know, I'd say that what would be needed is a large-scale propaganda war to bring the NK troops over without fighting.  This would involve the use of broadcasts appealing to their basic needs ("Come over and we'll feed you") as well as to remind them of their duty to their own people rather than fighting for Kim.  Ultimately, it would need to have to make them see that Kim is no the all-powerful superhuman that their own propaganda makes him out to be, nor is he the saviour of the nation that his own side portray him as.  It would also have to be followed up with an intensive hearts and minds campaign to win over the population:  This would require delicacy and is really best left to the Koreans themselves, to show the people from the North how much better it is to live under a peaceful democratic regime.  This can only be done by the South Koreans as the North Koreans have lived in a state where everything bad is because of the nasty evil US backing South Korea.  By all means have the US back these efforts, but have them do it through South Korea, let's not have a repeat of what happened in Iraq.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it's reliant on North Korean forces purely fighting because they have no other options, and that they'll flee en masse should they be given a chance to be brought to South Korea. North Korea follows the World War II Soviet doctrine of conscription and "Disobey and you will be shot", and use fear to keep their men in line. Anyone who disobeys orders, even suicidal ones, risks being killed by their own officers. Not to mention that they regularly threaten and imprison/execute the families and friends of disobedient workers, which means that they're over a whole new barrel. Even the ones who haven't fallen for the propaganda won't defect unless the safety of themselves and their families and friends is guaranteed.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline Scotsgit

  • Is Reenacting Reality or Reality Reenacting?
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
  • Gender: Male
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2013, 01:08:53 pm »
I am not over-simplifying anything:  I'm point out that you're getting bogged down in what is little more than a playground argument over who has the bigger toy.  At the end of the day, it's the quality of the troops on the ground that wins wars.  And if you can break that resolve with the use of effective propaganda, so much the better.
I am serious, and stop calling me Shirley!

Offline DasFuchs

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Gender: Male
  • Ruler of his own little world since 1977
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2013, 01:45:36 pm »
Quote
It's not simply a matter of "they're worse", nor am I judging this by the likely age of their weapons. What I'm saying is, should it come down to actual military engagements between the USA and N. Korea, they simply do not have what it takes to stand a chance. Our air power, with the support of S. Korean bases and our carrier fleets, will lead to complete air control in no time. If there's one thing America has proven time and again, it's that we absolutely dominate battles where we can include our air force.

Yes, but this is not simply a matter of aerial warfare. The air force exists to provide support for the ground forces, not to simply win battles themselves. Time and time again since World War II (when the idea of air power becoming the greatest force outside of the atomic bomb became common), it's been proven that fighting very often comes down to the people and vehicles on the ground. The recent war in Iraq saw total air superiority by the United States and Coalition to the point where the Iraqis were lucky to even get anything off the ground, but the fighting was still based in the capabilities of the soldiers and vehicles that could actually capture ground and cities and hold them. You can blow up most of the defenders with an F/A-18, but you can't actually do anything until you've got soldiers and tanks to walk in and mop up or hold the territory. There's also areas that the air force simply can't reach, like tunnels, or can't indiscriminately bomb, like cities and villages. Sometimes you need something more precise than a laser-guided bomb, especially when civilians get involved.

Air superiority will ensure that the North Koreans can't raise aircraft against the US and South Korea easily and will allow for easier ability to call in close air support, but the only thing that can actually win the war (as opposed to turning the land into dust) will be men with machine guns and the tanks ahead of them.

You need to remember NK is a country with guns only for the military, lack of fuel, ammo and supplies, plus anything that could get off the ground short of some old cold war era 50's tech and a few biplanes.
From what I've heard from some military friends, the basic plan of battle when it comes to it is let NK invade the south, they'll run out of supplies and effort within the first few days, then punch them back. Last time they had China and to some extent Russia to back them. If NK becomes the aggressors, even China won't take part in any of it till someone bombs the chinese.
NK is fucked no matter which way they go and they know it. This is all just saber rattling so they can get attention like a baby crying.
"To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich. Not some nut that takes on two Tigers!" "You gotta hit'em point blank in the ass!" Oddball

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2013, 01:52:50 pm »
Main Battle Tanks

(click to show/hide)

The North Korean tank complement, except for a pair of secretive indigenous designs that begin to reach toward modern capabilities, are just as old as the rest of their equipment. Similar models have recently faced action against modern American vehicles in the Middle East to disastrous results, and the M1 Abrams is overwhelmingly superior to all known models (and likely superior to their two new ones) while also being more numerous than all combined models of North Korean tank. However, the advantages of the Gulf War and the recent war in Iraq (wide open terrain with long ranges and direct tank vs. tank combat) are lost in North Korea, where the mountains and valleys both slow the Allied advance and make ambushes much easier to perform, as well as making close air support more difficult to properly apply. South Korea has tanks of a similar capability to the American Abrams, but they also have large numbers of Cold War vehicles that may need to be brought out if necessary and will be more comparable to North Korean vehicles.

One major disadvantage to the North Koreans is the large number of tank models in use. While many of them are from similar stock, they're not identical. The more vehicle types you have to maintain, the harder it is to produce enough spare parts and ammunition for all of them. South Korea has this issue to a smaller degree, while the United States exclusively uses the M1 Abrams and only needs to produce ammo and parts for one model.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 06:57:46 pm by chitoryu12 »
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2013, 02:18:15 pm »
I am not over-simplifying anything:  I'm point out that you're getting bogged down in what is little more than a playground argument over who has the bigger toy.  At the end of the day, it's the quality of the troops on the ground that wins wars.  And if you can break that resolve with the use of effective propaganda, so much the better.

You ARE oversimplifying it and demonstrating lack of understanding of strategy and tactics. The exact capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses of the weapon systems involved is very important in determining how long a war will take and how many casualties both sides may face, as well as what works best in the specific terrain and battle. Quality only goes so far, especially when even untrained insurgents with old weapons can provide difficulty for a modern army.

And again, you're assuming that propaganda will work on soldiers who risk the deaths of themselves and their families by doing anything other than following orders.
Still can't think of a signature a year later.

Offline chitoryu12

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Gender: Male
  • Tax-Payer Rhino
Re: The New Korean War: Discuss it here
« Reply #29 on: March 09, 2013, 02:22:59 pm »
Quote
It's not simply a matter of "they're worse", nor am I judging this by the likely age of their weapons. What I'm saying is, should it come down to actual military engagements between the USA and N. Korea, they simply do not have what it takes to stand a chance. Our air power, with the support of S. Korean bases and our carrier fleets, will lead to complete air control in no time. If there's one thing America has proven time and again, it's that we absolutely dominate battles where we can include our air force.

Yes, but this is not simply a matter of aerial warfare. The air force exists to provide support for the ground forces, not to simply win battles themselves. Time and time again since World War II (when the idea of air power becoming the greatest force outside of the atomic bomb became common), it's been proven that fighting very often comes down to the people and vehicles on the ground. The recent war in Iraq saw total air superiority by the United States and Coalition to the point where the Iraqis were lucky to even get anything off the ground, but the fighting was still based in the capabilities of the soldiers and vehicles that could actually capture ground and cities and hold them. You can blow up most of the defenders with an F/A-18, but you can't actually do anything until you've got soldiers and tanks to walk in and mop up or hold the territory. There's also areas that the air force simply can't reach, like tunnels, or can't indiscriminately bomb, like cities and villages. Sometimes you need something more precise than a laser-guided bomb, especially when civilians get involved.

Air superiority will ensure that the North Koreans can't raise aircraft against the US and South Korea easily and will allow for easier ability to call in close air support, but the only thing that can actually win the war (as opposed to turning the land into dust) will be men with machine guns and the tanks ahead of them.

You need to remember NK is a country with guns only for the military, lack of fuel, ammo and supplies, plus anything that could get off the ground short of some old cold war era 50's tech and a few biplanes.
From what I've heard from some military friends, the basic plan of battle when it comes to it is let NK invade the south, they'll run out of supplies and effort within the first few days, then punch them back. Last time they had China and to some extent Russia to back them. If NK becomes the aggressors, even China won't take part in any of it till someone bombs the chinese.
NK is fucked no matter which way they go and they know it. This is all just saber rattling so they can get attention like a baby crying.

Nobody has any doubt that they'll lose. This thread isn't about who would win, but rather how much damage they could do before they lose.

Quote
By repudiating the truce, PDRK has simply opened the history-book-in-progress to a new chapter title page; "Korean War, Part II". NK's government really need to go down, and that they are willingly inviting their own demise is fine by me. The alternative to finally offing these vicious fucks is to stand by, depending on relatively ineffective sanctions, while NK citizens die by the tens of thousands every year until the country grinds to a halt from lack of labor force and food. Some intelligence analysts estimate that since Kim Il Sung took over in '48, upwards of 8 million NK citizens have died from starvation, unmitigated epidemic disease, and death camps. Those are Holocaust-class statistics. Why the fuck are we (the world) still waiting around?

"Doing the right thing" isn't always cut and dry. The problem is that even discounting their nuclear capability (for all we know, they're ready to launch nukes at South Korea, Japan, and possibly us at a moment's notice and the former two can't adequately defend themselves due to their proximity), we know for a fact that they have artillery pointed right at Seoul and other South Korean targets. It's estimated that thousands of rounds of artillery could land on the city before the batteries can be silenced, and we also know for a fact that North Korea will immediately begin firing if we attack. Even if we targeted the artillery first, we don't know where every gun is and they're likely the ones kept in prime condition. If we make the first strike, South Korean civilians WILL die.

Unless North Korea becomes so dangerous that we have no choice but to immediately attack in self-defense (such as being seen preparing ICBMs or massing their forces at the DMZ), nobody wants to be the one to provoke them.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 04:00:26 pm by chitoryu12 »
Still can't think of a signature a year later.