The U.S. 8th army is there BECAUSE of a United Nations mandate going back to 1950. Russia abstained from the resolution to defend the R.O.K. because at the time communist China wasn't permitted it's seat on the U.N. security council hence Russia's abstension as a form of protest. IMO this was huge mistake on the soviets part but that' another story. So the U.N. has been dealing with it for some time now and the united states military is the muscle behind the u.n. how do you think we got there in the first place?
Korea still needs U.S army
- Thread starter jasonmarz930
- Start date
As a combat arms military professional, who was stationed in South Korea twice (once in an infantry battalion and once in an armor battalion) including a DMZ rotation, I think you are grossly overestmating the warfighting capabilites of the NKPA. I'm not sure if you have ever spent anytime on the Korean pennisula, but the terrirory of South Korea along the DMZ is one of the worst places anywhere to attempt to conduct a "bliztkrieg" style strategy. It is one of the most heavily fortified stretches of real estate in the world, and it is also mountainous AND heavily urbanized.Personally I believe you guys are underestimating North Korea, it has improved tremendously in the manner of equipment, troops, tanks, planes, and officers. North Korea has the capability to fight a long term war since their economy is a "war economy" meaning its centered around their military like most communist nations. Also China has proven that it is willing to go to war to ensure North Korea's Sovergienty. North Korea's battle power is centered around a "blitzkrieg" style strategy and has the capability to carry it out. Probably the chief reason the North Korean assualt in the Korean War was stopped was because we had two full divisions based in Japan along with an expiditionary force in South Korea that we used to blunt their offensive. The majority of those forces aren't there anymore, we no longer keep ANY forces in Korea and if we do its small. So North Korea would undoubtably win if they went to war right now.
The vast majority of the NKPAs heavy forces are antiquated T-54/55s, T-62s, Type 59s and BTR-60s.
While they have a distinct numerical advanatge (~1 million men vs the ROK ~500,000) this is more than offset by the ROK Army's vastly superior equipment and weapon systems and it basic advanatge the ROKs have of being on the defensive in terrain that favors the defense. The rule of thumb when attacking defensive positions is that the attacker wants at least a 3 to 1 advantage in numbers - and this is assuming rough technical and tactical parity between the combatants.
If the NKPA had a real shot of pulling it off, they would have tried. They missed what ever window of opportunity they might of had, back when the ROKs technical advantage was much less and when they had the firm backing of a super power patron in the Soviet Union.
Now the the NKPA is essentially a terror weapon. While they could never militarily defeat the south, they CAN inflict massive civilian casulaties and infastructure damage on the heavily populated and industrialized areas near Seoul with conventional artillery, chemical weapons, and now possibly a nuke or two - and they use this a political leverage - and as a means of safeguarding the regime.
Adrian
For those who are interested in this subject and have the time I'd recommend a book called Red Phoenix written by Larry Bond. He collaborated with Tom Clancy heavily on Red Storm Rising apparently, and although the book is a little dated (around 1984ish) it read well. In almost every scenario on the Korean peninsula it seems the critical balance is 1) making sure the conflict remains non-NBC and 2) that it would remain a regional conflict not involving China or Russia backing North Korea due to concerns over an American presence and a United Korea friendly to the U.S. right on their borders. If in such a war the U.N. command decided to go North I'd say the R.O.K. ONLY approach the Yalu but with Allied air support and any other support possible. Even though it's not 1950 anymore I doubt the Chinese would tolerate U.S. troops in strength right on their border even today.
That and the fact that if the DPRK falls your going to see the worst humaniterian crisis in the last 50 years. Not to mention unmind ****ing there entire population.As a combat arms military professional, who was stationed in South Korea twice (once in an infantry battalion and once in an armor battalion) including a DMZ rotation, I think you are grossly overestmating the warfighting capabilites of the NKPA. I'm not sure if you have ever spent anytime on the Korean pennisula, but the terrirory of South Korea along the DMZ is one of the worst places anywhere to attempt to conduct a "bliztkrieg" style strategy. It is one of the most heavily fortified stretches of real estate in the world, and it is also mountainous AND heavily urbanized.
The vast majority of the NKPAs heavy forces are antiquated T-54/55s, T-62s, Type 59s and BTR-60s.
While they have a distinct numerical advanatge (~1 million men vs the ROK ~500,000) this is more than offset by the ROK Army's vastly superior equipment and weapon systems and it basic advanatge the ROKs have of being on the defensive in terrain that favors the defense. The rule of thumb when attacking defensive positions is that the attacker wants at least a 3 to 1 advantage in numbers - and this is assuming rough technical and tactical parity between the combatants.
If the NKPA had a real shot of pulling it off, they would have tried. They missed what ever window of opportunity they might of had, back when the ROKs technical advantage was much less and when they had the firm backing of a super power patron in the Soviet Union.
Now the the NKPA is essentially a terror weapon. While they could never militarily defeat the south, they CAN inflict massive civilian casulaties and infastructure damage on the heavily populated and industrialized areas near Seoul with conventional artillery, chemical weapons, and now possibly a nuke or two - and they use this a political leverage - and as a means of safeguarding the regime.
Adrian
Where to start replying to this? It's so full of misunderstandings.Personally I believe you guys are underestimating North Korea, it has improved tremendously in the manner of equipment, troops, tanks, planes, and officers. North Korea has the capability to fight a long term war since their economy is a "war economy" meaning its centered around their military like most communist nations. Also China has proven that it is willing to go to war to ensure North Korea's Sovergienty. North Korea's battle power is centered around a "blitzkrieg" style strategy and has the capability to carry it out. Probably the chief reason the North Korean assualt in the Korean War was stopped was because we had two full divisions based in Japan along with an expiditionary force in South Korea that we used to blunt their offensive. The majority of those forces aren't there anymore, we no longer keep ANY forces in Korea and if we do its small. So North Korea would undoubtably win if they went to war right now.
Sgtgunn has summed up the military situation well. I'll deal with the rest.
Yes, the North Korean economy is centred around its armed forces. But that doesn't make it capable of supporting them in a war. It's a war economy in peacetime, & it's at full stretch. It depends on foreign aid to stop its population starving. Unlike the peace economies of other countries, it has nothing left to mobilise. What it has is all it's ever going to get. It has no money or credit to pay for any resupply of anything, no rich civilian economy to call on for extra transport, fuel stores or the like - nothing.
You are wrong: the USA does keep forces in Korea. There is a small ground force, & a few USAF squadrons. Those USAF fighters alone are enough to defeat the KPAF rather quickly, but they won't need to do it alone, since they can be reinforced very rapidly by USAF & USN aircraft from Japan. And then there are the S. Korean forces, which you don't even seem to be aware of the existence of.
In 1950, the North Korean armed forces greatly outnumbered those of the South, & were better trained & far better equipped. That is no longer true. The only advantage the North now has is in raw numbers, as Sgtgunn says. Also, again unlike 1950, the South is now enormously richer than the North. It can mobilise its civilian economy to support its armed forces, can afford to import whatever it needs to sustain a war, & can bring it whatever it needs in its own ships, protected by its own navy. On top of that, it will have US help.
China went to war in 1950, at the height of the Cold War, when trade with the USA was nil & the USA was backing a rival Chinese government in Taiwan, which had been finally driven from the Chinese mainland only months before, to keep the US army away from the Chinese border. That proves nothing about China's willingness now to go to war to protect North Korea's independence. China is a different country now. Its leaders were small children, or not even born, at the time of the Korean War. They're Chinese nationalists, not Communist ideologues. What happened in 1950-53 is no more a guide to Chinese policy now than WW1 was to German-French relations in the 1970s.
I'm not sure what year or century you think this is. You say "eir economy is a "war economy" meaning its centered around their military like most communist nations". What communist nations do you refer to? I can't think of a single other country in the world which fits that description. China? State-dominated capitalism, not communist, & the economy is certainly not centred around the military. And so on.
SteelTiger 177
New Member
What we should be looking at is the resumption of the Team Spirit exerices that were run in the 1970s up to the early 90s as well as increasing the number of force from 37,000 to 40 or if possible 50,000 troops.I feel something like this might give the North somthing to consider if it continues this fooolishness.
Whoever said the NKPA was a terror weapon, I would agree with that. An invasion of the south wouldnt be much more than a mass suicide. No air cover to protect from allied air assets, ROK/US countery-artillery, mine fields, armor(the K2's are extremely capable tanks and superior to anything in the North,) it would be a mess.
The Norths artillery being in range of Seoul is a humanitarian disaster waiting to happen though. 15-20m civilians packed in, and in range of enemy artillery, without having to move from entrentched positions, would be many thousands dead before much of an effective response could be mounted.
As an aside, I cant ever seem to find anything about it, but I do wonder why the South doesnt push hard to get together with the Israeli's and/or US(or others) to develop a truly reliable C-RAM system(preferably laser based due to amount of incoming fire.) Even if you couldnt take out all the incoming, if you could create designated safe area's in the city and concentrate on protecting those "safe havens", it would at least be a start while building up a credible capability to cover a larger area.
The computing power to network that many systems together, to track that much incoming fire, and prioritize which system was going to take which incoming shell, imagine it would be a pretty sizable task. Part of the reasoning? Or just one of the ways they try to maintain a proper balance of power on the peninsula? Eliminating one of the Norths most effective means of defence/terror could cause problems?
The Norths artillery being in range of Seoul is a humanitarian disaster waiting to happen though. 15-20m civilians packed in, and in range of enemy artillery, without having to move from entrentched positions, would be many thousands dead before much of an effective response could be mounted.
As an aside, I cant ever seem to find anything about it, but I do wonder why the South doesnt push hard to get together with the Israeli's and/or US(or others) to develop a truly reliable C-RAM system(preferably laser based due to amount of incoming fire.) Even if you couldnt take out all the incoming, if you could create designated safe area's in the city and concentrate on protecting those "safe havens", it would at least be a start while building up a credible capability to cover a larger area.
The computing power to network that many systems together, to track that much incoming fire, and prioritize which system was going to take which incoming shell, imagine it would be a pretty sizable task. Part of the reasoning? Or just one of the ways they try to maintain a proper balance of power on the peninsula? Eliminating one of the Norths most effective means of defence/terror could cause problems?
North Korea's 'war economy' is fully stretched maintaining its armed forces in peacetime. It can't replenish any losses, & the civilian economy can't provide much more than it already does. Its logistics are a disaster: its vehicles will probably have to capture fuel from South Korea to keep moving more than a few days. It has no money to pay for imports, & its sparse transport links can be interdicted from the air.Personally I believe you guys are underestimating North Korea, it has improved tremendously in the manner of equipment, troops, tanks, planes, and officers. North Korea has the capability to fight a long term war since their economy is a "war economy" meaning its centered around their military like most communist nations. Also China has proven that it is willing to go to war to ensure North Korea's Sovergienty. North Korea's battle power is centered around a "blitzkrieg" style strategy and has the capability to carry it out. Probably the chief reason the North Korean assualt in the Korean War was stopped was because we had two full divisions based in Japan along with an expiditionary force in South Korea that we used to blunt their offensive. The majority of those forces aren't there anymore, we no longer keep ANY forces in Korea and if we do its small. So North Korea would undoubtably win if they went to war right now.
South Korea can call up huge resources from its civilian economy, & import all the food, fuel, etc. it needs to keep going.
The USA does keep forces in Korea: ground troops & a substantial air force. By claiming otherwise you prove your lack of knowledge, & undermine any credibility you might otherwise have had.
China is a red herring. It might intervene to protect North Korea from an attack, but it will not support a North Korean attack. South Korea is a valuable & valued trading partner - unlike the North, which is a drain.
The North Korean army & air force were much larger, better trained & better equipped than the South Korean forces in 1950. They not only had more equipment, but it was more modern. Now, the South Koreans have far, far better equipment, at every level, including an air force which is vastly superior to North Korea's.
I don't think that "terror weapon" is a good term to desribe the North Korean army nor that they would behave like a "mass suicide" when a war would break out.
Exaggerating the enemies' capabilities is a bad thing, but underestimating is even worse.
The "technical advantage" proclaimed various times in this thread is not as good as it seems. First of all the South Koreans did not have a real technical advantage during the last decades - only some components used were better (e.g. thermal imagers). South Korea will likely have a significant advantage after the modernization programme is finished, but currently only parts of it are in mass production and even less vehicles are in service. Their K2 MBT is still not in service, because technical problems delayed the development & production. The decission which of the contenders will be the next family of wheeled vehicles (6 x 6 and 8 x 8) has not been made as of 2011 (don't know wether this changed since then). The K21 and the K9 seem to be the only new vehicles which have entered service yet.
North Korea, even though generally not as advanced as South Korea, has a pretty dynamic development. They have at least made 5 new versions of tanks in the past decade(s) which seem to feature composite armour. All of them are somehow based on the T-62, but with every new version/tank the sophistication increased. The main drawbacks of the T-62, the fire control system, which was even considered outdated when the T-62 entered service in the Soviet Union, has been replaced/improved. The stadia reticle rangefinder has been replaced/supplemented with a laser range-finder, the latest versions also feature far more sensors than the original T-62. Older T-62 and T-55 have also been fitted with the LRFs. The latest North Korean tank has a 125 mm smoothbore gun and very thick ERA tiles (thicker than Kontakt-5).
However we don't know how many of the tanks have been modernized or how many modern tanks were built. We also don't know which types of ammunition are used by them or what type of ammunition they have.
The main bulk of South Korean tanks is still fitted with the 105 mm M68/K68 tank gun. Evaluations of captured T-62s have shown that the longer barreled 115 mm smoothbore gun does perform better by quite a few percents... but the 105 mm gun did often enjoy an advantage in ammunition (meaning more sophisticated rounds, i.e. denser rounds with better shape). I doubt that North Korea is still using steel penetrators (even though the ROK M48 would stand no chance against these) - tungsten-cored or DU ammunition, in worst case with a higher length-to-diameter ratio than the average Soviet 115 mm APFSDS, could easily be a threat for the K1 tanks from medium to long ranges. For the 125 mm gun North Korea might have gained some informations from Iran; the Iranians licence-produce amongst other rounds the 3BM-42 "Mango" APFsDS, which currently is the strongest Russian export APFSDS and the best non-DU round that fits in the older autoloaders.
If the North Koreans used DU for their ammunition (and even pretty simple alloys can make a difference), then their 125 mm armed tanks can be a threat to the K1A1, which has increased protection when compared to the older K1. Alternatively China might have sold some export rounds (or the technology to make them) to North Korea; the current Chinese 125 mm export rounds perform similar to 3BM-42. Chinese non-export ammunition is even stronger, but it seems unlikely that the North Koreans gained access to these.
The composite armour could be based on the BDD armour of the T-55AM or T-62M. North Korea is also known to have bought a T-72 (-M or -M1) from some third-world country. Regardless of the type the glacis is made of a steel-GRP-steel laminate; if it was a T-72M1 then the turret featured ceramic-rod armour. North Korea did sell various weapons to Lybia (under Gaddafi) and the Iran. Gaddafi had the T-72M1 as best tank, while the Iran licence-produced the T-72S from knock-down kits, which has the same type of armour as the T-72B (and very similar armour as the T-72BM, which served as base for the T-90) - with such armour the latest North Korean tanks could be similar or even better armoured than the K1A1. The problem is that there is also the connection to China (China sells a lot of tanks with composite armour) and probably also indigenous developments.
The IR lights are a very huge drawback in most cases, but in the mountains they should not be so problematic, as the late Cold War generation had a range of up to 1,500 m.
When it comes to artillery, then North Korea has a huge nummerical addvantage, but the new K9 outperforms probably all types of North Korean non-rocket-artillery. In regards to IFVs and APCs there was originally some type of equivalence. The North Korean main IFV (from technical aspects more an APC) is immune to 12.7 mm HMG rounds and had two 14.5 mm HMGs - the ROK K200 IFV (also more an APC than an IFV) is immune to 14.5 mm HMG rounds but has only a 12.7 mm HMG which is located in a cuppola instead of a turret.
North Korea also has tandem-HEAT warheads for the RPG-7 (i.e. the PG-7VR ammunition), which should be capable to deal with all ROK tanks from the sides at least, while M48 and K1 probably also should fear the PG-7VR from the front.
I don't doubt that South Korea will not need the U.S. forces after the K2, K21, K9 and the new wheeled plattform have been fully introduce, but currently the U.S. are needed because the U.S. does have more advanced weaponary ATM than both ROK and North Korean People's Army.
Exaggerating the enemies' capabilities is a bad thing, but underestimating is even worse.
The "technical advantage" proclaimed various times in this thread is not as good as it seems. First of all the South Koreans did not have a real technical advantage during the last decades - only some components used were better (e.g. thermal imagers). South Korea will likely have a significant advantage after the modernization programme is finished, but currently only parts of it are in mass production and even less vehicles are in service. Their K2 MBT is still not in service, because technical problems delayed the development & production. The decission which of the contenders will be the next family of wheeled vehicles (6 x 6 and 8 x 8) has not been made as of 2011 (don't know wether this changed since then). The K21 and the K9 seem to be the only new vehicles which have entered service yet.
North Korea, even though generally not as advanced as South Korea, has a pretty dynamic development. They have at least made 5 new versions of tanks in the past decade(s) which seem to feature composite armour. All of them are somehow based on the T-62, but with every new version/tank the sophistication increased. The main drawbacks of the T-62, the fire control system, which was even considered outdated when the T-62 entered service in the Soviet Union, has been replaced/improved. The stadia reticle rangefinder has been replaced/supplemented with a laser range-finder, the latest versions also feature far more sensors than the original T-62. Older T-62 and T-55 have also been fitted with the LRFs. The latest North Korean tank has a 125 mm smoothbore gun and very thick ERA tiles (thicker than Kontakt-5).
However we don't know how many of the tanks have been modernized or how many modern tanks were built. We also don't know which types of ammunition are used by them or what type of ammunition they have.
The main bulk of South Korean tanks is still fitted with the 105 mm M68/K68 tank gun. Evaluations of captured T-62s have shown that the longer barreled 115 mm smoothbore gun does perform better by quite a few percents... but the 105 mm gun did often enjoy an advantage in ammunition (meaning more sophisticated rounds, i.e. denser rounds with better shape). I doubt that North Korea is still using steel penetrators (even though the ROK M48 would stand no chance against these) - tungsten-cored or DU ammunition, in worst case with a higher length-to-diameter ratio than the average Soviet 115 mm APFSDS, could easily be a threat for the K1 tanks from medium to long ranges. For the 125 mm gun North Korea might have gained some informations from Iran; the Iranians licence-produce amongst other rounds the 3BM-42 "Mango" APFsDS, which currently is the strongest Russian export APFSDS and the best non-DU round that fits in the older autoloaders.
If the North Koreans used DU for their ammunition (and even pretty simple alloys can make a difference), then their 125 mm armed tanks can be a threat to the K1A1, which has increased protection when compared to the older K1. Alternatively China might have sold some export rounds (or the technology to make them) to North Korea; the current Chinese 125 mm export rounds perform similar to 3BM-42. Chinese non-export ammunition is even stronger, but it seems unlikely that the North Koreans gained access to these.
The composite armour could be based on the BDD armour of the T-55AM or T-62M. North Korea is also known to have bought a T-72 (-M or -M1) from some third-world country. Regardless of the type the glacis is made of a steel-GRP-steel laminate; if it was a T-72M1 then the turret featured ceramic-rod armour. North Korea did sell various weapons to Lybia (under Gaddafi) and the Iran. Gaddafi had the T-72M1 as best tank, while the Iran licence-produced the T-72S from knock-down kits, which has the same type of armour as the T-72B (and very similar armour as the T-72BM, which served as base for the T-90) - with such armour the latest North Korean tanks could be similar or even better armoured than the K1A1. The problem is that there is also the connection to China (China sells a lot of tanks with composite armour) and probably also indigenous developments.
The IR lights are a very huge drawback in most cases, but in the mountains they should not be so problematic, as the late Cold War generation had a range of up to 1,500 m.
When it comes to artillery, then North Korea has a huge nummerical addvantage, but the new K9 outperforms probably all types of North Korean non-rocket-artillery. In regards to IFVs and APCs there was originally some type of equivalence. The North Korean main IFV (from technical aspects more an APC) is immune to 12.7 mm HMG rounds and had two 14.5 mm HMGs - the ROK K200 IFV (also more an APC than an IFV) is immune to 14.5 mm HMG rounds but has only a 12.7 mm HMG which is located in a cuppola instead of a turret.
North Korea also has tandem-HEAT warheads for the RPG-7 (i.e. the PG-7VR ammunition), which should be capable to deal with all ROK tanks from the sides at least, while M48 and K1 probably also should fear the PG-7VR from the front.
I don't doubt that South Korea will not need the U.S. forces after the K2, K21, K9 and the new wheeled plattform have been fully introduce, but currently the U.S. are needed because the U.S. does have more advanced weaponary ATM than both ROK and North Korean People's Army.