North and South Korea are at it again

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

I wouldn't be so sure about that, especially if it's the DPRK that is on the offensive.

Agreed, I think the ROK themselves are a force to reckon with these days. Their real question is not whether they can win even on their own - I think they're undoubtedly the more capable of the two Koreas. Their question is "at what cost?" - and the North is operating not so much on military superiority here as on unacceptable human, political and economic costs of the war to the South. They would win a war, but at the cost of turning from a mini-powerhouse on the world stage into more or less a third world country. And just the sheer amount of artillery aimed at Seoul, a world megapolis by any standard, would be as devastating as it would be completely unstoppable - even if that first artillery exchange only lasted as long as today's but with all barrels blazing before getting silenced, billions in damage and tens of thousands of casualties would result.

Also, while NBC weapons might be readily used, these are not militarily very valuable these days - i.e. they wouldn't do the damage to the South's forces so much as the civilian population. The ROK army is more than prepared to deal with the NBC threat and wouldn't be prevented by it from beating the DPRK on the battlefield.

And speaking about 50s artillery, I'm not so sure even 50s technology would be off at all like that. Guns haven't become any more accurate in that period, the only difference since has been really in spotting and coordination technology. But having held those positions since the 50s, I think the Northern guns would have their ranges known and marked very precisely... Especially given the emphasis the DPRK seems to place on their artillery capabilities. Thus me wondering.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by CCIP

And speaking about 50s artillery, I'm not so sure even 50s technology would be off at all like that. Guns haven't become any more accurate in that period, the only difference since has been really in spotting and coordination technology. But having held those positions since the 50s, I think the Northern guns would have their ranges known and marked very precisely... Especially given the emphasis the DPRK seems to place on their artillery capabilities. Thus me wondering.

but remember, north korean equipment lacks maintenance and spare parts
after 60 years, i don't really expect those guns to still work

Though if we are thinking about this realistically, I would bet on south korea.
Since Kim Jim Il maintains his rule by telling his citizens how much worse the south is compared to them.
When the North's armies march into south korea, they would realize that the government rules them using lies, and a large amount of north korean rank and file solders would probably defect

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

but remember, north korean equipment lacks maintenance and spare parts
after 60 years, i don't really expect those guns to still work

Expect the guns to be fully operational. The Ottomans maintained a 300-year old siege cannon and used it to help thwart the Royal Navy in the early 1800's. Never underestimate your enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles_Operation

Also, expect the enemy to pull an ace or more out of his sleeve. You never know what kind of weird **** the top commanders on either side have sitting on the back burners.

If NK wants war, what do they have in place to defend themselves against repeated counterattack? What are their deepest of defenses? They don't have much as far as we can see, but what they do have is worth holding on to. And we will eventually take it as long as the doves don't get up in a bind about it. Thoughts?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CCIP

And just the sheer amount of artillery aimed at Seoul...

Very few guns are aimed at Seoul. The DPRK has only one type of arty tube (the 170mm) that can reach Seoul from the DMZ. Their are only 17 hardened arty sites known to be within range of Seoul and capable of staging the 170mms. At these sites their are about 120 firing positions. That is not exactly a lot of targets to bomb or shell.


The real threat would be from Scud type missiles, but the ROK isn't exactly defenseless against those.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Very few guns are aimed at Seoul. The DPRK has only one type of arty tube (the 170mm) that can reach Seoul from the DMZ. Their are only 17 hardened arty sites known to be within range of Seoul and capable of staging the 170mms. At these sites their are about 120 firing positions. That is not exactly a lot of targets to bomb or shell.


The real threat would be from Scud type missiles, but the ROK isn't exactly defenseless against those.

Really? Interesting, I had the opposite impression... I thought a lot of Seoul, or at least its northern suburbs, were well within the reach of the run-of-the-mill DPRK 155mm artillery at least. At least it was my perception that the arty was the North's trump in this, as opposed to missiles.

the_tyrant: well now, considering the North can build and export (relatively) sophisticated missiles, I think you're not giving enough credit to their ability to maintain the very basic, cheap and rugged Soviet howitzers that form the bulk of their artillery.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by CCIP

the_tyrant: well now, considering the North can build and export (relatively) sophisticated missiles, I think you're not giving enough credit to their ability to maintain the very basic, cheap and rugged Soviet howitzers that form the bulk of their artillery.

You do have a point, i'm not sure about the state of those guns
Ill come back later after i do some research on the topic

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Really? Interesting, I had the opposite impression... I thought a lot of Seoul, or at least its northern suburbs, were well within the reach of the run-of-the-mill DPRK 155mm artillery at least. At least it was my perception that the arty was the North's trump in this, as opposed to missiles.

The Northern most part of Seoul's suburbs are within range of the 170mms, Goyang is prob within range of the 130mms (Their longest range gun besides the 170mm but not the biggest) and MLRS, but the DPRK can't hope to hit downtown Seoul except with Scuds or airstrikes.

Its also doubtful all 120 sites are for just the 170mm guns. Some have been seen with MLRS. North Korea might not even have 120 of the guns, but I've found no evidence either way on that.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The Northern most part of Seoul's suburbs are within range of the 170mms, Goyang is prob within range of the 130mms (Their longest range gun besides the 170mm but not the biggest) and MLRS, but the DPRK can't hope to hit downtown Seoul except with Scuds or airstrikes.

Its also doubtful all 120 sites are for just the 170mm guns. Some have been seen with MLRS. North Korea might not even have 120 of the guns, but I've found no evidence either way on that.

Just out of curiosity, how many 130mm guns do they have possibly available there? And what sort of MLRS systems are we talking about?

I don't doubt, by the way, that whatever the type and number, the North would lose all meaningful artillery capability at the DMZ very quickly should a conflict start anyway. Heck, they'd probably lose most if not almost all of it within the first hour. But it's those opening salvos that I always reckoned to be a real danger to the South.

[Castout]

I think North has a lot of scuds that's capable of reaching Seoul if I'm not mistaken . . . . and if they able to armed it with nuclear . . .

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Castout

I think North has a lot of scuds that's capable of reaching Seoul if I'm not mistaken . . . . and if they able to armed it with nuclear . . .

I think it's fairly safe to say that the North is probably nowhere near having either a reliable or a small enough nuclear warhead to be fit on a missile properly (their last "fizzle" test is definitely an indication). I don't think this is going to be a danger for at least a few years ahead; for now they're likely stuck with very large and therefore mostly undeliverable nukes (except possibly by bomber).

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Just out of curiosity, how many 130mm guns do they have possibly available there? And what sort of MLRS systems are we talking about?

I don't doubt, by the way, that whatever the type and number, the North would lose all meaningful artillery capability at the DMZ very quickly should a conflict start anyway. Heck, they'd probably lose most if not almost all of it within the first hour. But it's those opening salvos that I always reckoned to be a real danger to the South.

Don't know how many of the 130mm guns they have (Doubt it's possible to find anything beyond estimates), but the MLRS systems they field seem to be mostly copies of the BM-21 and some variants of a similar self-designed 240mm system.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The real threat would be from Scud type missiles, but the ROK isn't exactly defenseless against those.

No they aren't. I know, because my red horse unit built up the areas those defenses sit. I won't say anymore then that. Point is, im quite sure scud's would be taken care of.

[CCIP]

What's the stance of the US forces over there these days? If there is a sudden "major escalation", e.g. a full-on exchange of fire across the DMZ, can we assume that US assets in theater will be immediately committed alongside the ROK, or is that something that's gonna develop slowly? Are they still technically Combined Forces?

[Oberon]

It's still a joint op, it was going to split in April 2012, but they've pushed it back to 2015.

If Kim comes over the border, what's left of him will be hit hard by US and ROK forces. As I was saying on another forum earlier today, I would be very surprised if any DPRK advance got further than Seoul. They have the manpower yes, but their equipment is terrible, morale is terrible and tactics are terrible.

The question is not can we beat Kim, but how far should we go? Do we drive them all the way back to Pyongyang and risk China stepping in? Or do we do a deal with China in which we stop at the DMZ and let China come in from the North under the guise of 'protecting' the DPRK but in reality to do a spot of regime rearranging?

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The question is not can we beat Kim, but how far should we go? Do we drive them all the way back to Pyongyang and risk China stepping in? Or do we do a deal with China in which we stop at the DMZ and let China come in from the North under the guise of 'protecting' the DPRK but in reality to do a spot of regime rearranging?

I think a lot of it will depend on the costs involved. If he can do serious long-term damage to the South's economy before being driven back, it will be a big blow to the ROK if that doesn't go along with the Kim problem being solved for good. I think a lot of the current status quo works on the fact that Kim's regime recognize that they cannot attack the South, seriously damage it and get away with it. But they can and do get away with the occasional scuffle, which the South cannot afford to escalate either. In some sense, the status quo right now is paradoxically the best thing that the two sides can hope for. The ROK gets to keep its economy running and Kim gets his concessions. No other solution, even a totally peaceful one, will keep both sides happier right now, sad as it is.