North Korea fires two more missiles

[JarVik]

interesting perhaps, but china, south korea, and japan have more to be concerned about this then pretty much anyone else.

the point is, how far can they send them and actually expect to hit anything reasonably close, like in the same country or even part of the world, they were aiming at?

of course we all live in one world now, one that doesn't seem to like new players. one in which existing players are interdependent more then they would like to appear to be. those with supposedly opposing ideological postures especially.

From what I've gleaned they have two types of short range missiles (130, 260 km range) that "work" and have even exported them to other countires (Iran). The're based off of an old soviet design that is basically the SCUD missile of Gulf war I. So by work, they can hit a city sized target about 1/4 to 1/3 of the time if the N. Korean missiles have similar performance. Alot of the recent kerffufle is about them testing long range missiles, with a name like long-dong-2 or something. 3 out of 3 tests of these have failed spectacularily in some way or another. Also one source said these aren't true ICBM even if they worked, what that really means I don't know but I guess they don't have the range to hit anywhere on the planet. They have also been testing surface to air missiles but I don't know any details on that really.

Oh heres some concise info, they've got more toys than I thought:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD98GEGFO0

[Leocardia]

What I'm trying to say is that even with American advanced technologies, warfare in North Korea will still be balanced for both sides.

No, it won't be, the North Koreans will get absolutely caned just like the Vietnamese and Iraqis, but you don't have a military government, so a long war far from home for dubious reasons will cause an absolute shitstorm politically.

You do know the Vietnamese won their war, do you?

And in Iraq, the insurgency is still ongoing.

[Leocardia]

interesting perhaps, but china, south korea, and japan have more to be concerned about this then pretty much anyone else.

the point is, how far can they send them and actually expect to hit anything reasonably close, like in the same country or even part of the world, they were aiming at?

of course we all live in one world now, one that doesn't seem to like new players. one in which existing players are interdependent more then they would like to appear to be. those with supposedly opposing ideological postures especially.

From what I've gleaned they have two types of short range missiles (130, 260 km range) that "work" and have even exported them to other countires (Iran). The're based off of an old soviet design that is basically the SCUD missile of Gulf war I. So by work, they can hit a city sized target about 1/4 to 1/3 of the time if the N. Korean missiles have similar performance. Alot of the recent kerffufle is about them testing long range missiles, with a name like long-dong-2 or something. 3 out of 3 tests of these have failed spectacularily in some way or another. Also one source said these aren't true ICBM even if they worked, what that really means I don't know but I guess they don't have the range to hit anywhere on the planet. They have also been testing surface to air missiles but I don't know any details on that really.

Oh heres some concise info, they've got more toys than I thought:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD98GEGFO0

North Korea doesn't have a missile to reach the US mainland, because of the wide Pacific Ocean. They do, however, have a small chance of hitting Alaska though, but I doubt that's a big deal... Not much people live in Alaska, so the the target won't be as big over there.

[Leocardia]

Yeah this isn't no Iraq, we will not be fighting some Taliban. They will not be setting up road side bombs, they will have specially trained soldiers waiting for US invasion. I hope we are prepared to take heavy casualties if we ever do go to war. Because we will be at war with another Governed country, not its local militia.

Heavy casualties? With a military sorely lacking fuel, still using T-55's and AK-47's? It might work as a guerrilla force, but there's no way in hell that, in conventional warfare, such a poorly equipped force could beat the USA in open combat.

Those T-55s still have guns to blast ugly holes into our Abrams tank.
What's wrong with the AK-47? It's reliable and packs a punch if you get hit.
Heck, those 7.62 armor-piercing bullets will definitely go through
US infantry body armor and humvee armor.

Let's not forget that the North Korean special forces, the internal special
forces I mean, are trained in the climates of Iran, China, and Russia. Their
equipment are most likely not standardized like the regulars. And since the
North Korean government is packing pretty much everything on their army,
their equipment will be sophisticated.

[Leocardia]

Inaccurate, Cartridge is too heavy and powerful, gun itself is too heavy. Not a BAD Assault Rifle, but there's a reason the AK-74 was created.

In 60 years, I'm sure the soldiers of North Korea are so used to
the weight that it doesn't matter to them anymore. Their
physical fitness standards are among the best in the world for
armies. What the US technologies provide advantages, the NKs
make up through basic human abilities. True, their radar may not
be as sophisticated, but their ability to fight is better than the US.

The AK-47 may be inaccurate, but the first shot is always the most
accurate shot for any gun. The North Korean variants of the 47 are
more modernized to its ability of shooting semi-burst to semi-automatic,
enhancing better accuracy than firing rate.

Who knows? What if the NKs have the AK-74 too? 74's aren't expensive,
and NK isn't jackbroke like most of us think they are. Heck, the NKs have
enough money to buy the newest Russian tank to stock in their inventory,
the T-90.

[Hungramy]

who here think N.Korea is gonna to nuke S. Korea, man if it does it gonna to be a war with the USA and they are gonna to kick butt

[Leocardia]

who here think N.Korea is gonna to nuke S. Korea, man if it does it gonna to be a war with the USA and they are gonna to kick butt

When they know they're going to lose, and it'll be minutes left before the US takes over Pyongyang, then they'll shoot their last weapon available that they've been threatening to use.

Most likely, I think they'll shoot Japan more than SK, because if they nuke SK, they're nuking their own people.

[Skeelzania]

Those T-55s still have guns to blast ugly holes into our Abrams tank.

The Iraqis used T-55s, as well as later generation tanks, in both Gulf Wars. When their armor wasn't destroyed by air power, they were decisively defeated by American tanks. Its hard to say whether North Korean T-55s would be better or worse than their Iraqi counterparts; Iraq wasn't nearly as isolated as the North is, and may very well of had better tanks.

The gun on the T-55 may be powerful, but I doubt the North Koreans have targeting capablities equal to the Abrams. In Iraq, the M1A1 was engaging Iraqi tanks at 2500 meters, while the Iraqi tanks (T-55s AND T-72s) were limited to 2000 meters, at most. If you're destroyed before you can even get into firing range, it doesn't matter how powerful your gun is.

Even though American armor is likely to be light on the ground in any upcoming conflict, the South Koreans would have benefitted from our expertise and would have capablities approaching our own. I.e., their armor would also be superior to attacking North Korean T-55s.

Leocratia, you keep arguging as if you expect the North Koreans to try a full body assault like they did back in the 1950s. If the North Koreans had the army they do today back then, they would probably win. But their army is a Cold War relic, and without the ability to challenge allied airpower, the army will be destroyed on the offense.

I still think the North Koreans are unlikely to try a full invasion. If they're going to provoke a war, they're going to want to fight defensively where they'll benefit from all the defenses they've been building since 1953. We, the Americans, might be stupid and try to conquer them on the ground. That will be bloody, because even their outdated T-55s will be able to get in shots from ambush. What we're more likely to do is just bomb the hell out of the DPRK and let their leadership rot. The North's leadership doesn't want to commit suicide, they'd want to force a negotiated settlement that would keep them in power. If we can substantially disrupt their infrastructure (espcially their nuclear capability), possibly provoke another famine to further thin their numbers, we can probably let North Korea safely wither on the vine.

[Leocardia]

Those T-55s still have guns to blast ugly holes into our Abrams tank.

The Iraqis used T-55s, as well as later generation tanks, in both Gulf Wars. When their armor wasn't destroyed by air power, they were decisively defeated by American tanks. Its hard to say whether North Korean T-55s would be better or worse than their Iraqi counterparts; Iraq wasn't nearly as isolated as the North is, and may very well of had better tanks.

The gun on the T-55 may be powerful, but I doubt the North Koreans have targeting capablities equal to the Abrams. In Iraq, the M1A1 was engaging Iraqi tanks at 2500 meters, while the Iraqi tanks (T-55s AND T-72s) were limited to 2000 meters, at most. If you're destroyed before you can even get into firing range, it doesn't matter how powerful your gun is.

Even though American armor is likely to be light on the ground in any upcoming conflict, the South Koreans would have benefitted from our expertise and would have capablities approaching our own. I.e., their armor would also be superior to attacking North Korean T-55s.

Leocratia, you keep arguging as if you expect the North Koreans to try a full body assault like they did back in the 1950s. If the North Koreans had the army they do today back then, they would probably win. But their army is a Cold War relic, and without the ability to challenge allied airpower, the army will be destroyed on the offense.

I still think the North Koreans are unlikely to try a full invasion. If they're going to provoke a war, they're going to want to fight defensively where they'll benefit from all the defenses they've been building since 1953. We, the Americans, might be stupid and try to conquer them on the ground. That will be bloody, because even their outdated T-55s will be able to get in shots from ambush. What we're more likely to do is just bomb the hell out of the DPRK and let their leadership rot. The North's leadership doesn't want to commit suicide, they'd want to force a negotiated settlement that would keep them in power. If we can substantially disrupt their infrastructure (espcially their nuclear capability), possibly provoke another famine to further thin their numbers, we can probably let North Korea safely wither on the vine.

You're argument to my points are as if you're mindset is that North Korea is another Iraq. It's not. North Korea is not a flat, desert-plain that allows the Abrams tank to take advantage of their firing range. North Korea's mountainous terrain will have the Abrams tank thinking what to do next. Not only are we speaking of tanks here, but the North Koreans favor anti-tank guns more than actual moving tanks... I think it's due to fuel problems. So not only will the Abrams tank be fighting armored units, they will be fighting hidden gunned units.

I will agree with you, the North Koreans will not try a full invasion. Instead, they are trying to tick the United States off into attacking them. That will challenge the sovereignty of North Korea, as well as initiating a Shanghai Cooperation Organization initiative that provides defensive aid for any nation that has potential to disrupt political stability within the Eurasian region... So the SCO, primarily Russia and China, will be contributing their military aid to North Korea... whether it will be a lot or just some.

The South Korean K2 tank is very superior with its armor and such... But the North Koreans have a special unit that is formulated to handle the K2 called the Snow Mountain Commandos (SMCs). Like its many special forces, they do not carry standard equipment like its regulars. Instead, it carries sophisticated modern equipment that is trained to take out an enemy with such a superior armor. Think they can't do it? Well, even Hizbollah took out a few Merkavas during the 2006 Lebanon War, and they were just a bunch of lucky shots... If Hizbollah can, then the SMCs will handle the job, with a little more skill involved.

The North Korean infantry is what really turns the battlefield. Even without air superiority, North Korea is like Vietnam... jungle warfare. Not much tanks or humvees will be able to fit through, and a million enemy soldiers are in there just waiting for some Americans to pop up.

[Kim Jong-ilia]

Those T-55s still have guns to blast ugly holes into our Abrams tank.

The Iraqis used T-55s, as well as later generation tanks, in both Gulf Wars. When their armor wasn't destroyed by air power, they were decisively defeated by American tanks. Its hard to say whether North Korean T-55s would be better or worse than their Iraqi counterparts; Iraq wasn't nearly as isolated as the North is, and may very well of had better tanks.

The gun on the T-55 may be powerful, but I doubt the North Koreans have targeting capablities equal to the Abrams. In Iraq, the M1A1 was engaging Iraqi tanks at 2500 meters, while the Iraqi tanks (T-55s AND T-72s) were limited to 2000 meters, at most. If you're destroyed before you can even get into firing range, it doesn't matter how powerful your gun is.

Even though American armor is likely to be light on the ground in any upcoming conflict, the South Koreans would have benefitted from our expertise and would have capablities approaching our own. I.e., their armor would also be superior to attacking North Korean T-55s.

Leocratia, you keep arguging as if you expect the North Koreans to try a full body assault like they did back in the 1950s. If the North Koreans had the army they do today back then, they would probably win. But their army is a Cold War relic, and without the ability to challenge allied airpower, the army will be destroyed on the offense.

I still think the North Koreans are unlikely to try a full invasion. If they're going to provoke a war, they're going to want to fight defensively where they'll benefit from all the defenses they've been building since 1953. We, the Americans, might be stupid and try to conquer them on the ground. That will be bloody, because even their outdated T-55s will be able to get in shots from ambush. What we're more likely to do is just bomb the hell out of the DPRK and let their leadership rot. The North's leadership doesn't want to commit suicide, they'd want to force a negotiated settlement that would keep them in power. If we can substantially disrupt their infrastructure (espcially their nuclear capability), possibly provoke another famine to further thin their numbers, we can probably let North Korea safely wither on the vine.

The North Koreans don't have many T-55s, they mainly have T-62s and their home made Ch'onma-ho tanks, which are T-62s upgraded to T-80 specs.

[Allanea]

Or so they claim.

The T-62 also has the problem of having the same lousy optronics T-55 had, and thus being near-blind at night and at large distances, which is what enabled Abrams tanks to kill off T-55's and T-72s in Desert Storm.

[Montanaa]

Like I said in a previous post, North Korea could wage a long term war against the United States. Air superiority may be nothing if they have extensive underground cave tunnels. Not sure about NK having that, but we saw how tunnels turned out on Iwo Jima, bombarded for a day or two, and barely a casualty on the Japanese side. And since NK has been under extreme propaganda for 60 years now, they would think they were fighting against "savage" or "weak" American Soldiers who massacre innocents.
But NK doesnt have much of a navy, but who needs that when you have surface to ship missles, on fixed or mobile launching platforms which could make those harder to hit.
Of course, reading from some book I just finished, they were talking about revolution on Mars (where is this going?) from some MetaNational Corporations in the year 2100, they needed to "decapitate" the companies' defenses before troops could be rallied. So if South Korea, Japan, or the United States struck fast and hard with bombers, missles and artillery, wiping out most defenses, air support, and troops in several hours or days, could be feasible a war may be shorter and with less casualties of civilians.
Anyway, thats my take on it.

[Kim Jong-ilia]

Or so they claim.

The T-62 also has the problem of having the same lousy optronics T-55 had, and thus being near-blind at night and at large distances, which is what enabled Abrams tanks to kill off T-55's and T-72s in Desert Storm.

Not all T-55s and T-62s have the same crappy optronics, there are upgrades which give them night fighting capability. And even then the Iraqis were never given the better optronics to fight at night anyway, it is not like they had the newest and best that Russia could sell.

[Allanea]

The North Korean variants of the 47 are more modernized to its ability of shooting semi-burst to semi-automatic, enhancing better accuracy than firing rate.

This post if nothing else causes great doubts about your actualy knowledge of the AK-47. All AK-47 rifles can fire both as semi-automatic and burst weapons. They are designed to be primarily burst weapons (something you can't fix except by designing an utterly differnet rifle), but they're sufficiently accurate as semi-auto weapons too.

[I am a qualified armorer; this means I underwent a professional course by the Israeli Defense Forces to maintain and fix a variety of small arms. I am certified in performing complete maintenance on the M-16, M203, Galil (that's an AK47 clone for you non-gun-nut NSGers) and Uzi submachineguns. This doesn't mean I can field-strip those guns, it means I can rip them apart to the tiniest spring and fix or identify anything that may possibly go wrong with then. I can also fieldstrip the basic machineguns of the Israeli Army - the Negev, the FN-MAG, the Browning .30 and .50. It's minor compared to most NSGers who have served in actual combat units, but at least I have some clue].

The North Korean infantry is what really turns the battlefield. Even without air superiority, North Korea is like Vietnam... jungle warfare. Not much tanks or humvees will be able to fit through, and a million enemy soldiers are in there just waiting for some Americans to pop up.

The North Korean soldiers of today cannot, like the Vietnamese, live off the land, as there's no 'land' to live off, the locals are starving already. They will have to rely upon food and ammunition depots that will be an easy matter for the Americans to destroy from sea or air. Then they will sit there and wait for the North Korean soldiers to slowly starve to death.

Further more, the jungle today is less effective as concealment than it was in the days of Vietnam (are you AWARE of the scale of NVA casualties?). Today, people hiding in the jungle will be seen through the treetops by FLIR-equipped aircraft.

It's all good to talk about how being a tougher soldier can help you if the enemy's radar is "more sophisticated", but if your enemy can see you at ten kilometers and shoot you before you can even see him, then your ostensible toughness is very limited.

But besides this, North Korean training is probably not that good.

[Allanea]

Or so they claim.

The T-62 also has the problem of having the same lousy optronics T-55 had, and thus being near-blind at night and at large distances, which is what enabled Abrams tanks to kill off T-55's and T-72s in Desert Storm.

Not all T-55s have the same crappy optronics, there are upgrades which give them night fighting capability. And even then the Iraqis were never given the better optronics to fight at night anyway, it is not like they had the newest and best that Russia could sell.

Do you have any evidence that the North Koreans have upgraded the T-55 with superior optronics? To my knowledge, their T-55's are being slowly phased out, rather than upgraded.

[Leocardia]

Or so they claim.

The T-62 also has the problem of having the same lousy optronics T-55 had, and thus being near-blind at night and at large distances, which is what enabled Abrams tanks to kill off T-55's and T-72s in Desert Storm.

Not all T-55s have the same crappy optronics, there are upgrades which give them night fighting capability. And even then the Iraqis were never given the better optronics to fight at night anyway, it is not like they had the newest and best that Russia could sell.

Do you have any evidence that the North Koreans have upgraded the T-55 with superior optronics? To my knowledge, their T-55's are being slowly phased out, rather than upgraded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P'okpoong-Ho

[Kim Jong-ilia]

Or so they claim.

The T-62 also has the problem of having the same lousy optronics T-55 had, and thus being near-blind at night and at large distances, which is what enabled Abrams tanks to kill off T-55's and T-72s in Desert Storm.

Not all T-55s have the same crappy optronics, there are upgrades which give them night fighting capability. And even then the Iraqis were never given the better optronics to fight at night anyway, it is not like they had the newest and best that Russia could sell.

Do you have any evidence that the North Koreans have upgraded the T-55 with superior optronics? To my knowledge, their T-55's are being slowly phased out, rather than upgraded.

1. I forgot to put in 'T-62s'.
2. I never said that they were upgrading their T-55s.

[Allanea]

Yes. I am aware of the P'okpoong-Ho. However, North Korea maintains no more than 300 of these tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Peo ... ound_Force

According to that, the KPA maintains no more than 1,000 Ch'ŏnma-ho tanks and 300 P'okpoong-Ho tanks. THat is all.

Interestingly, the link you provided notes the P'okpoong is completely lacking in the C4I department, which means it'll get PWNed horribly by tanks which are not.

[Allanea]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ipment.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_o ... Korea_Army

Put together, North Korea has no more than 1300 serious tanks, if we can call their "upgrades" on T-62 "serious", given they don't have enough ERA to cover all the key weak zones and given the stated "performance gap" between these and the K2. It also has a shitload of 1950's and 1930's tanks, coming up to a total of 3500 tanks, a number which includes light tanks like PT-76 [500 of these] and 300 T-34s. Surely we all agree T-34s shouldn't really count.

In the meanwhile South Korea has 1,000 K1 88 tanks [M-1 Abrams copies], 400 K1A1 tanks, and about 1,600 other, less modern vehicles. South Korea has 3,000 tanks in the area. I would argue they are at least equal in this department, and possibly South Korea is superior.

North Korea has 2500 infantry vehicles in the area.
South Korea has 3000 infantry vehicles in the area. A clear superiority to South Korea, especially as their vehicles are newer.

[Leocardia]

Yes. I am aware of the P'okpoong-Ho. However, North Korea maintains no more than 300 of these tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Peo ... ound_Force

According to that, the KPA maintains no more than 1,000 Ch'ŏnma-ho tanks and 300 P'okpoong-Ho tanks. THat is all.

Interestingly, the link you provided notes the P'okpoong is completely lacking in the C4I department, which means it'll get PWNed horribly by tanks which are not.

C4I is a communications system. When a North Korean tank is given the order to search and destroy, I'm sure they don't need any more communication orders...

[Leocardia]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/kpa-equipment.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_o ... Korea_Army

Put together, North Korea has no more than 1300 serious tanks, if we can call their "upgrades" on T-62 "serious", given they don't have enough ERA to cover all the key weak zones and given the stated "performance gap" between these and the K2. It also has a shitload of 1950's and 1930's tanks, coming up to a total of 3500 tanks, a number which includes light tanks like PT-76 [500 of these] and 300 T-34s. Surely we all agree T-34s shouldn't really count.

In the meanwhile South Korea has 1,000 K1 88 tanks [M-1 Abrams copies], 400 K1A1 tanks, and about 1,600 other, less modern vehicles. South Korea has 3,000 tanks in the area. I would argue they are at least equal in this department, and possibly South Korea is superior.

North Korea has 2500 infantry vehicles in the area.
South Korea has 3000 infantry vehicles in the area. A clear superiority to South Korea, especially as their vehicles are newer.

They have more than 1,300 tanks. It's just 1,300 that are modern enough to be a "threat" to the US Armor. But face it, the infantry is what will be depended on to make up for their loss of technology. All citizens in North Korea are trained to learning to fire a gun, it's a standard for all citizens. That means, as a army, it's 1.4 million, plus 3 million militia, plus the rest of the population as "volunteer force". Who knows what the North Korean Government will use first: the volunteers, or regulars.

[Kim Jong-ilia]

The KPA actually have 5.9 million real troops, and 2900 tanks ranging from Ch'onma-Hos to T-34s to T-55s.
The KPN may not seem like much but it has 100 submarines and loads of infiltration craft
And the KPAF have 1500 aircraft of all kinds, including attack and bombing aircraft and a number of infiltration aircraft disguised as civilian aircraft for dropping their spec ops behind enemy lines.

[Allanea]

They have more than 1,300 tanks. It's just 1,300 that are modern enough to be a "threat" to the US Armor

Which is exactly what I said.

All citizens in North Korea are trained to learning to fire a gun, it's a standard for all citizens.

Learning to fire a gun and have basic military training (and put it this way, I have more hours of military training than an average Notrh Korean militiaman, and my Army duties are limited).

C4I is a communications system. When a North Korean tank is given the order to search and destroy, I'm sure they don't need any more communication orders...

Let me elaborate why C4I is needed. A US or South Korean tanker can receive targeting data from a UAV, then fire a shell at a North Korean tank beyond its line of sight. He can relay targeting data to UCAVs and artillery system and have their firepower at his disposal at any time. He can coordinate better with other tank crews and ground troops. These things are force multipliers. In effect they can allow a force of 100 tanks equal a force of, say, 150 tanks that do not have the technology

But face it, the infantry is what will be depended on to make up for their loss of technology

And that is only really useful in very limited fashions, in limited defensive scenarios. It doesn't enable North Korea to invade the South, and it doesn't enable the North to defend from a drawn-out bombing campaign by the South, the Americans, and its allies.

Now, let me say here I do not mean this would not be a costly conflict. Obviously, if it were EASY to defeat North Korea, America and the South would have already done it.

But the North Koreans would have to be suicidal to attack the South, and they know it, or they would have tried again.