Posted on 03/27/2018 5:43:39 AM PDT by C19fan
A war with North Korea would involve the mobilization of that country’s entire population and the activation of at least 1.2 million active-duty soldiers and 7.7 million reservists. North Korea would then implement plans which the regime designed to fight — and defeat — U.S. forces on the battlefield.
This does not mean North Korea would succeed. One of the biggest problems the North Korean army faces is lack of ability to sustain itself — particularly in terms of fuel, which would limit the ability of its tanks and other armored vehicles to advance south of Seoul, the South Korean capital, unless North Korea were able to capture fuel stockpiles along the way.
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
and TRADOC (U.S. Army’s Training and Doctrine Command) estimates that chemical weapons could comprise 20 percent of the rounds fired during the early stages of a war.,
If that happens then the US must deploy nuclear weapons. The US eliminated its chemical weapons stockpile per international agreement.
And the US would target North Korea with.....well,take your pick.
We won’t need tanks. Just A-10 Warthogs.
If they know that chemical weapons will be used, one hopes that the TRADOC has preemptive strike plans and capabilities in place. NK has an enormous number of guns, so 20% of the ordinance means a huge chemical weapons attack and massive casualties. Retaliation just won’t do.
I have a strong educated “guess” that there are ma ny mechanisms for removing a larger part of those artillery pieces from play within minutes of anything starting.
And I also have a strongly educated “guess” that our first action, before anything really starts, will be to peremptorily fix those tubes.
But this is only a guess.
It might take a little more than that to *completely* resolve the issue.I'd say one or two boomers parked in the northwest Pacific might do the trick.
I wonder if the “Rods from God” weapons could be used to bury the artillery hiding in the mountains.
Sure seemed to work on the NK nuclear works.
Remember the line in “Patton”: “We’ll em’ them so hard they’ll think they started it!”
I suspect that you're right,preemption would be the best plan.But I think that Kim Jong Psychopath would see this as being as much a political effort as military...meaning he'd try to maximize civilian casualties in the South and blame them on us.
Generally speaking artillery is not the ideal anti tank weapon system. Unless it’s a direct hit the tank is designed to be unaffected by flying shrapnel. What artillery does do is scatter the infantry supporting the armor.
Tacnukes.
If the Norks decided to attack the South, they’d pretty much have to go blitzkrieg and throw everything, including the kitchen sink at US and Sork forces.
But as the article notes, their “roster” isn’t very deep - they couldn’t sustain anything ongoing for very long and they would end up losing anyway.
The problem is there is no mention of Air support, which will be constant if it comes to a shooting war.
How fast the NORK artillery, which is not really 'mobile' will be eliminated.
How our intelligence apparatus, sats, drones, would determine the axis of attack and allow the commanders to react.
Small arms training for EVERYONE from mail clerk to cook in the rear areas.
This is not 1950. We know what the NORKS have and we know what to expect. We've had 50+ years to anticipate it, and devise ways to defeat it. Our technology is a HUGE advantage.
The NORKs have manpower, and quantity has a quality of it's own, BUT if you can't control the air, you lose the ground.
Ask the older Iraqi commanders how that felt.
About 20 years ago in Tom Clancy’s “The Bear and the Dragon”, he described a barrage of artillery (took a bit to put in place) tomahawk missiles, heavy bombers, and ground attack planes that wiped out an entire mecanized division in about 30 seconds. At the end of it there wasn’t even rubble to bounce.
I can’t imagine our Technical abilities have lessoned.
We might not want to be the first ones to use nukes.In fact,if at all possible,we might not to use them at all unless he inflicts serious civilian casualties or if Hawaii,Alaska,Guam or Seattle is hit
I’m an old 13-B and artillery is probably the least effective weapon you can use on a tank. Especially their artillery! Yes there’s been some incredible advances made in the delivery systems but all need outside support. It’s their outside support that will be the first thing we hit, leaving them with nothing more than a forward observer. Unless your shooting laser guided munition and the FO has a laser designator any hit on a tank would be sheer luck. Let me also add that if it’s a line of sight shoot the tanks going to hit first.
Given the long-term poverty of the North, I'm wondering how well the artillery has been maintained, how old the ammunition is, and how well it's been stored over the last few decades. It's possible they may start shelling, and discover that much of their stuff doesn't work.
“I have a strong educated “guess” that there are ma ny mechanisms for removing a larger part of those artillery pieces from play within minutes of anything starting.”
You’re correct by stating within minutes. And, therein resides the problem. These NK arty pieces are already zeroed in on preassigned grid coordinates and when ordered to “fire at will” can send off three or four Salvoes per minute.
One advantage the South may have, is that they could go with the Swiss model, and have universal civilian armament.
Meanwhile, how well could the North trust their army, once arms and ammo are issued?
The Norks pull the gun into the fortification and close their blast doors before loading. I don’t think they can fire quickly.
The doors also look to be mostly visual
Possibly easily jammed or blown out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.