Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
North korea at it again.....
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Manic Moran wrote: »Not really a subject matter expert on this, are you?
Whereas your information seems to be pre-1960 or at very least pre-90's.Whilst I would be willing to believe the concept that the average DPRK infantryman is the equal of any other infantryman in the world in terms of physical fitness, rifle marskmanship (though with the rifle they have, that's questionable in practice) ..........
The rifle they have ?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/kpa-equipment.htm
Which version of the Ak-47 do you have a problem with ? Or is it the AK-47 as a whole which you believe is questionable ?
I find it laughable having to defend the AK but for people who may not know, and I seriously doubt many don't, here is a breakdown.
Ak-47 vs M16
Reliability -> AK wins out here due to pure reputation alone. The M16 had many problems in early production but nowadays is also very reliable. More or less equal.
Accuracy -> Unless you've been playing too much counter-strike then you should know theres again, very little difference between the weapons. The AK always gets a bad rap for its percieved greater recoil (nonsense) and for its traditional sights, again complete nonsense.
For accuracy, the different sights have their own advantages and disadvantages in different situations. Anyone who has used more then 1 type of rifle will know what I mean. Take the Irish Armys old FN for example and compare it to the steyr.
What did you mean here ? Because I can't beieve you are seriously trying to say the AK and its variants are an inferior infantry weapon.
As for specialised equipment, I'm not going to go through it all but which weapon in particular do you think is not 'up to scratch' ? What about the Dragunov sniper rifle, any problem with that ?The extremely conformist NK military suffers the flaws of the old Soviet bloc militaries upon which it is based: It is highly inflexible and does not tolerate individual initiative much. Soldiers are not trained to a level higher than that which they hold,
Bit like the Americans then ?Hodge 2003 wrote:The KPA of 2003 is an imposing and formidable force of 1.17 million active personnel with a reserve force of over 5 million, making it the fifth largest military force in the world. The ground forces are organized into eight infantry corps, four mechanized corps, an armor corps, and two artillery corps. The KPA air force consists of 92,000 personnel, and is equipped with some 730 mostly older combat aircraft and 300 helicopters. The 46,000-man KPA navy is primarily a coastal force.25 Additionally, the KPA maintains the largest special operations force (SOF) in the world, consisting of approximately 100,000 highly trained, totally dedicated soldiers. A long history of bloody incursions into South Korea underscores the offensive mission of this force.and the professional, educated NCO corps which is the backbone of a modern military simply does not exist.
Oh no ? Why do you think that ?This goes to larger levels as well. Any soldier in the US military is capable of grabbing a radio and calling in immediate support.
In the DPRK's system, only designated artillery observers are authorised to do so.
Capable and authorised are not the same thing and you are purposedly ignoring the differences in what kind of support is available. It takes training to be able to call in an artillery strike, whereas any muppet with 2 weeks basic can call in an air strike with little to no training required.Response times are slower.
Most military opinion, documents and recent (10-20 years) would disagree with that.And that's before you get to the technical intricacies of calling in CCA or CAS. Or the serious EW advantage the Western powers have in terms of jamming and resistance to jamming to make the call in the first place.
Indeed, advantage West here.Indeed, when it comes to equipment, there is simply no comparison between the DPRK's equipment and that of the powers it faces.
There is indeed, I just gave you one above. In terms of infantry light arms there is no discernable advantage to western powers whatsoever.
And you can find comparisons very easily in military articles, websites and from military opinions.For example, the only tank it builds which is even remotely capable of being considered 'modern' (and which they have only in small numbers) is a T-72 variant which is uniquely unsuited to Korea's mountainous terrain.
True but hardly decisive.The Air Force won't last the week.
True but don't ignore the dated, yet still impressive air defence systems.The artillery is very strong, but suffers a lack of mobility and response capability.
Untrue. Your information is seriously outdated, please read up on the moderniation strategy post 90's.Night fighting capability is all but useless throughout the army.
Untrue and a common misconception even among military people. The DPRK Army conducts a lot of night training and has night vision equipment.Their one and only strength is manpower.
Manpower, training and fanaticism.UN forces can expect a mass infiltration and combat actions behind the front lines. The Russians had a saying that "Quantity has a quality all of its own", but when the technological overmatch is so huge, the chances of a DPRK victory are negligible.
I never said anything about a DPRK victory, I said the DPRK is no Iraq and the UN would find a victory extremely difficult to achieve.They can be as motivated as they want, but in the final analysis if one army has equipment to the level of thermal sights mounted on man-packed machineguns, and the other has nothing better than active IR on vehicles, the result is going to be pre-ordained.
Yes because western powers spend so much cash on their soldiers equipment. Who was it that sent their soldiers to the desert wearing green camo ?Especially when you look at the defences that the ROK has put into place.
Wait, are you talking about the North invading the South ? I am not suggesting they would or could win that. I'm speaking completely defensively.All you need to do is go take a drive North and look at the layers of coast-to-coast barriers and anti-vehicle obstacles between Seoul and the DMZ.
Then perhaps you didn't go far enough north because what the South has is relatively tame compared to defenses North of the border.It is true that as the population ages and the younger people gain in numbers that the perception of the threat from the North has decreased. That has not yet permeated through the mid-to-senior levels of the military, however, they take dealing with the DPRK very seriously.
Of course they take it seriously, but the majority opinion of the people is that the North would never nuke them. Invade perhaps but not nuke their own (as they see it) country and people.But would the NK people take up arms against the ROK military crossing North? As you point out yourself, the Koreans consider themselves brothers facing each other, not sworn enemies for all time. They call the Korean War "The Great Fratricidal Conflict."
Yes they would because while they see the South as their brothers, they also see the South as American puppets.(BTW, if you've not visited the War Memorial yet, I recommend it. One of the more interesting military musea out there)
Interesting but confusing in that its full of equipment which wasn't even used during the Korea war but somehow managed to find its way to Seoul.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement