North Korea?

[Dog 1]

Is any one making a US-ROK Invasion of NK? I'd love to see it....

[Don Maddox]

If anyone is working on this it needs to be at 2.5 km/hex. Korea doesn't lend itself to the larger scales IMHO.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Dog 1
Is any one making a US-ROK Invasion of NK? I'd love to see it....

The US "ruled out" invading North Korea.

Such a war would be good for the system. Get detachments from all the liberal European countries and make them get their self-respect back.

[Ssudukh Tlakota]

Originally posted by Ben Turner

Get detachments from all the liberal European countries and make them get their self-respect back.

:D Would this be a way of handicapping the United States side to make it a even fight. Considering they couldn't even manage to mount a "peacekeeping missions" in Kosovo and Bosnia without our help, I doubt they would even be of any use in Korea. Outside of the British Army, and a few elite formations like the Foreign Legion, I wouldn't give a plug nickle for any of them.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Ssudukh Tlakota


:D Would this be a way of handicapping the United States side to make it a even fight. Considering they couldn't even manage to mount a "peacekeeping missions" in Kosovo and Bosnia without our help, I doubt they would even be of any use in Korea. Outside of the British Army, and a few elite formations like the Foreign Legion, I wouldn't give a plug nickle for any of them.

I would go so far as to say that the European armies are all at least close to the quality of the American and British armies- just that they're crippled by governments that won't let them get into action. The only exception to this is France- who are having an exciting adventure in Ivory Coast at the moment. That's not really enough to work out all the pent-up aggression they obviously have, though, as African Armies vs. Western ones doesn't generally prove to be much of a contest. What we need is a good ol' fashioned conventional war. Demand a divisional contingent from Germany- make them call it Horst Wessel.

[Ssudukh Tlakota]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


I would go so far as to say that the European armies are all at least close to the quality of the American and British armies- just that they're crippled by governments that won't let them get into action.

Based on what I've been told by friends who are still in the service, the European problem runs deeper than a lack of will concerning commitment. It also includes a bunch of governments which also do not adequately fund their militaries. One drew a comparrison to when we served together there from 74-78. Thanks to Jimmy Carter's policies, we lacked money for equipment and training to the point that when we did go to the field, we often left 25% of our firing units in Kasern because we had cannibalized them for parts (of course, we also didn't have the manpower to operate them either, so it was moot). My friend (who just retired after getting in his 30) described NATO, with the exception of the Brits, as having operated their militaries with the same policies and funding as Carter did since the fall of the Evil Empire. He says the German/French Corp (which I believe the French contingent in Africa is drawn from) is about the same quality as the Germans of my day (which wasn't bad), the Italian Carabinier (if I understood him correctly) are good, the Legion is still nasty as ever, and the Brits are still very professional (all volunteer, long service in the same Regiment, I thought they were the best of the NATO when I was there). The rest of the Euros (except the Danish Army, which is a joke) he describes as full-time reservists. Another friend from the Air Force tells me he was surprised to see the numbers of NATO combat aircraft which lack all weather capability. I realize this is all second hand info and subjective, but these are people I know and trust, and if my just retired friend said he would not want to go into combat with the average NATO unit, I'd suspect he must have some reason for thinking so.
From what I've heard of the North Korean Army, their equipment is probably on a par with most Euro forces, in some areas even better, and their troops are probably a whole lot more motivated.
Of course, there is that old adage which advises against getting into a ground war on the Asian continent. Haven't seen a whole lot, history wise, which would argue against it.:hmmm: :hmmm: :hmmm: :D :D

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by Ssudukh Tlakota
It also includes a bunch of governments which also do not adequately fund their militaries.

Democracies never give militaries as much money as they would like. It's true in Britain and the US at the moment.

he describes as full-time reservists.

That was when they operated conscription. They don't any more.

From what I've heard of the North Korean Army, their equipment is probably on a par with most Euro forces,

I find that very hard to believe. As an example European Armies these days rely solely on First Class MBTs- Leopard 2, Ariete and LeClerc. All are as effective if not more so than the Challenger 2 and M1A2. The North Koreans on the other hand use various cast-offs from the Russians and Chinese plus their own home-grown models... all of which are about equivalent to what Europe was using 25 or more years ago. In terms of aircraft, the West has always been superior to the East in this department, with most EU nations operating American F-16s... superior to anything the North Koreans could get their hands on. I don't know enough about North Korea to comment on the rest- but I don't see why the Russians would give their most advanced technology to them- and nothing else they could get hold of would be on a par with European equipment, which is state of the art.

and their troops are probably a whole lot more motivated.

That's a very big question- it's possible they are, but it's really a question of how effective North Koreas propaganda is. Remember that a conscript army is going to represent the population- and the population of North Korea is about as downtrodden as you can get. They might be disinclined to fight to protect that status quo.

Of course, there is that old adage which advises against getting into a ground war on the Asian continent. Haven't seen a whole lot, history wise, which would argue against it.:hmmm: :hmmm: :hmmm: :D :D

I haven't heard that one personally. Asia's a big place, I think you're just thinking about America getting burnt in Indochina. Korea the first time around would have been no problem if someone had paid heed to the rumblings from China. The real mistake is getting an Asian nation to make total war on you. That won't happen in North Korea because no-one is going to fight a total war to prop up a Stalinist regime in the 21st century.

[Ssudukh Tlakota]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


I haven't heard that one personally.


I believe it was General Stilwell who said it.

Now as far as a Korean Senario goes, I think it highly unlikely that we would have any support from any of the NATO nations, including Great Britain. It also appears that the ROK isn't thrilled with the idea. So any US invasion senario, as it stands right now, would consist mainly of US Marine and Airborne assets going it alone. With the bulk of the NK Army massed along the border. It might stand a fair chance of success. It might even get us some allies, since North Korea would in all likely hood strike against our allies in the region in retaliation.
However, I heard a news report the other day that the Chinese, of all people, were not happy about a nuclear armed North Korea. So here's an idea for a senario. How about a Chinese invasion of North Korea. As a matter of fact, the Chinese might prefer to occupy North Korea to prevent US occupation. Don't want a corrupting capitalist influence on their border.:D :rolleyes: :OHNO:

[tigersqn]

Originally posted by Ssudukh Tlakota

However, I heard a news report the other day that the Chinese, of all people, were not happy about a nuclear armed North Korea. So here's an idea for a senario. How about a Chinese invasion of North Korea. As a matter of fact, the Chinese might prefer to occupy North Korea to prevent US occupation. Don't want a corrupting capitalist influence on their border.:D :rolleyes: :OHNO:

Hey, not a bad idea!! It could be a plausible scenario politically.:thumup:

[Wolfe Tone]

There is a COW scenario called 'Korea 99' of which I played the opening moves over the weekend solitaire as the US/SK forces. It postulates that the US is tied down in a Mid East war at the same time( most unlikely you will agree!) also bogged down with Tiawan and Y/slavia conflicts. So far the NK have not broken through but the fighting is very hard.

If it comes to War in 2003 I think China and America will strike a deal in the event of a NK collapse. China will occupy a portion of NK south of the Yalu. The US will not send forces any further North than P/Yang with light SK forces deployed from there up. No doubt some kind of buffer zone would be agreed beforehand to seperate the mainline forces.

But I think a conflict here this year would be a horrible event. The military forces involved would make it a very bloody war indeed.

[SkyVon]

You are all forgetting a sleeping giant to the east of Korea...Japan.

Japan's aversion to nukes and North Korea's insistence on growing their nuclear arsenal...not to mention what they just did to the nuke treaty, will have major repercussions around the world and especially in Tokyo. Most of the European powers (inc'l SWEDEN...remember them?) have condemned this action. The eyes of the world are shifting from Iraq to North Korea now. The next few months should prove to be very interesting.

As for NK armor, according to a recent government document, they have 3,800 tanks (T-55s, 62s and 72s). Air force consists of around 1,600 planes with about 50 of them modern by today’s standard and about 25% of them vintage (MiG 15s & 17s.)

The ROK has a bit fewer tanks but they are much better (sights, guns, reliability)...including the newer Hyundai 88 tank. Forget the fact that TOW's & M1A2's will slice and dice those NK tanks, look at the air war; even from Japan, the U.S. will have complete control of the skies and as we've seen ten years ago, they will decimate the jammed pack NK lines. 1 million men spread along a narrow front = cannon fodder.

Seriously, U.S. ground troops are not that important there anymore. The ROK has around 600,000 troops, better supplied, better equipped, better trained and MORE motivated. They just need to hold their ground and let the USAF pounce from above.

The use of NK nukes (their only real chance) would, sadly, see an end to just about every living thing south of the Yalu and north of the 38th. Even China would stand against them on this one. Let’s also not forget that pro-west Russia shares a border with NK too. Japan would once again try to rise up as the leader of that region. This is a lose-lose situation. Any attack on NK by the US/SK would come at the cost of SK lives…a lot of them, more than Seoul is willing to sacrifice. The only real solution to this situation is political.

I also played NK ’99 and found advancement into SK a real challenge…this with the U.S. distracted in just about every corner of the world and Chinese troops aiding the NK’s.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by SkyVon
You are all forgetting a sleeping giant to the east of Korea...Japan.

You start your post with this but don't seem to go anywhere with it.

Incidentally, I think Japan's as likely to get involved in overseas war as Germany is. For the same reasons.

[SkyVon]

Relax Ben...

If I could accurately predict what Japan, Korea and every other country would do in this situation, I would be working in D.C. and not posting in this forum.

I was merely saying that I don't see Japan sitting idly by during this, and if you think Korea is an "overseas war" for Japan, you need a new map :crosseye:

Having test missiles fired over head tends to get ones attention.

[tigersqn]

Originally posted by Ben Turner

Incidentally, I think Japan's as likely to get involved in overseas war as Germany is. For the same reasons.

I think if Japan were presented with the possibility of a nuclear armed North Korea on their doorstep, they would seriously consider amending their constitution.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by SkyVon
I was merely saying that I don't see Japan sitting idly by during this, and if you think Korea is an "overseas war" for Japan, you need a new map :crosseye:

Overseas war= a war on a different land mass. Japan is an Island group, therefore any war outside home soil would be an overseas war. Admittedly Korea's not exactly far away, but....

Mainly I was just remembering some guy proposing a hypothetical where Japan goes nuts and conquers all of Asia. Sure, if North Korea looks like reaching Pusan, the Japanese will send a contingent. But I doubt it'll ever come to that.

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by tigersqn


I think if Japan were presented with the possibility of a nuclear armed North Korea on their doorstep, they would seriously consider amending their constitution.

I thought they already did? Vietnam war or UN peacekeeping or something.

[Dog 1]

there is one out now at the wargammer

very good but I'd like to see one on a lager map... say 2.5-5 kms Hex.... :)

[tigersqn]

Originally posted by Ben Turner


I thought they already did? Vietnam war or UN peacekeeping or something.

I think Japan amended their constitution during the Gulf War to allow their military to participate in UN embargo missions. It also allowed them to send humanitarian type units such as field hospitals to the Gulf.

If I'm not mistaken though, Their constitution still prohibits them from sending combat units to another countries territory.

[Case]

Originally posted by Dog 1
there is one out now at the wargammer

very good but I'd like to see one on a lager map... say 2.5-5 kms Hex.... :)

I didn't like that one much. All the author did was slightly modify Norm Kroger's Korea 99 Scenario. :bored:

[Ben Turner]

Originally posted by tigersqn
If I'm not mistaken though, Their constitution still prohibits them from sending combat units to another countries territory.

Yeah I think you're right.

[Braveheart]

Originally posted by Ssudukh Tlakota

Don't want a corrupting capitalist influence on their border.:D :rolleyes: :OHNO:

I think it's not Capitalism that the Chinese fear these days, but rather free press, human rights, democracy, etc.