Help support TMP


"This Is How Seoul Will Defend Itself Against A North ..." Topic


19 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board



728 hits since 12 Aug 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP12 Aug 2017 9:37 p.m. PST

…Korean Attack.

"South Korea's capital sits so close to North Korea—35 miles away—that Kim Jong Un wouldn't need ballistic or cruise missiles to damage the city: Shelling it with the artillery that Pyongyang has amassed near the border would suffice.

If North Korea were to attack Seoul, either in a pre-emptive strike or in response to a U.S. assault on its soil, the 25 million citizens in the metropolitan area would be urged to seek shelter, primarily deep underground in the city's subway network.

Meanwhile, the South Korean military would attempt to counter artillery fire with attacks on North Korean positions—the North has 8,600 cannons and 5,500 multiple rocket launchers, according to South Korea's Ministry of National Defense…"

picture

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo Murphy Sponsoring Member of TMP12 Aug 2017 11:24 p.m. PST

Armand; some of the things you also have to remember when you see this:

While it's true that the Norks have a lot more "stuff", (ie: "Combat aircraft"), you also have to remember that a lot of it is 40+ year old equipment. (MiG 15's vs Korean F-15?) yeah…

So this little list really does need to be clarified a bit…

nsolomon9912 Aug 2017 11:56 p.m. PST

Spot on Murph!!

Who remembers the same sort of charts from either of the 2 Gulf Wars? I remember listening, amused, as various journalists, rushed to the front lines by their news outlets without any real education or appreciation for the history of warfare or the technology and tactics, began talking about the overwhelming military supremacy of Saddam Hussein.

Numbers are nothing – vast Soviet numbers alone were almost irrelevant from June 1941 until late 1942 when the Russkies began to understand how to use them and still it was contest with the German army until late 1943.

In 1956, 67 & 73 the Israelis should've been overrun and driven into the sea by the Arab states if numbers mean't anything in modern warfare.

In the Gulf Wars the journalists were telling me on the news how Saddams "overwhelming numbers of advanced Soviet & Chinese tanks, planes and artillery" were likely to "inflict horrendous casualties" on the outnumbered Western forces.

How many North Korean tanks are runners? How many of them have enough fuel? How many jet engines are serviceable in all of those planes? How flexible is their artillery and targeting systems? How well will their gunners stand up to radar controlled counter-battery fire? Is their tech proof against ECM and jamming and EMP interference?

JMcCarroll13 Aug 2017 5:45 a.m. PST

And that's to start with! More US and Japanese forces will show up. Assuming N. Korea starts the war.
China is linked to close to the western economy to give only verbal assistance to the N. Koreans.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP13 Aug 2017 3:15 p.m. PST

Imho the artillery is the weapon in this case…


Amicalement
Armand

Redroom13 Aug 2017 4:55 p.m. PST

Artillery and what it can do to the South early on would be devastating

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP13 Aug 2017 5:28 p.m. PST

Those hardened artillery positions are old and don't the maintenance that is required, it's unknown how many will actually work.

Personal logo Andrew Walters Supporting Member of TMP13 Aug 2017 8:59 p.m. PST

The quality vs quantity issue means those large numbers of underfed, under motivate, undertrained folks from the North will not tell. But even even half the artillery gets off a shot before it's taken out by counter battery fire that's ten thousand lives. So that's the situation, the South can certainly win at the end of the war, but they will lose the start of the war. North Korea can't be provoked.

Old Glory Sponsoring Member of TMP13 Aug 2017 9:33 p.m. PST

"North Korea can't be provoked?" So is everyone just to run, hide, await their decision as to how they will behave or what direction they may choose?
Perhaps eventually they will just play nice or even better, we could just surrender now so as not to anger them?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

BenFromBrooklyn14 Aug 2017 8:41 a.m. PST

31 years ago.. I was mapping fixed north Korean Arty sites, as an intel analyst.
They haven't changed much.

What has changed is that the ROK is now a wealthy and technically advanced nation. I have no doubt that every nork artillery position anywhere the DMZ already has its precise location fixed in the electronic brain of a GPS guided weapon. But this raises the stakes in the game of chicken. The ROK can save many, many lives by firing first. That entire line of fixed positions could disappear nearly simultaneously in a line of explosions, with little warning.
Would they?
To save Seoul, would they?

Old Glory Sponsoring Member of TMP14 Aug 2017 8:57 a.m. PST

It is amazing to me to see one goverment and an entire population looking across an imaginary line watching and observing a system that obviously functions somewhat successfully and much better then the one they are attempting and never learn, minic, dublicate??? I suppose many in this world suffer the same characteristics?
Very sad really that so many must suffer because of one person's insistence that they a "have a better program" despite clear and well defined paths to prosperity.
Regards
Russ Dunaway

Personal logo Andrew Walters Supporting Member of TMP14 Aug 2017 11:23 a.m. PST

"North Korea can't be provoked."

I expressed myself badly there. What I mean to say is that ROK/US can't take strong action without careful consideration. Certainly bad behavior on the port of the regime in the North must result in consequences. But they can't be pushed too far. If they think they're in serious trouble they can do a lot of harm before they can be stopped.

Which puts them, and by extension the US/ROK in a weird position: They can't win a little skirmish, but they can go figuratively nuclear. Of course, that's the end of the regime. So their existence is guaranteed in a sense – if they feel genuine threatened they can pull the trigger and take a lot of Seoul with them. So the South and its allies can try to publish the North, as long as they don't go to far. What constitutes "genuinely threatened" and "too far"? Who knows, they're a little crazy up there.

Personal logo piper909 Supporting Member of TMP15 Aug 2017 12:07 p.m. PST

That's OK, we're a little crazy down here, too, so it all evens out? Hurm.

No, it's a deadly serious problem, despite my flipness. But like Winston (the other one) said once, jaw-jaw is better than war-war. The "Patience" approach worked against the USSR and Maoist China and could work again in Korea. Might not be glamorous, might not be quick, but the world has been spared an atomic war so far.

JMcCarroll15 Aug 2017 5:04 p.m. PST

What if we offered him unlimited porn and video games for his nukes? His generals can have some of the older stuff and bright shinny metals too.

Charlie 1215 Aug 2017 8:11 p.m. PST

How long will Norks remain a pain in the butt? Depends…

One theory says just as long as China tolerates their crap. And when the point arrives when they decide enough is enough, you'll have a quick, quiet change at the top. And then a slow dragging of the Hermit into the 21st century…

Lion in the Stars15 Aug 2017 9:27 p.m. PST

31 years ago.. I was mapping fixed north Korean Arty sites, as an intel analyst.
They haven't changed much.

What has changed is that the ROK is now a wealthy and technically advanced nation. I have no doubt that every nork artillery position anywhere the DMZ already has its precise location fixed in the electronic brain of a GPS guided weapon. But this raises the stakes in the game of chicken. The ROK can save many, many lives by firing first. That entire line of fixed positions could disappear nearly simultaneously in a line of explosions, with little warning.
Would they?
To save Seoul, would they?


I'm not sure that GPS-guided munitions have enough punch to dig those deep guns out of their 50+ft of solid granite.

So I'm honestly not sure Seoul is saveable. Sadly.

BenFromBrooklyn17 Aug 2017 9:02 a.m. PST

Those massive granite enclosures are a minority- a few coastal positions. Most are not like that.

And those that are… you are asking the wrong question. Dig them out? Ask if Korean technology is precise enough to score direct hits in those openings.

Remember they've had decades to plan the attack, and the targets are utterly immobile.

Here you can see some pix of various kinds of Nork shelters. Most are above ground hardened positions.

link

BenFromBrooklyn17 Aug 2017 9:06 a.m. PST

This is also why the Norks have been putting so much energy into building up a mobile artillery force. They've realized it too- fixed positions don't work in modern warfare.

But that turns us back to the dilemma, and makes it even worse. When the artillery is mobile, the opportunity cost for NOT firing first and hitting them before they move out to firing positions is even worse.

It's a brutal kind of gamble. The worse the north Korean threat the more the payoff for a ROK first strike.

Haitiansoldier17 Aug 2017 1:36 p.m. PST

I hope South Korea defeats North Korea and unifies the peninsula. Shame America in 1953 couldn't get the job done.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.