• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

North Korea's Military Capabilities

foxholeatheist

Graduate Poster
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,155
Semi-dated (Must have been written around 2004) interesting read on the North's Military Capabilities.

Link. "N Korea Military Tactics
In A War With US
"




North Korea, which can and is willing to face up to the sole military superpower of the world, cannot be called a weak nation. Nevertheless, Western press and analysts distort the truth and depict North Korea as an "impoverished" nation, starving and on the brink of imminent collapse. An impoverished, starving nation cannot face down a military superpower. Today few nations have military assets strong enough to challenge the US military. Russia, though weakened by the collapse of the Soviet Union, has enough assets to face up to the US. China, somewhat weaker than Russia, too, has strong military that can challenge the US. However, both Russia and China lack the political will to face down the US.

Come on. North Korea is Total GDP is 94th in the world and it's per capita 1900$. I doubt they could afford it. I was always under the impression that military movements are limited due to serious fuel shortages. Something I think that is not taken into account much in this link.

North Korea has annual production capacity for 200,000 AK automatic guns, 3,000 heavy guns, 200 battle tanks, 400 armored cars and amphibious crafts. North Korea makes its own submarines, landing drafts, high-speed missile-boats, and other types of warships. Home-made weaponry makes it possible for North Korea to maintain a large military force on a shoestring budget. North Korea defense industry is made of three groups: weapon production, production of military supplies, and military-civilian dual-use product manufacturing.

Capacity. So what's the actual production? 200 battle tanks of the typical Soviet style will be fuel hogs.

North Korea has 2 artillery corps and 30 artillery brigades equipped with 120mm self-propelled guns, 152mm self-propelled mortars, 170mm guns with a range of 50 km, 240 mm multiple rocket launchers with a range of 45 km, and other heavy guns. North Korea has about 18,000 heavy guns. North Korea's 170mm Goksan gun and 240mm multiple-tube rocket launchers are the most powerful guns of the world. These guns can lob shells as far south as Suwon miles beyond Seoul. The big guns are hidden in caves. Many of them are mounted on rails and can fire in all directions. They can rain 500,000 conventional and biochemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. The US army bases at Yijong-bu, Paju, Yon-chun, Munsan, Ding-gu-chun, and Pochun will be obliterated in a matter of hours.

I shuddered the think of all the Juicy Girls that will die as well.

Anyone FA? How good is this?

I know folks that have died due to lousy hand fired mortar shells in Iraq. Well placed power arty will be tough.

North Korea has tanks, armored cars, and self-propelled artillery for blitz klieg. North Korea has one tank corps and 15 tank brigades. The tank corps has 5 tank regiments, each of which has 4 heavy tank battalions, 1 light-tank battalion, one mechanized infantry battalion, 2 self-propelled artillery battalions.

I used to live in a small city called Kangneung on the Northern Eastern coast of Korea. The roads and routes in the northern areas of the South, close to the border, are rigged with road blocks and explosives. I'm not saying it's a huge problem but I imagine that bogging down collums long enough to have them taken out by our own arty or air power.

Again, this would require huge amounts of fuel. It's clear the North doesn't have it.

US tanks are designed to operate in open fields. In 1941, Rommel of Germany defeated British troops in North Africa with tanks. The largest tank battle was fought at Kursk in 1943, in which the Soviets defeated Germans. In 1973, Egypt defeated Israeli tanks with anti-tank missiles. All of these tank battles were fought in open fields. The Gulf War and the recent war in Iraq saw US tanks in open fields. American and Western tank commanders do not know how to fight tank battles in rugged terrains like those of Korea. Tank battles in Korea will be fought on hilly terrains without any close air cover, because North Korean fighters will engage US planes in close dog fights.

North Korea has developed tanks ideally suited for the many rivers and mountains of Korea. These tanks are called "Chun-ma-ho", which can navigate steep slopes and cross rivers as much as 5.5 m deep. North Korea's main battle tanks - T-62s - have 155 mm guns and can travel as fast as 60 km per hour. The US main tanks - M1A - have 120 mm guns and cannot travel faster than 55 km per hour. North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin.

I'm a tanker medic, I dig this. This is out of date and incorrect. I believe almost everything about the M1A is unclassified so without saying any specifically. I will state that the M1A is far superior and underrated here.

How good are North Korea's special forces? In September 1996, a North Korean submarine was stranded near Kang-nung and the crew were forced to abandon the ship and land on South Korea. The sub had two special forces agents who had finished a mission in South Korea and were picked up by the sub before the sub ran into a rock. The two men fought off an army of South Korean troops and remained at large for 50 days, during which they killed 11 of the pursuers.

I was in middle school when this happened and it was kind of scary.

NKSF are no joke. Our boys aint no joke either.

North Korea has a large number of ground-to-air missiles. It has SA-2 and SA-3 missiles against low-flying enemy planes, and SA-5 missiles for high-altitude planes. SA-5 missiles have an effective range of 250 km. SA-5 missiles can hit enemy planes flying over the middle of South Korea.

North Korea has reengineered US shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles captured in Vietnam, and designed its own missile, wha-sung. North Korea began to manufacture wha-sung missiles in 1980. Wha-sung comes in two models: SA-7 that has an effective range of 5 km and SA-16 with 10 km range. North Korea has more than 15,000 wha-sung missiles in place.

I'm pretty sure US missile counter measures would be up to the task.

Links for the 'Hwasung Missiles" but these appear to be ballistic missiles:
Hwasung 5
Hwasung 6

The main enemy of the North Korean navy will be US carrier task forces. The Russian navy has developed a tactic to deal with US carriers task forces: massive simultaneous missile attacks. In addition, Russia has developed the anti-carrier missile, "jun-gal", that can destroy a carrier. China has developed similar tactics for destroying US carriers. On April 1, 2003, North Korea test-fired a high-speed ground-to-ship missile of 60km range. A US carrier task force of Nimitz class has 6,000 men, 70 planes, and a price tag of 4.5 billion dollars. Destroying even a single career task force will be traumatic.

A carrier is protected by a shield of 6 Aegis destroyers and nuclear attack submarines. An Aegis destroyer has an AN/SPY-1 high-capacity radar system that can track more than 100 targets at the same time. An Aegis can fire about 20 anti-missile missiles at the same time. Thus, a career force can track a total of 600 targets at a time and fire 120 anti-missile missiles at the same time. The anti-missile missiles have about 50% success under ideal conditions. In actual battle situations, the hit rate will be much lower and the best estimate is that the Aegis shield can intercept at most 55 incoming missiles. Therefore, a volley of about 60 missiles and rockets will penetrate the Aegis shield and hit the career.

Can anyone comment on US Carrier armament and defense?
 
I have no doubt that N.Korea could cause a great deal of mischief. They have a large army and lots of conventional weapons.
We have relatively few forces in the immediate vicinity. We are told that the S. Koreans have invested heavily in their defensive capabilities, but I don't recall any actual analysis of their forces.
Kind of depends on response. If we posit a Gulf War-style buildup... The large army and Soviet-era weaponry did spectacularly badly in the hands of the Iraqis....
I would imagine that despite the article's claims of Korean air power.... We would very rapidly establish air superiority.
We have a variety of smart weapons available that would devastate both armor formations and artillery emplacements on a large scale... I cannot imagine that most all the N. Korean fixed artillery positions that threaten Seoul are not pre-targeted....
 
I'm a tanker medic, I dig this. This is out of date and incorrect. I believe almost everything about the M1A is unclassified so without saying any specifically. I will state that the M1A is far superior and underrated here.

Aside from the technical capabilities, the author also seems ignorant of the heavy (and successful) use of tanks in urban combat in Iraq. Furthermore, the claim that NK would engage in dogfights with US and SK planes is... well, laughable, really. SAMS might make close air support difficult, but NK planes won't be able to stay in the air very long. Their planes suck, and their pilots get little training because they can't afford the fuel or the risk of pilots defecting. There would be no dog fighting. They'd get shot down at long range.

Can anyone comment on US Carrier armament and defense?

They forgot the Phalanx system. Plus, of course, NK doesn't have the kind of anti-carrier missiles Russia and China have been developing, those missiles are not battle-tested (so assuming a 100% success rate is stupid), and there's no evidence that they have the capability to coordinate such a massive simultaneous barrage either.
 
Aside from the technical capabilities, the author also seems ignorant of the heavy (and successful) use of tanks in urban combat in Iraq. Furthermore, the claim that NK would engage in dogfights with US and SK planes is... well, laughable, really. SAMS might make close air support difficult, but NK planes won't be able to stay in the air very long. Their planes suck, and their pilots get little training because they can't afford the fuel or the risk of pilots defecting. There would be no dog fighting. They'd get shot down at long range.

I think in the entire essay fuel limitations are left out of the equation. And it's not just tanks or infantry, it's support, medical, logistics, command, etc.

I think I was told that for each US Tanker approx 1 70,000.00$ of fuel was used to train each tanker. Much more for something like MG. More for medium armored vehicles. I can't imagine what we spend to train each fighter or bomber pilot.

Even if the entire budget went to fuel an all out Total War I think they'd peter out a weak assault in a few weeks at most.
 
I read that a few years ago. I know nothing about military weapon systems, et al., but I will say that the thing reads like a propaganda piece.
 
Can anyone comment on US Carrier armament and defense?
I think the best defense is stay out of the 60km range of the N. Korean missiles, yes? I don't see why a US carrier group would have to be any closer than 200km to N. Korea in a conflict.
 
North Korea has one thing Iraq never did - terrain

And Iraq had one thing North Korea doesn't: fuel.

North Korea's threat has always been the artillery they already have in place, aimed at civilian population centers. They have lots of it, too much for us to take out before they can lob a lot of ammunition at those cities. So they can kill lots of people. But they will lose in the process, and lose badly. Their military is poorly trained. They have no air power to speak of. Their infrastructure is crap, and won't survive our airstrikes. They're low on fuel, they're low on food, and once the fighting starts they won't be able to move what little they have. They'll be paralyzed. That is why they put so much effort into placing that artillery on location, because it's the only way to make their threat credible. What they are counting on is that the US and South Korea don't want to win badly enough to risk the casualties. And that is true. That is why we haven't smacked them around harder already. Of course, even with that sort of threat, there's still a limit to how hard they can push South Korea. If war ever starts, it will be a bloody business, but the victor is already quite certain: South Korea will wipe the floor with North Korea.
 
And when virtually your entire force is based on dug in defense and you have spent 50 years digging in. You dont need a lot of fuel
You have to mobilize soldiers to those dug-in positions. You have to extract the wounded. You have to truck in supplies. You have to move people around as necessary.

You may recall that one of Germany's biggest problems fending off the Allied invasion was lack of fuel, despite being dug in and playing defense.
 
You have to mobilize soldiers to those dug-in positions. You have to extract the wounded. You have to truck in supplies. You have to move people around as necessary.

You may recall that one of Germany's biggest problems fending off the Allied invasion was lack of fuel, despite being dug in and playing defense.

Feet

Medical care?

What supplies
 
And when virtually your entire force is based on dug in defense and you have spent 50 years digging in. You dont need a lot of fuel

You don't need a lot of fuel to do what? Hunker in defensive fortifications? For what purpose?

Seriously. What are they going to do? Fire artillery until all their guns are taken out or they run out of ammo? And then what?

France also did a lot of digging in along the Maginot line after WWI, building extensive underground fortifications. The Germans went around them. I very seriously doubt the South Koreans have spent all these decades planning a frontal assault on the North's fortifications.
 
That entire article is basically complete crap, but I will just comment on the part I know best, which is of course the tank part:

US tanks are designed to operate in open fields. In 1941, Rommel of Germany defeated British troops in North Africa with tanks. The largest tank battle was fought at Kursk in 1943, in which the Soviets defeated Germans. In 1973, Egypt defeated Israeli tanks with anti-tank missiles. All of these tank battles were fought in open fields. The Gulf War and the recent war in Iraq saw US tanks in open fields. American and Western tank commanders do not know how to fight tank battles in rugged terrains like those of Korea. Tank battles in Korea will be fought on hilly terrains without any close air cover, because North Korean fighters will engage US planes in close dog fights.
This is complete utter trash. This is what the hell I do. My platoon has done so many training exercises in rugged terrain I can't even count. All of my tank commanders know the capabilities of the tank, and we are EXTREMELY good at setting up hide positions, utilizing steep terrain to establish BPs, establishing direct fire plans, establishing our primary, alternate, and supplementary battle positions, etc. The Manuever branch of the US military is second to none, and I will tell you from first had experience we train in both open terrain and also rugged terrain. No one can match our maneuver capabilities, especially those of the armored cavalry. The author of the article obviously has no armored maneuver experience and is simply utilizing unsubstantiated speculation.

And that is also a load of crap that the tanks would not have close air support. The airforce of the US Army is so vastly superior to that of North Korea they two don't even compare. The US Airforce has over 18,000 Aerial based weapons systems. North Korea has approximately 1800.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp

North Korea has developed tanks ideally suited for the many rivers and mountains of Korea. These tanks are called "Chun-ma-ho", which can navigate steep slopes and cross rivers as much as 5.5 m deep.
And America doesn't? Ever heard of a LAV-25?

North Korea's main battle tanks - T-62s - have 155 mm guns and can travel as fast as 60 km per hour. The US main tanks - M1A - have 120 mm guns and cannot travel faster than 55 km per hour. North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin.
This last part is all factually incorrect. He didn't get anything right. The T62 has a 115mm main gun, not 155mm. Some variants were later equipped with 125mm. The main gun on a T62 does not compare to that of an M1A1/M1A2. There is no known armor that the DU Sabot cannot penetrate. Also, the T62 can only travel 45km an hour. The M1A1 can travel 72km an hour (governed). The armor on a T62 is only about 500-600mm thick of hardened steel plated. The Abrams has 894mm thick depleted uranium/ceramic armor. A round shot from a T62 would not penetrate this armor.

I am not sure what kind of research the author did, but apparently he didn't do much. This kinda makes the rest of the article obsolete, given the authors lack of even the most basic knowledge of tanks. The T62 is a GARBAGE tank compared the the Abrams.

ETA: fox you got me all fired up by how many lies there were about my beloved tanks in this article lol.
 
Last edited:
I think the best defense is stay out of the 60km range of the N. Korean missiles, yes? I don't see why a US carrier group would have to be any closer than 200km to N. Korea in a conflict.

Even if they did I doubt N Korea would be able to find them. I doubt they could maintain a communications network past the first few hours let alone a radar network. A radar station is basically a big "kill me" sign for cruise missiles.
 
North Korea has one thing Iraq never did - terrain

you presume that favors N Korea. In fact with their communication systems gone this terrain serves to isolate N Korean units to where they could be destroyed easily.

The N Korean battle plan is likely to give their artillery whatever rounds they can and tell them to fire it in the direction of Soul as quickly as possible in order to inflict civilian casualties.
 
You don't need a lot of fuel to do what? Hunker in defensive fortifications? For what purpose?

To face armageddon. It is what what the military, the state live for. The South in partner with the US to attack. So they can justify the last 50 years of their existence and prove all they have said about the US and its bully tactics are true

Seriously. What are they going to do? Fire artillery until all their guns are taken out or they run out of ammo? And then what?

Then they die. They know that. Their hope is to make each of their deaths as expensive as possible


France also did a lot of digging in along the Maginot line after WWI, building extensive underground fortifications. The Germans went around them. I very seriously doubt the South Koreans have spent all these decades planning a frontal assault on the North's fortifications.

If you want to compare the North Korean defenses to those in France pre WW1 you need to do a lot more reading
 
You think they'll have weeks to march to the front, and arrive in condition to fight?

So they are not going to march to the front till the war starts :eek: between 60% and 70% of North Korea's military assets are already within 5 miles of the DMZ

Food, water, spare parts, ammunition, and countless other materiel.

From where - and why are they moving it now. They built the stockpile bunkers 30 years ago. Why do you think the country is starving. The military takes all supluses and moves it to the front now. The NK are not going to wait to react. They reacted 50 years ago, they are just waiting for the South to make the move
 
If you want to compare the North Korean defenses to those in France pre WW1 you need to do a lot more reading

The Maginot line was a post WW1 defense against the Germans. It was the most impressive fortress that the world has ever seen. The Germans went around it in 1940.
 

Back
Top Bottom