North Korea's Military Capabilities

[catsmate]

Food, fuel and ammo cost money

So does actually paying soldiers.
RoK hardware is also generally more advanced and capable

 

[Delvo]

There are also ways a budget can get bloated beyond legitimate expenses like that. For example, there is something really weird about the USA's selection & procurement processes that has repeatedly resulted in projects costing multiple times what they were supposed to cost, AND led to long gaps between the deployment of one thing and the deployment of the next step up to improve on it.

 

[Nosi]

What religion/God they worship in North Korea? Satan/Devil/Dragon?




Oh well. You can't eat money anyways. It's time people learn how to be self sufficient again and stop depending on government handouts. It's called survival of fittest.




That is why families like mine exist. We defend the weak and meek who have no will or way to defend the country.




Isolationism!? That is what allowed Hitler to gain so much traction in Europe before people stopped sitting on their hands.




It is called "evil." Despite the fact unbelievers don't recognize it does not mean it is not there. Hardcore Liberalism and Denial-ism go hand in hand and can get your peeps in serious trouble if left unchecked.

Basically, if you do not make a stand against "pure evil," eventually it will spill out of "said" countries and start affecting more than just a limited area.

Especially since we live in a world where everyone is connected with each other more than ever before.

My grandpa (a hardened Korean War veteran who was a platoon Sergeant w/tons of battle stars) has been harping about "I sure hope we don't have to go back to Korea. It is one cold SOB over there."

Ever since I can remember, he would say that when telling me his awesome war stories (he was behind enemy lines in a forward base fighting Chinese in the mountains for almost 4yrs).

I used to think he was just talking out of his rear.

Now I know he wasn't. I think deep down inside he knows we didn't accomplish a damn thing over there.

I respect you and families like yours. I just worry that the military is being acutely overstretched and this board is sounding a bit over confidant. Admittedly, NK is short on basics and conventional arms. What they aren't short on is nastiness and germs/chemicals to lob at us or SK. They can also join forces with free range terrorists for non-conventional operations. We can only watch so much crap coming and going from NK, and only so closely.

 

[egslim]

I can't imagine that China would be the destination of choice for N. Koreans, when S. Korea speaks their language and shares the same history and culture.

What would they be refugees from if S. Korea took over? Stocked grocery stores and the latest electronic gadgets?

The only reason they head to China now is that border is far easier to get across than the heavily guarded border with S. Korea.

North Koreans have for 60 years been indoctrinated to believe China is a friend, while South Korea is an evil enemy whose soldiers want to rape their women and eat their babies.

And don't be too sure about those stocked grocery stores and the latest electronic gadgets - South Korea simply does not have the economic strength to turn North Korea around fast, especially after the chaos of a war where the South suffered heavy artillery attacks.

If resistance from a few hardcore communists continues after the occupation it will be even worse.

 

[McHrozni]

Here is an interesting comparison of the relative military strength of North and SOuth Korea. Keep in mind this is just a quantitative comparison, not a qualitative comparison. However, one item particularly stands out.

North Korea has:
1.7 times as many active military personnel
3.3 times as many air based weapons (planes)
2.0 times as many land based weapons
8.3 times as many naval units

and yet, South Korea's defense expenditure is 4.6 times greater than North Korea.

All this shows how silly it is to only compare quantities. If you compare other details, you will find:
North Korea has no destroyers, South Korea has 6
North Korea has 3 frigates, South Korea has 9
North Korea has 492 costal patrol craft, South Korea has 75.

Most of North Korean 8 to 1 advantage at sea is due to their extremely large number of costal patrol boats (and submarines). South Korea has a 5 to 1 advantage in significant surface combatants.

Something similar can be said about other aspects. I significantly doubt North Korean MiG-17s are a significant threat to F-15Ks for example. In land power, North Korea may be able to deliver a single painful punch at Seoul, perhaps even without altillery aimed at it. That's all their numbers would be able to do, in all likelyhood.

Their large spec ops forces may be the most significant threat. However, I strongly suspect their primary task and training is to control other armed forces, to surpress dissident in the military, and to deal with any rebelling units.

McHrozni

 

[USEagle13]

I respect you and families like yours. I just worry that the military is being acutely overstretched and this board is sounding a bit over confidant. Admittedly, NK is short on basics and conventional arms. What they aren't short on is nastiness and germs/chemicals to lob at us or SK. They can also join forces with free range terrorists for non-conventional operations. We can only watch so much crap coming and going from NK, and only so closely.

Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. My grandpa is most likely going to die this year but he passed his wisdom of how the NKs fought on to me ever since I was a kid such as how they booby trap their dead (use rope to move their bodies), use surrender flags as traps for ambushes, and he even told me of how after heavy snow falls they would drop cats infected with yellow fever from cargo planes.

There is much much more to their nastiness. Such as hiding in mountains, and tunnels to avoid armor etc. I could go on all day but I won't. It would be worse than the damn insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He lost a many a men who would not listen about the booby trapped dead bodies. As a matter of fact the Sergeant who replaced him when he was done with his tour died within his 1st week from a booby trapped dead China man.

They just refused to use the damn ropes.....

 

[egslim]

Most of North Korean 8 to 1 advantage at sea is due to their extremely large number of costal patrol boats (and submarines). South Korea has a 5 to 1 advantage in significant surface combatants.

If those coastal patrol boats have anti-shipping missiles, they are significant.

In coastal waters missile-armed fast patrol boats are by far the most dangerous naval weapon.

During the Millenium Challenge '02' wargame Paul van Ripen sank most of the US fleet (including a carrier) in the Persian Gulf using nothing more than missile-armed speedboats and sportsplanes.

 

[jimbob]

Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. My grandpa is most likely going to die this year but he passed his wisdom of how the NKs fought on to me ever since I was a kid such as how they booby trap their dead (use rope to move their bodies), use surrender flags as traps for ambushes, and he even told me of how after heavy snow falls they would drop cats infected with yellow fever from cargo planes.

There is much much more to their nastiness. Such as hiding in mountains, and tunnels to avoid armor etc. I could go on all day but I won't. It would be worse than the damn insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He lost a many a men who would not listen about the booby trapped dead bodies. As a matter of fact the Sergeant who replaced him when he was done with his tour died within his 1st week from a booby trapped dead China man.

They just refused to use the damn ropes.....

If those coastal patrol boats have anti-shipping missiles, they are significant.

In coastal waters missile-armed fast patrol boats are by far the most dangerous naval weapon.

During the Millenium Challenge '02' wargame Paul van Ripen sank most of the US fleet (including a carrier) in the Persian Gulf using nothing more than missile-armed speedboats and sportsplanes.

Those are the relevant points. Not whether a superpower could defeat them, but whether it could be justified for the costto that superpower and its allies. I'd say the North has a sufficient military to do that.

Of course this makes the assumption that the North doesn't do something to make it worth the cost of war.

And of course, there are the issues about what the status of China would be, as at the very least the Chinese leadership would not want loads of refugees turning up at its border.

But doesn't North Korea only need enough of a capability to seriously rule10 the economy of South Korea?

It is a fairly big assumption, but if 50% of their artillery managed a couple of salvos on Seoul, with a mix of conventional and chemical explosives, that could be pretty costly, and I'd imagine could cause a fairly drastic recession.

After all I doubt that the North Korean troops have been told how suicidal that would be.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If those coastal patrol boats have anti-shipping missiles, they are significant.

In coastal waters missile-armed fast patrol boats are by far the most dangerous naval weapon.

During the Millenium Challenge '02' wargame Paul van Ripen sank most of the US fleet (including a carrier) in the Persian Gulf using nothing more than missile-armed speedboats and sportsplanes.

So what do we learn from that? Wargames are fixed by the rules to get the result you want.

I have been in two exercises in the North Atlantic where we had US Subs sunk but were told we had to miss because they had to get through to the units we were escorting to continue the exercise, we were counted as having made no contact despite pinging the hell out of them and our Wasp was dropping smoke floats and 'bangers' on their postions. Plus they never got us in an attack position.

 

[egslim]

So what do we learn from that? Wargames are fixed by the rules to get the result you want.

After van Ripen sank most of the US fleet with his missile-armed speedboats and sportsplanes the umpires 'refloated' the carrier and other lost ships. Van Ripen then quit in disgust.

So you're right, the wargame was fixed - to let the high-tech carrier force win. But the objective observer learned a very different lesson from the exercise.

Hence my comment that the coastal patrol boats McHrozni denigrated as insignificant are actually very dangerous in coastal waters.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That a few little boats and a some 'sportsplanes' claimed to have sunk a carrier group in an exercise is all very well, To do the same in a real shooting war with an Action imminent would be a different thing. Real war doesn't stop and start at the edge of the exercise area ort when the umpire decides it's time to go.
What were the starting conditions and what were the assumptions made? they have more effect than anything you do in the exercise itself.
If our contacts had been real Russian Boats they would have been taken out long before they got within the exercise area.
To be honest I don't think a single one of the exercises we took part would have helped with anything that wiuld have happened if the shooting war had started with the Russians and they certainly didn't help at all when the shooting started in the South Atlantic.

Being efficient and proficient with our drill and knowing the abilities of our weapons and systems are what counted

 

[McHrozni]

If those coastal patrol boats have anti-shipping missiles, they are significant.

In coastal waters missile-armed fast patrol boats are by far the most dangerous naval weapon.

Yes, if you're defending the coastline from a foreign invasion. I see little reason for the US navy to operate in the coastal waters of Korea during such a war. For force projection, the patrol boats aren't very useful.

During the Millenium Challenge '02' wargame Paul van Ripen sank most of the US fleet (including a carrier) in the Persian Gulf using nothing more than missile-armed speedboats and sportsplanes.

Yes, in a completely different situation, where the fleet is constrained in a gulf 100 miles wide (possibly to even less by exercise rules), I imagine patrol boats and missile boats can be incredibly effective. This would not be the case in Korea. I also like to think that US high command learned from that war game and wouldn't repeat the same mistakes.

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

That a few little boats and a some 'sportsplanes' claimed to have sunk a carrier group in an exercise is all very well, To do the same in a real shooting war with an Action imminent would be a different thing. Real war doesn't stop and start at the edge of the exercise area ort when the umpire decides it's time to go.
What were the starting conditions and what were the assumptions made?

"The scenario was a US invasion of an unnamed Persian Gulf country (either Iraq or Iran).
Paul van Ripen was given nothing but small planes and ships-fishing boats, patrol boats, that kind of thing. He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet."

You can look up further details yourself.

To clarify: My point is those North Korean patrol boats are very dangerous in coastal waters, they should not be considered insignificant.

Yes, if you're defending the coastline from a foreign invasion. I see little reason for the US navy to operate in the coastal waters of Korea during such a war. For force projection, the patrol boats aren't very useful.

For force projection North Korea has all that artillery aimed at Seoul. Projection against other countries they have no reason to care about, China is friendly and except for those two countries North Korea is an autarky.
Coastline defense and coastal skirmishes near the South Korean coast is all they either want or need in war.

Yes, in a completely different situation, where the fleet is constrained in a gulf 100 miles wide (possibly to even less by exercise rules), I imagine patrol boats and missile boats can be incredibly effective. This would not be the case in Korea. I also like to think that US high command learned from that war game and wouldn't repeat the same mistakes

The US would probably keep its carriers at a safe distance from the North Korean bases.

But you said "South Korea has a 5 to 1 advantage in significant surface combatants.". Those South Korean surface combatants would probably be tasked with defending the South Korean coast. And then the (insignificant) North Korean patrol boats can quickly sink them if they get too close.

 

[McHrozni]

"The scenario was a US invasion of an unnamed Persian Gulf country (either Iraq or Iran).
Paul van Ripen was given nothing but small planes and ships-fishing boats, patrol boats, that kind of thing. He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet."

I believe we used to call this Zerg rush
It can be effective. Battle off Samar comes to mind as another such example. Not realistic if the US fleet stays away from North Korean coastline.
It can also be ineffective, as the action of 2nd July 1950 shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_2_July_1950

Neither of the two examples used comparable technology, but arguably the fate would be less on the side of the small boats today. If they were found quickly enough and repeatedly attacked, the chances of a successful attack are near nil. In addition, most of the attacks against them would be by air, to which they are almost defenseless.

To clarify: My point is those North Korean patrol boats are very dangerous in coastal waters, they should not be considered insignificant.

They are utterly insignificant if you want them to support an invasion or defend against air strikes, both land based and sea based. They are utterly insignificant as means of naval blockade.

For force projection North Korea has all that artillery aimed at Seoul.

Which is a totally different question than the naval component of the war and has nothing to do with North Korean 8:1 numerical superiority at sea.

Coastline defense and coastal skirmishes near the South Korean coast is all they either want or need in war.

Assuming, of course, SK & allies don't use land forces to push the North back.

The US would probably keep its carriers at a safe distance from the North Korean bases.

And strike at them repeatedly.

But you said "South Korea has a 5 to 1 advantage in significant surface combatants.". Those South Korean surface combatants would probably be tasked with defending the South Korean coast. And then the (insignificant) North Korean patrol boats can quickly sink them if they get too close.

You're making two assumptions here:
1) South Korean coastline would need major defence (from what?)
2) South Korean high command doesn't know of this possibility (eh?)

Neither of the two assumptions seem all that justified to me. On the other hand, South Korean surface ships alone can quite successfuly prevent any supplies from reaching North Korea. Assuming US penetrating forces (stealth bombers, cruise missiles) can take out rail links at the same time, North Korea can't bring in much supplies during the war. This is easily far more significant than the ability to rush an enemy who strays too close.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I looked up the Millenium challenge 02, Wikipedia has a pretty good, if somewhat short article on it. It seems to agree with me that it was in the large part due to the specifics of the area, namely the Persian gulf, and the fact the van Riper knew approximately where and when the enemy was coming. He also knew the enemy was coming at all, which may not be at all similar to the situation in Korea.

He did have the unexpected advantage of not being detected as well as it was expected. That was the only thing that surprised me, as I had assumed the US forces were only unable to destroy the light forces quickly enough.

Note some other differances, though: van Riper also had plenty of cruise missiles to strike his enemy, who struck just before the "small boys attack". If he didn't have that, the results could easily be different. The plan also called for a naval invasion.

All in all, there are plenty of differances to state that NK patrol boats would not be a significant factor in the naval battle. They would probably deter some air strikes that would seek to weed them out, but after a week or two at the most, they would be largely eliminated.

McHrozni

 

[Segnosaur]

Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. My grandpa is most likely going to die this year but he passed his wisdom of how the NKs fought on to me ever since I was a kid such as how they booby trap their dead (use rope to move their bodies), use surrender flags as traps for ambushes, and he even told me of how after heavy snow falls they would drop cats infected with yellow fever from cargo planes.

There is much much more to their nastiness. Such as hiding in mountains, and tunnels to avoid armor etc. I could go on all day but I won't. It would be worse than the damn insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Would it?

In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the insurgents receive assistance from outside countries (e.g. Afghanistan insurgents receive support from Pakistan, Iran, etc.; Many Iraq insurgents were from adjoining countries.) On the other hand, North Korea is a lot more isolated, both geographically (I doubt China would be willing to assist insurgents in waging a protracted war) and politically (no significant allies to support any sort of insurgency.)

Secondly, the people of North Korea have been lied to by their government; if the government in the north is overthrown and the citizens see some of the deceptions (plus an improvement in quality of life), do you really think there will be any sort of popular support for the insurgency?

 

[Ziggurat]

In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the insurgents receive assistance from outside countries (e.g. Afghanistan insurgents receive support from Pakistan, Iran, etc.; Many Iraq insurgents were from adjoining countries.) On the other hand, North Korea is a lot more isolated, both geographically (I doubt China would be willing to assist insurgents in waging a protracted war) and politically (no significant allies to support any sort of insurgency.)

Don't forget linguistically. Iraq is surrounded by countries which speak the same language. North Korea is not. That means any large influx of insurgents wouldn't speak the same language, making it much harder for them to blend into the civilian population.

Secondly, the people of North Korea have been lied to by their government; if the government in the north is overthrown and the citizens see some of the deceptions (plus an improvement in quality of life), do you really think there will be any sort of popular support for the insurgency?

Unfortunately there probably would be some, yes. I forget if there's a name for this, but sometimes people react to having their beliefs contradicted by events by grasping even more tightly to those belief rather than re-evaluating them. So we should plan for an insurgency. But I can't see it getting the kind of external sponsorship that Iraq and Afghanistan have, and the people who will be fighting it will be South Koreans, not the US. I don't see it lasting so long.