>North Korea seems to believe that it can win using the same tactics that Chinese troops successfully employed in the Korean War.
>Normal military doctrine says that an attacker should outnumber the defender by at least three to one at the point of attack.
>But since when is North Korea normal? The Korean People's Army (KPA) believes that it only needs to amass a two to one edge on the battlefield to defeat U.S. and South Korean troops. What's more, North Korea seems to believe that it can win using the same tactics that Chinese troops successfully employed in the Korean War.
>"The DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] believes that the average KPA soldier is physically, mentally, militarily, and politically better trained and prepared for war than any individual soldier the North Korean will meet on the battlefield.... With this type of mental indoctrination, it is likely that many KPA military personnel would rather fight to the death than surrender," says a U.S. Army study of North Korean tactics.
>"The KPA's doctrine is based on five fundamental principles of war: surprise attack, mass and dispersion, increased maneuverability, cunning and personified tactics, and secure secrets," according to the U.S. Army. Perhaps mindful of the static and inconclusive trench warfare that characterized the second half of the Korean War, North Korea will strive to keep a second conflict mobile, keeping the enemy off balance. North Korea troops will operate dispersed but then mass for quick offensives, exploiting nighttime and covered terrain to achieve surprise, as well as special forces to surprise the enemy and seize key points. Curiously, for such a rigidly disciplined society, the North Korea army "emphasizes to its leaders to use its initiative and aggressiveness with no hesitation."
>North Korean doctrine spans several types of offensive operations, most of which are standard for most armies, but two of which are particularly interesting. One is infiltration operations: a corps-sized offensive will will attempt to filter almost a division's worth of troops through U.S. and South Korean lines. "In an infantry corps-level operation, approximately two-thirds of the light infantry brigade and sniper brigade or a total of eight battalions may be given the mission to conduct raids on key targets in the enemy's rear—artillery positions, vital chokepoints on major roads, or command posts," the U.S. Army study notes. "This focus on infiltration continues down to all levels: four of six companies from the division light infantry battalion at the division level, one regular infantry company in each regiment, and one regular infantry platoon in each battalion may all receive infiltration missions."
>A "besetment" operation involves surrounding an enemy strong point in order to inflict maximum casualties. "There are four types of besetments: front and one flank; front and two flanks; front and rear; and front, rear, and two flanks," the U.S. Army study notes. "No matter what type of besetment is chosen, indirect fire will attempt to seal any enemy side not covered by the direct fire."
>Offensive tactics that emphasize constant infiltration into the enemy's rear and surrounding enemy strong points? Does this sound familiar? Consider this passage from Bevin Alexander's The Future of Warfare on Chinese tactics in the Korean War:
>The Chinese tried whenever possible to infiltrate through enemy positions in order to plant a roadblock on the supply line, in hopes of inducing the enemy to retreat to regain contact with the rear. If UN forces stayed in position, the roadblocks still were useful in cutting off escape routes and supply.
The Chinese tried whenever possible to infiltrate through enemy positions in order to plant a roadblock on the supply line, in hopes of inducing the enemy to retreat to regain contact with the rear. If UN forces stayed in position, the roadblocks still were useful in cutting off escape routes and supply.
In infiltration and assaults against front-line positions, the Chinese moved largely at night to avoid air strikes and reduce aerial observation. In attacks they tried to isolate individual outposts, usually platoons, by striking at the fronts, while at the same time attempting to outflank them. The purpose was to defeat forces in detail by gaining local superiority.
you can't win without groud troops. you can only harass from the air. see taliban.
Jackson Lee
Our transexual mulatto sensitivity-trained immigrant forces will send them back to the Stone age. Get ready, commies.
Luis Ramirez
korea does this shit every year around march-april. it peters out in may usually sometimes it pushes into june. it's bullshit and nothing will ever happen.
Jaxon Clark
Oh, I see the "I know you're too much of a wuss to drop nukes and chemicals, so I can continue my barbarism" tactic is still viable in this day and age.
Nathan Harris
The Taliban was not itself a country. When at war with a country, you have the option of not only bombing their troops, but directly bombing large civilian centers in order to completely kill all morale to continue.
Henry Clark
Yeah, right. South Korea's military is so advanced, they wouldn't even need our help against the North so long as A) nukes aren't fired and B) China doesn't directly intervene. Saddam Hussein had about as good a military in the 1990s (same tech) as Kim Jong Un has today.
>directly bombing large civilian centers in order to completely kill all morale to continue. historically this only increases their will to keep fighting
>Saddam Hussein had about as good a military in the 1990s (same tech) as Kim Jong Un has today. he fought fought conventionally. he had no nukes. kim can take sk and japan (allies of the usa) as artillery (for sk) and nuclear (japan) hostages.
Ayden Rogers
Nukes I addressed, they are the main reason the US would have to be on deck, to deter nuclear provocation. In a conventional war, the ROK army mops the floor with DPRK forces. Even the artillery barrage on Seoul trump card is highly questionable, for numerous reasons. They'd have to put all their very best guns at the very edge of the DMZ, heavily clustered and vulnerable to counter-batteries and air sorties, which would be raining down from the jump. Accuracy is a concern, they would pretty much just be firing in the city's direction and a sizable percentage of their shells won't even detonate if past experience is a lesson. Finally and most importantly, every shell fired at Seoul is a shell not fired at ROK (and coalition) forces which will be very aggressively attacking the DPRK, so they'd be disregarding real targets to kill civilians during the most critical moment of the war. So, I'm not particularly worried about it. Except the nuke thing. But that's why we're going to all this trouble.
You're forgetting to take language into account. Its been reported for decades now that norks have distinct accents and jargon that give them away pretty fast. Case and point their term for OJ roughly translates into sweetwater whereas the southies just adopted a portmanaeu of english and korean pronuncation and call it "oleng" juice.
Plus the southies are really big on drones. You forget that the reason night raids were so successful back then was because modern thermal and nightvision capabilities were nonexistent back then. Nevermind Reaper drones. Fuck the Southies could probably just recruit some of their esports players for that.
Carter Fisher
You mean, the last time when they lost?
Sebastian Stewart
>using your starcraft skills to exterminate NK I just cant stop laughing
Jaxon Kelly
I think they would nuke our fleet in Korea
Levi Jones
why are you strawmanning me on the different accents? I never said anything about that.
Noah Perez
North Korea only exists today because the US/NATO got pushed back and gave up. They got all the way up, then got pushed all the way down basically to the edge of the south, went all in and got serious, and got back up to the now DMZ line, then signed a ceasefire, which is still in effect today. Technically the war is still ongoing.
