An aquaintance of mine who worked for years at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ told me this last night: "although the logistics would be complicated, in theory we could line up 45 Warthogs, Gatling gun ammo loaded to capacity, depart from a base just north of Seoul, run at 320 knots very low and terrain following, head to the capitol city Pyeunong (spelling?) and then blast away, literally taking out about every government building in the city. One can only imagine the havoc and destruction of the combined firepower of 45 A-10's......and approaching so low and quietly, could be largely undetected."

To me, this sounds possible, but 2 big problems:
1) Our military brass would not think it's cool or high-tech to attack with such outdated airplanes.
2) N Korea's response might be to lob artillery shells across the border at Seoul, starting a greater conflict.

No 2 sounds like a very big problem. Seoul's proximity to the border is a major problem. And while I know very little about military strategy, taking out the NK artillery first doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Sounds like a very quick way to start a big war. Also sounds like many macho military people I've run into. "Give me five minutes alone with them! Five minutes - that's all I need! I'll take 'em all out." Usually I hear that from Marines and pilots.

If you are going to start a war, do it correctly. Read the Gulf War Air Power Survey to find out how it is done properly. Hint - A-10s are not involved in the initial phase. F-35s would be.

727glasair wrote:

An aquaintance of mine who worked for years at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ told me this last night: "although the logistics would be complicated, in theory we could line up 45 Warthogs, Gatling gun ammo loaded to capacity, depart from a base just north of Seoul, run at 320 knots very low and terrain following, head to the capitol city Pyeunong (spelling?) and then blast away, literally taking out about every government building in the city. One can only imagine the havoc and destruction of the combined firepower of 45 A-10's......and approaching so low and quietly, could be largely undetected."

To me, this sounds possible, but 2 big problems:
1) Our military brass would not think it's cool or high-tech to attack with such outdated airplanes.
2) N Korea's response might be to lob artillery shells across the border at Seoul, starting a greater conflict.

That is frankly a load of rubbish. An A-10 has approx 1200 rds of cannon ammunition. It would churn through that in 5-10 seconds on continious fire. Militaries drop bombs on buildings because they work while cannons aren't great at destroying buildings. Even if every A-10 had every bomb it could carry there are way more targets than weapons.

Of course this ignores the fact the North Koreans would see them coming and the plethora of AAA present would make short work of low slow firing A-10s.

First would be a cruise missile strike, followed shortly after by a B-2 strike. F-22s and EA-18G would rip up any radar dumb enough to turn on, about the same time everything else starts ripping up anything that moves within artillery range of South Korea. After the initial strike taking out N Koreas best gear and crippling communications, it wont be a long drawn out conflict. The N Korean Army doesnt have the resources for a drawn out war... the soldiers not already starving will be there soon enough. South Korean broadcasts will encourage defections and empty bellys will speak louder then the dear leader when he is muzzled (or dead).

F-35s would be super handy to act as Tactical AWACS, CAS... and just be a massive enabler for other assets.

Oroka wrote:

First would be a cruise missile strike, followed shortly after by a B-2 strike. F-22s and EA-18G would rip up any radar dumb enough to turn on, about the same time everything else starts ripping up anything that moves within artillery range of South Korea. After the initial strike taking out N Koreas best gear and crippling communications, it wont be a long drawn out conflict. The N Korean Army doesnt have the resources for a drawn out war... the soldiers not already starving will be there soon enough. South Korean broadcasts will encourage defections and empty bellys will speak louder then the dear leader when he is muzzled (or dead).

F-35s would be super handy to act as Tactical AWACS, CAS... and just be a massive enabler for other assets.

Naive. The US military estimates hundreds of thousands of death if you want to invade North Korea, and that is without the interference of China. China and DPRK have a defense pact, not dissimilar to article five.

Seoul is well within strike range of 15.000 - 20.000 artillery pieces, there are 20m people in the Seoul metropolitan area. Do those people matter?

Dutchy wrote:

Oroka wrote:

Seoul is well within strike range of 15.000 - 20.000 artillery pieces, there are 20m people in the Seoul metropolitan area.

A few months ago I was reading up on this and I found what I believe is the only study to be published on the DPRK artillery threat to Seoul. I wish I had kept the bookmark...

The gist of it was it would take around ten days for US/ROK air power to take out the artillery pieces and prepared firing positions, during which time Seoul would suffer over 80,000 casualties. The initial salvo alone was estimated to inflict 2,000 casualties.

Another source I found claimed the US/ROK believe the DPRK strategy would be to mount a focused armoured attack on a small section of the DMZ in order to create a breakthrough. Further DPRK forces would then pour through that breakthrough and quickly advance south and west to cut off Seoul and its population, which the DPRK leadership would then use as a bargaining chip in ceasefire negotiations. They know they can't fight a sustained war and they have no hope of overrunning the entire south, so they just want to cut Seoul off and basically hold its population hostage.

Dutchy wrote:

Seoul is well within strike range of 15.000 - 20.000 artillery pieces, there are 20m people in the Seoul metropolitan area. Do those people matter?

Never said there wouldnt be casualties, nor anything about those people mattering or not. What happens when the threats of artillery changes to nuke strikes? Im not condoning an attack, but N Korea is only getting stronger... and likes to shit talk ALOT. You have a man child running an impoverished country as his own personal playground. What is the estimated casualty numbers when N Korea has 10-15 nukes in range of Seoul? 20-30m people?

Realistically, only about 1000 artillery pieces have the range to reach Seoul, and will be in a predictable region, and will either have to move to hardened shelters or be destroyed soon after. No one has ever flown a satellite to see where their assets are over the last 50 years.

You cut off communications, eliminate higher risks to your air assets, and kill everything that moves that can hit populated centers in South Korea. North Korea tries to sent a column of tanks and troops to cut off Seoul... ask the Iraqis how well that worked 25 years ago. You know South Korea has just been sitting there not planning anything... it wont be a casualty free conflict, but I think the Dear leader has a big bark, but still little teeth.

As for China... you think they are going to lift a finger to protect mouthy little Kim Jung Un? China is not done nickel and diming the west yet. There is no profit in defending North Korea.

bilgerat wrote:

Another source I found claimed the US/ROK believe the DPRK strategy would be to mount a focused armoured attack on a small section of the DMZ in order to create a breakthrough. Further DPRK forces would then pour through that breakthrough and quickly advance south and west to cut off Seoul and its population, which the DPRK leadership would then use as a bargaining chip in ceasefire negotiations. They know they can't fight a sustained war and they have no hope of overrunning the entire south, so they just want to cut Seoul off and basically hold its population hostage.

That is where the 'BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT' comes in.

727glasair wrote:

An aquaintance of mine who worked for years at Davis-Monthan AFB in ........., depart from a base just north of Seoul, run at 320 knots very low and terrain following....

Your acquaintance has little knowledge of tactical airfields in the ROK. There are no bases north of Seoul that can handle A-10s. Just to the south of Seoul there a are a couple to include Suwon and Osan. Along with other the other poster's comments, IMHO your friend is regurgitating the exaggerated A-10 capabilities that warthog affectionato's have been BS'ing since it first came on the line. Repeating what others have said, they would not be part of a first strike package.

Oroka wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Seoul is well within strike range of 15.000 - 20.000 artillery pieces, there are 20m people in the Seoul metropolitan area. Do those people matter?

Never said there wouldnt be casualties, nor anything about those people mattering or not. What happens when the threats of artillery changes to nuke strikes? Im not condoning an attack, but N Korea is only getting stronger... and likes to shit talk ALOT. You have a man child running an impoverished country as his own personal playground. What is the estimated casualty numbers when N Korea has 10-15 nukes in range of Seoul? 20-30m people?

Realistically, only about 1000 artillery pieces have the range to reach Seoul, and will be in a predictable region, and will either have to move to hardened shelters or be destroyed soon after. No one has ever flown a satellite to see where their assets are over the last 50 years.

You cut off communications, eliminate higher risks to your air assets, and kill everything that moves that can hit populated centers in South Korea. North Korea tries to sent a column of tanks and troops to cut off Seoul... ask the Iraqis how well that worked 25 years ago. You know South Korea has just been sitting there not planning anything... it wont be a casualty free conflict, but I think the Dear leader has a big bark, but still little teeth.

As for China... you think they are going to lift a finger to protect mouthy little Kim Jung Un? China is not done nickel and diming the west yet. There is no profit in defending North Korea.

An estimate in 1993, under the Clinton administration, talked about 500.000 death, among them 88.000 Americans. Would that be more nowadays? Would that be worth it? And are you really wanna gamble on China's reaction? If they indeed developed a nuke small enough for an ICBM, would

I would say that there is a greater chance that China will honor its agreement then that North Korea will attack.

So would it be worth it to kill all those people, for a chance that a strike from the DPRK will hit the US?

Dutchy wrote:

An estimate in 1993, under the Clinton administration, talked about 500.000 death, among them 88.000 Americans. Would that be more nowadays? Would that be worth it? And are you really wanna gamble on China's reaction? If they indeed developed a nuke small enough for an ICBM, would

I would say that there is a greater chance that China will honor its agreement then that North Korea will attack.

So would it be worth it to kill all those people, for a chance that a strike from the DPRK will hit the US?

Beijing has said that they would only aid NK if the U.S. attacks first.

As others in this thread have stated, I highly doubt they would want to be on any side that puts them at odds with the west, particularly the U.S. It's just not good for business. Plus I doubt that even Trump is dumb enough to be the one to start a conflict.

In the end, it'll just be another pointless bandying of threats that will continue ad infinitum until the North Koreans actually overthrow their government on their own.

Trololzilla wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

An estimate in 1993, under the Clinton administration, talked about 500.000 death, among them 88.000 Americans. Would that be more nowadays? Would that be worth it? And are you really wanna gamble on China's reaction? If they indeed developed a nuke small enough for an ICBM, would

I would say that there is a greater chance that China will honor its agreement then that North Korea will attack.

So would it be worth it to kill all those people, for a chance that a strike from the DPRK will hit the US?

Beijing has said that they would only aid NK if the U.S. attacks first.

As others in this thread have stated, I highly doubt they would want to be on any side that puts them at odds with the west, particularly the U.S. It's just not good for business. Plus I doubt that even Trump is dumb enough to be the one to start a conflict.

In the end, it'll just be another pointless bandying of threats that will continue ad infinitum until the North Koreans actually overthrow their government on their own.

Yes.....

Trololzilla wrote:

Plus I doubt that even Trump is dumb enough to be the one to start a conflict.

The Vietnam war was started on a trumped up fake attack.
Gulf War II was started by insinuations of the US representative
that Iraq taking Kuwait would be condoned ( internal regional affair ..).

dumb or not. the US has been coming along all the time as a War Starter.

Oroka wrote:

That is where the 'BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT' comes in.

I don't think I'm alone when I sometimes think we overestimate the A-10's capabilities.

Everybody should be clear on the impossibility of attacking North Korea without North Korea inflicting catastrophic damage to city of Seoul. If the North woud attack, the A-1 would probably be able to inflict punishing loses to the advancing troops, but in this case the North Koreans would not be on the move. They would be sitting in hardened position and be firing everything they have towards South Korea.

If God forbid the shooting starts, I suspect every A-10 available will be focused
on the NORK artliiery along the DMZ.

727glasair wrote:

An aquaintance of mine who worked for years at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ told me this last night: "although the logistics would be complicated, in theory we could line up 45 Warthogs, Gatling gun ammo loaded to capacity, depart from a base just north of Seoul, run at 320 knots very low and terrain following, head to the capitol city Pyeunong (spelling?) and then blast away, literally taking out about every government building in the city. One can only imagine the havoc and destruction of the combined firepower of 45 A-10's......and approaching so low and quietly, could be largely undetected."

To me, this sounds possible, but 2 big problems:
1) Our military brass would not think it's cool or high-tech to attack with such outdated airplanes.
2) N Korea's response might be to lob artillery shells across the border at Seoul, starting a greater conflict.

Was your friend drinking?

The main problem is the 10-20,000 artillery pieces hidden in caves north of the border. Upon initiation of any attack, these would be pulled out of their caves and start shelling Seoul, which would cause mass casualities. They would be shelling for a good while before they could be taken out by US / South Korean air strikes.

The simplest solution is using tactical nukes on Pyongyang government buildings and military headquarters, letting the North Korean state implode upon itself. But that wouldn't be a popular move internationally.

JetBuddy wrote:

The simplest solution is using tactical nukes on Pyongyang government buildings and military headquarters, letting the North Korean state implode upon itself. But that wouldn't be a popular move internationally.

It would be a daft idea to begin with.
( not totally unepxected from a bunch of people predominantly busy with shoulder clapping selfies.)

Oroka wrote:

As for China... you think they are going to lift a finger to protect mouthy little Kim Jung Un? China is not done nickel and diming the west yet. There is no profit in defending North Korea.

China supports North Korea not because they have any love for the Kim's, but because they don't want to deal with the refugee crisis should the Kim's lose power and the government implode. They have seen the chaos happens when a country loses it's government overnight (Afghanistan, Iraq) and they share an 800 mile border with North Korea.

A unified Korea - one that will certainly be aligned with the West - is also not something they're keen to see. Doubly so if that unified Korea still has scores of thousands of US troops stationed there.

So has anyone given serious thought to the best way to defend Seoul and remove it as a restraint on dealing with the north is to spend more of the military budget and start relocating the city further away from the border? Egypt got a new capital - paid for by the Chinese - and SK is a more wealthy country and have known for decades that NK is intransigent and having Seoul that close to the border has only aided NK and ensured negotiations only ended in next to nothing. Everyone wants to avoid war, moving a major chip versus military action should be the preferred option...imagine if they had a freeze on new buildings and inhabitants 10 years ago, the value of the city would have been much lower today.
Just a thought.

Oroka wrote:

That is where the 'BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT' comes in.

If you don't mind getting all of those A-10's shot down within the first sortie, you mean.

North Korea has one of the most densest concentrations of air defences out there, especially in regards to low altitude air defence (they have scores of AAA weapons and MANPAD's). Not only that, the North Koreans have camouflaged and deeply buried most of their command and control and critical military infrastructure. You are going to need lots of PGM's and bunker busters to make a dent in what the North Koreans have done.

Read through the thread. The initial proposal is just silly.

I agree Seoul's metro area is too precious to risk under all but extreme circumstances, and only in accord with the South Korean government.

Nor is it useful to engage in wishful thinking regarding China's reactions.

The North's logistical capacities are indeed unsuited to prolonged conflict, while much of their materiel is very sub-par. Never mind the effect good South Korean rations and television have on morale, as long as the US Commander in Chief doesn't fire the poor saps with patriotic fury in reaction to his bellicose posturing.

Also wondering what Beijing's stance would be in the event of a rebellion in North Korea - the Soviets didn't think more than twice about rolling around Eastern Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia in their tanks, and were seriously considering doing the same in Poland.

Here's a novel idea: get the South to stand up their own skunk works and build ten thousand [or more] small and secure drones capable of continuous surveillance, semi automated target acquisition, and pinpoint target designation, linked to hardened short and medium range rockets and Excalibur style arty. Resilience would be in numbers, and the area covered that directly threatening the capital.

And for Deity's sake have a postwar gameplan to supply the North [and maybe the South] with rations, while leading negotiations regarding an acceptable status for a reunified Korea. The Allied administration of Germany in the closing days of WWII and the first years after was a herculean task being planned way in advance by thousands of personnel. For instance, had it not been for US help, there would have been widespread starvation across Europe in '45 and '46.

The best solution would be a surprise attack by China from the North-west. Steamroll the entire country in a flash maneuver under the cover of military reinforcements, arrest the leadership and maintain law and order. Then slowly transition to a market economy, using the experience China has had the last 20 years. Soften the border between North and South-Korea gradually, starting the reunification efforts.

But that's not gonna happen.

par13del wrote:

So has anyone given serious thought to the best way to defend Seoul and remove it as a restraint on dealing with the north is to spend more of the military budget and start relocating the city further away from the border?

The seat of government has already been moved south. Seoul is now only a cultural, business and manufacturing center. As a democracy, it would be hard to force a business to re-locate.
The best way to limit the casualty in Seoul is to say we don't care about the casualty and North Korea would point those guns at something more strategic.

Do you know why ISIS had no success of using human shields in Syria against the Russians and Assad? Because the Russian and Assad will bomb them any way, human shields and all.

The more Amnesty International go on about civilian deaths in Raqqa and the more the US and it's allies tries to avoid killing innocent civilians, the more hostages ISIS will take. I know it's heartless, and a no win situation, but that is the way it goes.

bt

While stationed in PACAF many years ago, I received a copy of this 'letter' from a pilot at Osan AB ROK
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A-10 Pilot Enjoys His Job
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Alumni Member:
I am a recruiter in Dallas that specializes in placing students from key colleges in the positions they desire to be in with my clients across the nation. I work with companies of all sizes and industries. I received your name from several other members of the "Association of Former Students" here at Texas A&M University that I am currently working with.
Feel comfortable that your information is confidential with my company. I would like to discuss whether you are currently in the market or even keeping your eyes open for the right opportunity. I would like to see a current copy of your resume to see what opportunities that you may be perfect for. Please send your resume via e-mail or fax to my
attention, and I will follow up with you in the next few days to determine your level of interest. I thank you in advance for your response. Please e-mail me back at:
"<aaronm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com

or call me direct at (800)xxx-xxxx Extension #231.
Sincerely, Aaron McCartney Senior Recruiting Consultant XXXX XXXXXXXXX
------------
Dear Mr. McCartney-
This is in response to the email you sent me regarding your services as recruiter. Currently I am employed as a US Air Force Fighter Pilot flying A-10 Thunderbolts for the 25TH Fighter Squadron, Osan AB, Republic of Korea. My contract with the USAF does not expire until 2006. Here are some of my qualifications nonetheless, just in case any of your clients are need of someone with my expertise:
1. The ability to employ my aircraft, the feared A-10 Warthog, as one of the most capable ground attack/CAS platforms in the world.
2. Protect South Korea from communist hordes led by the Great Pornographer, Kim Jung Ill
3. Drop cluster munitions from 10,000 feet onto unsuspecting DANKS (dumb ass north Koreans) and send 202 individual bomblets of wrath and fury into their starving, bloated, pink bodies.
4. Take a 6000 foot slant range Forced-No-Solution High-Angle gun shot and kill troops in their wimpy little APC's with reckless abandon. Do you have any idea, Mr. McCartney, what a 30mm Armor Piercing Incendiary round that is as long as your forearm does as it boars through a tank's walls like Jell-O? Let me tell you, it's not pretty.
5. Get wicked ass drunk at the Officer's club on Friday nights, smokin' big fat Cuban cigars (this is Korea, not the US), drink Gin and Tonic like water, throw furniture off the roof, say 'fuck' a lot, and piss off all the wives and hapless souls who hate our guts because they are not fighter pilots.
6. I have no idea how to "hold a meeting," "do a memo," "take a lunch," "think outside the box" or even sit behind a desk for that matter. I eat, sleep, fly, and drink. I am an instrument of national policy the likes of which your clients have never seen. I would just as much detonate a Mk 82 Air Burst 20 feet above a DANK playground than wander through some corporate office blabbering about business plans and the latest episode of Ally "eat a friggin sandwich" McBeal.
Thank you for your letter and please let me know if any of your associates show interest in my capabilities. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely, XXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Amen.

Okay - I'll bite, if only because the hypotheticals are so much more interesting than what will actually happen (aka nothing).

Wouldn't the best bet essentially be the opening night/days of Desert Storm? That was a text-book tactical approach to knocking out an entire regions ability to fight, literally overnight. Sure, the enemy's capabilities have evolved, but wow - what about offensive capabilities?

A-10s would be the last thing to go in! Send in a bunch of cruise missiles to take out AA, radar, early warning, etc.. then drones for secondary sites that become active, LARGE B2 mission spanning the region taking out the majority of known artillery locations. So far you're risking almost nil US men/women. I think such an attack at the right time would limit a response to Seoul. Fly round-the-clock drone missions along the entire DMZ (and behind) to pick-up and destroy artillery as they become uncovered from hardened locations, etc. You're still not really risking much. You could send in F-35s for SA and tactical oversight of the artillery destruction, but not really requires. F-22s wouldn't be required.

Once things slow down, you could send in A-10s and AH-64s as there would be a significant presence of armor / artillery / ground vehicles near the border and in harder-to-see locations / cover. Just loiter and kill anything that moves within range or Seoul. By then you could have AWACS and F-35s scanning for & taking out SAM radars coming online, take those out too.. THAT is what those two aircraft were designed for.

There you go. The A-10 would not be of much use against the artillery north of the DMZ. But it would be the quickest reaction force to blunt any N Korean penetration of the DMZ.

bt

estorilm wrote:

Wouldn't the best bet essentially be the opening night/days of Desert Storm? That was a text-book tactical approach to knocking out an entire regions ability to fight, literally overnight. Sure, the enemy's capabilities have evolved, but wow - what about offensive capabilities? .

any attack that fails to take out those 17.000 Artillery tubes within the first hour of conflict leads to a war without winners.

best regards
Thomas

RetiredWeasel wrote:

Your acquaintance has little knowledge of tactical airfields in the ROK. There are no bases north of Seoul that can handle A-10s. Just to the south of Seoul there a are a couple to include Suwon and Osan. Along with other the other poster's comments, IMHO your friend is regurgitating the exaggerated A-10 capabilities that warthog affectionato's have been BS'ing since it first came on the line. Repeating what others have said, they would not be part of a first strike package.

I just got done using the Google tool to look at an old airfield on the other side of the MSR from Camp Casey and it looks like that airfield is still there and while it couldn't handle so many I suspect it might be able to handle maybe 10 to 15 A-10s, IF the A-10 can use the same strip as a C-130 can use. Here is why I know about that possibility.

Back about 75 or 76 we got a call in operations to prepare for a C-130 to come in. We were stunned and finally managed to dig up some manual on that airfield and we read that, indeed, it could take in a C-130, BUT every chopper -- Hueys -- had to be moved off the strip. They called us back and canceled the request, but we learned something that day, for sure.

Now the Google image doesn't show anything on that airfield right now, so the choppers must have been moved elsewhere, but the airfield itself is still there.

So if an A-10 can use the same active as a C-130, then there is that one location north of Seoul -- that's TongDuChon -- a location north of Seoul where some A-10s could get in and out.

But it sure wouldn't be any kind of secret if you started moving the birds onto that field.

By the way, I agree that the A-10 would not be a first strike asset.

Funny, you folks bring back memories to an old man. I remember the first time I saw that bird and it was from a bit of a distance and the first thing that jumped into my brain was how ugly it looked. But 'ugly' don't mean it ain't gonna be a useful tool. To be honest most choppers ain't exactly cute.

You all need to remeber, all that strikes is not airborne....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_fire

estorilm wrote:

Wouldn't the best bet essentially be the opening night/days of Desert Storm? That was a text-book tactical approach to knocking out an entire regions ability to fight, literally overnight.

You are on the right track. You can read the Gulf War Air Power Survey, which is publicly available. I think the Federation of American Scientists site still has free copies, although I remember the files date back to the 1990s and are badly formatted. Best to buy the book.

In it you will learn of all the operational issues with that air campaign and what they sought to accomplish. It is a great lesson in how to plan and conduct a highly effective air campaign against a mediocre nation state, and at what level you need to be thinking at as an air commander - what effects are you trying to achieve, how can you control how the opponents sees and thinks, balanced against your operational issues and his defenses.

smithbs wrote:

estorilm wrote:

Wouldn't the best bet essentially be the opening night/days of Desert Storm? That was a text-book tactical approach to knocking out an entire regions ability to fight, literally overnight.

You are on the right track. You can read the Gulf War Air Power Survey, which is publicly available. I think the Federation of American Scientists site still has free copies, although I remember the files date back to the 1990s and are badly formatted. Best to buy the book.

In it you will learn of all the operational issues with that air campaign and what they sought to accomplish. It is a great lesson in how to plan and conduct a highly effective air campaign against a mediocre nation state, and at what level you need to be thinking at as an air commander - what effects are you trying to achieve, how can you control how the opponents sees and thinks, balanced against your operational issues and his defenses.

So can the North Koreans. They had 25 years to apply the lessons of that highly publicized conflict, don't you think they prepared at least a little bit to counter the Americans?

bhill wrote:

You all need to remeber, all that strikes is not airborne....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_fire

Exactly,

For the number of personnel, facility and logistics of deploying the A-10, you can get a whole lot more counter batter power with the MLRS. And you are not restricted to having an airfield.

bt

bhill wrote:

You all need to remeber, all that strikes is not airborne....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_fire

ROFL.

Stalin: Quantity Has a Quality All Its Own

agree with the above posters that your friend's scenario is not likely. Yes, the A-10 is an incredible weapon. However, this sort of first night interdiction is not its forte. it's too slow, to vulnerable to both ground and air, and the gun doesn't have enough range. it's noteworthy that it has never been used in that sort of strike in its existence. Even in Gulf War 1, it was actually Apaches that were used as the initial wave, and only then to target air defenses. nowadays, you would probably see a first wave of a surface and undersea barrage of tomahawks along with B-2s, Raptors, and maybe F-35s leading the initial strike, with EA-18 Growlers and F-16CJs clearing a path for F/A-18s, F-15Es, and B-1Bs. The A-10s would be better served either helping to target the artillery and fight off a North Korean invasion. the gun might even be useful again for strafing any fast patrol boats the North Koreans try to swarm us with.

Yo the A10 is amazing and all but to take out NK you need to Take Out NK as in you cant use just A10s and call it effective. It would take and immense effort with enough aircraft to blot out the sun and then it would still take a month continual fighting and most of NK would be gone A10s have practical uses that other planes cant fulfill but they are not F22s or helicopters. still it its plausible that with enough A10s you could just level NK

Peterf5 wrote:

still it its plausible that with enough A10s you could just level NK

As long as you set the ammo option to "Infinite" in the game set up screen.....

Tugg

This is a silly thread.

I hate to agree with Bannon, but he was right on one thing: it would be very difficult to eliminate North Korean's artillery quickly enough, and as a result any war would be devastating for Seoul. We're talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of victims.

And even that is ignoring the possibility that they do indeed have working nukes, and would be potentially flying them to either Seoul or even Japan, US. It is possible that defence systems would take them out, but I suspect the reliability of those systems isn't where you want to put Tokyo or Los Angeles at risk.

As Bannon said, "they got us".

Personally, I think the only solution is diplomacy and international pressure (which has been happening) until the crazy leader eventually is replaced or overthrown. In the meantime, on the US side it would be helpful to not have unstable leadership who doesn't think through war games. But maybe I'm asking too much.

WIederling wrote:

bhill wrote:

You all need to remeber, all that strikes is not airborne....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_fire

ROFL.

Stalin: Quantity Has a Quality All Its Own

Counter-battery fire isn't something the US and its allies have a monopoly on either. bhill's link to wikipedia also says following:

Even today North Korean artillery is widely thought to be somewhat resistant to CB fire because of its deeply entrenched positions.

My understanding is the North Koreans have an extensive tunnel network in the hills and mountains north of Seoul. There are hundreds, if not thousands of prepared firing positions facing south. The artillery would be wheeled out to a prepared position, fire off a few rounds then be taken back into the tunnel network before any counter battery fire hit. They would then be wheeled out to another prepared firing position and fire again.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

The North Koreans have had 60 years to build these firing positions and associated tunnel network. This is why it's estimated it would take a considerable amount of time for US/ROK air power to destroy the firing positions during which the DPRK could inflict massive damage and casualties on Seoul.

Dutchy wrote:

Oroka wrote:

First would be a cruise missile strike, followed shortly after by a B-2 strike. F-22s and EA-18G would rip up any radar dumb enough to turn on, about the same time everything else starts ripping up anything that moves within artillery range of South Korea. After the initial strike taking out N Koreas best gear and crippling communications, it wont be a long drawn out conflict. The N Korean Army doesnt have the resources for a drawn out war... the soldiers not already starving will be there soon enough. South Korean broadcasts will encourage defections and empty bellys will speak louder then the dear leader when he is muzzled (or dead).

F-35s would be super handy to act as Tactical AWACS, CAS... and just be a massive enabler for other assets.

Naive. The US military estimates hundreds of thousands of death if you want to invade North Korea, and that is without the interference of China. China and DPRK have a defense pact, not dissimilar to article five.

Seoul is well within strike range of 15.000 - 20.000 artillery pieces, there are 20m people in the Seoul metropolitan area. Do those people matter?

While many many many lives will be lost in Seoul, they will save as much as they can. They have been doing drills for civilians since the 1950s, and don't forget about US and SK artillery positions on the border. While Pyongyang isn't in range of artillery fired in a northern direction, the NK batteries certainly are, and the US and SK must know the whereabouts of those positions. Hell, if NHK (watch 'Inside the Kimdom') can make a Google Earth map of AAA positions around Pyongyang, the CIA definitely knows where the meaningful NK batteries are.

Lastly, NK will suffer heavy losses also. South Korea has been trained by the US to fight only the North Koreans (and maybe the Chinese). I'm not sure if SKs prowess isn't explained because of the US-centric rhetoric or if everyone quietly agrees they will roll over when the first NK tank comes through the DMZ. Think of SK only training to hold off NK as compared to the US only taining to fight the USSR during the Cold War (illustrated by the swift victory in Gulf War 1, and also against our hard time against guerilla warfare in Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan). I also agree that the Tomahawk and B2 will be integral in knocking out all potential ICBM sites and inland artillery.


Personally, I think one of the best chances to invade the North after the air war is an amphibious landing, using massive air cover (fun fact: the Marines were pissed when the final mothballed battleships were fully retired because they loved the cover from the big guns). People forget A10s are largely used in a defensive war, especially when air supremacy is not met. And yes, I know they wrecked havoc in GW1, but they didn't actively seek out the enemy, they had their own Kill Boxes where any Iraqi vehicle that entered would be fired upon.

ThePointblank wrote:

North Korea has one of the most densest concentrations of air defences out there, especially in regards to low altitude air defence (they have scores of AAA weapons and MANPAD's). Not only that, the North Koreans have camouflaged and deeply buried most of their command and control and critical military infrastructure. You are going to need lots of PGM's and bunker busters to make a dent in what the North Koreans have done.

That is the biggest difference between NK and non-Kurdistan Iraq, heavily mountainous terrain; the only harder places to possibly fight a war would probably be Afghanistan and the Himalayas/Western China. And it is possible that the USSR taught NK how to fight a guerilla war against the US (learning from Vietnam, where they had observers in Hanoi). Guerilla warfare in a very mountainous region where you are not the home team is a bad combination.

Sooner787 wrote:

If God forbid the shooting starts, I suspect every A-10 available will be focused
on the NORK artliiery along the DMZ.

Yep.

Oroka wrote:

What is the estimated casualty numbers when N Korea has 10-15 nukes in range of Seoul? 20-30m people?

There is also Japan that is most definitely in range of any nuke NK has, and even Guam. If Chernobyl (not designed to blow up) set off radiation alarms in Sweden, imagine what a weaponized warhead (designed to blow up) would do, much less 10-15. At minimum you're looking at a near-total global economic collapse.

Oroka wrote:

As for China... you think they are going to lift a finger to protect mouthy little Kim Jung Un? China is not done nickel and diming the west yet. There is no profit in defending North Korea.

China has everything to lose. Humanitarian crisis anyone? And at the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War, the USMC (yes the actual United States Marine Corps) were surrounded. Yes they inflicted heavy losses on the Chinese and fought hard and long enough until support came, but if China put the US in the corner in the 1950s, imagine what they can do today. China is the biggest wild card. The only things that would keep China from entering a new Korean conflict would be 1) All-out war with India 2) All-out war with Russia 3) An all out civil war within China. They wouldn't even have to commit much, they are 0 miles from NK, and the PLA is the world's largest employer behind the US DoD. Tell your acquaintance to lay off the Halo and Call of Duty.


The best way to prevent conflict is to accept a unified Korea won't happen without massive bloodshed, and for Trump himself (or Tillerson) to meet Kim (or his equivalent to Tillerson) at the JSA, face-to-face. Humanizing your enemy is what brings peace.

TWA772LR wrote:

China has everything to lose. Humanitarian crisis anyone? And at the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War, the USMC (yes the actual United States Marine Corps) were surrounded. Yes they inflicted heavy losses on the Chinese and fought hard and long enough until support came, but if China put the US in the corner in the 1950s, imagine what they can do today. China is the biggest wild card. The only things that would keep China from entering a new Korean conflict would be 1) All-out war with India 2) All-out war with Russia 3) An all out civil war within China. They wouldn't even have to commit much, they are 0 miles from NK, and the PLA is the world's largest employer behind the US DoD. Tell your acquaintance to lay off the Halo and Call of Duty.

Don't ignore Russia either, they share a border with North Korea too, and the Russian pacific stronghold of Vladivostok is only some 100 km away. Look at the amount of trouble the Russians caused when Ukraine decided that it would rather be pro-western. They could throw a major spanner into the works with their little green men, delivery of weapons to North Korean freedom fighters (or as the US so fashionably puts it today, terrorists), provide safe havens and training camps. Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam would look like a walk in the park compared to a North Korean pacification effort.

VSMUT wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

China has everything to lose. Humanitarian crisis anyone? And at the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War, the USMC (yes the actual United States Marine Corps) were surrounded. Yes they inflicted heavy losses on the Chinese and fought hard and long enough until support came, but if China put the US in the corner in the 1950s, imagine what they can do today. China is the biggest wild card. The only things that would keep China from entering a new Korean conflict would be 1) All-out war with India 2) All-out war with Russia 3) An all out civil war within China. They wouldn't even have to commit much, they are 0 miles from NK, and the PLA is the world's largest employer behind the US DoD. Tell your acquaintance to lay off the Halo and Call of Duty.

Don't ignore Russia either, they share a border with North Korea too, and the Russian pacific stronghold of Vladivostok is only some 100 km away. Look at the amount of trouble the Russians caused when Ukraine decided that it would rather be pro-western. They could throw a major spanner into the works with their little green men, delivery of weapons to North Korean freedom fighters (or as the US so fashionably puts it today, terrorists), provide safe havens and training camps. Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam would look like a walk in the park compared to a North Korean pacification effort.

Thankfully, the Russia-North Korea border is only 17km of land, plus 22.1km of maritime border, with the land border separated by the Tumen river. That's easily sealed up.

ThePointblank wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

China has everything to lose. Humanitarian crisis anyone? And at the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War, the USMC (yes the actual United States Marine Corps) were surrounded. Yes they inflicted heavy losses on the Chinese and fought hard and long enough until support came, but if China put the US in the corner in the 1950s, imagine what they can do today. China is the biggest wild card. The only things that would keep China from entering a new Korean conflict would be 1) All-out war with India 2) All-out war with Russia 3) An all out civil war within China. They wouldn't even have to commit much, they are 0 miles from NK, and the PLA is the world's largest employer behind the US DoD. Tell your acquaintance to lay off the Halo and Call of Duty.

Don't ignore Russia either, they share a border with North Korea too, and the Russian pacific stronghold of Vladivostok is only some 100 km away. Look at the amount of trouble the Russians caused when Ukraine decided that it would rather be pro-western. They could throw a major spanner into the works with their little green men, delivery of weapons to North Korean freedom fighters (or as the US so fashionably puts it today, terrorists), provide safe havens and training camps. Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam would look like a walk in the park compared to a North Korean pacification effort.

Thankfully, the Russia-North Korea border is only 17km of land, plus 22.1km of maritime border, with the land border separated by the Tumen river. That's easily sealed up.

You are assuming that Russia would only smuggle across their own border. There is another stretch of about 45 km where Russia and North Korea are only separated by a stretch of China no more than 10 km wide. Even if the occupying American forces had the full support of China, it would be near impossible to clamp down. The North Korean-Chinese border is almost 1500 km long, and located in pretty mountainous terrain, making it more than porous enough.

Consider also that the DPRK has an extremely well developed smuggling operation...

Trump says he'll stop these War Games with South Korea, so that's settled then.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/12/politics/trump-us-military-war-games-south-korea-intl/index.html

Yup it's...Settled for now......However when America has pulled all its troops out as promised ( everything he came for) N Korea will Invade and win (it will be a quick war).The US will not 'first use' nukes - would be pointless anyway.Sell your Samsung shares.V silly old man.

parapente wrote:

Yup it's...Settled for now......However when America has pulled all its troops out as promised ( everything he came for) N Korea will Invade and win (it will be a quick war).The US will not 'first use' nukes - would be pointless anyway.Sell your Samsung shares.V silly old man.

South Korea has a large and quite capable military and can more than look after itself. US forces actually in Korea are a small portion of the actual defense force that would be used in an invasion scenario.

On a side note the opening post of this thread may be the silliest thing I have read in a long time. The A-10 worship is positively insane.

TWA772LR wrote:

If Chernobyl (not designed to blow up) set off radiation alarms in Sweden, imagine what a weaponized warhead (designed to blow up) would do, much less 10-15. At minimum you're looking at a near-total global economic collapse.

10 to 15 nukes would release much less radioactivity than Chernobyl. The have no reason to lay those weapons down and you can drop 100+ Hiroshima type, fairly dirty, set to airburst for one Chernobly event.
There where already 2300 nuklear detonations on this planet, hundreds of them above ground.

Economically a nuke or a couple of days of artillery fire will be pretty much the same.

Best regards
Thomad

Ozair wrote:

727glasair wrote:

Of course this ignores the fact the North Koreans would see them coming and the plethora of AAA present would make short work of low slow firing A-10s.

Low and slow, it's a tried and tested technique, mainly by the RAF, i recall that it worked quite well for them and their antiquated banana bombers in red flag during the eighties. They still shave the rocks and so do the A10s. DPRK would have a slightly harder time than you think at shooting them down when they're low and slow. But considering how many boom boom sticks they have pointed at the sky, it would only happen once a majority of their air defences have been disabled.