Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Owlbread]

Vladivostok should really belong to the Udege and Taz peoples.

[Beast Tamer]

the tank has never been destroyed in combat because since the proxy wars with the soviet union they never had anything better than tanks from the 70s to compete with ror

True, but being able to take a detonation of TNT without any crippling damage does say a thing or two about its design. Al-Qaeda used to suicide bomb those tanks, nowadays they don't.

I'd suggest Kim Jong-Un to liberate Korean city Vladivostok. Then it will be not so one sided as against USA but mad enough to have a right to be called a crazy dictator

It's also speculated that the South Korean military is sufficiently powerful enough that they'd wipe the floor with the North before the US gets any major assets deployed as support. South Korea spends more on their military than the North has in GDP after all.

[MonkeyHead]

That is a damning stat not only for SK's military spending, but also on NK's GDP.

[Loud Whispers]

the tank has never been destroyed in combat because since the proxy wars with the soviet union they never had anything better than tanks from the 70s to compete with ror

IEDs.

[MonkeyHead]

the tank has never been destroyed in combat because since the proxy wars with the soviet union they never had anything better than tanks from the 70s to compete with ror

IEDs.

[Irony]Ah, but Bush declared combat over... [/Irony]

[misko27]

I'd suggest Kim Jong-Un to liberate Korean city Vladivostok. Then it will be not so one sided as against USA but mad enough to have a right to be called a crazy dictator

It's also speculated that the South Korean military is sufficiently powerful enough that they'd wipe the floor with the North before the US gets any major assets deployed as support. South Korea spends more on their military than the North has in GDP after all.

Seoul is a mere 35 miles from the border. North Korea is speculated to have about 13,000 artillery pieces in range, with an unknown number of missiles. 49% of South Koreans live within the Seoul metropolitan area.

Now, in absolute terms, North Korea would cease to exist, but they are going to kill more people doing it then South Korea would like. Even forgetting that they have nuclear weapons, they threaten far more lives then people are willing to bargain.

[Guardian G.I.]

the tank has never been destroyed in combat because since the proxy wars with the soviet union they never had anything better than tanks from the 70s to compete with ror

Iraqi army tanks were either downgraded export versions of T-72 they got from the Soviet Union or domestically produced copies of downgraded export versions of T-72.

Since World War II, America has never been in combat with countries that has similarly powerful armies. It's easy to gang up on a country when you have total numerical and technological superiority (like Serbia, Iraq, Libya and almost Syria). Fighting a country like Russia or China, on the other hand, is not. M1A1 Abrams tanks will face much more serious resistance there than those Iraqi insurgents with IEDs...

Judging by recent trends in international politics and the fact that my country is in a military alliance with Russia, I will be able to personally see and even test (with a help of RPGs) the combat worthiness of Abrams tanks on the frontline at home in the relatively near future. I'll tell you the results once it happens, provided that Bay 12 Forums, the Internet or the USA would exist at that point.

[Owlbread]

Judging by recent trends in international politics and the fact that my country is in a military alliance with Russia, I will be able to personally see and even test (with a help of RPGs) the combat worthiness of Abrams tanks on the frontline at home in the relatively near future. I'll tell you the results once it happens, provided that Bay 12 Forums, the Internet or the USA would exist at that point.

Unless the brave sons of Belarus liberate their land from Batka and his cabal before then.

But yes, I think most of us agree that although the North would fall swiftly they would take a lot of South Koreans with them. Any kind of conflict would be unthinkably destructive, let's hope it never comes to that.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Fighting a country like Russia or China, on the other hand, is not. M1A1 Abrams tanks will face much more serious resistance there than those Iraqi insurgents with IEDs...

I'd say British (Challengers IIs) German (Leopards), French(Leclercs), South Korean Tanks (K2s) Japanese (Type 10s) are nice opposition for Abrams. Russian tracked coffins with undertrained crews? Don't think so. Same for Chinese copies of Russian coffins with slightly better crews

More modern RPG and ATGM will be a problem, but not T-72 rebranded T-90

[jimboo]

It’s kind of off-topic for Korea but this thread does talk a lot about tanks.  I haven’t followed along for some time but,
1) didn’t the Iraqi’s show the Achilles’ heel of an Abrams was the necessarily large supply convoys?  Those turbine suck up a lot of fuel.  Korea maybe not so much, it’s small, but target the tanker trucks and it still becomes more or less Rommel’s problem.
2) didn’t the Mid-East wars of the 70s demonstrate that unit superiority would be trumped by tactics and terrain?  (Golan Heights)
3) does anyone think there ever will be another major tank battle involving the US?  That was NATO’s plan for countering the Warsaw Pact but, it was a long time ago.  The US has now had a lot of practice using drones and Hellfires.  They’re pretty precise.  And if somebody comes up with something so top-protected that a Hellfire wouldn’t do the job, wouldn’t it be almost no time at all until there were simply larger drones launching something bigger?   

[Owlbread]

I'd say British (Challengers IIs) German (Leopards), French(Leclercs), South Korean Tanks (K2s) Japanese (Type 10s) are nice opposition for Abrams. Russian tracked coffins with undertrained crews? Don't think so. Same for Chinese copies of Russian coffins with slightly better crews

More modern RPG and ATGM will be a problem, but not T-72 rebranded T-90

Russian T-72s, T-80s and BMPs didn't last very long in 1994-1996. They really were just tracked coffins. What tanks are the North Koreans using at the moment?

[MonkeyHead]

Regarding 1, thats why the Challenger 2 (and modern Panthers IIRC) run on good old diesel rather than kerosene turbines. Regarding 2, if you can conrtol that aspect of combat. Regarding 3, there probably will be, as drones are fine and dandy, but cant really hold terrain as such.

[Guardian G.I.]

Judging by recent trends in international politics and the fact that my country is in a military alliance with Russia, I will be able to personally see and even test (with a help of RPGs) the combat worthiness of Abrams tanks on the frontline at home in the relatively near future. I'll tell you the results once it happens, provided that Bay 12 Forums, the Internet or the USA would exist at that point.

Unless the brave sons of Belarus liberate their land from Batka and his cabal before then.

It's not going to happen in the foreseeable future, unless USA and their NATO buddies decide to follow in their German allies' footsteps and go on a quest to Russia through Belarusian territory under the pretext of liberating the oppressed Russian homosexuals, transsexuals, Siberian natives and oil deposits. Then I'll have to fight the tanks of American "liberators" in my homeland, just like mine and my people's ancestors fought tanks of German "liberators from Stalin's tyranny" more than 70 years ago.

Back on topic, I'm still convinced that unless there'll be a border incident that spirals out of control, North Korea will not start a war against the South. We can talk about how KJU is a psycho for a long time, but he won't commit such a suicidal decision as attacking the South - he's not a comic book villain, even though American mass media like to portray him as one in order to justify American military build-up in the region.

Also:

I'd say British (Challengers IIs) German (Leopards), French(Leclercs), South Korean Tanks (K2s) Japanese (Type 10s) are nice opposition for Abrams. Russian tracked coffins with undertrained crews? Don't think so. Same for Chinese copies of Russian coffins with slightly better crews

More modern RPG and ATGM will be a problem, but not T-72 rebranded T-90

Russian T-72s, T-80s and BMPs didn't last very long in 1994-1996. They really were just tracked coffins.

Russians tanks didn't last long during the First Chechen War not because of their inferiority. It happened because of the colossal incompetence of Russian generals that sent an armour column into Grozny without any infantry cover. Without infantry support, Russian tanks, APCs and IFVs were extremely vulnerable to anti-tank RPGs fired from buildings, and Chechen separatists exploited that grave mistake.
Russia also fought other wars since then, such as the Second Chechen War (when they had to attack Grozny again) and the War in South Ossetia (when they had to fight Georgian tanks and infantry in Tskhinvali), and they didn't have as much tanks lost during these conflicts as during the First Chechen War.

[Sergarr]

It’s kind of off-topic for Korea but this thread does talk a lot about tanks.  I haven’t followed along for some time but,
1) didn’t the Iraqi’s show the Achilles’ heel of an Abrams was the necessarily large supply convoys?  Those turbine suck up a lot of fuel.  Korea maybe not so much, it’s small, but target the tanker trucks and it still becomes more or less Rommel’s problem.
2) didn’t the Mid-East wars of the 70s demonstrate that unit superiority would be trumped by tactics and terrain?  (Golan Heights)
3) does anyone think there ever will be another major tank battle involving the US?  That was NATO’s plan for countering the Warsaw Pact but, it was a long time ago.  The US has now had a lot of practice using drones and Hellfires.  They’re pretty precise.  And if somebody comes up with something so top-protected that a Hellfire wouldn’t do the job, wouldn’t it be almost no time at all until there were simply larger drones launching something bigger?

If we talk major battles, then drones along with all other electronically advanced weaponry would get disrupted by EMP and electromagnetic warfare.

[misko27]

Judging by recent trends in international politics and the fact that my country is in a military alliance with Russia, I will be able to personally see and even test (with a help of RPGs) the combat worthiness of Abrams tanks on the frontline at home in the relatively near future. I'll tell you the results once it happens, provided that Bay 12 Forums, the Internet or the USA would exist at that point.

Unless the brave sons of Belarus liberate their land from Batka and his cabal before then.

It's not going to happen in the foreseeable future, unless USA and their NATO buddies decide to follow in their German allies' footsteps and go on a quest to Russia through Belarusian territory under the pretext of liberating the oppressed Russian homosexuals, transsexuals, Siberian natives and oil deposits. Then I'll have to fight the tanks of American "liberators" in my homeland, just like mine and my people's ancestors fought tanks of German "liberators from Stalin's tyranny" more than 70 years ago.

Back on topic, I'm still convinced that unless there'll be a border incident that spirals out of control, North Korea will not start a war against the South. We can talk about how KJU is a psycho for a long time, but he won't commit such a suicidal decision as attacking the South - he's not a comic book villain, even though American mass media like to portray him as one in order to justify American military build-up in the region.

Because it's not like North Korea has ever simply opened fire with artillery before. No, they are too sane for something like that.

And that was only glorious Eternal Worker's Party of Korea General Secretary Kim Jong-Il.

It’s kind of off-topic for Korea but this thread does talk a lot about tanks.  I haven’t followed along for some time but,
1) didn’t the Iraqi’s show the Achilles’ heel of an Abrams was the necessarily large supply convoys?  Those turbine suck up a lot of fuel.  Korea maybe not so much, it’s small, but target the tanker trucks and it still becomes more or less Rommel’s problem.
2) didn’t the Mid-East wars of the 70s demonstrate that unit superiority would be trumped by tactics and terrain?  (Golan Heights)
3) does anyone think there ever will be another major tank battle involving the US?  That was NATO’s plan for countering the Warsaw Pact but, it was a long time ago.  The US has now had a lot of practice using drones and Hellfires.  They’re pretty precise.  And if somebody comes up with something so top-protected that a Hellfire wouldn’t do the job, wouldn’t it be almost no time at all until there were simply larger drones launching something bigger?

If we talk major battles, then drones along with all other electronically advanced weaponry would get disrupted by EMP and electromagnetic warfare.

How major we talking here? I'm not aware of any EM warfare equipment currently in use, and the ones most likely to have that would be the US.