when the koreas war, we shall see revealed the true lethality of the modern battlefield, and of modern weapons ...

when north and south korean go to war we shall see revealed in brutal carnage the true lethality of the modern battlefield, and of modern weapons.

the spanish civil war really did not hint at the lethal nature of the world war ii battlefield, fought as it was with outmoded weapons and between adversaries who were rank amateurs on the one side and not very skilled professionals on the other.  in some small measure, the spanish civil war hinted at air power, but not in any sense to be comprehended as revealing the strategic air wars to follow.

wars fought since world war ii have not really given us insight into the rate of attrition and lethality of modern weapons, because those wars which have featured modern weapons, such as the arab israeli tank & air battles, and the engagements fought by the u.s. in viet nam have been characterized by tremendous reticence to unleash the full power of weapons and resources by those who held the strategic and tactical advantage.

the israelis, for one reason or another, have been very reluctant to deal the sorts of casualties that they are capable of inflicting, and equally reticent to commit israeli infantry into the kind of fighting where it might sustain meaningful casualties: in those wars, unless you have been an arab tank crew or an airplane pilot, your chances of survival as a common soldier have been very good.

even in viet nam, the united states did not bring to bear the kind of force that it might have, and waged a decidedly "limited" war, bloody as it was on the infantry forces involved, in terms of other strategic and tactical considerations.

and, give credit where credit is due.  the soviets in afghanistan, in chechnya and even in their recent invasion of georgia have not really unleashed the full might of their war machine.

if the north and south koreans go to war, there will be no such reluctance to display and use the full panoply of modern weapons, and their destructive force and tremendous lethality.  this war will feature something that we have not truly seen since the all out battle of world war ii, and that will be two military forces who want fervently to kill their adversaries, and who willing sustain the casualties to their own troops in order to inflict such killing.

in short, what we will see, is pitched infantry battle between two very skillful and heavily armed forces that are going to join in sustained close combat, fully supported by armor and artillery forces, fighting a pitched battle over time.  we will also see the fully integrated horizontal and vertical battlefield, with air conflict between fighters and air support of ground troops, and all kinds of anti-aircraft systems in use.

and, we have never seen such battle involving the weaponry both sides have at their disposal.  never.

do not forget, north and south korea have been the "beneficiaries" of the weapons competition and development that has gone on between east and west since world war ii, and these weapons systems have never been utilized in full combat between skilled adversaries, intent on killing each other and inflicting massive casualties.

we have not seen that since wwii, and we are going to see fighting such as occurred between the russians and the germans on the eastern front, and such as occurred between american marines & soldiers and their japanese enemies in the pacific theatre.

in reality, except for viet nam, no adversaries have really engaged in war since wwii and korea.  a "six day war," for instance, is not truly war, and, in fact, it is not even extended battle.  the battle of gettysburg, for instance, though it featured about 4 days of very bloody engagement, (which has garnered the attention), really involved two to three weeks of maneuver to engage and disengage from battle, and this is true to a greater or lessor extent of all the great american civil war battles.  no war between israel and the various confederations of arab states involved in those battle has gone on so long, in an active phase of fighting.

and these battles have featured an israel reluctant to kill its adversaries, and reluctant to expose its infantry to battle where it might actually sustain casualties.

in a war between the koreas we are going to see artillery and armor engaged, and with close support of integrated infantry, and with integrated air components, to involve helicopters for use in anti-tank warfare, and involving fighter cover to support helicopters, and also fighters involved in conflict trying to achieve and exert air superiority.  in short, the weapons are going to be very dense and very deadly upon the battle field.

we have never seen, in actual fact, combat sustained with this kind of likely involvement, and we have never seen in actual fact that sort of attrition of men and material such as two comparable forces like this engaged in close and sustained battle for a period of time.

it is likely to be, ... , well, ... , unbelievably grisly.

if this unfolds as it might, and as i suspect that it will, it is simply going to be hard to comprehend the damage to two sides will inflict upon one another, and a very large component of this damage is going to involve combat infantryman.  if has to, if the armies join, and if armored attack and defense takes place.  for a very simple reason, in armored conflict between forces of similar capability, the armor needs infantry support, especially if armor gets bogged down by entrenched defense or cannot freely maneuver over open ground.

the korean war has been in suspended animation since the early 1950's.  friends, the north and the south koreans have had 60 years to prepare the battlefield along the armistice line, the so called demilitarized zone.  they have pretty good combat engineers, they have had military force and equipment stockpiled in that area for ready mobilization for decades, and you have to believe that the entire area is defended in depth by multiple hazards and enfilading fields of fire for miles.

these two militaries are not comprised of amateurs.

they will not be in it to make shows of bravado and then dash from the battlefield.

they will join battle hand upon throat, knives thrust into guts, and they will not shirk from it nor will they shrink from the business of killing each other with assiduous enthusiasm and abandon.  they are, after all, koreans and very tough and hard nosed people, and they are, after all, brothers and cousins and relatives and that always makes for extremely bitter conflict.

we will know the brutality and lethality of the modern battlefield.

in rhwanda forces armed with knives and clubs and machetes managed to hack each other to death in the 100's of thousands in mere weeks, because they were close to each other, and because their victims were handy.  but, mostly, they managed to kill each other in such numbers because they went about it with a grim purpose.

imagine what they might have achieved in rhwanda and they ample modern weaponry, and if they were massed together in the proximity of modern armies joined in extended battle.

well, actually, we might not have to imagine it.  if it goes as it might, we may very well see the korea's stumble into a conflict such as i posit, and we shall see full well the type of carnage that ensues from modern war.

should this war occur, and should it expand to include urban centers and attacks upon civilian populations and industrial centers, as i would fully expect, we shall have a very good run up on armageddon, indeed.  i really don't think that we have any comprehension of how fast the body count is going to mass.  it will be dizzying.

linked and excerpted at:  http://negativerailroad.com/content/20101204total-war-38th-parallel .  this is a good post, and you would probably enjoy reading it.  "negative railroad" also links and excerpts to the following article at "isegoria", and it is a very interesting read as well, and i am going back to peruse both blogs,  http://www.isegoria.net/2010/12/posturing/ , you should do the same.  both links are musings upon the nature of war, something not looked at with a direct view anymore.  end update.

update:  the north korean army is expanding its supply of armor, and it is with a tank that has some formidable guns.  whether such a tank is a match for south korean tanks is hard to say, because a gun tube all by itself is not a target acquisition system, is not a fire control system, and does not guarantee that the rounds it fires will destroy targets, nor does it guarantee that the "target" will be hit.  and, a tank tube does nothing to suggest or determine the tactics or strategies to defeat south korea's tanks, which are formidable.  but, a 125mm tank tube is a 125mm tank tube.    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/30/106009/s-korea-says-north-is-boosting.html  hat tip: theo spark.  end update.   

john jay @ 12.05.2010

p.s.  go to google maps, and look at the korean peninsula.  it's not very big, really.  and, it has two very well armed adversaries, just spoiling for a fight.  and, when they join battle, it is going to make the battles between iran and iraq pale in comparison, because it will be sustained, and it will be waged by the full complement of weaponry, and it shall be fought by professionals fully trained and motivated for the battle.

it will be horrific.

p.s.s.  we're gonna go into this in some depth in the next several days, but a useful comparison of the military strengths of the two nations can be found here, at global firepower, http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp .  in general, south korea's military is more modern, and better equipped and maintained.  but, north korea's, despite its problems with maintenance, and lack of fuel and stores, is not without capability.  

there is something to be remembered, here.  in wwii it is generally acknowledged that american tanks and armor in general were no match for the german tanks, on a one to one basis.  and, the american tank rounds were woefully "inadequate" in comparison to the rounds fired by german tanks, and the german 88mm anti-tank gun.

yet, the americans, with decidedly inferior equipment, somehow managed to more than hold their own.

the fact is, though the south koreans are better armed the north koreans are not toothless, and they will inflict casualties.  no military in wwii would have scorned such weapons as the north koreans have available.  this must be kept in mind.

and, one other factor is present.  these two militaries have been in position to wage war for 60 years.  they are in place, they know the terrain, and they have war gamed/"scenario-ed" the upcoming battles for years.

Comments

[GM Roper]

Should war start, and I agree that it looks likely, Obama is likely to freeze up, the north will NOT pulverize the industry/cities of the south because they really need those resources in order to survive. This is going to be something else.

[WitchDoctor]

Gettysburg was three days, not four.

In general though, I just don't see this going all-out. Both have too much to lose. I put the chances at 5%.

[Coinneach Newton]

"the americans, with decidedly inferior equipment, somehow managed to more than hold their own".
The exchange rate in Europe after D Day was 5:1 or higher in favour of the Germans. But the Germans were unable to replace their losses whilst the Shermans just kept rolling off the production lines.

The majority of Panthers and Tigers were not destroyed in action but by their crews who abandoned them after running out of fuel and spares.

The strength of the American military was and still is the economic and industrial machine behind it. As an aside this makes The current Amarican administration's policies on economics and business all the more worrying.

There is no doubt that N. Korea is not as you say toothless and casualties would indeed be high. But I doubt that N. Korea could sustain any prolonged conventional conflict given the economic and industrial weakness of the North compared with the South.

China would 'sit on its hands' offering limited and covert support to N. Korea. Any conflict for China given its economic and political involvment across the globe would be an embarrassment.

N. Korea would the be faced with two alternatives rather quickly. Either be reduced to guerilla tactics in the aftermath of its inevitable losses or go nuclear.

Kim Jung il may be crazy but I don't think he's stupid! All he really has are threats and provocation. The S. Koreans have a lot to lose. The question is are they willing to defend it? I think they are.

I wouldn't like to rate the chances of war in Korea but I would simply say this - If S. Korea stands up robustly against Kim Jung il and draws a line in the sand then there will be no war, very unlikely. If they don't, then they won't have to look for trouble it will inevitably come looking for them.

[john jay]

coinneach:

thanks for the very thoughtful and well considered reply. you don't know how flattering it is to receive a well thought out comment like this: it means close and attentive reading.

the poor old shermans.--

disparaged by their crews who called the dear things "ronsons," after the cigarette lighter, for their propensity to light up if hit by german fire, especially given that they were powered by gasoline and not diesel fuel: gas is more volatile, and will ignite easier, for sure.

american tank crews did suffer at the hands of german tanks. but, the shermans had one advantage, and that was speed and maneuver, and american tankers simply avoided "standing duels," (which they lost), in favor of maneuvering in close, and ganging up on german tanks with numbers when they could.

i don't know about the loss ratios. and, i don't know about german crews abandoning tanks, something i think that would have been rather frowned upon, even if they did run short of stores: you wouldn't leave your cadillac on the freeway if you ran out of gas, now would you.

but, you are correct for sure in the assertion that american production so far outstripped german production of tanks as to put the germans at a serious disadvantage.

tank against tank, the sherman was no match for the german tanks, except for the lighter tanks and infantry support tanks, that the germans started the war with.

but, the sherman was excellent in infantry support, and in numbers, the little buggers killed a lot more german tanks than they are given credit for. when your tank won't defeat the frontal armor, they you go to the sides, take out the tracks and drive wheels, and then shoot the bastards until they stop wiggling. to do that, you have to get in close by speed, and that's what the americans did.

as to the current american administration. i agree with you, they are a bunch of dickless wonders in the best case scenario, and a traitorous treasonous bunch of wreckers and saboteurs in the worst case. (i favor the latter as the most defensible position.) it is frightening to behold what they have done to u.s. geo-political and geo-strategic considerations in just two years.

as to the matter of stores, supplies and logistics that you bring up as between north and south korea.--

this is an interesting battlefield in korea. much of the country is hilly and mountainous, and therefore eliminates the great advantages that superior main battle tanks possess. in such a battlefield, ambush and artillery enfilade become very important, and the advantage of maneuver is reduced substantially. and, though the north korean tanks are out moded, they are not totally obsolete, and they do have big guns, 100+ mm on most of them.

the best battleground is north of seoul, and within 10 or 15 miles of the border. to the north of that we get into hilly ground again.

if the countries go to war, seoul will be within the range of north korean artillery, and they have about 4,000 pieces of tow-able guns.

seoul will come under fire.

to protect it, the south koreans will of necessity have to attack to the north. the initial attack will be over relatively flat ground, but, within miles, the north will have hills and low lying mountains to their backs: in short, they will have highly defensible positions and terrains from which to fight and defend.

i, in probable agreement with you, do not think that north korea has the logistic and fuel supplies to carry on offensive attack against seoul. but, i think that they can defend in an above situation, and defend very well. if they get backed into those mountains, and if the south koreans have to dig them out of prepared positions, there will be hell to pay.

in that situation, armor dug in, and artillery in place, and infantry positions fortified, it will be a tough go for anyone attacking them.

and, attack the south koreans must, if they are to protect seoul from extensive attack.

as a final matter, i do not think kim jung il stupid. crazy, however, is quite another matter.

a sane person would not attack another nation with an artillery barrage of some 170 rounds directed against his opponents fortified positions.

it is hard to say what the north koreans might do, and at some point the south koreans are simply not gonna put up with having their forces attacked, whether by torpedo boat, submarine or artillery fire.

john jay

[john jay]

coinneach:

sorry, but i couldn't resist an additional comment.--

the pressures of war demand technological and armaments advancement.

when american troops went ashore in north africa, they did so with tanks that were very obsolete.

when the war started, the united states simply did not have the industrial ability to cast a tank hull. we just didn't.

so, the first tanks to face the germans were manufactured with hulls fabricated from riveted plate steel, and did not feature rotating turrets for the main gun.

and, they were slow and clumsy and underpowered. but, the crews did have leather helmets!!! and, cotton "flak vests."

i am told that it was not a pleasant experienced being in one hit by a german 88.

likewise, the germans did not enter wwii with the same tanks that they entered the war with. if you will watch films of the battles for poland and france, and the campaign that forced the evacuation of dunkirk, you will see that the germans were equipped with very light tanks, some of which had 37mm canon, or tubes of a very small diameter compared to the 88mm gun of later tanks.

in short, the germans upgraded to contend with the russian advancement represented by the t-34.

and, we upgraded to the sherman. yes, it was not adequate in one on one set battle against the latter and larger german tanks.

it just wasn't.

and, at the start of wwii, navy and marine aviation equipment and tactics were not up to contending with the battle hardened japanese pilots sporting the very good mitsubishi zero fighter.

the americans took a spanking.

but, the american air crews quickly adopted tactics by which to contend with the superior maneuverability of the zero, which tactics included attacking only under favorable tactical advantage, and maintaining very tight discipline and formation against the japanese pilots who favored the gunslingers battle of individual combat.

pretty soon, there were no more skilled japanese pilots, attrition having taken care of that.

and, in much the same manner, the people who "flew" the shermans adopted tactics and strategies intent on avoiding the battlefield superiorities of the german tanks, which tactics favored speed, maneuver, and ganging up on german tanks, if possible.

when such tactics were unavailable or unavailing, the americans took their losses, and soldiered on.

but, the order of the day was speed, and attack. with such tactics patton's armor was especially effective.

and, the crews still called the sherman the "ronson," and it was not an affectionate name, or a term of endearment.

but, they soldiered. and, did the best, with what they had.

john jay