[QUOTE=faze;26444114]Moscow is west of Stalingrad, but yes Leningrad is basically where it stopped.[/QUOTE]
West? Closer to northwest. Leningrad (St. Petersburg), Moscow, and Stalingrad (Volgograd) all run pretty much in line with one another vertically speaking.
[img]http://www.naval-history.net/ww2mR043RussianJune-Nov1941.GIF[/img]
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26444144]West? Closer to northwest. Leningrad (St. Petersburg), Moscow, and Stalingrad (Volgograd) all run pretty much in line with one another vertically speaking.
[img_thumb]http://www.naval-history.net/ww2mR043RussianJune-Nov1941.GIF[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know. North west is still west.
[img]http://www.freakingnews.com/Pictures/2/Kim-Jong-Il.jpg[/img]
He gon kill us all
[QUOTE=poopsicle;26443461]and they have a weak and outdated military.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp6cB7BGj48[/media]
ye i dont think so
Typical of the NK fanboys to rate dumb everyone saying something bad about them. Go fucking live there if you like them so much.
[QUOTE=bravehat;26444122]Allow me to introduce you to the modern north korean battle tank.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P'okpung-Ho[/url]
See the thing is, north korea doesn't care about patents, they will just steal ideas and armour for their equipment.
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Pokpung-ho.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]Of which they have maybe 300 of. The vast majority of their tank force is made up of T-55s and Type 59s, while South Korea's is exclusively made up of a domestic Abrams variant.
Numbers are the only thing they have on their side.
[QUOTE=faze;26444150]Yeah, I know. North west is still west.[/QUOTE]
...? Northwest is northwest. It's an ordinally ranked point on a compass rose, just like north-northwest, south-southeast, southeast, etc.
[img_thumb]http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/58700/58790/58790_compass-rose_lg.gif[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=ashzu;26444185][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp6cB7BGj48[/media]
ye i dont think so[/QUOTE]
North korea has HD video cameras?
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26444194]...? Northwest is northwest. It's an ordinally ranked point on a compass rose, just like north-northwest, south-southeast, southeast, etc.
[img_thumb]http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/58700/58790/58790_compass-rose_lg.gif[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
It's technically to the west, is it not?
The point is, you knew what I meant.
[QUOTE=bravehat;26444088]Inferior tech is still able to kill people, are you unable to grasp that?
They have numbers on there side, and remember the war on the eastern front? remember how the russians with their inferior gear managed to halt the german advance MILES from stalingrad, and then fucking hammered the germans all the way back across russia and straight into berlin?
Inferior tech, with numbers on its side still stands a chance.[/QUOTE]
Maybe back then, but not now.
Victory is decided by the person with the biggest weapon, the longest ranged artillery, the best tracking systems.
Having numbers doesn't mean shit.
[QUOTE=poopsicle;26444204]Maybe back then, but not now.
Victory is decided by the person with the biggest weapon, the longest ranged artillery, the bets tracking systems.
Having numbers doesn't mean shit.[/QUOTE]Numbers mean a lot more in infantry combat; a bullet is still a bullet, body armour only goes so far. Aircraft is where technology has the largest effect.
Does anyone seriously think that North Korea could defeat the United States of America in a military conflict, let alone a whole allied host of Western powers and South Korea.
[QUOTE=poopsicle;26444204]Maybe back then, but not now.
Victory is decided by the person with the biggest weapon, the longest ranged artillery, the bets tracking systems.
Having numbers doesn't mean shit.[/QUOTE]
If you send a million troops into an area with ~50,000 troops, firepower won't mean shit. Asian armies have been notoriously better than western armies, there's no way to argue that.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26444193]Of which they have maybe 300 of. The vast majority of their tank force is made up of T-55s and Type 59s, while South Korea's is exclusively made up of a domestic Abrams variant.[/QUOTE]
North Korea doesn't operate T-55s or T-59s anymore. They use their own heavy version of the T-62 (the Chonma-ho, which features the armored plating and gunnery of the T-72) and the PT-85 amphibious light tank.
[img]http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2415/chonmaupgradeoct20104.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2349/post416905dprktank13bk.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26444218]Numbers mean a lot more in infantry combat; a bullet is still a bullet, body armour only goes so far. Aircraft is where technology has the largest effect.[/QUOTE]
North Korea doesn't even have that big of an army compared to, say The United States?
[QUOTE=faze;26444221]If you send a million troops into an area with ~50,000 troops, firepower won't mean shit. [b]Asian armies have been notoriously better than western armies, there's no way to argue that.[/b][/QUOTE]Care to explain in more detail?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26444234]Care to explain in more detail?[/QUOTE]
Vietnam War...Korean War (1950's), Japan in WW2...need I continue?
[QUOTE=faze;26444221]If you send a million troops into an area with ~50,000 troops, firepower won't mean shit. Asian armies have been notoriously better than western armies, there's no way to argue that.[/QUOTE]
Pfft, no. Asian armies have a habit of running headlong into machine gun fire if they attack so their numbers will just make them die more frequently.
Also firepower means jack shit when they don't even have to send troops out and can just blow their shit up with a helicopter or guided missile. More advanced tech = more efficient ways of killing.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26444234]Care to explain in more detail?[/QUOTE]
The north Koreans love to serve their leaders.
But I think I smell a bit of racism in that post.
[QUOTE=poopsicle;26444232]North Korea doesn't even have that big of an army compared to, say The United States?[/QUOTE]
Um...20% of their population is in the army...
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26444227]North Korea doesn't operate T-55s or T-59s anymore. They use their own heavy version of the T-62 (the Chonma-ho, which features the armored plating and gunnery of the T-72) and the PT-85 amphibious light tank.
[img_thumb]http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2415/chonmaupgradeoct20104.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2349/post416905dprktank13bk.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]What are you talking about, they've got over 2000 of the 2 types of tanks I mentioned. They have only limited numbers of T-62 and above variants. The amphibious tanks are more like amphibious APCs, they pose no real threat to tanks.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26444193]Of which they have maybe 300 of. The vast majority of their tank force is made up of T-55s and Type 59s, while South Korea's is exclusively made up of a domestic Abrams variant.[/QUOTE]
You think they won't make use of those?
and who's to say they haven't been retooling some of their older tanks instead of letting them rust?
Assume the worst case scenario in war, let's you prep for it.
Besides if I was Kimmie I'd be using those 300 or so P'okpung ho's to lead a charge to seoul, just like the germans in their blitzkreig, just get the whole job done as fast as possible before the south could prepare a response.
@Bravehat - Well yeah, that's really the concern; that North Korea could rapidly overwhelm South Korea before an effective defence could be raised. And in all honesty, that's probably what would happen. However, there's absolutely zip chance that it'll be allowed to continue down this track.
[QUOTE=faze;26444243]Vietnam War...Korean War (1950's), Japan in WW2...need I continue?[/QUOTE]
The Japanese lost World War 2 to the Americans. Not just through nuclear force; they were going down regardless.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26444219]Does anyone seriously think that North Korea could defeat the United States of America in a military conflict, let alone a whole allied host of Western powers and South Korea.[/QUOTE]
On their own soil? Absolutely. The Japanese could have done the same in World War II if an amphibious invasion had been necessary. They possess a kind of fanatical spirit and devotion that makes them incredibly dangerous, not to mention a tremendous amount of experience under brutal training conditions. If it were to come to their own soil, as well, they would only have more of a reason to fight on.
They managed to defeat the United States in the Korean War (pardon me, "police action").
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26444255]On their own soil? Absolutely. The Japanese could have done the same in World War II if an amphibious invasion had been necessary. They possess a kind of fanatical spirit and devotion that makes them incredibly dangerous, not to mention a tremendous amount of experience under brutal training conditions. If it were to come to their own soil, as well, they would only have more of a reason to fight on.
They managed to defeat the United States in the Korean War (pardon me, "police action").[/QUOTE]
Hence my earlier point about Asian armies always being better than western armies.
[QUOTE=bravehat;26444252]You think they won't make use of those?
and who's to say they haven't been retooling some of their older tanks instead of letting them rust?
Assume the worst case scenario in war, let's you prep for it.
Besides if I was Kimmie I'd be using those 300 or so P'okpung ho's to lead a charge to seoul, just like the germans in their blitzkreig, just get the whole job done as fast as possible before the south could prepare a response.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure South Korea is ready for an invasion from the North.
They've technically been at war for a while now.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26444254]The Japanese lost World War 2 to the Americans. Not just through nuclear force; they were going down regardless.[/QUOTE]
They would have kicked our asses had we done a ground invasion.
[QUOTE=faze;26444243]Vietnam War...Korean War (1950's), Japan in WW2...need I continue?[/QUOTE]Yes, please go into more detail, since last I recalled Japan got their asses handed to them. A land invasion would have been incomprehensibly bloody, but only out of sheer stubborness and fanaticism of the Japanese forces, not any innate technological or training superiority.
The Korean War was a war of numbers, and the Vietnam war was a textbook example of counter-insurgency failure, not failure in the conventional war front.
[QUOTE=faze;26444243]Vietnam War...Korean War (1950's), Japan in WW2...need I continue?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, in WW2, the Japanese struggled with the idea that charging a machine gun was a bad idea. They also did numerous bonsai attacks and while they nearly reached their lines, every last one was slaughtered. The Korean war was pretty similar to WW2 Japan and in the times when the Vietnamese fought like a conventional army, they got slaughtered too.
The only way they can be effective is if they are guerrillas, something that a large army CANNOT do.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26444268]Yes, please go into more detail, since last I recalled Japan got their asses handed to them. The Korean War was a war of numbers, and the Vietnam war was a textbook example of counter-insurgency failure, not failure in the conventional war front.[/QUOTE]
See my post right above yours.
@Devodiere - exactly. The Vietcong and NVA won because of guerilla tactics, which are inapplicable in this situation.
[QUOTE=faze;26444267]They would have kicked our asses had we done a ground invasion.[/QUOTE]
No they wouldn't have. If America had invaded Japan by ground, it would have been horrifically bloody, with enormous casualties on each side. But Japan still would have lost.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.