[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26444287]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.[/QUOTE]
That theory is based on...?
[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]
No, they have a fanatical devotion that makes them charge with swords and fly their planes into ships. They are already fighting like hell so being on home soil means jack shit to how hard they fight.
They didn't defeat the US, China got involved and they decided to call a cease-fire before they brought the Chinese into it. Not that they couldn't of defeated China, but it would of made the Cold War end a lot quicker.
[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]Well no shit they'll make use of their more advanced tanks. They simply don't have enough of them, they can barely afford to feed their soldiers. And you don't think SK knows Seoul is going to be the #1 target? It'll most likely become the most heavily fortified place in South Korea in the event of a war.
[QUOTE=faze;26444272]See my post right above yours.[/QUOTE]See the edit.
[QUOTE=faze;26444243]Vietnam War...Korean War (1950's), Japan in WW2...need I continue?[/QUOTE]
Dude, you're so wrong.
Vietnam that was a guerilla war, can't kill what you can't see.
Korean war, the US army there had a strict ROE and were limited if I remember correctly although I admit I know little to nothing bout the korean war situation.
The Japanese were usually bound by honour to die in battle rather than fight another day, they were just fanatical, not a particularly good army.
The US army will outclass and outshoot the NK army, they US just won't have the numbers without a draft.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26444251]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.[/QUOTE]
They do not operate the T-55 or T-59 classes anymore. They've moved to using their own T-62 variant (the Chonma-ho) and the PT-85 amphibious light tank. And then there's the Pokpung-ho that has already been discussed. These are the three main tanks they use.
If they have any T-55s or T-59s left over, which they undoubtfully do, they are keeping them for reserves and training vehicles. They are not used in combat operations by them anymore, however. Some of them are as old as 1966.
[QUOTE=faze;26444267]They would have kicked our asses had we done a ground invasion.[/QUOTE]
We'd already destroyed all their actual troops, they would of had to use shitty ass conscripts and women. We invaded several Japanese islands too like Okinawa and Iwo Jima and while they were hard battles, we still kicked ass.
[QUOTE=bravehat;26444310]Dude, you're so wrong.
Vietnam that was a guerilla war, can't kill what you can't see.
Korean war, the US army there had a strict ROE and were limited if I remember correctly although I admit I know little to nothing bout the korean war situation.
The Japanese were usually bound by honour to die in battle rather than fight another day, they were just fanatical, not a particularly good army.
The US army will outclass and outshoot the NK army, they US just won't have the numbers without a draft.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I feel like if this goes into a full scale war again, they will do a draft. I'm 23, so I don't know how I feel about that yet...
[QUOTE=faze;26444296]That theory is based on...?[/QUOTE]
Most likely americas industrial might and the fact that japan had little to nothing in terms of industry.
[QUOTE=faze;26444296]That theory is based on...?[/QUOTE]
The Japanese had already exhausted all their resources, they wouldn't even have that many troops to defend themselves.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;26444317]We'd already destroyed all their actual troops, they would of had to use shitty ass conscripts and women. We invaded several Japanese islands too like Okinawa and Iwo Jima and while they were hard battles, we still kicked ass.[/QUOTE]
I know what islands we were in, in the Pacific. They were launch points for a potential Japanese mainland invasion. Those islands didn't have a lot of troops compared to what we had, we also bombed the islands for days at a time. Letters From Iwo Jima is a good depiction of what happened.
The mainland still had a shit ton of troops, enlisting women wouldn't have needed to happen.
[QUOTE=faze;26444321]Yeah, I feel like if this goes into a full scale war again, they will do a draft. I'm 23, so I don't know how I feel about that yet...[/QUOTE]
South Korea will do a lot of the fighting you know, it's not just the US in the war. It might be a matter of getting your troops over there and deploying other ones but there's no need to match NK soldier for soldier.
[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]
For a start, the Japanese couldn't have won, merely inflicted enormous casualties. Secondly, all the pro-NK members here seem to think that an Allied military effort would consist of a purely ground invasion with no air or ballistic missile technology. Odds are, it wouldn't, thus NK would be annihilated. And EVEN IF it was, Western war technology is far more advance than NK even in a ground level. People, this isn't WW2 anymore, where the gap between technology wasn't so large. Now it is - too large for North Korea to survive alone.
NK only managed to force a draw in the Korean War because of Chinese military support - which will not happen. Alone, they were defeated.
[QUOTE=poopsicle;26444341]The Japanese had already exhausted all their resources, they wouldn't even have that many troops to defend themselves.[/QUOTE]
So why'd we nuke two cities and kill 1 million+ innocent people then?
[editline]2nd December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Devodiere;26444343]South Korea will do a lot of the fighting you know, it's not just the US in the war. It might be a matter of getting your troops over there and deploying other ones but there's no need to match NK soldier for soldier.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, true. Thankfully we have a Democrat in office. I don't know if a democrat has ever enstated the draft.
[QUOTE=faze;26444321]Yeah, I feel like if this goes into a full scale war again, they will do a draft. I'm 23, so I don't know how I feel about that yet...[/QUOTE]
Convince them you would be more useful not being on the frontlines and doing something else, like comms work.
Shit this thread is moving fast.
[QUOTE=faze;26444296]That theory is based on...?[/QUOTE]Projected casualty figures for Operation Olympic. The fact of the matter is they no longer had the supplies to continue to fight the war by the time the bombs were dropped.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26444314]They do not operate the T-55 or T-59 classes anymore. They've moved to using their own T-62 variant (the Chonma-ho) and the PT-85 amphibious light tank. And then there's the Pokpung-ho that has already been discussed. These are the three main tanks they use.
If they have any T-55s or T-59s left over, which they undoubtfully do, they are keeping them for reserves and training vehicles. They are not used in combat operations by them anymore, however. Some of them are as old as 1966.[/QUOTE]Doubtful they'd just throw away half their armoured force. If it's true they've stopped using the T-55s and Type 59s, that seriously reduces their numerical superiority in tanks.
[QUOTE=faze;26444345]So why'd we nuke two cities and kill 1 million+ innocent people then?
[editline]2nd December 2010[/editline]
Yeah, true. Thankfully we have a Democrat in office. I don't know if a democrat has ever enstated the draft.[/QUOTE]
To send a message, we can fucking nuke you and you cant do shit. How do you think they got into the airspace?
[QUOTE=bravehat;26444350]Convince them you would be more useful not being on the frontlines and doing something else, like comms work.[/QUOTE]
Or join the air force if they are getting serious about re-enstating it.
I'm a first born child/only son (I have a sister). That might lessen my chances too.
[QUOTE=faze;26444345]So why'd we nuke two cities and kill 1 million+ innocent people then?
[/QUOTE]
Less casualties for both sides.
[QUOTE=poopsicle;26444357]To send a message, we can fucking nuke you and you cant do shit. How do you think they got into the airspace?[/QUOTE]
Flew one lone plane, they didn't think anything of it. If we had flown a bunch of fighter escorts, shit would have hit the fan.
[QUOTE=not_Morph53;26443691]Bookmarking this post, on the off chance south Korea gets reduced to a pile of ash next week.[/QUOTE]
Isn't South Korea the one with a way better overall chance?
[QUOTE=faze;26444296]That theory is based on...?[/QUOTE]
The United States Navy and Marine Corps' assessment on the feasibility of such an operation, which would have been titled "Operation Downfall".
[url]http://www.usni.org/store/books/history/hell-pay[/url]
A plan to capture the southern tip of Japan ("Operation Olympic") for the first stage would have been initially very bloody, but here's the scoop on Downfall:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall[/url]
An estimated 1.2 million casualties would have been sustained, with over 267,000 fatalities. The United States sustained well over that many in all their years of participating in World War II alone...
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war[/url]
Note that I'm simply referring to the number of casualties that would have been sustained by both sides- with a specific emphasis on the United States. I think they could well have kept from being defeated, however, Faze.
[QUOTE=faze;26444342]I know what islands we were in, in the Pacific. They were launch points for a potential Japanese mainland invasion. Those islands didn't have a lot of troops compared to what we had, we also bombed the islands for days at a time. Letters From Iwo Jima is a good depiction of what happened.
The mainland still had a shit ton of troops, enlisting women wouldn't have needed to happen.[/QUOTE]
What's the difference between Iwo Jima and when we would of invaded mainland Japan? We still would of had far more (and veteran) troops, we still would of shelled the hell out of it and the Japanese still would of killed themselves when it looked like all was lost.
If they had so many soldiers, why were they enlisting everyone they had and even using their most educated University students as Kamikazes? They were desperate and didn't have the numbers to fight off a mainland invasion. They were still going to try being Japanese and all though, surrender means seppuku after all.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;26444374]What's the difference between Iwo Jima and when we would of invaded mainland Japan? We still would of had far more (and veteran) troops, we still would of shelled the hell out of it and the Japanese still would of killed themselves when it looked like all was lost.
If they had so many soldiers, why were they enlisting everyone they had and even using their most educated University students as Kamikazes? They were desperate and didn't have the numbers to fight off a mainland invasion. They were still going to try being Japanese and all though, surrender means seppuku after all.[/QUOTE]
Never really saw it that way. I always read that kamikaze's were an honor thing.
[QUOTE=faze;26444384]Never really saw it that way. I always read that kamikaze's were an honor thing.[/QUOTE]
It was considered honorable by the Japanese Kamikaze pilots, but it was really a military act of desperation too - their conventional attacks simply weren't working, as shown through their eventual loss of naval power in the Pacific to the Americans.
[QUOTE=bravehat;26443997]Artillery from world war 1 will still kill people dumbass.
Artillery is artillery, tanks are tanks and guns are guns, they all do the same job.[/QUOTE]
Artillery could barely be used in the modern day battlefield. Anything not from the 80s would struggle in a modern war.
For instance, modern day artillery have automated and computerised firing mechanisms (not to mention are much more mobile than older arty), which use GPS or other satellite signals to ensure hitting the target, something WW1 or even WW2 artillery could never do. Not even the arty used in the Vietnam War has that accuracy.
The most recent version of the North Korean main battle tank (from what is known) does not have proper night vision capabilities, relying on inefficient IR vision, which cannot be used at medium to long range.
Their airforce is not even worth talking about.
The DPRK's Navy would be irrelevant in a defensive war.
North Korea, although having numbers, severly lacks in modern technology, and would not stand a chance in war against their modernised enemies.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26444389]It was considered honorable by the Japanese Kamikaze pilots, but it was really a military act of desperation too - their conventional attacks simply weren't working, as shown through their eventual loss of naval power in the Pacific to the Americans.[/QUOTE]
The Japanese were much more powerful at aviation.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26444389]It was considered honorable by the Japanese Kamikaze pilots, but it was really a military act of desperation too - their conventional attacks simply weren't working, as shown through their eventual loss of naval power in the Pacific to the Americans.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I guess from a leadership standpoint it was.
[QUOTE=poopsicle;26444398]The Japanese were much more powerful at aviation.[/QUOTE]In the early stages of the war, yes. That advantage dwindled and dwindled as their planes got shot down. In any case, that's rather vague. What do you mean "much more powerful"? In what way; numbers, technology, firepower?
[QUOTE=poopsicle;26444398]The Japanese were much more powerful at aviation.[/QUOTE]
Citation needed. They lost it all.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26444389]It was considered honorable by the Japanese Kamikaze pilots, but it was really a military act of desperation too - their conventional attacks simply weren't working, as shown through their eventual loss of naval power in the Pacific to the Americans.[/QUOTE]
Well it wasn't really due to the poor effectiveness of other attacks, it's just they thought Kamikaze ones would be more effective. There was an average of about 1.61 American soldiers killed per Kamikaze and a few planes crashing into a Battleship can bring it down but they lost tons of planes and plenty of them just crashed into the ocean harmlessly. It was desperation though, they only started doing it later in the war.
[editline]2nd December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=poopsicle;26444398]The Japanese were much more powerful at aviation.[/QUOTE]
The Zero was a better plane to begin with but just because the US didn't know what to do and had really shitty old planes. After a bit, they got better and learned not to dogfight with them and got much more effective. The Zero still had no armour and went down easy as shit though, all you need is a clear run at it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.