Korean artillery exchange.

[mnm]

No it isn't. Edited November 25, 2010 by mnm

[Ken Estes]

 

 

I thought something was familiar. This is the M3 pedestal mount for the 90mm, intended for the CD antiboat mission, only around 800 were built, supposed to have a better gunshield though. This one remains 'on duty' in Shemya:

edit: another from Ft MacArthur, with the shield (not a great fit for the Korean summer] -

Edited November 26, 2010 by Ken Estes

[Pavel Novak]

to JOE BRENNAN

thanks for details of that confrontation

[Chris Werb]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v366/jbren1/ambyeokhaeahnpo.jpg[/img]

 

If the NKs put one 76+mm round through that huge aperture it would all be over. It looks like they patterned it on 'The Guns of Navarone'.

[h18w777]

Small selection of photos. Sorry for my tardy arrival.

 

 

A South Korean Marine base housing its K-9 self-propelled guns burns after it was hit by North Korean artillery shells on Yeonpyeong island in this November 23, 2010 picture that is released November 26, 2010. North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells at a South Korean island on Tuesday, killing two South Korean soldiers and two civilians and setting houses ablaze in the heaviest attack on its neighbor since the Korean War ended in 1953. Picture taken November 23, 2010.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Some further clarifications based on ROK defense ministry statements in press:

 

-of the 6 K-9's, one was already out of action from maintenance issue, another was hit in the barrel by the dud shell, and neither was able to fire during the incident

Further change to story:

- 2 of the 6 K-9's were facing north toward NK shore; both suffered 'electronic malfunction' at the beginning of the NK attack and didn't fire. One press account specifically credited fragments from NK shells, but quote from defense ministry official didn't mention that.

 

- 4 of the K-9's were facing south west for their regular firing exercise. One of those went out of action during the exercise from 'misfired shell jammed in the barrel' quoting official, not lucky (for NK) hit by lucky (for SK) dud as an earlier report seemed to say.

 

So 3 K-9's fired at first, with another returned to action for the second firing. This link has an animation clip; note she specifically says fragments disabled the two north facing guns (the voice over reporter's given name is coincidentally the same as newly groomed leader in NK, 'jeong-eun', usually a girl's name AFAIK )

http://imnews.imbc.com/replay/nwtoday/article/2746647_5782.html

 

Joe

Edited November 26, 2010 by JOE BRENNAN

[Jeff]

Small selection of photos. Sorry for my tardy arrival.

Looks like some pretty good shooting by the NorKs.

[EchoFiveMike]

Those fires look like burning propellant, and the fragments in the bottom photo looks like propellant tubes.

 

That guy on the turret is being very cavalier, assuming it's not a later photo burning yet more propellant for whatever reason(propaganda). S/F.....Ken M

[Marcello]

Yes to the first. I'm not sure what the South Korean artillery would have been able to do, since I believe most of those North Korean pieces are sited precisely as you describe. Absent a JDAM or two, they probably just raised dust in the bunkers. I don't think the South Koreans have any tube-launched bunker-buster rounds. You'd damn near need an Excalibur or other GPS-enhanced round to get any real effect on those targets.

 

Concrete piercing rounds have been around for a long time and SK is supposedly well stocked with them. Presumably most of the fortified firing positions are plotted and will be showered with them, though a JDAM would be more straightforward of course. MRLS are supposed to tackle self propelled artillery with DPCM IIRC. That being said there is probably enough north korean artillery near the DMZ to turn a lot of SK towns near the border into burning rubble before they can be silenced.

 

If the NKs put one 76+mm round through that huge aperture it would all be over. It looks like they patterned it on 'The Guns of Navarone'.

 

Putting artillery inside fortifications is a matter of compromise between cost, fields of fire and protection. You want a cheap mount with decent coverage? Then you get something like that.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Marcello

[Gavin-Phillips]

I've been following this incident with curiousity.

 

It seems a well established fact what SPH's were used by the ROK's, however has anyone said anything about what the NK's were using during their barrage?

 

I'm quite impressed by the media this time, they use words such as "howitzer" instead of "tank". Wow!

 

Best regards

 

Gavin

[Heirophant]

Air power will be the deciding factor.

 

Well, I think I have to disagree here, no offense. Korea is Asian mountain country, some fraction of it well-forested.

 

Airpower, armor, artillery etc will be important, yes. Logistics, industrial strength, technology will play a role.

 

But THE deciding factor will, IMHO, as in the first Korean War, be INFANTRY. Well-led, -trained, -motivated and -equipped infantry, and LOTS AND LOTS of it. We're talking "Land War in Asia". No getting around that.

[Chris Werb]

Well, I think I have to disagree here, no offense. Korea is Asian mountain country, some fraction of it well-forested.

 

Airpower, armor, artillery etc will be important, yes. Logistics, industrial strength, technology will play a role.

 

But THE deciding factor will, IMHO, as in the first Korean War, be INFANTRY. Well-led, -trained, -motivated and -equipped infantry, and LOTS AND LOTS of it. We're talking "Land War in Asia". No getting around that.

 

I think the deciding factor will be whether the Chinese choose to intervene, or even to continue to resupply NK with essentials.

[crazyinsane105]

I think the deciding factor will be whether the Chinese choose to intervene, or even to continue to resupply NK with essentials.

 

The North Koreans can probably hold on their own for a while. They've been stockpiling up for a few decades now. Also, what hasn't been discussed here so far is North Korea's tunneling capability. They have some of the most intricate and long tunnels worldwide and advised Hezbullah and Iran on making their own. I read some articles on how North Korea has tunneled way beyond the DMZ and can have platoons or even larger troop formations pop out. As somebody said before, this war will be determined by infantry and seems like the North Koreans have plenty of them.

[Chris Werb]

So, if the USSR and China cut off supplies, and the US and ROK blockade the country by sea, then destroy every structure of significance in the entire country (which is even now dependent on food aid and where transport is canalised by terrain into obvious, highly vulnerable routes), the end result will still be dictated by infantry fighting in/from tunnels?

Edited November 27, 2010 by Chris Werb

[JOE BRENNAN]

It seems a well established fact what SPH's were used by the ROK's, however has anyone said anything about what the NK's were using during their barrage?

 

I'm quite impressed by the media this time, they use words such as "howitzer" instead of "tank". Wow!

ROK press report, quoting officials, says the NK's fired 122mm MRL's, believed to be from a rocket battalion of the 4th KPA Corps, 1 company of 6 launchers in the first barrage and 2 companies in the second, firing from the area of Gaemeori, on peninsula closest to Yeonpyeong-do, rather than from Mu-do, the island nearest. The photo is said to show fragments, pieces in last photo of h18w777's post also seem to be.

 

As far as press accuracy, ROK press accounts haven't had huge bloopers, but OTOH the details have changed around somewhat. For example the story I just quoted says the ROK counterbattery radar was TPQ-37 and didn't actually break down in the initial barrage, just didn't get good coordinates. Most previous stories said TPQ-36 and some said it did malfunction. I guess it's only to be expected though, that details would change.

 

from:

http://www.asiae.co.kr/news/view.htm?idxno=2010112607351766390

 

Joe

Edited November 27, 2010 by JOE BRENNAN

[crazyinsane105]

So, if the USSR and China cut off supplies, and the US and ROK blockade the country by sea, then destroy every structure of significance in the entire country (which is even now dependent on food aid and where transport is canalised by terrain into obvious, highly vulnerable routes), the end result will still be dictated by infantry fighting in/from tunnels?

 

Never said the end result will be determined that way. But it gives the North Koreans some definite advantages. And in an area which is dictated by small mountains, infantry will be quite valuable. However, I can't imagine the North Koreans getting even farther than Seoul (even if they somehow make it that far). A South Korean counterattack will push them back across the DMZ.

[Scythe]

Well, I think I have to disagree here, no offense. Korea is Asian mountain country, some fraction of it well-forested.

 

Airpower, armor, artillery etc will be important, yes. Logistics, industrial strength, technology will play a role.

 

But THE deciding factor will, IMHO, as in the first Korean War, be INFANTRY. Well-led, -trained, -motivated and -equipped infantry, and LOTS AND LOTS of it. We're talking "Land War in Asia". No getting around that.

 

Well, JDAMs, UAVs and AH-64s didn't exist in the first Korean war. In the hilly/mountainous terrain, wouldn't having air supremacy go a long way? Perhaps even war winning? You can move infantry by air, resupply them from the air, recon by air, interdict enemy supplies from the air, destroy enemy high-ground positions by air - on the other hand, without air power such terrain would slow troop movements, restrict use of AFVs, complicate/exacerbate logistics, recon and artillery (if the target was on the opposite slope of a mountain), etc.

 

I wish there were more F-22s.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Scythe

[Marek Tucan]

OTOH most of these means existed in 1999 and they proved mostly ineffective against army in the field...

[Jim Martin]

OTOH most of these means existed in 1999 and they proved mostly ineffective against army in the field...

 

You talking about Kosovo? That "army in the field" was dispersed and would have been utterly ineffective in either offensive or defensive combat operations without first concentrating. Once they concentrated, they'd have gotten the hammer.

[Archie Pellagio]

Well, JDAMs, UAVs and AH-64s didn't exist in the first Korean war. In the hilly/mountainous terrain, wouldn't having air supremacy go a long way? Perhaps even war winning? You can move infantry by air, resupply them from the air, recon by air, interdict enemy supplies from the air, destroy enemy high-ground positions by air - on the other hand, without air power such terrain would slow troop movements, restrict use of AFVs, complicate/exacerbate logistics, recon and artillery (if the target was on the opposite slope of a mountain), etc.

 

I wish there were more F-22s.

 

But even with air superiority, the largely road bound KPA forces in 1950 and the Chinese the next year were still able to advance with minimal resistance.

At Khafji the much vaunted air armada of the US and coalition forces suceeded in doing nothing but blowing up a few friendly LAV's while light cavalry had to hold the field on their own.

 

There are limits to air power.

[m4a1]

Luke, a bit OT, but your point is that USAF contribution to Khafji exaggerated? All those J-STARS detection and effective BAI missions?

[swerve]

I read some articles on how North Korea has tunneled way beyond the DMZ and can have platoons or even larger troop formations pop out. As somebody said before, this war will be determined by infantry and seems like the North Koreans have plenty of them.

The S. Koreans dig their own tunnels, & use every technique available to search for N. Korean tunnels. It's hard to hide tunnels nowadays. Digging is noisy, holes can be sensed, & secretly carting away many tons of rock from an area under constant surveillance is not easy. Any tunnel war will not be a completely one-sided affair. Expect some of those N. Korean tunnels to suddenly cave in, after a loud bang.

 

As for infantry - S. Korea has twice the population of the north, & every man goes through the army, then into the reserves: initially into the mobilisation reserve to beef up the field army, then to the homeland reserve, i.e. territorial defence. There's also a huge civil defence organisation.

[Jim Martin]

The S. Koreans dig their own tunnels, & use every technique available to search for N. Korean tunnels. It's hard to hide tunnels nowadays. Digging is noisy, holes can be sensed, & secretly carting away many tons of rock from an area under constant surveillance is not easy. Any tunnel war will not be a completely one-sided affair. Expect some of those N. Korean tunnels to suddenly cave in, after a loud bang.

 

As for infantry - S. Korea has twice the population of the north, & every man goes through the army, then into the reserves: initially into the mobilisation reserve to beef up the field army, then to the homeland reserve, i.e. territorial defence. There's also a huge civil defence organisation.

 

 

So what if the ROK has more manpower and vastly superior technology? the DPRK has juche!!!!

[Sikkiyn]

OTOH most of these means existed in 1999 and they proved mostly ineffective against army in the field...

 

I guess that is why Serbia cried uncle so quickly, and are so willing to have another go?

Guess that rust-olem pos tank I crawled over, was nothing more than my imagination?

 

Get real and move your con game to another corner, not going to work here.

[Gunguy]

North Korea will not go down without using some nukes. It would be so devastating that we would probably turn on Iraq next. Once they are used again, having rogue countries making nukes will seem unacceptable. The Libs will be whining the whole time of course!