Indians For Guns

The function of those and other US Army units in Germany were to serve as a "speed bump" for the Russian Juggernaut as they came charging through the Fulda Gap and spread out across the German plains into Europe. This was supposed to give the President of the United States and the Pentagon time to react but the Cold War is over and the Russian bogey man is no longer the threat he was. The MBT bearing General Creighton Abrams name no longer has a mission in Germany. Hmm! Maybe its time to send them to Korea.





US Army's last tanks depart from Germany

STUTTGART, Germany — The U.S. Army’s 69-year history of basing main battle tanks on German soil quietly ended last month when 22 Abrams tanks, a main feature of armored combat units throughout the Cold War, embarked for the U.S.

The departure of the last M-1 Abrams tanks coincides with the inactivation of two of the Army’s Germany-based heavy brigades. Last year, the 170th Infantry out of Baumholder disbanded. And the 172nd Separate Infantry Brigade at Grafenwöhr is in the process of doing the same.

On March 18, the remaining tanks were loaded up at the 21st Theater Sustainment Command’s railhead in Kaiserslautern where they then made the journey to the shipping port in Bremerhaven, Germany. There they boarded a ship bound for South Carolina.

The tanks belonged to the 172nd along with a mix that were leftover from other units, according to the 21st TSC.

“It is an honor to be one of the soldiers escorting the last battle tanks out of Germany,” said Sgt. Jeremy Jordan of the 529th Military Police Company, in an Army story about the journey. “As these tanks sail back to the U.S., we are closing a chapter in history.”

From World War II on through the Cold War, tanker units were a heavy presence in Germany. At its peak, Germany was home to 20 NATO armored divisions, or about 6,000 tanks, according to the 21st TSC.

“There is no [U.S.] tank on German soil. It’s a historic moment,” said Lt. Col. Wayne Marotto, 21st TSC spokesman.

Xl


Korea has enough armor they need more F 22 and B 52s..I was talking to a colleague who is from there and remark sits all hilly country. Artillery will do the most damage if the boy-dictator goes crazy.

Soviets plan was just roll the T55 72 etc across in a waves ...

Best

My understanding is that the DPRK has a large army, but it is not in very good shape regarding maintenance and upkeep. I'm not sure what they have regarding conventional strength, such as tanks and the like, but they sit within shelling distance of Seoul. If something breaks out, it seems to me it will very likely be quite messy. The Chinese have been feeding this wildlife cookies all along, and what they will do with a war on their shoulder is another big question mark.

timmy wrote:My understanding is that the DPRK has a large army, but it is not in very good shape regarding maintenance and upkeep. I'm not sure what they have regarding conventional strength, such as tanks and the like, but they sit within shelling distance of Seoul. If something breaks out, it seems to me it will very likely be quite messy. The Chinese have been feeding this wildlife cookies all along, and what they will do with a war on their shoulder is another big question mark.

Very True. The Chinese economy has been slowing. One would think that a costly war would not be what they want right now. Korea would be costly.

Not only that, there aren't many Armed Forces in this world who have the logistical capability of the US Armed Forces. NO ONE does logistics like the US. Even with the size of the Chinese Armed Forces and the size of their economy, I think they would be hard pressed to supply their armies at significant distances from China (especially if the conflict were to drag on for some time).

Xl


Korea has enough armor they need more F 22 and B 52s..I was talking to a colleague who is from there and remark sits all hilly country. Artillery will do the most damage if the boy-dictator goes crazy.

Soviets plan was just roll the T55 72 etc across in a waves ...

Yes, I agree but we must not forget that N. Korean tanks are what spearheaded their attack in the last Korean brouhaha. There was a considerable amount of tank action then, mountainous terrain or not.
However, we must remember that there aren't many Armor packages in the world today that can face up to an Abrams (especially the stuff that China or Russia exports). Think of the fun those Abrams jockeys will have if they have to go up against N. Korean tanks.

Still, as we have seen from recent events, Vizzini's advice against getting involved in a land war in Asia are still true


Click to hear.

XL, The German and South Korean tanks are a little superior to the Abrams i have heard.I don't know about the Russians but the Chinese most certainly can't match it.

Wonder who has the best artillery though.

If you gentlemen would please, i am looking forward to a discussion on the Korean situation and the military status of the surrounding countries.Including ours.

xl_target wrote:

timmy wrote:My understanding is that the DPRK has a large army, but it is not in very good shape regarding maintenance and upkeep. I'm not sure what they have regarding conventional strength, such as tanks and the like, but they sit within shelling distance of Seoul. If something breaks out, it seems to me it will very likely be quite messy. The Chinese have been feeding this wildlife cookies all along, and what they will do with a war on their shoulder is another big question mark.

Very True. The Chinese economy has been slowing. One would think that a costly war would not be what they want right now. Korea would be costly.

Not only that, there aren't many Armed Forces in this world who have the logistical capability of the US Armed Forces. NO ONE does logistics like the US. Even with the size of the Chinese Armed Forces and the size of their economy, I think they would be hard pressed to supply their armies at significant distances from China (especially if the conflict were to drag on for some time).

XL what I'm thinking about here is that the Chinese have more or less strapped themselves to the rotting corpse of the DPRK. This is because of ideological reasons, yes, but perhaps more, to give China a buffer between them and the USA and USA ally in South Korea. Remember, the last Korean conflict was escalated when USA troops approached the Chinese border. Then, too, the Chinese are very sensitive to unrest in the DPRK, because they don't want a horde of poor refugees swarming across their border seeking to escape the crushing economic conditions of their client state.

Not only has the DPRK been bamboozling us and our allies by throwing tantrums and getting its way, it has also done the same thing to the Chinese. Both sides, ours and the Chinese, are trapped by giving in to these spoiled brats so many times in the past.

The unknown, as I see it, is how the Chinese are going to react if retaliation starts? What would they do if bombs start to fall on DPRK cities and installations? What will they do if South Korean and USA troops cross the DMZ?

I fear the appeasement of these goons by both sides, the USA and the Chinese, has put off an ultimate reckoning with these people until now, when excising the wart could likely be quite painful for all involved.

Then, on top of that, why no news from Iran lately? Obviously, they are watching to see how much support the DPRK will get from China and to what lengths we will go to deal with the DPRK. They are watching to see how far the threat and tantrum tactics that they, too, have practiced will go. If the USA backs down now, as it did under Clinton and Bush, the ayatollahs will have a green light to threaten that region with their budding nuclear power just like the DPRK is. I think that the President knows this, and knows that his policy in Korea is tied directly into the whole Iranian nuclear program and the threat of an Israeli preemptive strike unhinging the Middle East -- he knows that Netanyahu will be under great pressure to act if the Iranians aren't discouraged by the North Korean example.

From my point of view, this whole business qualifies as a powder keg, and the issue of tank vs tank is a very small one in the overall picture. Certainly, the USA can deal with the DPRK Army. Certainly, the risks accompanying that, like the DPRK setting off an A bomb in Seoul, are very great. The Chinese reaction to our response to that A Bomb, or even a conventional war, is a very troublesome thing to me, as well as the lesson Iran derives from this whole situation.

Any conflict, or lack of it, between the USA and the DPRK holds the possibility of being just a primer to even more dire events.

Tim, good succinct observations. No good will come from a war in this region. You are also absolutely correct in that this could serve as a flashpoint for a greater conflict.

The DPRK is a pain in everyone's behind, including China's. It is obvious that if a war were to break out and the DPRK went at it alone, they would be crushed. China is dependent on the European and American markets and if those markets were closed off to them it would hurt them economically. If China were to help the DPRK prosecute a war, it is possible that those markets could be closed to them and I doubt they want that. Trying to survive on the Asian market alone would definitely hamper their growth.
You are also correct in that while tanks may win battles, they won't win a war by themselves. It takes a Combined Arms approach to do that. Very few countries have the resources to take a Combined Arms approach as well as the US (unless the pols try to micromange the war from Washington DC).

XL, The German and South Korean tanks are a little superior to the Abrams i have heard.I don't know about the Russians but the Chinese most certainly can't match it.

Wonder who has the best artillery though.

If you gentlemen would please, i am looking forward to a discussion on the Korean situation and the military status of the surrounding countries.Including ours.

Tanks:
What does a tank in today's battlefield require? Among other things, it requires an effective fire control system so it can be capable of acquiring and engaging a target or targets while on the move in all weather conditions. It also requires that it be armored well enough to survive attack by infantry hand held anti tank weapons, IED's and fire from other tanks.
It also requires good mobiilty; speed and range. Keep in mind that if your logisitcs system is good, you can keep them running longer and the internal fuel and ammo capacity is not such a big deal. If you do not have good logistics, then the internal fuel capacity and the internal ammo load becomes very important as it determines how far you can assault. The availability of support vehicles like bridging tanks and recovery tanks play important roles too.

While the South Korean tanks are supposed to be good, they have not been proven in combat. Till that happens, the effectiveness of their K1 and K1A1 tanks remains in question. On paper they seems pretty decent. Another thing to keep in mind is that while the South Koreans are capable of building pretty much anything, their tanks were designed elsewhere but built in Korea. The fire control system and the rangefinder is from Hughes, the primary Thermal sights are from Texas instruments. The armor is a type of Chobham Armor. The gun is the Rheinmetal L44 (like the Leopard and Abrams) The chassis is based on the General Dynamics XM1 (that developed into the US M1). While none of this is bad in itself, how good is the integration? We will have to wait and see. Hopefully we will never have to find out. It is quite possible that they will be more than a match for any tanks the DPRK fields.

The Leopard is a good tank too and while it has seen limited combat it has not seen tank to tank combat like the Abrams and Challenger. All we know about it is that it has very good survivability against IED's.

When talking about tanks one cannot forget the Challenger 2. This is an incredibly well armored tank and has demonstrated amazing survivability.

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[11] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[12]
In August 2006 in al-Amarah, a Soviet RPG-29 penetrated the frontal hull of a Challenger 2 through ERA in the area of the driver's cabin. The driver lost part of his foot and two more of the crew were also injured but the driver was able to reverse 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to an aid post. The incident was not made public until May 2007, in response to accusations, the MoD said "We have never claimed that the Challenger 2 is impenetrable."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

As Skyman requested some info about Indian tanks. The best tanks that India fields now is the T-90S,T-90M and T-90MS. They have composite armor and bolt-on reactive armor. While reactive armor is effective, it is a one-shot deal. Once a reactive panel has blown off, that area is now relatively unprotected till you refit new panels. However, the standard composite armor is supposed to be very good, even resisting penetration by M829 fire from 250 meters. The M829 is an American Armor-Piercing, Fin-Stabilized, Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) tank round used by the M1 and M1A1.

Artillery:
As the US has demonstrated in the two Gulf wars, it has pretty much mastered detection and interdiction of enemy artillery (counter battery fire). So for an enemy's artillery to be effective it must have some means of defeating the US's counter battery fire or it will only be able to get off a few salvoes before it is destroyed. With an almost assured US air superiority over any battlefield nowadays, simple "shoot and scoot" is not enough anymore.

A most informative post XL.The British do brag quite a bit about the Challenger on TV.

WRT artillery, can't other nations counter US fire as well?

For artillery duels and counter-battery fire, it is useful to read some about battles during WW1.

So, say the DPRK forces are going to launch an attack, or try to do some damage. What will they shoot? Buildings, installations, whatever. As soon as they open fire, they reveal their position and are liable to counter-battery fire. Perhaps the analogy here would be like a pair of boxers. To throw a punch, one boxer has to drop his guard, and during that time, he is liable to counter-punching.

This assumes that neither side knows where the other side's artillery is located. This is undoubtedly not true, at least in a few cases. Whatever surveillance or spying can be conducted will establish artillery locations, even before firing is commenced.

So to answer your question, anybody can engage in counter-battery fire, but such events are predicated on someone else shooting first!

As XL alludes to, training is a big part of this, as well, along with equipment. Artillerymen need to be trained in how to conduct counter-battery fire, and to bring effective fire upon an attacking artillery piece as soon as possible.

Ask yourself here, which force do you think has the best training?

Also, sound and optical equipment is used to determine location and range of a firing artillery piece.

Ask yourself again, which side do you think is going to have their forces equipped with all of the latest gadgets that will enable swift and accurate counter-battery fire?

The DPRK does have a large number of troops, but the nation is very poor -- so poor that many starve to death each year. Just feeding a large standing army drains what little the nation possesses. Corrupt leadership that builds private palaces and compounds drains this poor economy, as well as a nuclear program. Recall that, when the USA built its first bomb during WW2, something like 10% of the nation's electrical power was used in the process. The Manhattan Project was the single most expensive program of the war. How much in scarce resources do you think North Korea's bomb program drains from an already poor economy? I can assure you, they are not building bombs for nothing!

All this is to say, how much do you think North Korea can devote to high tech equipment and training? I would guess that some units are fairly well trained, but that most are not. On the other hand, US troops are battle hardened to a significant degree. Most know what it's like to be in harm's way and know what their function is.

Add to this, that US forces will almost certainly have air superiority from the get-go. Aircraft will also form a sort of counter-battery fire that the DPRK will not be able to muster, either in capability, numbers, or training.

No, if DPRK forces start something and USA forces are enabled by order, you can be sure they will be quite effective in providing a quick and effective response.

Skyman wrote:
WRT artillery, can't other nations counter US fire as well?

Yes, they can but the US uses radar to track incoming projectiles and computers to process and respond to the threat.
There are many components to the US counter battery system. They can be integrated into a communication net. Multiple assets in different locations can respond to a threat. The asset doing the counter battery fire does not have to be near where the enemy shell are landing. Some of the tools used are the M270 MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) and the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). The HIMARS has half the load out of the M270 but it is cheaper.
In the Gulf War, in some cases, MLRS rockets were launching before the first Iraqi shells hit the ground. The systems have since seen upgrades to make them more capable. Many of the Iraqi tubes were only able to fire once before being destroyed. The MLRS has a range of 42 kms firing unguided projectiles and 300 kms firing the US Army's ATACMS projectiles. One launcher firing twelve rockets can completely blanket one square kilometer with submunitions. For this reason, the MLRS is sometimes referred to as the "Grid Square Removal System".
There are other systems that are integrated into the fire control net, including the Paladin self propelled guns which is an incredible system in itself. The Paladin can automatically receive a fire mission and respond without human intervention.
There is also a system that allows mortar fire to be tracked and returned. It generally requires the enemy to fire two to three mortars before accurate fire can be returned. It is accurate enough to take out individual mortar tubes.


M270 MLRS


HIMARS


M109A6 Paladin

The Paladin can operate independently, from on the move, it can receive a fire mission, compute firing data, select and take up its firing position, automatically unlock and point its cannon, fire and move out - all with no external technical assistance. Firing the first round from the move in under 60 seconds, a "shoot and scoot" capability protects the crew from counterbattery fire. The M109A6 Paladin is capable of firing up to four rounds per minute to ranges of 30 kilometers. The Paladin features increased survivability characteristics such as day/night operability, NBC protection with climate control and secure voice and digital communications. The crew remains in the vehicle throughout the mission

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m109a6.htm

Here's what a Paladin mission might look like:

An excellent analysis Timmy.And a very thorough picture of what the Americans can rain down there XL.

Continuing - As Timmy pointed out, the past war has given the Allies some serious combat experience and they are now capable of coordinated and precise attacks delivering a high volume of firepower.Which means, USA is the most battle ready.Britain and France are not far behind.The Russian involvement might be limited, as will the Germans.The Canadians might be involved as well.Most other countries, especially India and China who have large standing Armies haven't really fought a war off late.If they are called in, they might have the men and the hardware but i doubt they will be a well oiled machine like the US is.Hence they could suffer losses.Am i right?

Also, what if there is not a conventional warfare but guerrilla warfare tactics employed by the losing side? Mobile squads could do some serious damage as the Afghan war has proved.They might not have the weapons, but crude devices used properly could level the playing field.

What do you think the Battle preparedness of the rest of the Main players is?

I do not see Russia taking up arms in any Korean conflict. Remember that this part of the world has a lot of history -- things forgotten by people who were not a part of them, but have not been and will never be forgotten by those who were involved.

By this, I mean that when the Great Powers (mostly a pre-WW1 term) were carving up China, the Japanese made the move to grab Korea and Manchuria. This power and land grab by the Japanese was ended by the Great Powers after the Sino-Japanese War in 1895. The Japanese were forced to give up their conquests and the Russians subsequently marched in and took most of Manchuria. The Japanese forced the Russians out with their victory in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. That war ended in an odd way: Russia was prostrate and beaten, and dealing with revolutionary movements. Japan had won, but had expended just about all it could.

You may check about how Japan had the Korean queen raped and murdered, and extended their "empire" over the peninsula. I can tell you that Koreans have not forgotten that, nor the more famous issue of "comfort women" that occurred later, during WW2. After WW1, the Japanese set up a puppet state in Manchuria to take advantage of that area's mineral wealth in the early 30s. This led to the Marco Polo Bridge incident in 1937, which kicked off a vicious war by Japan on China.

The USA thinks WW2 started on Dec. 7th, 1941. The Russians think the Soviet Union's WW2 began June 22, 1941. The British say that WW2 began on Sept. 3rd, 1939. That's how long it took them to honor their treaty agreement with Poland. Poland thinks (along with most of Europe) that WW2 began on Sept. 1, 1939. The Chinese will say it began in 1937 and some, in 1931,, when the Japanese set up the former emperor over the puppet state of Manchukuo.

At the end of WW2, the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan and rolled up the Japanese Manchurian Army, taking over a lot of Korea. North Korea was originally a Soviet client, not a Chinese one. (there's a little similarity to China's and the Soviet Union's relations over North Vietnam here.) The Chinese got involved with North Korea when US-led UN forces approached the Chinese border. Remember, this was a time when Mao had just bottled up the Nationalists in Taiwan. The Communists in Red China saw the US-led move as a threat against their newly installed regime, and North Korea moved into China's orbit as a buffer state.

I don't think that Russia has any intention of entering a war with North Korea. Russian relations with China have almost always been prickly (except during the early 50s) and the Russians have no overriding reason to get involved militarily in an area they were active in before, to China's detriment.

Japan, too, is a real problem. So many of their issues would be solved, were they to admit war guilt, but they will not do it. So how does Japan protect itself from North Korean aggression? Usually, they rely on the USA to do it, although they have built up capabilities of their own under the guise of a "self-defense force" rather than an Army. I've heard it said that Japan is maybe 6 months away from being able to produce their own A bomb, but have no idea if that is true or not. But nobody in that region wants to see a rearmed Japan: not China, not Korea, not The Philippines - nobody. Memories are too long. Japan is not going to be directly involved unless all the gloves come off, and by that time, things could be over with.

India has no real fish to fry in this that I can see, other than the Pakistani connection with the North Korean bomb program and it not being in India's interest to have the North Koreans doing what they do, or getting worse.

Regarding the Germans, French, and British: The Germans and French have little military capability and no ability to project it halfway around the world. The French can send a few teams into Libya or Mali, but they are hardly a threat to anyone. The Germans are not much different. When the War in Kosovo was over in the 90s, I saw French, German, and British diplomats on TV beating themselves on the back over how Europe had stood together and flexed military muscle to deal with the Muslim-Serb problem in the Balkans. Then the British guy pointed out that 95% of the military effort was provided by the USA, and relatively, all that Europe had contributed was talk. That situation is not much different regarding Korea.

The British do have some capability -- this is actually their "hole card" in the European Community." They don't have the economic clout of Germany or France on the continent, but they have a larger military establishment and can project power. They can also try to manage the Americans, as Tony Blair did in the Balkans. In a new Korean conflict, they will add their bit and provide moral and diplomatic support for the USA, but they will not be decisive.

Key here will be how the South Korean/US alliance can deal with the onslaught of the DPRK. If things can be settled quickly, without getting China upset, that will be the best outcome. This is going to be determined by DPRK numbers and South Korean/US expertise, superior weaponry, and air superiority.

If things are not settled quickly or if an A bomb is introduced, then China will be right in the middle of things. Things will get very sticky and Japan may get involved, which will throw a whole new factor into the equation.

At this point, I don't sense a threat of guerilla war. Unlike the Middle East or Afghanistan, there is no organization other than the central government in the DPRK. There are no tribes or weapons or training for anyone outside the DPRK armed forces. If those armed forces can be neutralized, that's the end of the story as far as that phase is concerned. But-- and this is a big but -- the Chinese are very unlikely to sit by and see North Korea absorbed into a full nation like East and West Germany were. So, any war "victory" by South Korea/USA forces is not going to be straightforward at all.

The USA is going to be tops in the area of preparedness, followed by South Korea. South Korea has money -- money to by the toys and afford the training for war. North Korea doesn't have too much money to do these things, but they have large numbers and, at the outset, will have dedicated fighting forces -- maybe.

Skyman,
Tim pretty much has the political and historical side covered. I wanted to share some of the technical side with you.

"Cluster Bombs" deliver multiple submunitions. They are nothing new. They were developed as far back as WW2.
Many of today's submunitions are "smart" and they greatly increase the effect of the weapon.


Here is other end of a MLRS fire mission. The effect of all the submunitions dropping and their after effects is literally a "Steel Rain".
Cluster munitions can be devastating.
[youtube][/youtube]

Here are some M77 cluster submunition.

"Steel Rain" - M77 DPICM submunition of type used by MLRS M26 rocket. There are 644 M77s per rocket.
The M77 was developed from the M483A1 that was developed for artillery shells. This would be used for soft targets and personnel.

Many US allies have acquired and operate the MLRS including the UK and South Korea.
[youtube][/youtube]
Here is a compilation of some British Army MLRS units. Remember, each rocket contains 677 submunitions.
I'd hate to be on the receiving end of this barrage.

Talking about reducing an armored column: Here is the CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon.
The CBU-97 is one of the ways that the BLU-108 submunition can be delivered.
[youtube][/youtube]
CBU-97

Here is a simulation of the CBU-105; another air launched delivery system for the BLU-108.
Note: India has acquired the CBU-105 from the US.
[youtube][/youtube]
CBU-105

[youtube][/youtube]
BLU-108: It can be delivered by cruise missiles, aircraft and even by the MLRS.

WoW - Phew! Nice discussion,

I am enjoying it totally....however - I must admit these political munitions are all flying a little over my head...

Great dialogue there xl_target and timmy my respects to you both - very knowledgeable, well informed and up-to-date information and analysis!

Thank you gentlemen

A most sensible analysis Timmy.Your pointing out France and Germany can contribute little militarily is surprising to say the least.I thought the beating they took in the war would lead France and Germany to build up militarily to counter a Russian attack at least.They are relatively wealthy.Germany has a lot of gun makers and a strong tank heritage.Are you sure they matter little?

I agree a complicating Korean situation will draw in China, and strangely Japan.The US-SK alliance has tremendous air resources.I think an Iran-like bombing of installations might occur as a preventive measure.Not to mention, how the Korean situation is handled will impact the middle east peace process.

XL, thanks for the swathe of videos.I do believe the simply superb JDAM bomb works the same way?

Continuing, I would like your take on the state of the Indian army,navy and air force.How to they compare to the major powers? Can we hold out against attack? I for one am quite frightened at the prospect of war.If say the Chinese attack us, i am afraid we will have our pants pulled down.

I hear Russian military power is in decline?