The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Not Good https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1579 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Loki [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:09 am ] |
Post subject: | Not Good |
North and South Korea exchanging artillery rounds? Spoiler: Here is the Washington Post's article. Hopefully this doesn't escalate into something larger. Thoughts? |
Author: | Hopwin [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:01 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I thought they did this every few years. |
Author: | Micheal [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:30 am ] |
Post subject: | |
They do. The US/UN presence in South Korea is the only thing keeping the war from starting up again. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:34 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Not Good |
They do. Note that this last happened 7 years ago. That's sort of a long gap, but the fact that it occured again indicates nothing has changed. Occasional exchanges of gunfire across the DMZ have been part and parcel of the "armistice" that's been in place since 1953. This is just NK demonstrating that A) its military is in a sorrier state than ever; it has outmoded equipment and relies almost completely on manpower and large numbers of artillery and antiaircraft guns to compensate and B) that it either doesn't grasp this or doesn't care. As an aside, this was an exchange of naval gunfire, not artillery fire. Artillery refers to land-based weapons systems (although they can be used to engage naval targets) including both rockets and cannons, and in some circumstances some types of missiles as well. Naval gunfire is used for sea systems for a number of reasons 1) Naval cannons are almost always guns. Cannon means any tube used to fire explosive shells that are propelled primarily by burning propellant inside the tube, as opposed to a rocket motor, although some shells are augmented by a rocket motor. Gun, although frequently used interchangably with the terms cannon and howitzer refers to a weapon that fires at high muzzle velocities at relatively flat trajectories either in order to increase range (land-based guns such as the Russian 2S5 and 2S7) or in order to increase armor penetration and decrease time of flight when used to directly engage the enemy by the using platform (naval guns of all types). Do not attempt to apply these terms to weapons smaller than about 60mm; there are a number of weapons in the .50cal to 40mm range that make the terminology break down. 2) The vast majority of land-based artillery is howitzers. Although usually rather similar in appearance to land-based guns, a howitzer often has a somewhat shorter barrel because it is most frequently used to fire at medium elevations and medium velocities. This allows for greater accuracy in indirect fire because there is much less range error along the line from the cannon to the target, but makes the weapon less suitable for direct fire. Usually, however, howitzers can use their most powerful propellants for self-defense in direct fire. Mortars fire at low velocities and high angles and are used exclusively for indirect fire. 3) Do not confuse indirect fire with indirect lay. Indirect fire is when computations are performed (even if it's nothing more than a single person with a 60mm mortar eyeballing/guessing) to make a shell arrive at a specific point on the ground by travelling in a ballistic arc. Indirect lay is when, rather than aiming at the target, a known point on the ground is "aimed" at using an appropriate sighting system (or, in newer systems with INS or GPS, the location of the system itself is known with great precision) and computations are used to make the shell arrive at the target using mathematical models of the earth, weather conditions, etc. Yes, all projectiles travel in a ballistic arc to some degree and there is no definite deliniation point between direct and indirect fire. Basically, it's like the difference between throwing a baseball and a basketball; you know which one gets thrown straight at the target and which one is more of an arc. The vast majority of the time, indirect lay and indirect fire are used together and the same for direct lay and fire. I cannot think of any instance where indirect lay and direct fire are used together. However, it is not unknown to use direct lay with indirect fire. The 40mm grenade launcher carried under the M-16 is a prime example; the soldier looks through the sights directly at his target, then fires the grenade in an arc towards it; the sights assist him in computing this. The 60mm mortar can do the same thing although that is the least preferred method. Ships also do this when engaging each other at medium to long range. 4) Returning to the article; the difference between naval gunfire and artillery is significant because land-based engagements have much more propensity to escalate into wider conflict than naval, simply because that's where an invasion is going to occur, and because land-based engagement is vastly more likely to hurt civilians and damage their property. Hence the reason for my correction on the term; "artillery" implies land-based fighting. The political implications are significantly different. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:48 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Micheal wrote: They do. The US/UN presence in South Korea is the only thing keeping the war from starting up again. There's some degree of truth to this, but it's been less and less true over time. SK is not the military pygmy it was in the 1950s. It has a large, powerful, well-equipped military that is trained exceedingly well. I would put it on par with Israel. (In my personal opinion, SK and Israel have the best trained militaries in the overall aggregate in the world; the U.S., Australia, Canada, Britain, and France are the next tier down. I don't try to rank more exactly than that because it's very much a judgement call as it is). NK has a very large military, but like I said earlier, it is outmoded, its troops are poorly fed and equipped, and it has little ability to defend itself from air attack. Basically, NK is protected from SK attack by 2 things: 1) SK does not want to have to clean up that mess and 2) NK has vast amounts of artillery that can be used to fire chemical weapons in the area north of Seoul; its longest-ranged guns and rockets can reach the city. (Even if NK has a working nuclear device it is highly unlikely that it has been miniaturized enough to fit in an artillery rocket) SK is protected from NK attack by A) the fact that the U.S. is there B) It's military has vast technological and logistical superiority and far better training C) If NK does attack it's a repeat of the same problem they had in the first war; it's a penninsula. Even if they push SK back, their flanks and supply lines just get longer and longer and more open to amphibious assault, not to mention air attack. At this point, the main reason we need to stay in SK is the fact that the NK government is not really entirely rational. It is entirely possible that they may come to the point where they "use it or lose it" with their military, and that might very well involve gassing Seoul. Allowing the gassing of a friendly nation's capital without becoming involved would be about the worst thing possible that could happen in terms of our global situation short of global thermonuclear war. Essentially, any nation that is friendly to us, engages in trade with us, or otherwise is important to our economic or security situation would feel (as would their and our enemies) that they would no longer be protected by the U.S. even if hundreds of thousands of their citizens were being attacked with weapons of mass destruction. ROK armed forces DPRK military |
Author: | Micheal [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:21 am ] |
Post subject: | |
The way my brother-in-law the Colonel put it, "The US is there to protect North Korea from South Korea, not the other way around. If the US pulled out it would get bloody within weeks, if not days. The military of the two countries hate each other with a passion that makes our civil war seem like a picnic." Admittedly, it was about ten years ago that we talked about it. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Micheal wrote: The way my brother-in-law the Colonel put it, "The US is there to protect North Korea from South Korea, not the other way around. If the US pulled out it would get bloody within weeks, if not days. The military of the two countries hate each other with a passion that makes our civil war seem like a picnic." Admittedly, it was about ten years ago that we talked about it. In regards to the emotional aspect of it, I'd say the part about the militaries hating each other is true. It probably has a lot to do with these occasionaly shooting matches. In regard to us protecting the North from the South.. that's essentially exaggeration for effect. The ROK can kick the DPRKs *** in a conventional battle any time it wants to. I don't, however, think the ROK military is willing to risk the consequences to its own civilian population just to have it out with the DPRK. Remember Seoul has 10 million inhabitants, and if you include the Inchon metropolitan area, that goes up to 25 million; the second largest in the world. A great portion of the military will live or have relatives in that area and they no more willing to risk their economic, industrial, cultural and other resources than we are. It's much more a matter of how much Kim Jong Il/the DPRK government/military feels like rolling the dice if the U.S. pulls out, or feels emboldened to provoke the South. Most likely, they'd up the provocations, hoping the South would attack, and then claim victim status while fighting a defensive war and thereby avoiding some of the problems I cited above. Of course, no one is likely to be fooled and they're likely to get their asses kicked in the process. Communist leaders have a bad havit of thinking their ideology is a battlefield advantage. They might survive if China intervenes, but if it's only SK doing the fighting, they aren't likely to. Even the first go-round they had indicated they had no problem with SK troops pushing to the Yalu; it was fear of the U.S. that made them intervene and.. well them days are gone. Our relations with China these days are worlds better, and their sympathy for the DPRK is.. rather less than it was. |
Author: | Loki [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Thanks for the clarifications on military terms DE! |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Loki wrote: Thanks for the clarifications on military terms DE! No problem. Sorry if I sounded like I was getting on your case for it; it just helps to keep everyone on the same sheet of music. We have enough argument about labels around here as it is. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
To add to the confusion from the original article, in a related event they (NK) actually were firing artillery as well, while SK responded with Vulcan fire. NK said it was training, and SK said they fired in the air to show they weren't intimidated. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Not Good |
I'd like to see this related event. I don't quite get how you respond to artillery fire with Vulcan fire, and in any case a Vulcan can be mounted on several different platforms for several purposes, and is also often misused as a term to refer to any rotary cannon. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:10 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Courtesy of Google: Report Spoiler: Report Spoiler: Report Spoiler: Report Spoiler: Report Spoiler: Report Spoiler: |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Not Good |
Ok, aside from the last moron implying that they were actually shooting at each other, ("exchanging" and "trading" fire) this is really just the usual posturing on both sides. NK fires some artillery that lands in its sea sector causing no damage and the south shoots off some rounds from what apparently was a Vulcan cannon or something similar... This is just the North engaging in the usual "nyah nyah I'm not touching you" game it plays and the South.. doing I don't know what, or at least I have no idea why they even bothered to shoot. How exactly you fire "warning shots" in response to artillery fire with a Vulcan cannon is beyond me. I suspect a lot of the details are obscured by reporters using terms they don't properly understand. |
Author: | Ladas [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Well, if the different articles are related to the same incident, could the "warning" shots from the vulcan cannons been at a NK "spotter" boat in the area as part of the "exercise"? |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Ladas wrote: Well, if the different articles are related to the same incident, could the "warning" shots from the vulcan cannons been at a NK "spotter" boat in the area as part of the "exercise"? Possible, but highly unlikely. I'm assuming that by "Vulcan cannon" they mean the K-263, the air defense varient of the K-200 armored fighting vehicle. This varient is armed with a 20mm rotary cannon firing 3000 rounds per minute. Against ground targets, the system is listed as having an effecive range of 2km. That's awfully short range for a shore-based vehicle to shoot at a boat with, especially since the boat would obviously be not only offshore but north of the vehicle. That's also assuming that they, for some reason, had an air defense vehicle right up there on shore for some reason. Even if the authors are referring to some other system with greater range as a "Vulcan cannon" I'm assuming its some sort of rapid-firing air defense cannon. The main reason to make a cannon that both fires rapidly enough to be mistaken for a vulcan and also would have long enough range that it could have been shooting at a ship is for air defense, and that leaves open the question of why you'd have it on shore there. There's also the issue that warning shots fired at an NK boat would land in NK waters and they'd doubtless make a stink over that too. A ship could have mounted one of several rotary cannon and done that, but those are normally anti-missile systems; slower firing but larger guns are more frequently used on surface targets. There's also the problem of having a ship hanging out right there at the line and firing into NK waters neither of which seems likely and the lack of mention of any ship. So no, I consider that unlikely. |
Author: | Ladas [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:13 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I was thinking SK ship firing on NK spotting/patrol craft, not a vehicle firing at a ship. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:24 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Not Good |
That's slightly more likely than the vehicle, but still unlikely for several reasons: 1) No ships or aircraft of either side were mentioned 2) When a ship or aircraft engages in some form of combat (even firing "warning shots") reporters refer to the ship or aircraft, not to their weapons systems without mentioning the ship or aircraft 3) Any "warning shots" would, of necessity, land in NK waters and be regarded as a provocation 4) Most importantly, it would be very difficult for a ship or airplane to make any useful spotting on land-based artillery fired into the water. If there had been some mention of an NK ship towing a target, that would make it far more likely, but there was none mentioned The reason for this is that because the water is flat and essentially featureless, it's very hard to tell where rounds are landing. An observer on shore can give where they land in terms of direction and distance from his own location or a known point on the shore, but a ship or aircraft would only be able to do so in relation to a known point on the shore. Without modern GPS systems which NK doesn't have, a ship cannot self-locate accurately enough for accurate fire based on a polar method (direction/distance relative to observer) and an airplane would never use such a method anyhow since they don't stay still. A helicopter might, but it would have the same problem over water as a ship. When ships fire at each other, this isn't a problem because the ship is not using indirect lay (which I discussed above); it's laying directly based on the direction and distance from itself to the target. Artillery would be laying indirectly, and in any case, it's much easier to determine whether you're accurately firing at a ship than at a random point in the ocean. Moreover, I really don't buy that this was artillery training for the North in the first place. They were just shooting into the water to annoy the South. If they wanted to practice, they would fire at a land target where observers could locate a point on the ground to designate as a target and then adjust fire onto, or, if they wanted to practice against naval targets they'd use a towed target. Just shooting into the water doesn't tell you whether you're being accurate or not. It's definitely not good practice for observers, and observers are just as essential to good artillery procedure as the guns or fire direction center. If you'd like to read more on the technical details, FM 6-30 and 6-40 (numbers may have changed under the new numbering system but you should still be able to find them by googling the old numbers) will discuss Observer procedures and cannon gunnery at length. |
Author: | Ladas [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:00 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Not trying to start an argument, but trying to resolve the first article, which says: Quote: outh Korean officials said a badly damaged North Korean patrol ship retreated in flames after crossing into South Korean waters.
It was not clear whether there were any injuries or deaths aboard the North Korean vessel. North Korea issued a statement that blamed the South for "grave armed provocation," saying that ships from South Korea crossed into the North's territory. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:23 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Ladas wrote: Not trying to start an argument, but trying to resolve the first article, which says: Quote: outh Korean officials said a badly damaged North Korean patrol ship retreated in flames after crossing into South Korean waters. It was not clear whether there were any injuries or deaths aboard the North Korean vessel. North Korea issued a statement that blamed the South for "grave armed provocation," saying that ships from South Korea crossed into the North's territory. Ok, I understand the confusion now. The first article, that started the thread, was about a fight between a North Korean and South Korean ship. The set of articles Vindi linked is about a separate incident that also happened recently where NK fired some artillery rounds into the ocean just north of its own border, and SK apparently fired some sort of rotary ("Vulcan") cannon at some unknown target. What I was discussing above was this second set of articles, which did not mention any ships or aircraft. One of the articles characterized the South Korean firing as a "warning shot", which I found rather silly for the reasons I outlined. I don't believe they are the same incident; they don't seem to be describing the same events and the article Loki posted was from November 11th while Vindi's are from yesterday. |
Author: | Ladas [ Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:29 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Ahh, I missed the separation in time and thought all the articles were different, or updated, versions of the same incident. My mistake. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |