# When North Korean soldiers meet a modern army



## Bullgrit (Apr 12, 2013)

I'm not looking to make a political discussion in any way. I don't mean to belittle anyone, nor to start an argument about who starts what in the real world. But recently reading articles and seeing pictures of the North Korean army, this thought came to mind.

Can you imagine what the reaction will be for the NK soldiers if/when they come face to face with American or South Korean soldiers. 

The NK soldiers average 5'5" height, and [guessing] 110?# weight. They seem to use and wear 1950's, (maybe 70s), uniforms and war gear, apparently (judging from pictures) with minimal equipment and ammunition. They've had no exposure to the rest of the world. So I would imagine they'd see fully geared-up American soldiers as almost mythological monsters, giants with sci-fi war tech -- almost 6' tall, 170#, plus body armor, ammunition, and various 21st century gear. 

This idea fascinates me. It would be not just a clash of cultures, but almost like some kind science fiction, alien invasion story from Hollywood. What do you think?

Here are some pictures to illustrate the idea:

















Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Apr 12, 2013)

I think you may be comparing what one side looks like in the field to what the other side looks like when kitted out in dress uniform for photo opportunities.


----------



## Bullgrit (Apr 12, 2013)

Yes, I do realize that. I've seen photos of some NK soldiers supposedly "in the field" and they look similar to the first pic above. But there's no way to know for sure if that is truly their battle gear, but considering their situation, I suspect it's at least close.

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit (Apr 12, 2013)




----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 12, 2013)

WWII was not so different in this respect. The Japanese aren't exactly tall either, but they proved formidable combatants. In some cases, it was probably an advantage.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 12, 2013)

I think weapons, tactics and technology matter a lot more than height when you are talking about modern warfare.


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 12, 2013)

And don't ignore the added benefit that Nor.K. forces are back up by a leader willing to use the nukes he has as part of an attack strategy rather than merely as deterrent.

On WWII Japan: Centuries of God-Emperor worship & romanticizing the warriors code did wonders for fighting moral. Fighting was anticipated to be so brutal, that the reserve of Purple Hearts the US had commissioned for the planned invasion lasted into the next century.

Speaking of Japan...


----------



## Bullgrit (Apr 12, 2013)

I'm not talking about how a fight/battle/war would go. I'm talking about the reaction of a common/average/normal NK soldier on being confronted (not necessarily in a combat situation) by a modern soldier of a 1st-world nation.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 12, 2013)

My guess is that they'd react pretty much like any soldier seeing combat for the first time.


----------



## jonesy (Apr 12, 2013)

I think they would think that the avarage american soldier was weighted down by pointless gadgets and gizmos, because the avarage NK soldier probably wouldn't know why all that suff was there.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 12, 2013)

Leadership, training, and motivation trump equipment.  If anything, the Inmin Gun has motivation in spades.  But yes, they'd be outclassed by any modern, professional army.


----------



## Derren (Apr 13, 2013)

In the age of ranged weapons and tanks being a bigger target isn't quite an advantage like it used to be.
And the usual combat ranges of today are so large that a few centimeters size difference won't be enough to intimidate anyone. They will hardly even notice when they shoot at each other from 100 meters.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 13, 2013)

And indeed, probably can't notice the difference that range.


----------



## Janx (Apr 13, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And indeed, probably can't notice the difference that range.




Well, not only that, both sides have guns that probably function reasonably well.

It's not like the NK are shooting rusty muskets at guys holding M16s.

Once both sides are shooting decent semi-automatic weapons or better, one side's guns being newer/fancier aren't as big a factor.

A modern soldier with body armor getting hit will still probably go down.  it's already known that getting hit on the kevlar vest will hurt like heck, and probably take the wind out of you.  Not fully the same as killing a guy, but it will disable him for a better chance to shoot him again in an unprotected spot.

the bigger factor is discipline and tactics.  If the NK run like little girls at the first sign of trouble, it's a no brainer what the outcome will be.  If the NK have good morale and squad tactics you'll do OK.
Which really, if you've been training and thinking as a professional soldier about it, you'd come to the same conclusions the american professional soldiers have.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 15, 2013)

It will be like it has been in past situations, I suppose. Yeah, initial victories are easy, major cities are conquered quickly, infrastructure is taken. But if there remains a loyal group of soldiers (or normal citizen) that want to fight their so called "liberators", things will get ugly. 

A Kevlar vest has a big advantage - it protects a soldier from dying. This is always nice to have, except that a living but injured soldier requires attention or treatment, which is not necessarily a tactical advantage.


----------



## Nytmare (Apr 15, 2013)

I think that, after having seen Dennis Rodman, there's very little that a first world soldier would be able to dress up in that would shock a North Korean soldier.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if North Koreans hadn't been shown a blooper reel of propaganda footage with American soldiers tripping over their shoelaces and running around like a bunch of Keystone Cops.  

"The American soldiers, pressed into service for crimes they committed  on their families, can barely lift their mostly broken weapons because they are weak after a long winter of eating nothing but melted snow.  They are weighed down by good luck charms given to them by their mothers.  They train with these pies because they are afraid.  They are like pumpkins falling to the ground."


----------



## howandwhy99 (Apr 15, 2013)

I have to agree with  [MENTION=5868]Olgar Shiverstone[/MENTION]. Soldiers are people first, equipment only after the fact. A good soldier can succeed even barehanded when facing an untrained and scared opponent with superior equipment. Don't get me wrong. On any stereotypical gaming board it would be rare to have anyone deny the importance of good training in strategy and tactics. But I would be more willing to agree to the difference being about the combat wear worn - At least if you posted the other side as in, say, a Mobile Suit Gundam.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Apr 15, 2013)

If a war were to happen in winter on NK soil it would be as disastrous for most armies as German invasion of Russia was during WWII. When it comes to surviving severe winter conditions with almost no gear, the NK are number one.

-Sent via a cybernetic device.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 15, 2013)

I'd rank 'em behind Afghani rebels, actually.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 15, 2013)

Relique du Madde said:


> If a war were to happen in winter on NK soil it would be as disastrous for most armies as German invasion of Russia was during WWII.




I wouldn't think it would be as bad, for one simple reason:  North Korea is all of the size of New England.  Russia is, well, the size of Russia.  The Russians could retreat basically forever, drawing an enemy into longer and longer supply lines.  North Korea does not have that option.


----------



## Nytmare (Apr 15, 2013)

Relique du Madde said:


> If a war were to happen in winter on NK soil it would be as disastrous for most armies as German invasion of Russia was during WWII.




You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia."

Let me start off by saying that I do not in any way think that any of this is going to result in any kind of armed conflict.  I am completely of the opinion that this is 100% posturing on the part of the North Korean government to sweep public opinion within its borders against an imagined enemy.

That being said, you're talking about a country roughly the size of Pennsylvania (Korea is 45K sq miles) vs a country the size of 150 Pennsylvanias (Russia was roughly 6.6 million sq miles).  You can't fit enough troops on North Korean soil for the upkeep of a winter engagement to be disastrous.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 16, 2013)

Winter?  Not so much.  The Afghans basically go home in winter; the US's cold weather gear now allows soldiers to fight in conditions that few armies in history would be able to sustain -- US units with ECWCS III have maintained offensive operations in the high mountains in the depth of winter.  When the ground freezes in Korea it dramatically increases the mobility of armored formations, and the reduction in overhead cover gives an advantage to aviation and makes effective camouflage and infiltration difficult.

The best season in which to attack south is early summer -- good cover for infiltration, and full rice paddies make mechanized maneuver difficult.


----------

