Afghanistan
Comments
-
British Army - 82,000 regular.
NK: 1,280,000
Yeah, BB, you go and pick a scrap with them..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
BB - I'll get some webbing but obviously with not all the pouches you need, just those you are entitled to) and a rubbish rifle for you from stores and you can crack on against this lot with your 6 mags of 30 rounds.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/north-koreas-military-capabilities.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
@TheBigBean I suspect I have greater knowledge of
Never ever believe you have more knowledge than someone else. Let them run their mouth off first, then that is your chance.0 -
0
-
I know they are not well funded (although I guess that implies a definition of what 'well funded' is - does it just mean as well funded as the good old days? Or well funded enough to do x?) but I am very ignorant of actual numbers.MattFalle said:
correct.pangolin said:
Google says their army is around 2 million if you include reserves - do we really not have that may bullets?MattFalle said:
eh? seriously? sorry, but you're massively wrong.TheBigBean said:
Many Koreans have long objected to the presence of US troops; however, the success of the Taliban has made them question whether they too could be overrun and whether, perhaps, they should be a bit more grateful. Personally, I think there is almost no chance the north would try to invade and no chance they would do so successfully. Not least because their army is much more like the Afghan one - large in theory, low in willingness to fight.surrey_commuter said:
It was a success in half of Korea but have not really left.
NK would crush anyone by sheer weight of numbers, a properly trained and equipped army, massive backing by Russia and China and sheer ideological force by in the military and the general populace.
Plus they have nuclear weapons, even if they a bitshit.
We worked it out and if every bullet the British Army had hit its target and took it out you still couldn't take out the NK army.
Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
Completely totally the opposite of ANA. They are/were just totesshit.
we have buggerall. we don't even have enough boots, rifles, field dressings or tourniquets.
and what we do have - well, most is totalrubbish. Boots that fall apart anyone? One size fits no one clothing? Land Rovers? Ffs, Land Rovers....
why do you think everyone buys their own stuff?
do people honestly believe the British military is well equipped and funded?
Can't see us having much appetite for a land war in Korea.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
We spend significant sums on weapons that mean we don't have to do things face to face. I am sure over a million NK solidiers can survive couple of nuclear strikes should they be dumb enough to leave their country/prison. For sure if we wanted to invade NK and then instigate regime change we would have issues. Who here seriously thinks this is a serious prospect in the next 50 years given they are miles away and likely to pick a fight with others first that ends badly.2
-
Not sure the UK's army is relevant to this.MattFalle said:BB - I'll get some webbing but obviously with not all the pouches you need, just those you are entitled to) and a rubbish rifle for you from stores and you can crack on against this lot with your 6 mags of 30 rounds.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/north-koreas-military-capabilities
Here is some military analysis for you of a battle between ROK (S. Korea) and KPA (N. Korea). As mentioned previously China's interest is in keeping the status quo and not supporting an attack.
It doesn't factor in my suspicion that a lot of the KPA will happily give up in exchange for a better life.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/03/18/state-of-north-korean-military-pub-81232In many respects, KPA forces have a powerful numerical advantage, as Pyongyang has more military assets than the ROK armed forces across all three services. Since a significant portion of the KPA is deployed along or close to the Demilitarized Zone and Seoul only lies 50 kilometers from the MDL, the KPA’s conventional forces with numerous long-range artilleries remains a major source of concern.
Nevertheless, the quality of a nation’s military assets is more important than sheer numbers. Combat troops must be well-trained and well-provisioned, but this is not always a given in the case of North Korea. The country’s deteriorating economic conditions have hindered its ability to maximize the quality of its military assets, while South Korea has continuously improved its capabilities. One of the reasons why North Korea has emphasized nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles is precisely because of the growing qualitative edge of the ROK’s conventional forces.
The KPA forces are concentrated near the MDL so that if and when war breaks out, they would be deployed immediately. While the KPA’s surprise-based tactics could do significant damage in the early days of a conflict, because the KPA’s capabilities do not surpass those of the ROK Armed Forces, any early advantage would quickly be lost.
When factoring in U.S. support of the ROK response, South Korea’s advantage becomes even more decisive. That said, the military balance on the peninsula would become murky if China, or even Russia, were to intervene in such a conflict on North Korea’s behalf. China prioritizes stability on the peninsula, though exactly how and when that would motivate it to intervene is unclear. On the one hand, Beijing, Seoul, and Washington would all share the common goal of preventing Pyongyang from using its nuclear weapons, and China would also seek to deescalate conflict to prevent a flow of refugees over its border and wider regional instability.
On the other hand, China has broader geostrategic interests at play too. If the outcome of a conflict could conceivably shift the balance of power on the peninsula in favor of the United States, Beijing’s calculations would change accordingly. If, for instance, allied forces were to cross the thirty-eighth parallel or if it appeared that the Kim regime were about to collapse, China would be incentivized to intervene to ensure the DPRK survives, like when Beijing stepped in during the Korean War. At the end of the day, while the disparity between North and South Korea’s armies is readily apparent, the intervention of their allies and added incentives to maintain the status quo on the peninsula in the context of U.S.-China strategic competition may ultimately determine the outcome of a conflict.0 -
ah dude, its been cut back after cut back after cut back year after year.....pangolin said:
I know they are not well funded (although I guess that implies a definition of what 'well funded' is - does it just mean as well funded as the good old days? Or well funded enough to do x?) but I am very ignorant of actual numbers.MattFalle said:
correct.pangolin said:
Google says their army is around 2 million if you include reserves - do we really not have that may bullets?MattFalle said:
eh? seriously? sorry, but you're massively wrong.TheBigBean said:
Many Koreans have long objected to the presence of US troops; however, the success of the Taliban has made them question whether they too could be overrun and whether, perhaps, they should be a bit more grateful. Personally, I think there is almost no chance the north would try to invade and no chance they would do so successfully. Not least because their army is much more like the Afghan one - large in theory, low in willingness to fight.surrey_commuter said:
It was a success in half of Korea but have not really left.
NK would crush anyone by sheer weight of numbers, a properly trained and equipped army, massive backing by Russia and China and sheer ideological force by in the military and the general populace.
Plus they have nuclear weapons, even if they a bitshit.
We worked it out and if every bullet the British Army had hit its target and took it out you still couldn't take out the NK army.
Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
Completely totally the opposite of ANA. They are/were just totesshit.
we have buggerall. we don't even have enough boots, rifles, field dressings or tourniquets.
and what we do have - well, most is totalrubbish. Boots that fall apart anyone? One size fits no one clothing? Land Rovers? Ffs, Land Rovers....
why do you think everyone buys their own stuff?
do people honestly believe the British military is well equipped and funded?
Can't see us having much appetite for a land war in Korea.
lack of equipt generally and what we do have is rubbish. I shall say again, Land Rovers. Ffs.
lack of training
lack of resources
and its not even wanting to be extravagant..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
"suspect" implies that it might not be the case, but as the conversation has changed to the state of the British army's boots, I am gaining in confidence.shimanobottombracket said:@TheBigBean I suspect I have greater knowledge of
Never ever believe you have more knowledge than someone else. Let them run their mouth off first, then that is your chance.0 -
errr - no. it moved that way to point out that the British Army isn't that great and the NK really wouldn't be too worried about taking it on.
If you want a geo political discussion based on an ideologically based macro economy of a hermit nation backed by the two biggest econonues in the world then unfortunately you're still talking total and utter websters.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
There's a certain dark symmetry.TheBigBean said:
Reading a bit more about this, it seems the flag is a serious point and something there is a lot of passion about.TheBigBean said:Protests, according to a tweet on the BBC, in Jalabad about not wanting to change the flag.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Wait, they're outdated AND out of date?MattFalle said:Britain has c. 250 out of date Chally 2s, many of which are broken and/or outdated.
NK has c 4,500 main battle tanks.
Even if, say, 60% of them are broken its still scary.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Could I clarify what on Earth this means and in this debate are we invading NK or are they invading the UK?MattFalle said:errr - no. it moved that way to point out that the British Army isn't that great and the NK really wouldn't be too worried about taking it on.
If you want a geo political discussion based on an ideologically based macro economy of a hermit nation backed by the two biggest econonues in the world then unfortunately you're still talking total and utter websters0 -
yes. shocking innit.rjsterry said:
Wait, they're outdated AND out of date?MattFalle said:Britain has c. 250 out of date Chally 2s, many of which are broken and/or outdated.
NK has c 4,500 main battle tanks.
Even if, say, 60% of them are broken its still scary..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
depends if you are part of the diplomatic negotiating team, in which case we're allfucked.surrey_commuter said:
Could I clarify what on Earth this means and in this debate are we invading NK or are they invading the UK?MattFalle said:errr - no. it moved that way to point out that the British Army isn't that great and the NK really wouldn't be too worried about taking it on.
If you want a geo political discussion based on an ideologically based macro economy of a hermit nation backed by the two biggest econonues in the world then unfortunately you're still talking total and utter websters.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
-
Indeed - only browsed the highlight vids on the BBC news but it does seem like a level of serious and mature debate / discussion - something that has been noticeably absent for some years. Not a fan of T May but she is bang on with her comments.rick_chasey said:If anyone is paying attention to the parliamentary debate, it's worth a listen.
0 -
MattFalle said:
depends if you are part of the diplomatic negotiating team, in which case we're allfucked.surrey_commuter said:
Could I clarify what on Earth this means and in this debate are we invading NK or are they invading the UK?MattFalle said:errr - no. it moved that way to point out that the British Army isn't that great and the NK really wouldn't be too worried about taking it on.
If you want a geo political discussion based on an ideologically based macro economy of a hermit nation backed by the two biggest econonues in the world then unfortunately you're still talking total and utter websters
I am still trying to think of any nations backed by USA and China before working out which would be classed as hermits 1 -
Worth a watch. Tom Tugenhadt who served in Afghan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-582595090 -
Didn't the UK stop fighting in Afghanistan years ago?0
-
they are just pulling out now, I am a bit surprised you have not noticed as it has created a bit of a stirkingstongraham said:Didn't the UK stop fighting in Afghanistan years ago?
0 -
yes, "The British combat mission ended with the handover of Camp Bastion to Afghan forces on 26 October 2014. British troops have remained in Afghanistan since in a training and advisory role based in Kabul and Helmand"kingstongraham said:Didn't the UK stop fighting in Afghanistan years ago?
0 -
Is the argument really that we should have started again now?darkhairedlord said:
yes, "The British combat mission ended with the handover of Camp Bastion to Afghan forces on 26 October 2014. British troops have remained in Afghanistan since in a training and advisory role based in Kabul and Helmand"kingstongraham said:Didn't the UK stop fighting in Afghanistan years ago?
0 -
I don’t think the average man in the street has any idea how few spare troops we have to deploy and our limited ability to move them and support them with things like helicopters and planes.kingstongraham said:
Is the argument really that we should have started again now?darkhairedlord said:
yes, "The British combat mission ended with the handover of Camp Bastion to Afghan forces on 26 October 2014. British troops have remained in Afghanistan since in a training and advisory role based in Kabul and Helmand"kingstongraham said:Didn't the UK stop fighting in Afghanistan years ago?
On the plus side we do have two shiny aircraft carriers.
On the downside, on our own we would struggle to hold the airport0 -
surrey_commuter said:
I don’t think the average man in the street has any idea how few spare troops we have to deploy and our limited ability to move them and support them with things like helicopters and planes.kingstongraham said:
Is the argument really that we should have started again now?darkhairedlord said:
yes, "The British combat mission ended with the handover of Camp Bastion to Afghan forces on 26 October 2014. British troops have remained in Afghanistan since in a training and advisory role based in Kabul and Helmand"kingstongraham said:Didn't the UK stop fighting in Afghanistan years ago?
But you do
0 -
All publicly available info.joe2019 said:surrey_commuter said:
I don’t think the average man in the street has any idea how few spare troops we have to deploy and our limited ability to move them and support them with things like helicopters and planes.kingstongraham said:
Is the argument really that we should have started again now?darkhairedlord said:
yes, "The British combat mission ended with the handover of Camp Bastion to Afghan forces on 26 October 2014. British troops have remained in Afghanistan since in a training and advisory role based in Kabul and Helmand"kingstongraham said:Didn't the UK stop fighting in Afghanistan years ago?
But you do0 -
surrey_commuter said:
All publicly available info.joe2019 said:surrey_commuter said:
I don’t think the average man in the street has any idea how few spare troops we have to deploy and our limited ability to move them and support them with things like helicopters and planes.kingstongraham said:
Is the argument really that we should have started again now?darkhairedlord said:
yes, "The British combat mission ended with the handover of Camp Bastion to Afghan forces on 26 October 2014. British troops have remained in Afghanistan since in a training and advisory role based in Kabul and Helmand"kingstongraham said:Didn't the UK stop fighting in Afghanistan years ago?
But you do
I know.
But why put down the 'average man in the street'?
0 -
Sorry SC, he's right. Average person please.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I suspect @surrey_commuter would be only too happy to sit around discussing favourite generals from history, but frequently comes across people like me who could barely name two. As a result, he probably rightly thinks his military knowledge is above average.joe2019 said:surrey_commuter said:
All publicly available info.joe2019 said:surrey_commuter said:
I don’t think the average man in the street has any idea how few spare troops we have to deploy and our limited ability to move them and support them with things like helicopters and planes.kingstongraham said:
Is the argument really that we should have started again now?darkhairedlord said:
yes, "The British combat mission ended with the handover of Camp Bastion to Afghan forces on 26 October 2014. British troops have remained in Afghanistan since in a training and advisory role based in Kabul and Helmand"kingstongraham said:Didn't the UK stop fighting in Afghanistan years ago?
But you do
I know.
But why put down the 'average man in the street'?
0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCF6bXcgHdo&t=459s
