Can you win a war with only light infantry in the 21st century?

vesicles · Dec 12, 2012

solarz said:
How about this scenario:

Sometime in the next 10 years, South Korea becomes really militant and decides to invade North Korea. The USA has no appetite for another war and decides to support SK with supplies only, and also sets up an embargo against NK.

The embargo causes NK to have a severe fuel shortage, making their unable to deploy any mechanized infantry or armor on a large scale. They are forced to rely on their infantry. Luckily for NK, China is also willing to supply them with weapons, but the narrow NK-China border makes it impossible for China to relieve NK of its fuel shortage.

Since the USA is not intervening directly, China will not either. It will be just NK with its millions of regular infantry and reserves against SK forces.

So would be the outcome of such a war? Are there any "game changer" technologies for NK? How about for SK?

Good example and a tough one!

Although the connection between China and NK is narrow, supplying NK should actually be easier for China than the US for SK. Don't forget that the US is 8000 miles away. Supplying a major conflict, such as one between NK and SK, so far away would put a huge strain on the US logistically and economically. Time is another factor against the SK/US alliance. China, on the other hand, can do it via train and highway on land, which would be limited by the narrow connection. Although they have a bottle neck, it would be much faster to get through that bottle neck than transport ships traveling 8000 miles across the Pacific Ocean. China can also supply NK via ships and planes, both of which would not be limited by terrain. Air dropping supplies would be an easy thing to do since the Shenyang military region is literally next door. The same cannot be said of the US because of the cost involved in sending huge convoys of transport planes across the Pacific Ocean. So in that sense, the potential China/NK alliance would actually have an advantage over the US/SK alliance.

Now, SK has been operating Western equipment for decades and can simply grab whatever they have and go. The same cannot be said of the NK who are almost completely unfamiliar with any high-tech weapons. So even if they are provided with advanced weapons by China, they don't know how to use them effectively. That's a huge negative.

Another factor is the terrain. NK is very mountainous if I'm not mistaken. The mountains could potentially effectively shield NK troops from surveillance and bombings. The effectiveness of any attack could also be compromised. That's part of why China could effectively push the UN forces south of 38th in the Korean War; and why Vietnam War ended how it ended; and also why Bin Laden was able to hide in the Afghan/Pakistan mountains for so long.

So the end would be very difficult to predict.

With that said, I don't think SK would be a good example of a technologically advanced foe when we started this argument. The difference between SK and NK is too small to fit into our assumed hypothetical situation of an advanced foe vs. a light infantry. A scenario of China/US vs. NK would be a better one. Would NK would be able to survive if either China or the US decided to attack them? Even if China/US is willing help NK/SK, they will not provide their most advanced weapons for fear of escalating the conflict or for fear of depleting their own resources. Neither SK nor NK can afford the fancy toys. However, if China or the US decided to attack NK themselves, they want to end it and achieve their objective ASAP. Thus, they will most likely use very advanced weapons, in addition to naval/land blockade, etc. So maximal power in a very short amount of time. NK will not be able to withstand it, hence giving us the classic scenario we have been arguing about.

Also, I think it would be a mistake to assume China will help NK in time of a conflict. China of today is vastly different from the China 60 years ago. With their political objectives changed, they will change alliance as well. It might be in their interest to eliminate the current NK govn't and put in place their puppets.

solarz · Dec 12, 2012

vesicles said:
Good example and a tough one!

Although the connection between China and NK is narrow, supplying NK should actually be easier for China than the US for SK. Don't forget that the US is 8000 miles away. Supplying a major conflict, such as one between NK and SK, so far away would put a huge strain on the US logistically and economically. Time is another factor against the SK/US alliance. China, on the other hand, can do it via train and highway on land, which would be limited by the narrow connection. Although they have a bottle neck, it would be much faster to get through that bottle neck than transport ships traveling 8000 miles across the Pacific Ocean. China can also supply NK via ships and planes, both of which would not be limited by terrain. Air dropping supplies would be an easy thing to do since the Shenyang military region is literally next door. The same cannot be said of the US because of the cost involved in sending huge convoys of transport planes across the Pacific Ocean. So in that sense, the potential China/NK alliance would actually have an advantage over the US/SK alliance.

Now, SK has been operating Western equipment for decades and can simply grab whatever they have and go. The same cannot be said of the NK who are almost completely unfamiliar with any high-tech weapons. So even if they are provided with advanced weapons by China, they don't know how to use them effectively. That's a huge negative.

Another factor is the terrain. NK is very mountainous if I'm not mistaken. The mountains could potentially effectively shield NK troops from surveillance and bombings. The effectiveness of any attack could also be compromised. That's part of why China could effectively push the UN forces south of 38th in the Korean War; and why Vietnam War ended how it ended; and also why Bin Laden was able to hide in the Afghan/Pakistan mountains for so long.

So the end would be very difficult to predict.

With that said, I don't think SK would be a good example of a technologically advanced foe when we started this argument. The difference between SK and NK is too small to fit into our assumed hypothetical situation of an advanced foe vs. a light infantry. A scenario of China/US vs. NK would be a better one. Would NK would be able to survive if either China or the US decided to attack them? Even if China/US is willing help NK/SK, they will not provide their most advanced weapons for fear of escalating the conflict or for fear of depleting their own resources. Neither SK nor NK can afford the fancy toys. However, if China or the US decided to attack NK themselves, they want to end it and achieve their objective ASAP. Thus, they will most likely use very advanced weapons, in addition to naval/land blockade, etc. So maximal power in a very short amount of time. NK will not be able to withstand it, hence giving us the classic scenario we have been arguing about.

Also, I think it would be a mistake to assume China will help NK in time of a conflict. China of today is vastly different from the China 60 years ago. With their political objectives changed, they will change alliance as well. It might be in their interest to eliminate the current NK govn't and put in place their puppets.

All good questions!

Let's assume that the decision to invade NK did not happen overnight. It built up over 3-5 years, starting with a UN resolution to put a fuel embargo on NK.

Let's also assume that China is getting more annoyed at NK and getting warmer relations with SK, which is also one reason SK is emboldened to make it's move: it had been assured by China that they wouldn't intervene militarily.

So when NK was under a fuel embargo, its military strategists have realized that they're going to have to rely on their infantry and began begging/trading/stealing relevant technologies from China. They have been doing this and training their troops on such weapons for about 5 years, and have a limited ability for domestic manufacturing in hidden factories.

As for China, they don't really want to see NK annexed, but they are also fed up with NK's increasing anti-China belligerence, so they are only willing to provide limited support so as not to anger either SK or the US. There is fuel being supplied, but the Chinese don't want to risk SK bombers so they send it through underground channels or mountainous passes, which limits the amount of fuel that can get through.

vesicles · Dec 14, 2012

solarz said:
All good questions!

Let's assume that the decision to invade NK did not happen overnight. It built up over 3-5 years, starting with a UN resolution to put a fuel embargo on NK.

The situation would work both ways. If SK starts the preparation for war 3-5 years ahead, NK can do the same. Any fuel embargo would limit NK operations. However, NK is currently operating under fuel-limiting conditions as well since China is the only nation supplying them anything. So their condition won't change much under the new embargo. They must have some kind of plan to operate under these conditions. So an embargo will not achieve the intended results.

solarz said:
Let's also assume that China is getting more annoyed at NK and getting warmer relations with SK, which is also one reason SK is emboldened to make it's move: it had been assured by China that they wouldn't intervene militarily.

NK is acting like a spoiled kid because they know China cannot afford to abandon them completely. They also must have some kind of plan for a situation where China is fed up with them and stops supplying them with everything. This plan would involve stockpiling all the necessary supplies, weapons, ammo, etc. So their situation won't dramatically change when SK attacks. They should have everything in place, hiding their supplies and most precious weapons in the mountains. At the same time, SK is not a military powerhouse and does not have the kind of powerful weapons to flush them out. With SK unable to completely paralyze NK, their war will be a long long one and no one can predict the outcome. Let's face it, the US used HUGE amount of resources in both Gulf Wars. The difference between SK and NK is most certainly smaller than that between the US and Iraq, especially in the second Gulf War where Iraq had been under all kinds of embargo for well over a decade. Yet, the US still needed, again, HUGE amount of resources to subdue Iraq. Can SK ever achieve that kind of success against a much more equivalent enemy in NK?

solarz said:
As for China, they don't really want to see NK annexed, but they are also fed up with NK's increasing anti-China belligerence, so they are only willing to provide limited support so as not to anger either SK or the US. There is fuel being supplied, but the Chinese don't want to risk SK bombers so they send it through underground channels or mountainous passes, which limits the amount of fuel that can get through.

I don't think SK/US would want to risk escalating the conflict by attacking China's supply line, just like NK/China will not dare to attack the US supply ships. It's just not worth it. If what you assumed was true, the US and SK would know that China is not in the conflict whole-hearted. So the supply China sends to NK will not be very substantial. That means NK won't benefit too much. So why risking angering China by attacking the supply line? If anything, SK/US might want to get China on board with them and reach some deal with China on how to split NK among them, like how the US, UK and the Soviets split Germany WWII. Since there will not be any ideological bond between NK and China, this might become achievable. then with China on board, the US will then deploying their more advanced weapons in order to speed up the whole thing. China might help as well. Then, as I mentioned in the last post, we get into a classic advanced combined forces vs. light infantry scenario. With enemies coming from every which direction, NK does not stand a chance.

Again, the polarity between SK and NK is just not big enough to have this advanced combined forces vs. light infantry argument.

Lintuperhonen · Dec 14, 2012

solarz said:
How about this scenario:

Sometime in the next 10 years, South Korea becomes really militant and decides to invade North Korea. The USA has no appetite for another war and decides to support SK with supplies only, and also sets up an embargo against NK.

The embargo causes NK to have a severe fuel shortage, making their unable to deploy any mechanized infantry or armor on a large scale. They are forced to rely on their infantry. Luckily for NK, China is also willing to supply them with weapons, but the narrow NK-China border makes it impossible for China to relieve NK of its fuel shortage.

Since the USA is not intervening directly, China will not either. It will be just NK with its millions of regular infantry and reserves against SK forces.

So would be the outcome of such a war? Are there any "game changer" technologies for NK? How about for SK?

IMO China could just annex DPRK in that scenario. There would not be ROK/US forces on Yalu river and the international community would not be blaming China for supporting the Kim-dynasty (that is the third Gold-dynasty). I'm also quite convinced that the PLA would reach Pyöngyang before the ROK army.

solarz · Dec 14, 2012

vesicles said:
Again, the polarity between SK and NK is just not big enough to have this advanced combined forces vs. light infantry argument.

It's a hypothetical scenario. One of the premises is NK does not have enough fuel to use its more advanced weapons.

Lintuperhonen said:
IMO China could just annex DPRK in that scenario. There would not be ROK/US forces on Yalu river and the international community would not be blaming China for supporting the Kim-dynasty (that is the third Gold-dynasty). I'm also quite convinced that the PLA would reach Pyöngyang before the ROK army.

Perhaps China doesn't want to get into a war. If you read my scenario carefully, I specifically said that:

1- The US will not be sending in its own military.

2- The SK-China relationship has warmed to a degree that China will not oppose a SK invasion. However, it will happily sit back and sell weapons to both sides.

vesicles · Dec 14, 2012

solarz said:
It's a hypothetical scenario. One of the premises is NK does not have enough fuel to use its more advanced weapons.

Don't forget that NK already does not have enough fuel as we speak but still fields the largest army in the world. In case of a war, SK does not have enough firepower/manpower to overcome the "humane wave". SK is too weak to be the "advanced combined force" in our argument. Everything we argue here is hypothetical, of course. However, we want to find an example that fits what we argue. SK vs. NK is not it. NK is too strong to be considered a light infantry-only force. Let's face it, NK has been an independent nation operating on its own terms without too much foreign interference since the 50's. It dedicates majority of its GDP to national defense without any consideration of its people. Who knows what and how much they have been stockpiling in those mountains... It is not a weak light infantry/guerrilla operating in enemy-occupied territory. Even if you cut off the supply completely, they might have enough to sustain them long enough to inflict enough casualty on SK to force them to consider cease-fire. NK may not be so much of anything to China/the US, but it definitely packs enough punches to give SK a run of its money. Look what happened during early stage of the Korean War.

solarz · Dec 14, 2012

vesicles said:
Don't forget that NK already does not have enough fuel as we speak but still fields the largest army in the world. In case of a war, SK does not have enough firepower/manpower to overcome the "humane wave". SK is too weak to be the "advanced combined force" in our argument. Everything we argue here is hypothetical, of course. However, we want to find an example that fits what we argue. SK vs. NK is not it. NK is too strong to be considered a light infantry-only force. Let's face it, NK has been an independent nation operating on its own terms without too much foreign interference since the 50's. It dedicates majority of its GDP to national defense without any consideration of its people. Who knows what and how much they have been stockpiling in those mountains... It is not a weak light infantry/guerrilla operating in enemy-occupied territory. Even if you cut off the supply completely, they might have enough to sustain them long enough to inflict enough casualty on SK to force them to consider cease-fire. NK may not be so much of anything to China/the US, but it definitely packs enough punches to give SK a run of its money. Look what happened during early stage of the Korean War.

Actually, that's exactly why I think it's more interesting. I think we've all agreed that if the light infantry doesn't have any anti-air capabilities, all they can do is attrition.

On the other hand, NK, ostensibly, has plenty of air defenses, which makes it very difficult for SK to bomb them with impunity. This gives the largely light-infantry military of NK a good chance of winning direct engagements.

What's more, SK and NK are equally matched in terms of resources and war-time capabilities. The difference is, SK has a technologically more advanced combined-arms military, while the North relies heavily on infantry.

In the real world, it is arguable whether SK can hold against the North by itself. In our hypothetical scenario, if NK can't deploy battalions of armor and mechanized infantry, then SK should be able to launch an invasion with reasonable chances of success.

delft · Dec 15, 2012

We'll never know. China will not want South Korea occupying the North and be a militarily successful neighbor. If South Korea wants to end the division it can boot out the US forces, end US suzereignity over it and ask Chinese mediation.
If South Korea were to start a war against the North the proper thing for China to do might be to interfere with Second Artillery. The quality of the relations between China and North Korea can be considered later.

vesicles · Dec 15, 2012

delft said:
We'll never know. China will not want South Korea occupying the North and be a militarily successful neighbor. If South Korea wants to end the division it can boot out the US forces, end US suzereignity over it and ask Chinese mediation.
If South Korea were to start a war against the North the proper thing for China to do might be to interfere with Second Artillery. The quality of the relations between China and North Korea can be considered later.

I think the most likely thing for China to do might be to hold the line at the 38th until SK agrees to go to the negotiating table. Then China, SK and the US will figure out how to split/deal with NK. China will not allow SK/US go near the Yalu so any deal with involve China having a hand in governing NK. No matter what, one thing is clear though. China will NOT help NK like it did back in 1951. And NK is liked by no one. With NK educating its people how NK single-handedly defeated the US and with NK spreading anti-China messages even as China is feeding them, China's patience is wearing thin thin thin. It won't take much for China to finally snap and say enough is enough and we will take over from now.

leibowitz · Dec 16, 2012

Three main problems with light infantry focus:

1) A war of encounter vs a war of maneuver -- lack of "see-deep" recce complexes will make it impossible for a large sea of light infantry to find targets of opportunity, especially if those targets are fast-moving mechanized, airmobile, or amphibious units

2) Short, stubby arms -- lack of "strike-deep" accurate artillery complexes means that every engagement will occur within direct fire range. There will be no way for a guerrilla army to, for example, call down airstrikes or cruise missiles on a target 60 or 100 or 500km away. This means a) higher casualties and b) an inability to actually hit the enemy when he is most vulnerable (e.g. in deployment areas, assembly zones, or jumping-off points).

3) Short, stubby legs -- no helos, no APCs, no trucks means that light infantry simply won't be able to move as quickly as a full-on mechanized force. The mechanized force will be able to engage and disengage at will.

Those 3 problems are all much bigger in an offensive campaign than a defensive one. In a defensive war amongst a sympathetic populace, then the nature of the war begins to shift from classic conventional warfare to more of an insurgency. But bereft of that "human camouflage", then a bunch of light infantry simply becomes a bunch of targets on the battlefield. All the combined-arms force has to do is dance around with its superior reconaissance platforms (drones and satellites), constantly pounding the enemy from places where they cannot hit back, while steamrolling chunks of the enemy army piecemeal.

Of course if the combined-arms force is trying to occupy a hostile country, then the dynamic shifts completely in the light infantry force's favor as the combined-arms force cannot utilize the recon, mobility, and firepower advantages it has. Ergo, the lesson is that if a combined-arms force is great for kicking the door in, but not the best for doing the follow-up occupation.

Can you win a war with only light infantry in the 21st century?

vesicles

Colonel

solarz

Brigadier

vesicles

Colonel

Lintuperhonen

New Member

solarz

Brigadier

vesicles

Colonel

solarz

Brigadier

delft

Brigadier

vesicles

Colonel

leibowitz

Junior Member