| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cmxc
Joined: 19 May 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
andrewchon
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Location: Back in Oz. Living in ISIS Aust.
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Old, not broken.
I was quite surprised to see Korean artillery signalers still using A/NC-77 sets, though.
Anyway, whenever there's a leak about defence shortcomings, it's a call for more gov spending on arms. (i.e. US arms manufacturers) No thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jake_Kim
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The biggest non-fiction running joke within the ROK Army is that soldiers are still using water canteens inherited from the U.S. Army during Korean War days, and that the Army reservists are issued M1 Carbines also from the Korean War during their annual recall trainings.
Yeah, the very war more than 6 decades ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Anyway, whenever there's a leak about defence shortcomings, it's a call for more gov spending on arms. (i.e. US arms manufacturers) No thanks. |
Yeah, its pretty obvious from the things listed that the items are cherry picked to "sound bad" in order to encourage spending.
I'm guessing the "6 days of artillery shells" is probably calculated by taking the maximum rate of fire (not sustained) and doing that over a 24 hour period to calculate how much ordinance they have. The "combat system" on the destroyer is probably something that doesn't need a lot of computing power and the anti-tank weapon claim is talking about man-portable anti tank weapons that generally have limited effectiveness against modern armor and are more intended for use against APCs/IFVs.
As for the M1s, its a fine weapon and still effective in trained hands, but really should be phased out by now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Odd as I thought they had a hefty budget for their army here. All that money must go to overpriced domestic producers and other "gifts" that go with it then. The recruits are paid in peanuts; so the cash has got to be going somewhere.
I'm sure they must have some new stuff mixed in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Anyway, whenever there's a leak about defence shortcomings, it's a call for more gov spending on arms. (i.e. US arms manufacturers) No thanks. |
Yeah, its pretty obvious from the things listed that the items are cherry picked to "sound bad" in order to encourage spending.
I'm guessing the "6 days of artillery shells" is probably calculated by taking the maximum rate of fire (not sustained) and doing that over a 24 hour period to calculate how much ordinance they have. The "combat system" on the destroyer is probably something that doesn't need a lot of computing power and the anti-tank weapon claim is talking about man-portable anti tank weapons that generally have limited effectiveness against modern armor and are more intended for use against APCs/IFVs.
As for the M1s, its a fine weapon and still effective in trained hands, but really should be phased out by now. |
Where do you go shooting in SK? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe they want more spending or maybe they want less, but more effective:
| Quote: |
| This is both incomprehensible and incredible, given the nation's defense spending of 35.7 trillion won ($34.3 billion) this year. Yet it becomes less so if one looks into the military's weapons procurement and maintenance system which is riddled with rampant corruption involving a number of both active and retired duty officers. |
The entire column is critical of the military so I don't see how someone can read this as supporting increased military spending. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
As for the M1s, its a fine weapon and still effective in trained hands, but really should be phased out by now. |
Where do you go shooting in SK?[/quote]
For shooting handguns I go to the range in Myeongdong.
I've never shot an M1 personally back home, just pointing out its combat record historically and that the difference in capabilities compared to standard issue is incremental rather than a quantum leap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewchon
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Location: Back in Oz. Living in ISIS Aust.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
Maybe they want more spending or maybe they want less, but more effective:
| Quote: |
| This is both incomprehensible and incredible, given the nation's defense spending of 35.7 trillion won ($34.3 billion) this year. Yet it becomes less so if one looks into the military's weapons procurement and maintenance system which is riddled with rampant corruption involving a number of both active and retired duty officers. |
The entire column is critical of the military so I don't see how someone can read this as supporting increased military spending. |
It's like a magic trick, make them focus on my right and do with my left. The latest news item on defence procurement is about the F-35. ROKA has decided to buy only 40, instead of 60. Plus ROKA is spending less on the maintenance and spare parts which is the real money drainer. Hence the story about old and broken equipment and corruption in ROKA procurement. Whoever is behind the story wants the number changed from 40 to 60, but can't. F-35 need funding and future orders to survive. So, the thing to do is change to advisors to ROKA -> CORRUPTION in the officer ranks! and replace them with those who have to react favourably with the premise of the story: 'I'm doing this for you'-I get nothing from it, it's all for your good. If you haven't heard that before... I feel sorry for you. Do you see the bigger picture now?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stan Rogers
Joined: 20 Aug 2010
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
