US military gear in South Korea was in disrepair: report

**troung** · 07 Oct 05,, 05:14

Sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most US military gear in South Korea was in disrepair: report
WASHINGTON (AFP) Oct 06, 2005

Most US military gear in South Korea, including tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers, was until recently in disrepair due to equipment demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and poor maintenance, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Inspectors with the Government Accountability Office found that starting in October 2004 as much as 80 percent of the heavy weapons and other fighting gear in South Korea were not "fully mission capable," according to the Post.

The problems included cracked gun tubes, faulty engines, and tanks that needed extensive engine work, the Post reported, citing unreleased classified and unclassified US government documents.

The US military told the newspaper said they had since focused aggressively on the issue and fixed the problem.

The quality of the military stockpile in South Korea began to drop as the US military struggled to meet equipment demands for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Post reported.

The US military "faces some near-term operational risks should another large-scale conflict emerge because it has drawn heavily on its pre-positioned stocks to support ongoing operations in Iraq," the Post reported, citing a US military report.

Until recently the equipment in South Korea was the biggest single cache of military equipment outside the United States, the Post reported, citing an unreleased GAO report.

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051006025304.f4mwn8bu.html

**Leader** · 07 Oct 05,, 05:59

"The US military told the newspaper said they had since focused aggressively on the issue and fixed the problem. "

Much ado about nothing then.

"The US military "faces some near-term operational risks should another large-scale conflict emerge because it has drawn heavily on its pre-positioned stocks to support ongoing operations in Iraq," the Post reported, citing a US military report."

What "large-scale conflict" is likely to emerge in the "near-term?" Iran? Not the DPRK unless Ill Kimmy gets dropped on his head again.

**TopHatter** · 09 Oct 05,, 01:48

Originally Posted by Leader

"The US military told the newspaper said they had since focused aggressively on the issue and fixed the problem. "

Much ado about nothing then.

Not necessarily. The fact that it was allowed to occur in the first place is disturbing all by itself. Symptoms are one thing, the disease is another.

North Korea is probably the last place on Earth where a large, historically aggressive and hostile State directly confronts large U.S. military formations without a natural barrier (for example, an ocean or strait) in between them.

**Leader** · 09 Oct 05,, 03:31

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Not necessarily. The fact that it was allowed to occur in the first place is disturbing all by itself. Symptoms are one thing, the disease is another.

North Korea is probably the last place on Earth where a large, historically aggressive and hostile State directly confronts large U.S. military formations without a natural barrier (for example, an ocean or strait) in between them.

Ok what's the prescription, doc? What do we need to do to correct the underlying problem?

**TopHatter** · 09 Oct 05,, 03:41

Originally Posted by Leader

Ok what's the prescription, doc? What do we need to do to correct the underlying problem?

Well, one would think they'd want to take a little more hands-off approach (as a matter of policy) when it comes to certain critical locations like Korea.
Just my 2 cents of course, I don't pretend to know the full logistics situation of the Army, just that stripping Korea was probably a really bad idea.

One shudders to think however, of what a full-scale conventional war in Central Europe would have been like. You can't just run out of bullets for such an event, the troops tend to get irritated.
Has that occured to anyone? The U.S. is discovering all of these flaws in it's logistical supply system when dealing with a sharp, short war and couple years long insurgency. What happens during that full-scale conventional conflict, in Korea for example?

Speaking of Europe, I wonder if all of those POMCUS sites have anything left in them?

**AutopilotOFF** · 11 Oct 05,, 03:36

Originally Posted by troung

Sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most US military gear in South Korea was in disrepair: report
WASHINGTON (AFP) Oct 06, 2005

Most US military gear in South Korea, including tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers, was until recently in disrepair due to equipment demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and poor maintenance, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Inspectors with the Government Accountability Office found that starting in October 2004 as much as 80 percent of the heavy weapons and other fighting gear in South Korea were not "fully mission capable," according to the Post.

The problems included cracked gun tubes, faulty engines, and tanks that needed extensive engine work, the Post reported, citing unreleased classified and unclassified US government documents.

The US military told the newspaper said they had since focused aggressively on the issue and fixed the problem.

The quality of the military stockpile in South Korea began to drop as the US military struggled to meet equipment demands for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Post reported.

The US military "faces some near-term operational risks should another large-scale conflict emerge because it has drawn heavily on its pre-positioned stocks to support ongoing operations in Iraq," the Post reported, citing a US military report.

Until recently the equipment in South Korea was the biggest single cache of military equipment outside the United States, the Post reported, citing an unreleased GAO report.

http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051006025304.f4mwn8bu.html

When I was in Washington state this summer, a large RO-RO was in port carrying 60( I think) M1's from Korea. They were loaded onto a train and shipped off.

Makes sense.

**TopHatter** · 12 Oct 05,, 16:46

Originally Posted by AutopilotOFF

When I was in Washington state this summer, a large RO-RO was in port carrying 60( I think) M1's from Korea. They were loaded onto a train and shipped off.

Makes sense.

Question is, why were they sent back to the CONUS? Shipment to another place? Refurbishment? Replacement?