Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Korea Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ROKN Patrol Corvette sucken by DPRK torpedo boat
YelliChink    3/26/2010 12:10:07 PM
Just happened 2150 Korean local time. Chinese reports say that it was DPRK torpedo boat. The ROKN corvette sunk is probably a 1200t PCC. I can't read Korean so I am not sure which one exactly. At this moment, 59 out of 104 crew have been saved so far. Best wishes to the still missing ones and condolence to families of lost sailors.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
SantaClaws       3/29/2010 3:03:53 PM
Turns out to be seems more likely based on several factors? Um, last I checked, moored contact mines don't split ships in half. No, you warned about a mine/torpedo which didn't even make any sense given the circumstances.
 
If you want to take the S Koreans at their word that's fine. They also said they were engaged with a flock of birds at night. 
You've got to take a broader view of the situation. This area has been in a perpetual state of conflict for over 50 years. There was extensive mine warfare in this region which is why I warned about the possibility and TYPE OF MINE. Again, assuming that this is what it turns out to be which seems more likely based on several factors. Anyway, hate to say I told you so but it's important for the purpose of demonstrating why you should not let bias and national prejudice emotions influence an investigation...
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/29/2010 3:05:08 PM
Turns out to be seems more likely based on several factors? Um, last I checked, moored contact mines don't split ships in half. No, you warned about a mine/torpedo which didn't even make any sense given the circumstances. And yes, it is ludicrous to assume that the N Koreans recently mined the area given the commercial value to them and the likelyhood of fratricide. Notice, I did not say that it was not mined in the past.
 
If you want to take the S Koreans at their word that's fine. They also said they were engaged with a flock of birds at night. 
You've got to take a broader view of the situation. This area has been in a perpetual state of conflict for over 50 years. There was extensive mine warfare in this region which is why I warned about the possibility and TYPE OF MINE. Again, assuming that this is what it turns out to be which seems more likely based on several factors. Anyway, hate to say I told you so but it's important for the purpose of demonstrating why you should not let bias and national prejudice emotions influence an investigation...
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/29/2010 11:44:22 PM

Turns out to be seems more likely based on several factors? Um, last I checked, moored contact mines don't split ships in half. No, you warned about a mine/torpedo which didn't even make any sense given the circumstances. And yes, it is ludicrous to assume that the N Koreans recently mined the area given the commercial value to them and the likelyhood of fratricide. Notice, I did not say that it was not mined in the past.

I highlighted the assertions/assumptions you are making. None of which you can prove...
 
If you want to take the S Koreans at their word that's fine. They also said they were engaged with a flock of birds at night. 

They speculated about what was being shot at. They either don't know or won't admit. The bottom line is without confirmation, it could have been anything to include but not limited to the following. Birds, SSK, Threat Surface vessel, Friendly surface vessel or even nothing at all. That they were firing is not really a surprise considering the circumstances. Blind firing is quite common in such situations. Especially if you think you have been/are or about to be engaged. Also common is the realization that there was nothing there once all the fog of war clears.

It's not a matter of taking the Koreans word for it. It's a matter of proper analysis. The scenarios presented by the S Koreans are plausible. As is the deniability for an attacker at this point. The proper course is to not jump to conclusions and to weight the facts in the balance as they become available. Having experience with these matters teaches that. Instead, people are speculating out of ignorance and bias and that's exactly the wrong way to investigate something like this. The truth could be exactly what's been reported which when filtered through is a big "I DON'T KNOW." and "we aren't blaming the North Koreans BUT we acknowledge the possibility." That's it. Be patient. Trust me, more will be forthcoming and it may surprise you. Feel free to disagree but I have an impeccable record at these kinds of analysis here and it is not by chance...

-DA  

 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Some more information.   3/30/2010 8:12:18 AM
 
Those mines were moored mines that required contact detonators. They were powerful, I mean powerful. A ship as small as the Cheonan should show severe tear damage and deformation when its parts are raised; not as a slice effect either.
 
I still find the lack of a water column described puzzling.
 
As to the claims of infallibility and correctness? No such thing, especially by those who boast of it. 

H.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/30/2010 8:56:51 AM
Really? Birds a possibility? What birds fly at night?
 
It's not really an assumption. The physics of it just don't make a side hit possible to do that. 
 
I find it appalling you think they they would fire at an unidentified target and that it is a "common circumstance". I'm sure the crew had no fear of hitting civilians.



Turns out to be seems more likely based on several factors? Um, last I checked, moored contact mines don't split ships in half. No, you warned about a mine/torpedo which didn't even make any sense given the circumstances. And yes, it is ludicrous to assume that the N Koreans recently mined the area given the commercial value to them and the likelyhood of fratricide. Notice, I did not say that it was not mined in the past.




I highlighted the assertions/assumptions you are making. None of which you can prove...

 

If you want to take the S Koreans at their word that's fine. They also said they were engaged with a flock of birds at night. 








They speculated about what was being shot at. They either don't know or won't admit. The bottom line is without confirmation, it could have been anything to include but not limited to the following. Birds, SSK, Threat Surface vessel, Friendly surface vessel or even nothing at all. That they were firing is not really a surprise considering the circumstances. Blind firing is quite common in such situations. Especially if you think you have been/are or about to be engaged. Also common is the realization that there was nothing there once all the fog of war clears.




It's not a matter of taking the Koreans word for it. It's a matter of proper analysis. The scenarios presented by the S Koreans are plausible. As is the deniability for an attacker at this point. The proper course is to not jump to conclusions and to weight the facts in the balance as they become available. Having experience with these matters teaches that. Instead, people are speculating out of ignorance and bias and that's exactly the wrong way to investigate something like this. The truth could be exactly what's been reported which when filtered through is a big "I DON'T KNOW." and "we aren't blaming the North Koreans BUT we acknowledge the possibility." That's it. Be patient. Trust me, more will be forthcoming and it may surprise you. Feel free to disagree but I have an impeccable record at these kinds of analysis here and it is not by chance...




-DA  









 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/30/2010 9:15:28 AM
I also find your claim about having an impeccable record fairly unbelievable. Your claim about a CAPTOR style mine in the thread proves that already. The more you write the more it gives the impression to me you've never served in the military or in combat arms.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/30/2010 10:23:14 AM

Really? Birds a possibility? What birds fly at night?

Why do you start strawman arguments? GO read what I said about it. Moreover, you should probably be very careful to avoid further speculation about nocturnal birds. 

It's not really an assumption. The physics of it just don't make a side hit possible to do that. 

You are the one who is assuming about that. I already tried to give you a hint about things that could cause this.
 
I find it appalling you think they they would fire at an unidentified target and that it is a "common circumstance". I'm sure the crew had no fear of hitting civilians.

That's probably because you've never been in combat or shot at. Why don't you go do some research on military incidents. Or listen to someone who's experienced it. Your choice if you want to continue to be bullheaded.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/30/2010 10:26:31 AM
I also find your claim about having an impeccable record fairly unbelievable. Your claim about a CAPTOR style mine in the thread proves that already. The more you write the more it gives the impression to me you've never served in the military or in combat arms.
 
Wrong.. I have to say I respect his opinions, find that he usually ofters insights that I hadn't considered, whether or not I agree with his every word. I think it's pretty damn clear that he's served, and deserves the respect that such service warrants.
 
There are a lot of things that strike me as odd, I'm going to list them with the strict provision that I am not making any claims, just things that nag me about this situation. 
 
1) South Korea on the day following the incident claimed that it was "virtually certain" there was no DPRK involvement, this before a dive team had gone in, they were intimating that an internal explosion was "almost certainly" the cause, despite the evidence to the contrary (ship sliced in two) and the reports from the crew that contradicted this conclusion.
 
2) I have seen every manner of official from South Korea make claims that seem to have an agenda, considering the positions of the people who made these statements, professors, defense analysts, govt spokesmen, they seem markedly innacurate. I've heard experts claiming that "torpedos can not cut a ship in half" to "if a mine or torpedo can break a patrol boat in two, we have to completely reconsider our defense doctrine" to "magnetic mines drift up and attach to the hull" to "radar operators confirmed that there was no torpedo attack"... All very odd no? I'm not quoting word-for-word for the sake of expediency but I'll dig the articles up if anyone wants.
 
3) Dive teams have been on site since Sunday, there has been no additional information added except that "the possible cause now being "hinted at" by the "experts" is likely to be an old 50's era seabed mine"...again pretty odd, given how easy a seabed mine is to verify (cratering in the seabed and associated debris from under the top layers of sediment being exposed/scattered.
 
4) Would a 50's era influence mine (either a bottom mine or a moored mine) still be operational, with oxidisation, encrustation, silt deposition, not to mention an electric power supply for the fuse that must be powered up by a magnetic (presumably in this case) sensor. I have my doubts about whether a weapon that must retain a charged cell to arm itself would still be able to do so. To my knowledge they were designed to operate for months/years, but not several decades. Modern mines are more resilient in this regard, being completely passive and requiring no power to initiate the arming  process, which itself relies on a battery that is specifically designed to retain its charge for long periods.
 
5) We have heard that the seabed is 20-40m deep, with 40m being the latest estimate for the area of seabed directly underneath the ship when she was hit, although a bottom mine may weigh up to a tonne, the bubble caused would (at 40m) be of a far greater diameter than the ship itself, all reports I have heard from the crew seem to suggest that there was very specifically an explosion towards the stern of the ship, if an explosive charge, however large, detonated 40m below the vessel, you would expect the resultant water-eruption to be all encompassing, more likely to tip the ship of that size over than break her in two. The effects are relative to the proximity of detonation, to snap a keel you want to focus the bubble on a localised section of the hull so that the forces work to sheer along the path of least resistance, as you can see from footage of under-keel torpedo detonations. If the depth is indeed around 20m the effects of mines/torpedos would be fairly similar, with the distinguishing difference being cratering of the seabed, which, again, should be very easy to ascertain.
 
6) The only weapon system I know of that is specifically designed to detonate under a hull with the intention of snapping the keel (and usually by less than 10m) is a torpedo.
 
7) The contact with the "flock of birds" is unlikely given what we know about the radar system employed, reports from the island that suggested there was sustained fire mean that this is an area that at the very least, is not being "truthfully" reported.
 
8) No reporting of this incident in NK outlets, odd, since the regime loves bad news from the south, the loss of a vessel in the south due to carelessness woul
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/30/2010 10:30:35 AM

I also find your claim about having an impeccable record fairly unbelievable. Your claim about a CAPTOR style mine in the thread proves that already. The more you write the more it gives the impression to me you've never served in the military or in combat arms.

You are welcome to try and post something that proves contrary. My claim about CAPTORs was that it's possible that such mines were in the region and all the usual suspects are capable of their manufacture. That's a statement that is only unbelievable if you aren't familiar with CAPTORs, their history and variations of their design. Feel free to make your false erroneous assumptions about me. In fact, if we started counting people here who have experience with this kind of thing or who serve I assure you that you would be very surprised by the one or two of us who do. Keep on going personal though.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       3/30/2010 10:39:03 AM
Captors are not set/laid, nor are they designed to operate at the shallow depths, you claim. You don't know what you are talking about.
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics