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
warpig       4/6/2010 12:16:04 AM
What the South *will* do is just as others have said, which is they will do essentially nothing.  Oh sure, they will proclaim some very sternly worded protests most vehemently decrying this barbarism.  Naturally the North will protest its innocence and claim it's all a decadent American plot and blame it on the evil machinations of the CIA. 
 
What the South *ought* to do is show the evidence to the world of the torpedo damage that sank their frigate, and then launch a wave of airstrikes on NorK naval bases, like at least all those within about 100NM of the sinking, targeting anything that can launch a torpedo.  Then declare that they have now taught North Korea a lesson and warn them never to do it again or next time the South won't be so forgiving.
 
Oh, and also permanently cease all economic exchange of any kind with the NorKs forever.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/6/2010 3:04:58 AM
Hmm a lot goes on when radio silent for ~16 hours. Lots of "new" theories I see...;) 



@Warpig, you honestly think it would be a good idea to attack the Norks(assuming the did it of course)? 


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/6/2010 7:57:37 AM
It would be the right thing for them to do.  Of course it risks the possibility of the North escalating into more warfare.  So what?  The North already decided to take the largest escalatory step in the first place by sneak attacking the frigate out of the blue in the closest thing that passes for peacetime over there.  I do not believe in advocating "stability" over enforcing proper behavior among nations, and I do believe there are worse things than war.  A blatant military attack should not be swept under the rug amid hand-wringing and sternly-worded demarches, and if that means it escalates into a war, then that's what it means.
 
 
Quote    Reply

jhpigott       4/6/2010 8:33:20 AM

Hmm a lot goes on when radio silent for ~16 hours. Lots of "new" theories I see...;) 










@Warpig, you honestly think it would be a good idea to attack the Norks(assuming the did it of course)? 







-DA 

(Presuming this was the result of hostile NK action) At the very least SK should suspend aid and economic cooperation and make a declaration of strict enforcement of the PSI.  I think SK should also "arrange" for an "accident" of similar scope to a NK naval asset - I'm sure they possess the capability to pull off something like that quietly. 
 
To do nothing only invites more of this kind of behavior (and worse) 
 
disclaimer - I live on the eastern seaboard of the US, not in Seoul, SK - I can understand the desire to sweep this under the rug, but I'm with warpig - to turn a blind eye to this kind of behavior in the hopes of keeping the status quo makes my stomach turn
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Same old hypotheses...   4/6/2010 10:11:49 AM
For those who keep score and actually can tell the players without a scorecard or announcer, that means:
 
On-board weapon mount accident-rejected.
Grounding-implausible as suggested.
Accidental weapon release, own-plausible. 
Accidental weapon release, friendly-plausible. 
Friendly action, leftover ordnance, not proven, as it does not yet fit evidence.  
Enemy action, leftover ordnance, not proven, as it does not yet fit evidence. 
Enemy action, weapon release, plausible. 
 
Cause modes and or weapon effects:
 
On-board ammunition explosion; rejected.
Water hammer: most plausible so far from seismic evidence, reports of event video captures, and eyewitness accounts.  
 
Three likely causes of water hammer.
a. bottom mine, plausible.
b. keel breaker torpedo, plausible
c. depth charge, just barely plausible. 
d. moored mine with weapon release, in those currents and that shallow-rejected.
 
Delivery means:
Ship disguised as a fishing trawler, implausible.
Submarine: at those shallow depths, just barely plausible.
Semi-submersuble: plausible.
 
There are 45 combinations of evidence supported agents, methods, and outcomes that fit what we know. 2/3 are enemy/friendly action, 1/3 own accident, virtually all are weapon release of some type.   
 
That is where we are at this point. V^2 and I now discuss the torpedo as a hypothetical. I still see the time solution problem as a big,question mark considering how iffy such an assassination shot is, and he argues for a rehearsed release at a predetermined set of conditions. The weapon he suggested  was a lightweight ASW torpedo. The best EU weapon that fits the bill is the Murene/MU-90, and the best Russian weapons are the APR-3 or the APSETT. The best PRC weapon is their copy of the APR-3.
 
He suggests from the weapon as he described it to me that it will be a solid-fueled pump-jet which means it will be RUSSIAN. I think it will be an electric pump-jet because of the noise issues and range problems involved.
 
H.
 
   
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       4/6/2010 12:51:26 PM

Hmm a lot goes on when radio silent for ~16 hours. Lots of "new" theories I see...;) 





@Warpig, you honestly think it would be a good idea to attack the Norks(assuming the did it of course)? 





-DA

Darth, 
 
I must confess that I somewhat resent the tone of your comments, if directed at everyone here, you have actually made quite a few erroneous statements of potential causality here, and I feel that you didn't respond to Hamilcar's post immediately below the one in which you suggest grounding as a plausible theory (he highlighted a piece of text showing Asia's largest transport ship in the immediate area). You didn't give any evidence in the slightest that there is a reef in the area, or outcrop, or explain how, if there was one, the bow+stern would have ended up in the position they did on the seafloor, or why no one would have mentioned it, or even if there was a grounding in the first place, that it would be completely inconsistent with the manner of hull failure described, especially towards the stern of the ship, or the lurch of 50cm that people reported coming from under the vessel, as well as the "explosion", as well as the lack of damage to other parts of the hull, which was confirmed nearly a week ago.
 
 
Above all else, if a ship was grounded astern due to being stationary whilst the tide went out (which is the only scenario I can see as even remotely possible given the lack of elongated abbrasion/damage/grinding/scraping/tearing of the bow), you would see a gradual application of pressure, not a momentous bang, and there would be plenty of evidence of this on the hull, as well as dive teams perhaps mentioning a giant monolith on an otherwise 25-40m seafloor... How does a ship manage to split astern as if cut by a hot knife through butter instantaneously without any forwarning through contact with a submerged rock/reef, how does the bow miraculously avoid any contact with this object? The tide does not move fast enough to do this to a ship, not even remotely fast enough.
 
None of us here have professed at any point to know the bigger picture, no one has professed that they are in charge of the investigation or the response, what we have done is try and use the available evidence at the time of public release to at the very least rule out a load of factors. One of the factors that was most easily discounted was a grounding event, the failure mode of the hull was not consistent with this, and has since been demonstrably proven (even with reports currently available) to be a "very far fetched" notion indeed.
 
Now, against the background of NK rhetoric (threats of unpredictable action involving loss of life)  the limited reports available last week a few days after the sinking, it was already evident to some here (myself included) that there were ways and means of ruling out using very simple logic, and again, for the purposes of discussion, certain scenarios.
 
I maintain that my initial reasoning that this was a Torpedo is going to be demonstated to have been the case (assuming they can actually get good enough visibility to search the sea-floor). Whilst I genuinely respect your posts, and I accept that none of our "theories" is conclusive, or in fact, remotely important to the bigger picture, I think for those interested in these issues, it was apparent from the terrible media-management from the ROK, as well as initial accounts, that there really are only a few options open, we're not all conspiracy-minded fantasists, I have not the slighest belief in conspiracy theory, nor do I believe that it is irresponsible to discuss this amongst ourselves in a manner that is humbly cognisant of the evidence available.
 
As you have suggested, FF is a real possibility here, no one has disputed that possibility, or refused to accept that we could ALL be proven wrong, all we have tried to do is use very simple logic to arrive at a set of conclusions that fit the evidence we have observed, I see no reason for your derisory tone, or suggestion that it is "irresponsible" for us to discuss this in the first place, what is irresponsible, as far as I can see, is not thinking about these things for one's self, and making the mistake or allowing the media to craft the only story that people looking for news can see, it is helpful to have a wide range of opinions, when these are "out there" people can reasonably assess the evidence (WTC inside job/moon landing hoax/NWO,reptilian er.. changling rul
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    A primer on acoustic torpedoes.    4/6/2010 2:18:24 PM
 
The principles, one employs, are similar enough to the DPRK torpedo hypothesis problem to provide useful data.
 
H.   
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    H.   4/6/2010 6:02:08 PM
 
[v^2] suggests from the weapon as he described it to me that it will be a solid-fueled pump-jet which means it will be RUSSIAN. I think it will be an electric pump-jet because of the noise issues and range problems involved.
 
I'm busy and may revisit your observations later.  My past few posts were not well thought out.  I rescind my suspicion that the NorK torp, again supposed torp, was reactive plate driven.  Instead electric is the most logical motor they would have fitted to a lightweight weapon for a number of reasons.  I was too fixated on the Iranian connection, supposed.  The Iranians seem to favor top-end speed for their asymetric naval doctrine and my guess had been they possess and shared with the NorKs a fast endgame motor.  So I change my view to electric and other view changes may follow.  Cheers.
 
v^2
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    players without a scorecard    4/7/2010 3:22:11 AM

For those who keep score and actually can tell the players without a scorecard or announcer, that means:...
Cause modes and or weapon effects:

...
Water hammer: most plausible so far from seismic evidence, reports of event video captures, and eyewitness accounts.  
...
Three likely causes of water hammer.

a. bottom mine, plausible.
b. keel breaker torpedo, plausible
c. depth charge, just barely plausible. 
d. moored mine with weapon release, in those currents and that shallow-rejected.
 
Was a limpet mine or equivalent modern-day device, delivered by frogmen, considered and rejected?
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Let's play devil's advocate, treat this as a wake-up call.   4/7/2010 3:40:40 AM
Yes, DA, can we try to keep separate the question of, what did it, and, what should we/they/who do about it?  If, say, you think it was the Norks with a mine, and that the Roks should suck it up, let's not try to put kimchi on the shiite sandwich by saying it was swamp gas.  Maybe we would get farther. 
 
Maybe we should pull out of SK, screw 'em.  Why not, if they're that gutless?  Or indeed, in any case?  What's the worst that could happen?  

 
 However you want to gloss it, Obama is willing to do things nobody before him would have considered sane let alone wise.  (I assume you defend it all as genius, as you always do.)  Maybe he could push the reset button on Korea the same way?  Who knows, maybe it's genius.  Once we're gone, why would Kim Jong Il even bother with a nuke?  Then we could scratch SDI-Pacific.  Save money, appease the Russians who always hate it when we defend ourselves, please China I suppose.
 
 
Please do not accuse me of hysteria or personalization, really:  What do we care?  You never consider moral grounds and what material impact would there be other than more expensive RAM and flatscreens for a while?  No commies to fight anymore, who cares how many Asians kill each other? Maybe it would be a dose of reality and achieve something. Maybe our presence is the real problem there.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics