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
Hamilcar    Nichhy   4/7/2010 7:35:07 AM
Limpet mine, 2 knot current, 8 knot warship=dead frogman and failed mission. One RoK diver DIED in the rescue attempts thus far. Those dive conditions are dangerous. Limpet mine rejected.
 
Most discussion settles on mechanism and then who. DPRK involvement is something I have not addressed. 
 
As for the fool at 1600 Pennsylvania, he is a non-player-a complete cypher ever since his forst apology tour. This mess rests on the shoulders of poor President Lee Myung-bak as to how to handle the polittics. I don't envy him, being stuck with this mess and caught between madmen on one side and a damned fool on the other. He must tread carefully to make sure that he doesn't set off a powderkeg of events.     
 
H.   
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/7/2010 10:20:58 AM

Limpet mine, 2 knot current, 8 knot warship=dead frogman and failed mission. One RoK diver DIED in the rescue attempts thus far. Those dive conditions are dangerous. Limpet mine rejected.
     


That was one of the first things I thought of, but not that some frogmen rendezvoused with the frigate somewhere at sea.  Did this happen just after (like within a few days) they put to sea?  Maybe the NorKs infiltrated South Korean waters and attached it while the ship was moored pierside in South Korea.
 
However, a large charge in contact with the keel, while it may be able to ultimately result in the ship breaking in two, would still/also create a lot of twisted metal, and it seems like so far no one has leaked any observations of anything to that effect.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       4/7/2010 10:41:49 AM
Right, H, I recall the lousy conditions (yet not all the divers died - then again, big freaking limpet mine!) but, like warpig, was thinking of delayed action device planted at 'happier' time. 
 
Yet it was a foolish thought. The effects are no good, right?  If it were hull attached contact explosive you would have the twisted metal, the brimstone smell (mmm, it's been too long since I went shooting), and from what I am gathering there was none such, so it would be a limpet on a chain, which sounds ridiculous in my head as I type it. I remember you schooling me on the Munroe (not Monroe) effect; this water hammer/keel-snapper is sort of like a seaborne version, loosely speaking.
 
So how far from the hull does this water hammer effect work?  One meter, 10m, 30m?  Was/is any test of local water chemistry viable, for reaction products?  Might there be traces of the explosion on the seabed if the water is so shallow?
 
I am willing to believe it was an accident of some sort, and to hold conclusions till that's settled yea or nay, but DA doesn't convince me as he used to.  He is too fond of being right so I'm afraid I suspect him of roasting facts to feed his conclusions.  Does SK deploy any water hammer effect devices?  That seems like it would narrow things down. 
 
A depth charge was a novel idea, guess that could fit with a premature; especially if they were having a mad minute off at seagulls, they might have (perhaps accidentally) dropped one at such preposterous depths, and without proper safety devices I guess it could have gone off.  C.S. Forester writes of such an incident (fictional) that was barely averted in New York Harbor during WWII.
 
 Can't help thinking USN or NSA or NRO has the whole thing on tape.  But then that would imply we have our act together.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       4/7/2010 10:42:40 AM
That was one of the first things I thought of, but not that some frogmen rendezvoused with the frigate somewhere at sea.  Did this happen just after (like within a few days) they put to sea?  Maybe the NorKs infiltrated South Korean waters and attached it while the ship was moored pierside in South Korea.
 
Given DPRK terrorist operations in the past where they've mounted kidnappings, assassinations, and general mayhem from the sea upon the RoK and on occasion Japan, wouldn't the ROKN mount a keel watch and delouse their warships in port just to prevent such an event?
 
For a small navy, they sure had a robust and numerous diver presence on the Cheonan wreck within days. Those guys looked well-practiced and that necessity for warship security in port against DPRK shenanigans was one of the reasons I thought the ROKN would and should have so many of those divers and frogmen handy.
 
H.     
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2010 10:54:50 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





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.

 
Reactive,
 I didn't say the ship grounded. I only answered a previous question asked earlier in the thread about what else could break a ship in two. My comments were not all directed at everyone either. I have not said what sank this ship. Only what could sink this ship. Reasonable suggestions to be eliminated until a root cause is found. I'm simply not jumping to the conclusion that it was a hostile act yet. That's all.
I hope you will understand that my tone is not infused with polemic, but rather a genuine disagreement with you on this issue, as always, I am happy to debate, and will do so ( as long as you're not french) politely, but I find it demeans my good opinion of you when you resort to sounding somewhat aloof whilst ignoring the fact that actually, there's not a whole lot wrong with what most sensible posters here have asserted. 

With Respect,
 
R


Reactive, you don't have to worry about offending me. I appreciate it but your post are stellar examples of how a debate should go. We aren't insulting each other or any of that. So if you disagree then that's great! Now we have something to discuss. I don't mean to sound aloof but there are others here who have certain biases and unlike you, they set the hostile tone for these disagreements and when they cannot support their arguments or when they deal with persons who have direct knowledge and experience in these matters they get intimidated and resort to extreme disrespect and that's what's going on. But my aloofness isn't directed at you understand.
 
As you say, there is nothing wrong with many of the assertions from some of the others. All of these things could be a potential cause. What's wrong is to assume it's a hostile act. We you start asserting under the assumption that the Norks did this, it's bias. Also, some people here have asserted things about the Nork arsenal and capabilities that are not correct. Lets just say conventional wisdom isn't the wisest choice here.

-DA 

 








 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       4/7/2010 11:07:32 AM

Right, H, I recall the lousy conditions (yet not all the divers died - then again, big freaking limpet mine!) but, like warpig, was thinking of delayed action device planted at 'happier' time. 

See above.

Yet it was a foolish thought. The effects are no good, right?  If it were hull attached contact explosive you would have the twisted metal, the brimstone smell (mmm, it's been too long since I went shooting), and from what I am gathering there was none such, so it would be a limpet on a chain, which sounds ridiculous in my head as I type it. I remember you schooling me on the Munroe (not Monroe) effect; this water hammer/keel-snapper is sort of like a seaborne version, loosely speaking.

Well.....the formed jet of material that cuts into metal is similar, but here its water that forms the cutting agent and a gas bubble that supplies additional kinetic shock, hence water HAMMER..
 
 
So how far from the hull does this water hammer effect work?  One meter, 10m, 30m?  Was/is any test of local water chemistry viable, for reaction products?  Might there be traces of the explosion on the seabed if the water is so shallow?

US Mark 9 DCs  could crack some submarine pressure hulls as far away as ten to fifteen meters distant.  Its an "It depends" kind of answer. How big is the charge, is it shaped, how tough is the target hull, etc? A bottom mine set at 40 meters could snap Cheonan in two. It would be a very large mine though.     
 
I am willing to believe it was an accident of some sort, and to hold conclusions till that's settled yea or nay, but DA doesn't convince me as he used to.  He is too fond of being right so I'm afraid I suspect him of roasting facts to feed his conclusions.  Does SK deploy any water hammer effect devices?  That seems like it would narrow things down. 

If you mean the RoKN corvette Cheonan, she carried depth charges and torpedoes. She was also capable in a pinch of laying mines tho0ugh this us not advertised as it is not the usual modern way to mine lay. 

A depth charge was a novel idea, guess that could fit with a premature; especially if they were having a mad minute off at seagulls, they might have (perhaps accidentally) dropped one at such preposterous depths, and without proper safety devices I guess it could have gone off.  C.S. Forester writes of such an incident (fictional) that was barely averted in New York Harbor during WWII.

I floated that idea as one of the many  "three weapon class effect plausibles".  It, as a hypothesis, like the circle run torpedo and fatigued hull failure event that results in a magazine explosion set pf ideas,  has many problems we mist solve before we list it as a viable cause. 
As of now, its a speculation.
 
 Can't help thinking USN or NSA or NRO has the whole thing on tape.  But then that would imply we have our act together.

Are you kidding?

H.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       4/7/2010 11:08:56 AM
RoK is strong with individual contributors, their problems would be at systems level.  I'm struck that they had a death.  Our guys would've probably said "Wait till tomorrow" but I'm sure the SK guys are fanatical.  Hell, grocery store parking lot attendants at the Korean market in Flushing are fanatical (you should see these guys!). 
 
I think one day everybody in Seoul is gonna have to move a few miles south and then they can have it out.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2010 11:14:49 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.

 

Disagree. It's the wrong thing to do militarily and just as a practical matter. The Norks are in a bind and would probably benefit more from a war than we or the south would. Whatever damage we inflict they will return 10x over in terms of cost and lives affected. The propaganda victory would serve the Norks overall national objective which is regime survival. We don't have the resources to do more than an air and sea campaign there and at great cost in blood and treasure. I'm not against making them pay for it IF they did it but I am against opening up a campaign we aren't in a position to end. Thats the trap.

We go for limited objective, things escalate, then a limited retaliation turns into full on war. That's the danger. In order to take a risk like that we need to be in a position to see this through all the way. With the bulk of our ground components committed elsewhere and the current economic situation the timing isn't right for that. This isn't about a moral argument just a matter of practicality and choosing the best strategy to deal with the problem which is to cause political changes to the Norks ultimately.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       4/7/2010 11:26:03 AM




Right, H, I recall the lousy conditions (yet not all the divers died - then again, big freaking limpet mine!) but, like warpig, was thinking of delayed action device planted at 'happier' time. 



See above.


There seems to be some incompetence in recent RoK activities.  Firing at birds (if true), the lousy PR...why not a botched harbor watch?  They only have to be lucky once.


Yet it was a foolish thought. The effects are no good, right?  If it were hull attached contact explosive you would have the twisted metal, the brimstone smell (mmm, it's been too long since I went shooting), and from what I am gathering there was none such, so it would be a limpet on a chain, which sounds ridiculous in my head as I type it. I remember you schooling me on the Munroe (not Monroe) effect; this water hammer/keel-snapper is sort of like a seaborne version, loosely speaking.






Well.....the formed jet of material that cuts into metal is similar, but here its water that forms the cutting agent and a gas bubble that supplies additional kinetic shock, hence water HAMMER..
 

 
A loose comparison, of course.  One could as easily invoke the Misznay?Schardin (sp?) effect.  Just an analogy.

 

So how far from the hull does this water hammer effect work?  One meter, 10m, 30m?  Was/is any test of local water chemistry viable, for reaction products?  Might there be traces of the explosion on the seabed if the water is so shallow?




US Mark 9 DCs  could crack some submarine pressure hulls as far away as ten to fifteen meters distant.  Its an "It depends" kind of answer. How big is the charge, is it shaped, how tough is the target hull, etc? A bottom mine set at 40 meters could snap Cheonan in two. It would be a very large mine though.     

 
Then there should be a crater at the bottom, or at least explosive residue.

I am willing to believe it was an accident of some sort, and to hold conclusions till that's settled yea or nay, but DA doesn't convince me as he used to.  He is too fond of being right so I'm afraid I suspect him of roasting facts to feed his conclusions.  Does SK deploy any water hammer effect devices?  That seems like it would narrow things down. 



If you mean the RoKN corvette Cheonan, she carried depth charges and torpedoes. She was also capable in a pinch of laying mines tho0ugh this us not advertised as it is not the usual modern way to mine lay. 


Were these of such type (metal enhanced water hammer effect devices)?  Does RoK own such and did Cheonan carry them?  (E.g., if the US were attacked with poison gas we would know it wasn't us as we have no chemwar program.)  If the RoK have a weapon that would do this, it's possible it was FF (work accident, lol) or ND.  If not, it's not .



A depth charge was a novel idea, guess that could fit with a premature; especially if they were having a mad minute off at seagulls, they might have (perhaps accidentally) dropped one at such preposterous depths, and without proper safety devices I guess it could have gone off.  C.S. Forester writes of such an incident (fictional) that was barely averted in New York Harbor during WWII.






I floated that idea as one of the many  "three weapon class effect plausibles".  It, as a hypothesis, like the circle run torpedo and fatigued hull failure event that results in a magazine explosion set pf ideas,  has many problems we mist solve before we list it as a viable cause. 
As of now, its a speculation.

 Maybe you could do one of your summary timelines, it would help just like a scorecard to keep us straight on sequence.

 Can't help thinking USN or NSA or NRO has the whole thing on tape.  But th
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Oh and    4/7/2010 11:38:39 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.


Disagree. It's the wrong thing to do militarily and just as a practical matter. The Norks are in a bind and would probably benefit more from a war than we or the south would. Whatever damage we inflict they will return 10x over in terms of cost and lives affected. The propaganda victory would serve the Norks overall national objective which is regime survival. We don't have the resources to do more than an air and sea campaign there and at great cost in blood and treasure. I'm not against making them pay for it IF they did it but I am against opening up a campaign we aren't in a position to end. Thats the trap.


We go for limited objective, things escalate, then a limited retaliation turns into full on war. That's the danger. In order to take a risk like that we need to be in a position to see this through all the way. With the bulk of our ground components committed elsewhere and the current economic situation the timing isn't right for that. This isn't about a moral argument just a matter of practicality and choosing the best strategy to deal with the problem which is to cause political changes to the Norks ultimately.







-DA 


So whack Kim Jong Il and pick a winner from his inner circle.  Or coup the whole regime, or decapitate it.  I understand the hope - and it is a hope - that the whole rotten edifice will come down of its own accord; and I know that kicking the door in to create the same effect were classic Hitlerian "famous last words," but I do question whether war would really put any ram in the Norks' rods.
 
Meanwhile, I thought RoK had the resources to fight that war all by themselves - what was the figure I recall, 4, 5m reserves?  F-15s and license built/derived Abrams?  Not sure we should be expected to go beyond air support and C4ISR in pulling the Korean chestnuts out of the fire.  The great thing for years has been the threat of 10,000 arty tubes trained on Seoul.  Evacuate the people, or accept the losses. 
 
What - and this is not a rhetorical question - is the limit of provocation which RoK should endure? 
 
...Oh and - the usual chorus in the Korean song -  what about China, in relation to this whole incident?  Maybe they know something.
 
I guess it could have been Jonathan Pryce or some other Bond villain...
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics