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
DarthAmerica       3/28/2010 2:43:18 PM

Also, the captain of the ship was rescued. Do you honestly think they need months worth of investigations when you have 56 witnesses, one of which is the captain? Is the captain really that daft to be engaging a flock of birds and then not have any clue why he lost an entire ship?

 Here are the facts.

1. The ship was in a contested area between the N. and S.

2. The DPRK issued threats of violence that day.

3. Relations between N. and S. have been strained recently with the new S. administration because they have not followed with the sunshine policy of the last 2 administrations. N. Korea has been rather beligerent in trying to reopen tourism from the S.

4. The ship was engaged with a flock of birds for 15 minutes. I don't think anyone really believes that.

 5. Photos of the ship show is has been severed in half.

6. This would not be the first time the N. has used violence as a political tool. 



This isn't a Sherlock Holmes case. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one.


What obvious answer? Which NORK forces did this? Ship, Sub, Aircraft, Saboteur? You cannot answer those questions so you have no obvious answer. We don't even know whether or not the South Koreans didn't do it themselves.


-DA
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    More News.   3/28/2010 3:05:38 PM
 
quote:
 
Speculations vary on cause of ship sinking
 
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/img_dir/2010/03/28/201003280029.jpg" border="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" alt="" />
President Lee Myung-bak presides over an emergency security meeting at Cheong Wa Dae on Saturday on the sinking of a naval ship. [Cheong Wa Dae]

Speculations have been rampant as to the cause of the sinking of a South Korean naval ship in waters near the disputed Yellow Sea border with North Korea on Friday night.

South Korean officials remain cautious, saying the exact cause of the explosion that sunk the 1,200-ton vessel can be determined after the sunken ship is salvaged. The salvage process may take at least 20 days, military officials say, noting that it took 17 days to salvage a 130-ton vessel struck in a surprise attack by North Korea in 2002.

After visiting the disaster site Saturday, Defense Minister Kim Tae-young told reporters that the government is "yet to track down the exact cause behind the tragedy," adding that making predictions is "meaningless in this situation."

The official explanation that has been made so far by the military is that an unidentified explosion punctured a hole in the rear bottom of the vessel, shutting off the engine and taking the ship down in less than three hours.

The slow work on finding the cause of the tragedy that left 46 of the ship's 104 sailors still missing, however, has stirred a wide range of speculation as to what caused the vessel to sink.

Experts speculate on largely three possible causes for the explosion -- an explosion within the ship due to internal defects or malfunctioning, accidental collision with a reef or other objects, or an attack from an outside force including the North Korean navy.


http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/images_09/txt_adver.gif" width="82" height="21" alt="" />
<a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/DKO/go/196659524/direct/01/' target='_blank'><img border='0' src='http://view.atdmt.com/DKO/view/196659524/direct/01/' /></a>

The possibility of an internal cause -- such as an explosion of parts near the rear bottom of the vessel where the explosion ripped a hole -- appears to be very low, according to an expert.

"Personally, I think the possibility of an internal defect or malfunctioning is very low," said Kim Tae-woo, vice president of the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses.

"I have never heard of any navy vessel explode by itself so far, although it is too early to make presumptions when the government is still looking into possible causes."

Should it be an internal explosion, former cre

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/28/2010 3:10:33 PM
Actually, yes I do.
 
The main gun of the ship was engaged. That automatically rules out subs. The ship's keel was split in half. Sorry, but no saboteur is going to do that. That leaves us with a plane or another ship. 
 
The only way that I know of to break a ships keel is to detonate a charge beneath the keel of the ship and generate a pressure wave which lifts the ship out of the water and the vacuum created breaks the ship under its own weight, ie. a torpedo. A mine creates a hole in the side of the ship and a munitions detonation would do the same depending on where the explosion is designed to vent, not cut the ship in half.
 
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what could cause that kind of damage? The flock of birds were armed with c4 and kamikazied into the ship perhaps? Or maybe it was megashark and giant octopus battling it out and the South Koreans got caught in the middle.



Also, the captain of the ship was rescued. Do you honestly think they need months worth of investigations when you have 56 witnesses, one of which is the captain? Is the captain really that daft to be engaging a flock of birds and then not have any clue why he lost an entire ship?



 Here are the facts.




1. The ship was in a contested area between the N. and S.




2. The DPRK issued threats of violence that day.




3. Relations between N. and S. have been strained recently with the new S. administration because they have not followed with the sunshine policy of the last 2 administrations. N. Korea has been rather beligerent in trying to reopen tourism from the S.




4. The ship was engaged with a flock of birds for 15 minutes. I don't think anyone really believes that.



 5. Photos of the ship show is has been severed in half.





6. This would not be the first time the N. has used violence as a political tool. 










This isn't a Sherlock Holmes case. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one.









What obvious answer? Which NORK forces did this? Ship, Sub, Aircraft, Saboteur? You cannot answer those questions so you have no obvious answer. We don't even know whether or not the South Koreans didn't do it themselves.







-DA


 


 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/28/2010 3:27:46 PM
Actually, yes I do.
 
The main gun of the ship was engaged. That automatically rules out subs. The ship's keel was split in half. Sorry, but no saboteur is going to do that. That leaves us with a plane or another ship. 
 
The only way that I know of to break a ships keel is to detonate a charge beneath the keel of the ship and generate a pressure wave which lifts the ship out of the water and the vacuum created breaks the ship under its own weight, ie. a torpedo. A mine creates a hole in the side of the ship and a munitions detonation would do the same depending on where the explosion is designed to vent, not cut the ship in half.
 
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what could cause that kind of damage? The flock of birds were armed with c4 and kamikazied into the ship perhaps? Or maybe it was megashark and giant octopus battling it out and the South Koreans got caught in the middle.



Also, the captain of the ship was rescued. Do you honestly think they need months worth of investigations when you have 56 witnesses, one of which is the captain? Is the captain really that daft to be engaging a flock of birds and then not have any clue why he lost an entire ship?



 Here are the facts.




1. The ship was in a contested area between the N. and S.




2. The DPRK issued threats of violence that day.




3. Relations between N. and S. have been strained recently with the new S. administration because they have not followed with the sunshine policy of the last 2 administrations. N. Korea has been rather beligerent in trying to reopen tourism from the S.




4. The ship was engaged with a flock of birds for 15 minutes. I don't think anyone really believes that.



 5. Photos of the ship show is has been severed in half.





6. This would not be the first time the N. has used violence as a political tool. 










This isn't a Sherlock Holmes case. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one.









What obvious answer? Which NORK forces did this? Ship, Sub, Aircraft, Saboteur? You cannot answer those questions so you have no obvious answer. We don't even know whether or not the South Koreans didn't do it themselves.







-DA


 


 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       3/28/2010 3:47:34 PM
You did not seriously watch that film??. I happened to flick over at the point they tried to lure the shark into san francisco bay (unsure why - but the flow of the film seemed to imply uncaring /incompetent military). At that point it was dire, I was reaching for the remote at the point they engaged a submerged shark with the pop gun on the bow and reported its speed as in excess of 500 knots- it was just biting the bridge as i switched off. 
 
      ON TOPIC
 
 i would have expected a torpedo to have done a lot more damage to a ship that size, and i would have been expecting a hit amidships, (assuming no evasive manouvering)
 
As for the birds, there seems to be confusion on this point as to who was shooting and when.
 
If the corvette was shooting before the incident then iwould have expected  the crew to be at high readiness not as some witnesses say chilling in there buks.
 
if it was another vessel -possibly coming to assist - that opened up on a flock of gulls, then i dont find that to unbelievable.
 
Its a very confused picture
you have a ship reporting an explosion and its sinking, its in an area disputed with a belligerent neighbour, you dont know if its accident or design, you now have an unidentified target, nervous inexperienced and jumpy crew,
hell yeah, its a possible.
 
note im unaware of the training and standards of the ROK forces in general - but i believe they are a conscript force
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/28/2010 3:49:08 PM
Actually, yes I do.
 
The main gun of the ship was engaged. That automatically rules out subs. The ship's keel was split in half. Sorry, but no saboteur is going to do that. That leaves us with a plane or another ship. 
 
The only way that I know of to break a ships keel is to detonate a charge beneath the keel of the ship and generate a pressure wave which lifts the ship out of the water and the vacuum created breaks the ship under its own weight, ie. a torpedo. A mine creates a hole in the side of the ship and a munitions detonation would do the same depending on where the explosion is designed to vent, not cut the ship in half.
 
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what could cause that kind of damage? The flock of birds were armed with c4 and kamikazied into the ship perhaps? Or maybe it was megashark and giant octopus battling it out and the South Koreans got caught in the middle.



Also, the captain of the ship was rescued. Do you honestly think they need months worth of investigations when you have 56 witnesses, one of which is the captain? Is the captain really that daft to be engaging a flock of birds and then not have any clue why he lost an entire ship?



 Here are the facts.




1. The ship was in a contested area between the N. and S.




2. The DPRK issued threats of violence that day.




3. Relations between N. and S. have been strained recently with the new S. administration because they have not followed with the sunshine policy of the last 2 administrations. N. Korea has been rather beligerent in trying to reopen tourism from the S.




4. The ship was engaged with a flock of birds for 15 minutes. I don't think anyone really believes that.



 5. Photos of the ship show is has been severed in half.





6. This would not be the first time the N. has used violence as a political tool. 










This isn't a Sherlock Holmes case. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one.









What obvious answer? Which NORK forces did this? Ship, Sub, Aircraft, Saboteur? You cannot answer those questions so you have no obvious answer. We don't even know whether or not the South Koreans didn't do it themselves.







-DA


 


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/28/2010 3:51:10 PM

Actually, yes I do.

 No, you don't.

The main gun of the ship was engaged. That automatically rules out subs. The ship's keel was split in half. Sorry, but no saboteur is going to do that. That leaves us with a plane or another ship. 

 Wrong. Submarines, especially SSKs, do surface. This is just one example of why you should not jump to conclusions.

The only way that I know of to break a ships keel is to detonate a charge beneath the keel of the ship and generate a pressure wave which lifts the ship out of the water and the vacuum created breaks the ship under its own weight, ie. a torpedo. A mine creates a hole in the side of the ship and a munitions detonation would do the same depending on where the explosion is designed to vent, not cut the ship in half.

Here is your problem. You've decided in your mind that North Korean torpedos did this. So you are constructing the scenario for yourself and at the same time accepting it as fact. It's a classic investigative mistake. Moreover, not all mines are the same. THink of the submerged variety and also the types of mines that contain torpedo's as a payload.
 
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what could cause that kind of damage? The flock of birds were armed with c4 and kamikazied into the ship perhaps? Or maybe it was megashark and giant octopus battling it out and the South Koreans got caught in the middle.

Sure, I could do that but why bother? You have already convinced yourself of the answer minus any support for the level of conviction. Your tone is also sarcastic. What's in it for me? Calm down, remain objective and we can discuss the scenarios. Otherwise I'd rather not argue with you.
-DA
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/28/2010 4:25:42 PM

Chamberlain called in his service chiefs and asked if they were ready for war.

 

Whether or not he should have pulled the trigger anyway and gambled, is one of history's hottest debated questions. Hindsight tells me yes. The Germans were no where near ready. If Chamberlain called Hitler's bluff, then the German generals would have killed the maniac and set up a Franco type regime and we would have forty bumpy years of German fascism. Not nice, but disagreeably manageable. Think of it as Napoleon the III's France with a German accent, BUT NO ONE KNEW THAT. 

 

What the British service chiefs knew was Guernica then. This especially bothered the RAF, which since 1935 had been in a mad dash to prepare to meet the Luftwaffe, as soon as they knew who exactly the bozos (Goering and that swine-pig, Udet) that ran the German aviation side actually were. 


 

The RAF estimated  from their own intelligence that the Luftwaffe could kill from 15000 to 300,000 people in the opening stages of an air campaign against Britain for which they had no real defense. Fighter Command wasn't ready.


 

So the RAF plead with Chamberlain for a year. They wanted TWO. 

 

Chamberlain gave them what he could. It was just barely enough time.


 

THAT is what a politician, who is a patriot, sometimes has to do.

 

It made Chamberlain look weak and like a coward. He wasn't. He just tried to do the best for his people that he could with the best information he had at the time.
 
My assertion was specifically how history has judged the man, accept everything you've said as true, and furthermore he made a good and honourable decision by his eventual role in ensuring Churchill, rather than Halifax was in charge. However, the difference between he and Churchill was that Churchill was a man who believed in going to war on principle, and that the threat from the Germans would only increase, Chamberlain was, on the other hand, trying to avert war through diplomacy with a man who had demonstrated his disregard for prior treaties on numerous occasions, the result of his admirable desire for peace was that Germany continued to increase in strength dramatically, and the world knew the biggest war in history.  This is the "practical" thinker versus the "radical" thinker, I would put churchill in the latter category, he believed that the sooner we engaged Hitler the better, he believed that Hitler was, in principle evil and he believed that we should make a stand before it became impossible to do so due to aggressive rearmament. Neville Chamberlain was a good man, but he was cautious, he wanted to avoid war even when it relied on him trusting (to what degree we will never know) a man who it was very obvious was preparing for the empire of the third reich, Churchill saw the window narrowing for us to effectively engage Germany, and how right he was, as anyone other than an idiot knows.
 
South Korea to me is doing what Chamberlain did, they are being practical, they are hoping for a continual peace even though the reality is that there will be an inevitable conflict at some point in the future, the fact that it is their own countrymen who are being savaged by a vicious regime makes it doubly hard for me to accept that "casualties on their side" or as Darth puts it, in their capital are going to be huge, there are already huge casualties in their own nation (Korea, north and south) and the fact that an arbitrary line of DPRK control delineates to them who is more rightfully the recipient of "peace" is all the more astounding to me, they are one culture, split by a madman.  The other clear similarity to me is that the easiest course of action on the part of Churchill in WW2 would simply have been to avoid war with Germany until they engaged us, Hitler never really wanted the UK as an enemy, we could have avoided war for a lot longer by avoiding our principled objection to the German Blitzkrieg in 1939, this mirrors ROK, because they are avoiding the inevitable, by sticking to principles of self-interest that are, in this case especially, repugnant (to me). Chamberlain was a good man, and as you say, a patriot, a peace-lover, my point is that sometimes the greater good is best served by hawks rather than doves.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/28/2010 4:31:59 PM
Also, accept your point Re: Guernica, looking at the rearmament statistics there was, however, a narrow window in which the Nazis could have been destabilized, accept that this is more obvious now than then, and hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing, this is why I prefer that principles, as opposed to practicalities, dictate our objectives wherever possible, we left it too late and by the time German Troops met the British they thoroughly trounced us, Chamberlain did not do enough to develop our capabilities because his primary concern was avoiding conflict in the first place...  History has, perhaps been unfair to him, and if I was a citizen of the DPRK I would wonder why my countrymen to the south, with their great resources, support, army, navy, and air force, did not do anything to help me before a weaponised nuclear warhead on a usable delivery mechanism made it forever impossible.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/28/2010 5:02:01 PM
Really? A surfaced sub? While I did consider the possibility forgive me for assuming that the N. Koreans are far too stupid and remained on the surface for 15 minutes while being shelled. Perfectly logical.
 
Yes, I did decide a torpedo did this. Unless you can provide me with another reasonable explanation on how the ship was cut in half I'll stick to my guns. Because I'm sure as hell mines and magazine explosions don't do that.
 
OK, mines with torpedoes as payload. Do the N. Koreans possess any of these? No. 
 
So again, I ask you what did do this? Are you really that naive to think they were shooting at a flock of birds at 2100?



Actually, yes I do.



 No, you don't.



The main gun of the ship was engaged. That automatically rules out subs. The ship's keel was split in half. Sorry, but no saboteur is going to do that. That leaves us with a plane or another ship. 



 Wrong. Submarines, especially SSKs, do surface. This is just one example of why you should not jump to conclusions.



The only way that I know of to break a ships keel is to detonate a charge beneath the keel of the ship and generate a pressure wave which lifts the ship out of the water and the vacuum created breaks the ship under its own weight, ie. a torpedo. A mine creates a hole in the side of the ship and a munitions detonation would do the same depending on where the explosion is designed to vent, not cut the ship in half.




Here is your problem. You've decided in your mind that North Korean torpedos did this. So you are constructing the scenario for yourself and at the same time accepting it as fact. It's a classic investigative mistake. Moreover, not all mines are the same. THink of the submerged variety and also the types of mines that contain torpedo's as a payload.

 




Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what could cause that kind of damage? The flock of birds were armed with c4 and kamikazied into the ship perhaps? Or maybe it was megashark and giant octopus battling it out and the South Koreans got caught in the middle.








Sure, I could do that but why bother? You have already convinced yourself of the answer minus any support for the level of conviction. Your tone is also sarcastic. What's in it for me? Calm down, remain objective and we can discuss the scenarios. Otherwise I'd rather not argue with you.

-DA


















 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics