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 7:22:16 PM

And going along with Hamilcar, CAPTORs are deep water mines for use against subs. They are anchored hundreds of meters deep. So please stop with this whole mine/torpedo theory.

Hamilcar is discretely attempting to flame so as not to get banned again. And that is not the only thing CAPTOR type mines are used for. It seems both of you are unfamiliar with some of the latest methods used to deliver mines and types of mine payloads. Also, I'm not theorizing that a mine/torpedo did anything. I'm simply listing it as one out of many possibilities IF we assume some sort of hostile action. Get a clue and stop trying to make silly arguments where there are none. As to suggesting that I subscribe to Janes, LOL. I'll let you figure out why I'm laughing...

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/28/2010 7:29:10 PM
I made no suggestion of the sort. I just threw it out there for anyone who does have a subscription if they wanted to see for themselves. Point being, you suggested that the N Koreans had such a delivery method and then assumed I didn't know what I was talking about when I disagreed with you. You can say Janes is a laughable source if you want, but it is certainly more reliable than your word of mouth.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/28/2010 7:33:37 PM

On September 1,1939, Hitler invaded Poland.

 





That is NOT Churchill.


 

H.


I know, i'm well-aware, but it IS the voice of the man who was happy to sign the Munich Agreement to allow Germany to occupy Czechoslovakia, the man who later refused to put rearmament on to a war footing for fear of violating the "piece of paper" he had signed with Hitler (which, as everyone knows, was a non-binding statement of intent). He was already regarded as an ardent pacifist far in advance of Munich, he really did think we were going to avoid it.
 
NC made concessions that he never should have, he "followed" prevailing opinion at the time rather than leading it, his greatest crime was trying to have a finger in each pie, preparing (but not on a war footing) for conflict but at the same time allowing Hitler to continue. Yes he did initially make the ultimatum concerning Poland, but with significant pressure, even Clement Atlee was at one point regarded as more of a Hawk in the commons following the initially "weak" statements from Chamberlain, the reality is that he dithered. He wasn't seeing the reality of the situation, I don't think that his tactics were merely to buy time, I think he genuinely believed that he could through diplomacy avoid war with Hitler. In a sense he was caught out, the treaties made to protect Poland had been expected to deter Hitler, in the event, they were completely ignored.
 
In his own words
 
Everything that I have worked for, everything that I have hoped for, everything that I have believed in during my public life has crashed into ruins. There is only one thing left for me to do: that is devote what strength and power I have to forwarding the victory of the cause for which we have sacrificed so much.
 
The attitude of people who were in war industries whom I have spoken to personally at the time was that they were not really being pushed in to production in the pre-war years, there was a lot of slack not being taken-up, for most factories business continued as usual, my family's factory, which, (with a note of pride) made extremely high tolerance metalwork for trigger mechanisms (and they were the ones the servicemen asked for) were not put on a war footing for a long time, they were willing, ready, and like so much of industrial Britain, only started producing for the war effort a great deal later.
 
The basic feeling, both in the house of commons, and the industries:  Lacklustre commitment to rearmament.
 
Then once war was declared (with a lot of pressure from the commons) it was known at the time as the "bore war" (because NC refused to let the RN actually do anything), NC was cautious, still not getting the bigger picture. Even months in to the conflict he still firmly thought blockades and sanctions would force Germany back to the negotiating table.
 
The man was, in most undertakings relating to the second world war:
a) Pressured to act by consensus
b) Naive
c) Cautious
 
This wasnt the behaviour of a cunning planner, someone who had feigned timidity in order to draw Hitler in to a trap, but the behaviour of a man that genuinely thought in every instance that war might be averted, he was dragged kicking and screaming to war because of prevailing support of the general public and the commons. A cautious man, opposed to conflict to the bitter end, when realising the inevitable failure of his premiership, he made his one great and true decision as a leader, which was to give command to the somewhat unpopular and widely discredited Churchill rather than the popular Halifax.
 
I respect your rationale for disagreeing with the above, but I know from those I've known who were there at the time that Britain could have been far more prepared for war if they'd had a leader who really saw it as a likely outcome, and saw just what resources we would need, for that, we needed a man who despite all his failings would have put Britain on a war-footing the moment he saw the true nature of the Nazi threat.
 
He was a good man, just at the wrong point in history to be PM, he showed weakness when we really, more than ever, needed to show strength. 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/28/2010 7:49:25 PM
@ 20m depth it would be a brave sub driver to put his vessel in hostile contact with an enemy.
 
the issue of course is look at their subs, look at the torpeodes they use, then look at the area of the sinking.
 
would/could a sub driver engage in an environment where they most certainly can't withdraw safely?  subs withdraw by heading down (unless they're nukes and can egress at speed etc...)
 
The Sth Koreans are not dummies, they would not be randomly firing away at a contact unless they thought that they were under attack - after all, they've been exposed to fluffing and bluster in the past - so something has triggered a self defensive reaction - and for 15mins sustained. 
 
There is too much in this that doesn't make sense. 
 
Either the vessel commander is a complete incompetent - alomg with his watch officers and XO - or something untoward has happened
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/28/2010 7:50:20 PM

I made no suggestion of the sort. I just threw it out there for anyone who does have a subscription if they wanted to see for themselves. Point being, you suggested that the N Koreans had such a delivery method and then assumed I didn't know what I was talking about when I disagreed with you. You can say Janes is a laughable source if you want, but it is certainly more reliable than your word of mouth.

And what was the word of mouth? I simply informed you that the North Koreans, South Koreans, USA and PRC all have the technological capability to make a CAPTOR type mine. You then ran to google and got that bad information. Then you went on to suggest a mine could not have done this and that I should study physics. Perhaps you should calm down on your biases and approach this more objectively. Moreover, if you do not understand the principles of mine warfare or how various mines work, that's OKAY. Just say that! There is no shame. But to sit here and wildly speculate and place blame for this when you clearly don't know. Not a good look.

Bottom line is that while the circumstances are certainly suspicious. WE JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO BLAME ANYBODY. And when we do find out, it's just as likely that we'll be as surprised by what caused it as the event itself. I listed the most likely possibilities is all. That some want this to be at the hands of the North Koreans is why all this confusion.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/28/2010 7:54:07 PM
The N Koreans do have midget subs capable of operating in shallow depths and that can fire type 53 torpedoes, but I find the whole thing unlikely given that the ship was engaged with it's main cannon.
@ 20m depth it would be a brave sub driver to put his vessel in hostile contact with an enemy.

 

the issue of course is look at their subs, look at the torpeodes they use, then look at the area of the sinking.

 

would/could a sub driver engage in an environment where they most certainly can't withdraw safely?  subs withdraw by heading down (unless they're nukes and can egress at speed etc...)

 

The Sth Koreans are not dummies, they would not be randomly firing away at a contact unless they thought that they were under attack - after all, they've been exposed to fluffing and bluster in the past - so something has triggered a self defensive reaction - and for 15mins sustained. 

 

There is too much in this that doesn't make sense. 

 

Either the vessel commander is a complete incompetent - alomg with his watch officers and XO - or something untoward has happened


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/28/2010 8:03:20 PM

The N Koreans do have midget subs capable of operating in shallow depths and that can fire type 53 torpedoes, but I find the whole thing unlikely given that the ship was engaged with it's main cannon.


are they still in service?  My understanding was that all of their yugoslav built minis were to all intents and purposes inop.  I still find it hard to believe that any sub driver would put his crew and vessel in harms ways over a crossing the line event (if thats what the poss defence is)
a torpedo would IMO have done far more catastophic damage on that sized vessel.  it would have literally flipped it up and under.
 
the type 53's are wake homers, so the back end of the ship would have been completely destroyed rather than bubbled (like this one demonstrates the similar after effects of)
 
if its a tethered mine, then @20m one would assume that in highly trafficed waters that the South would be alert to vessels that could lay, eg trawlers etc...
 
too much of this doesn't make sense.

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/28/2010 8:05:09 PM
Informed me based on what evidence? Your word of mouth.
 
I understand how mines work perfectly. I understand that the N Koreans employ contact mines and nothing else. I understand that contact mines do not break ship keels and certainly do not shear ships in half, but create large holes in the side of hulls. And apparently I ran to google and got a Jane's subscription just for this topic! And not only that but the information on Jane's is bad!Simply put, if you knew anything about Naval Warfare you would know what moored mines are capable of doing and this is not it.
 
Of course the guy who says that the N Koreans can develop and employ CAPTOR style mines without any backing or reference should be taken as the word of god, but Jane's, or some other referenced material is suspect. In fact, we should just take your word for it that the North Koreans have developed and employed such systems along with plasma stealth, PAK 52s, orbital ion cannons and black hole bombs. We should just capitulate now and save ourselves the trouble.
And what was the word of mouth? I simply informed you that the North Koreans, South Koreans, USA and PRC all have the technological capability to make a CAPTOR type mine. You then ran to google and got that bad information. Then you went on to suggest a mine could not have done this and that I should study physics. Perhaps you should calm down on your biases and approach this more objectively. Moreover, if you do not understand the principles of mine warfare or how various mines work, that's OKAY. Just say that! There is no shame. But to sit here and wildly speculate and place blame for this when you clearly don't know. Not a good look.Bottom line is that while the circumstances are certainly suspicious. WE JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO BLAME ANYBODY. And when we do find out, it's just as likely that we'll be as surprised by what caused it as the event itself. I listed the most likely possibilities is all. That some want this to be at the hands of the North Koreans is why all this confusion.
 


-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/28/2010 8:09:39 PM

@ 20m depth it would be a brave sub driver to put his vessel in hostile contact with an enemy.

the issue of course is look at their subs, look at the torpeodes they use, then look at the area of the sinking.

 Assuming that the 76mm was actually firing at something. Threat could have been 10's of km away in deeper water. Not saying a sub did this, just that we cannot eliminate it as a possibility based on publicly available information. 

would/could a sub driver engage in an environment where they most certainly can't withdraw safely?  subs withdraw by heading down (unless they're nukes and can egress at speed etc...)

 Perhaps. There is the possibility that it acted defensively after being detected.

The Sth Koreans are not dummies, they would not be randomly firing away at a contact unless they thought that they were under attack - after all, they've been exposed to fluffing and bluster in the past - so something has triggered a self defensive reaction - and for 15mins sustained. 

 Agreed. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a mistake. I've seen a lot of people get shot who shouldn't have. High stress situations will do that to even the best trained personnel.

There is too much in this that doesn't make sense. 

Either the vessel commander is a complete incompetent - alomg with his watch officers and XO - or something untoward has happened

Both are possibilities.


-DA
 

 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/28/2010 8:17:44 PM

Informed me based on what evidence? Your word of mouth.

I understand how mines work perfectly. I understand that the N Koreans employ contact mines and nothing else. I understand that contact mines do not break ship keels and certainly do not shear ships in half, but create large holes in the side of hulls. And apparently I ran to google and got a Jane's subscription just for this topic! And not only that but the information on Jane's is bad!Simply put, if you knew anything about Naval Warfare you would know what moored mines are capable of doing and this is not it.

STRAWMAN. I never once said a moored mine did it. I used the word "mine" on purpose. You are DEAD WRONG ABOUT the kind of mines the North Koreans use. Certain kinds of people would not make the following statement, "I understand that the N Koreans employ contact mines and nothing else." That tells me a lot. But then again since you think everything exist in open source on the internet go figure...
 
 
-DA

 

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics