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    Mines.   3/28/2010 8:28:49 PM
 
DLYAOYM.
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/28/2010 8:32:27 PM
They operate Yugos and Sang-Os. S Korea captured a Yugo in a botched infiltration attempt 1998 so that really wasn't too long ago. But still, I agree that no sub captain would try to operate in waters that shallow. I was just throwing out eh possibility, though unlikely, that it could happen.
 
If you watch the youtube video I posted earlier, a torpedo hit really isn't all that spectacular in terms of visible damage. You simply see the ship bend and break. Just because it's a wake homer doesn't mean it has to hit the ship's screws the ship. It just uses the wake to get to where it needs to be.


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 8:40:08 PM
I am dead wrong? And where is your proof that they even exist in N Korea? Right, because the Koreans employing some sort of CAPTOR system would be highly classified material, stuff like the F117 from the 80's. They don't want people knowing they have it and we certainly don't want people knowing they have it. The country deathly afraid of being invaded wants the world to know they have nukes but a defensive system like the captor is no where to be found. I guess you must hold a really great position to be privy to all the area 51 stuff?
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...
 


 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Mines.   3/28/2010 8:42:34 PM
Source of bottom ambush float mines.


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.




We are both aware of the CHEN series which includes types that use acoustic seekers and UPFLOAT charges that de-anchor to maneuver to intercept a SLOW target.
 
20 meters is NOT DEEP ENOUGH for those types.
 
H.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Mines.   3/28/2010 8:49:57 PM
They operate Yugos and Sang-Os. S Korea captured a Yugo in a botched infiltration attempt 1998 so that really wasn't too long ago. But still, I agree that no sub captain would try to operate in waters that shallow. I was just throwing out eh possibility, though unlikely, that it could happen.
 
 That was the depth where the Cheonan sank. The sub could have stood off to seaward and launched into shore. That though carries us into rampant speculation territory. A torpedo can operate in water as shallow as 20 meters easy. Darter and Dace ambushed Kurita in shallow water, but they had to stand off in deep water to do it..
 
That is however rampant speculation.
 
H. 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/28/2010 8:57:38 PM
If I am not mistaken, a ship launched type 53 only needs 10m to operate?
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    Latest from the DPRK   3/28/2010 9:14:36 PM
"If the U.S. and the South Korean authorities persist in their wrong acts to misuse the DMZ for the inter-Korean confrontation despite our warnings, these will entail unpredictable incidents including the loss of human lives," the North's KCNA news agency quoted the spokesman as saying."

Unpredictable incidents including the loss of human lives..
 
Either a thinly-veiled reference or a very tasteless joke.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/28/2010 9:20:26 PM

We are both aware of the CHEN series which includes types that use acoustic seekers and UPFLOAT charges that de-anchor to maneuver to intercept a SLOW target.

20 meters is NOT DEEP ENOUGH for those types.

 H.


hence my subtle suggestion. :)

 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Well that answers one question.   3/28/2010 9:21:54 PM
As for the torpedo, it depends on the type  launcher and the type torpedo. Those things are HEAVY. They have to swim as war-shots.
 
H. 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    Update   3/28/2010 11:21:32 PM
AFP

Search teams have located the stern of a South Korean warship torn apart by a mystery explosion near the border with North Korea, the military said on Monday.

Most of the 46 missing crewmen are thought still trapped inside the stern portion of the hull following Friday's blast, a spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff told AFP.

He said military teams would try to dive later on Monday on the object detected by sonar late on Sunday some 40-50 metres away from where the 1,200-tonne corvette the Cheonan went down.

A total of 58 crewmen were rescued soon after the disaster off Baengnyeong island in the Yellow Sea, but no one else has been found since then despite a major air and sea search

The disputed border area was the scene of deadly naval clashes involving the two Koreas in 1999 and 2002, and of a firefight last November. Seoul officials say there is no evidence so far Pyongyang was involved in Friday's blast.

 
So dive footage coming soon and all eyes will be on it. Some thoughts on damage patterns expected for internal ordnance explosion, mine contact explosion, and under-hull explosion.
 
Internal Ordnance explosion, unevenly distributed, metal twisted outwards in a  holing pattern reflecting the strongest blast overpressures. From WW1 /WW2 ships whose magazines got hit, the explosion was generally channelled upwards as it is by far the path of least resistance relative the hull/sea. You'd expect it to blast through a part of the hull, but I can't see how it would literally slice the boat in half. There should be damage consistent with close proximity to high temperature gases, internally the damage will be very obviously heat/blast related. Hull plating bent outwards.
 
Under-Ship Torpedo/Seabed Mine, Sheering of the hull will follow the path of least resistance, this should be roughly symmetrical (as it is gravity and pressure that causes the sheering) The Plates on the bottom of the hull should be bent inwards and water and steam travelling up through the ship should damage/tear chunks off the superstructure due to hydaulic pressure rather than superhot gas, so more ripping and twisting, less burning/melting/charring/heat effect than an internal explosion.
 
Contact Mine: More delineated circular/elliptical blast pattern, uneven distribution and relatively predictable pressure falloff. Metal ripped inwards.
 
In all the accounts, no one seems to have witnessed any smoke or fires onboard, this makes me think the explosion was likely a mine of some sort on the seabed, internal ordnance going off causes huge amounts of flames/smoke/fires/burned sailors. From the accounts I've seen it seems like there was a huge blast, no mention of fires onboard, water and steam doesn't cause fire, as you can see from hundreds of videos of torpedo tests.
 
Interesting.
 
R

 

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics