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
gf0012-aust       3/28/2010 11:49:29 PM

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.


the clearance diver report and images are the key.
 
if you look at even 18" torpedo bubble attacks, there is always superstructure that gets flung out, it's a singularly catastrophic and violent event.
 
assuming that the images to date are accurate, there is no hull warping - and thats what you'd expect to see from a bubble strike. 
 
thats a small ship, its not going to have much of a chance against even an 18". 
 
wrt to the video SINKEX, the problem is you can't use the HMAS Torrens Mk48 SINKEX as a reference as that torpedo was designed to take out Akulas and Oscars.  A destroyer escort/frigate sized vessel like HMAS Torrens has no hope of surviving such an attack
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/29/2010 12:12:22 AM
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg
 
Decent resolution image of damage done by under-keel explosion. All forces acting upwards, we will soon see.
 
If it proves to be an underwater explosion it should be reasonably easy to ascertain whether it is a mine or a torpedo by looking at the seabed itself.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/29/2010 12:25:54 AM
And yes I think a heavy torpedo is obviously "overkill" in terms of discussing a vessel of only 1200 tonnes, but as you say, an 18-inch or similarly sized torpedo detonating under a hull that light would still be able to do catastophic damage.. 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/29/2010 12:34:36 AM

And yes I think a heavy torpedo is obviously "overkill" in terms of discussing a vessel of only 1200 tonnes, but as you say, an 18-inch or similarly sized torpedo detonating under a hull that light would still be able to do catastophic damage.. 

yep, which is why this gets "curiouser and curiouser" - apols to alice in wonderland.  a ship the size of the sunk one would have no hope.  once you lose that many crew you don't have any hope of damage control working.  large vessels and large crews mean that damage control parties of some form or fashion have a chance in saving buoyant parts of the damaged vessel - small boats, small crews, significant loss of life?  not a chance
seeing the hull deformation is a significant tell on what has happened. even the sheared off hull is insufficient to form an opinion (except to reinforce the violence of the event). 
 
its the bent bits that count in forensics
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/29/2010 1:06:52 AM

And yes I think a heavy torpedo is obviously "overkill" in terms of discussing a vessel of only 1200 tonnes, but as you say, an 18-inch or similarly sized torpedo detonating under a hull that light would still be able to do catastophic damage.. 

yep, which is why this gets "curiouser and curiouser" - apols to alice in wonderland.  a ship the size of the sunk one would have no hope.  once you lose that many crew you don't have any hope of damage control working.  large vessels and large crews mean that damage control parties of some form or fashion have a chance in saving buoyant parts of the damaged vessel - small boats, small crews, significant loss of life?  not a chance
seeing the hull deformation is a significant tell on what has happened. even the sheared off hull is insufficient to form an opinion (except to reinforce the violence of the event). 
 
its the bent bits that count in forensics
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Well mow they got their story straight.   3/29/2010 6:15:46 AM
 
quote:
 
 
03-29-2010 17:49 http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/images/bt_voice_f.gif" alt="&o0668;&*9457; &o1020;&*9457; &*6307;&*4592;" /> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/images/bt_voice_m.gif" alt="&*5224;&*9457; &o1020;&*9457; &*6307;&*4592;" /> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/images/list_bu.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="" /> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/images/plus.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="" /> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/images/minus.gif" width="16" height="16" alt="" /> http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/images/print.gif" width="58" height="16" alt="" />
Hopes Fading for Survivors http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/images/ic_korean.gif" alt="" />
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/news/100329_p01_NK.jpg" alt="" width="450" border="0" />
Navy?s ship salvage operation: A group of marines depart on a search and rescue mission near the maritime border in the West Sea, Monday. A 1,200-ton patrol ship, the Cheonan sank Friday night about 1.8 kilometers from South Korea?s northernmost island of Baengnyeong after an unexplained explosion. Of its 104 crew members, 58 were rescued, leaving 46 still missing. / Korea Times Photo by Wang Tae-seog

NK Mine Suspected in Navy Ship Disaster

By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter

Defense Minister Kim Tae-young cautiously raised the possibility that the ill-fated Cheonan may have hit a sea mine laid by North Korea.

Kim made the remark at a session of the National Assembly Defense Committee.

He said, ``North Korea's sea mines might have been floating in our territorial waters.'' However, Kim refused to comment on whether the mines had been placed by the North intentionally or had drifted into South Korean waters.

He rejected the possibility of a blast caused by South Korean mines. The minister also played down the possibility of a torpedo attack.

North Korea bought about 4,000 sea mines from the Soviet Union during the Korean War and was believed to have laid about 3,000 of them both in the eastern and western waters of the Korean Peninsula, Kim noted.

``Almost all mines were removed, but not 100 percent,'' he said. ``A North Korean mine was found (in South Korean waters) in 1984 and another was removed in 1995.''

Rescue workers confirmed the location of the stern of the downed frigate Cheonan, which split in two after an unexplained explosion, Friday.

The location of the wreckage came after two days of search-and-rescue (SAR) efforts near the western sea border with North Korea, the Ministry of National Defense said Monday.

Most of the 46 missing sailors are believed to have been in the rear part of the ship when the 1,200-ton ship was destroyed and sank 1.8 kilometers southwest of Baengnyeong Island near the Northern Limit Line (NLL).

A day earlier, the Navy's salvage team confirmed the location of the bow of the vessel, which was carrying crew of 104. Fifty-eight sailors, including the captain, were rescued from one of the country's worst sea disasters, but the remainder are still ``missing in action.''

It is possible that some missing sailors could have survived in air-pockets inside the ship, although the water in the West Sea is
 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       3/29/2010 7:57:09 AM
 
No, I didn't watch it but I thought the premise was funny, in the Brittany Spears train wreck sort of way.
 
Although some torpedoes do try to strike their target, many are now programmed to detonate beneath the ship. The result usually will cut most ships in half and it is pretty much a 1 shot 1 kill weapon.
 
Perhaps I should have rephrased that as targeted mid ships (although that assumed imapct /acoustic).
 
However In my (some what uninformed) opinion a Torpedo 'hit' on that size target  would have blown it skywards not just fractured the keel
 
I also found it odd that the reports say some of the crew were in their bunks and not at general quarters.
 
Although the ROK military is conscripted, I do believe that they are generally well trained, though I have never personally worked with them.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/29/2010 8:22:56 AM
Where the ship was sunk was a high transit area for both military and civilian ships. The N Koreans routinely venture into the S. Korean side because of better crabbing. I find it highly unlikely they would mine the area given its importance in providing food for their population.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/29/2010 9:46:32 AM

Where the ship was sunk was a high transit area for both military and civilian ships. The N Koreans routinely venture into the S. Korean side because of better crabbing. I find it highly unlikely they would mine the area given its importance in providing food for their population.

You've got to take a broader view of the situation. This area has been in a perpetual state of conflict for over 50 years. There was extensive mine warfare in this region which is why I warned about the possibility and TYPE OF MINE. Again, assuming that this is what it turns out to be which seems more likely based on several factors. Anyway, hate to say I told you so but it's important for the purpose of demonstrating why you should not let bias and national prejudice emotions influence an investigation...

DarthAmerica    @Reactive   3/28/2010 2:21:28 PM
Reactive,

It's not that simple. It has nothing to do with being gutless. If there is a conspiracy/coverup, and the intent is to prevent an incident the ROK has to respond to. Then it is for reasons of prudence. ~20% of ROK population lived in Seoul and they are in range of enough NORK artillery that even a nuclear weapon would probably not make a difference in terms of casualties should fighting break out. If you are going to war, you need to be sure absolutely no other or better options exist. FInally, you need to make sure you are acting in verifiable evidence. Waring on principle sounds good but it's not very practical. If the USA or USSR went to war on principle then we probably would not be here.

Seriously, the friendly fire, accidental explosion and mines are the things that need to be looked at in detail before we start rattling sabers.
 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/28/2010 2:12:04 PM
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Slideshow   3/29/2010 11:56:26 AM
 
That ought to put an end to the errant nonsense in most of the reporting and baseless speculation. You see the forward section of the ship, and the dive float-line and buoy marker in two different distinct locations.
 
There are also two empty rescue rafts pulled ashore on the beach.
 
Look carefully at all the Fritz helmets and some of the "weird" ROKN divers.     
 
I don't care what expertise "some" claim, until we see the hull, ourselves, all we can say is that Cheonan broke in two and sank. 
 
I know the mechanical forces needed to do that kind of work, as do most of us. I don't see navigation hazards in the area that the photos show that could generate the effect needed. 
 
I also don't see any remote way a mine-layer could operate there without someone knowing it OR SEEING IT. Even a fishing trawler which could ramp off a bottom mind as a terrorist weapon, could be spotted with radar and eyes. You would need very rotten weather to sneak in, and THAT is tantamount to insanity as laying a bottom mine is not just throwing it over the side and running away before it arms. Too many things can go wrong in a storm. 
 
H.
 
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics