Article

2012-01-16 China-Japan-Koreas

South Korean freighter damage assessment video: torpedo or mine?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gromky 2012-01-16 00:37|| || Front Page|| [11124 views ] Top

#1 Who's got dibs on the rising methane bubble theory?

I remember a bottom anchored mine that would release itself into the path of an oncoming vessel but this is too perfect of a hit, directly in the path, detonating at midpoint.

Posted by Skidmark 2012-01-16 08:47|| 2012-01-16 08:47|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't see any evidence of an explosion of any kind. Perhaps there was something that exploded in the waters underneath the ship, but then how did it get where it is? How much do high and low tide change there? Something odd happened, I just cant tell what that might have been.

Posted by rammer 2012-01-16 11:26|| 2012-01-16 11:26|| Front Page Top

#3 That "breaking in half" look is classic naval warfare. Explode below the keel and break the ship's back.

Posted by gromky 2012-01-16 11:37|| 2012-01-16 11:37|| Front Page Top

#4 Sure, something could have exploded under the ship. But why is it sitting up high in the water instead of sunk. There isn't a lot of water under that ship. Not enough evidence here to know what happened.

Posted by rammer 2012-01-16 12:11|| 2012-01-16 12:11|| Front Page Top

#5 Looks like it ran aground at high speed.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-01-16 12:50|| 2012-01-16 12:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Like that cruise ship in Italy, BP?

Posted by Barbara 2012-01-16 13:24|| 2012-01-16 13:24|| Front Page Top

#7 Ok why isnt this posting my comment?

Posted by OldSpook 2012-01-16 17:05|| 2012-01-16 17:05|| Front Page Top

#8 probably a word you used on the "banned list". Add a number or sumpthin in it, like cas1no

Posted by Frank G 2012-01-16 17:30|| 2012-01-16 17:30|| Front Page Top

#9 I cannot see a word that stops it. chemical?

Posted by OldSpook 2012-01-16 17:36|| 2012-01-16 17:36|| Front Page Top

#10 Nope, Im at a loss now.

Posted by OldSpook 2012-01-16 17:36|| 2012-01-16 17:36|| Front Page Top

#11 Posted for Old Spook:

Look at the charring on the structure amidships. Could have been a fire that heated the deck, then caused a vapor explosion in an empty chemical tank, especially if the previous contents of the tank were volatile and they didn't flush it out.

Also consider that this is not a large naval vessel, its a rather small coastal freighter. Not reinforced structure, no extra keel or hull strength. Compared to a warship, this thing is a pop can. I would speculate that a real naval warfare weapon like a mine or a torpedo would not just damage the ship, it would have shattered it and sunk it.

Posted by lotp 2012-01-16 18:00|| 2012-01-16 18:00|| Front Page Top

#12 That "breaking in half" look is classic naval warfare. Explode below the keel and break the ship's back.

Or it hit an iceberg.

Posted by Angie Schultz 2012-01-16 21:11|| 2012-01-16 21:11|| Front Page Top

#13 Bright Pebbles, I think you're correct, ship is very high in the water. Making a flyby like Carnival ship in Italy?

Posted by Squinty Angarong8068 2012-01-16 21:21|| 2012-01-16 21:21|| Front Page Top

#14 It is high in the water because it is an empty liquid carrier. A lot of bouyancy

Posted by gromky 2012-01-16 21:44|| 2012-01-16 21:44|| Front Page Top

#15 sharks with laser beams. Count on it

Posted by Frank G 2012-01-16 21:47|| 2012-01-16 21:47|| Front Page Top

#16 Had it pointed out to me that the construction of a multi-hold tanker may have had more water-tight integrity for large areas of the ship than a military vessel (if said vessel is not at an alert/battle standing with all hatches closed etc). Plus riding higher in the water due to less displacement may help it survive catastrophic damage better than a loaded ship. So there's no ruling out weapons but there are also no good reasons to rule one in given the ship. I wish I had more location on the depth and distance from shore - depth would be a big clue to help rule out mines, and distance from shore would make midget subs less likely, if either of those numbers is large enough.

Posted by OldSpook 2012-01-16 22:30|| 2012-01-16 22:30|| Front Page Top

#17 Addendum: reports that it is a fuel carrier would seem to add to the vapor explosion in an empty tank theory.

Posted by OldSpook 2012-01-16 22:31|| 2012-01-16 22:31|| Front Page Top

#18 FYI that stuff amidships is actually the deck peeled back, and blackened. That says tank explosion to me.

Posted by OldSpook 2012-01-16 22:33|| 2012-01-16 22:33|| Front Page Top

00:04 Muggsy Glink
00:00 JosephMendiola
23:40 Fred
23:34 Cromert
23:29 Ebboluling Theamp7972
23:27 Redneck Jim
23:19 Jan
23:01 Frank G
22:59 Ebboluling Theamp7972
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:33 OldSpook
22:31 OldSpook
22:30 OldSpook
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:19 JosephMendiola
22:18 JosephMendiola
22:10 USN, Ret.
22:07 junkiron
21:47 Frank G
21:44 gromky
21:32 trailing wife
21:21 Squinty Angarong8068
21:11 Angie Schultz