Article

2010-11-27 China-Japan-Koreas

Military Knew of Nork Artillery Move Before Attack

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 Steve White 2010-11-27 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 "MLRS shells"?

Disgusting morons in the press.

First off, MLRS = Multiple Launch Rocket System, generally applied only to the US M270 system which fires differnt types of rockets depending on mission, thus the "System" designation. These things mentioned in this article are "122mm" which makes them Chinese versions of the BM-21 "Grad" Multiple Rocket Luancher, AKA Type 90 (Chinese). Note: the designation is MRL, not "MLRS", its not a multiple launcher types of rocket system like the US M270 MLRS, it launches only multiples of one type of rocket, the 122mm.

Secondly, they aren't "shells", that's for artillery. The Type90 fires rockets, not shells, - a fundamental error in terminology that displays fundamental ignorance of the weaponry in question.

Third, the 122mm rockets are UNGUIDED, with a militarily large CEP, suitable only for ripple launch against area targets, mainly suppression of targets in the open. This is hardly the weapons seen in the initial fires on the island - Rockets tend to come several at a time (typically 10 to 40 launched within a 30-45 second window), and impact near each other across a given area, whereas the videos showed random impacts some time apart. I know what artillery looks like, and this looked like artillery guns or howitzers impacting, not rockets, that were shown in the videos on the internet.

Also, the article claims howitzers, which would mean the 122mm Chinese Type 86 were in use, as well as the Type 59 130mm towed field guns, already mentioned by the military. The inclusion of the howitzers in this account really calls into question the truthfulness or knowledge of the reporter, because the howitzers in question have a 18 KM unassisted range and the maps indicate a 25 km range in the attacks. The math doesn't work.

Finally, the fire-finder radars can readily trace the origin of the attacks, as well as describing the trajectories. This is what enables counter-battery to know if they are dealing with guns, howitzers or rockets; each have a different trajectory footprint - plus counterbattery is capable of returning fire very quickly and accurately if they are using US radar gear and US doctrine combined with the the SK SP howitzers (assuming the command is functioning to let the counterbattery shells fly)

The K-9 mentioned in the article are basically an uprated version of the old US M109 Paladin, a SP 155mm howitzer, with better fire control, longer ranged, and more automation for faster firing rates. They have a 40km range, and are highly accurate, unlike the reporter in this article claims ("would not be able to carry out an accurate strike" is likely BS, a fabrication).

Sorry folks, but this one doesn't pass the smell test - either ignorance or malice.

This reporter appears to be trying to create controversy about the SK military, and is shading the truth as well as being flat out ignorant in terms of the equipment he is attempting to describe.

Why do we have such damnably ignorant people, including the editors, writing stories that are this important? The press is failing right before your very eyes, at least in this article.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-11-27 01:20|| 2010-11-27 01:20|| Front Page Top

#2 Note: the above isn't to say that the NK didn't use the 122mm rockets, but that their use was not typical of doctrine (slower rate of fires, shots coming in more as singles than NK doctrine of massed fire), and that much of the initial damage reports appear to have come from tube, not rocket, artillery (due to impact size and damage).

The misuse of terminology brings serious doubts as the the competence of the reporter, and this one should reserve serious doubts as to the accuracy of the reporting. granis salis folks.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-11-27 01:27|| 2010-11-27 01:27|| Front Page Top

#3 You are right, OldSpook. You have more technical knowledge than that reporter.

But most reporters are not military. Even if they were, they would have to report not just on army matters but airforce, navy and general politics too.

Most news agencies/newspapers require their reporters to write stories on a range of topics.

They cannot be 20-year experts on each one, they are generalists. They do their best but for stories like this they depend on their sources giving accurate information, hence the article credits a military source as saying it.

Most reporters will try their best to check their facts. But at times the urgency of getting the story out means they must trust their source has told them the correct information and that they have interpreted it accurately when writing for a general audience.

The press isn't perfect. They do their best. THey don't get paid much, certainly a lot less than the military at least in Australia. They also work long hours and usually for the love of the craft.

Posted by anon1 2010-11-27 02:00|| 2010-11-27 02:00|| Front Page Top

#4 Anon1, still they can at least get basic things right, like calling the 122mm projectiles what they are: rockets, not "shells". Its as fundamental an error as (in terms even a journalist would understand) calling an editor a reporter. For God's sake would it hurt them to simply ask good questions to get clarification, or JFGI? If they love their craft then why do so many execute it so poorly?

I have little respect for journalists in general: I have found them to be amongst the less intellectually talented but most judgmental and egotistical ignoramuses I have met, as a profession. There are exceptions I am sure, but few enough.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-11-27 02:17|| 2010-11-27 02:17|| Front Page Top

#5 To you, it does no doubt seem like a very basic difference: rockets to shells.

But to a lay person who knows nothing of military matters, it could be confusing.

We don't know who that reporter was, if they were just 20 years old, fresh out of uni and reporting on their first story or not.

It is often easier to spot the mistakes than it is to spot what is right.

You would be amazed if you had to read copy just how many mistakes you can correct in a piece by an intelligent, experienced reporter. And then doubly amazed by how many mistakes you yourself leave behind in that same piece.

it is not as easy as it looks.

they mostly love their craft. they do it for little pay and long hours, and precious little thanks. everyone is a critic and praise is rare. They mostly do it because they believe it is important to go out there every day and try their best to keep the public informed about the world around them.
they burn out really quickly too. A brief walk through of most newsrooms in australia will reveal a staff dominated by the under 25s. Older than that and they have quit to join the ever-swelling ranks of PR scum.

You know the people that get paid 5 times as much to hide the truth, spin it and distort it to deceive the people.

They outnumber working journos by about 15-to-1.

ie: in a city that has 100 reporters there will be 1500 media flunkeys employed by the various interest groups, politicians, businesses, mining companies, councils, charities and government departments. Even animal refuges will have media managers these days.

they are sending out a never-ending barrage of PR media releases trying to pepper the news with "good news" or spinning it their way. They it is who the journo must ring for comment on a story. If the story looks like it could be disfavourable to their employer they will reach into a deep bag of dirty tricks to waste the reporter's time or to complain about them, to block the news - anything to hamper the free flow of information, including intimidation and harassment.

the job of reporting is not so simple as just ringing up the military source, getting the information then having all afternoon to fact-check it before polishing it then sending it off for printing....

after which 3 other people at least will tinker with it and edit it, sometimes introducing errors or completely rewriting in ways the original reporter never would have - even though their name is on it.

Most people have no idea what it is like to work in a newsroom and would be shocked if they did.

Most reporters I have known - and i've known a lot - are of above average intelligence. They are hardworking. They usually don't last unless they are actually married to other journos who understand the game. Most don't last it anyway.

I know soft people who whinge because they work at council and they get their rostered days off, they leave the office at 4.55pm every day, 4.30pm on a Friday. They get generous pay, maternity leave and they whine because they are bored.

I know journos who work themselves into the ground, starting at 7.30am and not leaving the office until 1am though they get paid for 9-5pm. They spend their lives on the phone, even weekends and holidays.

They make mistakes of course. They write on engineering but are not engineers. They write on Star Trek and imagine the trekkies that complain if they mislabel the Enterprise D an excelsior-class ship instead of a galaxy-class ship

see here for an amusing example along those lines....

http://tinyurl.com/2387uyz

Posted by anon1 2010-11-27 02:47|| 2010-11-27 02:47|| Front Page Top

#6 Bravo, anon1. Old Spook off his meds.

Posted by Galactic Coordinator Clort9409 2010-11-27 09:20|| 2010-11-27 09:20|| Front Page Top

#7 It's all those layers of 'professional' fact checkers and editors that make them superior to pajama bloggers. Yep.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-11-27 09:23|| 2010-11-27 09:23|| Front Page Top

#8 Anon1, the fact-checking should have detected the blatant errors and sent the report back. The system failed (again). Who knows how many other times journalists make such basic mistakes? Who knows how many times they intentionally make mistakes to color the story according to their political views?

Calling a rocket a shell is as basic an error as calling a member of the House of Representatives a Senator. I can't believe someone is actually making excuses for ignorant journalists and saying mistakes are OK. They're not OK.

Posted by gromky 2010-11-27 09:57|| 2010-11-27 09:57|| Front Page Top

#9 Say, if any of you are old Korea hands, I have a question.

I noticed something peculiar about ROK arty. It seems to be limited to 155mm. 8 in is readily available, quite accurate, and is less in fashion these days, so both it and its ammo are not terribly expensive.

Is there a reason for this omission?

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-11-27 12:03|| 2010-11-27 12:03|| Front Page Top

#10 Reporting is NOT all that hard. And I stand by my words. Having been a reporter of sorts as an intelligence analyst and a cavalry scout (and other jobs of that sort), I know how to gather facts, assess them objectively and report the information in a neutral, direct and factual way -- and all of this under immense time pressure, as well as having the burden of lives depending on it. Its not necessarily for to to be a "labor of love" as you sketch it to be. You just have to use your head and be persistent and not settle for anything other than facts (and check those facts!)

Most reporters are idiots, and you can tell this by the inability to get basic things right or ask basic pertinent questions. In this instance a quick web search would have allowed the reporter to use the proper terminology so as to not misinform the public, and would have revealed additional information that would have allowed the reporter to ask better questions, especially regarding "howitzers" and range, that might further inform the public as to the actuality of the situation. Indeed, were all the facts that I brought up properly considered, a case could be made for showing the SK command to have failed to respond properly or in a timely manner.

But that's not reporting, that is advocacy, which is what spoils the entire piece - and is the typical fault of much news reporting since the 70's Woodward and Bernstein - they are trying to draw conclusions and only attempt to publish things that reinforce their conclusions rather than reporting just the facts. This is unlike Woodward and Bernstein who did a lot of hard work gathering facts, checking them and following where they lead, modern hacks shortcut things by starting with a presumption and then back-filling whether truthful or not.

As far as my derision of journalists goes, put it this way: Talk to anyone that has had access to classified intelligence for a few decades. You'll find many opinions similar to mine. If you had seen the things I have seen, and know the things I know, and see the distortions, glaring omissions, misrepresentations and generally ignorant suppositions propagated as "fact" by reporters regularly over DECADES, be it out of ignorance, laziness or bias, you would have the same opinion of "journalists" in general, as I do.

Many journalists could not survive in a profession that required true objectivity, rational thought, and productive capacity. Reporters are not capable of creating wealth, like creating and managing a business, nor are they capable of physical/mental achievement, like a soldier or a doctor, nor are they capable of even telling a good story like a novelist in most cases. They are simply the dregs, people who are not good enough to do anything else; rated somewhere between used car salesmen and politicians. In the words of Walter Lippman, a famous journalist "Journalism is the last refuge of the vaguely talented."

The biggest flaw, be it reporters in the field, editors, or J-School, is the glaring lack of objective criticism and analysis of the conduct of the profession itself. The immediate reaction is to scurry behind the "labor of love" defense as seen, or here in the US hiding behind the "4th Pillar", and ignore glaring flaws and mistakes, both in facts and in basic methodology. C.F. Jayson Blair and other repeats of that wholesale fabrication that are uncritically propagated by "journalists" and their professional colleagues.

Per the Columbia J-School research, majorities of Americans continue to say that journalists are often inaccurate (55%), do not care about the people they report on (53%), are biased (55%), one-sided (66%) and try to cover up their mistakes (63%). Hardly a shining beacon upon which to place one's trust - From a 2010 Chicago Sun-Times editorial: "Polls show journalists are loathed by much of the public, ranking down in the basement with lawyers." Gallup polling suggests that only 21 percent of Americans credit journalists with having high ethics----ranking them just below auto mechanics, and tied with members of Congress.

There is even to this day some debate about "journalism" even qualifying as a profession, since it lacks so many of the elements that classically define a profession. Journalism as a whole is unwilling to clean its won house, and thereby deserves all the opprobrium heaped upon it. Go web search for James W. Carey's analysis as a shining example of how problems with journalism have not changed in 36 years.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-11-27 12:07|| 2010-11-27 12:07|| Front Page Top

#11 Why am I on this so harshly? Because we NEED a solid press and media in the US. Its vital for the survival of our nation and our liberty. For a democracy backed republic of laws, an INFORMED populace is required. The current system of "journalism" is failing; failing itself, failing its purpose in our nation, and failing We The People.

The irony of this whole screed of mine is that it is there to point out the flaws, to hopefully spur people to look beyond the piss-poor reporting and get themselves informed. And hopefully "journalism" will come to its senses, and recover itself and start performing its needed function in our society: informing the populace in a timely, true and unbiased manner.

As for "Off my meds"? Fuck you. That was unwarranted. I waver that I have been better on my worst days than you on your best, and been serving for decades in and out of the public eye. I don't expect thanks, nor to be liked; that's not why people like me do the things that need to be done. But I damned well will demand at least a minimum of respect (you are welcome to be critical) or you can expect the same level of ill will in return. And trust me, I can get very nasty; I'm old and caring less and less about social aspects of conduct these days as I wind things down.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-11-27 12:09|| 2010-11-27 12:09|| Front Page Top

#12 Moose this goes back to interoperability with US forces. The need for mobile artillery cause them to pattern off the M109 Paladin SP Howitzer (155mm). Truth is, the 155 with modern munitions and updated gun barrels is just as effective as the old M110 SP 8" we used back in GW1, requires less crew and is easier to operationally use and resupply in terms of weight of reloads and so on. The SK saw that and went with 155 as their standard field gun in both towed and SP. In some ways thier K-9 is superior to the US M109, in that it out-ranges it by nearly 10KM (longer caliber gun), and can be reloaded by its resupply vehicle under-armor, with no crew exposure. This was a bit of a controversy back in the late 90's of the SK "going their own way", but now in retrospect it looks like a good decision (the US is in the process of designing a new SP 155 that will be similar in function to the SK K-9/K-10 system)

Interesting items: the NK fired about 170 rounds total in this action, only about 80 of which actually impacted the SK island - an initial wave of 150, and a second of 20. The SK fired 80 rounds, of which all impacted in the NK targeted area (which may or may not have been the source of the incoming fire, SK has been less forthcoming about their aim points). Also, 2 of the SK K-9 SP 155's designated for counter-battery were damaged in the initial attack and were unable to return fire, so all return fire was done by their batterymates. KF-15's and 16s were scrambled and had attack loads, but were never given release to proceed to attack past the NLL.

Headed out to thrash my way through the shopping mobs with the SWMBO (not something I look forward to, but she wants me there so there I go), have fun chewing on my posts.

Posted by OldSpook 2010-11-27 12:34|| 2010-11-27 12:34|| Front Page Top

#13 Anon1: But to a lay person who knows nothing of military matters, it could be confusing.

There was a time, in your country and mine, when a fair number of reporters had basic military experience. They knew what OldSpook was talking about. They knew ranks, insignias, the difference between a regiment and a brigade, a shell and a rocket, etc.

But now only about 1% of our population serves in the military. The knowledge base is not spread as widely as before.

To people who don't know anything of any specialized knowledge base, it's always confusing. Look at medical and science reporting (for example).

It would help military and diplomatic reporting if the journalists had prior experience in these areas. It would help if the newspapers demanded that rather than hiring the 20-something fresh out of J School. Ditto for every other specialized area of news.

It would also help if the journalists were, you know, smarter. As it stands right now the very large majority of them are 'C' students who don't function all that well in real life.

Posted by Steve White 2010-11-27 12:56|| 2010-11-27 12:56|| Front Page Top

#14 OS reveals what he really knows, and this he really knows. Cannon cocker.

Posted by Goldies Every Damn Where 2010-11-27 13:04|| 2010-11-27 13:04|| Front Page Top

#15 As my grandma used to say, if you don't know what your talking about then don't talk, same applies to reporting. I don't care if the reporter is confused, give me the fact, not the STORY.

Posted by Uleger Barnsmell4617 2010-11-27 13:24|| 2010-11-27 13:24|| Front Page Top

#16 Most reporters are idiots, and you can tell this by the inability to get basic things right or ask basic pertinent questions.

It's the part about basic pertinent questions that makes me wonder about reporters in general. Not just in this case but over and over again in all kinds of cases. I don't know if it's inability or unwillingness. Sometimes I fear it's the latter which is even worse. Either they don't care or they're misleading the public on purpose. If you read an article and you have questions after reading it and you wonder why the reporter didn't ask or try to answer the question somehow, then you have to wonder about the reporter's integrity. As for urgency, I don't see the urgency in getting this article published. "Senior military"? What's that? You don't know what the South Koreans hit or didn't hit in their response. Not from this article anyway.

Posted by Abu Uluque (new computer) 2010-11-27 13:48|| 2010-11-27 13:48|| Front Page Top

#17 Agree with Old Spook that a basic Internet search would turn up some needed facts. Also folks change jobs and entire professions more often now, which may add to inexperienced being pitched into writing about things they know nothing about, coupled with non mandatory military service. Most journalists should stick to writing fanciful novels or self help and other fiction, since their overactive And imaginations hinder their ability to report who
what where when and sometimes why straight up.

Posted by Fire and ice 2010-11-27 16:01|| 2010-11-27 16:01|| Front Page Top

#18 I don't get trusted with classified stuff, but from years of reading science reporting, and from a little stint on a grand jury in Illinois (where I got to compare the news reports with what eyewitnesses told us), I agree with OldSpook that a large fraction of reporters have no clue what they are writing about. There have been a few exceptions, and even one or two who knew something about religion, but they've been conspicuous by their rarity.
Of course, editors do play a role, and sometimes quite an ignorant one. I remember one story about Voyager in the NYT that was OK, but the headliner on the main page left out a word and implied a lie.

Posted by James 2010-11-27 16:01|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com 2010-11-27 16:01|| Front Page Top

#19 I'm with OS on this one. The problem is using the wrong facts to draw conclusions, and the problems simply compound as you add steps, which is what this report seems to do.

Seems the proper journalism is to split this into several articles - first, the facts, which can be contested, and second, third and so forth, the analysis and conclusions. Lumping them together just makes a mess, and leaves the reader worse off than where they started.

All that said, the ROK is still on defense militarily, and limiting their offense to economic means. NKor may lose in that contest, but sure to lose if the conditions reverse. China too, which is why China may have to give in here sooner or later - NKor is just bad business.

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-11-27 16:02|| 2010-11-27 16:02|| Front Page Top

#20 after the big Easter Quake this year, I was asked to do a local TV Station interview regarding a seismic retrofit we did of a 1931 steel bridge. I spoke for about 15 minutes about all the structural measures we did that strengthened the bridge and extended its' useful life. I also mentioned that we removed all the old lead paint and repainted the structure. Guess what they used? In response to the reporter's question how the bridge will withstand an even bigger quake they showed a clip of me saying "the steel was repainted".

I caught a LOT of crap over that.

F*cking idiots in the medias

Posted by Frank G 2010-11-27 16:22|| 2010-11-27 16:22|| Front Page Top

#21 The First Avenue Bridge did need a coat of paint (plus a bit more - but that's not as 'sexy'), Frank. We drove over it this last May on a visit as my Dad told me that the city had just finished it up. I did get out to look at the new 'undercarriage'. That looks pretty good, too. They added a lot of steel since the last time I looked (about 2002).

The new lighting looks great, too. Good Job!

Posted by Mullah Richard 2010-11-27 18:50|| 2010-11-27 18:50|| Front Page Top

#22 thx

*blushes*

Posted by Frank G 2010-11-27 18:57|| 2010-11-27 18:57|| Front Page Top

23:58 anon1
23:54 Skidmark
23:39 Skidmark
22:59 Bright Pebbles
22:59 Rob Crawford
22:50 Rambler in Virginia
21:24 Dogsbody
20:35 Uleger Barnsmell4617
20:27 Uleger Barnsmell4617
20:24 Uleger Barnsmell4617
19:53 Frank G
19:49 USN,Ret
19:45 Fire and ice
19:43 Fire and ice
19:35 anon1
19:28 Fire and ice
19:19 Secret Master
19:18 tu3031
19:14 Beavis
19:13 Frank G
19:12 Secret Master
19:11 anon1
18:57 anon1
18:57 Frank G