Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

Battle on Yeonpyeong pt 2

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,260 posts
6,734 battles

Rewatched NLL and wanted to know more about the NK class of boats involved, but I can’t find a source on the battle that has accurate information.

mostly just curious how it stacked up compared to the chamsuri class in displacement and crew size 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
63 posts
292 battles

That is a pretty good movie, it really gives a feel for the human element that is so often neglected in stories of naval combat.

The best information I've found on the battle is the Korean language side of Wikipedia. This suggests that the North Korean vessels were SO-1 patrol boats measuring 42m in length, with a 207-215 ton displacement, and a crew of 30-40. Armament consisted of an 85mm gun (manually operated), a 37mm gun (fully automatic with 5 round clips), and 14.5mm machine guns. If this information is accurate, they were noticeably larger and better armed than the South Korean patrol boats (37m, 170 tons, 22-24 men, 1x 40mm, 2x 20mm, 2x 12.7mm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,260 posts
6,734 battles

Thanks for the info.

the movie made it kind of hard to tell size differences, but it was obvious there was a firepower difference.

i wonder how much action the chamsuris and gumdoksuris would actually see if the peninsula went hit again 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
63 posts
292 battles

I would predict that that in the advent of war most of the DPRK surface forces would be destroyed in port without accomplishing anything. The biggest threat would be the large DPRK sub fleet (70 boats) which, while primitive by western standards, could cause some real damage before being hunted down.

In this sort of fighting the Chamsuris and Gumdoksuris would be more of a liability than an asset given their complete lack of ASW sensors and weapons. Thus, I think they would probably be kept away from the front lines but could still play a useful role in intercepting commando attacks in small boats and other coastal patrol tasks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,023 posts
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

Ya a reheating of the Korean War would be interesting to say the least.

Japan actually has naval capability now, though. It would not be any easier for the DPRK then it was back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,260 posts
6,734 battles
43 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

Japan actually has naval capability now, though. It would not be any easier for the DPRK then it was back then.

Didn’t say it would be easier just that it would be interesting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,023 posts
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

Didn’t say it would be easier just that it would be interesting 

If by "interesting" you mean "DPRK Navy never makes it out of port", then I guess that's interesting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,260 posts
6,734 battles
Just now, TornadoADV said:

If by "interesting" you mean "DPRK Navy never makes it out of port", then I guess that's interesting?

The whole war in general.

however I am also a fan of not underestimating an enemy. If they choose to strike first, who knows how much of their fleet they could put to sea before hand and how exactly that hunt will turnout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
63 posts
292 battles
On 1/31/2018 at 11:29 AM, JohnPJones said:

however I am also a fan of not underestimating an enemy. If they choose to strike first, who knows how much of their fleet they could put to sea before hand and how exactly that hunt will turnout.

Their whole surface fleet consists of 4 corvettes, 30 missile boats (with 1960's era missiles), and a ridiculous number of torpedo boats (smaller than WWII PT boats). Outside of the corvettes these are tiny craft that can't stay at sea for more than a few days at best so even if they all put to sea there wouldn't be much of a "hunt" before they had to head for home where they would be promptly destroyed by airstrikes. Meanwhile the corvettes are basically defenseless and too big to hide so they wouldn't last long either. The only real naval threat are the submarines (which are also old and small and only dangerous because of their numbers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,260 posts
6,734 battles
12 minutes ago, ARCNA442 said:

Their whole surface fleet consists of 4 corvettes, 30 missile boats (with 1960's era missiles), and a ridiculous number of torpedo boats (smaller than WWII PT boats). Outside of the corvettes these are tiny craft that can't stay at sea for more than a few days at best so even if they all put to sea there wouldn't be much of a "hunt" before they had to head for home where they would be promptly destroyed by airstrikes. Meanwhile the corvettes are basically defenseless and too big to hide so they wouldn't last long either. The only real naval threat are the submarines (which are also old and small and only dangerous because of their numbers).

don't underestimate the corvettes, arrogance gets people killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,250 posts
9,004 battles
On 1/31/2018 at 4:54 AM, JohnPJones said:

Ya a reheating of the Korean War would be interesting to say the least.

if you want a fictional take on it, Larry Bond wrote a book about if the "permanent ceasefire" comes to an end....it's called "Red Phoenix" if I remember right. ...read it a very long time ago when I would still get through Tom Clancy type stuff......

...and yah Japan's SDF are nothing to sneeze at, from what little I've heard....I've gotten argumentative with ppl I don't even really disagree with to the tune of, "they're shooting missiles over Japan...what's a reasonable reaction to that?" ...it doesn't make sense even to put up with that.

...if a nuclear bomb goes off somewhere in the Pacific, how are we not going to catch all the blowback?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,260 posts
6,734 battles
9 hours ago, commodore_torakula said:

if you want a fictional take on it, Larry Bond wrote a book about if the "permanent ceasefire" comes to an end....it's called "Red Phoenix" if I remember right. ...read it a very long time ago when I would still get through Tom Clancy type stuff......

...and yah Japan's SDF are nothing to sneeze at, from what little I've heard....I've gotten argumentative with ppl I don't even really disagree with to the tune of, "they're shooting missiles over Japan...what's a reasonable reaction to that?" ...it doesn't make sense even to put up with that.

...if a nuclear bomb goes off somewhere in the Pacific, how are we not going to catch all the blowback?...

Personally I think they should have shot down any missile approaching their Nation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,250 posts
9,004 battles
34 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

Personally I think they should have shot down any missile approaching their Nation

can they??.....do they even have the capability?...how likely are they to have developed the capability to do that in so short a space of time as it takes a missile to cross the Sea of Japan?...and whatever the US is capable of shooting down, even by cyberwar or whathaveyou, Japan can't have any more likelihood of shooting down something on their own...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,260 posts
6,734 battles
13 minutes ago, commodore_torakula said:

can they??.....do they even have the capability?...how likely are they to have developed the capability to do that in so short a space of time as it takes a missile to cross the Sea of Japan?...and whatever the US is capable of shooting down, even by cyberwar or whathaveyou, Japan can't have any more likelihood of shooting down something on their own...

If I’m not mistaken they had aegis ships with SMs at the time of launch.

theyll be even more capable as they’re getting aegis ashore if I’m not mistaken 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
63 posts
292 battles
2 hours ago, commodore_torakula said:

can they??.....do they even have the capability?...how likely are they to have developed the capability to do that in so short a space of time as it takes a missile to cross the Sea of Japan?...and whatever the US is capable of shooting down, even by cyberwar or whathaveyou, Japan can't have any more likelihood of shooting down something on their own...

Japan can shoot down ballistic missiles aimed at their nation - they have SM-3 on their Aegis destroyers and have Patriot batteries on land, both of which are capable of terminal engagements. The problem is the recent DPRK ICBM launches have been on extremely high trajectories (hundreds of miles) and midcourse interceptions would require something like the US Ground Based Interceptors.

 

On 2/2/2018 at 3:08 PM, JohnPJones said:

Also, according to Wikipedia they have a bit more than 4 corvettes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_ships_of_the_Korean_People's_Navy

Look at the list. 1 incomplete Krivak hull, 2 obsolete Nanjin-class (that I counted), 1 retired 73m Soho-class (I generally consider corvettes to be at least 75m), 2-3 Nampo-class (I counted 2), 5 61m Sariwon-class gunboats, and 2 pre-WWII Project 53 minesweepers that are probably retired. In short, 4 (maybe 5) corvettes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,260 posts
6,734 battles
50 minutes ago, ARCNA442 said:

Japan can shoot down ballistic missiles aimed at their nation - they have SM-3 on their Aegis destroyers and have Patriot batteries on land, both of which are capable of terminal engagements. The problem is the recent DPRK ICBM launches have been on extremely high trajectories (hundreds of miles) and midcourse interceptions would require something like the US Ground Based Interceptors.

 

Look at the list. 1 incomplete Krivak hull, 2 obsolete Nanjin-class (that I counted), 1 retired 73m Soho-class (I generally consider corvettes to be at least 75m), 2-3 Nampo-class (I counted 2), 5 61m Sariwon-class gunboats, and 2 pre-WWII Project 53 minesweepers that are probably retired. In short, 4 (maybe 5) corvettes.

So youre using an arbitrary measurement to classify vessels to suit your needs?

By the count in the link they have at least 12 corvettes/frigates.

the soho class may have been retired and reported scrapped but I’ve seen no sources actually confirmed firming that.

i find it hard to believe they’d scrap one of their newest and possibly most well armed vessels, after only 30 years or so of service when most of their ships are pushing 50+ years.

 

im looking at this as if I were to be planning an operation, in which case you can not assume a ship is incomplete without solid evidence, or that one of the best ships an enemy had has been scrapped.

 

sure you have the luxury of sitting back and assuming the enemy is weaker than they may actually be, but without solid evidence and intelligence to the contrary the rest have to assume the worst

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
63 posts
292 battles
8 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

So youre using an arbitrary measurement to classify vessels to suit your needs?

By the count in the link they have at least 12 corvettes/frigates.

the soho class may have been retired and reported scrapped but I’ve seen no sources actually confirmed firming that.

i find it hard to believe they’d scrap one of their newest and possibly most well armed vessels, after only 30 years or so of service when most of their ships are pushing 50+ years.

 

im looking at this as if I were to be planning an operation, in which case you can not assume a ship is incomplete without solid evidence, or that one of the best ships an enemy had has been scrapped.

 

sure you have the luxury of sitting back and assuming the enemy is weaker than they may actually be, but without solid evidence and intelligence to the contrary the rest have to assume the worst

Since there is no international standard for classifying warships I devised my own. In it 75m is the cutoff between patrol craft and corvettes and 100m is the line between corvettes and frigates. While somewhat arbitrary, it is based on extensive comparisons of current and historical ships and I think it accurately reflects the different classes. I use this system for all navies and am not just trying to prove a point about the North Koreans.

My bet is the Soho's catamaran hull proved to be failure given limited DPRK design capabilities. Also, with a reported armament of just 4 Chinese Styx copies (the same as the numerous DPRK Osa missile boat fleet) she was hardly a well armed vessel.

I see your different point of view. Since I'm not planning an operation, I'm more interested in getting an accurate picture of the DPRK navy rather rather than assuming the worst case scenario. However, let's look at the absolute worst case. All the listed ships are fully operational and have been rearmed with Switchblade copies. You're looking at 14+ hulls with 4-8 missiles each. Does this actually change anything?

Unless you are also going to assume that the DPRK has a fully functioning maritime surveillance network, those ships are still incapable of launching long distance attacks and they don't have any real air defenses (worst case they have all be retrofitted with FL-3000 point defense missiles from China) or ASW capabilities. I'm just not seeing them as anything but targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,250 posts
9,004 battles
1 hour ago, ARCNA442 said:

Japan can shoot down ballistic missiles aimed at their nation - they have SM-3 on their Aegis destroyers and have Patriot batteries on land, both of which are capable of terminal engagements. The problem is the recent DPRK ICBM launches have been on extremely high trajectories (hundreds of miles) and midcourse interceptions would require something like the US Ground Based Interceptors.

this is good news....do they not have these interceptors as well?....IDK if you mean ground-based missiles meant to take down ICBM at some point, or airplanes sent up in time to take down an incoming missile, like a fighter-launched anti-satellite weapon?...

...furthermore, does shooting down a missile mid-flight just make it a dud where it gets picked off, or does it not detonate in the atmosphere or wherever it's intercepted?....the fallout from that would still be lethal to many...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
63 posts
292 battles
1 minute ago, commodore_torakula said:

this is good news....do they not have these interceptors as well?....IDK if you mean ground-based missiles meant to take down ICBM at some point, or airplanes sent up in time to take down an incoming missile, like a fighter-launched anti-satellite weapon?...

...furthermore, does shooting down a missile mid-flight just make it a dud where it gets picked off, or does it not detonate in the atmosphere or wherever it's intercepted?....the fallout from that would still be lethal to many...

GBI is a silo-launched missile that is almost the size of an ICBM itself. Japan does not have any because they extremely expensive and are not needed to defend Japan. The US has them because despite their cost, it is cheaper to build a single battery of GBI in Alaska that can protect the whole US than it would be to try and put individually cheaper defensive missiles in every US city.

It would be extremely unlikely that a nuclear warhead would go off if the missile it was mounted on was intercepted. Nukes are extremely delicate devices and if everything doesn't happen at exactly the right time they will not detonate. However, even if it did a high altitude airburst would produce almost no fallout. Fallout is simply dust from the explosion that has been irradiated and thrown into the atmosphere. At high altitudes there is only air and nothing to be turned to dust. I don't have a link, but there is actually a video out there from the early Cold War of a bunch of US Air Force personnel standing directly under a high altitude nuclear detonation to prove how safe it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,250 posts
9,004 battles
1 minute ago, ARCNA442 said:

GBI is a silo-launched missile that is almost the size of an ICBM itself. Japan does not have any because they extremely expensive and are not needed to defend Japan. The US has them because despite their cost, it is cheaper to build a single battery of GBI in Alaska that can protect the whole US than it would be to try and put individually cheaper defensive missiles in every US city.

It would be extremely unlikely that a nuclear warhead would go off if the missile it was mounted on was intercepted. Nukes are extremely delicate devices and if everything doesn't happen at exactly the right time they will not detonate. However, even if it did a high altitude airburst would produce almost no fallout. Fallout is simply dust from the explosion that has been irradiated and thrown into the atmosphere. At high altitudes there is only air and nothing to be turned to dust. I don't have a link, but there is actually a video out there from the early Cold War of a bunch of US Air Force personnel standing directly under a high altitude nuclear detonation to prove how safe it is.

seriously?...I've read about what a war with NK might entail, and they cite something called THAAD that I don't know the details of, but doesn't sound infallible....there are many points at which an ICBM launch could be interdicted, including cyberwar with the launch software, etc. ....but from what little I've read, THAAD has only been tested under ideal conditions to try and knock down incoming missiles over the Pacific...and even under these conditions, success is not 100%...is GBI THAAD or?....

....also: I don't think video of what US tests early in the Cold War show is a reliable indicator of anything....it's pretty well documented that radiation/fallout tests were carried out on soldiers under the assumption that radiation wouldn't harm them, only the nearer blast could...people at the time were X-rayed repeatedly as if it was benign...workers at watch factories got leukemia from working around radium dials designed to make watch hands glow in the dark.....natives near the Bikini Atoll tests were left to die of radiation poisoning downwind of the tests....all that was done was some attempt to study the effects--no effort was made to treat them or keep them alive somehow...see Simon Winchester's "Pacific," an excellent book, for details on that...mistakes were made...my assumption would be those videos were of men who were as good as dead....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
63 posts
292 battles
7 minutes ago, commodore_torakula said:

seriously?...I've read about what a war with NK might entail, and they cite something called THAAD that I don't know the details of, but doesn't sound infallible....there are many points at which an ICBM launch could be interdicted, including cyberwar with the launch software, etc. ....but from what little I've read, THAAD has only been tested under ideal conditions to try and knock down incoming missiles over the Pacific...and even under these conditions, success is not 100%...is GBI THAAD or?....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Interceptor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

Those are the four American missile defense systems. Japan has the 2nd and 4th. South Korea has only the 4th. 

Together they are a layered approach. GBI and SM-3 engage missiles outside of the atmosphere while THAAD and Patriot work inside the atmosphere. Missile interception is usually done either in the midcourse phase or the terminal phase. Engaging midcourse is preferred as it can be done from further away but it takes a more powerful missile. Only GBI can engage ICBM's midcourse. SM-3 can engage medium range missiles midcourse, THAAD can engage short range missiles midcourse. Patriot is purely a terminal interceptor. SM-3 and THAAD have limited ability to engage an ICBM in the terminal phase.

Most of the North Korean arsenal is short and medium range missiles and its ICBM's would likely only be used against the US. That is why Japan and South Korea are not interested in GBI and are instead relying on SM-3, THAAD, and Patriot. Against short range missiles Patriot has an impressive record with something around 90% reliability and it is likely that THAAD will be similar. Against medium range missiles and ICBM's things are more difficult but I would guess around a 75% reliability. When you consider that multiple interceptors will be fired at each missile and the different systems work in a layered fashion very few missiles would get through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,260 posts
6,734 battles
4 hours ago, ARCNA442 said:

Since there is no international standard for classifying warships I devised my own. In it 75m is the cutoff between patrol craft and corvettes and 100m is the line between corvettes and frigates. While somewhat arbitrary, it is based on extensive comparisons of current and historical ships and I think it accurately reflects the different classes. I use this system for all navies and am not just trying to prove a point about the North Koreans.

My bet is the Soho's catamaran hull proved to be failure given limited DPRK design capabilities. Also, with a reported armament of just 4 Chinese Styx copies (the same as the numerous DPRK Osa missile boat fleet) she was hardly a well armed vessel.

I see your different point of view. Since I'm not planning an operation, I'm more interested in getting an accurate picture of the DPRK navy rather rather than assuming the worst case scenario. However, let's look at the absolute worst case. All the listed ships are fully operational and have been rearmed with Switchblade copies. You're looking at 14+ hulls with 4-8 missiles each. Does this actually change anything?

Unless you are also going to assume that the DPRK has a fully functioning maritime surveillance network, those ships are still incapable of launching long distance attacks and they don't have any real air defenses (worst case they have all be retrofitted with FL-3000 point defense missiles from China) or ASW capabilities. I'm just not seeing them as anything but targets.

It does change a bit, especially if they all sortie before a first strike on land.

it would be a one sided fight like with the Iranians, but despite limited naval capability the last 10 years or so of war forced us to take iran seriously, if we take DPRK seriously it would be equally one sided, but if we think ‘oh it’s just a [edited] antiquated fleet’ then that arrogance could cause dozens of not hundreds of American and ROK sailors to be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,250 posts
9,004 battles
8 hours ago, ARCNA442 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Interceptor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

Those are the four American missile defense systems. Japan has the 2nd and 4th. South Korea has only the 4th. 

Together they are a layered approach. GBI and SM-3 engage missiles outside of the atmosphere while THAAD and Patriot work inside the atmosphere. Missile interception is usually done either in the midcourse phase or the terminal phase. Engaging midcourse is preferred as it can be done from further away but it takes a more powerful missile. Only GBI can engage ICBM's midcourse. SM-3 can engage medium range missiles midcourse, THAAD can engage short range missiles midcourse. Patriot is purely a terminal interceptor. SM-3 and THAAD have limited ability to engage an ICBM in the terminal phase.

Most of the North Korean arsenal is short and medium range missiles and its ICBM's would likely only be used against the US. That is why Japan and South Korea are not interested in GBI and are instead relying on SM-3, THAAD, and Patriot. Against short range missiles Patriot has an impressive record with something around 90% reliability and it is likely that THAAD will be similar. Against medium range missiles and ICBM's things are more difficult but I would guess around a 75% reliability. When you consider that multiple interceptors will be fired at each missile and the different systems work in a layered fashion very few missiles would get through.

thx for your time and familiarity on this....I'll definitely have a look at this stuff when I'm better rested....like I said what I've read is just one article on what might take place if a Korean War re-opens...doesnt look like a bitchin disco time by any means. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×