By No surprise here:
Arms experts and military officers say it was technological superiority that allowed South Korea to send a North Korean patrol boat scuttling back trailing a cloud of smoke across the Northern Limit Line after an incursion Monday.
South Korea’s 150-ton Chamsuri 325 speed boats and North Korea’s 131-ton Shanghai class patrol boats are similar in size, and there are no major differences in their armament capacities. The Chamsuri is armed with 40 mm and 20 mm cannon and 12.7 mm K-6 machine guns. The main armaments of the North Korean patrol boat are 37 mm and 25 mm cannon. But the decisive factor is the ships’ ability to deliver accurate fire.
The cannon mounted on the Chamsuri are computer-controlled and capable of delivering accurate fire even when the boats are bobbing on choppy waters. The 40 mm cannon were made by Italian arms manufacturer Breda. The 20 mm Sea Vulcan gun is capable of firing between 2,700 and 3,300 rounds per minute on its targets. In contrast, North Korea’s Shanghai class patrol boats were manufactured in the 1960s and their guns must be fired manually. That makes it difficult to focus fire on a single target while the vessels are bobbing up and down. The naval clash on Tuesday occurred amid 2 m waves and at a distance of 3.2 km. Experts say the computer-controlled armaments of the South Korean boat was probably able to sustain concentrated fire more accurately than the North Korean boat.
Luck may also have played a role in the fact that no South Korean sailors were killed even though the Chamsuri was hit by around 15 rounds. But Navy officers say strengthened armaments, which were added since 2002, appear to have been the main reason. During the second naval clash in the West Sea in 2002, six South Korean sailors were killed, prompting the Navy to bolster the armor of Chamsuri boats. [Chosun Ilbo]
Fortunately no ROK sailors were killed, but it makes you wonder that if Roh Moo-hyun was still President would the sailors on this boat still be alive or not?
10:40 pm on November 13th, 2009 1
“Experts say the computer-controlled armaments of the South Korean boat was probably able to sustain concentrated fire more accurately than the North Korean boat.”
Was it necessary to bother experts for that? It’s as if reporters come in two varieties: the first ask experts to state the obvious, and the second likes to make unfounded claims, no matter how ludicrous they may be.
Reply
12:02 pm on November 14th, 2009 2
“Fortunately no ROK sailors were killed, but it makes you wonder that if Roh Moo-hyun was still President would the sailors on this boat still be alive or not?”
This is a pretty dumb comment, no? What does Roh’s presidency have anything to do with the sailors’ survival?
Reply
November 14th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
http://rokdrop.com/2008/06/30/korean-government-memorializes-sixth-anniversary-of-the-west-sea-naval-battle/
Reply
November 15th, 2009 at 3:00 am
First of all, even if the Roh administration did try to downplay the 2002 incident for political purposes (which, btw, occurred in the administration previous to that), this does not necessarily mean it would have been any less concerned with the safety of ROK soldiers. Second, maybe you should also try looking at other sources instead of simply echoing the obviously biased and simplistic views on this blog. For instance, you could also look at:
http://whiteclind.egloos.com/4254852
Reply
November 14th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
The experts would have been different and the fault murky. Perhaps an accident on the Navy’s part or a misunderstanding.
Reply
November 15th, 2009 at 3:07 am
And what is your basis for such speculation? And as I stated above, even if it were true, it does not mean more soldiers would be put in harm’s way. You can criticize the Roh administration’s North Korea policy all you want, but that remark on whether the soldiers would have lived is dumb (not to mention grammatically incorrect; it should be “were,” not “was”)
Reply
November 15th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I’m sorry, I didn’t use “was” in my comment. Regardless, depending on someones grammer, spelling, etc. in a comment, is not a valid premise for denial.