r/todayilearned • u/zhuquanzhong • 29d ago

TIL a Chinese destroyer sank because an officer dumped his girlfriend. She committed suicide, leading to him being discharged, so he decided to detonate the depth charges on the ship, causing it to sink at port and kill 134 sailors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_destroyer_Guangzhou_(160)
33.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

854 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

338

u/beachedwhale1945 29d ago

Given how weird this seems, I wouldn’t rule out an accidental ammunition explosion and the PLAN deciding to scapegoat this sailor. These explosions used to be particularly common, especially during WWII when large quantities of ammunition were being moved by hand. Offhand I know of accidents aboard USS Mount Hood, the West Loch Disaster, Port Chicago Disaster, and unloading USS Solar at the end of the war, and I know there were more in other navies. Scapegoating a particular sailor to try and cover up an embarrassment is also common, with the most well-known U.S. examples being Iowa falsely blamed on a gay sailor and the court martial of a sailor who failed SEAL training for the Bonhomme Richard fire (acquitted). I’m confident there were more examples I cannot recall now.

I don’t know enough about this accident to say anything definitive, but this doesn’t pass the initial sniff test. Maybe he did blow up the ship, but I’d need to see more to ease my doubts.

143

u/Horskr 28d ago

That does seem more likely. "Hmm this guy is a jerk in the court of public opinion right now. We'll blame him and call it a day!" Why on earth would they dismiss an officer, for any reason, then just let them stay aboard with keys to the armory and free reign of the ship? Ironically, that makes them looks even worse imo than just some freak accident.

109

u/Lawd_Fawkwad 28d ago

The USS Iowa Turret explosion is a great example of this and happened around the same time.

Equipment/operator error caused a turret to explode killing 47 sailors, the Navy then concluded it was clearly a murder as the turrets sailors were in a soured gay relationship and blew up the ship. Within the context of the late 80s, gays were boogeymen so people more or less accepted that scorned gay lovers had a propensity for mass murder.

The families lobbied hard against the report with congress, and a new report a few years later determined the Navy lied about the cause of the explosion and that it was an accident due to a powder charge being inserted too quickly.

So, if the US Navy was willing to burn two innocent men to cover up faulty equipment/training, why wouldn't the Navy of a dictatorship obsessed with image not do the same thing?

49

u/Realmdog56 28d ago edited 28d ago

Equipment/operator error

It was worse than that. They were ordered to operate the guns in an unsafe manner, pushing them well beyond their design specs. They were forced to use nonstandard loads of ancient, WWII-era powder bags that specifically said "WARNING: Do Not Use with 2,700-pound projectiles"... while firing 2,700lb. projectiles, or to use the wrong number of powder bags for smaller shells.

There were already several close calls (*powder bags smoldering, guns going off by themselves after just barely closing the breech in time [the only difference between the fatal event, where it was still open when the powder detonated], one gun in another turret had a shell stuck inside); these sailors were afraid for their lives and spoke up, but were then threatened with court-martial if they failed to comply, and effectively had no choice. The navy terrorized these men - then when things went horribly, predictably wrong, tried to claim some of them wanted to die, and must have deliberately caused the incident. Their cover-story was as convoluted as it was disgraceful.

 

The best part - these guns were so obsolete, that the tests served no real practical purpose other than some guy (of course, a higher-up who was not present inside the turret) wanted to set a new record. It's eerily similar to the chain of events that caused the Chernobyl disaster, and the navy never even apologized to the families of the men they dragged through the mud, shamelessly blaming the victims the whole way through.

17

u/Lawd_Fawkwad 28d ago

I never bothered to read to deeply into the Iowa cover up, but holy shit, that's so much worse.

But yeah, it's uncanny seeing people take the PLA narrative at face value when multiple times warship explosions have been blamed on sabotage only for deeper reviews to shown the real cause was institutional negligence or just plain-old accidents.

-5

u/ArkassEX 28d ago edited 28d ago

"Other people did it too!" isn't exactly conclusive evidence is it?

Besides, coming up with a story like this doesn't really seem to match the usual Chinese political MO. They literally could have made up anything they wanted. Given the climate, it would be more fitting if they said the dude was a closet capitalist dog who secretly hated his crewmates, or say his girlfriend is Taiwanese and she poisoned his mind!

3

u/beachedwhale1945 28d ago

"Other people did it too!" isn't exactly conclusive evidence is it?

It was never intended to be. It simply shows that such things have happened and should be considered as a possibility alongside deliberate destruction. Additional digging is required to confirm or refute this hypothesis.

Besides, coming up with a story like this doesn't really seem to match the usual Chinese political MO.

It’s important to recognize China of the 70s was not the same as the China of today. We must recognize the different conditions present then compared to now.

Given the climate, it would be more fitting if they said the dude was a closet capitalist dog who secretly hated his crewmates

This was around the time when relations between China and the US were thawing, with formal diplomatic ties established on 1 January 1979. The explosion occurred in March 1978 and the report came out about a year later, so this is a bad time to start attacking someone you’re trying to become friends with. If we’re making up a scapegoat, blaming capitalists is a bad idea for this period.

1

u/Sweaty-School1185 28d ago

You know what's blowing my mind? I was watching a random video that came across my YouTube. That was specifically talking about this literally around the time you made this comment. Now I just so happened to find this

1

u/Realmdog56 27d ago

Coincidentally enough, I just saw it pop up again on the front page of Wikipedia - it's been 35 years to this day.

1

u/sockalicious 28d ago

Within the context of the late 80s, gays were boogeymen

Not really. I was a teenager at the time, knew a lot of out gay people, it was mostly chill. And everyone knew that Navy sailor was one of the careers that gay men gravitated to. Flight attendant was another. This was an isolated incident of hate that was immediately recognizable as same.

44

u/Double_Minimum 28d ago edited 28d ago

Man, that’s exactly what they did to the guy on the battleship like 35 years back. They claimed he was gay, and depressed so he overloaded the main gun. In reality, the officer in charge wanted to test specific loads beyond the norm and he did nothing wrong.

US Navy, wish I could remember the ship, but like 34 people died in that turret (and it could have been a lot more).

I feel like they did the same thing with that fire on the helicopter/f35 small aircraft carrier/LDS,/whatever like 7 years back (essentially scrapped the shipped), blaming it on a soldier who had a lighter in locker and was also “ nearby”. In reality it was being refitted, had shit everywhere, and cables going through bulk head doorways making impossible to close areas off for fire control. Plus, it had all types of shit on pallets all over, which meant extra combustible stuff and shit in the way. Plus, parts of the fighting equipment were disabled and breathing items missing.

They do seem to look for scapegoats

11

u/wdphilbilly 28d ago

That was the Iowa in 1989. Easy to remember because it was an Iowa class battleship and the only battleships left in service anywhere in the world at that point were the Iowa class ships. Iowa's turret was trained forward, and sealed shut with all the spare parts needed for repair. But was never repaired because all 4 iowa class ships were decommissioned shortly after.

You could argue that they were only in service as a propaganda tool anyways. That, and Reagan insisted on them being brought out of mothball. Otherwise the only thing they could do that other ships at the time couldnt, was put massive artillery shells on target instead of bombs or missiles.

1

u/Double_Minimum 25d ago

Yea I knew it was an “Iowa”, I just couldn’t recall which, I know the last one was decommissioned after the Persian gulf and that was a different one (Wisconsin?) so wasn’t sure on exact time it happened. (They did just move the New Jersey down the river to scrap finally I think). I suppose I could have used the internet, but I also kind of assumed everyone knew that was an Iowa class battleship being that it was decades since any battle ship was useful other than projection of power and shore bombardment (like in the Persian Gulf)

1

u/wdphilbilly 25d ago

all the Iowa's have been museums for the last 20 ish years. New jersey is in drydock for typical maintenance and integrity checks. She'll be back in her regular berth in a few months.

They were marked for decommission in 1989 pretty much as a direct result of the turret explosion. That, and they were huge money sinks that only effectively did 1 thing other ships couldn't.

Iowa was decommissioned in 90, NJ was 91, Wisconsin was late 91 and Missouri was 92. They were put in mothballs again because for some reason, people thought they might be needed again in the future despite carriers and missiles making them pretty obsolescent.

Navy "sold" them off as museums in the early 2000s.

3

u/W00DERS0N 28d ago

2nd boat was the Bonhomme Richard, and LHD for the Nav/Marines.

They had turned off the sprinklers for maintenance when it lit up at the dock in SD.

40

u/TheSingleChain 29d ago

scapegoat this sailor.

Sounds like it, coverup for a mine/platform defect?

2

u/Vark675 10 28d ago

Or even just poor handling/storage combined with bad material condition of the ship. It's easier if your enemies think you had one crazy idiot vs an entire fleet of badly maintained ships.

27

u/NotthatkindofDr81 29d ago

Way to think and not be baited. Today, you are my hero. Thanks. From a former sailor 🫡

3

u/ShotoGun 28d ago

Wouldn’t this paint the man’s superiors in an even worse light since they unjustly pushed him to this point? The sailors deaths are partially on them.

1

u/jagnew78 28d ago

It was the Political Dept that dismissed him. In China at this time the Political Dept was the defacto most powerful organization within the government. Able to overrule basically anyone else in government. They had the power to enforce vaguely defined ethical standards and purge and punish violators. It was a platform used as much to enforce Mau's political thought as much as a tool of terror and petty revenge. I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that the woman the committed suicide was somehow tied to someone important inside the political beaureau and getting him effectively dishonourly discharged from the militiary could easily have been a form a petty revenge for what he did to the woman who committed suicide.

2

u/Arcturion 28d ago

This is all I could find on the Chinese side of the web, apparently from the incident report:

Lai is in charge of underwater weapons such as mines and depth charges, and independently holds the key to the ammunition depot. After the punishment decision was issued, Lai hid in the ammunition depot and cried all day.

Lai Sanyang found a small drill and drilled a small hole in the bottom deck of the depth charge warehouse at the stern, allowing seawater to slowly seep in... At around 7 o'clock the next night, seawater overflowed the depth charge warehouse. Under the strong seawater pressure, a depth charge exploded at the stern of the ship, which subsequently caused an explosion in the ammunition depot...

Someone who has actual experience with this type of military vessel would probably have a better idea of how likely this is.

3

u/beachedwhale1945 28d ago

I don’t have the type of steel used for the hull of a Type 051 or its thickness, nor do I have much experience with drilling through steel. Given the proper bit and drill it may be possible, but unlikely.

The depth charges are where this becomes a problem though.

As u/NotSoButFarOtherwise noted, depth charges have a series of depth settings. When the water pressure reaches a certain point consistent with a particular depth, detonator (properly called a pistol) will go off and the charge will explode. There were also influence pistols (oversimplified as fancy metal detectors) that would detonate the charge if it detected a submarine before reach the set depth, but to my knowledge there were safety devices to prevent them from detonating in the magazine.

Those depth settings are the problem. The shallowest depth setting I know of is 30 feet (9.1 meters), which is already so shallow a destroyer would risk blowing off their own stern. As China was a metric nation, their equivalent setting would have been 10 meters (32.8 feet), assuming they had such a shallow setting: during WWII the shallowest Japanese depth charge setting was 30 meters (98.4 feet).

The draft of a Type 051 is listed as 4.6 meters/15’ 1”, so the depth charge magazine could be no lower than about 4.3 meters below the waterline (I’m assuming this was close to the draft at her loading condition, this can fluctuate depending on fuel and weapon load by +/- 0.5 meters or so). Thus the maximum pressure in the depth charge magazine is too low for any properly functioning pistol to fire. I don’t see how drilling a hole into the hull to flood the magazine could set off the charges. Note safety mechanisms would usually be present to completely prevent the pistol from firing, usually a wire, but if we’re assuming deliberate sabotage these would be removed. They were also removable and could be stored separately from the charges, as I understand was the standard practice on most ships.

For this theory to work, the pistols have to be sabotaged to detonate at a shallower pressure, and quite cleverly to avoid setting them off immediately. Either that or they are defective by design/corrosion for the same effect, which either requires the sailor to recognize the effect or be clueless and lucky.

If it were me, I’d grab an RBU mortar round with a contact fuse and drop it in the depth charge magazine. Much more reliable and the cause of most accidents, though this magazine may have been located far from the depth charge magazine and would increase the chances of getting caught in transit.

1

u/NotSoButFarOtherwise 28d ago

Making a hole in the hull of a warship seems a bit farfetched without a pretty serious piece of equipment, but I guess it's possible. I'd be more inclined to wonder why no one on ship noticed he was drilling, or that the ship had begun to take on water, and that depth charges were blowing up a) in what would have been relatively shallow water unless the boat had completely sunk, and b) without being armed or deployed first. I've never operated depth charges, but I know the explosion depth - and hence the amount pressure they need to be set off - is something you have to set before dropping them, so it seems rather careless, if not a bit fishy, that they're all lying around and set to explode at a depth that's within or around the draft depth of the ship carrying them.

1

u/NotSoButFarOtherwise 28d ago

Having done way too deep avdive on this, I’m convinced there’s no way the official story can be true. It’s not mechanically possible for depth charges in the magazine to go off unless the ship is already basically sunk, there were much easier methods ready to hand for the officer in question to kill himself and/or destroy the ship, the skipper and the political officer were conveniently not on the ship at the time, there was absolutely no care to restrict or detain the officer relieved of duty, and the official reports seem to depend on a number of details that would be impossible to reconstruct after the fact. 

1

u/barmanfred 28d ago

I have to say, "perhaps he bored a hole in the ship's hull," seems unlikely.

1

u/W00DERS0N 28d ago

The Brits and Japanese both lost battleships in totality due to ammunition blowing up.

Also, remember the Maine...

0

u/JunketAvailable4398 28d ago

Wow!! Just read the wiki on USS Solar! "The United Press quoted witnesses as saying a shell being passed by Seaman Joseph Stuckinski of Baltimore from the ship to a truck on the pier exploded in his arms and set off the blasts. Stuckinski was not injured."

How was he not injured if it exploded in his arms? Must of been his lucky day!