Gulf of Oman incidents
Discussion
Hosenbugler said:
A mpost interesting article here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-tanker... Concerning the attacks off the coast of the UAE in May just gone. Limpet mines laid by frogmen , sounds like a WW2 type tactic , Cockleshell heroes type of incident.
As for the current attacks on the tankers,its perhaps pertinent to be aware that the Gulf of Oman is very deep , 10000 feet in places , quite unlike the persian gulf which is under 300 feet at its very deepest. Basically, the Persian gulf is a bad place for submarines to operate , much easier to detect in shallow water , the depth of the Omani gulf would certainly help subs to avoid detection.
The puzzling part is the reports of damage above the waterline , however, were a torpedo set to run on the surface , it would cause damge both above and below said waterline.
Iran has 7 subs, several of them very modern diesel electric boats ,some of which are armed with Mines and missiles, as well as Torpedo's. Very concerning.
Iran also has over 20 of these : http://www.hisutton.com/Demystified%20-%20new%20lo... . Which would be just the ticket for the UAE attacks last month. Usually launched from a landing ship, but can be adapted so as to be able to be launched from a submarine.
Time for SC 42.As for the current attacks on the tankers,its perhaps pertinent to be aware that the Gulf of Oman is very deep , 10000 feet in places , quite unlike the persian gulf which is under 300 feet at its very deepest. Basically, the Persian gulf is a bad place for submarines to operate , much easier to detect in shallow water , the depth of the Omani gulf would certainly help subs to avoid detection.
The puzzling part is the reports of damage above the waterline , however, were a torpedo set to run on the surface , it would cause damge both above and below said waterline.
Iran has 7 subs, several of them very modern diesel electric boats ,some of which are armed with Mines and missiles, as well as Torpedo's. Very concerning.
Iran also has over 20 of these : http://www.hisutton.com/Demystified%20-%20new%20lo... . Which would be just the ticket for the UAE attacks last month. Usually launched from a landing ship, but can be adapted so as to be able to be launched from a submarine.
Edited by Hosenbugler on Thursday 13th June 13:15
Psycho Warren said:
modern torpedos have no need to run on the surface. Vast majority of modern torpedos correctly targetted against a surface ship will be designed to detonate UNDER the ship. The damage often splits smaller vessels in half as it rips from keel through to the upper decks.
And old (think pre 70's) or s
t torpedo might need to hit the side but even still, any decent explosive load is likely to cause damage above and below waterline. These are weakly built thin skinned merchant ships not armoured battleships.
Torpedo's were designed to detonate under the keel as back as far as WW2. Effectively it creates a huge pocket of air which causes the ship to break it's back.And old (think pre 70's) or s
t torpedo might need to hit the side but even still, any decent explosive load is likely to cause damage above and below waterline. These are weakly built thin skinned merchant ships not armoured battleships.I'd still suspect a mine attack, you don't need to risk an asset such as a submarine and planting a mine on a ship such as a tanker doesn't require state level resources. Just a few trained guys and a box of mines. (Which I am guessing are pretty plentiful considering the region)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48630...
""This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication."
"Mr Pompeo presented no evidence."
1. "the weapons used" .... what weapons used? Go on, tell us Mikey baby .,..
2. "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping" .. that's not been proved either and also those attacks seem to be different on the effects;.
3."that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication"
The last rules out my mother in law who is in Oman at the moment on an anti Trump mission. Phew!
What a load of baloney at the moment. You'd think the USA with its huge scientific and IT might could bang the Rebel Alliance, oops, sorry, Iranians, to rights straight off.
""This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication."
"Mr Pompeo presented no evidence."
1. "the weapons used" .... what weapons used? Go on, tell us Mikey baby .,..
2. "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping" .. that's not been proved either and also those attacks seem to be different on the effects;.
3."that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication"
The last rules out my mother in law who is in Oman at the moment on an anti Trump mission. Phew!
What a load of baloney at the moment. You'd think the USA with its huge scientific and IT might could bang the Rebel Alliance, oops, sorry, Iranians, to rights straight off.
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 14th June 02:09
Also, as per
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
Mike Pompeo has a very short memory when he says
"and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication"
He's just talking bks at this present time.
Did the Iranians do it? Probably. But the USA has not shown that yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
Mike Pompeo has a very short memory when he says
"and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication"
He's just talking b
ks at this present time.Did the Iranians do it? Probably. But the USA has not shown that yet.
No frogmen, likely, IRGC in a boat, because they can't swim. Filmed removing unexploded mines.
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/VIDEOS/videoid/68967...
https://www.centcom.mil/Portals/6/Documents/Statem...
https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/VIDEOS/videoid/68967...
https://www.centcom.mil/Portals/6/Documents/Statem...
Gandahar said:
Due to restricted oil exports any increase in $ per dollar will see them ok.
Also to be seen as tweaking the dragons tail in the USA
I dont buy it, their oil exports are nearly nothing and what benefit is their to be pulling the dragons tail as you put it? Also to be seen as tweaking the dragons tail in the USA
Other counties in the middle East have far more to gain, both from higher oil prices and also increased US pressure on Iran.
US military releases video of Iranian forces apparently trying to remove mine.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/us-military-...
https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/us-military-...
I see that one of the ships was a Japanese one. For Iran to attack a Japanese ship at the same time as the Japanese PM was on a high-stakes trip to Iran - the first Japanese premier to visit Iran since 1979 Islamic Revolution -where he was trying to defuse the current tensions in the region is quite something. I know the Iranians are rather good at scoring diplomatic self goals but if the American narrative is true then this would take the biscuit.
Edited by BlackLabel on Friday 14th June 11:34
6th Gear said:
US military releases video of Iranian forces apparently trying to remove mine.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/us-military-...
Nothing to see herehttps://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/us-military-...
Greshamst said:
The video footage of the mine removal is interesting... if it is valid footage, then presumably the attacking group weighed up being seen removing it as a lesser identifying risk than the unexploded mine being inspected.
Not to mention weighing up the risk of being blown to smithereens if the thing did finally decide to go off just as they removed it.Greshamst said:
The video footage of the mine removal is interesting... if it is valid footage, then presumably the attacking group weighed up being seen removing it as a lesser identifying risk than the unexploded mine being inspected.
The device probably did have:"Made in Tehran. Property of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. If found, please return to . . ." prominently stencilled on it.
They're not stupid in Riyadh.
Greshamst said:
The video footage of the mine removal is interesting... if it is valid footage, then presumably the attacking group weighed up being seen removing it as a lesser identifying risk than the unexploded mine being inspected.
This article in The Times has offered up a possibly scenario about this.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/west-and-its-gu...
Badgerboy said:
I'd still suspect a mine attack, you don't need to risk an asset such as a submarine and planting a mine on a ship such as a tanker doesn't require state level resources. Just a few trained guys and a box of mines. (Which I am guessing are pretty plentiful considering the region)
Seems my suspicions were somewhat confirmed.aeropilot said:
This article in The Times has offered up a possibly scenario about this.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/west-and-its-gu...
Paywall https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/west-and-its-gu...
Greshamst said:
aeropilot said:
This article in The Times has offered up a possibly scenario about this.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/west-and-its-gu...
Paywall https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/west-and-its-gu...
Times said:
Trump and his allies given the clearest of messages
No one has claimed responsibility for yesterday’s attacks, nor for similar attacks on May 12, but an investigation of those pointed the finger obliquely at Iran, and most western powers and their Gulf allies will be working on the assumption that Tehran is to blame. If that is the case, the speed with which Iranian media were able to announce the attacks and then post video of the resulting conflagration would suggest a brazenness that will help intelligence agencies decipher their purpose.
The May incident was unprecedented and shocking, but in some ways was less dangerous, as it came at a moment when tensions between Iran and the United States were already high. The United States had boasted of sending an aircraft carrier to the Middle East, along with extra B52 bombers to the US air base at al-Udeid in Qatar. Iran had been threatening action in response to the effective US blockade of Iranian oil exports through its sanctions programme.
But the warnings of an accidental drift to war had already begun to have an effect by May 12. President Trump, who was elected on a pledge not to get involved in Middle East conflicts, went out of his way to talk down the threats of the belligerent John Bolton, his national security adviser, and publicly called for talks with the Iranian regime. He was not looking for regime change, he insisted, only to talk to the regime about its nuclear programme.
He then dispatched the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, to talk to the Supreme Leader. Mr Abe’s spokesman denies his current trip to Tehran is just to act as mediator for the US, but Japan has a vested interest in seeking a solution to the dispute between its most important strategic ally and Iran, previously one of its major oil suppliers.
If today’s attacks are a response to this outreach by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it is then a particularly devastating one. The ayatollah has not only rejected talks with America – which he had already done, and did again when meeting Mr Abe – but done so in the most egregious way. The choice of a Japanese-owned tanker would be a particular insult to Mr Abe.
The only silver lining to this threatening cloud is that this message appears so clear it must be intended to be read as such by his opponents. It is assumed Iran does not actually want a war - which would be devastating to it and, if Mr Bolton had his way at least, could well end the Islamic Republic altogether. Rather, perhaps, the ayatollah is saying that he cannot just be expected to come crawling at the request of an intermediary like Mr Abe.
The tankers targeted so far have been Norwegian, Saudi and Emirati - last month - and Japanese and Norwegian this month. All are key allies but none is actually American, which might trigger an immediate military response.
Iran may be saying that it wants Mr Trump, if he is so keen for a deal, to come crawling himself, or face the consequences.
No one has claimed responsibility for yesterday’s attacks, nor for similar attacks on May 12, but an investigation of those pointed the finger obliquely at Iran, and most western powers and their Gulf allies will be working on the assumption that Tehran is to blame. If that is the case, the speed with which Iranian media were able to announce the attacks and then post video of the resulting conflagration would suggest a brazenness that will help intelligence agencies decipher their purpose.
The May incident was unprecedented and shocking, but in some ways was less dangerous, as it came at a moment when tensions between Iran and the United States were already high. The United States had boasted of sending an aircraft carrier to the Middle East, along with extra B52 bombers to the US air base at al-Udeid in Qatar. Iran had been threatening action in response to the effective US blockade of Iranian oil exports through its sanctions programme.
But the warnings of an accidental drift to war had already begun to have an effect by May 12. President Trump, who was elected on a pledge not to get involved in Middle East conflicts, went out of his way to talk down the threats of the belligerent John Bolton, his national security adviser, and publicly called for talks with the Iranian regime. He was not looking for regime change, he insisted, only to talk to the regime about its nuclear programme.
He then dispatched the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, to talk to the Supreme Leader. Mr Abe’s spokesman denies his current trip to Tehran is just to act as mediator for the US, but Japan has a vested interest in seeking a solution to the dispute between its most important strategic ally and Iran, previously one of its major oil suppliers.
If today’s attacks are a response to this outreach by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it is then a particularly devastating one. The ayatollah has not only rejected talks with America – which he had already done, and did again when meeting Mr Abe – but done so in the most egregious way. The choice of a Japanese-owned tanker would be a particular insult to Mr Abe.
The only silver lining to this threatening cloud is that this message appears so clear it must be intended to be read as such by his opponents. It is assumed Iran does not actually want a war - which would be devastating to it and, if Mr Bolton had his way at least, could well end the Islamic Republic altogether. Rather, perhaps, the ayatollah is saying that he cannot just be expected to come crawling at the request of an intermediary like Mr Abe.
The tankers targeted so far have been Norwegian, Saudi and Emirati - last month - and Japanese and Norwegian this month. All are key allies but none is actually American, which might trigger an immediate military response.
Iran may be saying that it wants Mr Trump, if he is so keen for a deal, to come crawling himself, or face the consequences.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff