Jump to content


Photo

Tanker War Redux


  • Please log in to reply
457 replies to this topic

#21 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,937 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1556 PM

https://www.usni.org.../may/tanker-war

 

an interesting note showing that in the past attacks against tankers were much higher in number than now


  • 0

#22 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,355 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1652 PM

Odd. This article says there were 3 gunboats.
https://www.timesofi...tanker-in-gulf/


If a war drumbeater beats the drum then there is no difference between five and three.
  • 0

#23 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,155 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1827 PM

Top SDF chief in communication with US counterpart, Dunford.

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The top uniformed officer of Japan's Self-Defense Forces said Thursday Japan is in communication with the United States regarding U.S. President Donald Trump's plan for a military coalition to safeguard commercial shipping in the Middle East.

"It's true that Japan and the United States are communicating over a range of matters regarding the situation (in the Strait of Hormuz)," Koji Yamazaki, the chief of the SDF's Joint Staff, told a press conference.

Calling the strait off Iran and Oman "a vitally important region in terms of our country's energy security," Yamazaki said the Japanese government is "keeping a close watch on developments" of exchanges between the countries concerned.

But Yamazaki refrained from elaborating on talks with his American counterpart Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He also declined to say whether they are discussing an SDF dispatch to the Middle East.

Due to restrictions by its pacifist Constitution, the bar remains high for Japan to send troops to the region.

On Tuesday, Dunford put forward the idea of forming a coalition of the willing to ensure freedom of navigation in key corridors, through which major oil exports flow to the world such as the Strait of Hormuz, amid increasing bilateral tensions between the United States and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program and sanctions against it.

The plan was floated following attacks on two oil tankers including one operated by a Japanese firm last month.

Trump has expressed frustration over what he perceives to be an "unfair" bilateral security treaty with Japan, saying it should be changed, though he denied he would scrap it.

https://mainichi.jp/...00m/0na/002000c
  • 0

#24 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0156 AM

https://www.usni.org.../may/tanker-war

 

an interesting note showing that in the past attacks against tankers were much higher in number than now

 

If you are interested in the subject Tim, get this. Personally, I couldnt put it down.

https://www.amazon.c...=gateway&sr=8-1


  • 0

#25 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,357 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0507 AM

 

 

 

The Iranians appear to be bent on retaliation against the UK for their seized tanker. If a target at sea proves too difficult for them to handle, they will undoubtedly turn to lower-hanging fruit in various ways.

 
They'd be better off ignoring the first incident while equipping their own tankers with infantry.

That's a solid way to reclassify their ships as combat vessels, thus legitimate military targets.

 

 

Bullshit - civilian vessels use security details all the time these days where piracy is an issue.

 

 

Private security contractors are a different thing to uniformed and serving defense personal though.


  • 0

#26 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0514 AM

I do yearn for the day when we use to have defence conditions like 'Condition Black'. Calling a defence condition 'Critical' sounds damned unEnglish to me.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48956547

The UK has raised the threat to British shipping in Iranian waters in the Gulf to the highest level - where the risk of attack is "critical".

The step was taken on Tuesday, amid growing tensions in the region.

On Wednesday, Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker in the region - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the MoD said.

Iran had threatened to retaliate for the seizure of one of its own tankers, but denied any attempted seizure.

The Department for Transport said it regularly provided security advice to UK ships in high-risk areas.

The threat level means British ships are advised not to enter Iranian waters, BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said.

 

Boats believed to belong to Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) approached the British Heritage tanker and tried to bring it to a halt as it was moving out of the Gulf into the Strait of Hormuz.

HMS Montrose, a British frigate shadowing the BP-owned tanker, was forced to move between the three boats and the ship, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said.

He described the Iranians' actions as "contrary to international law".

Guns on HMS Montrose were trained on the Iranian boats as they were ordered to back off, US media reported. The boats heeded the warning and no shots were fired.

Last week, British Royal Marines helped the authorities in Gibraltar seize an Iranian tanker because of evidence it was carrying oil to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

A spokesman for the Royal Gibraltar Police said they had arrested the captain and chief officer of the Iranian tanker on Thursday, on suspicion of breaching EU sanctions, but neither had been charged.

   

The BBC has been told British Heritage was near the island of Abu Musa when it was approached by the Iranian boats.

Although Abu Musa is in disputed territorial waters, HMS Montrose remained in international waters throughout.

Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt said the government was concerned by the incident and urged the Iranian authorities to "de-escalate the situation".

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt added the UK would monitor the situation "very carefully".

Prime Minister Theresa May's official spokesman said the government was "committed to maintaining freedom of navigation in accordance with international law".

A spokesperson for the US State Department condemned Iran's actions and said that Washington would continue to work closely with the UK.

Morgan Ortagus said: "We commend the actions of the Royal Navy in ensuring freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce through this critically important waterway."

Commander of the US Fifth Fleet Vice Adm Jim Malloy described the incident as "unlawful harassment" and said the fleet would continue to work closely with the Royal Navy to defend "the free flow of commerce".


  • 0

#27 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0542 AM

https://www.bbc.com/...litics-48958359

 

Iran has reiterated calls for the UK to release an Iranian-owned oil tanker which was detained by Royal Marines in Gibraltar last week.

An Iranian official, speaking to state news agency IRNA, warned the UK not to get involved in "this dangerous game".

It comes after the UK government said Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker in the Gulf on Wednesday.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said events in the Gulf showed the Royal Navy needs more warships.

The leadership hopeful has vowed to reverse cuts to the navy if he becomes PM.

 

:D


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 12 July 2019 - 0542 AM.

  • 0

#28 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,937 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0725 AM

remember "Q" ships?


  • 0

#29 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0730 AM

Yeah, that would be a real treat. :D

 

I suppose we could sail in an unmanned one, then blow it up as they board? Might be a bit unsporting I guess, but they wouldnt do it again. :)


  • 0

#30 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0816 AM

HMS Duncan, a Type 45, to go to the Gulf.

https://www.dailymai...rship-Gulf.html


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 12 July 2019 - 0817 AM.

  • 0

#31 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,937 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 0927 AM

buy a tanker that is currently in operation

Make it a Royal Navy "Q" ship

use it

sell it

repeat as needed

 

sometimes the old ways are best...


  • 0

#32 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,130 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1008 AM

The concern would be if the Iranians deployed their own Q ship under the pretense of a second attempt to transport oil through Gibraltar to an embargoed port.

Explosive charges on the hull and a threat to detonate them would be sufficient as well.

Edited by Nobu, 12 July 2019 - 1009 AM.

  • 0

#33 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,586 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1115 AM

 

 

 

The Iranians appear to be bent on retaliation against the UK for their seized tanker. If a target at sea proves too difficult for them to handle, they will undoubtedly turn to lower-hanging fruit in various ways.

 
They'd be better off ignoring the first incident while equipping their own tankers with infantry.

That's a solid way to reclassify their ships as combat vessels, thus legitimate military targets.

 

 

Bullshit - civilian vessels use security details all the time these days where piracy is an issue.

 

 

 

There is a difference between hired guards and proper military of a nation state. Though the exact details, when a civilian ship turns into a military vessel I do not know.

 

 

€dit: Adam_S beat me to it.


Edited by Panzermann, 12 July 2019 - 1116 AM.

  • 0

#34 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1121 AM

A ship with infantry is nothing more than any other civilian vessel with professional security on board.    That goes probably about as far as shoulder fired AA missiles and 50-cal MG's.  Once the ship starts carrying weapons to hit shore targets, other ships, or aircraft at a distance, then it's crossing over.  Nobu has a good point on scuttling.  Environmental disasters would be a PR disaster in the west.  But generally, the Iranians don't want to get into a tanker war, because in any situation where the fighting was not clearly a US attack on Iranian soil, their diplomatic situation is even worse.


  • 0

#35 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,937 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1144 AM

they shit a brick when that attack was called off the other day


  • 0

#36 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,586 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1159 AM

A ship with infantry is nothing more than any other civilian vessel with professional security on board.    That goes probably about as far as shoulder fired AA missiles and 50-cal MG's.  Once the ship starts carrying weapons to hit shore targets, other ships, or aircraft at a distance, then it's crossing over.  Nobu has a good point on scuttling.  Environmental disasters would be a PR disaster in the west.  But generally, the Iranians don't want to get into a tanker war, because in any situation where the fighting was not clearly a US attack on Iranian soil, their diplomatic situation is even worse.

 

They do not have much to gain by a tanker war anyway.

 

 

they shit a brick when that attack was called off the other day

 

Who is "they"? Iran? I do not think so. They may have been afraid yes, but Iran has pretty much prepared the last three decades against an american invasion. Including preparations for a guerilla war with sty-behind werewolf type organizations. Plus Hezbollah and the other islamic groups Iran controls are going to riot as well and from Lebanon to Afghanistan everything is going to burn. That is the iranian contingency plan. To assemble an army big enough to quickly and decicively concquer Iran the Us woudl need what? A year maybe to everything in place? And how many men? And they would have to attack across the Persian Gulf mostly. Yes, doabel, but I doubt the US public would take the losses of lives.


  • 0

#37 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,937 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1204 PM

My assessment is that Iran wanted and needed the attack by the United States to further their negotiations as a "victim".  When the attack was called off it left Iran with little running room as sanctions are biting deeper with each passing day.

The Iranians are shocked by how far the US dollar can reach as in the past efforts have not been as intense and the sanctions' effects were previously muted.

Iran wouldn't be taking a swing at Britain if they weren't desperate


  • 0

#38 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,130 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1238 PM

I think Iranian retaliation against the UK is imperative from the point of view of Tehran, if only to prevent open season on the seizure of Iranian shipping based on lawfare without consequences.


Edited by Nobu, 12 July 2019 - 1441 PM.

  • 0

#39 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,974 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 1709 PM

A tanker "war" will drive up insurance for everyone there and that will make the cost of transporting oil significantly more, certainly not in the interests of China, Iran needs China to side with it in the UN. They have to be careful.


  • 0

#40 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,937 posts

Posted 12 July 2019 - 2106 PM

I really do think Iran has a losing hand this time

any avenue they take is fraught with risk

In the old days the RN would've sent Ark Royal and Warspite right up in the middle and hammered their ass.

 

"I know, let's hide our destroyers up in the fjords, Hans.  No one would take a BB up there!"


  • 0