Tanker owner disputes story of Iran attack with mines

[candcallen]

Now, I tend to never trust anything coming from CBS, but it there's ANY truth in this story, it could get interesting:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-ta...ount-of-gulf-of-oman-attack-today-2019-06-14/
Questions it left me with:
* Do owners usually travel on these tankers? I know they have a captain; why is the owner necessary?
* He saw "flying objects" and thought they might be bullets???? Seems like they must be a bit undercharged if he can see them?
* Could it be a "false flag" situation to escalate tensions in the gulf/strait?

I believe the "flying objects" referenced were the missiles Iranian forces shot at our drones. They have done this before including a couple successful shoot downs.

They were attempting to stop the ability to record their dirty deeds. I wonder how that worked out for them? When you can read license plates from tens of thousands of miles away you're being niave to think shooting down one drone will cover your deeds in secrecy.

Some of these assets are in the 25 thousand miles altitude range.

 

[kbaxter60]

...

Some of these assets are in the 25 thousand miles altitude range.

That's no drone; that's a satellite!

 

[candcallen]

That's no drone; that's a satellite!

Yep. That's why attempting to or actually shooting a single drone down is an exercise in ignorant futility.

Not to mention assets on subs and ships in the area with the newest sensors.

And the video shown has had its quality degraded substantially. I would bet the actual full quality video would provide extreem detail of the Iranian sailors down to weather they shaved recently. Just a hunch.

 

[MTA]

Whoever Iran shot the nuke at sure would not exist anymore. Your stand would be of great comfort to those who were incinerated. Those folks would not care that Iran was later turned into a glass parking lot.

And people like you would not want the US to respond with nukes should Saudi (for example) get zapped, and Saudi cannot retaliate in kind. Heck, I don't have complete faith that the US would respond with nukes should Iran nuke a US target.

Use your brain for cogent thought and think a little further down the road.

Sooooo we should just kill a few thousand more Americans to save some other country that doesn't give a shit about us? Are you going to be fighting in the next war?

Its nothing more than posturing. If you want to go die for some other country, go for it.

 

[easy rider]

I think talking nukes is blowing this way out proportion. War with Iran IMO will be of last resort. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and they don't want war anymore then Trump does.

 

[Younggun]

I’ll just leave this here:

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/VIDEO-AND-IMAGERY/VIDEOS/videoid/689676/

View attachment 175454

I’ve watched this vid several times and a few things keep bugging me.


Why is the quality of the video so horrible?


Did anyone actually see a mine?

Since when do naval mines attack that high on a ships hull?

And why does the vid start so late in the event? Reminds me of vids showing some innocent fella getting beat up only to find out that there is 5 minutes of the innocent fella talking shit before he gets his ass whooped that accidentally got cut out. Not saying anyone was talking shit, just saying it’s odd that with such damning evidence the vid starts at the halfway point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

Limpet mines can be attached anywhere, it's not like the mines anchored in the water. The video was shot at night in the dark.

 

[Younggun]

Limpet mines can be attached anywhere, it's not like the mines anchored in the water. The video was shot at night in the dark.

So they rolled up beside the tanker and slapped a mine on the side of it? Guess it’s possible. Seems it would make more sense to drop it in front and let it attach in the normal way below the waterline.


I don’t buy “shot in the dark”. I know what kind of quality US military optics are capable of in the dark, this isn’t even close. And if the quality is that bad, how did anyone else determine they were removing a mine when there is no visible mine in the vid as far as I can see. Happy to have it pointed out to me though, maybe I just don’t know where to look.


To be perfectly clear, I’m not claiming false flag or anything else. I’m just not convinced.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

So they rolled up beside the tanker and slapped a mine on the side of it? Guess it’s possible. Seems it would make more sense to drop it in front and let it attach in the normal way below the waterline.


I don’t buy “shot in the dark”. I know what kind of quality US military optics are capable of in the dark, this isn’t even close. And if the quality is that bad, how did anyone else determine they were removing a mine when there is no visible mine in the vid as far as I can see. Happy to have it pointed out to me though, maybe I just don’t know where to look.


To be perfectly clear, I’m not claiming false flag or anything else. I’m just not convinced.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure as far as video goes, just what I found looking into it. If you look as the boat is leaving you can see a dark circle where something like a limpet mine could have been attached.

 

[candcallen]

There are clear pics of the mine in daylight. They were taken by a us military ship helping the crew. They are separate from the video.

As I said the video is degraded on purpose, they always are so as to hid capabilities.

As to why the mine is where it is? To make the damage visible as this turmoil is intended to put pressure of people as the previous attacks wernt impactful enough.

Also I suspect the limiting factor in damage in the previous attacks may have been caused by the construction of oil tankers. They have double hulls and are built extremely strong at the water line in anticipation of running aground as the industry knows another Valdez incident is unacceptable. . Just a thought, shot in the dark.

 

[easy rider]

There are clear pics of the mine in daylight. They were taken by a us military ship helping the crew. They are separate from the video.

As I said the video is degraded on purpose, they always are so as to hid capabilities.

As to why the mine is where it is? To make the damage visible as this turmoil is intended to put pressure of people as the previous attacks wernt impactful enough.

Also I suspect the limiting factor in damage in the previous attacks may have been caused by the construction of oil tankers. They have double hulls and are built extremely strong at the water line in anticipation of running aground as the industry knows another Valdez incident is unacceptable. . Just a thought, shot in the dark.

Remember, this is a Japanese ship, it may or may not have a double hull. Laws on shipping in U.S. waters is not always followed worldwide.

 

[Younggun]

Remember, this is a Japanese ship, it may or may not have a double hull. Laws on shipping in U.S. waters is not always followed worldwide.

True.


Although I did suspect a double hull, I wouldn’t expect it to be any more durable than what would be found on a warship. Japan trades with many nations and most probably require certain safety measures (such as double hull designs on oil tankers) in order to trade and transport in their waters.

I also take in to consideration that not all mines are the same and not all are intended for defeating warships.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Sorry, but all the talk about oil tanker hulls reminded me of this.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[candcallen]

Who knows. The mine isnt that big but it doesnt take much. Also, I suspect from the description and pic it's a shaped charge not some old surplus design. That greatly increases its effect but, a primary mitigation strategy for shaped charge devices is some sort of stand off design. That is making it detonate away from its target thru stuff like slat armor, which also breaks up RPG type devices, and voids and layers in the armor. This may be why they tried to attach them away from doubly hull and reinforced areas and why they were able to actually set oil in the tankers on fire this time. They may have just lucked out last time and not penetrated the actual holding tanks out of ignorance or luck. No ones tried to do this since the late 80s so who knows.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I’ve watched this vid several times and a few things keep bugging me.

Why is the quality of the video so horrible?

Did anyone actually see a mine?

Since when do naval mines attack that high on a ships hull?

And why does the vid start so late in the event?

Quality: without knowing what sensor was used to collect, it’s tough to comment on that. FLIR, EO/IR, SWIR, LLLTV all have varying qualities. The sensor is standing off 4-7+ miles.

See a mine? Look at the right red arrow.

Limpet mine. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30102144 . Safer and easier to attach above the waterline when the target is underway.

Video timing. CENTCOM releases what CENTCOM releases.

 

[Younggun]

Quality: without knowing what sensor was used to collect, it’s tough to comment on that. FLIR, EO/IR, SWIR, LLLTV all have varying qualities. The sensor is standing off 4-7+ miles.

See a mine? Look at the right red arrow.

View attachment 175511

Limpet mine. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30102144 . Safer and easier to attach above the waterline when the target is underway.

Video timing. CENTCOM releases what CENTCOM releases.

I will accept your explanations.


That said, it doesn’t make the missing bit of the video from the beginning any less strange when it is supposed to show proof of nefarious action. Showing a minute more from the beginning would have made the mine clearly visible. No reason to cut it away.


CENTCOM realeases what they need to in order to back up what they tell us? That’s different than releasing what they need to to show us what actually happened and although the two could be the same event, they could also be very different.


I don’t like being on the “conspiratorial” side of things. Just smells funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

Sorry, but all the talk about oil tanker hulls reminded me of this.

That's funny, thank you!

 

[easy rider]

Someone had said this was a satellite video. Now I'm not really savvy on satellites, but if it was, how did they get such low angles?

 

[toddnjoyce]

I will accept your explanations.

That said, it doesn’t make the missing bit of the video from the beginning any less strange when it is supposed to show proof of nefarious action. Showing a minute more from the beginning would have made the mine clearly visible. No reason to cut it away.

CENTCOM realeases what they need to in order to back up what they tell us? That’s different than releasing what they need to to show us what actually happened and although the two could be the same event, they could also be very different.

I don’t like being on the “conspiratorial” side of things. Just smells funny.

The thing is the video isn’t of attaching something to the ship, it’s of the crew removing something from the ship.

Based on the elevation angle in the wide field of view shots, I’m going to guess it’s an airborne sensor. What’s probably on the tape before hand is WFOV scan of the boat to assess damage and the smaller boat just happened to be stumbled upon.

It’s really hard to describe how powerful the soda-straw effect is when a single source is all that’s available to view.

It’s also somewhat evident the portion of video that is displayed is cropped, as there’s no telemetry data overlaid.

I’ll also guess there were multiple sensor packages on this collection deck, with a well thought out sensor plan that tells a bigger story.

Now, CENTCOM wouldn’t normally release this type of imagery on their own, and it may not even be DOD or even US sourced imagery...CENTCOM may just be the conduit to release the imagery. The information released clearly states when US assets observed IRGC activities earlier in the day, then includes this in their timeline relating to the video

“At 4:10 p.m. local time an IRGC Gashti Class patrol boat approached the M/T Kokuka Courageous and was observed and recorded removing the unexploded limpet mine from the M/T Kokuka Courageous (video attached).”

 

[General Zod]

So they rolled up beside the tanker and slapped a mine on the side of it? Guess it’s possible. Seems it would make more sense to drop it in front and let it attach in the normal way below the waterline.

Limpet mines don't work that way. They're attached by divers/saboteurs and they don't float. For sinking a ship, several are attached under the waterline. For making a statement and sowing intimidation without getting into a shooting war you can't possibly win, you might attach one a couple of feet above the waterline to cause damage without actually sinking anything.

Drop it in front and you'll have an explosive device lying in the mud on the bottom of the waterway, safely away from any and all boat hulls as the target sails blissfully away.