Help support TMP

"Iran Fails in Attempt to Hijack UK Tanker" Topic

16 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Ruleset

Featured Showcase Article

Featured Profile Article

Yad Mordechai/Deir Suneid

The first of a series of reports from sargonII, who is currently traveling in the Middle East.

Current Poll

Featured Book Review

1,160 hits since 10 Jul 2019
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP10 Jul 2019 11:05 p.m. PST

Some people never learn.

Iran has apparently tried to hijack a British tanker, in retribution for the one legally seized for violating UN oil sanctions on Syria:

"Authorities in Gibraltar ordered the seizure of the 300,000-ton capacity tanker on the grounds that it was taking crude oil to Syria, in violation of European Union sanctions targeting the Assad regime and associated entities".

Five Iranian boats approached and ordered the British tanker to follow them.

A British naval vessel a few miles behind the tanker interceded, and scared away the pirates:


Jubilation T Cornpone10 Jul 2019 11:59 p.m. PST

Good to see Frigates doing the job they were historically designed for. Okay, that may have no always been the case but as a multi role escort that can show a little teeth when idiots turn up in small boats it's a useful ship. By the way, do we know exactly what the Iranians were in? I'm assuming their standard small speedboat type configuration with a few guys and a HMG tacked on the front.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP11 Jul 2019 1:35 a.m. PST

Not sure.

They've made threats against the UK, but apparently are now denying the "small boats" were even theirs.

Apparently, some sort of US aircraft was flying above the scene, so I suspect video footage may be forthcoming, shortly.

skipper John Supporting Member of TMP11 Jul 2019 7:12 a.m. PST

So now we just "scare(d) away the pirates"??

What?….. Were they out of range? Sad.

StarCruiser11 Jul 2019 7:42 a.m. PST

Yeah – I thought the proper solution was hangin' them from the highest yard arm!

JMcCarroll Supporting Member of TMP11 Jul 2019 9:45 a.m. PST

Should of Keeled? them.

Personal logo Doctor X Supporting Member of TMP11 Jul 2019 10:00 a.m. PST

Hangin's too good for them!

Lion in the Stars11 Jul 2019 2:00 p.m. PST

Yeah I thought the proper solution was hangin' them from the highest yard arm!

No way, you don't want them swinging around up there, you will break things!

Oberlindes Sol LIC Supporting Member of TMP11 Jul 2019 4:49 p.m. PST

When you hang someone from the yard arm (or radio mast or whatever), you have to tie his ankles to a deck stanchion, lest you have a 200 pound weight flying around destroying equipment and injuring crew.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP11 Jul 2019 6:52 p.m. PST

Sounds like it could be rather messy.

Keel-hauling seems cleaner, as long as you don't bring them back on deck, afterwards.

TMPWargamerabbit11 Jul 2019 11:45 p.m. PST

From bow to stern on a modern ship, the keel hauling along the keel shouldn't have much left to recognize compared to the shorter length of the old wooden ship hull lengths.

StarCruiser12 Jul 2019 9:27 a.m. PST

Doctor X

Hangin's too good for them!

Burnin's too good for them!

They should be chopped into itsy bitsy pieces and buried alive!

miscmini Fezian12 Jul 2019 10:51 a.m. PST

Hangin's too good for them!
Burnin's too good for them!
They should be chopped into itsy bitsy pieces and buried alive.
- Hanover Fist

coopman12 Jul 2019 11:06 a.m. PST

A wood chipper would work great.

Aristonicus Supporting Member of TMP14 Jul 2019 3:06 a.m. PST

Odd situation. First up the RN says only 3 boats.

Secondly, according to CNN:

On July 10, the ship turned off its transponders for almost 24 hours, making it undetectable by radars. When it switched on its transponders at around 1pm Eastern Time, it appeared to have sailed through the Persian Gulf escorted by the HMS Montrose.

So they turned off their AIS at night in a high traffic area. Why? They would still have been tracked by Iranian shore radars.

Also: "It was not carrying any cargo at the time of the incident."


Leaving Basra without a cargo of oil products. Could the actual cargo have been a detachment of Royal Marines?

Good luck on seeing footage (Jonathan Beale is a BBC Defence Correspondent):

UK MOD say they will NOT be releasing any imagery from incident in Gulf when @HMS_MONTROSE confronted #Iran IRGC boats . Shame as far as I'm concerned .

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP14 Jul 2019 1:48 p.m. PST

Original reports were "5" boats vs. the vessel.

Perhaps they turn/turned off their transponders since those might make the vessel(s) easier to track/target by unsophisticated enemy vessels, with poor, or no radar.

"…the ship turned off its transponders for almost 24 hours, making it undetectable by radars".

I can assure you the above quote is inaccurate and false. Turning off a transponder doesn't suddenly make your vessel invisible to radar, but does make it a bit harder to track, since the return signal will be less.

Still, for a large tanker, it's not like the radar signature for a vessel that size would be small.

Does seem a bit odd though, in a high traffic area.

Many times, there is no reverse cargo to be shipped, so it could have been empty too.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.