"1st ship torpedoed since WWII" Topic

"An American submarine sunk an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters," Hegseth said. "Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. Quiet death. The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War Two…"

…Hegseth said that the U.S. Navy sunk the Iranian warship, the Soleimani. The flagship was named for Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian military officer who served in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who the U.S. killed in a January 2020 drone strike during President Donald Trump's first term…

Fox News: link

Although it may actually be the third.

Indian frigate INS Khukri, was sunk by the Pakistani submarine PNS Hangor during the India–Pakistan war of 1971

General Belgrano (Falklands War)

Yep I sited the sinking in the other thread this morning.

👍

The Belgrano immediately came to mind. The Iranian navy was not much of a force to be dealt with. It was not just the paltry roster of ships, which included a lot of gunboats, but the general lack of experience and expertise.

I just assumed that they meant the first American sub.

Well Tortorella, they're less of a force now.

"An American submarine sunk an Iranian warship…"

"Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. …

The principal parts are sink, sank, sunk. So the second sentence is correct, using the past participle to form the passive voice, but the first sentence should use the simple past tense and read, "An American submarine sank an Iranian warship…"

The problem with Iran's military is that while it's easy to destroy their few big toys, they still have almost a million men under arms who are likely to remain loyal to the regime and ideology.

GO USN !!!! Saw that on FOX/NEWSMAX this morning ! YES! In the past few months the USN has seen more action in the Med, Gulf region, etc. than they have since WWII.

The problem with Iran's military is that while it's easy to destroy their few big toys, they still have almost a million men under arms who are likely to remain loyal to the regime and ideology.

Very true … and I'm sure the POTUS, Pentagon, IDF, etc. know that.

To add to that. Not only the IRGC are still threat, add to that the Basji Volunteer Militias, Iraq's Shia Militias, and elements of other of Iran proxies.

We all know this operation is ongoing and will for weeks or more. However, the IRGCN … anything bigger than their little speedboats which there are a 100+ or more(?). Plus those boats can be used Boat Born IEDs. They have in the past.

Missile fires from Iran, etc. has been reduced by over 80%. This has been just reported. The IDF confirms that is a good figure.

Many of Iran's TELs loaded w/missiles, missile supply locations, factories, etc. are being blown into pieces. There have been over 2000+ sorties so far AFAIK.

This is DAY 5 … much more work to be done. However it clearly appears the US and IDF got this …

Regardless of those who say otherwise. Mostly some in Congress and the media. All but one Army LTC RET. AFAIK is the only voice who has been critical. However, GENs e.g. Petraeus, Kellogg, Marks, etc. say the opposite. But in no way does anyone say this will be easy, loses can still be expected, etc.

So the campaign is ongoing … This operation is not like a BK drive thru. It is going to take time.

And many of the negative comments are based more on political affiliations, media bias, etc., etc.

The ignorance is astounding. But entirely consistent.

Yes Choctaw, as I said in another post, good riddance. And as I posted a couple of years ago, when I was wondering if USS Carney would get a chance to put a few Mark 45 rounds into one of them before they broke off.

And again, they did relay targeting data to Houthi rebels attacking shipping so that threat is gone.

"they still have almost a million men under arms who are likely to remain loyal to the regime and ideology."

Why likely? There are always die-hards, of course, but once enough die the rest are not so hard.

A million men under arms….. maybe.
But the first time they try to mass force against any upraising group, or even the Kurds for example…they are toast. One flight sqn. of B-52, loaded with 500 pounders, will send them to their desired afterlife. Iranians haven't been under the flight path of a B-52 sqn bombing mission yet. Only the N Vietnam troops back in the 70's and maybe a few Iraq military have the deadly honor. Most recent B-52 strike have been single planes…. pin point drops. With almost no SAM they are just stationary diehard targets.

Clarification – it seems it was the Iranian warship IRIS Dena which was torpedoed in the Indian Ocean.

The Soleimani was also sunk later.

Fox News: link

4th ship – the ROKS Cheonan was sunk by a DPRK mini sub in 2010

The ignorance is astounding. But entirely consistent.

Explain ?

What you know that anyone here does not?

Is that what your comment is about ?

The first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War Two …

Was he referring just to the USN? That would have been a better to say it.

Of course he didn't know some of the experts here would question it … 🤩 Who would have thought ! 😎

Legion
there are many that are so consumed by hate for the President and yes, hate of the U.S., that no success is tolerable, nor acceptable.

The original statement was "first by a submarine using a torpedo" since WW2.
Did the others mentioned use torpedos as well?

Belgrano was sunk by HMS Conqueror using Mk 8 torpedoes.

Two hit and exploded inside with a third exploding next to one of the escorts causing a dent in the side.

🤔 well 79th may well be correct in his supposition.
Thanks

Explain ?

I would have thought it was obvious, but here goes anyway.

The statement was clearly incorrect. I can think of three reasons why (others may think of more reasons).

1. He didn't know about Belgrano and the others. Ignorance of historical facts.
2. He meant to say "by the US" but doesn't have a basic grasp of English, further demonstrated by the incorrect use of "sunk". Ignorance of his own language.
3. He thinks that anything achieved by navies other than the USN doesn't count. Pure arrogance.

there are many that are so consumed by hate for the President and yes, hate of the U.S., that no success is tolerable, nor acceptable.

Or there's some that just want to correct the historical record. Not every correction of a politician's utterings (and regardless of his past, Hegseth is now a politician) is motivated by hate. But I can understand why some Americans are starting to think that.

Well no matter the improper use of English, nor his lack of a thorough knowledge of world, submarine history.

87 Iranians for sure and probably another 61 more are searching Paradise for "slightly used" or "certified refurbished" virgins today. A vessel that cost between $100 USD million and $200 USD million to build, now resides with Davy Jones. All For the cost of a 4.2 million dollar torpedo.

"Strike Cost: The U.S. Navy used a single Mark 48 torpedo to sink the vessel, which has a unit cost of approximately $4.2 USD million.

Strategic Impact: The sinking destroyed a "prize" asset that took the Iranian defense industry years of capital and development to complete."

And the Iranians are pi#sed. 👍

This is true Dal. While I was not a fan of Biden, I sometimes made the same point about him and the opposition here during his term, at least early on. The theme for some was that nothing he did was good, I felt. We continue to talk past each other sometimes, as SB has astutely reminded us.

I still dislike the current POTUS's versions of American historical events sometimes. Just could not get past Washington's army securing the airports from the British or the Gettysburg assessment. But Trump has been right about securing the border, IMO, and he often cuts through the BS to get to the point whether we agree or not. No President is all good or all bad. We just don't cut each other any slack anymore.

We know that history is falling off the map as far as education goes. Maybe the 250th events will help some people connect with the past.