Gulf of Oman incidents
Discussion
Countdown said:
My guess is he wouldn't have particularly cared about US pressure and ordered the RM to seize the tanker.
Which in turn wouldn't have p155ed off the Iranians.
I have no problem with p155ing off Iranians but not solely for the benefit of other Countries.
US Pressure?Which in turn wouldn't have p155ed off the Iranians.
I have no problem with p155ing off Iranians but not solely for the benefit of other Countries.
Gibraltar was obliged by the EU to enforce the EU sanctions, the Royal Marines simply assisted the Gibraltar authorities.
Easier to issue British flagged merchant ships in the region with two dozen hungry salt-water crocodiles to be deployed on deck during the transit of the Straits. A few canvas awnings and a water sprinkler to keep the brutes cool, and initially invisible to airborne observers.
Revolutionary Guard Commando Radio Traffic said:
<crackle>
Landed on the deck. Proceeding to the bridge
</crackle>
Landed on the deck. Proceeding to the bridge
</crackle>
Crocodiles said:
Nom Nom Nom Nom. Nom Nom. Nom....Nom. Burp.
abzmike said:
wc98 said:
maybe if we had a functional aircraft carrier in the region this wouldn't have occurred ?
How would it actually have prevented the Iranians boarding the ship - Shooting down thier helicopter? That would play directly into thier hands.An aircraft carrier needs additional ships to form a strike or battle group. It would actually be hindering the use of other warships more suited to shipping protection.
If we wanted to shoot the helicopter down then we could have. Frigates providing an escort for a tanker is no different to their role in a carrier group, and that includes taking down incoming air threats. At the moment we simply wouldn't.
Warding off small gunboats is also something you can do far better from a small agile frigate.
Edited by 98elise on Monday 22 July 19:19
98elise said:
abzmike said:
wc98 said:
maybe if we had a functional aircraft carrier in the region this wouldn't have occurred ?
How would it actually have prevented the Iranians boarding the ship - Shooting down thier helicopter? That would play directly into thier hands.An aircraft carrier needs additional ships to form a strike or battle group. It would actually be hindering the use of other warships more suited to shipping protection.
If we wanted to shoot the helecopter down then we could have.
This is a shameful episode on so many levels.
Justifiably, and correctly, I've had a comment removed from this thread. However, my wife's father was killed in 1985 whilst he was captaining an oil tanker during the tanker wars. He was a hero, unsung. He got all of his crew off the ship and would not relinquish his ship as he was navy trained and would not leave his post. He was 38. The second missile strike meant that there was nothing left to bury. I deal with this every day. Nothing has changed and we have learned nothing.
To my wife this feels like her father died in vain.
Shame on the UK government for having a limp response to this infraction of International Maritime Laws.
It just goes to prove how fragile our energy supplies are.
To my wife this feels like her father died in vain.
Shame on the UK government for having a limp response to this infraction of International Maritime Laws.
It just goes to prove how fragile our energy supplies are.
Pedant mode - in the Royal Navy, frigates are usually regarded as being used as an anti-submarine platform, destroyers are more air defence (that’s a very rough guide). Frigates are used for flotilla/convoy defence.
Just to confuse things, the French, Spanish and German navies all refer to their destroyers as frigates.
Just to confuse things, the French, Spanish and German navies all refer to their destroyers as frigates.
@Trophy Husband - I am sorry for your wife’s loss. However the Iran/Iraq War (and in particular the “Tanker War”) is an excellent example of why the UK really shouldn’t be involved in “Other Peoples Wars”.
The Iran/Iraq War was (in short) various Western countries encouraging, supporting and funding Saddam is his war against Iran. IIRC the war was going badly for Iraq and Saddam wanted to get the US involved more closely so he started missile strikes against Iranian tankers, using french-supplied Exocets. The Iranians retaliated in kind. (Iraqi exocets even hit the USS Stirk, killing 37 sailors, maybe that was the Iranians fault as well, I dont know...)
We are seeing the same s
t again; the Saudis and Israel want/need US help to attack Iran. The US need a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident so they can pretend they were provoked, and that’s what’s been happening for the last year or so, ever since the JCPOA was scrapped.
The Iran/Iraq War was (in short) various Western countries encouraging, supporting and funding Saddam is his war against Iran. IIRC the war was going badly for Iraq and Saddam wanted to get the US involved more closely so he started missile strikes against Iranian tankers, using french-supplied Exocets. The Iranians retaliated in kind. (Iraqi exocets even hit the USS Stirk, killing 37 sailors, maybe that was the Iranians fault as well, I dont know...)
We are seeing the same s
t again; the Saudis and Israel want/need US help to attack Iran. The US need a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident so they can pretend they were provoked, and that’s what’s been happening for the last year or so, ever since the JCPOA was scrapped. Countdown said:
@Trophy Husband - I am sorry for your wife’s loss. However the Iran/Iraq War (and in particular the “Tanker War”) is an excellent example of why the UK really shouldn’t be involved in “Other Peoples Wars”.
The Iran/Iraq War was (in short) various Western countries encouraging, supporting and funding Saddam is his war against Iran. IIRC the war was going badly for Iraq and Saddam wanted to get the US involved more closely so he started missile strikes against Iranian tankers, using french-supplied Exocets. The Iranians retaliated in kind. (Iraqi exocets even hit the USS Stirk, killing 37 sailors, maybe that was the Iranians fault as well, I dont know...)
We are seeing the same st again; the Saudis and Israel want/need US help to attack Iran. The US need a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident so they can pretend they were provoked, and that’s what’s been happening for the last year or so, ever since the JCPOA was scrapped.
But on the plus side they soon made up and kissed and cuddled when Uncle Joe America went into Iraq. The Iran/Iraq War was (in short) various Western countries encouraging, supporting and funding Saddam is his war against Iran. IIRC the war was going badly for Iraq and Saddam wanted to get the US involved more closely so he started missile strikes against Iranian tankers, using french-supplied Exocets. The Iranians retaliated in kind. (Iraqi exocets even hit the USS Stirk, killing 37 sailors, maybe that was the Iranians fault as well, I dont know...)
We are seeing the same s
t again; the Saudis and Israel want/need US help to attack Iran. The US need a “Gulf of Tonkin” incident so they can pretend they were provoked, and that’s what’s been happening for the last year or so, ever since the JCPOA was scrapped. Twas'nt that long before that the Iranians would have loved to have destroyed some Iraqi Aircraft yet here they were letting them park them behind their bushes to keep Uncle Joe from destroying them.
All rather confusing isn't it. It's a bit like trying to reason with 2 traveller families kicking s
te out of each other on the village green. You see Mummy Pike go down with a cruel right hook and think hey that busty Oirish babe needs assistance so you go over and say hey Marie u ok. Only to be met with fists flying from both Marie and her opponentSometimes its best to have a nice ice cream and sit back pretending to look at the bowls on the pitch over there
Dibble said:
Pedant mode - in the Royal Navy, frigates are usually regarded as being used as an anti-submarine platform, destroyers are more air defence (that’s a very rough guide). Frigates are used for flotilla/convoy defence.
Just to confuse things, the French, Spanish and German navies all refer to their destroyers as frigates.
True, but we're not currently aiming to shoot anything at all! Just to confuse things, the French, Spanish and German navies all refer to their destroyers as frigates.
Few major ships are single role though. I served on a frigate where the primary weapon was Exocet (but was still predominantly an ASW ship)
Even on Ark Royal we had Sea Dart.
98elise said:
Dibble said:
Pedant mode - in the Royal Navy, frigates are usually regarded as being used as an anti-submarine platform, destroyers are more air defence (that’s a very rough guide). Frigates are used for flotilla/convoy defence.
Just to confuse things, the French, Spanish and German navies all refer to their destroyers as frigates.
True, but we're not currently aiming to shoot anything at all! Just to confuse things, the French, Spanish and German navies all refer to their destroyers as frigates.
Few major ships are single role though. I served on a frigate where the primary weapon was Exocet (but was still predominantly an ASW ship)
Even on Ark Royal we had Sea Dart.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff