Royal Navy , prisoners in Iran - Page 2

jambutty · 28-03-2007, 08:58

The point is Ianto.W. any warship at sea will have its main radar operating. No ship would put to sea without them especially in what is to all intents and purposes, a war zone. From the pictures of HMS Cornwall that I have seen you can see three radar aerials. The small one farthest for’ard is the navigation radar and the other two cover the air and sea around the ship. All three would have been operating.

The Iranian flotilla of gunboats didn’t appear out of the blue. They had to travel from somewhere and would have been visible on radar for at least 25 miles and that means that it would take at least half an hour to travel that distance. Lets face it a flotilla of small boats racing across the sea towards HMS Cornwall from Iran had to be considered as at least threatening. They were unlikely to be coming to invite the skipper to a cocktail party.

OK! So sending a shell across the bows of the approaching flotilla maybe a bit olde worlde but a ‘star shell’ a few hundred feet above their heads would certainly have got their attention. In any case what was to prevent the captain from manoeuvring the frigate to put it between the advancing gunboats and the boarding party vessels? Unless in doing so he knew that his ship would be in Iranian waters. And from that it follows that he also knew that his boarding party had strayed.

The rules of engagement would have been the same as they have always been bullseyebarb – if attacked or threatened defend yourself.

The captain has a duty to protect the ship and its crew and he failed to take any action to protect the boarding party.

andrewb · 28-03-2007, 09:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

The point is Ianto.W. any warship at sea will have its main radar operating. No ship would put to sea without them especially in what is to all intents and purposes, a war zone. From the pictures of HMS Cornwall that I have seen you can see three radar aerials. The small one farthest for’ard is the navigation radar and the other two cover the air and sea around the ship. All three would have been operating.

The Iranian flotilla of gunboats didn’t appear out of the blue. They had to travel from somewhere and would have been visible on radar for at least 25 miles and that means that it would take at least half an hour to travel that distance. Lets face it a flotilla of small boats racing across the sea towards HMS Cornwall from Iran had to be considered as at least threatening. They were unlikely to be coming to invite the skipper to a cocktail party.

OK! So sending a shell across the bows of the approaching flotilla maybe a bit olde worlde but a ‘star shell’ a few hundred feet above their heads would certainly have got their attention. In any case what was to prevent the captain from manoeuvring the frigate to put it between the advancing gunboats and the boarding party vessels? Unless in doing so he knew that his ship would be in Iranian waters. And from that it follows that he also knew that his boarding party had strayed.

The rules of engagement would have been the same as they have always been bullseyebarb – if attacked or threatened defend yourself.

The captain has a duty to protect the ship and its crew and he failed to take any action to protect the boarding party.

I VERY much doubt the rules of engagement would normally be to defend yourself in this situation. Firing warning shots is doing everything possible to escalate the situation, which is not what is required.

The commander deserves praise for his restraint as this could have turned out to be a much greater crisis than it already is.

Acrylic-bob · 28-03-2007, 11:32

One of the things which has surprised me over the past few days, while reading about this story, is the fact that in Iran (or Persia, as it used to be known) We British are more hated and reviled than the Americans. The Persians, afflicted with third world paranoia as they are, tend to regard the UK as the single source of all the ills that ail them.

Their dislike and distrust of us apparently dates back to a time when Persia was a buffer state between the British in India and the government of Imperial Russia. It was of course all our fault that the late Shah's father was deposed in the thirties and again all our fault that the late Shah turned out to be such a repressive monster when we restored him to the Peacock Throne. We raped their miserable desert country, stole their oil and refused to say "please" and "thank you". I don't suppose it helps either that we permit our women to go about bareheaded in public and don't wear beards. Sadly, it appears that this sorry state of affairs is not about to be changed by any of the bluster of Tony Bleuuurgh, the United Nations or the EEC; according to Michael Wood the historian, Persians still amaze and astound each other with outraged stories of what a complete and utter sh*t Alexander the Great was. Talk about bearing a grudge!

steeljack · 28-03-2007, 12:50

[quote=Acrylic-bob;404329]One of the things which has surprised me over the past few days, while reading about this story, is the fact that in Iran (or Persia, as it used to be known) We British are more hated and reviled than the Americans. The Persians, afflicted with third world paranoia as they are, tend to regard the UK as the single source of all the ills that ail them.

Their dislike and distrust of us apparently dates back to a time when Persia was a buffer state between the British in India and the government of Imperial Russia. It was of course all our fault that the late Shah's father was deposed in the thirties and again all our fault that the late Shah turned out to be such a repressive monster when we restored him to the Peacock Throne. We raped their miserable desert country, stole their oil and refused to say "please" and "thank you". quote]

Sorry Acrylic-bob , but I beg to differ , Having spent a number of years living in Iran , (living under both the Shah's and the Khomeni regimes) I can say that the Iranians 'hate' us no more than we used to hate the Germans , But they have something called National Pride , something the English seem to have lost, unless it involves kicking some poor sods head in at a football match . The average Iranian wants nothing more than to make a better life for his family than anyone else in the world . there used to be a joke on the streets of Iran , that if you look under a Mullahs beard it says made in England , a cynical but true view of British meddling in the affairs of an independant state . You can hardly blame them for wanting some recompense ,the numbers killed in action during the Iran-Iraq war were astronomical and these casulties were caused by British/American supplied arms.

jambutty · 28-03-2007, 12:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

I VERY much doubt the rules of engagement would normally be to defend yourself in this situation. Firing warning shots is doing everything possible to escalate the situation, which is not what is required.

The commander deserves praise for his restraint as this could have turned out to be a much greater crisis than it already is.

There speaks the voice of a veteran sailor whose knowledge of naval warfare could be written on a pinhead using a thick, felt tipped pen. Have you ever seen a British warship live? When did you serve on such a vessel?

The rules of engagement for the British armed forces are the same today as they have been for hundreds of years. If threatened or attacked defend yourself unless facing overwhelming forces where to fight would lead to unnecessary loss of life. This option was last selected in the Falklands when the outpost of marines were outnumbered and outgunned so they, quite rightly surrendered but only after the Governor told them to.

A handful of gunboats armed with large calibre machine guns is hardly an overwhelming force of a modern British frigate.

steeljack · 28-03-2007, 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

One of the things which has surprised me over the past few days, while reading about this story, is the fact that in Iran (or Persia, as it used to be known) We British are more hated and reviled than the Americans. The Persians, afflicted with third world paranoia as they are, tend to regard the UK as the single source of all the ills that ail them.

Their dislike and distrust of us apparently dates back to a time when Persia was a buffer state between the British in India and the government of Imperial Russia. It was of course all our fault that the late Shah's father was deposed in the thirties and again all our fault that the late Shah turned out to be such a repressive monster when we restored him to the Peacock Throne. We raped their miserable desert country, stole their oil and refused to say "please" and "thank you". !

Sorry Acrylic-bob , but I beg to differ , Having spent a number of years living in Iran , (living under both the Shah's and the Khomeni regimes) I can say that the Iranians 'hate' us no more than we used to hate the Germans , But they have something called National Pride , something the English seem to have lost, unless it involves kicking some poor sods head in at a football match . The average Iranian wants nothing more than to make a better life for his family than anyone else in the world . there used to be a joke on the streets of Iran , that if you look under a Mullahs beard it says made in England , a cynical but true view of British meddling in the affairs of an independant state . You can hardly blame them for wanting some recompense ,the numbers killed in action during the Iran-Iraq war were astronomical and these casulties were caused by British/American supplied arms.

Acrylic-bob · 28-03-2007, 16:45

No need to apologise for having a different point of view steeljack. There would be no debate if we all held the same viewpoint. Having never visited the country I must defer to one who has.

However, on the question of armaments, British and American manufacturers may have supplied both Iran and Iraq, at the same time and saw nothing unethical in doing so. But surely the manufacturers cannot be held responsible for the way in which their products are used. The appalling loss of life on both sides is, surely, the responsibility of the combatants. After all, in any disagreement there is always the opportunity to sit down and discuss disagreements - isn't there?

Neil · 28-03-2007, 16:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

But surely the manufacturers cannot be held responsible for the way in which their products are used.

People have successfully sued tobacco companies.

Acrylic-bob · 28-03-2007, 17:06

People sued successfully because the tobacco companies told lies and witheld information. I don't think that armaments manufacturers ever said that their arms could not be used to kill people. Indeed, I believe that they make potential body count something of a selling point.

jambutty · 28-03-2007, 17:20

Didn’t we help Saddam Hussein gain power in Iraq and then sided with him during the Iraq Iran war?

Mancie · 29-03-2007, 06:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

I VERY much doubt the rules of engagement would normally be to defend yourself in this situation. Firing warning shots is doing everything possible to escalate the situation, which is not what is required.

The commander deserves praise for his restraint as this could have turned out to be a much greater crisis than it already is.

It's all very well to praise the Command for using restraint, but it is Iranians who have trespassed into Iraqi waters and taken hostages... This is nothing less than piracy.
If I was a member of the patrol taken prisoner while my "Command" basically stood by and did nothing but observe, I don't think I would have much faith in my Commanding officers in the future!

andrewb · 29-03-2007, 06:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

There speaks the voice of a veteran sailor whose knowledge of naval warfare could be written on a pinhead using a thick, felt tipped pen. Have you ever seen a British warship live? When did you serve on such a vessel?

The rules of engagement for the British armed forces are the same today as they have been for hundreds of years. If threatened or attacked defend yourself unless facing overwhelming forces where to fight would lead to unnecessary loss of life. This option was last selected in the Falklands when the outpost of marines were outnumbered and outgunned so they, quite rightly surrendered but only after the Governor told them to.

A handful of gunboats armed with large calibre machine guns is hardly an overwhelming force of a modern British frigate.

You can call me a veteran if you wish, but my views were the same as the commander from the 2004 incident.

I'm just glad you were not in charge or we might be engaging in a war with Iran right now.

Neil · 29-03-2007, 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

I'm just glad you were not in charge or we might be engaging in a war with Iran right now.

If they are not returned within a couple of days maybe we should be. We might as well use those old Tridents before we replace them.

jambutty · 29-03-2007, 12:05

If I were one of the captured 15 sailors and marines or indeed the rest of the crew of HMS Cornwall I would be asking why the ship was 8 miles away from the boarding party. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6501555.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6502805.stm Even at her best speed (30 knots plus) the ship would take at least 15 minutes to get back to them and in that time a lot could and as it turns out did happen. To move the ship that far away was at best stupid and at worst criminally negligent especially as it was known that the Shatt al-Arab border between Iraq and Iran had been in dispute for decades – although an agreement had been reached in1978. To compound the folly Cornwall’s unarmed Lynx helicopter was stationed above the boarding party but had to return to Cornwall as fuel was running low. After the 2004 incident where half a dozen marines and sailors were arrested for allegedly straying over the Shatt al-Arab waters border into Iranian territory, the Cornwall’s captain should have been aware that a similar incident was always on the cards.

Vice Admiral Charles Style said the sailors had been "ambushed" in the Gulf after searching a vessel and their detention was “unjustified and wrong”. Well he got the last bit right but just how do you ambush someone in the open sea? Just where are the trees, large rocks or buildings where someone can hide unseen. Have the Iranians invented a teleportation machine and their gunboats just appeared out of nowhere? No! Of course not! That’s silly! So they had to come from somewhere and in doing so they would have been visible on the Cornwall’s radar screens long before they reached the boarding party. How come no one yelled out, “Half a dozen unidentified boats approaching the Indian merchant vessel at speed!”

If HMS Cornwall had stayed on station within half a mile or less of the merchant ship being boarded this incident would not have happened.

SPUGGIE J · 29-03-2007, 17:51

If the border location is disputed then by there own action Iran must be entering Iraqi waters. On that bases either lift them or treat it as an invaision and blast them out of the water. Ok not ideal but its better than all this diplomatic cow pats thats flying around. The way these marines and sailors are being used is boarding on human rights violations and is well out of order. Its about time this was sorted once and for all with or without force or UN intervention because seeing what is on the gogglebox is sickening to the core!