Iran

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Mightytboy
they said the US is holding Iranians in Iraq.

If they have taken Iranian prisoners in iraq you can start to wonder what Iranians were doing in Iraqi in the first place.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Eagler
Yes

source?

[lasersailor184]

If I was the british admiral, I'd be embarassed.  His boarding party allowed themselves to be taken without a fight.

[babek-]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
If I was the british admiral, I'd be embarassed.  His boarding party allowed themselves to be taken without a fight.

They obviously havent seen the film "300". Otherwise the millions of iranian ships would have been destroyed by the 300 british sailors in a battle of 3 days.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by babek-
They obviously havent seen the film "300". Otherwise the millions of iranian ships would have been destroyed by the 300 british sailors in a battle of 3 days.

Hell yeah, I'd pay to see that movie.


Anyway, the spartans and other greeks weren't the only ones fighting the battle.  There was a small (compared to the persian) naval group that took on the persian ships, and beat them.

[babek-]

You mean Salamis?

385 greek ships against 500 of the Iranian Empire, which were made of egypt, phoenician and greek subject ships ?

Sometimes I think that it is a big mistake to use egypts in naval battles.

Marcus Antonius had the same problem.

Its so difficult to find reliable and good servants in these days... *sigh*

[Shamus]

Anyone else find it odd that the Cornwall was so far away from the boarding parties as to loose contact and be relying on visuals from a chopper?

I would expect my skipper to support a bit better.

shamus

[Dowding]

Why? What's the point of having launches and smaller craft if you can't let them go over the horizon? Kind of limits your capabilities.

[cav58d]

This sounds like a job for.......................... .......

bryan boitano!

[Shamus]

Well it because it leads to this type of situation.

shamus

[john9001]

Originally posted by Shamus
Anyone else find it odd that the Cornwall was so far away from the boarding parties as to loose contact and be relying on visuals from a chopper?

I would expect my skipper to support a bit better.

shamus

i was thinking the same thing.


british sailor:: " capt hornblower, there are hostile ships approaching our boarding party sir"

capt hornblower::  "put a warning shot across their bow"

[Maverick]

It also means you cannot support your troops with either firepower or provide cover to recover them. It's pretty easy to out gun an inflatable boat with small gunboats. I suppose you could say it's like just sending them out in hostile territory and hoping that no "bad people" threaten or kill them before you can respond the next day.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
If I was the british admiral, I'd be embarassed.  His boarding party allowed themselves to be taken without a fight.

Because if they had resisted I'm sure they all would have been killed.  Side arms don't match up well against multiple heavy caliber machine guns pointed at you and your little inflatible dingy.


ack-ack

[Maverick]

But put those same sidearms in conjuntion with a frigate or destroyer in proximity to the boarding party and you have sometthing else entirely. Unless of course they turn over the frigate or destroyer to the iranian gun boats. Then again for that to happen it would have to be close by, perhaps on the same horizon and maybe the gun boats would not have even shown up at all knowing they couldn't bully a widdle inflatable putt putt AND it's mother ship.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Dowding
Why? What's the point of having launches and smaller craft if you can't let them go over the horizon? Kind of limits your capabilities.

You aren't to keen.