Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Not quite. But then that was a completely different set of circumstances, during a war.
What's the navy for?
- Thread starter Twister_Ken
- Start date
Not quite. But then that was a completely different set of circumstances, during a war.
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
Thats quite a poor comparison since at that time British Forces had carte blanche to operate in Norwegian territories to fight the invading Germans.
Last edited:
Sandyman
Well-Known Member
Not forgetting of course that in those bygone days we had a Navy. Today's Navy would have problems sinking the Gosport Ferry.
wotayottie
Well-Known Member
wotayottie
Well-Known Member
Or should it be "values playing safe and doing nothing much"?
wotayottie
Well-Known Member
So the country would be put in jail where we would all be quaking in our boots waiting for the arrival or Iranian gunboats off the Solent?
David_Jersey
Well-Known Member
Iran by any chance?
To be fair to the RN personnel who surrendered to the Iranians, they probably knew only too well that no support would be forthcoming from a RN Warship until a full H&S risk assessment had been undertaken by the Captain, a team building excercise had been completed and a crack team of Counsellors had been deployed. About a month.
Of course upon release they couldn't simply say: "of course we surrended!, only an idiot would rely on any support from a RN warship
"
Last edited:
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
So, can I take it you'll all be rocking up at the CA to ask these questions? That's gonna make an expensive round.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
If it was that it certainly worked. Everyone involved in the incident lived.
Are you not happy with that outcome?
Sandyman
Well-Known Member
Re the Falklands: The Navy could barely mount the Falklands Campaign in 1982. (They had to take 2 landing craft out of the scrappy for a start)
And nearly all the other ships belonged in the scrappy.
Does today’s RN have sufficient assets to fight the Falklands again? I can't imagine it could, but I'd be interested to know.
Not a chance in hell without minimum six months notice.
And nearly all the other ships belonged in the scrappy.
Does today’s RN have sufficient assets to fight the Falklands again? I can't imagine it could, but I'd be interested to know.
Not a chance in hell without minimum six months notice.
wotayottie
Well-Known Member
Not wildly. "There's is not to reason why, there's is but to do and die". Well certainly not casually and not unnecessarily either. But in the end they are paid to fight not surrender.
I don't know which event you are referring to but in both the case of the Iranians and also with the pirates, the effect of not fighting will be to increase the risk of the event happening more frequently and the ultimate violence when it eventually comes being much worse.
You don't stop people by backing down.
wotayottie
Well-Known Member
What's the Navy for? Well it used to be rum, sodomy and the lash. Now that the rum and the lash have gone, what's left?
Sandyman
Well-Known Member
Following the Iranian Fiasco, myself & a number of ex RN friends had a long discussion about what went on. To a man we were all in agreement that there was no way we would ever have allowed ourselves to be taken prisoner without a fight. No way.
But then we were from an older breed, not the nancy poofs they have today.
But then we were from an older breed, not the nancy poofs they have today.
Vamoose
Well-Known Member
Dont Blame the Navy !
Dont blame the Navy... Blame the Politicians and International Lawyers who lay down the rules of engagement which the Navy has to obey.. Im sure there were plenty of guys on board itching to get stuck in given half a chance.
Dont blame the Navy... Blame the Politicians and International Lawyers who lay down the rules of engagement which the Navy has to obey.. Im sure there were plenty of guys on board itching to get stuck in given half a chance.
maxi77
Well-Known Member
I wonder just how much resistance one would really be prepared to show against a 12.5 mm machine gun when you only have a 9mm sub machine gun.
The real problem is that our Gordon has starved the forces of money for over twelve years whilst they have been fighting two hot wars and the treasury.
The anti pirate operation was conceived by the government as a PR stunt, but like so many of Gordons stunts it has backfired again.
If the RN had had the resources over the past ten years they would now be able to take serious action against the pirates. As it stands we have neither the ships or the trained personel to mount this operation properly.
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
You'd like some of them dead?
How many? All of them or just some?
Or would just being injured be enough for you?
Can you be more specific?
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
If they were in Iranian waters then the Iranians had every right to apprehend them, and they had no right whatsoever to use force to prevent that. If there was any doubt about whether they were in Iranian waters the best option was to surrender peacefully and let the politicians sort things out.
We may pay them to fight, but only as a last resort. We don't pay them to shoot their way out of any potentially awkward incident.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Now the dust has cleared it seems pretty clear the RN boat was in Iranian Waters. Are you suggesting that the RN people should have died in the interest of 'stopping' nations from defending their own waters? Why?
As for stopping kidnappers, the accepted way to stop kidnappers is to not pay the ransom. Not machine gun the hostages yourself.
Last edited:
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
So you are saying, are you, that if you had strayed into the territorial waters of another country with whom we were not at war, and if they then quite legally decided to detain you, you would have considered killing their forces an appropriate way to respond?