View Full Version : Iran being foolish...again
Grand58742
04-22-20, 09:47
I don't know to what level they are harassing shipping in the Persian Gulf, but I'm glad someone decided to say "enough."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-hes-instructed-navy-to-destroy-any-iranian-gunboats-harassing-us-ships
President Trump said Wednesday that he's instructed the U.S. Navy to "shoot down and destroy" any Iranian gunboats harassing American ships, in the wake of a tense encounter in the Persian Gulf.
"I have instructed the United States Navy to shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea," Trump tweeted.
The encounter happened last week. Six U.S. Navy warships were conducting drills with US Army Apache attack helicopters in international waters off Iran last Wednesday when they were repeatedly harassed by 11 Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Navy vessels, the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet reported.
The Iranian ships repeatedly crossed in front and behind the U.S. vessels at extremely close range and high speeds, including multiple crossings of one ship, the Puller, with a 50-yard closest point of approach and within 10 yards of another ship, the Maui's, bow, a 5th Fleet statement said.
What I want to know is what ROE's were in effect that allowed them to approach to within 200' last week, heads should roll over that BS.
Dirk Williams
04-22-20, 10:33
Iran's gonna test the waters. They can't help themselves.
DW
titsonritz
04-22-20, 13:27
Should spend the 30 minutes and sink their entire navy.
Iran being foolish...again
Iran being foolish...still
There, fixed it for ya!
What I want to know is what ROE's were in effect that allowed them to approach to within 200' last week, heads should roll over that BS.
This.
The incident of the USS Cole was not -that- long ago.
Allowing then to get that close, they could ram you before it could possibly be stopped.
You don't want that to happen to your ship:
61899
This.
The incident of the USS Cole was not -that- long ago.
Allowing then to get that close, they could ram you before it could possibly be stopped.
You don't want that to happen to your ship:
61899
At lest's not forget the biggest test of the USS Cole was one of resolve, we failed that test. It was OBL proving to a yet unconvinced Al Quida that if we are attacked we usually leave rather than retaliate. This led directly to the 9-11 attacks being considered viable.
Iran is again testing our resolve. They know we are no longer McCain, Obama and Kerry...but they aren't sure yet what Trump is. They almost certainly are assuming he's got his hands full with coronavirus and can't be expected to stay on top of stuff like this.
This is his moment, he can be a Reagan or a Carter depending upon what he does and how he does it.
Our failed attempt to rescue our hostages in Iran in 1980 and Englands assault on the Iranian Embassy happened only weeks apart. Both involved us sending in our best special forces counter terrorist unit. Our effort was needlessly complicated on foreign soil and ended in disaster, which emboldened our enemies as a result. The English SAS rescue plan was far less complicated and on home ground, the assault was amazingly successful with two hostages wounded during the assault and one SAS member injured during the assault. The enemies of England took notice and paid heed for quite a long time.
Later when Reagan responded to Libya's "line of death" with a dramatic show of force, which included Kaddafi's home, Kaddafi remembered and while still an enemy of the US was always cautious. Reagan bought a lot of global respect that day, sadly Bill Clinton would squander it almost as soon as he was in office by backing down after Mogadishu.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-23-20, 07:17
We need to put the world on notice that if they think that this CHina Virus has made us a tempting target, that a bear is most dangerous when it is wounded. We have a DEEP bench of whoop-ass, and in our current state, we are not able to modulate and properly titrate the level of response to modern sensibilities. We don't have rubber mallets, brad nailers, and cordless drills, we have hammers, sledgehammers, and jack-hammers for their screws and thumbtacks. Think, before you get your can of sunshine.
And who would care right now if Iran were taken out of the oil business for a generation?
When Trump publicly backed away from pulling the trigger on a serious retaliatory strike (in response to Iran splashing the Global Hawk drone...almost a year ago now), Reagan/Carter/Clinton has been the formative question. At the time, Trump's explanation of why he deferred probably emboldened Iran to more reckless behavior....up until a Hellfire removed Gen Soleimani and his posse from Baghdad. Then they weren't quite so sure they knew the answer.
By all means, 7.62 to 20mm, it looks like we'll have to enforce some 'social distancing' in the Persian Gulf as well.
Grand58742
04-23-20, 07:53
When Trump publicly backed away from pulling the trigger on a serious retaliatory strike (in response to Iran splashing the Global Hawk drone...almost a year ago now), Reagan/Carter/Clinton has been the formative question. At the time, Trump's explanation of why he deferred probably emboldened Iran to more reckless behavior....up until a Hellfire removed Gen Soleimani and his posse from Baghdad. Then they weren't quite so sure they knew the answer.
By all means, 7.62 to 20mm, it looks like we'll have to enforce some 'social distancing' in the Persian Gulf as well.
Every President in modern times has had their share of times they could have responded but didn't. Or botched the response. Take the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983. Reagan had the opportunity to order some significant retaliatory strikes, but waited too long on an armed response. Provided it was near on to impossible to sort friend from foe in that hellhole, but the opportunity was there to strike.
Trump not overwhelmingly attacking after the drone shoot down was not a bad move and I didn't take it as a point of weakness. We got what we needed later with Soleimani and that surgical strike. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn in order to get the queen.
"he Iranian ships repeatedly crossed in front and behind the U.S. vessels at extremely close range and high speeds, including multiple crossings of one ship, the Puller, with a 50-yard closest point of approach and within 10 yards of another ship, the Maui's, bow, a 5th Fleet statement said."
I'm surprised they'd ever let them get that close to begin with.
At lest's not forget the biggest test of the USS Cole was one of resolve, we failed that test. It was OBL proving to a yet unconvinced Al Quida that if we are attacked we usually leave rather than retaliate. This led directly to the 9-11 attacks being considered viable.
Iran is again testing our resolve. They know we are no longer McCain, Obama and Kerry...but they aren't sure yet what Trump is. They almost certainly are assuming he's got his hands full with coronavirus and can't be expected to stay on top of stuff like this.
This is his moment, he can be a Reagan or a Carter depending upon what he does and how he does it.
Our failed attempt to rescue our hostages in Iran in 1980 and Englands assault on the Iranian Embassy happened only weeks apart. Both involved us sending in our best special forces counter terrorist unit. Our effort was needlessly complicated on foreign soil and ended in disaster, which emboldened our enemies as a result. The English SAS rescue plan was far less complicated and on home ground, the assault was amazingly successful with two hostages wounded during the assault and one SAS member injured during the assault. The enemies of England took notice and paid heed for quite a long time.
Later when Reagan responded to Libya's "line of death" with a dramatic show of force, which included Kaddafi's home, Kaddafi remembered and while still an enemy of the US was always cautious. Reagan bought a lot of global respect that day, sadly Bill Clinton would squander it almost as soon as he was in office by backing down after Mogadishu.
I have always had a different take on that which puts Carter in a much better light and Reagan much less so. Carter gave the green light on that plan and Beckwith spoke well of him in his book on that aspect. Meanwhile, Reagan made it clear the US does in fact negotiate and pay out for hostages, which let our enemies know "The US does not negotiate with terrorists and kidnapper" mantra was BS and how Reagan didn't get impeached for the Iran-Contra thing I will never know. Apparently his level plausible deniability was thick enough, and the fact North was willing to fall on his sword, saved him. I think that damaged US credibility in a way we have never recouped from.
Had the op gone well, Carter would have been viewed a hero and all that, but that it didn't, was of course out of his control. I don' think he gets enough credit on that one and Reagan gets far more credit than he deserves or earned RE the hostages.
Carter could have told the Iranian's that hand over the hostages or we will bomb you into the dark ages too, but that's just not how we do biz.
There's a famous story as to why no one does that to the Russians I'm sure you're aware of that happened in Beirut that let terrorist types know you really didn't wanna take Russians as hostages.
I also think as big an idiot as he was, credit where credit due to Obama green lighting that op to shoot OBL in the face. Clinton had the opportunity many times and refused to do it, and sent the occasional cruise missile in his general direction that missed him by a long time, but alerted him nicely that the US knew where he was and it was time to move to a nee location.
Of the POTUS, I think Clinton was the most responsible by far of convincing Al Quida the US was a paper tiger and to proceed attacking when and where the wanted. It's interesting to note the Black Hawk Down event, another Al Quida op via proxy to test our resolve and we failed that test badly again.
Dirk Williams
04-23-20, 10:31
One of the reasons I came back to m4, was the differences in opinions. This thread is proof positive of Frank differences, in a very positive way. Will I'm often caught off guard by your Frank, raw honesty. Respect out.
Nothing worse then "group think" turns into a circle jerk, it happens, but not so often here. The opinions, and observations here, give me pause to challenge my own position, views, to analyze, my own opinion from multi directions.
Use to belong to two sites, where in the pecking order, opinions of some were final!. You may find this hard to believe but, I rarely agreed with those group suck fest, outcomes.
Admittedly I'm hard headed, life has been my teacher, and I'm certain I got more wrong then right. I pray nightly for objective tangable continued results.
Dirk
One of the reasons I came back to m4, was the differences in opinions. This thread is proof positive of Frank differences, in a very positive way. Will I'm often caught off guard by your Frank, raw honesty. Respect out.
Nothing worse then "group think" turns into a circle jerk, it happens, but not so often here. The opinions, and observations here, give me pause to challenge my own position, views, to analyze, my own opinion from multi directions.
Use to belong to two sites, where in the pecking order, opinions of some were final!. You may find this hard to believe but, I rarely agreed with those group suck fest, outcomes.
Admittedly I'm hard headed, life has been my teacher, and I'm certain I got more wrong then right. I pray nightly for objective tangable continued results.
Dirk
This is pretty much the only web forum I post such thoughts due to the reasons you outline above. I often learn a lot, teach a little, and the signal 2 noise ratio about as good as one can ask for on a forum such as this. There's only a few off limits topics or POVs I tend to avoid here, but only a few. I have also had my mind changed on some topics by the highly switched on members here on some topics, where as other forums like arf com et al, not so much...
LF can be an excellent forum too, but this one is much better rounded in terms of topics discussed I find and less tolerance to differing opinions.
Grand58742
04-23-20, 12:39
Carter could have told the Iranian's that hand over the hostages or we will bomb you into the dark ages too, but that's just not how we do biz.
I think the better question about this in particular was whether the US Military would have been up to that task during that time period? The military, post-Vietnam especially, was depleted and hadn't done a large scale deployment since 1972 of aerial combat forces. An argument could be made for the Fall of Saigon in 1975, but different subject, different time.
Facing facts here, we didn't really have a good track record for rescues during that period of time. Operation Ivory Coast was outstandingly planned and executed only to find out the POWs had been moved and ended up being considered a major intelligence failure.
The Mayaguez Incident was an utter disaster.
In the same general time period, the Pueblo hijacking was mishandled though that one might have ended in a shooting war with North Korea.
Regardless, I'm not sure Carter would have had the support of the nation to start a bombing campaign or whether it would have been successful. I'm also on the fence on whether we had the ability to project that kind of force as well during those years. Iran wasn't in a shooting war with Iraq yet so they still had their full compliment of US supplied front line equipment which would have made the situation hard to pull off.
I think the lessons learned from the Iran Hostage Crisis really put the public eye on where we were lacking and the incident provided the spark for increased Special Operations capabilities. We obviously had them, but they certainly weren't what they are today nor as well funded. Overall, we should have been (along with the USSR as you stated) the two nations you just didn't eff with like that. But we just didn't respond like we could have.
I think the better question about this in particular was whether the US Military would have been up to that task during that time period? The military, post-Vietnam especially, was depleted and hadn't done a large scale deployment since 1972 of aerial combat forces. An argument could be made for the Fall of Saigon in 1975, but different subject, different time.
Facing facts here, we didn't really have a good track record for rescues during that period of time. Operation Ivory Coast was outstandingly planned and executed only to find out the POWs had been moved and ended up being considered a major intelligence failure.
The Mayaguez Incident was an utter disaster.
In the same general time period, the Pueblo hijacking was mishandled though that one might have ended in a shooting war with North Korea.
Regardless, I'm not sure Carter would have had the support of the nation to start a bombing campaign or whether it would have been successful. I'm also on the fence on whether we had the ability to project that kind of force as well during those years. Iran wasn't in a shooting war with Iraq yet so they still had their full compliment of US supplied front line equipment which would have made the situation hard to pull off.
I think the lessons learned from the Iran Hostage Crisis really put the public eye on where we were lacking and the incident provided the spark for increased Special Operations capabilities. We obviously had them, but they certainly weren't what they are today nor as well funded. Overall, we should have been (along with the USSR as you stated) the two nations you just didn't eff with like that. But we just didn't respond like we could have.
A good Q, and perhaps a legit factor there too. Be it physically up to the task, or any will power post 'Nam to do so, is no doubt a real aspect of the reality of that time. I forger how soon after Nam that was and how depleted we where on every level. For a few years even the SEAL teams were broken up and the sailors sent back to their original jobs in the Navy. I mean, why would we ever need a group of highly trained battle hardened men ever again right? Oy vey.
I have always had a different take on that which puts Carter in a much better light and Reagan much less so. Carter gave the green light on that plan and Beckwith spoke well of him in his book on that aspect. Meanwhile, Reagan made it clear the US does in fact negotiate and pay out for hostages, which let our enemies know "The US does not negotiate with terrorists and kidnapper" mantra was BS and how Reagan didn't get impeached for the Iran-Contra thing I will never know. Apparently his level plausible deniability was thick enough, and the fact North was willing to fall on his sword, saved him. I think that damaged US credibility in a way we have never recouped from.
Had the op gone well, Carter would have been viewed a hero and all that, but that it didn't, was of course out of his control. I don' think he gets enough credit on that one and Reagan gets far more credit than he deserves or earned RE the hostages.
Carter could have told the Iranian's that hand over the hostages or we will bomb you into the dark ages too, but that's just not how we do biz.
There's a famous story as to why no one does that to the Russians I'm sure you're aware of that happened in Beirut that let terrorist types know you really didn't wanna take Russians as hostages.
I also think as big an idiot as he was, credit where credit due to Obama green lighting that op to shoot OBL in the face. Clinton had the opportunity many times and refused to do it, and sent the occasional cruise missile in his general direction that missed him by a long time, but alerted him nicely that the US knew where he was and it was time to move to a nee location.
Of the POTUS, I think Clinton was the most responsible by far of convincing Al Quida the US was a paper tiger and to proceed attacking when and where the wanted. It's interesting to note the Black Hawk Down event, another Al Quida op via proxy to test our resolve and we failed that test badly again.
Carter waited to long and then went with an overly complex, multi branch operation during a time when the military was probably at it's lowest point since Vietnam. He put to much faith in diplomacy and used military action as a "last resort" and a last resort operation with little practice / training time is what he got. That is my only criticism, and had it worked, yeah he would have been a hero and I honestly wish it had worked.
Reagan, not much argument. But from the perspective of Iran, he wasn't backing down and negotiating, he was raising funds to fight a different enemy. So it wasn't perceived by Iran as "political weakness", they probably saw it as a President who was willing to do whatever it took to defeat an enemy. Not saying it was ok or even legal, just how it was probably viewed by the Iranians.
Carter waited to long and then went with an overly complex, multi branch operation during a time when the military was probably at it's lowest point since Vietnam. He put to much faith in diplomacy and used military action as a "last resort" and a last resort operation with little practice / training time is what he got. That is my only criticism, and had it worked, yeah he would have been a hero and I honestly wish it had worked.
Reagan, not much argument. But from the perspective of Iran, he wasn't backing down and negotiating, he was raising funds to fight a different enemy. So it wasn't perceived by Iran as "political weakness", they probably saw it as a President who was willing to do whatever it took to defeat an enemy. Not saying it was ok or even legal, just how it was probably viewed by the Iranians.
I don't man, we gave them 10-11 billion dollars of their locked up assets in exchange for the hostages, which in my view would be viewed as a pay out which pretty much let world know the US does indeed negotiate with, and pay off, terrorists and hostage takers. Not sure how Iran viewed it per se, but internationally, pretty hard to view it any other way.
One could argue it was already their money as Obama attempted to do, but I think it was viewed as a negotiated pay off which just happened to get freed up shortly after the hostages were released. However, supposedly that was already negotiated by Carter before Reagan came into office, so perhaps that one should blamed ultimately on Carter.
I don't really know what Carter had for options to choose from pr how much real imput he had on that op gone bad, but as mentioned, Beckwith seemed to speak well of him in terms of making it clear as POTUS, if it went tits up it was his responsibility. Been a long time and i was a kid, but I dont recall Carter at least trying to escape taking it on the chin and placing the blame on others as modern politicians would do. Problem with Carter was he was a genuinely nice guy, and way too nice and naive to be an effective POTUS.
I don't man, we gave them 10-11 billion dollars of their locked up assets in exchange for the hostages, which in my view would be viewed as a pay out which pretty much let world know the US does indeed negotiate with, and pay off, terrorists and hostage takers. Not sure how Iran viewed it per se, but internationally, pretty hard to view it any other way.
One could argue it was already their money as Obama attempted to do, but I think it was viewed as a negotiated pay off which just happened to get freed up shortly after the hostages were released. However, supposedly that was already negotiated by Carter before Reagan came into office, so perhaps that one should blamed ultimately on Carter.
I don't really know what Carter had for options to choose from pr how much real imput he had on that op gone bad, but as mentioned, Beckwith seemed to speak well of him in terms of making it clear as POTUS, if it went tits up it was his responsibility. Been a long time and i was a kid, but I dont recall Carter at least trying to escape taking it on the chin and placing the blame on others as modern politicians would do. Problem with Carter was he was a genuinely nice guy, and way too nice and naive to be an effective POTUS.
I too was a kid when Carter was in office and back then I recall seeing an op-ed cartoon of a Soviet tank cresting a hilltop and Carter standing in front of it with a crucifix!
As was mentioned previously, I think our military was at a pretty low point but ultimately we would have smoked Iran (not as quickly as we could now though).
I have always had a different take on that which puts Carter in a much better light and Reagan much less so. Carter gave the green light on that plan and Beckwith spoke well of him in his book on that aspect. Meanwhile, Reagan made it clear the US does in fact negotiate and pay out for hostages, which let our enemies know "The US does not negotiate with terrorists and kidnapper" mantra was BS and how Reagan didn't get impeached for the Iran-Contra thing I will never know. Apparently his level plausible deniability was thick enough, and the fact North was willing to fall on his sword, saved him. I think that damaged US credibility in a way we have never recouped from.
Had the op gone well, Carter would have been viewed a hero and all that, but that it didn't, was of course out of his control. I don' think he gets enough credit on that one and Reagan gets far more credit than he deserves or earned RE the hostages.
Carter could have told the Iranian's that hand over the hostages or we will bomb you into the dark ages too, but that's just not how we do biz.
There's a famous story as to why no one does that to the Russians I'm sure you're aware of that happened in Beirut that let terrorist types know you really didn't wanna take Russians as hostages.
I also think as big an idiot as he was, credit where credit due to Obama green lighting that op to shoot OBL in the face. Clinton had the opportunity many times and refused to do it, and sent the occasional cruise missile in his general direction that missed him by a long time, but alerted him nicely that the US knew where he was and it was time to move to a nee location.
Of the POTUS, I think Clinton was the most responsible by far of convincing Al Quida the US was a paper tiger and to proceed attacking when and where the wanted. It's interesting to note the Black Hawk Down event, another Al Quida op via proxy to test our resolve and we failed that test badly again.
Based on the news story reported today, Obama's decision was likely made for reasons of self-preservation more than anything else. According to the report, OBL wanted Obama killed to get Biden in the White House.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-23-20, 18:32
If this goes hot, I’d rather be in a late wwii Fletcher class destroyer than any current ship. You’re gonna have to line the rails with 50cal Gatling guns to get all those suckers..
dwhitehorne
04-23-20, 19:53
Someone mentioned 50 yards out. What is the Navy using that close? I was last on a LST in the late 80's and the Manitowoc only had a 50 cal mount on each side. We (USMC) would mount our guns and shoot at barrels we threw in the water. If I remember correctly the Navy didn't have a working/serviceable M2 on the ship on our deployment. Not picking on the Navy but they could never ever sink the barrels. Most of the Seamen (I'm assuming MAs) had never fired a 50 cal from the ship before we let them use our guns. I was just curious what is on the larger ships. David
Based on the news story reported today, Obama's decision was likely made for reasons of self-preservation more than anything else. According to the report, OBL wanted Obama killed to get Biden in the White House.
I'm not sure I buy that. Obama was a pretty ardent whack-a-mole player, something the Dems pretty conveniently forget.
Obama’s covert drone war in numbers: ten times more strikes than Bush
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush
This article kind of paves the way on what Obama was thinking about getting OBL:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/obama-legal-authorization-osama-bin-laden-raid.html
I don't man, we gave them 10-11 billion dollars of their locked up assets in exchange for the hostages, which in my view would be viewed as a pay out which pretty much let world know the US does indeed negotiate with, and pay off, terrorists and hostage takers. Not sure how Iran viewed it per se, but internationally, pretty hard to view it any other way.
Not exactly, money for hostages was the cover story. The real story was freed up money so Iran could buy arms and then the US uses Iranian money to buy other weapons for the Contras. The hostages were mostly an afterthought. Reagan was fighting communism and Congress cut off his cash flow.
From the Iranian perspective, it made perfect sense, it's the kind of shady deal that they consider normal for government full of deception and questionable values. From the start Reagan freeing up Iranian money so he could then sell weapons to Iran. Probably not in the best interests of the country and we were gonna impeach Nixon for much, much less. In Reagans mind, the communists in Nicaragua were the greater immediate threat.
Keep in mind Iran was still ass deep in the Iran Iraq war so they were busy with that. And yes it was a dick move to sell guns to the enemy of our supposed ally "Iraq" at the time and when Saddam found out about it it was probably the beginning of the end of Iraq viewing the US as a friend so Reagan also undermined all of his own efforts to cultivate an alliance with Iraq.
But that is how deep seated his concerns over communism were. The concerns were perfectly valid but a bit outdated and Reagan failed to understand radical Islam was going to be the new "greatest threat to liberty and freedom."
So I get what you are saying, I won't for a second suggest Reagan wasn't fully involved in all of it, but it really didn't have the effect of making us look weak in the eyes of Iran. I mean Reagan was clearly a man willing to do whatever it took to destroy what he viewed as his primary enemy and somewhere in the Iranian psyche they understood that and realized he was a determined and dangerous enemy to have who will violate oaths, violate laws and even undermine an ally who is fighting a proxy war on your behalf to attack an enemy. In context of the Iranian mindset, they probably respected his determination and aggression.
But at the end of the day, Reagan should have found a "different plan."
We raised funds by selling weapons to our enemy, Iran.
We provided weapons to Iran which were used to kill men fighting for an ally, Iraq.
And ultimately he failed to come through for the Contras because the plan was full of holes and bound to come apart at the seams and as a result his primary objective was a failure.
I care little that he bullshitted Congress in order to fight commies. It's nothing new, but he should have started with the commies in Congress.
The scandal strongly defined his legacy and that is the cost of doing shady business with shady people and not having a stronger operation. Compared with what Charlie Wilson (a nobody from Texas) managed to do in Afghanistan, Reagan came of like a covert ops newbie.
Like most presidents, you have to take the bad along with the good, I can't remember the last one who was perfect.
But I do agree with you on Obama, while speaking out constantly against the war and promising to bring troops home, he was droning the shit out of people and honestly that is my preferred method. If we can drone an asshole convention rather than sending special units out on precarious operations that are overdependent upon local resources and local intel against groups that know "at some point they are coming for us" that is my preferred method.
Every time we hang a seal time too far out on the branch and it breaks, really that's our fault. We don't have an unlimited number of people with that kind of capability. They are expensive and we need to treat them like a valuable commodity. We also don't need to be deploying them every weekend so our enemy can test and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.
Sure sometimes you need to send the very best...and in person...because somebody will be shooting OBL in the face. But other than that kind of thing...yeah drones. Low cost technology compared to conventional air strike capability and not even putting the pilot at risk. I also can't think of anything that will demoralize a martyr state than the realization that all of their "true believers" were killed by remote technology and they never even actually met the enemy.
If a President who I'm not politically in agreement with most of the time does something right, I'm not gonna try and spin it, I'm going to agree that it was the right thing to do and if I ever meet Obama, I will actually thank him for THAT rather than tell him about all the shit I hate about him. The man was saving lives and I don't care who does that, they get my support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Exercise_action
Belmont31R
04-26-20, 03:16
Someone mentioned 50 yards out. What is the Navy using that close? I was last on a LST in the late 80's and the Manitowoc only had a 50 cal mount on each side. We (USMC) would mount our guns and shoot at barrels we threw in the water. If I remember correctly the Navy didn't have a working/serviceable M2 on the ship on our deployment. Not picking on the Navy but they could never ever sink the barrels. Most of the Seamen (I'm assuming MAs) had never fired a 50 cal from the ship before we let them use our guns. I was just curious what is on the larger ships. David
They are all pintle/rail mounted MG's. Increased after the Cole bombing but like you said that's going to come with poor training and people not taking the MG off the side of the boat seriously because their training is shooting at bobbing drums. A lot different when multiple fast boats turn and make a run on your hull. WW2 ships were floating gun turrets and kamikazes still got through fairly often. A poorly trained Navy dude with a 240 or M2 off the side won't be stopping shit.
They are all pintle/rail mounted MG's. Increased after the Cole bombing but like you said that's going to come with poor training and people not taking the MG off the side of the boat seriously because their training is shooting at bobbing drums. A lot different when multiple fast boats turn and make a run on your hull. WW2 ships were floating gun turrets and kamikazes still got through fairly often. A poorly trained Navy dude with a 240 or M2 off the side won't be stopping shit.
Needs more 20mm Phalanx CIWS!
hotrodder636
04-26-20, 09:09
We had a bunch of M2 mounts all around the ship. We had several 240s and 249s IIRC. Most dudes as you mention would likely not be able to hit a fast mover. Maybe they train more now than when I was in.
They are all pintle/rail mounted MG's. Increased after the Cole bombing but like you said that's going to come with poor training and people not taking the MG off the side of the boat seriously because their training is shooting at bobbing drums. A lot different when multiple fast boats turn and make a run on your hull. WW2 ships were floating gun turrets and kamikazes still got through fairly often. A poorly trained Navy dude with a 240 or M2 off the side won't be stopping shit.
LOL
Needs more 20mm Phalanx CIWS!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.